Hi Dex,
The TunerPro MAF function has smaller numbers for kg/hr than Caledit. The max number in Caledit is 835.55kg/hr where in TunerPro the max is 659.25kg/hr. I would not be surprised if TunerPro is correct, just wanted to bring this up for a sanity check in case there was some modifier that I was not aware of that Caledit is using.
Software rocks!! and it will definately help me out a lot. Seems much more complete than Caledit. Looks like you guys have a lot more insight into EEC-IV code than the Tweecer guys. Keep up the good work.
Thanks,
Rick
Stock MAF kg/hr values too small??
Moderators: robertisaar, dex
Hi Rick,
I cannot say why CalEdit outputs the range it does. As far I can tell the stock A9L MAF output is correct in the xdf, it ties up with table in Tom Cloud's eectch98 document.
As an aside, I've always wondered why metric units are used for the MAF transfer table when fuel delivery is measured in imperial, it would appear to be adding a calculation into the code that wouldn't be required if the MAF transfer table was in lb/hr.
I cannot say why CalEdit outputs the range it does. As far I can tell the stock A9L MAF output is correct in the xdf, it ties up with table in Tom Cloud's eectch98 document.
As an aside, I've always wondered why metric units are used for the MAF transfer table when fuel delivery is measured in imperial, it would appear to be adding a calculation into the code that wouldn't be required if the MAF transfer table was in lb/hr.
Hi Dex,dex wrote:Hi Rick,
I cannot say why CalEdit outputs the range it does. As far I can tell the stock A9L MAF output is correct in the xdf, it ties up with table in Tom Cloud's eectch98 document.
As an aside, I've always wondered why metric units are used for the MAF transfer table when fuel delivery is measured in imperial, it would appear to be adding a calculation into the code that wouldn't be required if the MAF transfer table was in lb/hr.
Thanks for the reply. Actually Tom's document shows the Caledit numbers. Are you talking about the chart for the MAF transfer on page 49? It shows higher numbers.
Thanks,
Rick
I see some confusion cropping up now! The table I was referring to is 'Table 31' on page 32. In all the many times I have read eectch98 I've never noticed the discrepancy between the two pages 
There's something amiss with 'Table 54', Ford favour binary point scaling and I cannot see how the output values are calculated from the raw value (the values would have to be half or double the TunerPro outputted value if you used the next binary point scaling conversions). I'll have to do some more head scratching on this one 
There's something amiss with 'Table 54', Ford favour binary point scaling and I cannot see how the output values are calculated from the raw value (the values would have to be half or double the TunerPro outputted value if you used the next binary point scaling conversions). I'll have to do some more head scratching on this one 