Thanks again for shedding light!
Thanks for clarifiying this! In the tunerpro xdf this was implemented for one map. But i discarded it as nonsense 
Extending the axis datapoints is a bit to advanced for me ;)
I went with rearranging the existing 16 to suit the higher limiter and spaced the gaps evenly. I also thought that i wont need a datapooint at 800 rpm for a WOT map and shifted its beginning to 1000 rpm.
Heres how its working, V7 is what i have as my new base for now and v8+v9 were to see if this has limitations in fuel delivery (They were just scaled with a factor across):

V8 responded pretty much as expected, getting a bit richer after 6000
V9 showed that before 4000 and after 5700 its not responding linear to the amount added in the map
This is the fuel map for V9 (left: scaled to AFR; right: pure bin values):

I have not tried to flatten out the curve for V9 yet...so not shure if theres a limit or just scaling linear hasnt worked that well!

Originally posted by bmwman91
View Post


Originally posted by bmwman91
View Post
I went with rearranging the existing 16 to suit the higher limiter and spaced the gaps evenly. I also thought that i wont need a datapooint at 800 rpm for a WOT map and shifted its beginning to 1000 rpm.
Heres how its working, V7 is what i have as my new base for now and v8+v9 were to see if this has limitations in fuel delivery (They were just scaled with a factor across):
V8 responded pretty much as expected, getting a bit richer after 6000
V9 showed that before 4000 and after 5700 its not responding linear to the amount added in the map
This is the fuel map for V9 (left: scaled to AFR; right: pure bin values):
I have not tried to flatten out the curve for V9 yet...so not shure if theres a limit or just scaling linear hasnt worked that well!
Comment