Joined: 1st Jan 2006
Ride: Lots, all Fords
Great data Pete
This is also what I have done, but I have found that the MAF transfer function data is very dependant on the source of the information, and using MAF transfer data stripped from binary ecu files can introduce an unexpected error. For example the MAF transfer function in the 4DED v's 1DGA is 5.63 ± 0.01% leaner across the entire voltage range 0.5 - 5.0V (ie a [very] constant bias factor), yet they use the exact same MAF housing and sensor. Obviously this can not happen in reality, the same MAF will give the same voltage output v's airflow. So the programmer has deliberately introducted a bias, but which one do you use for comparison purposes? Was something else in the 4DED binary changed to partially (or fully) dilute the bias? Catch 22
Overlaying both these these curves over an A9L MAF transfer curve shows that using an A9L sensor and housing in a 94-95 EF with a 4DED ecu, could potentially cause a 9.5% leaner condition at WOT where there is no closed loop AFR correction. Not quite so bad on a 1DGA EB falcon, only 4.5% leaner. However in the less important closed loop portion of the curves the 1DGA peaks out at 14% richer, the 4DED only 8% richer. So the A9L curve is a different shape to 1DGA & 4DED.
Here are the curve formulas from my excel worksheet
In all cases, the correlation coefficient for the curve fitting the raw data points was 1 (no discrepancy between actual and calculated results).
XA Faimont 351C, AU2 XR8 Manual 5.0, DA LTD 5.0, Mk1 Capri 5.0, 1995 Mustang 5.0, EF2 XR8 Manual, EF2 Fairmont Ghia 5.0, AU3 XR8 Auto, AU2 XR8 Auto, AU2 XR8 Manual Ute, TE Cortina 5.0 Manual, DU LTD 5.0 soon to be manual
|Who is online|
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests