ChevytoyR1 wrote:heres what Holley uses
gurov wrote:ChevytoyR1 wrote:heres what Holley uses
that's pretty d*** cool.
Yeah, a table that big is completely unnecessary, auto tuning or not.
You copy the way they control idle...
richyvrlimited wrote:I'n not particularly fussed either way as to the size of tables, as long as it works I'm happy.
However why isn't 'what OEM's do' enough evidence for you?
You copy the way they control idle, so why not fuel & ignition tables?
Again, as I said on the first page of the thread, show me the proof that more than 16x16 is necessary. I have yet to see any proof in the 1.5 years this thread has been open. All I've seen is anecdotal evidence at best.
coyoteboy wrote:Again, as I said on the first page of the thread, show me the proof that more than 16x16 is necessary. I have yet to see any proof in the 1.5 years this thread has been open. All I've seen is anecdotal evidence at best.
But there's no way I could present that (though I could spend an afternoon rifling through some papers to see what I can find) evidence as I'd need to have exactly the same car on exactly the same everything except differing table sizes otherwise there's too many factors involved to call it a fair trial. I'd have to modify the MS code and run two copies of the firmware, then spend the time dyno tuning the two - I dont know anyone who has that sort of free time and cash. It doesn't mean the point is incorrect though. If 16x16 were fine, why would OEMs go higher? There would be no point, the vehicle manufacturers would say "but you don't need >16x16, stop giving us this unwanted extra map space and do something more useful. I can't see that OEM EFI system manufacturers try to hype their product over other peoples by claiming bigger tables if the guys designing the engine already know bigger maps don't help.
My thought would be that it's known other people go for bigger tables and without the ability to prove against the point, and with it being easy to implement, it makes sense to do so rather than not. I recognise the bigger maps are scary and take longer to tune for minimal gains, but if you're trying to make a great ECU that's something you need to consider. IF you're trying to make a DIY home user ECU maybe 16x16 tables are fine but then the MS3 price tag is relatively large for the average joe.
ChevytoyR1 wrote:just like u guys want proof that a bigger ve table would be better or make more power or what not ... can u guys give us proof that bigger ve table wont be better? unless uve tried it and have proof that is useless than u cant say it isnt better or wont help.. the option should be there.. unless u can back it up that isnt needed with a comparison of a smaller ve table vs. bigger ve table with same car, engine, fuel, hp dyno, and track times, then u can show us results that the bigger ve table didnt make a diffrance then this topic wouldnt be here...
btw does anyone here have their ms2 12x12 fuel ve table turned on? lol
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest