Help to identify Maps in Euro WRX MY03

[crispyduck]

All,

Before even giving anyone time to tackle the above the question I have another much simpler one:

Is it normal for a modified map to alter the x-axis column data? In the example below of a standard and modified Low Det Fuel map you can clearly see that the Load Values are scaled differently. It seems more focused on higher loads than the original. Is this normal? Also I've seen this for other maps also.

-Steve.

[Freon]

I would think so, because a modified map for higher boost should handle higher airflow.

[epifan]

I would think so, because a modified map for higher boost should handle higher airflow.

Yes, this is first step of ECU tuning for modded exhaust or/and intake or raised boost

[Xmicho]

Double confirm that. E****k software has provisions for altering the row and column header values to reflect higher tune. For e.g. the stock fuel maps on my WRX only go to 4.2g load. However, it's not uncommon for tuned cars to see 4.6 or more so changing the axis values makes sense. I've also done this with ecuEdit.

[crispyduck]

Freon, Xmicho, epifan, thanks or your replies much appriciated.

[Mo]

Steve do you know the source of the map?

Usually the scale will be altered after changes to the induction tract where it may skew maf values, I didn't think it's change for raising boost alone.

[Freon]

If you have MAF skew, I think it would make infinitely more sense to fix MAF scaling so you had as little fuel trim compensation as possible.

Change the axis on your fueling map will not fix erratic fuel trims.

[Mo]

Not having used E***** I didn't realise that's how it worked but thanks for putting me straight.

[crispyduck]

Steve do you know the source of the map?

Usually the scale will be altered after changes to the induction tract where it may skew maf values, I didn't think it's change for raising boost alone.

Yep, the map came from here and was said to be a '2003 WRX Pro****drive'. I've been carefully analysing the differences to learn what has changed before I reflash my car. All my questions above arise from comparing my original image (link at top of thread) and the attached modified image which merges the relevant items in (someone did the merge for me).

I'm still working with the guy who posted this image to track down the source of this map but it looks like it was a 2003 Prodrive ECU in a 2005 WRX. The Select Monitor ID of the modified map indicates a 2005 Euro WRX. This seems really strange and perhaps it is actually from a 2005 WRX. If that's the case I'm not sure how much I can learn from this as I don't know if the maps would be appropriate for my car. Perhaps the sensors, induction track, etc. for a MY05 WRX are different in some way?

Anyway it's fun reverse engineering this stuff and the maps I can identify e.g. fuel, timing, knock, etc seem like slight performance variances on mine anyway. I thought I would be able to quickly compare the differences (which I have) and understand them. I'm still learning here and found the above few items that I either don't understand yet or may be a problem.

If anyone needs anymore clarification or wants me to do or try something to help understand this further just let me know.

Cheers,
-Steve.

[crispyduck]

So guys, can I just confirm that we are agreed in prinicple that in the example above, the x-axis scaling differences illustration, is what you would expect from a modified map to better manage performance at the top end?
-Steve.

[Mo]

Yes, the x axis is rescaled with changes in boost profile as you'd expect to see in a PPP.

[Freon]

The precise reason you want higher scaling numbers is to handle higher total airflow.

If the stock map X-axis only goes up to something like 4.6g/s/cyl, and you are running an extra 3-4psi, better intercooler, downpipe, etc, you may actually see 5.5g/s/cyl or higher. While the stock map would technically work, you would have no "resolution" above 4.6. The 4.6 column would handle everything above. So you have to run the same target AF at 4.6 and 5.5 since you don't have multiple columns. In reality, you may want to run different values at these flowrates.

At low flowrates, you probably don't need as much resolution for fuel, since you are mostly just targeting 14.7:1. No need to have 5 columns all filled with 14.7 when just 2 columns is enough.

Unfortunately you can't just add columns, you have to rescale them. If its an 10x10 map, you can't make it 12x10 and just "tack on" more high flow rates at the right side of the map.

[crispyduck]

Freon, Mo,
Thank you both for taking the time to share your knowledge. Very interesting the more I dig. So scaling now understood, I can see from my logs that my car pulls a max of 4.7g on WOT. In the illustration I provided above this would run me off the end the map, but not the modified map as that caters for 5.1g
Thanks,
-Steve.

[Xmicho]

Sometimes, certain tuners will flash a different map to a car than from the year it was manufactured. For example, a tuner may flash an 05 map onto a 03 car. This is sometimes done to include features like map-switching which may not be available on the original model year map. It may explain why you have a different map than the one you should have.

4.7g is a very good load figure, I'm pretty sure it's way above the stock values. Congratulations.

[crispyduck]

...4.7g is a very good load figure, I'm pretty sure it's way above the stock values. Congratulations.

I'm not sure what the stock value would have been is as I didn't discover this great project until after I'd gutted (decatted) the stock downpipe and center pipe - so no logs.

I would like to confirm with you guys that I am looking at the correct 'load' values. Basically I 'activated' all 'load' items in ecuExplorer to determine which ones moved when I blipped the throttle. The attached figure illustrates the only two load values that altered. This is a WOT run starting from 2nd gear, changing to 3rd, 4th and short 5th. Perhaps from the illustration you can confirm the load looks like its the second one as it alters when I change gear (see throttle opening) for timings?

If so then on this run I got 4.88g. Perhaps this is not correct and it's the other one. Anyway I'm sure you guys can tell from the graph profile.

-Steve.