nyt

iTrader: (1)

so, heres two datalogs of the same run.

The first log is using the gm 3 bar map sensor. The second log is using the wolfs internal. I have converted the wolf log to tewblog format for side by side comparison.

If anyone has any high boost runs on the internal sensor they'd like to share, I'd like to take a look at them to see if they exhibit the same behavior.

Needless to say, I will be switching to the gm.

GM:
http://countercultured.net/pics/dataloggm.png

WOLF:
http://countercultured.net/pics/datalogwolf.png

GM:


WOLF:

coxxoc

iTrader: (3)

My god that is a noisy signal. I was going to do a 22psi tune off of the Wolf sensor, but I question the accuracy of its reading. A sensor that reads 9psi off then 16psi off is not one I want to trust my engine with.

Can anyone verify if this is just his Wolf or are more effected?

Josh

nyt

iTrader: (1)

lol it was never 9psi off...

the gm is reading 16-17 psi, the wolf is reading like 14.5-19 or so, which is still unacceptable, its all over the place. I'm going to try to switch it over and line up the load bands.. will be "fun"

CrackHeadMel

iTrader: (2)

wow thats bad. i was never really a fan of the internal sensor anways, the 5ft of vacume line to get a signal to my ecu in the kickpanel sucks

how much is a gm unit? $55 like they use to be?

nyt

iTrader: (1)

I just hooked up the gm one to the wolf. the datalog came out pretty much the same. I'm going to try putting more filtering on the sensor and see how it does. will follow up later

nyt

iTrader: (1)

back on the internal map. I lowered the filter value and its a bit better