UNISIA, I may have to disagree with your TP or 44-46 equaling 0 psi. Why?? Well, I did my own log to see how closely I can correlate the two, and quiet frankly, before scaling, 0psi corresponded to TP = 72 and after scaling and some advice from John, the new map 0psi corresponded to TP = 64............
As mentioned before, I have to agree with Ben and Vadim as using my first hand experience, you can NOT equate TP and MAF data to Pressure/IAT and MAP data. The two use completely different algorithms for measurements. Also, you need to use a correct sensor for the given properties. I just simply cannot wrap my head around the idea of correlating what readings you get from vacuum to actual boost pressure.
If you are measuring boost, at minimum, a 3 bar sensor is needed. Taking measurements using inaccurate equipment is a big no no in the real world...........
Do a log with a proper map sensor as well as a MAF hooked up and see what comes up
This method simply does NOT work however.........Sorry bud
We are not trying to step on toes here, just shed correct information. I fully grasp what both Vadim and Ben (as well as 5speed) are asking
As mentioned before, I have to agree with Ben and Vadim as using my first hand experience, you can NOT equate TP and MAF data to Pressure/IAT and MAP data. The two use completely different algorithms for measurements. Also, you need to use a correct sensor for the given properties. I just simply cannot wrap my head around the idea of correlating what readings you get from vacuum to actual boost pressure.
If you are measuring boost, at minimum, a 3 bar sensor is needed. Taking measurements using inaccurate equipment is a big no no in the real world...........
Do a log with a proper map sensor as well as a MAF hooked up and see what comes up
This method simply does NOT work however.........Sorry bud
We are not trying to step on toes here, just shed correct information. I fully grasp what both Vadim and Ben (as well as 5speed) are asking