AF Corrected value seems off

FlashPro Manager software
User avatar
Hondata
Site Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2002 12:13 pm
Location: Torrance, CA
Contact:

Re: AF Corrected value seems off

Post by Hondata » Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:28 am

As far as we know the corrected AF is accurate. As you point out, the issue has not been bought up in 5 years. I believe the original concern was that the Civic correction factor was used in the S2000, which was not the case.
Hondata

shind3
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:02 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: AF Corrected value seems off

Post by shind3 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:26 am

OK, thanks.

latelifecrisis
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:08 pm

Re:

Post by latelifecrisis » Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:14 pm

Hondata wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:27 am
My point is that there are three vehicles, two are which produce the same results. A larger sample size needs to be made.

We'll add the correction to the software at some point.
But this never happened. Now you just say use uncorrected A/F for S2000's. Will it ever happen?

TTR
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:48 pm

Re: AF Corrected value seems off

Post by TTR » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:29 am

My understanding is that the "corrected A/F" was only for 8th gen Civics.

Typersam
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:46 pm

Re: AF Corrected value seems off

Post by Typersam » Mon May 20, 2019 12:14 pm

I'm sure if corrections in the software where needed by now this would have even addressed

EFICU
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:14 pm

Re: AF Corrected value seems off

Post by EFICU » Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:30 am

Sorry to revive a few moth old thread. Has anyone had issues on Flashpro Manager 3.4.0.0 with AF and corrected AF reading drastically different? I believe a mandatory update came up for me in late July or August 1st, I don't remember. Anyways, I have been looking through a few of the logs of people I am helping and noticed that the corrected AF and AF readings are way off, in some places more than two AF points away. Is this a known bug and I need to update to the beta version of 3.4.3.0? The screenshots I will post are file #19 and file #21. I have seen this on both 8th and 9th gen Si's I am working on, this one is an 8th gen SI. Let me know what you guys think.

Customer file #19,7-19-2019. Good AF comparison believed to be before the update.
Good AF.JPG
Good AF reading 7-19-2019
Good AF.JPG (702.1 KiB) Viewed 393 times

Customer file #21, 8-2-2019. Bad AF comparison believed to be after the update. Only minor fueling changes were made, not enough to warrant a rich condition the corrected reading shows.
BAD AF.JPG
Bad AF reading 8-2-2019
BAD AF.JPG (906.18 KiB) Viewed 393 times

Post Reply