Yes - that would be my understanding of it. Basically, the more defined sites that you can program, the less interpolation that is required, and as such, the less compromise.

Even so, this ultimately can only make the best use of the area within physics. As such, once the optimum boost level is achieved at a given compression ratio, the only solution left irrespective of the map will be to drop the compression ratio to increase the power (given that we are not increasing capacity etc etc etc)

Nice site that one Gareth! The colours are quite useful on the maps to assist in visualising the map!

I have an S8 on the shelf somewhere upstairs - I had a quick play with it, and whilst I never got to the point where I felt comfortable using it on the car, I at least got a very general idea on how the map works.

I think that the mapping itself is a subject in its own right, which Stu recently did a great write up in the Fast Ford Techincal section, so I wont go over old ground.

That said, I note that the more modern engines use a combination of Mass Air flow meters as well as MAP sensors. I believe that some of the Scoobies use this setup? Or is it that the MAF is there in replacement of the MAP.

Having discussed the subject further, I can now see the benefits of the MAF over the MAP, as it is measuring the volume of air, as opposed to the blocked air (boost). I guess that this would lead to more accurate maping.

My confusion is that a number of people I know that tune their Scoobies have removed the MAF in favour of the MAP. Why is this?

JJ