Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Is my ECU already tuned ?  (Read 9821 times)
maltloaf_df
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« on: July 03, 2015, 06:28:56 AM »

After dipping my toe here before but getting caught up with mainly mechanical faults on my Audi TT, I have come back now with a different and hopefully easier to learn car.

I have bought a Golf GTi mk 4 with 1.8t AUM engine. This car is purely a project car so any damage done won't be the end of the world.

I have read the ecu flash and have attached it here, I have also managed to find some definitions for it, which is something I never managed for my Audi TT, and I'm beginning to look through the file with reference back to this website, the great S4wiki and a few tutorials that I have found.

The ecu is 06A906032HJ 0002

The guy I bought it from had been told from when he bought the car that it had already been remapped. What I'd like to know (but don't have a reference file to compare to - or know how to do that) is if this is a stock file or a tuned file.

I'd ideally like to return to stock if it's not already and start my own learning/tweaking.

If anyone could check for me or point me in the right direction of where to check, then I would be very grateful.

many thanks,

malty
Logged
tjwasiak
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2015, 06:34:30 AM »

It seems your file is already tuned.
You can find original attached.

EDIT: BTW. I must admit I do not like the way it is tuned...
« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 06:40:38 AM by tjwasiak » Logged
maltloaf_df
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2015, 08:04:04 AM »

Thank you for looking and thank you for the Base file. Is that a 150 or 180 bhp file? From what I've read, either could be flashed to my car with no issues. Could you please elaborate on what you don't like about the tune?

Thank you once again that's very helpful.

Malty
Logged
tjwasiak
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2015, 09:31:34 AM »

06A906032HJ is AUM ECU. AUM is always 150HP. So is attached file Cool
If I were you I would not just flash AUQ (180HP) software. I would just tune AUM original. Using AUQ stock file as a reference is not that good as changes are rather limited. Please keep in mind your clutch is weaker than 180HP version (228 vs 240mm diameter).

Your attached file has some silly changes:
 - KFMIZUFIL maxed out
 - KFMIRL changed in regions where it is not wise to do it, especially that way (+10% in 1250-6500RPM and >= 70% torque request)
 - KFMIOP changed in the same mood as KFMIRL (here +5% for >= 100% load)
 - KFMLDMX - 180kg/h @800RPM and closed throttle would for sure happen
 - LAMFA changed wrong way (is it really useful to request lambda ~0.8 for 0%?)
 - KFLDIMX set to 100% (mostly just bumped +5%)
 - KFLDRL - one small change which is just too much for your small K03s Smiley
 - unneeded changes in boost control logic (for example KFFWLLDE)
 - KFLDHBN bumped +20%
 - LDRXN/LDRXNZK - is it possible to achieve with your setup? It is set higher than stock 225HP version, while your small turbocharger is just not capable too deliver that much at >= 5500 RPM
 - KFDLULS maxed out (that one could have sense as it is sometimes done due to "false positive" DTC stored after cold startup)

What should be done also to get good tune:
 - ignition timing
 - fueling (there are multiple way to achieve your target fueling - stock is just too rich)
 - variable cam timing (it has little use as you have small turbocharger)

Stock turbocharger powered car with proper exhaust and intercooler setup should be able to achieve ~230HP.
Logged
maltloaf_df
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2015, 09:44:55 AM »

Thank you I shall work through your list and try to understand your points.

I am getting turbo surging at wot. I'm presuming this is caused by something you have listed above. Brilliant post by the way, it will help me a lot.
Logged
tjwasiak
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2015, 10:20:49 AM »

You should start collecting some logs (look for ME7Logger as VCDS/VAG-COM is a toy if you compare them) and start changing stock file one thing at once (I would start from fueling but it is up to you).
Logged
IamwhoIam
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-101
Offline Offline

Posts: 1041


« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2015, 01:33:34 PM »

Another "tuner" who should be punished by having the % key removed from his computer, as well as the finger using it removed too. LOL
Logged

I have no logs because I have a boost gauge (makes things easier)
carsey
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +7/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 401


« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2015, 09:40:44 AM »


 - variable cam timing (it has little use as you have small turbocharger)


Disagree.

Manipulating the cam changeover map even on a small turbo to make the car hold onto the torque more is a brilliant option.  Works on all setups.
Logged
tjwasiak
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2015, 11:52:02 AM »

Disagree.

Manipulating the cam changeover map even on a small turbo to make the car hold onto the torque more is a brilliant option.  Works on all setups.
And that is why I wrote about it. It might be just my bad English (it is not my native language) - I meant it could be used but will not give you that much as it would when used with bigger turbocharger equipped engine.
Logged
sonique
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +24/-12
Offline Offline

Posts: 283


« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2015, 06:02:40 PM »



 - LAMFA changed wrong way (is it really useful to request lambda ~0.8 for 0%?)


lamfa not problem
you are reading wrong
3500rpm 100% 0,8 lambda
Logged
tjwasiak
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2015, 07:52:00 PM »

lamfa not problem
you are reading wrong
3500rpm 100% 0,8 lambda
Yes you are right, I must have misplaced whole LAMFA map by 1 byte. But still it is done bad as for 98% torque request it have 0.9 values (between 1920 and 6520 RPM) and for 100% torque request it is set to 0.8 lambda. I assume "tuner" did not know axis as I can not believe someone set it like that on purpose.
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12235


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2015, 07:53:10 PM »

Yes you are right, I must have misplaced whole LAMFA map by 1 byte. But still it is done bad as for 98% torque request it have 0.9 values (between 1920 and 6520 RPM) and for 100% torque request it is set to 0.8 lambda. I assume "tuner" did not know axis as I can not believe someone set it like that on purpose.

that kind of LAMFA is not that uncommon.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience.
tjwasiak
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2015, 08:06:06 PM »

Bad tunes are not that uncommon Grin
To be honest I would set it to request lambda 0.9 from ~90% and enrich to 0.85 for 100% and only in peek torque engine speed area. There are so many other ways of delivering fuel that I would just leave LAMFA quite lean.
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12235


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2015, 10:10:07 PM »

Bad tunes are not that uncommon Grin
To be honest I would set it to request lambda 0.9 from ~90% and enrich to 0.85 for 100% and only in peek torque engine speed area. There are so many other ways of delivering fuel that I would just leave LAMFA quite lean.

on 91oct the only way to get decent timing is to bring in LAMFA very early.... BTS is too late.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience.
tjwasiak
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2015, 08:54:47 PM »

98/100% rows are not very early IMHO. And to be honest I do not believe fuelling will be consistent with such tuned LAMFA as it is 12,5% difference for just 2% requested torque difference.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.027 seconds with 16 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0s, 0q)