|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #165 on: February 09, 2013, 10:41:51 PM »
|
|
|
I guess the only thing that really bugs me about this is fact that the sensors everybody is using has to be ordered from overseas.
I got my 3 bar (038 906 051 C) from a local audi parts dealer, about 50 bucks |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 10:44:10 PM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #166 on: February 09, 2013, 10:47:08 PM »
|
|
|
How much boost do you plan on running? I would like to be around 25psi without all the heartache. I thought you would need the extra headroom to keep the PID happy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #167 on: February 09, 2013, 10:50:33 PM »
|
|
|
plain chinese k04s, so 23-22 psi only
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #168 on: February 10, 2013, 01:12:44 AM »
|
|
|
plain chinese k04s, so 23-22 psi only
PCK04's?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bische
|
|
« Reply #169 on: February 10, 2013, 02:09:25 AM »
|
|
|
I guess the only thing that really bugs me about this is fact that the sensors everybody is using has to be ordered from overseas. I really would like the option of if the MAP sensor failed, my car not being out of commission, or having to carry around a stock Map file on my laptop all the time just in case.
Hey now, just about every performance part I have bought for my Audi was imported from your side of the pond, dont be spoiled about a €50 piece lol What is the failure rate of a MAP sensor? Have your stock sensor failed since the car was new? Im really happy more people getting around to run the 5120, Phila_dot have you found anything more that would need to be changed that is not on the list? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #170 on: February 10, 2013, 06:55:32 AM »
|
|
|
Hey now, just about every performance part I have bought for my Audi was imported from your side of the pond, dont be spoiled about a €50 piece lol
What is the failure rate of a MAP sensor? Have your stock sensor failed since the car was new?
Im really happy more people getting around to run the 5120, Phila_dot have you found anything more that would need to be changed that is not on the list?
Yup, there's alot more. Once I get it all compiled and tested, I will post an XDF and bin file. I agree about the MAP sensor, the failure rate is pretty low. For reference though, the VW 4 bar MAP was ~$90 to my door. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Rabbid
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #171 on: February 10, 2013, 10:04:48 AM »
|
|
|
Here we go, file attached!
Here is what I believe the values to be:
50032 pvdk_w 1013 division #1
50696 pvdk_w 1013 division #2
50D7E fvpdkds 1013 division #1
50F42 fvpdkds 1013 division #2
5143E fho_w 1013 division
522E2 frhodkr_w 1013 division
I've tried these settings and we had some weird issues with throttle afterwards as if we're getting intervention. But that said thing's were scaled properly and we were getting ~50KPA on boost request, actual and ambient pressure. If anyone able to take a look at the bin I posted back on page 13 and see if I've got any of these wrong or whether they can find any others that need looking at? What we also got the car thinking there was a boost issue. Total number of fault codes: 1 P1106 - Boost Pressure Control Device Malfunction (09) - Present |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 10:06:56 AM by Rabbid »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #172 on: February 10, 2013, 04:24:01 PM »
|
|
|
I've never heard of a MAP sensor failing, so probably pretty low.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
s5fourdoor
|
|
« Reply #173 on: February 10, 2013, 08:36:02 PM »
|
|
|
I got my 3 bar (038 906 051 C) from a local audi parts dealer, about 50 bucks
So it's basically, after shipping/whatever: 3-bar is $50 and 4-bar is $100. 3-bar is 29 psi, is it worth the extra $50? sure if you are a GT or 770. i'd argue for 605 / FT you still will be 29 psi max. certainly under it with most rs6 turbos too... any thoughts? does it matter if the community moves to one versus the other? we should make it easy to help the user do his own correct choice. imho. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 08:37:47 PM by nehalem »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #174 on: February 10, 2013, 09:06:53 PM »
|
|
|
Well, its only two constants. IMO it doesn't matter which...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #175 on: February 11, 2013, 08:58:19 AM »
|
|
|
So it's basically, after shipping/whatever: 3-bar is $50 and 4-bar is $100.
3-bar is 29 psi, is it worth the extra $50? sure if you are a GT or 770.
i'd argue for 605 / FT you still will be 29 psi max.
certainly under it with most rs6 turbos too...
any thoughts? does it matter if the community moves to one versus the other?
we should make it easy to help the user do his own correct choice. imho.
I agree. Readily available, and more than likely more than I would use. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bische
|
|
« Reply #176 on: February 11, 2013, 11:04:10 AM »
|
|
|
Sure thing, if you wont use 30psi+ thenstick to the 3bar sensor. You will retain better resolution also. In my experience it is ps_w that tend to go out of hand and cause trouble, but not anymore  I was thinking alot at ps_w today at work, I feel ps_w shouldnt behave as it is, mimic'ing rl_w. From my understanding it is supposed to be modeled intake manifold pressure? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #177 on: February 11, 2013, 11:05:55 AM »
|
|
|
Somehting I might have missed in the other threads... ps_w. After 5120 hack there is no longer a need to run underscaled maf then?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #178 on: February 11, 2013, 11:26:15 AM »
|
|
|
Somehting I might have missed in the other threads... ps_w. After 5120 hack there is no longer a need to run underscaled maf then?
Thanks.
Yes and no. The problem with running a properly scaled MAF is that 99% of the time you are off the end of pretty much every single load axis. Not that running an underscaled MAF actually fixes this (you're in the table, but just in the wrong row)... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #179 on: February 11, 2013, 12:19:16 PM »
|
|
|
Yes and no. The problem with running a properly scaled MAF is that 99% of the time you are off the end of pretty much every single load axis.
Not that running an underscaled MAF actually fixes this (you're in the table, but just in the wrong row)...
I have a plan for this, but that will be phase two after I get through all of the 5120 stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
