My understanding - it should be looked like TDC related.
So minus values are advancing, plus values - retarding.

It was interesting for me to compare stock maps in CDAA engine (1.8TFSI) Vs CCZA (2.0TFSI) - it seems maybe there is different centerline. 1.8 engine have angles from -22 to +38 (60 degree in total), while for 2.0 it is -32 to 28.

Recently I was thinking to make part throttle change moving from early intake opening thus internal EGR to late intake close strategy in order to avoid contamination of intake valves and still keep nice fuel economy of the engine.

Still pretty few measurements so far but it seems that maybe I should sacrifice some economy. Still worthy if I can save from intake valve cleaning.


As for values in your KFNWSE map - I'll try to advance it a lot in last two (rightmost) columns before and little bit after spool rpms.
Keep in mind that in all of the files I saw KFNWSE is addressed by rlsol - so it is desired load, not actual.

This is a drivability map, not any "internal EGR" or whatever else you want to come up with.
Very small turbo so once it gets up to boost it needs to be retarded, but until then VVT is used to provide more torque at a given throttle opening.

This is a direct injected car, you have literally zero downside to do advanced cams. It is done this way for scavenging. You literally can not affect fuel efficiency with it, it's not port injected, there's no fuel waste, it does not inject until everything is closed.
With the cams advanced at low boost there is MORE flow through the engine not less. There is not any EGR.

Seriously, how do you people come up with this BS?

On a turbocharged engine you target a certain EMP, which makes the best power and you adjust the cams for that.
Meaning on low rpm you create lots of overlap and more flow over the turbocharger to spool it faster and on high RPM you reduce this overlap to work around turbocharger hotside flow limitations.

Your way of "tuning" accomplishes none of that.
So if you don't understand how it works, stop fucking with it, especially the exhaust cam.

Intake cam you can find on dyno easily even without having any understanding of anything, just move it in 10 degree increments and set the optimal curve.
But of course the curve is different for every charge level.

Why do you change maps where you don't have any clue about the fundamentals behind them?
There's so many combinations of boost and valve timing that can be done, that you're not going to find the correct setting by "having a go", which is what you are doing.
However someone with fundamental understanding will find the optimal camshaft profile in 4-5 dyno pulls.

So start with the fundamental understanding of boosted engines and camshafts instead of playing YOLO with excel tables, because there's a real engine behind those tables.
And instead of reading bullshit such as "internal EGR" that gets repeated on forums (and somehow becomes gospel), take actual Bosch patents and read them. On for example scavenging. They are all public and contain all the information.

If you have this background and look at the maps then you will see that the OEM tuning exactly follows this methodology, and everything you've done so far is make it worse.
Specifically because all your changes are across the load axis, while RPM and load are most important.
Btw, even with a dyno if you don't know what you are doing you are going to need an extremely long time to find optimal setup.

You need a dyno to calibrate these.
Your KNFWSE makes sense if there is a bigger turbo fitted with restrictive hotside.
KFNWSA can be adjusted same way to further reduce overlap at high rpm, but the effect is more subtle.

Except of course the values should be lowered to close exhaust valve earlier.
On intake you want to open later to reduce overlap, on exhaust you want to close earlier to reduce overlap.
But anyway exhaust timing makes much less difference...

@prj
I'm not afraid of some fuel dump during overlap period, so I don't aim at eliminating this when moving from Early IVO to Late IVC.
I was trying to find Intake valve position that will give least possible VE in order to make bigger throttle valve angle, for the same load.
My target was to decrease pumping loses, not to avoid fuel dump in exhaust during overlap.

With all the respect I have to prj, this time I think you are not entirely right.

I mean to give explanation for all the overlap numbers in KFNWSE to cylinder scavengAing.
I don't think in low speed, low load zones there will be any cylinder scavenging because of relatively low momentum.
We have low mass, low velocity, I think we will have most probably exhaust reversal instead of scavenging.
I mean in this area selected on stock KFNWSE map of 1.8TFSI.
Also in my logs I barely saw some more throttle valve angle difference moving from stock map of -22 to +30 if even any. So it seems I didn't worsened VE enough, which makes me think in stock map there is exhaust reversal.

When we double the mass or speed or both we will double/quadruple momentum, so most probably there will be cylinder scavenging.


On the other side I really can't get why this great difference between 1.8TFSI KFNWSE map and GOLF GTI (2.0TFSI) in high load area.

Yes I think so.
For me it is pretty intuitive to be like that.

For a friend of mine, who have great experience tuning aftermarket "sport" electronics - it is contra intuitive.

My car is 1.8TFSI, can I adjust KFNWSE more delay than the original factory in the high-speed high-load area, the original factory 6500RPM, 155load, KFNWSE is delayed by 17 degrees, can I adjust to 19 degrees or even higher, will there be other disadvantages? Does it reduce the compression ratio?