NefMoto

Hi mates, i'm a very beginner in chiptuning. My car is a Vw Golf mk4 GTI from 2002, AUM Code.

This is my first post so, if I'm in the wrong subforum or breaking any rules, please notify me and I'll make the neccesary changes.

I've spent several hours reading here in Nefmoto but I couldn't find the information that I'm searchging for. Hope you can help me.



First things first. I've tried to extract the eeprom from my ECU but i couldn't do it. My interface is the "VAG11.11 HEX+CAN Dal-K & Can <-> USB Interfce for VCDS Rev.b www.Ross.Tech.com", wich I think it's suposed to work fine with NefMoto software... But i've tried everything, inteligent mode on/off, slow int, fast int, automatic speed detection, manual speed with all the combinations but the message remains the same: Something like "Couldn't connect with ftdi device". I must say that nefmoto software detects perfectly my interface.

So, I can't either read or write my ECU.

Anyway, doesn't matter now cause I've downloaded my stock file thanks to a thread from this fantastic forum. And, logically, I'm not gonna put my own modified eeprom in my car until I'm pretty sure it's safe to my engine.

So I started practicing with WinOLS and maps from a 1.9 tdi Passat B5 (which I supose, is pretty common for beginners, there's plenty of info... egr, torque limiter, correction factors...)
Everything's ok. Let's move to my AUM :)

I get mad the first time I opened it (06A906032HJ 0002 stock eeprom). In 1.9 tdi I could think a bit and identify maps, the correction factors were just powers of 10. But here i'm not able to even identify RPMs. So, or factors can be as 0.0346735673, or I'm just stupid.

I know there are damos and things like that in this forum, but my WinOLS is a test version... So to keep learning, the only I can do is knowing the factors and the approx aspect of the maps to try to modify things, copypaste to an independent Hex editor and do anything with the checksums using an independent program. (Or, if any of you can help me finding a cracked version W7-working... It'd be perfect. But I'm not sure if it's banned)



SUMMARY:
Issue connecting Ross-Tech VAG11.11 to Nefmoto Flashing software
Help finding maps and factors for Stock AUM flash (06A906032HJ 0002) in WinOLS

1) probably cable issue ,nef should work just fine , you did all the correct steps
2) Realy HJ is very common I think you didnt search enough here sir ,you can create a good mappack easily  ;D

EDIT: ok I just read that you use Winols test version . I suggest to use Tunerpro ,create an XDF comparing an already defined xdf

I don't think the cable have any issue, cause it works fine with vcds... Diagnostic, logging...

As i've said, i've found several damos/xdf for my eeprom but i can't use them. I haven't found any thread about map locations and factors. If there is any of them and you could post the link, it'd be perfect.

I'll take a look on tunerpro anyway, thanks  ;)

Anyone out there?

Is the cable configured not to boot in intelligent mode in the VCDS options menu?

Have you downloaded one of the 1,000,000 ols files on this site? 032HS should be a perfect match for 032HJ, and is fully defined.

I use a cable with Galetto aliekspress ($ 10). software downloaded on s4.wiki.com. Aum also, everything works.
winols very complicated and expensive. Tunerpro - that's what you want, and the file .xdf (DAMOS) are on s4.wiki.
not yet know how to count checksums, and do not understand many maps.
 good luck

The galletto cable likely will not work with the nefmoto software.

As i've said, yes. I've tried to connect with intelligent mode disabled.

I'll take a look at hs maps anyway, thanks

Another aspect

I've just opened my interface and it's got the FT232RL chip o it, so there's no any reason for a faulty connection with NefMoto software

I'm gonna try to connect one more time and I'll paste the logs here... Let's see if we find what's causing it to fail.

EDIT: From "Cables that YOU, the members, have confirmed working! Post yours within." Thread
What does only work for VCDS, but NOT FOR FLASHING etc. is the VCDS 11.11 Clone!   <- This would be the reason, I'll have to get a blue cable

If, by the moment, I flash HN or HS software into my HJ ecu... Will everything be ok?
I've read those are crossflashable but not 100% sure
Can anyone confirm me that please? What is the "most compatible" 180hp software with mi HJ ecu?

Even being crossflashable, AUM alternator (not sure if it's correct in english... Electrical generator) generates less amperes than AUQ's one. Will that fault cause any limp mode?

Finally. Is as simple as that? Or I'm gonna have to do something with immo... Etc?

Does anyone know it?

It'll be fine.

Need a little bit of help. I can't find KFMIOP on 032HN... can anyone?

Have anyone found it?

No matter, I've found it... axes were shared an very strangely located

Now, I realize KFMIRL  is limited by LDRXN / ZK. Being KFMIRL equal in both AUM (HJ) and AUQ (HN), the difference is just LDRXN limitation is lower on the AUM

It comes to my mind... KFMIRL seems quite well worked, but its higer values are never reached thanks to LDRXN so:

Could it be a very soft and very lazy stage "0.5" to an AUM, the HN software with simply LDRXN map incremented in, let's say 10? Not cause I'm so terribly lazy, but I wanna know if the increment in LDRXN is only a bit... will I need to touch any other map?


Edit: I can't believe it, even KFLDHBN (Tempemperature limitating boost) is THE SAME in HN and HJ... Will It really be LDRXN / ZX the only difference???

Hi mates, I'm about modifying my HJ File (150bhp from AUM). I want to make an hybrid of the HJ and HN (180bhp from AUQ) LDRXN in the midrange for the safety of my clutch and a bit more of load at higher revs tan HN file to get more power at this rev frange  ;D

In LDRXN There are 2 of them, optimal and with knocking.

In HN I think That the one requesting more load is the optimum and the one requesting less is with knocking. But in HJ It's a bit strange, cause one map requests more load at the begining and less at the end, while the other does the opposite. Can anyone guide me? I'm all right when I say that, when knocking, load must decrease?

Maps address:

For HN:
1F248
1F28A

For HJ:
1F076
1F0B8

I need to know it because I want to locate the new maps correctly In my future HJ tuned file... not just make 2 equal maps and paste it like no matter whatever they are


Ps: Factors are 0.25 for rpm and 0,023438 for load

I think this kp will help you  :o

Thanks mate.

But as I said, my doubt is in HJ... In HN seems quite clear with/without knocking.

Anyway, I'm using my phone, so I can't open your attachment. I'll do it later at home

I'm modifying a few things in the HJ I've downloaded.

In a week more or less i'm gonna have the kkl cable (My chinesse VAG11.11 doesn't work with NMS) and I'm gonna copy my ECU file (HJ) to my pc, paste all the changes to it and then reflash my ECU with It.

But there's one issue: Checksums. I used ME7Check and it logicaly says that original HJ is fine, but the modified one has 3 chechsum errors. So I throwed it to ME7sum to, with little hope, correct this errors. It detects only 2 of them and doesn't correct any... I supose the one missing is the signature and doesn't matter.

My question is:

If I modify all the things I've got in mind and then, upload here the original file and the modified one... would any member kindly correct my checksums?

I don't want to take advantage of any of you that have paid for a chesum corrector system. What's more, I'm thinking about getting tunerpro plugin in a near future, but for now, I'd like to try my beginner "remap" with the minimum means I have, and I'll be very very greatfull if any of you could do it for me.




Ps: vdubnation, I opened your .kp file an there's everything in it! Much better than the xdf+tunerpro combination I was using. Thanks a lot

(Idon't speak german but with google help it's ok :))

Is there any member that can give help with this?

post your mod file and somebody will correct cks.....all guys here are very very helpful :)

OK

So gratefull with this forum... Not just because of the checksum issue. All that I've learnt (and that I'll learn) in about one month seems incredible to me. I remember opening my first .bin feeling fear about nothing else than lots of Hex code, like if it were yesterday.

Thank you all guys

if you use the 032hs to compare to the hj then you can use the same map pack. the 032hs is north american immo3 180hp 2002. the hs and hj have same map locations

I Want to increase maximum rpm from 6800 to 7100.

I've changed NMAX (Drehzahlbegrenzung) to 7100 and NMAXDV (Drehzahlbegrenzung bei Fehlererkennung Geschwindigkeitssignal) to 6900, wich was on 6600 previously. I Put increased speed limit to 7100 too.

But there's another map: NMAXGA (Maximal zulässige Motordrehzahl (stationär))
It has one RPM limit to each gear, all mapped at 6800, Do I have to change this to 7100 too? or this map is unused? It's easier to put it to 7100 directly, but I wanna understand my ECU as much as possible.

Hi mates

My kkl has arrived, I'm building my rudimentary flashing bench to do bootmode if anything goes wrong

Well, I know how to connect everything but, I need to simulate ignition and I don't know how to do it... don't know what pin/pins are involved and what to do with them...+12v or so. I've searched in the forum but with no luck.

Can anyone guide me?

Really need help  :: ???

http://www.nefariousmotorsports.com/wiki/index.php/ECU_Bench_Flashing

Even there I can't see info about the ignition switch. But doesn't matter. I've found it in a comment from one of the "boot mode" threads.

For all of the readers that have the same question:
Pin3 = Ignition +12v -> Switch
Pins21&62 = continuous +12v

Thank you anyway, in your link I discovered pin21 is the immo  ;)

If anything goes wrong I'll be ready: (BootMode, I hope not to need you)

(http://i57.tinypic.com/14d3td5.jpg)

Hello mate. What's your tuning strategy? What afr? boost?

Until now, a very basic stage 1.. let's say stage 0.5
Increasing LDRXN at mid-high range, increasing revlimit (I don't shift so late, it's just cause if I had to keep one gear for one turn in a twisty road for example) and finally, allowing left-foot braking.

Later I'm gonna tune a bit intake and exhaust... then for sure I'll have to touch KFMIRL, KFMIOP, inyection, timming, lambdas...

Anyway, with this stage 0.5 I prefer logging everything, It's my first remap and I don't wanna blow my engine.

Today arrived my KKL cable, works like charm.
I've read my flash and compared it to the stock 032HJ I downloaded from this forum (Was suspicious about each HJ from each car had any different code area or whatever). It was identical.
I Copypasted all the changes I did last days in the downloaded hj file to my own hj anyway... I'm too maniac and scared of myself  :D

But now i need your help mates, I tried to correct the checksums with me7sum... it corrects all except 1, and I can't get rid of it.

I'm thinking about purchasing the tunerpro checksum plugin but last months were economically detrimental... The student economy, you know...
So could anyone kindly correct my checksums?  ::)

I attach both files, original and modified and gonna open a thread in "Checksums request", I think maybe it's the correct place for it.

cks corrected

Thanks a lot lot lot lot Marty for your help with checksums.

I've just flashed to the car and it pulls a lot more. Seems everything is OK but I'm gonna do some logs to be sure anyway.
I'm gonna upload everything I consider important here to keep helping this great community.

I cannot say anything but THANK YOU ALL, NEFMOTO.


Edit: Thank you too panos1975, sorry for not editting before, hope didn't mean a waste of your time.

Well, logs done... I were too optimistic with load, its requesting 10 more than obtains.
And lambdas are too rich after 5000 rpm, 0.75, possibly produced by a soft limp mode due to this load defect. And I know I have a boost leak but actual boost is very close to specified, so thats a surprise for me, cause i know theres a boost leak. Maybe without that leak, 150 of charge were plausible.

This days I'll try to decrease load to about 142 or 143 for example and see if lambdas become more logical

First things first, the only important mod I've done is maximum specified load (LDRXN & LDRXNZK, I think it's called zk, anyway, under knocking), just for having a base and later, modify any other map if nedeed (Other stuff made is allowing left foot braking and increasing a bit the rev limiter)

So, here's my LDRXN (maximum specified load) modification:
Red = AUM stock
Blue = AUQ stock
Green = Modified óptimum
Orange = Modified under knocking
The reason for making such a curve is to try to keep my clutch safe, torque is what hurts, not power. Now my peak torque is 244Nm@5000prm (obtained from power and engine speed, power obtained from /0.8 rule)
So, I can increase a bit on the midrange without exceeding that 244Nm

(http://i62.tinypic.com/2zfr61k.png)



Now the logs:

(http://i60.tinypic.com/ztf8u9.png)

(http://i57.tinypic.com/2n6rcax.png)


I exctract several conclussions:

I were too optimistic setting LDRXN to a maximum of 150, maybe a totally new and stock AUM can make it, but not my boost-leaking one (Totally stock too)

Maybe that difference between specified and actual load is causing a soft limp mode. I think 0.75 lambdas are way too rich, and driver's requested lambda is stock. perhaps the ecu inyects more fuel to prevent from knocking and/or high combustion temperatures, thinking the engine is not OK due to that load defect.

Other aspect is making me think it's causing a limp mode is ingition timming... none knocking or retardation (I'm using 95 otcane spanish petrol), but is logical with such a rich mixture. The thing is requested angle is too low... with stock 032hj 150bhp file, angles were by far more than 20, and again, timming maps are stock (maybe theres a lot of variation with load, but I don't remember though)



So my idea to the remap revision is to decrease maximum LDRXN to, maybe 143... In that case, the engine can produce that load and there'll be no limp modes.
I'm gonna try a double cone filter from a friend this days to see if 150 of load is not reached because of the restrictive stock air intake, but not so sure about it.

Any advice mates? what do you think?


Ps: One aspect, I'm loosing less boost now than before the remap, I don't understand. And before the remap my n75 was on limp mode working always at 5.1%, and now goes like charm... really, I don't understand it

OK, I think I was right, It's the map for lambda for component protection: I'm getting a limp mode due to that difference between specified and actual load

(http://i62.tinypic.com/33tj6yp.png)

I'll make a new LDRXN and see what happens

OK, I've corrected LDRXN to values much closer to the obtained in logs. Hope this time lambdas/afr become logical. But I need to correct checksums once more.

Any member can do it for me?


Ps: For the near future, tunerpro checksum plugin works fine? I don't wanna pay for something that doesn't do its job, but I hate asking for mates to correct my checks every time I do a mod... It makes me feel bad. I mean, members that have purchased WinOLS, very expensive, you correct my checks for free... A couple of times is ok, but asking for more seems antiethcal to me.




Take a look at reply 3 at http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=6788.0title= , Maybe there some mate has already corrected the checksums and I don't want you to work in vane

Any help?

Checks corrected in the checksums thread, many thanks panos1975

I can't understand what's happening mates.

I've set LDRXN a bit higher than "actual load" obtained in logs with the first remap (maximum of 150 requested and a bit more actual corrected, maximum of 142 actual)
I suposed: well, maybe now that the engine can reach that load, my rich mixture problems are gone
I was wrong, lambdas are the same (0.75 at high revs) and actual load has decreased !!! now it requests a maximum of 142, 146 actual corrected, and obtains 139 !!!

Here is a Graphic:
Green - 1st remap LDRXN
White - Actual load obtained with the first remap
Yellow - 2nd LDRXN setting remap

(http://i60.tinypic.com/2nu8zs.png)


Really, I don't understand it. On the other hand, I've logged intake temps... maybe are causing that lambdas, 66ºC. But still I don't understand why I obtain less load than before. It's logic to supose that before, with more load, temps were higer

Any ideas?

1) don't use VCDS for logging, use ME7Logger + ECUxPlot for plotting.
2) req/actual load doesn't tell you much, you need req/actual boost.
3) ALWAYS POST THE ORIGINAL CSVs

1) Many thanks for your answer but can you explain why is better me7logger than vcds? Is vcds giving not-true readings?
2) Why would tell me more boost than load if me7.5 has load maps instead of boost ones? Anyway I've logged spec and actual boost too  ;)
3) Ok, I'm gonna upload the cvs files, I did it because I'm spanish and we use "," instead of "." as decimal point, so maybe you'll have to fix the columns

Faster sample rate, far more simultaneous variables.


There is no ME PID that adjusts boost based on the difference between spec load and actual load.

Ah, perfect, the next log I make will be using me7logger then


That make sense, thanks. So, in the non probably case that I'm getting 50 units smaller actual load than requested, doesn't really matter if my actual boost matches requested boost?

Do you think my "shitty" first remap is ok? or I was right when I said is too rich and it's too much load for the engine to pruduce?

Yep.


Don't have time to dig through somebody's tune. Much rather look at their logs :)

That's logic mate, I mean only looking at my logs. All of you are doing a great job giving help. So if you (as community, not only you) give me your opinion, when you can and want to, looking at the logs is far enough and I'm gratefull for that

Of course! Post ME7Logger csvs and I would be happy to take a look.

Hi mates

My HexWorkshop has expired and I'm about to get a new hexadecimal editor... What do you guys use? (Ones that haven't purchased WinOLS)

HexWorkshop can flip bytes, but can't (At least I don't know how to) show the values in decimal. Is there any well oriented editor to me7 tuning?

You mean other than tuner pro?

I haven't really found a free windows hex editor I like yet .. I use bvi on linux but it is super lightweight and doesn't have a lot of features.

Hi mates

I'm about to correct kflbts and zero kffdlbts to control lambdas at wot via only kflbts.

I'm making myself a XDF for tunerpro, and as I'm already working I decided to touch a couple of things more:
a)Ignition timing (I'm in Europe, Spain... I say this for the petrol quality)
b)Limitations in boost

a) I'm looking for it in s4wiki but the only I found in relation with timing is vvt... and I want to tune Ignition timing:
Coud any one tell me which are these maps? Does any other thing than knocking intervene in timing? (eg: egt, intake temp...). Just for adding info, With my current remap I'm getting 0 ignition retardation and with 95 octane petrol, but I think the advance angle is quite low (15-18 degrees when WOT@6000-6500rpm). What do you think?

b) Apart from ldrxn and ldrxnzk... KFLDHBN limitation in altitude (temperature). I see values like 2100, 1900. I don't really know if it's absolute boost pressure or relative. If it's absolute it's limitating me. Should I rise it? should I FF it? Does any other map limit boost?




Ps: If you want my XDF just tell me and I'll upload it, but I recon there are better ones and mine is in spanish ;)

KFZW and KFZW2 are the timing tables. Please consult the FR.

I read it wrong, s4wiki says kfzw/kfzw2 depending on vvt activation, but are ignition timing base maps. Tanks nyet  :)

No problem. I will try to clarify the wiki page.

I've put all 0 in KFFDLBTS to ensure requested lambda is only managed by KFLBTS once exceeded EGT threshold. Tuned KFLBTS like this

(http://i57.tinypic.com/jkfsyc.png)

Having in ming my reached load, do you think it's OK? Is it "safe"? I'm open to opinions and advices  :)


Ps: It's not flashed to the car yet, only modified in my PC. Notice that stock KFLBTS has lambdas bigger than 1 in several areas... I've put it to 1 even knowing that the ECU always selects the richest option between LAMFA and KFLBTS. But I'm more comfortable this way. Is it OK? In essence, where Lambdas were bigger than 1, I set it to 1, where Lambdas were smaller than 0.83, set it to 0.83-0.82

One more thing:

I've read in ecuconnections that setting a cell to 1 disables that cell. Setting a map to 1, dissables that map.

I don't think so, I think It depends on different algorythms and each map is disabled one way in order to make no effect via this algorythm. Not just Bosch saying: In every situation, a 1 = disable.

Can anyone confirm who is right/wrong?

Absolutely untrue that "1" disables anything.

For a map that is used as a multiplicative correction factor (KF), 1 simply means no correction, which is the same as "disabled", I suppose.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Didn't know KF means multiplicative correction, that makes sense jaja

What do you think about my KFLBTS nyet? I really have your oppinion in mind

Ps: me7sum works like charm, lots of thanks and congratulations

Any oppinions mates?

I'd modify the axis if it were me.  There's no resolution under higher loads..

It's a possibility, but I don't know if that axis is shared with any other map... Is it?

Anyway, are these lambda values safe enough from your point of view? I put a minimum of .82 because I think revo does the same in its stage1... is my KFLBTS rich enough to not cause damage in components like valves, the turbine, the manifold... what do you guys think?


Ps: By the moment, I'm not requesting higer loads than the maximum of that axis, 150.

For stage 1, yeah, I'd say that's plenty rich!

Provided you don't go above loads much higher than 150 I'd say you're good to go! :)

Thank you Adam

Well, actually It wasn't hahaha

I gained 8g/s since last remap, but I'm getting 4.5º of ignition timing retardation between 5000-6000rpm @WOT in cylinder 3, and 1.5 in other cylinders
It might be better to enlarge the 0.82 lambda area... I think It'd be perfect with that.

Important, I'm using 95oct fuel, and It's not in my plans to use 98oct.

Is fuelling following requested though?

Have you got logs?

What is your requested and actual boost? Provided you are really not going over loads much more than 150 you should not be pulling timing, unless the values are already high..

Of course I've got logs

I logged several things, about your questions:
Requested and actual lambdas are matching nearly perfect
Boost does too, but at higer revs, actual is more or less 0.1bar smaller than requested... I'm pretty sure is due to the higer load requested than obtained at this revs (Req=150max, act=143 max, or so). But I'm requesting that load beacause, without any logycal explanation, If I put requested load the same values as my actual load now, the actual load decreases. I don't know why, but it's like this.

My n75 map is stock, Should I modify it?. Taking a look at this log I think my n75 actuator is ok but this higer revs with quite less duty cycle than 90s%... makes me think
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2hdt9vt.png)

Keep in mind that my LDRXN map is a bit uncommon, I don't request very much load at low and low-medium revs... it starts to rise after medium-high revs. I do this to not produce lots of torque and cause damage to my clutch

Try lowering fueling to .78 at 5000-6000 see if it clears up your knock retard

So post those, not just a screenshot of your csv file :P


I keep trying to explain this to you :(

ONE MORE TIME:

THE PID DOES NOT CORRECT BASED ON LOAD ERROR

It corrects based on lde (boost) process error.

There is no feedback loop in ME7 that compares actual load to requested load.


Uh, what?

1- I didn't post it because you don't like vcds logas and I made them with that, anyway, here there are the logs.

2- Yes, I know, you told it to me... that's te reason for mapping LDRXN like that. But I don't understand why there's an actual load measuring block. It's a calculation?, It's wrong then...

3- I think (maybe i'm wrong) there are some n75/wastegate actuator map, based on rpms or whatever. Otherwise I can't understand why the duty cycle at hig revs isn't 90-95%

4- If opening excel is too time consuming for you or any other member, I paste one of the 3 or 4 runs I did in the same log

   Engine Speed   Engine Load   Throttle Valve Angle   Ignition      Timing Retardation   Timing Retardation   Timing Retardation   Timing Retardation      Lambda Control   Lambda Control
TIME   (G28)         Timing Angle   TIME   Cylinder 1   Cylinder 2   Cylinder 3   Cylinder 4   TIME   Bank 1 (actual)   Bank 1 (specified)
STAMP    /min    %    %    °BTDC   STAMP   °KW   °KW   °KW   °KW   STAMP      
0   2080   32,3   9,8   21,8   0,3   0   0   0   0   0,6   1,008   1
0,9   2200   97,7   100   8,3   1,21   0   0   0   0   1,51   0,992   0,961
1,81   2440   125,6   100   6   2,11   0   0   0   0   2,41   0,945   0,945
2,72   2720   124,8   100   9   3,02   0   0   0   0   3,32   0,938   0,945
3,62   3000   127,8   100   10,5   3,92   0   0   0   0   4,22   0,922   0,945
4,53   3320   127,8   100   13,5   4,83   0   0   0   3   5,13   0,945   0,945
5,43   3560   130,1   100   11,3   5,73   0   0   0   3   6,03   0,93   0,938
6,34   3840   130,8   100   14,3   6,64   0   0   0   2,3   6,94   0,891   0,899
7,24   4120   133,8   100   10,5   7,55   0   0   0   2,3   7,84   0,883   0,883
8,15   4400   135,3   100   13,5   8,46   0   0   3   1,5   8,75   0,86   0,86
9,05   4680   136,8   100   10,5   9,35   0   0   3   1,5   9,65   0,828   0,836
9,97   4920   138,3   100   9   10,27   0   0   2,3   1,5   10,57   0,821   0,828
10,86   5160   141,4   100   8,3   11,16   0   0   2,3   0,8   11,48   0,821   0,828
11,78   5400   143,6   100   10,5   12,08   0   0   1,5   0,8   12,37   0,805   0,828
12,67   5600   142,1   100   9   12,97   0   3   1,5   3,8   13,29   0,805   0,821
13,59   5800   137,6   100   11,3   13,88   0   3   1,5   3,8   14,19   0,813   0,821
14,48   6000   135,3   100   12   14,8   3   3   4,5   3,8   15,09   0,821   0,821
15,39   6160   130,8   100   12,8   15,7   3   2,3   4,5   3   16   0,821   0,821
16,3   6320   130,1   100   11,3   16,61   3   2,3   3,8   3   16,91   0,813   0,821
17,21   6480   127,1   100   14,3   17,51   2,3   2,3   3,8   3   17,8   0,828   0,821
18,11   6600   124,1   100   13,5   18,42   2,3   1,5   3,8   2,3   18,72   0,821   0,828
19,02   6720   122,6   100   15,8   19,32   2,3   1,5   3   2,3   19,61   0,821   0,828

   Engine Load   Engine Load   Engine Load   Wastegate (N75)      Engine Speed   Engine Load   Boost Pressure   Boost Pressure      Engine Speed   Mass Air Flow   Throttle Valve Angle   Ignition
TIME   (specified)   (spec. corrected)   (actual)   Duty Cycle   TIME   (G28)      (specified)   (actual)   TIME   (G28)   (G70)      Timing Angle
STAMP    %    %    %    %   STAMP    /min    %    mbar    mbar   STAMP    /min    g/s    %    °BTDC
114,96   124,1   123,9   14,3   0   115,27   2480   74,4   1680   1030   115,57   2600   54,22   99,2   9,8
115,87   125,6   125,4   114,3   78   116,17   2800   130,8   1730   1770   116,47   2920   73,67   100   9
116,78   127,1   126,9   132,3   67,5   117,08   3160   133,1   1740   1750   117,38   3280   84,86   100   8,3
117,68   130,8   129,9   133,1   67,1   117,98   3520   135,3   1720   1730   118,28   3640   93,53   100   12,8
118,59   136,1   134,3   132,3   67,8   118,89   3880   133,1   1810   1760   119,19   4000   104,36   100   14,3
119,49   140,6   138,8   136,1   71   119,79   4240   136,8   1850   1810   120,1   4360   112,28   100   12,8
120,4   143,6   143,3   138,3   72,2   120,7   4560   136,8   1850   1810   121   4680   123,47   99,6   9,8
121,31   147,4   146,3   138,3   74,1   121,6   4920   138,3   1870   1810   121,91   5000   133,72   100   12,8
122,21   149,6   149,3   139,8   76,9   122,52   5240   140,6   1890   1840   122,81   5320   144,86   100   12
123,12   149,6   150,7   141,4   82,7   123,42   5520   140,6   1900   1890   123,73   5600   150,92   100   9,8
124,03   148,1   149,3   139,8   91,4   124,32   5760   136,8   1900   1860   124,63   5880   152,89   100   14,3
124,92   145,9   149,3   135,3   95,3   125,23   6040   133,8   1890   1790   125,54   6120   153,89   100   12,8
125,84   142,9   144,8   130,8   89,4   126,14   6240   130,8   1870   1770   126,44   6320   155,58   100   12,8
126,74   140,6   140,3   127,8   82,7   127,04   6440   126,3   1860   1760   127,35   6480   155,89   100   11,3
127,65   139,1   137,3   125,6   79,6   127,95   6600   123,3   1860   1770   128,25   6640   157,17   99,6   12,8

Is not as clear as with excel, but I hope to be easier to you

Argh, they aren't comma separated, they're semicolon separated due to locale :(


1) the load->boost calculation is an approximation
2) the MAF/RPM->load calculation is an approximation

In ME, measured load and specified load are completely separate.

PLEASE RESEARCH WHAT LOAD MEANS before doing any more tuning!


Please, step away from tuner pro until you understand EXACTLY what you are editing and why.

Load is the cylinder filling. In theory, proportional to boost with an offset, in practice, simply related to it.
I'm not using an already existing XDF, I made myself the definition file with the very only maps I know, so I can't touch any unknown parameter.
I'm tuning KFLBTS, Lambda tarjet once exceeded EGT threshold. Richer mixtures prevent from knock, so adding a bit of fuel I'll get rid of those timming retardations, and of course, KFFDLBTS is 0 to ensure specified lambda is only managed by KFLBTS
Now the n75, full DC = Closed wastegate, the less DC, the more opened wastegate. So now it comes the question: If the car demands more boost than obtains, why the n75 DC is not 95% (At this hig revs)?

I think I'm right in my comment, If I'm not, all the corrections are welcome.

I limit. Please review how PIDs work.


http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=517.msg33880#msg33880

Also, please consider using ME7Logger, you can't log all the PID variables with VCDS

Thank you very much nyet, I've just taken a look of it and seems to be exactly what I was looking for. This night I'll read it carefully and also s4wiki related things

And I know, me7logger is a must. I have to use it. Even It's easier for the members to take a look than a cvs file

Aggg, There's a subject in my degree (Industrial engineering, I failed this subject) called Industrial Automation wich I particulary hate. The last part of it is about controllers, for example PIDs... Learning to remap my car is gonna help me with that hahahaha

Also, don't forget that I limit has adaptation trims as well.

I Suposed to... me7 likes corrections too much

As I see, It's something like (Requested Lambda) = KFLBTS + (KFFDLBTS * Another map that I don't remember), so zero KFFDLBTS makes lambda tarjet following exactly KFLBTS ?

Sould I zero/one that maps? Or is better to leave them as they are? The PID correction ones, I mean. Well, maybe It's already explained in your link, probably a reply is not needed ;)

Yep. You don't have to zero all of it, just zero the parts you need to.. obviously zeroing all of it is easier.


Hmm not sure you what you mean... BTS is unrelated to the PID ...

The more I search, the more questions come to my mind... Does MLMAX limitates Maximum airflow? Or it only throws a dtc when exceeded?

Its s4wiki description is maximum airflow but I don't know if it does anything...

I can't find the map on 032hs/hj.kp file and finding it comparing with 032hn.kp seems impossible because I don't know the value of it and, as it's a single value can't find any close shape map
Anyway, on 032hn this maximum is 550kg/h = 152.7777777... g/s. So in 032hj is the same or less. It's suspicious that, the n75 does strange things once exceeded this values of MAF

Well, I think I got it.

KFLDIMX was al alright... 0.95 on WOT at this revs. I live at sea level
So I kept searching and found the correction algorythms for It on s4wiki. There's one map called KFLDLR that corrects KFLDIMX. Post-PID waste-gate duty correction table. The result of the PID is the input to this map. The actual DC is the output of this map.

So looked at the .kp, compared it with my logs and found this:

(http://i59.tinypic.com/15q466x.png)






Is Modifying KFLDLR the correct way to solve that high revs boost defect? In other words, to make the n75 work as logyc says (closed wastegate on WOT at high revs)? Not expecting to gain .2bar anyway, but I think that was a bad run (Edit, yes, It was a bad run, I read more g/s than that)

The purpose of LDLR is to linearize the wastegate response, that is to say, for a given PID result, the resulting wg behavior is compensated such that the result is the same across all RPMs.

So if you need increasing WGDC to hold a certain boost level as RPM rises, LDRL should rise accordingly

As it does not, is it a good Idea to put "95" in that last cell of KFLDLR?

Any oppinions?

I'm pretty sure that means you still don't understand LDRL :(

I'm not sure how to explain it to you :(

if you're already at 95, you can't go any higher. 95 is the absolute max. Period.

Unless you bump TVLDMX :P

Set your solenoid to 11 and watch it melt down. Great idea!

The problem is that I'm not at 95%. Logs show around 80% of DC and a noticiable boost defect

I think I understand KFLDLR. Its a correction, a linearization... whatever for the duty cycle for n75. Clearly, it does not do it very well. I'm I wrong?
The last thing I want is messing you up mates, but what I'm explaining is what I understand...

Pointless to guess until you get a proper log anyway.. You should not be modifing ANY part of the PID w/o logs of all the associated variables..

I do agree. So, In your oppinion what things should I log? (Of course, I'll use me7logger)

Well, I flashed this last revision 2 weeks ago and last week made a few logs.

Everything's OK, no timing retardation (Literally, 0), maximum maf of 164.58g/s... And, the most important, 95% of n75 DC at redline (Seems like my modification of the last cell from KFLDLR worked well) and requested boost matching actual nearly perfect.
Even at 5000rpm wgdc is kind of 80% and req and actual boost matches, which tells that the car can pull harder if I request more. It's because the cold weather imo, and the /0.8 rule gives me 206bhp, I'm quite happy of how the engine behaves and pulls... So I'm not gonna request more power at any rev range.

I don't attach the logs because are from VCDS... again :(. I couldn´t make me7logger work, I think I made everything ok, selected the image from my ecu, selected things to log... But there's one good thing about it. In the process of learning about me7logger I realized what nyet was triyng to tell me, and variables important to log about the PID, I limit...

I founded a thread about it here in nefmoto and configured the log for pid for me7logger. But really, I don't know what's happening. I'm using VAG KKG chinesse blue cable, which works perfectly with NMsoftware, what's more, I flashed 5 times my car with it without any problem.

I take this opportunity to ask:

I know the PID controls by boost, not by load, BUT
If my req and actual boosts are so close, why are req and actual load so different? I mean different like...20 percent points of filling. Is the me7.5 calculation so really... bad?

I don't care about load readings If my actual boost matches requested but it's just curiosity.

Generally it means the MAF isn't scaled quite right.

 :o

My MAF sensor/meter and housing are stock (what's more, the whole engine is stock), every thing related to MAF scaling in my flash is stock too, and readings seems to have sense.

Well, it's been a long time (5 months) since I last touched my ecu. I was on degree exams... One of them "Industrial Automation", which I passed.

Now I know much better PIDs.

So nyet, I realyzed what you meant with I-Limit (At least I think so, let's try it)

You tought I was getting steady state error, which is corrected through Integral action. As a real system does not produce infinite outputs, My PID is limited to X, Y, Z (for P, I, D) and Y "I-limit" was not eough to correct that error. That's why for an input of 95% I was getting less.

Although I understand your point I consider that the problem was that cell of DRL... Putting a 95% there I fixed it. And makes sense that if the output from IMX goes to a correction in DRL is this last one which has "the last word"


What do you think?

And here I understand that this linearization is to get in real beheavour a 95% DC. But Im not sure why to linearizate as stock... maybe a way of protection against high levels of boost?

I mean, the n75 and the wastegate actuator are the same in other 20vt and DRL is different in 032 HN AUQ for example... don't remember if 86% or 95 in that same cell (where 032 HJ AUM is 79%).

No. Not even remotely close.

http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning#Calibrating_KFLDRL
http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=517.msg4028#msg4028

Then? Why? (Having in mind as I said, that AUQ is the same engine and 032HN has different DRL from AUM's 032HJ)

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see you links. Im gonna read them.