NefMoto

Can someone give me a hint at what might be going on with this log? Let me know if I need to log any other variables too.

This is a mostly stock 4B0906018CH file. The car has a full tank of E85 and I have adjusted KRKTE to compensate for the ethanol fuel. Trims look perfect. I added a bit of timing, leaned out the fueling a bit with BTS and lowered the threshold to 400c. I disabled the IAT based timing retard table. Other than that I did the normal SAI, Cat, VVT and evap deletes.

Car is a 2000 ATW that has been converted to wideband using an 2001 A4 ECU FWIW. Bone stock car otherwise.

Screenshot

Man that is crazy looking. I'm not at my computer to check the log but I'll try and take a look when I can.  Is VVT for sure fully deleted it seems like the oscillation starts right when vvt change over is.  Did you remove it in eskonf

uh. Why is your actual boost so low? Massive persistent underboost is likely causing the ECU to do crazy things.

VVT was removed in ESKONF and CDNWS = 0.


This is all stock. No change in request of any kind. Unless I've got some kind of boost leak...

Fast and slow path torque intervention. Milsol will show the same oscillation

Even on a stock file (basically)? What could cause this considering it's all stock load?

To go back on what corradovolksb had mentioned about VVT not being fully disabled I have it removed in ESKONF and codeworded off however I came across an older thread about flattening out KFNWSE (setting all fields to 18). Of course my definition did not have these maps defined so I did my best to define them based on another file that seemed close. I'll report back on how this reacts.

Any plans to address the insanely huge positive boost deviation?

I dont see much boost deviation, but I do see a huge maf reading for a bone stock ATW 1.8t  :o 200g/s at 5psi, give me that turbo!

Less than 100 mbar deviation... Like I said, this is a stock car, stock file aside from KRKTE and emissions deletes.

I see plenty of both :)

At 0.6 bar of boost 100 mbar is gigantic.

This engine maxes out at around 150g/s when tuned. So obviously something is very wrong with the MAF (or scaling).

I'm using an AWM ECU on an ATW. Are the MAF's different? I am a bit new to 1.8t... I can compare the MLHFM when I get home too of course.

What else would cause such a huge MAF reading? Another sign at a boost leak? Bad MAF but no CEL?

Thank you all!

You need to use the original MLHFM (and KFKHFM if filter is stock) for the engine. The turbo is not able to produce this amount of airflow, so can not be caused by any leaks.

Take a look at your req/actual AFR as well.

 You need to verify maf part numbers from both engines. If not exactly the same, make sure you copy mlhfm over correctly to the new ecu. You can do a quick test by unplugging the maf, I bet you wont have any oscillation. Btw if the file is stock 150hp, I think the ecu should give a maf reading too high code with these values.

The ECU is 170hp and the car is 150hp. I'll verify the mlhfm when I get home.

Original file is 018P and current file is 018CH.

Recommend doing an intake pressure test regardless.

MLHFM is very different. Doh. I'll start there.

Thank you guys.

Just took another look; load is off the charts because of the abnormally high MAF readings, resulting in torque intervention.

duhh  :P

Yep. You had it right to start with :)

This.

Load is higher than the threshold for the the given pedal position.

btw, if you dont mind cross flashing you can try to use 4B0906018CA, I have posted a full damos in the file section. Or use that file to get your
missing definitions for the 018CH  :)

So I did some testing this evening. Started back with a completely stock file, emissions deletes, vvt delete, changed MLHFM to match 4B0906018P and adjusted KRKTE for E85. The PN of the MAF on my car is 06A906461D FWIW.

I did one log with the MAF hooked up and one without. Something is still not right when the MAF is hooked up. The car runs a ton better without the MAF. MLOFS isn't defined in either of my files but it does look like it's always right after MLHFM and they both match, not sure if that's even in question. Also, the car has an open element filter, but not sure how much that changes things. I didn't adjust KFKHFM at all.

Here are some screenshots and the log files:

KFKHFM is a bit different between the two files but that shouldn't have an effect on load right? Just fueling. Still learning of course so please correct me if I am wrong.

The axis's are quite a bit different file to file so I didn't want to mess with it unless needed.

Imo you have a massive boost leak. The turbo can flow that much if it is all blowing into atmosphere.

I will be testing for leaks asap.

Looks like a MAF problem to me, AFR is on the lean side and with a boost leak it would be rich. Could be because of E85 adjustments, nothing unexpected. Also the difference between actual and req looks to be only <100mbar in the maf unhooked log. You have a known well working maf around? Boost leak test is always good, but I am not convinced that is the problem.

I actually can get a hold of the MAF my file originally calls for. I'll swap that in as well as check for leaks and report back.

Maybe i have this backwards, but it looks like it is struggling to pull fuel here

0.82 lamba control is no joke.. as is 100mbar at only 600mbar of boost.

And if the problem is "MAF too high" it would ALSO be rich.

I only looked at the maf disconnected log, because the faulty maf values skew everything. For sure it is logical the ecu has to pull fuel if it thinks its getting 150gs of air when it is actually 100. But on the disconnected log you see it is actually running lean (1.1-1.25 correction). In my opinion that is not a logical side effect of a boost leak, ecu should expect a very minimal amount of air and in this scenario (if fueling was sorted) the car should produce more intake than calculated, ergo not possible that air is leaking away. But I think this fuel trim had to do with e85 calibrations in this case.

Makes sense to me.