NefMoto

My car is currently boosting 7-8 psi with a stock tune that has never been reflashed.

I have opened up my bin and seperated the maps.  I have 6 ldrxn I suppose since I have a dsg it is seperated for each type, manual, auto, slap stick. As well as three maps for knock.

The max settings on these are 145.  What is stopping me from raising these to the determined limits in my other tables, lets say KFMIRL which has load for 3k at 96 percent accelration at 165.

Wouldn't I be able to keep this stock tune if I only wanted this little extra by changing the max load accepted in LDRXN.

LDRXN Numbers

95.02      125.02   130.01   138.00   140.02   137.02   137.02   137.02   137.02   140.02   143.02   146.02   135.00   129.00   117.00   105.00

KFMIRL Numbers at 90 and 96

164.79   163.43   162.73   161.32   159.59   157.57   154.22   150.77   148.27   146.77   146.20   146.27   146.51   146.67   146.65   146.53
176.09   174.61   173.88   172.41   170.63   168.61   165.30   162.09   159.68   157.78   157.10   157.10   157.45   157.95   158.44   158.93

Thanks for having me.

Also on a side note, I've read about people mentioning 10 and dead.  Does this apply to the med9.1.  I don't understand why a ecu would stop being programmable.

 

Ok I've been reading a bit more and have decided I need to change 3 files to stay on this "stock" tune.

Raising LDRXN Values to make KMFIOP push to max, which as far as I can see is 150 for this map.  So Raise all value's past 2500 RPM above 150, while tapering down at higher rpms still.  While also changing the values in KMFIOP to 95-96 in values above 2500 rpm to make sure they request maximum torque from KFMIRL.  That will request the maximum torque values for this tune which is around 160-157.  I believe this will give me these values even if LDRXN is below since the values requested are actually a percentage of KMFIOP to KFMIRL.  That's from my understanding of reading.

I am unsure if LDRXN will further limit the request load and this is the trouble that there will be a lot of different things, attempting to limit the Load request and they all need to be adjusted to reach the target boost.

Anyhow.  I can see that this has been covered alot in various different places. 

Nothing you write makes any sense.

Most of what I just wrote is from reading information you posted cross referenced with https://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning#rlsol_to_plsol_calculation

So, in theory if nothing I wrote made any sense, you might want to consider your method of delivery. lol

Everything you detailed is exactly how not to do anything on this ECU.
You need to understand what the maps do.
The changes you suggested make 0 sense if you understand how the ECU works.

Start by learning what KFMIRL and KFMIOP are - torque to load and load to torque (inverse). Changing part of those maps make 0 sense.
LDRXN is the main load limiter, but you have lots of others.

Just by changing LDRXN on this ECU, you will have BTS intervene and run you into 0.75 lambda, the result will be that you will run out of HPFP in the midrange and the car will drive like a kangaroo.
Posting your file is also a good start.

Ok,

That was helpful.  I will do some logs and monitor 

Engine Speed: 001
Throttle Position

Boost Pressure Specified: MB 115
Boost Pressure Actual

Engine Load Specified: MB 114
Engine Load Actual

Fuel Rail Pressure Specified
Fuel Rail Pressure Actual


Timing pull: MB 020
Intake Air Temperature (IAT): MB 118
Air/Fuel Ratio-lambfa: MB 031
Wastegate (N75) Duty Cycle: MB 118



Following this http://www.vaglinks.com/OBDII/Vag-com_Data_Logging_And_Graphing.pdf

I've also been able to located the following files on my bin

KFPED
KFPEDL
KFPEDR
KFMIRL
KFMIOP
KFZW
KFDPLGU
KFPLGUB
KLDLUL
KFFLLDE
KFLDHBN
LDRXN
LDRXNZK
KFLDIMX
KFLDRL
KFLBTS
KFLBTSZK
LAMFA

I'm going to take some logs with my stock tune with the previous log points in order to insure my engine is running to spec before making any changes.  I believe these will be good values to monitor as I slowly raise my max request load from the stock 145 until my goal of 173.

This way I will be able to monitor the lambda chock you speak of in the mid range as I alter the maps to increase load request.  I believe I will need to get good at logging and monitoring my engine before I will make any changes.  Thanks for your comments.

I changed my LDRXN and to 157 from 137.  May car raised the requested pressure from 1850 to 2050.   As you stated when I logged 3 runs it was limiting my fueling to the BTS maps.  While I didn't drive like a kangaroo, this is not optimal.  I have read that .8 is a good place for this.  I plan to change my KFLBTS maps to reflect a .8-.85 afr in this map section

110  1.0625   1.0469   1.0391   1.0313   1.0234   1.0156   1.0078   1.0000   1.0000   0.9688   0.9375   0.8984   0.8594   0.8359   0.8125   0.7891
125  1.0313   1.0156   1.0078   1.0000   0.9922   0.9922   0.9766   0.9609   0.9297   0.9063   0.8750   0.8438   0.8203   0.7969   0.7500   0.7266
140  1.0000   1.0000   0.9922   0.9766   0.9609   0.9531   0.9453   0.9063   0.8750   0.8516   0.8359   0.8047   0.8047   0.7422   0.7188   0.7109
155  0.9922   0.9844   0.9766   0.9453   0.9297   0.9219   0.9219   0.8672   0.8594   0.8281   0.8047   0.7891   0.7813   0.7188   0.7188   0.7109
170  0.9766   0.9609   0.9453   0.9141   0.8984   0.8828   0.8750   0.8516   0.8125   0.7734   0.7500   0.7266   0.7188   0.7188   0.7188   0.7109

This is my current BTS map.

Thanks for your help PRJ! At first I was put off, but you steered my in the right direction.

Attached you can see my log of 3 different pulls where as my load and rpm increased my Lambda follows my BTS map

Yes you don't have kangaroo because you added very little boost, so the HPFP can still keep up.
If you add even more boost and don't fix the fueling/timing then the HPFP will not keep up and rail pressure will drop... and it will cut.

My friend prj, Is it not that BTS is the protection of components?
Rather, we can not completely abandon it.
Is it better to make the main fuel after LAMFA?
Change the transition threshold to BTS?
BTS maps only slightly correct?
If HPFP is not going to be efficient, it's probably a safe tuning to make changes to the safe limit of the motor equipment. If we want more then we change turbo, injectors, HPFP, etc. for bigger ones?

I'm not strong at TFSI, that's why I ask. :D

You should request correct AFR through LAMFA. BTS you will have to adjust so it is not as aggressive. I would not touch the threshold.

This is what I have chosen to do. I do not want to remove any safety features built into the engine mapping. I have read from one person that Some professional tuners will disable these features, but I do not feel comfortable doing that with my limited knowledge.

I have changed the Lamfa Values to .825 in the 100 percent request row, and have went to do some logs.  Unfortunately it doesn't seem that the engine gets a chance to use these values as it immediately switches to BTS.

I am not certain, but it seems that the BTS map is definitely not on and off, and uses several other factors, as my EGT rises regardless of RPM, Load, Etc, it seems proportionately effected in my resulting lambda.  I may certainly be wrong, but this is what I observe.

I plan to make my LAMFA request .825 sooner, possible 80 percent and above, from 2250 where my boost kicks in and above.  I saw very little timing correction while doing these pulls.

BTS/component protection is not just one map.

The on/off/kangaroo effect is not directly caused by the calibrations but by the limitation of how much fuel the stock HPFP can deliver. You will run into that when running higher boost if you do not lean out some of the BTS maps.

Is this fix purely through leaning out BTS, or could I leave original protection in place while raising my rail pressure to 120-130.  Is the idea to get BTS to not go below .75 lambda or 11.16 AFR? I don't plan on going as high as a professional tuners. I'm only looking to gain half their numbers.  No more then 15 psi.


I have changed my mind on my AFR and am going to start rich since I am using 93 Octane fuel and going from .78 at WOT, .8041 at 96 , .8282 at 90, and .8438 at 80.  Hopefully this will prevent my EGT's from raising so that I won't be kicked into BTS map.

Thanks for your inputs.  I'll post another log tomorrow with the new flash.

Wrong approach. At least look what sensors your car has and does not have.

There is no EGT sensor. It's a purely calculated theoretical value.

If the car is using this information in its calculations it's good enough for my purposes.  Although my strategy didn't seem to work.  As I preemptively added fuel before the requested load to prevent knock, but still ended up in BTS.  Although I raised BTS on the High Load, High Rpm it was still limiting me extremely. 

BTS will kick in with excessive EGT, not just KR. EGT is calculated with, among other things, ignition efficiency.

BTS is also more than just KFLBTS if that is the only part of BTS you have modified.

Yes, I am trying to not change BTS at all.  I was just surprised that I changed to 11.91 AFR and it was still getting such high projected EGT and was kicking me into BTS at 3500RPM. I am going to change my LAMFA to request a richer AFR sooner and see if I can prevent BTS activation this way.  If I can not safely prevent BTS activation, I will revert to stock tune and Look into getting a downpipe before attempting to gain anymore power.

While I didn't get it so BTS doesn't kick in, it seems the car is designed to do this from the factory.  So I just start out lean from the highest torque rich setting afr at .77 and go from there.  While BTS is kicking in, it is doing it much later and with much less aggressiveness, since the heat isn't as out of control as stock tune or with my previous lamfa numbers.  Starting the values from right before peak boost to take into account for the delay of .2 seconds that lamfa likes to follow, as well as building up the enrichment through peddle placement from 85-77 through pedal placement seems to be giving me the results I was hoping for.

Thanks for everyones input.

I plan to convert BTS back to stock and to continue to adjust pre-emptive enrichment through LAMFA only.  This will ensure good low end torque, and lower high end EGT temps.  My timing was never pulling more than 1.5 degrees-3, and it wasn't pulling at all at high range.  I suppose this means I could advance the timing a bit more and watch for correction.  This could potentially leave me with lower EGTS as well which would stop me from going to the BTS even longer.

Unless PRJ wants to come in and tell my I'm wrong again. hahha

Here is my timing. I read that 1.5-3 timing pull is good?

0.75 lambda is massively killing power and you will run out of fuel.
I think you need to learn a bit more about mapping in general not only about the ECU strategies.

prj what AFR do you think is the best?
12.5 at 6000rpm?

It's almost like you are purposely spreading misinformation.

He's not completely wrong.

Although if the car has stock cats, anything leaner will start to burn them up.

I think that was the last information you are going to get from me.
While talking shit keep in mind that I do this for a living and have remapped dozens of these cars on my 4wd dyno and you opened the file for the first time.
Hence why I knew exactly what the car is going to do before you even changed anything.

But yeah have fun.


100% bullshit, with the stock turbo at 0.8 lambda with 95 DC you can hold it basically forever at 6000 RPM WOT without any EGT issues.
But hey, how would you know that, right?

After seeing a car strugging to make 250bhp on stock cats with a "map" that had previously done 360bhp a year previous, it turned out the 0.82 request from the 2+ file was enough to kill the monolith in the primary.

"But hey", to quote an arsehole, what has that got to do with anything? I'm willing to bet big bucks that you've never had an EGT probe pre-cat on an EA113 with this particular configuration to prove me wrong. You're just waving your tiny arrogant virgin cock about again for the sake of appearing authoritative.

K03 car and 360hp. Right. A stock car is what we are talking about here, in case you missed it.
How much is "big bucks" and where do I send my paypal to? Because I have, hence my claim above.

As for your other insults, I guess you are what, 20 years old?

I haven't read anywhere that we should go .85 to redline on this engine stock... which seemed like what you were applying.  Also, none of my logs show me hitting .75 in mid range. I am just unsure of what direction you are suggesting I go. It seems that you are trying to convince me that I should go leaner, which IMO is not safe and that is probably why there is a built in fail safe for exactly this from the factory.  The problem with this stock engine seems to be prevented only by the EGT temps, and there is no information that I have found that would suggest anyone should go to .85, or even .8 to redline with 93 octane fuel anywhere.

While the most respectable tuners in the US aren't deviating much from the stock numbers of 10.5-11.2 AT MOST....  I am unsure why many people on this forum seem to suggest that we should change the BTS maps to .82 completely, and the like.  It is hard to tell what you are trying to say when you give vague responses.  Almost as if you are actually afraid to give any real information and are only quoting information you have read somewhere else.  I didn't mean any offense, it just doesn't seem like you are giving information in the best interest of the reader, but rather to make yourself seem superior and knowledgeable....

You should read up on direct injection. There really isn't a need to go much richer than 0.8 or so for knock prevention. And the last log you posted, actual lambda seems to be right around 0.75 at 3000rpm to my eyes. Post up some logs including requested lambda, not just actual.

My knowledge on this subject is superior to you in every way shape and form.

And you know why?
Because your entire argumentation is "I haven't seen others", "What others do", "What I think others do".

Do you know why that is? Because you don't know shit. And you won't ever know shit if you continue this pathetic train of thought.

Let me give you an example of how I think:
"After rich best power any additional fuel is used to control ignition angle efficiency and also exhaust gas temperature, so let me put this car on a dyno and see where it makes the most power by setting a safe ignition angle, using short runs to prevent overheating and enriching in increments until the engine starts to lose power. Now let me advance ignition angle to the best possible at this operating point, use higher loads on the dyno and longer pulls to make sure I am not exceeding the specified component temperature limitations, and set protection functionality accordingly".

Do you know why that is? Because I know how an engine works and I can think for myself.
And I'm telling you from my own experience that running 0.75 lambda target is a total waste of time with the stock turbo. You will make less power, and you will not have any EGT issues even at leaner mixtures, because the stock turbo does not give enough boost at the top end where EGT becomes a problem. In laymans terms you don't need to chuck black smoke out the back to prevent meltdown when you're running 0.75 bar boost on top with the wastegate jammed.

It beats me though, where you read anything about "0.85 lambda" whoever said anything about that?
If you want to see my calibrations without any "vagueness" - the exact numbers I am using for everything - you can always pay me to tune your car.
I am not here to tune your car or anyone elses car, I am here to try and make you use that noggin of yours - but it seems lately it's more and more a waste of time, because we're flooded with snowflakes demanding instant gratification.

I will post up another log this week continuing to follow my safe road tuning strategy of basing my advance in boost and fuel completely on my EGT temps.   

You don't have an EGT sensor on the car, and the calculated value is only valid with the stock calibration, not with added boost. Basically the EGT value you are logging is utterly pointless and adjusting things based on that can melt your engine in some cases and certainly destroy your cats. But have fun ;)

I don't see a safe way to add boost and fuel without having a good EGT reading.  I see the approach you mentioned, but starting lean and working rich until power loss seems like a recipe for disaster.  While I could blow black smoke, which I'm not doing yet; there are very few safety issues with starting rich and going lean.  Besides Carbon build up.  While I am starting at a bad power point, it will also be a low egt, so I can slowly increase from a rich point until meeting full power. Basically this is the same strategy you mentioned except I am starting at the rich side of the power band, where you start at the lean.  Which from my understanding can potentially cause detonation and ruin the engine.  I understand that these engines don't have an EGT, but I can't imagine that they don't use realtime information for their BTS calculations.  I've read a bit about the LSU4 which is suppose to give these multiple outputs, which may have replaced the EGTs in these engines.  I am attempting to read more on that.  Or, I potentially could revert to stock and measure the difference inbetween the two EGT's from stock boost and +5.  Seeing if the "projected" EGT's are different.  I would assume that the algorithm would include this information.  It wouldn't make sense for the engine to not take into account real time information and base information based on pre set information, as you suggest. 

I'll give you a tip - with lambda 0.8 to 0.79, 98/93 octane (depending on your location in the world) and timing set correctly you will never encounter EGT issues with the stock turbo.
Obviously BTS still needs to be able to enrich further if you get massive knock due to a bad batch of fuel.
Also, if you do a fast pull (<8 seconds) you can even run lambda 1 to redline with this engine without any temperature issues (not that there is any point to ever start leaner than 0.85 on any turbocharged engine at WOT). And at 0.75 lambda you are most definitely blowing black smoke.

Disregard the calculated EGT readings, if you look at actual EGT with a gauge they can be more than 100 degrees apart.
If you actually look at how the EGT model is calculated instead of assumptions, you will see that after 170 load the stock model doesn't do squat, and that WOT EGT is basically more or less a single map in the cal.
LSU4 does not give you any information about EGT, it's only to keep the sensor heated to a fixed value.

If you want to measure EGT you need k-type thermocouple in the exhaust and a gauge/controller that reads it, but you don't really need to worry about EGT with such low boost, as long as you don't do something stupid like run lambda 1 to redline.

Ok. Here is my most recent log I just did.  It seems from what I see that at 127 load request my numbers are following my KFLBTS exactly to the number, but when I requested 150 load is when the numbers took a nose dive again. 

This is because my LAMFA was set at .75 at 100 percent on my map which was lower than requested BTS.

You should be requesting over 170 load. And BTS - look at the FR and understand how it works and what the maps does.
You are making blind changes without realizing what the formula does, and this way you won't get your fueling under control.

It seems the further enrichment from reading the FR as instructed is the offset when the maximum values of KFDLBTS are being reached and the engine starts to retard ignition angle to further reduce and as it does this it is trying to further enrich on a scale that is linear as well.  I am unsure of the best way to approach this. Is the engine further enriching becuase it is needing to adjust the ignition angle, and by fixing my timing it would reduce the overall fueling enrichment that is occurring through KFDLBTS, or should I make DLBTS enrich less, since we tuning to a higher power point, instead of exhaust and economy...

It seems the first run only triggered EGT so it was using KFLBTS with no adjustments, while the second run with the increased load triggered a second adjustment to KFLBTS.  This is why the second run used an adjustment factor further triggered from degradation efficiency.  Still looking further to understand this concept. 

Onward to read more german in this FR....yay

I will do another pull with my adjusted lamfa, that should put it above my requested BTS or hopefully not.  This way I know that BTS is still intack and my computer is following LAMFA only.

BTS only controls fuel. It does not modify ignition in any way. Ignition retard increases EGT if you didn't know that.
If MED9 FR is difficult in german, read the Alfa ME7.3 FR that is in english, the concept is similar enough.

Try to read more and don't assume things. The ECU works exactly as the diagrams in the FR detail - no more no less.

Right.  As I understand it I want zero timing pull from the engine which is optimal.  This means that the timing isn't to far advance where the engine is detecting that there is knock or that detonation is occurring where the high pressure is before TDC.  By getting this timing pull I can conclude that my timing is advanced enough to not be to retarded.  This ensures that I am getting the best torque for that rpm.  Although I believe a professional tuner can run on a dyno and change the timing at a certain rpm and kpa and measure output to find best torque angle without knock. I believe the method I described is sufficient for a road tune.

By increasing the typical AFR that the timing is designed to run on we are changing the burn speed and this is why we are adjusting the timing. So that our burn speed hits maximum pressure after TDC.  We can see from our logs that when we are running .8-.85 AFR the timing is being pulled; which would suggest we are hitting peak torque before TDC and the engine is compensating to prevent knock and detonation. 

You are saying Ignition Retard increases EGT, But this is only true if the burn speed hasn't changed from stock.  With the increased burn speed, the retarding of the timing prevents detonation and knock.

Hopefully I understand it correctly. As I will change my timing in those areas of requested higher AFR to show for the increase in burn velocity, meaning I need to reduce the timing advance.  This way I can prevent knock and detonation.

Ok. Seems I'm right on track to raise my Load request to 170

Here are my logs after I fixed my mistake.  Both Logs following LAMFA.  Very little Angle Correction. Correct Load request.  Although I'm still seeing -.01/.02 for LAMBDA specified and actual.

This is not what knock/detonation is at all. Laminar flame speed has almost nothing to do with it and flame speed has negligible effect on power on gasoline within the narrow lambda window you are operating in. Irrelevant.
Detonation is spontaneous ignition of the mixture at different spots after the spark has fired due to heat from compression/charge. Pre-ignition is the same thing without the spark being fired, but not much danger with that on gasoline. Nothing to do with flame speed whatsoever, because the flame front is not in the locations where you have the spontaneous ignition pockets...
100% wrong. Retarding effective timing ALWAYS increases EGT until you reach MBT. Advancing effective timing ALWAYS decreases EGT until you reach MBT. If you are knocking you are not advancing effective timing. You are not doing anything. And you are nowhere near MBT on boost nor will you ever be on normal gasoline.
No you do not understand. Read a book about combustion engine basics... I guess that's why you are having so much trouble.
You're trying to run (tune a digital management system) before you are able to walk (understand the combustion process in the engine).

On this engine the difference in timing between 0.85 lambda and 0.75 lambda is going to be barely there. A degree or two if that. Fuel is mostly used for temperature control, but it is a good idea at WOT to run the richest you can without losing power at all times for safety (rich best torque) and only enrich further when you really need to protect components - as this carries a power penalty.

Where are you getting all this misinformation from? Wherever you are just disregard it and try for example a book from greg banish.

Ok.  I bough this book and will give it a read this week.  Thanks

Ok.

So I changed my LDRXN to 169.99. From reviewing my logs it seems I am not being limited to my max load of 170 by KFLDHBN since I am not going above the boost requested for this map at 40 degrees Celsius.

I also changed my rail pressure to 120 successfully.  My max boost pressure right now is at 2.1 Bar (actually 1.1bar) Since you need to remove ambient pressure. 

Thanks Everyone for their help.  I'm going to leave the tune like this until I get up the motivation to buy a downpipe and move forward to a stage 2 tune.