NefMoto

However, if you increase kfzw in non knock limited areas its possible that ecu will reduce the ignition values more than it has to resulting in poor running, so if you increase KFZW there , you  have to increase KFZWOP in the respective areas too.

there are also additional factors that contribute to zwgru but that is it basically. If you changed KFMIOP load axis you have to change KFWZOP map too, use maybe me7tuner wizard for this.

Agreed. Note that there is pretty much zero reason to alter timing in non-knock limited areas

I was able to just move a row down one to make room for another one.

Thanks all,

I generally use time on the Y - axis as I have to use public roads for testing and it's easier to locate the relevant information using time as the Y - axis (trying to find a clear suitable road in the south east of England can take a while).

I I've worked it out (load flat lining at 191), I need to increase the load axis values on the KFMIOP & KFZWOP.

Questions (hopefully not dumb one's)

There are 11 values for the load axis on the KFMIOP & KFZWOP, I know how to change these 11 values, but is it possible to add values or is it a fixed limit of 11 values (pretty sure it's fixed, but would like someone to confirm)?

You cant add axis values only rescale them. I used KFMIRL / me7tuner wizard to generate me a kfmirl map and kfmiop along with kfzwop because na soft is way different and it would take me ages to rewrite the maps completely with logging, but it also doenst matter that much since i got dbc mode enabled and so Its to get my timing and kfped request tuned to get lamfa fueling over boost dialied in.


The f23 is most definitely a stock rod bender, it doesnt really matter if you limit lower rpm spool/timing because it will bend /break anyway after a while.I dont know what would be safe timings for that turbo , maybe 10-15 degree 3000-5000 and 15+ at wot or something.

The problem with it its that its torque peak is way to early for stock rods.

Does anyone have any experience using the ME7 Tuner Wizard, IE can it be relied upon?

I'm running a F23 Turbo, would I choose big or small turbo in the ME7 Tuner Wizard?

Blazius talks about lowering the timing for safety if running a hybrid Turbo;

- Safety in what respect?
- When might this be appropriate? (answer to the first one will probably answer this)
- Roughly where & by how much might the timing require changing?

Thanks again

I'm getting there 8)

Thanks,

I've used the Wizard to generate the attached maps for 2.5Bar and set KFLDHBN to 2.55 across the board.

If someone could take a look at the attached sheet to see if it looks as expected, it would be most appreciated. (not expecting anyone to analyse it, just see if there is anything glaringly obviously wrong)

The points that I'm concerned about are;

- KFMIOP, there are a lot of 100% entries
- The KFZWOP & KFZWOP2 as I fried 4 coils previously by changing the timing (could have been rubbish coils though)

How are you going to run 2.5bar? Stock map cant measure that. All the 100% areas are for boost loads, and since its not a ko3 , you dont taper load/boost thats why you always have 100% torque there.

I want to avoid breaking the car as I've only recently finished the mechanical build.

Thanks

Doesn't the stock ecu\MAP sensor top out at 2550 mbar?

Thought that might be the case, I was pondering it while cycling this evening. The KFMIRL & KFMIOP numbers did look high that's why I was asking for the advice.

I'll re-do the maps tomorrow.

Thanks for replying.

The f23 is basically an inflanted KO4, the map looks very similar to a ko4 one. So dont try to push 2.5bar lol. Run like 1.2-1.3

How about giving advice when you actually have experience with the topic at hand?

F23 runs 1.5 bar relative (2500mbar absolute) in the midrange just fine. If your engine is CR9.0 or lower, then it's reasonable to do so as well.
If it is higher CR then probably want to keep the boost a bit lower.

IRL/IOP, it is enough to change last column/axis point, since you're not recalibrating torque anyway.

From what I can see the desired boost is being limited by the KFLDHBN - I can change this.

The actual boost around 3000 rpm is a little over the desired boost, but after 3750 rpm the actual boost falls away from the desired boost.

Any ideas how I might maintain the boost further through the rev range?

- I've looked at the wastegateduty cycle - its max out at 95%

Do they ???

From the screen shot of the log it can be seen that from about 3700 rpm the actual boost falls way from the desired boost. I'm trying to establish why this is and how to rectify it, if it's possible.

Any ideas?

Thanks

Do they ???

From the screen shot of the log it can be seen that from about 3700 rpm the actual boost falls way from the desired boost. I'm trying to establish why this is and how to rectify it, if it's possible.

Any ideas?

Thanks

The screen shot is from my own V004 map, which is doing as I expect apart from the boost falling off at 3700rpm. If I can maintain the boost at or over 22PSI through to around 5500rpm I'll be happy for now as this was the first aim.

Any ideas why the boost is falling off at 3700rpm?

Thanks

If I can maintain the boost at or over 22PSI through to around 5500rpm I'll be happy for now as this was the first aim.

- Something wrong with the logging (unlikely)

- Something wrong mechanically, WG actuator set incorrectly at factory, leak somewhere, etc (possible, but it runs fine, no codes, I can't see anything and would expect to see some other symptoms for a mechanical fault)

- Map not performing as expected (possible)

- That's as far as a F23 goes (possible)

In your experience what boost should an F23 make on a 1.8T and if you say it should make a lot more would a FMIC and or big TIP make much difference?

Btw running 1.5+ bar on stock rods means you most likely already damaged the engine and they're not straight anymore.
It really doesn't need much.

Well, then, now he has lower compression! That means more booooooost and more timing yo!

I didn't (still don't) know where the limit was for the hardware and without any reliable referance* for when to stop. So I kept pushing it up.

Fortunatley for me the hardware has run out of steam before the car has broken.

Once the new TIP is on I was going to pull it back to the attached and take it from there, seem resonable?

* For reference I was looking for Boost to BHP - lb\ft table\graph, but can't find one, all I can find is people saying don't go over 300BHP - 300lb\ft.

What does 300BHP - 300lb\ft equate to in Boost at what rpm in 3rd gear, even as a rough guide? The ecuxplot seems way off even when the profile is adjusted.

Thanks

Also does the attached log & graph mean that there is knock but it's been corrected or does it need correcting?

- Can it be completely eliminated at high revs on a VAG 1.8T?
- Is there a permissible level of knock?
- What AFR ratio is the minimum that can be used to control knock before it becomes counterproductive?
- What ignition advance can be used to control knock before it becomes counterproductive?
- Is there anything else that can be used to control knock other than Fuel type, AFR & ignition timing?

Also, FYI, you WILL melt the engine running too little timing and too much boost.
Just throwing that out there.

This is not a computer game.
You're a perfect example of someone trying to run before he can walk.
Start with some books about ICE basics... And no, spinning wrenches and bolting shit together does not magically make you an expert on what goes on inside an internal combustion engine.

- Is there anything else that can be used to control knock other than Fuel type, AFR & ignition timing?

When you say too little timing, you mean too mich advance?

No, I am pretty sure he is talking about too little advance for a certain flame speed. If flame speed increases timing has too, if it doesnt you gonna have higher egts because the combustion is basically still happening when the exhaust valve is opening. Like antilag/ lc only not as extreme.

That's not how an engine works >.<

I have done a lot of reading and not all of it concurs, there are quite a few different views as demonstrated by this forum and things like knock control - some documents say to retard the timing others say to advance the timing?

What? Explain. If you dont run the required timing for a certain rpm/flame speed etc then you are pushing the peak cylinder pressure envelope way over atdc kw, no ? If you do it too early your cylinder is working against pressure and expansion. You also make less power with less timing because the piston os already on its way when the expansion/combustion is happening but higher egts since it wasnt a proper process and the exhaust valve is opening soon because the crank turned enough already. Also runing timing past over mbt increases peak pressure fast and is a good way to fuck things up.

IME if the ignition is retarded enough a good portion of the intake charge will still be burning when the exhaust valve opens and thus the EGT and turbine in temps will increase significantly as well as the exhaust pressure which I have actually measured in an engine dyno test lab on numerous turbo engines.

IME if the ignition is retarded enough a good portion of the intake charge will still be burning when the exhaust valve opens and thus the EGT and turbine in temps will increase significantly as well as the exhaust pressure which I have actually measured in an engine dyno test lab on numerous turbo engines.

Again, no.
Nothing is burning when the exhaust valve opens unless you retard the ignition far ADTC.
IDK where this misconception comes from. Seems like just another thing regurgitated on forums and claimed as gospel.

Simply, more energy is converted to heat and less of it into kinetic energy, nothing more nothing less.
The reason exhaust backpressure increases is because of the ideal gas law - the gas expands as it gets heated. The hotter the exhaust, the bigger the exhaust backpressure.

Also, the first thing you are going to melt is the piston, because all of the combustion happens in the cylinder.
If you retard the ignition enough so that all the combustion does not happen in the cylinder anymore, then in-cylinder temperature actually goes down. And you are not going to have any cylinder melting issues. But the engine will also make nearly no power anymore with that late of an ignition angle.

Again, no.
Nothing is burning when the exhaust valve opens unless you retard the ignition far ADTC.
IDK where this misconception comes from. Seems like just another thing regurgitated on forums and claimed as gospel.

Simply, more energy is converted to heat and less of it into kinetic energy, nothing more nothing less.
The reason exhaust backpressure increases is because of the ideal gas law - the gas expands as it gets heated. The hotter the exhaust, the bigger the exhaust backpressure.

Also, the first thing you are going to melt is the piston, because all of the combustion happens in the cylinder.
If you retard the ignition enough so that all the combustion does not happen in the cylinder anymore, then in-cylinder temperature actually goes down. And you are not going to have any cylinder melting issues. But the engine will also make nearly no power anymore with that late of an ignition angle.

Just to be clear...

I have actually measured this on numerous engines on an engine dyno. The timing does not need to be way late, it only has to be retarded enough to allow the combustion to take place mainly after the proper peak cyl. pressure point.

Peak cyl. pressure needs to occur in the 12-15 deg. ATDC range.

Meaning "way late".

On a slow burn head that means running around 5 degrees BTDC advance at the top end. On a fast burn head (such as the EA888) that means running pretty much zero or negative advance on the top end.
So hence "way late".

You will melt pistons on any VAG engine on a VMAX run before this happens.
VAG engines generally have a decent combustion chamber design and massively lose power richer than 0.8. Especially the newer ones.
This is also the reason why it is extremely rare to see heat damage to the exhaust manifold or turbo on VAG cars. The engine simply lets go first.

Your example is applicable to for example Ford Ecoboost, Subaru, Alfa and a few other engines, which make best power around 0.73-0.74 lambda.
As on those it's pretty difficult to melt the pistons and also the super rich mixture reduces flame speed.

Which engine did you have on the engine dyno? Probably wasn't a four or five valve VAG (or german) engine, was it?

No the timing was not "way late" as you claim.

I have run extensive engine dyno testing on numerous 4V turbo engines including German 4V per cyl. engines with boost from 12-22 PSI. Testing typically shows that at WOT these engines require 18-21 degs. ignition advance from 5000-7000 rpm to achieve best power without burn down. Using less timing due to excessive boost, high IAT or octane limitations does cause burn down in the exhaust. Using EGR to reduce knock also reduces power but allows more advance. The fact is if you don't ignite the mixture well before TDC as the RPM increases you have delayed combustion because the real time becomes shorter as the RPM increases and the burn rate simply is not fast enough to compensate. In cases with excessive flame front propagation such as some dual sparkplug engines you can get engine rumble from excessively fast combustion.

If you have actual steady state engine dyno data that differs with what I have stated I would suggest that you author a white paper with your specific test set-up and parameters and submit it to the SAE for peer review so that we can review your testing to see why your data is distinctly different from that of auto mfgs. and independent engineering firms who perform calibration work.

insufficient advance specifically will melt the pistons long before anything else happens to the engine, the manifold or the turbocharger.

Are you saying excessive retard from KR can melt pistons? Sorry, not sure I follow :(

So tell me mr. expert, how much timing does a STOCK EA888 run up top in a Golf R? or how about an Audi S1?
Your numbers do not match up in the slightest. Because if they did, we'd have all STOCK EA888 cars tuned by VAG with massive turbine damage and cracked heads. This is not the case.
Also you do realize that head design significantly affects burn speed, and your numbers for some cases are past MBT, right?
Perhaps you should write to Audi that they don't know anything about designing and tuning an engine - no need to argue with me.

Other than that, you're stating the obvious. As for EGR - it slows combustion, of course you can add more advance, but there is no point on WOT, and there is not a single VAG turbocharged performance engine with EGR (apart from TDI).

As for my personal testing, I have had plenty a car with 2-3 EGT locations, yes I personally own a steady state dyno. EGT has always without fail been lower the further you get from the port for me.


I don't try things like running 5 degrees on top with 2000mbar boost on a slow burn head design though.


As I said before - on any VAG engine (from the old 2.2T on through the EA888 last gen designs), insufficient advance specifically will melt the pistons long before anything else happens to the engine, the manifold or the turbocharger.
If you get the advance really low, the exhaust valve seats will fail and then the valve will melt through, and the cylinder will lose compression. It will do that within 1 VMAX run.
But you will never ever crack the manifold or damage the turbocharger with heat before this happens, unless running ATDC ignition angle for antilag, and even then the manifold and turbo will hold up for 1-2 rallies, if not more. Just real world experience, sorry, not a lab rat.

As I suggested since your data does not agree with my experience or that of the car companies who I have worked for as a contractor, instead of getting personal professionals submit white papers to the SAE for peer review. I'd like to see why your results differ from everyone elses'.