NefMoto

I feel that after many revisions, and many late nights logging and being unhappy with one thing or another it all comes right back around to one thing.  ME7's TQ management.

I'm not sure how other people seem to deal with it, but from what I've learned and tried... you cannot beat the factory programming when it comes to this.  They know something that we don't this is clear.

As for results, I've seen the best results (still not 100% acceptable to me though) by using and then massaging the stock values.  Nothing seems to work better.  The car is smooth, and the car has the least amount of TQ interventions.  But the car is NOT agressive... it still keeps that factory feeling and while some might like that... I don't.  I know it's holding my car back... TQ ramp up is slow and linear but it doesn't hit as hard as it could if we didn't have the TQ management nanny.

I have just posted logs comparing masterj's latest tuner wizzard to factory stock RS4 TQ settings... between the two tunes that was the only difference... and while you really only see what happens on a 3rd gear WOT pull on the logs the car in general drives completely different.  the RS4 settings make the car drive like it's suppose to in almost every setting... low load great... part load good... WOT... also good...  still a few things I am unhappy about, but worlds better then trying to generate numbers on your own or with a wizzard (no offence masterj).  

Link to logs: http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=617.msg16796#msg16796

So, what it comes down to is this.  

I would like to know how you all deal with this?  What are you doing to make your car drive the way you want it to?

What parameters do I need to log (either in ecux, me7l, or nefmoto logger) to understand purely the TQ management part of the ECU... What are the best places to start.  KFMIOP, KFMIRL and KFZWOP/2 and a few other TQ limiting maps seem to be where the magic lies...

For reference the "other" thread with info to all things TQ management: http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=970.0

NVR, my experience is exactly supportive of your findings.  Masterj's spreadsheet is not relevant for the B5 RS4-like engine.  There are a variety of reasons why, but for starters, I have found the car to drive the best with RS4 KFMIRL and KFMIOP values.  The low-load values need to remain similar to their original values;  the problem I've had with the RS4-like maps is that nasty interventions occur.  I'm very interested to see if you make progress on this.

I still have a few, but what maps did you transfer?  there are some TQ limiting maps, etc that you would have to copy as well.

let me know what maps you would like to see from me (posted in my tuning thread as well).

B_zwvz is getting set one of two ways.

It can be set automatically by B_mibeg. This occurs if miszul_w < mizsolv_w.
mizsolv_w is mibas_w + dmar_w.
miszul_w is maximum permitted torque from %MDZUL.

The other way is if mifa_w != misol_w and misol_w != migs_w.

Log the following:
B_mibeg
miszul_w
mifa_w
misol_w
migs_w

My money's on KFMIOP.

The truth is that when I tried changing over all of the associated TQ-MGMT maps, my ECU went into perma-brick mode.  I think what went wrong was that I also wrote over Pedal Maps and lumped everything together into one update.  Let me find the list of maps I think that need to be related to this topic.  I'll update this post with that.

ok normally i'd update my old post, but i'm NEVER this organized, so i'm extra psyched to post this file.
on tab 1 you'll find the rs4's tables, axis values, and full information cleanly formatted.
on tab 2 you'll find the s4's "", "", and "".
on tab 3 you'll find my attempt to interpolate values from the rs4 tables but using the s4 axis.
    this was done in MATLAB and should prove to be robust, unless i made a procedural / conceptual error somewhere.

having written all of these maps at one time to my tune, i stuck the car into permabrick mode, and had a nasty double-flashing epc and cel light when the ignition was turned over.  however, the car would start and then insta-shutoff.  at the time NVR suggested there was a checksum error.  given alot of work in conjunction with Infinkc, i realized that my mistake here was writing values to the Pedal Maps.

therefore, all of the maps on the attached spreadhseet include, please assist me to eliminate / add-to this map list:
KFMIOP        -  Optimal Engine Torque Map
KFMIRL        -  Engine Load Desired (rlsol)
KFMDZOF_UM      -  Map: Offset tolerance depending on allowed torque
KFMI_UM         -  Optimal engine torque under monitoring
KFMIZUFIL      -  Allowable indicated torque to torque limit before filter
KFMIZUNS        -  Allowable torque on afterstart extension
KFMIZUOF        -  Allowable torque for torque limiting indexed
KFMPED_UM       -  Map for allowable torque from pedal position in the functions monitoring
KFMPNS_UM       -  Map for allowable torque from pedal position on cold motor
KFPED_0_A       -  Relative torque request from pedal
KFWDKMSN        -  Map for desired throttle plate angle
KFWDKPP         -  Default throttle plate angle from charge signal
KFWDKSMX        -  Maximum desired throttle plate angle
KFZWOP          -  Optimal ignition angle
KFZWOP2         -  Optimal ignition angle (variant 2)

also:
KFMSNWDK        -   Normalized mass flow over DK

I believe I went through all m-box XDF definitions under the Torque and Pedal section, comparing between S4 and RS4.
I'll double-check to make sure none of the group definitions are missing from the above list now.

well that looks mighty interesting!  I will have to give that a whirl along with a few other ideas later on.. maybe tonight some time or this week...

getting to the bottom of the TQ management is probably one of the most important things IMO, it's what will unlock the real performance of bigger turbo cars.

A major problem I've come across while looking at the RS4 and S4 pedal maps in unison.  The S4 seems to have a valid pedal range of 0-100, the RS4 on the other hand seems to have a maximal pedal value of 52, compared to 100.  What this means or how this possibly works, I have zero knowledge.  This is another reason I am very skeptical about using any RS4 pedal-related items.  The water gets strange because some of the torque maps have DIRECT relationships to the pedal maps.  AKA, this is a very difficult problem.

Please read what I've written:
http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=1371.msg16810#msg16810 (http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=1371.msg16810#msg16810)

In my case there where far more maps than KFMIOP and KFMIRL needed to change.

just a nit pick. its "wizard"

You are not isolating and fixing the root problem, instead you are just neutering the ECU's ability to respond to it.

Nehalem, torque is directly linked to pedal request (%MDFAW iirc).

Preferably, we can gain a full understanding of the torque path vice just finding something that works.

NVR, please include the variables that I listed above the next time you log. That should give us an idea of the source of the problem.

perfectly worded

gentlemen,

let's recall that there are 2 levels of Torque intervention.  level 1 seems related to driving comfort and refinement while level 2 seems to function as a safety mechanism to mitigate DBW throttle issues that may ultimately result in a runaway vehicle.

in my experience - it is desirable in a high HP vehicle to all but disable Level 1. Level 1 is what inhibits a 'lively' throttle response.

Level 2 cannot be disabled (as far as i've been able to discover) and is there to intervene when the ecu calculates a great enough deviance between requested load and actual load - which could indicate a stuck throttle plate, an implausible pedal module signal, a gross MAF misread, etc - all of which could cause unintended acceleration.

now - the 2 most important maps relating to Level 2 interventions are KFMIRL and KFMIOP.  as we have discussed, KFMIOP needs to contain values derived from KFMIRL via interpolation.  someone (forgive me - i can't recall who) learned that ME7 uses linear interpolation when performing the calculations.  this means that a linear interpolation for deriving KFMIOP works perfectly (even though Audi did not use exact linear values in the factory files, for some reason. Klaus forgot his TI-89 that day maybe).

so - what if you have properly interpolated KFMIOP from your desired KFMIRL and you're still experiencing Level 2 interventions (scary throttle cuts or 10% WGDC)?

check the following -

1. are you using the stock airbox?  an open element without proper correction definitely has the potential to trigger Level 2 intervention.  the 85mm MAF w/o flow straightener with the stock airbox suffers significant turbulence at various throttle positions and RPMs and this is only exasperated by running an open element.  the turbulence is sufficient enough to result in artificially low MAF values which may deviate enough for a brief time to result in load miscalculations great enough to trigger Level 2 intervention.

solution? remove the open element or perform correction for it. (correction is really needed for stock box as well)

2. have you deviated from the factory load spread in KFMIRL?  by this, i mean, have you increased particular columns or cells at differing rates?  i have found that the best approach is to simply multiply the entire table by a percentage rather than attempting to tweak particular areas independently, thus maintaining the relative load increases across the various % Torque requests.  the problem with raising portions of KFMIRL by differing percentages seems to be related to a lack of resolution in the Mbox.  we simply need more columns.   mbox wasn't made to nicely deliver 500+ HP.  when we deviate from the stock load spread, even with an appropriately calculated KFMIOP, Level 2 interventions are much more likely to occur.

i wouldn't spend time trying to copy over RS4 values.  RS4 maps have more columns and are too tame anyway.  also, as we all know, a particular map is made to function with all of the other maps.  it's like trying to copy a gene sequence from one animal to another.  it never turns out the way you think bc the sequence is only fit when it is accompanied by the rest of the genetic map.

start by raising KFMIRL for all data points by a percentage - then interpolate KFMIOP and go from there.
you can slightly tweak KFPED to request more a little earlier as well.

examine my K04 file that i posted and note the axis changes and the changes to the Level 1 TM tables.
that file is perfectly smooth at all throttle inputs and has not once exhibited a Level 2 intervention in over 20,000 miles.  it is also pretty aggressive and is a hoot to drive, even just down the street to get coffee.

also - don't touch the _UM maps or you will end up with a bricked ecu on your first startup (boot loop accompanied by twitching throttle plate sound familiar?).  thx to phila-dot for advising me on those (used for calibration).

Are you sure about this? I found more interventions with the MAF too HIGH, not too LOW.. a lot of my throttle/wg interventions went away when I slightly underscaled my MAF.

I'm still tracking down the source of my timing interventions... do these also fall into two types if intervention?

I love this thread. This exact topic has been on my mind, but I wasn't going to try to address it until I got a couple of other things ironed out.  I definitely think there is some good optimization that can still be done with this regarding bigger turbos.

Awesome file! Did you ever get around to trying the RS4 interpolation that you did on your previous excel file where you convert RS4 to S4 and scaled the top end?  How did it run if so?

a 100x this.  thanks for clarifying it!

get this, i definitely did.  the car felt massively intensely sharper than ever with throttle response.  however i backed off that path when i encountered the _UM bootloop failure.  the biggest change however was moving over the RS4 PID maps.  i literally celebrated with a bottle of champagne because the car finally felt like a normal street car after having blown my k03's in week 3 of s4 ownership.

i'm going to do an intensive part-throttle logging session fairly soon to sort out my final fuel corrections.  after that's done though i'll certainly switch my kfmirl and kfmiop back again.  one of my observations from this also was that you shouldn't run low values below 2/3 on kfmiop table and also that your first few columns shouldn't be played with too much...  this echo's berttos's sentiments.  however the inverse facts that if max rlsol goes from 191 to 248, then 4% torque should goto (4%) / (248 / 191.25 ) = 3.085% because these low values of kfmiop.  i'll have quick peak at stuff tomorrow at work, but i think most of my maps on the s4_rs4 tab (tab 3) are ready to be used.  be careful with the _UM stuff and anything not KFMIRL / KFMIOP in name...  tbh

I've modified the _UM maps many times.. never had an issue unless I was relying on the MTX plug in to do checksum corrections... that never worked for me and always bricked the ECU.

When ever I touch the TQ maps now I check the files in WinOLS (MTX plug in will say the checksums are corrected) as it finds the ones the MTX plug in doesn't see and the file then works as expected.

That said, from what I see and am reading here at this point is to keep the stock KFMIRL/IOP maps from the M-box and tweak them instead of replacing them with something else.  And while I agree the RS4 box maps (even just IRL) has more resolution there must be enough there to manipulate for us to get the desired results even with all the TQ monitoring on/enabled no?

Unless I've missed it I don't see where you show/list which tables are TM1 and which are TM2...  would you mind listing the table names for that?

I'm going to examine your STG3 file right now though... Thanks!

you'll know a Level 2 intervention by the EPC light and having to cycle the ignition.  I've only noticed it (as it relates to MAF) with an artificially low MAF signal for a moment in an otherwise healthy MAF scale as would be caused by turbulence and i've also noticed it with a very large vacuum leak.

i bet you were experiencing Level 1 interventions.

what i have observed so far is that Level 1 will attempt to get things under control via WG, throttle plate and ignition and if this fails and the Load is still abnormally high then Level 2 intervenes for safety.  

example - if you raise KFMIRL and leave KFMIOP stock and leave all Torque management stock - you will likely never encounter a Level 2 intervention.  Level 1 interventions will be experienced as a terrible throttle response, surging, light bucking etc under part throttle.

now - try loosening or FFing Level 1 maps
RLVMXN
RLVSMXN
KFMIZUFIL
KFMIZUOF

and your vehicle will feel like it's going to catapult itself into the car in front of you at part throttle. it will be wild and nearly uncontrollable because of the grossly miscalculated load values (it will also be exciting and will give you hope).  Level 2 will intervene with a throttle cut, EPC light and limp mode.

thanks for sharing this! - i was, indeed, using the MTX plugin.


take KFMIRL ad multiply all data points by .25 - .35 to start. 
you will need to completely recalculate KFMIOP.  i also removed the first x axis value (9.7502) and shifted all columns to the left and changed the 18 value to a 13.5 (we don't need that much resolution down low) to give me more resolution in the high load ranges.  notice my last 3 columns become 175, 216 and 248.  once you have an axis then you can interpolate data points from your KFMIRL values.

now, realize that the KFMIOP axis is shared with KFZWOP/2 maps so you will need to address those as well. see my file for an example.

The more I look at your file and the more we discuss (also from some recently playing around with tables these past few days) this the more I see what is going on and just to see if I am going in the right direction here.

RLVMXN
RLVSMXN

^^^ These two are basically TQ limiting maps are they not?  Looking at the FR they basically set the load limit for the IOP table it seems.  Although the SMXN map is not really something our car uses is it?  We don't have an active intake manifold so that SU switch would probably never flip to the RLVSMXN map I would think?

Input to KFMIOP in %MDMAX should be rlmax_w since SY_TURBO = true. RLVMXN and RLVSMXN should have no effect.

ah true... I suppose both of them would only be used for N/A mapping then.

so this is what MDMAX looks like for us then:

(http://i.imgur.com/dmhnP.jpg)

So, I starting modifying the torque management last night (I was not going to worry about it for a while), and HOLY COW does it make a difference in both around town power and part throttle smoothness.  I went a little gung-ho to begin with to see if I get tq management issues, and I'm not sure if I got any (didn't have any points that felt "corrected", but haven't checked the logs other than the normal variables). Let me know any data you guys want to see, I've got 4 FATS pulls as well as a bunch of driving around town.  One thing I did notice was that my cold start revved at like 2k RPM for the first 10 seconds, much higher than normal.  My changes I made to this file:

KFMIRL - I took the RS4 values interpolated for the S4 scale from nehalem's document, and multiplied everything by a scalar so that the max load is 248 (it's even more aggressive than your file, Berttos, and yours is the most aggressive I've seen). I purposely went aggressive, like I said, to see if I have issues.
KFMIOP - Load axis changed to Berttos', RPM axis modified last two rows up to have some resolution at higher RPM's, used KFMIOP interpolator sheet with the above KFMIRL.
KFZWOP/2 - Load axis shared with KFMIOP, RPM axis also extended on top end, values are modified from stock , but are the same from my previous files
KFPEDR_0_A - back to stock (was previously linearized)
KFPED_0_A - from nehalem RS4 to S4 interpolate sheet
KZMFIOUL, KZMIZUNS, KMFIZUOF - from nehalem RS4 to S4 interpolate sheet

I skipped all of the _UM stuff and throttle body stuff (except for my KFWDKSMX which was already modified).

Very real and noticable gains in smoothness and part throttle. It felt like I added mini K03's for around town power, and there was zero part-throttle bucking around parking lots etc. Really smooth.  2nd gear WOT felt as good as ever, but 3rd gear came on a little less quickly when doing my log ramp up's from approx 2500 RPM.  Accel g's were a little down from previous file, as well as boost coming in a tiny bit later. FATS time slightly down as well. Timing was about the same according to zwout.  The file felt better/smoother in every aspect, except sheer rampup during 3rd gear log pull.

The whole bricking the ECU thing scares me a little bit, but I used the MTX checksum plug-in after modifying the above, and I've turned the car off more than 3 times since.  I also just ran the file through ME7check just to be safe. MTX worked fine for the above maps.

Yes this is exactly what I did, and I'm sure you believe the hype I wrote about yesterday now that you've tasted the results.  Its insane though right?  Just goes to show how much time Cosworth / Audi spent tuning the RS4 engine.  The part-throttle is a stupid-good improvement compared to the stock scaled KFMIRL table.  However, I have also tried this another way and it worked even better.

Take the S4_axis RS_4valued (tab 3) KFMIRL.  Scale columns 60/70/80/90/99 to original * (248 / 200).  Then take column 50 and average the values between columns 40 and 60 to create a new column 50.  Now your part-throttle off-boost is the RS4, your part-throttle on-boost is a super-RS4.  This leaves only one issue.  The RPM surging caused by strange values in KFMRIL columns 0 and 10.

Here's my thoughts on that aspect.  Either leave the stock S4 column 0, or average the RS4 columns 2 and 5.
Remember this is a proxy for power/boost, so there's no reason the idle should have changed because you have a a beast of a turbo setup.
The beauty of our setups is we all run the same cams, same heads, same CR, and the same (relatively) timing curves.
Nothing's changed about the car's idle.  Anyways, I also never figured this point out, but I'm just providing color on my engineering process.

hey, here's what i was saying before:  could you give this KFMIOP and KFMIRL a try and see what happens with your logs?

given jibber's previous post, it seems like he already has the other maps modified sufficiently to avoid problems, so maybe its best for him to post logs-  would be excited to see NVR or berTT try it too...

Possibly later tonight. What logs are you looking for?

nothing in particular, just would like to hear some results from trying it out, like general observations.  if you take full MarkP style logs that'd be cool too...

This thread has shown a definite dearth of logs that actually SHOW the torque monitoring variables of interest.

Hint: spec load isn't gonna tell us anything :P

that template is utterly useless.

I tried it... did exactly what you said... car drove weird and was getting high CF's and very low timing...

so for me it was a no go completely.

I will post logs tomorrow

Here's logs from the file I mentioned in post #24.  I haven't had time to try with that KFMIRL/KFMIOP, and I'm not sure I'll have time to do any experimenting soon.  To note though, I didn't have any timing issues when I simply scaled the RS4 interpolated KFMIRL/IOP (as can be seen in the logs below).  Like I mentioned though, my spool ramp up slowed down a little from previous files, as well as slightly lower accel g's and FATS times.  Also to note, I'm only running wastegate spring pressure with no N75, so if the intervention would have kicked in via N75, I wouldn't have noticed it when driving. Also, I'm still working on my fueling, and the weirdness from 3800-4200 is from the notch.

(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm235/jibberjive/Logs/GT144_4FATS_2_vs_GT144_4FATS_2_VE_20120403_074214-Timing.png)
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm235/jibberjive/Logs/GT144_4FATS_2_vs_GT144_4FATS_2_VE_20120403_074214-LoadMAF.png)
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm235/jibberjive/Logs/GT144_4FATS_2_vs_GT144_4FATS_2_VE_20120403_074214-Fueling.png)
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm235/jibberjive/Logs/GT144_4FATS_2_vs_GT144_4FATS_2_VE_20120403_074214-EGTIATKnock.png)
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm235/jibberjive/Logs/GT144_4FATS_2_vs_GT144_4FATS_2_VE_20120403_074214-Acceleration.png)

(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image001.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image002.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image003.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image004.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image005.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image006.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image007.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image008.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image009.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image010.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image011.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image012.png)
(http://schnell-engineering.com/logs/rs4TQ_rev8/image013.png)

Unfortunately, these logs don't really shed any light on torque intervention.

Are these logs reflecting modified MDZUL or *_um tables?

Someone please log the variables in post 3.

OT:
Jib, so the notch does not manifest in rlmx_w, rlmax_w, or rlsol_w? Just rl_w?
Did you log fnwue?
What variable is labeled IgnitionTimingAngleOverallDesired? zwgru or zwbas?

I agree... I will get better logs tonight... I didn't really have time to fool around yesterday.. just loaded the file and a quick log.

I will get the proper logs later today I hope.

Not sure what you guys are or aren't doing here.

I don't mean to be rude but the wizards available on here aren't going to help you. I have 700bhp engines that drive completely smoothly with a lovely throttle response at any load and speed. One tip though, don't use IOP to tune throttle response. You'll tie yourself in knots

Rick

What I'm trying to achieve is proper power delivery, because as of yet nothing I have done is allowing my motor to ramp up as fast as it physically can.  There is always some sort of TQ intervention.

I would love to hear you expand on your methods for modifying the TQ/load on high HP cars.  So please, take some time and tell me how you deal with it on your 700Hp cars.

As of current, I am still convinced that anything larger the K04 on the S4 will have issues unless the tables are modified quite a lot.

One thing I don't understand..  I'm going to babble a bit, let me know if there is something you all don't understand.

Say I'm starting with complete stock S4 M-box variables in the TQ settings..  stock IOP, IRL, etc..

Now I want to ramp load/tq/boost as quickly as possible.  Obviously I need to increase IRL.  After that, I need to edit IOP to match or else the car will buck like a 1980's misfiring jalopy.

But all I see about editing IOP is to either rescale (or even decrease values in IOP if not rescaling).  So by doing that, doesn't it actually negate everything I'm trying to do in IRL????? 

If I want to see 220 load by 3500 RPM, I have that set in LDRXN... in IOP 220 load should be around 95+ say since it will be the last column and that needs to relate to IRL so that between 90-99 I am "requesting" 215-220 load.

All of this "should work" yet I cannot seem to see any good reason why the ECU is limiting my load to 200 (like above).  It's ALWAYS the same, on almost every tune I have that "notch" and this is with different IRL, IOP and other TQ management values.

No you don't. IRL doesn't affect boost ramp, only prevents you from getting the peak boost you want.

boost is generally regulated by throttle plate and wgdc.. log those.

I'm not only talking about boost Nye.

I'm talking about TQ... I want the motor to make as much TQ as soon as possible.  IRL effects this does it not?

For instance... what do you think would happen if I leave 100% stock M-box IRL, IOP, etc on my Tial car?  Do you not think the ECU will start to limit load?

What I am trying to get at here, no one really knows how to make all that TQ management stuff work together (well apparently Rick does)...

I know 100% that the ECU is holding my car back... I've seen and felt what can happen when I screw with the TQ management settings... It's unbelievable how much stronger the car feels... BUT my modifications are not correct as I will bump into  TQ monitoring codes (level 2) under part throttle.

Leave IRL it won't effect spool, just the maximum that can be achieved for a requested throttle position

You have far too much timing as it comes on boost. The ECU is already pulling timing and you are requesting yet more load.

If you can send me your MAF and injector calibration tables I will send you a tune to try. The first thing I would change on your car would be the MAF unless you have a proper transfer function for it. RS4 does 700 plus and comes with a fully calibrated flow curve.

Rick

Why would you want the motor to make as much TQ as soon as possible if you aren't at WOT?


You don't know anything 100% until you've logged the appropriate TQ management variables.

STOP GUESSING

Rick,

so basically the only two rows I should need to change in IRL are the last two? And even then anything after say 220 is not going to do anything because the ECU can't see it anyway right?

please disregard the above log... it's horrible and was a mix of all kinds of things..

Here is the same timing table but using my TQ settings: http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=617.msg16846#msg16846

as you can see far less CF's and more ign. advance overall.

I can send you the tune I am using from the above linked tune, how about that.

My MAF is an 85mm housing w/ a Hitachi sensor.  I'm already maxing it out over 5600 RPM so I will not be keeping it for much longer. I don't see how an RS4 will do 700 plus, I know it is ~82mm? and the Bosch sensor can read slightly more.. but I am no where near that (if I would have to guess around 450awhp) on my 25psi w/ the Tial 605's.

shoot me a PM with your email/contact info and I will get you the file

I agree that IRL/IOP map's uploaded shouldn't have too much relevance for 605's or GT's under high load.  For K04's the changes are intense.  Seriously Nyet, you have to try it...  I know you are skeptical but exactly like I said and as did Jibber's initial response, the car feels snappier, sharper, more precisely tuned.  If this wasn't the case, I wouldn't bother responding to my post, because clearly the WOT results look like crap - and nobody seems to be satisfied with them.  For my own sake however, I'm headed back to study BerTTos's tune further.

rlsol_w is used in the calculation of both DK and WGDC.

VR i'll send you a PM,

RS4 MAF can read 499g/s

Rick

I'm going to do some logging later tonight.. I've added all the variables to the ME&L .cfg but I get errors saying some variable don't exist??  So I have to comment them out.  What do I need to do to get the variables to work?  I want to get everyone as much info as possible.

Attached is my CFG and ECU file.  If anything else is needed let me know please.  I hope to start logging in 2-3 hours.

You didn't say which are causing problems.

I haven't tried these, but these are what are missing from setzi's defs

sorry yes... with the ones added that you just gave me...

the following I still need:
;zwsol
;miasrl_l
;zwopt

thanks

The alias's and descriptions need to be bracketed.

Ensure you are logging these:

B_mibeg
miszul_w
mifa_w
misol_w
migs_w

Doesn't work...

get the error:

I've attached my files again as they are now... I don't believe I made any mistakes.

weird, its complaining about the last line.

maybe add some cr's?

if I comment out the last line, it then complains about the 2nd last line and so forth... and can only start logging when I remove the variables I just added (that you posted above).

Edit: just saw you got it working by removing the new variables from *.ecu.

The alias's and descriptions in your config file need to be bracketed {}.

nmot_w  ; {RPM}  ; {Engine Speed}

These are copied straight from my *.ecu file and I have successfully logged them before.

dzws            , {DifferenceZwoptZwsol}            , 0x380D95,  1,  0x0000, {°KW}     , 1, 0,        -0.75,      0, {difference ignition timing (between zwopt and zwsol)}
etazws          , {IgnitionAngleEffect}             , 0x380D96,  1,  0x0000, {%}       , 0, 0,          0.5,      0, {nominal ignition angle effectiveness}
wkrdy           , {IgnitionRetardDynamic}           , 0x00F9B4,  1,  0x0000, {°KW}     , 0, 0,        -0.75,      0, {ignition retard during dyn-function of knock control}
zwsol           , {DesiredIgnitionAngleTorque}      , 0x380D97,  1,  0x0000, {°KW}     , 1, 0,         0.75,      0, {desired ignition angle from torque intervention}
zwopt           , {}                                , 0x380CB6,  1,  0x0000, {°KW}     , 1, 0,         0.75,      0, {optimaler Zündwinkel}

^^^ doesn't work either... very frustrating... it looks all correct if I compare it to the other ones in the file...

Your editor sucks.

Don't use notepad, it doesn't add end of line to the last line.

use a real editor, like vi.

My post above with the graphs above was edited to append the full untouched log csv. I logged pretty much every variable I found that I though could relate to this (though it wasn't done with the newest version of Setzi's logger with the new variables).  All of the following from post #3 were logged:

B_mibeg
miszul_w
mifa_w
misol_w
migs_w

As for which maps were/weren't modified, refer to this post:
http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=1751.msg16927#msg16927

A lot of the maps I modified are in the MDZUL module (MDZUL isn't an editable map in-and-of itself, right?). I didn't modify any of the _UM maps.

Yup, the notch only manifests itself in rl_w, and not in rlmx_w, rlmax_w, or rlsol_w.  It also manifests itself of course in other related maps (injector IDC, MAF, Boost PID, etc). I did log fnwue, see above log. Not really sure what to look at or how to interpret the notch and fnwue, as I'm taking things one piece at a time and haven't arrived at the timing notch yet.

I'm honestly not sure exactly what values are used in ECUxPlot, that's a question better directed at Nye.  I'm curious myself as to exactly which variables correspond to which names inside of ECUxPlot.  A short text file listing them would be awesome.

You're not sure what our goals are, or you're not sure what has been modified in the above logs?

As for goals (I can only speak for myself):
1. Aggresive part throttle that is smooth as butter at all throttle inputs. No jerking/surging/oscillations (I've had varying degrees of surging in my past files, like part throttle around parking lots for example).
2. Boost buildup and onset as soon as possible. (I'm running GT turbos, and am looking to optimize the torque model to spool the turbos as soon as possible on WOT. No need to limit anything with these bigger turbos and built motor).


As for what I've changed in my specific case, again refer to this post :
http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=1751.msg16927#msg16927

I didn't use any "wizards" or calculated values (other than Berttos' KFMIOP converter, which I thought correctly calculates the inverse values of KFMIRL for the KFMIOP, no?).  Everything else was taken directly from the RS4 values and only interpolated to fit the scale of the axes on the S4 maps (some of those RS4 maps were entirely multiplied by a scalar in my case).  So not really calculating any fresh values or using any wizards per se.   You sound like you know a lot more than you're sharing though, so if you're willing, any direction would be appreciated.

I didn't modify any of the throttle plate maps (well, actually I did modify KFPED back to stock-ish from a previously linearized setup), and I have zero wastegate duty on my setup, with requested boost approx 2psi above what I can make on WG springs only.  Just by modifying the KFMIRL/IOP, etc maps, it definitely affected spool (if you look at the above graphs, I'm getting 15 psi around 4100 RPM's whereas I was hitting 15 psi around 3850 in previous files.

Higher off-boost torque and part-throttle torque feels awesome for around town driving. Really, it feels like a different car.

Really different driving characteristics for the driving that I'll do 80% of the time around town (I have to imagine gas mileage will suffer). And I wouldn't say my WOT results are crap by any means. 1st and 2nd WOT feel the same, if not better, it's just my rolling lower RPM 3rd gear logs that don't look better (though they don't look much worse, just a little).

EDIT: I've also attached the .csv log file to this post so that you don't have to go find it on the previous page.

just noticed that your .cfg file was generated from v1.10 of me7.  setzi released v1.17, so maybe that's the issue?  i know for a fact he added zwsol in 1.17...

I'm using notepad++ which is a great editor... but ok... I guess it's possible :S

Welp, after some more driving tonight (no logs), I got some TQ intervention (flashing EPC light). It happened twice over like 30 mins of driving, only for like 2 seconds each time, both in 2nd under partial throttle.  With my scaling the entire RS4 KFMIRL table so high, I bet that is what is causing it. I'm going to scale it to a max of 220 instead of 248, and see where that lands me.

If anyone gets a second, I'd love for someone to take a look at the raw log I attached 2 posts up to see if they get any insight (other than any fueling comments, as I'm still working on ironing out my fueling tables).

I'm looking at the .ecu you posted, and it's missing an EOL on the last line. A truly great editor would properly format a text file :)

ECUxPlot uses whatever aliases you have in your configs. If there is no alias defined, it uses the ME7L name prepended with ME7L.

Have you looked at the aliases?

Your requested boost is completely whack (really bad notch at 4krpm, and you're gonna get positive deviation limp if you're not careful), and for some reason I'm not seeing the proper WGDC (looks like something is amiss in your ME7L config

Fueling looks good, timing looks good.

I took a quick look at you WOT run and everything looked fine torque wise and zwist followed zwbas.

As for the notch, it is definitely cam changeover. In the RPM range of 3882 to 4182, fnwue drops suddenly from 0.99 to 0.03. Tweaking KFPBRKNW slightly should fix it.

Yeah, I've definitely noticed that notch, but I wasn't going to worry about addressing it until I start turning up the boost and handle the cam switchover notch. I do get positive deviation after driving for a while, but it doesn't affect anything because I'm running at 0% WGDC as is ha.  BTW, are you sure you can't see WGDC? It's the 6th variable in the log sheet, ldtvm, and it's all 0 because I've nuked literally every PID table for now.

  Thanks, I'll be looking into it.

you're running wg pressure only?


why nuke every PID table :/

My wastegate pressure is ~15psi, and I was breaking in a fresh engine and clutch. Plus I'm still on the stock fuel pump, so I'm keeping the reigns on turning up the boost until I install my pumps.  I'll probably turn it up a couple of lbs if I get the other tuning stuff sorted before I install the pumps though.

Ok. sounds like a good idea.

Not sure the best way to do that was to nuke EVERY table though... why not just disconnect your N75 :)

^^ yup or just zero out the target/DC target table.. the PID tables could have remained a they were... either way it's easy enough to do a C&P to get them back.

I nuked KFLDRL and I was still getting 10% WGDC.  I wasn't shooting around in the dark; I know exactly which tables I zero'd out and it will take 10 seconds to put them back to stock when I want to start using the wastegate and PID.  There have been no ill effects, and it probably took me less time to zero them out than it would have to find my scissors and cut the ziptie holding my vacuum line on the N75. Seems to have worked out to be the perfect software solution for the situation.

I don't see how that is possible... if the ref. table is set to 0, it cannot go over 0... unless I'm missing something...

either way... not a big deal as already said

The minimum is 10%

Not that it matters, 10% is functionally equivalent to "let all the pressure hit the wastegate"

is it possible ECUx didn't report it then?  Because it always showed 0% for me when I had it zero'd out:

(http://i53.tinypic.com/jhddoz.jpg)

Thats odd. I'll have to check the WGDC maps again.

To quickly and truly nuke the PID you set TVLDMX = 0. Or so theory goes.

How do you guys calculate optimal timing after the load axis has been changed in KFMIOP/KFZWOP?

If the KFZWOP/2 is left untouched with the load axis increased, what would be the symptoms? My limited knowledge lets me think that the timing intervention from TM would never let me reach desired ignition angle, or would it be vice versa? Would it not proper intervene to bring TQ in check on an actual TQ deviation?

I can only speak for the situation of mine and that I logged, but I already had a modified KFZWOP/2 and KFZW/2, and when I changed just the axes in KFMIOP (which is shared with KFZWOP), I didn't notice/log any torque/timing intervention at all in the upper parts of the map, where the axes had been changed.  But like I said, that's just my particular case, with maps that had already been modified from stock anyways.