NefMoto

Ive been trying lots  this past couple weeks to get my tune working with my compound turbos on my 1.8t a4. currently just driving it on alpha-n because this cars a racecar and part throttle tunings not a concern of mine.

1000cc injectors
e85
gt3076 feeding a ko4-015
stock throttle
timing is kfzwop -1.5degrees

i want to know what rsol_w is coming from cause it tops out at 150 and my timing goes wild and now ive got throttle cut down to 50% with it still building 19psi because compound turbos.

another concern of mine is the armd interventions i hear about since this cars >300lbs lighter than stock and responds like its supercharged
Ive tried a few different things to get the load to read lower like underscaling kfmnswdk/kfwdkmsn, raising krkte, and lowering ignition timing. ive tried lowering kfurl then raising kfurl but reverted it back to stock now because it just made the car undrivable and i dont understand how to lower calculated load with it.

Brace for impact  ::)

Alpha-n
No logs
5120 hack?

You need to fix many many things first

give up now.

there is zero point to posting logs if you are doing alpha-n

"because racecar" is no excuse

There are literally no situations where alpha-n is faster than just doing a proper tune.

Well i looked longer and ended up changing my kfmirl iop and got it sorted out i think. My maf would be partway out of my headlight or itd be a blow through, and 2 turbos would make for a very oil covered maf. I have no money for a proper blow through maf or id have one. The alpha-n is working for me aside from high speeds at low loads where it runs a bit lean because the big turbos being forcefed wind.

kfmirl and kfmiop have nothing whatsoever to do with rl_w vs rlsol_w.

I recommend fitting standalone, you have no idea what you are doing with this ecu.

irl/iop are the only things i changed to get the result i got. Now my rlsol_w shows 255 at wot and theres less timing intervention but still a couple regardless of me never getting close to hitting my desired loads. since ive also got 0 knock anywhere m wondering if its armd interventions or something else i dont know about?
i acknowledge i have no clue what im doing, and id get a standalone if i had any money, but for now this works for me as the car only needs to be fast and rowdy, nothing about it needs to be ideal, failsafe, smooth, or the best. I know none of you want anything to do with my project since im not doing things properly, but if somebody wants to point me in the right direction to fix the timing dips id really appreciate it.

There are no easy fixes. If this was your plan all along, you should probably have done some research first.



If i had a dollar for every time somebody said that, then asked for help fixing things...

If the only simple solution is a blow through maf, i can do it, but i gotta order some couplers. Ive been assuming that id get the same issues if my load source was from the maf as an alpha-n calculated load. 

So ive taken out 8° of timing and the problem went away. Since i have 0 knock regardless of how much timing i run and all load related things are the same, i conclude my car is just too fast at mbt and armd is coming in to spoil the fun. Ive tried raising kfzwop slightly as well as keeping it stock and it made no difference.

If anybody could help me find tmar or kfdmdaro id appreciate it so much. Ive looked for hours around nefmoto and dont know how to locate either for my ecu. Id pay for somebody to find it for me
4bo906018ch 360101

1189E  1x1   TMAR            (8Bit)
1F4F2  6x8   KFDMDADP    (16Bit)
1F552  6x8   KFDMDARO    (16Bit)
1F5B2  6x8   KFDMDAROS  (16Bit)

Thank you so much, youre a hero. Ill try these out later.

just tried to add these and they dont look correct for my bin. id like to figure out how to use the fully defined bam .ols file i have to somehow find maps in my file. idk how people do it but it seems like i gotta learn.

i didnt take into consideration the offset used in the bam .ols i was verifying the numbers with and without the offset i have the same numbers as the bam file using your addresses. took me like 3 hours to figure out lmao.

is the tmar address actually 1142f for my bin? i get the same values (64 with no offset) when i use 1189e and 1142f. I got 0x1142f from cross referencing with the bam .ols

no, 1142F is the wrong path
ME7.5 has quite a few different eprom layouts.
The BAM pattern is not the best choice to compare with your 018CH file finding addresses.
8E909518F is more similar to your 018CH, just search for it....