|
Title: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: kenmac on September 17, 2012, 11:25:13 PM Working on a 1.8T Stage 3 tune and something seems to be limiting my requested load. I feel like I should be feeling slightly more pull in the top end and I'm wondering if the ECU is limiting my power. I'm seeing almost 25 PSI around 4200 rpms but at this point, the requested and actual load seems to flatline here. It seems like it should still be naturally climbing. Could this be torque monitoring or something else? Or is this completely normal? When I was running a K04 turbo, I would easily see load values around 215 or more, which doesn't seem to be the case here with a much larger turbo.
(http://i.imgur.com/o0fIH.png) (http://i.imgur.com/bpJ1b.png) (http://i.imgur.com/HPdZY.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/3Rjqt.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/DpLys.png) Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: phila_dot on September 18, 2012, 03:50:55 AM More than 10* igniton retard?
Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: kenmac on September 18, 2012, 08:34:36 AM More than 10* igniton retard? It's 9* on this particular pull, but it's typically around 5* - 6*. Boost was turned up a tad, but yeah I plan to tone it down a bit. Either way, I don't think it's the cause of the load plateauing. Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: prj on September 18, 2012, 08:56:57 AM Instead of posting huge screenshots, please post your logs.
Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: phila_dot on September 18, 2012, 08:59:26 AM It's 9* on this particular pull, but it's typically around 5* - 6*. Boost was turned up a tad, but yeah I plan to tone it down a bit. Either way, I don't think it's the cause of the load plateauing. Why not? It does look like a hard cap, but I don't think you can max out rlsol_w. Did you log rlmx_w? If rl_w was capped below rlmax_w then I would think differently, but actual is following desired and desired is following corrected. Look at LDRLMX. Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: nyet on September 18, 2012, 09:05:50 AM Instead of posting huge screenshots, please post your logs. I like graphs. Also, look at KFLDHBN Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: nyet on September 18, 2012, 09:06:48 AM Could this be torque monitoring or something else? Or is this completely normal? Torque monitoring does not alter requested load that I know of Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: littco on September 18, 2012, 09:14:21 AM whats your LDRXNZK set to? with that amount of timing pull could it just not be that the load is having to follow LDRXNZK?
On my S3 timing CF's went up to 12 but on my A4 it only goes to 9... Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: phila_dot on September 18, 2012, 09:17:20 AM Torque monitoring does not alter requested load that I know of I does, through milsol_w. MDKOL can lower the torque request input to KFMIRL. Edit: The fact that rlsol_w is following rlmax_w shows that it is being limited in LDRLMX and not from MDKOL. Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: phila_dot on September 18, 2012, 09:30:17 AM whats your LDRXNZK set to? with that amount of timing pull could it just not be that the load is having to follow LDRXNZK? On my S3 timing CF's went up to 12 but on my A4 it only goes to 9... LDRXNZK is usually not the issue as it is often the same or higher load values than LDRXN. Also, I remember that the "continuous knock" condition is not as it sounds. IIRC, there is a seperate sub-function in LDRLMX for load limitation from KR. Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: nyet on September 18, 2012, 09:46:01 AM I does, through milsol_w. MDKOL can lower the torque request input to KFMIRL. Edit: The fact that rlsol_w is following rlmax_w shows that it is being limited in LDRLMX and not from MDKOL. Interesting. At WOT, under what conditions would this occur? Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: phila_dot on September 18, 2012, 10:40:02 AM Interesting. At WOT, under what conditions would this occur? Honestly, I haven't looked to much into it because I've never had an issue (that I've noticed). It's mostly intervention from external requests...ASR, MSR, gear shift, NMAX, VMAX, idle speed control, etc. Title: Re: Requested Load is lower than it should be Post by: phila_dot on September 18, 2012, 09:01:53 PM LDRXNZK is not a factor because it is disabled from the factory.
B_kfzk will never get set because CNOKT = 0 and KFSWKFZK = -96 in all cells. Had to go back and look because I remembered that it could be disregarded but forget the details as to why. |