NefMoto

This is a stage 1 s4 m-box spike 16 psi taper to 11psi. I've added timing. i used tunerpro and the mtx electronics checksum plugin for tuner pro.
thanks
*edit*
double check the checksums. consider this fair warning. 
See the flashing discussion here.
http://www.nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=415.

CHECKSUMS FIXED
This is a good starting point for anyone to do a stage 1 tune.  Use this as your guide of what to do.

 
stage 1 91 octane updated 4-18-11  still needs to be smoothed out a little.
 

Can't say anything about the changes you made, that's beyond my experience.
I see that the checksums are not updated in the file, maybe you missed to save updates
after fixing checksums?

The checksums are not updated, you probably forgot to instruct your definitions file to use the checksum plugin. It is described in the readme file, if you have problems send me an email & i'll give your more details on how to do it.

^^
yeah i still had the plugin set to detect only, not calculate... thanks
i fixed it and replaced the file in the 1st post.

if i can get all my parts in, i hope to have the car running by the end of the month.   then i can see where i'm at.
I'm thinking about water/meth injection.  does anyone have experience with tuning for meth. i would imagine timing is the only thing that you would mess with.  any thoughts.

As for the meth tuning, more timing, and less fuel during meth full open, so you should be ok bumping timing a degree or 2 at a time until your CF's starting going up.  Honestly though, you are ok with just timing changes, if you want to have it dialed perfectly then yes fueling will need changed a tiny bit.  The fueling also depends upon nozzle size/mix ratio.  work you timing first, then check your AFR's if its getting to rich. 

thanks, good info. 

so, gwerks gave this file a run in his car, he said that there were 2 hiccups (throttle cut, or slipping clutch maybe?) between 2000 and 3000 rpms.  I didn't get to see any logs though.  my car is on track to be finished by the end of the month so i will be able to iron this out after my clutch is broken in. 
he said launch control sounded good but he didn't launch on it... (worn stock clutch)
i used the 50 rpm dwell time which made about 2lbs boost, he mentioned that 100 rpm might build more boost.
anyone else want to give it a shot, and give me some feedback.

I flashed your file and had the same hesitation issues in the 2-3k RPM range. It is definitely not a slipping clutch. I only have VCDS for logging and wasn't able to capture anything useful. I'll drop to a single measuring block and see if I can get anything better. Also, launch control worked like a charm. I didn't do a full launch since I was on a busy road, but it did exactly what it's designed to do.

Would you mind giving a short list of your performance mods? I'd be interested to know what you've done and how this tune is meant to take advantage of the changes.

Now, on to the feedback... I'm pretty new to tuning but have been reading a lot and have a couple of questions about your tune. I'm going to make the assumption that you're open to both criticism and teaching opportunities since you were open enough to share your tune.

To me, it seems there are a couple of oddities. I don't know if they were intentional or a not. If they're intentional would you mind explaining why so that I and others can learn?

First, you have a pretty big spike in the KFLBTS map at 2000 RPM. What's the reason behind adding so much more fuel at this point? I can understand adding some fuel over the entire range (and even different amounts of fuel in different areas). But, why the spike here? You said that your car is not running right now. Did you make this change when the car was running and had a reason for it? Or did you make it on instinct? Or maybe it was a mistake? (See KFLBTS-rev1.png)

Second, you've changed the KFMLDMX map. Does this mean that you're running a larger MAF? If so, why have you not also changed KLHFM? Additionally, I notice that your top end of this map is actually scaled lower than the stock map. Why is this? (See KFMLDMX-rev1.png)

Third, you've drastically changed the KDFLULS map. I understand the purpose of changing this map, but I'm confused by the direction you've taken with it. It would seem to me that the change you've made has effectively disabled all overboost protection. Your map is allowing up to 1 bar of overboost between 800 and 3000 RPM, 750 mbar at 4000 RPM, and 500 mbar at 5000 to 6000 RPM. Is it even possible for a K03 to produce that much boost? (See KDFLULS-rev1.png)

Finally, a question about LDRXN. You've set the low RPM limit to below the stock S4 limits. I assume this was to keep a smooth onset of boost without trying to cause the turbos to spool to early. But, I wonder what if any effect this would have on the rest of the system. I could see a scenario where the ECU doesn't really want to have that little load in the low RPM range and so it decides to compensate by going outside of your limits. I could be way the hell off here though. (See LDRXN-rev1.png)

As I said, I'm new to tuning. However, I'm the experimental type and it seemed to me that the extra fuel in the 1500-2500 range via KFLBTS could potentially cause or at least contribute to the hesitations. I say that because it will cause an uneven/non-smooth change in the system. Since the ECU is not designed for this it will just add the fuel within the limits of thresholds set elsewhere. Then, once things get beyond thresholds it goes into a reactive mode and begins to cut fuel/timing/boost/whatnot to get everything back on track. So, with this thought in mind and having no justification in hand for the spike I went ahead and smoothed that curve out a bit. I also changed LDRXN a bit so that even on the low RPM range the max load is greater than stock. I flashed this tune and went driving. The hesitation in the 2-3k RPM range was no longer apparent. Since I changed two maps, I cannot be certain which caused the change, but I suspect it was KFLBTS. (See KFLBTS-rev2.png and LDRXN-rev2.png)

I hope that this is helpful, and please, be brutally honest. I've already stated that I'm not an expert by any definition. I'll take any and all criticism as a learning experience. Also, on behalf of those like myself who have the interest and ability to learn I thank you for sharing your tune and for any conversation that comes out of this thread.

Matt

Thanks for the feed back Matt. I definitely welcome constructive criticism and sharing info, which is why I posted this.  I’m glad to see that the launch control worked. 

My mods are: 2.5” downpipes, high flow cats, 3” exhaust, Clutchmasters fx400 clutch, aluminum lwfl, plus some other unimportant crap.  By the 3rd or 4th rev of this tune I hope to be taking advantage of that bigger exhaust, but my car is still apart so I haven’t done any testing yet.

I wasn’t sure how to approach kflbts, so I figured more boost needs more fuel and profiled it after my desired torque curve. The spike was too much and caused problems.  I will smooth that out, or put it back to stock, thanks.

Try rev.2.


I changed the kfmldmx to the max flow of  ko3s so I wouldn’t throw a maf too high code and hit limp mode.  I read about it in a post on here http://www.nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=137.0title=

I will need to scale back kdfluls.  I put it so high so that it wouldn’t give me issues while figuring out the other stuff, like why it will only boost to 10psi.  I read somewhere that you could max the table, but I like built in safety nets so I will be scaling it down at some point. 

I need to rework ldrxn and raise the areas you are referring to at low rpms, although I don’t think I really lowered the load that much, I just tried to smooth out the curve. I think I can spike a little lower in the rpms as well.   


I found the rpm axis maps which I think will come in handy.  I have made the engine speed limit about 7100 rpms and can only adjust maps to about 6500 or so… by changing the axis maps you can change all the other maps so their rpm axis go out to 7100.  I'm not sure if i should touch these. axis rpm timing, load, and knock regulation.

 Any idea the file is boosting 10 psi when the ldrxn is set up for 19?  Also kfmirl is scaled up too, requesting the same load, about 202. 
i'm going to change kfmirl, kfldimx, ldrxn, ldorxn, adn scale back kfmldmx. probly some other stuff too.

You guys are awesome. This forum was setup for open discussion of ME7 tuning, and you guys have embodied it perfectly. Keep up the awesome work.

Two thoughts..
1) If it is a checksum issue it might be worth shipping the file off to MTX and see if they can validate the file. Or, maybe someone on here can check with ECUFix of WinOLS?

2) If they've flashed with Tony's flasher there may be something in the flash log from the rev2 flash that would give some clues.

They were flashing with galletto in boot mode, and tried a stock file, but after the flash the ecu won't start the car.  The starter just cranks.

He did say that the tune was much stronger and smoother now... he successfully flashed and drove on my rev 2.
Gwerks started a thread to cover this.
In the interest of keeping this thread on track we can discuss the flashing issues in that thread.
http://www.nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=415.0title=

I don't yet have a wideband, but my intended approach to KFLBTS was to leave it alone, get boost where I wanted it, and then work on AFR using a wideband and KFLBTS. Another thought that I had was to raise it a little bit (probably just pull the whole map up the Z axis) in order to provide some protection while I tried to get boost right, then start tuning fuel with the wideband.

That makes sense about KFMLDMX, I had seen that to scale the MAF this map would need changed but didn't spend much more time looking at it since I don't intend to get a bigger MAF.

Now your changes to KDFLULS make more sense. I definitely think your rev2 map here makes more sense, but I'm still confused by your changes. What is your reasoning to reduce the allowed overboost to such a small limit on the low RPM range? Are you thinking that part of the hesitation issues are related to overboost? With my level of knowledge I'd be inclined to keep a map that at least resembles the stock curve. I'm trying to understand what your goal is with this map so that I can then understand the changes made.

Your rev2 LDRXN map does closer to what I tried but you kept more of the stock shape (i.e. with the sharp peak where boost drops off). I smoothed it out more but I really didn't have any reason for it. That's just how it ended up.

Changing the RPM axis maps is way above my knowledge level. I couldn't even begin to tell you what effect those changes would have in other parts of the system.

I also wondered about the low boost, but blamed it on the fact that I'm still running a stock exhaust. I know you're aiming for stage 2 so what I end up with will be scaled back a bit from what you end up with. I flashed back to stock yesterday though and noticed that even the stock program was only putting out 10 PSI. I cannot completely explain it, I am going to investigate the link between LDRXN and KFMIRL a bit more. KFLDIMX sounds of interest, too.

I do not think that changing LDORXN will net you anything. That's the max load when overboost compensation is active. Since you don't want to overboost at all, I think I'd prefer to leave that be and instead find any places that you are overboosting and fix that.

You also said that you might scale back KFMLDMX. I don't think that's strictly necessary. It does make sense that you'd need to raise this map since if you ever want to flow anywhere near the limit of the KO3 then you're going to have to tell the ECU that flow rate is acceptable.

I'll let you know if/when I try your rev2.

Kfdluls is what I meant to say I would scale back, not kfmldmx, sorry but the auto correct on my phone kicked in. I left kfmldmx as it was.
I think you.are right about ldorxn, but I saw it done in another tune and thought I would try it.

Another thought about the boost problem. I think that you needs to back a step in the logic that Bosch uses to determine boost. It has been said many times on this forum that you don't tune boost, you tune load. Load determines desired cylinder pressure. One desired pressure is known a calculation is done to come up with desired boost. The ECU then finds the delta of desired and actual boost to set N75 duty cycle.

Since you don't build boost it means that desired cylinder pressure is not where you want it. That in turn means you aren't meeting the load level that you want. Since you've already set LDRXN to allow a peak load that could theoretically reach your desired boost you need to take a step back in that chain and figure out why your requested load in KFMIRL is not being reached.

I notice that you changed KFLDIMX, from the map description I think you may be on the right track. Did it make any difference in boost? You said that gwerks told you it was stronger but I know he wasn't able to test much. Did he say anything about the boost specifically?

Gwerks doesn't have a boost gauge so he couldn't tell me about the boost.  He said the car pulled much harder than before.  I think the two biggest things that helped were my adjustments to Kfmirl and kfldimx.

Kfmirl has the highest requested load much higher than the max ldrxn load in the stock file.

Kfldimx  wasn't bumped up enough on the first revision.

It just occurred to me that we both did somethings drastically wrong. KFLBTS is desired lambda. You need to go back and re-read Nyet's info about desired AFR: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning#Desired_AFR (http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning#Desired_AFR).

KFLBTS becomes active only when calculated EGT becomes too high and calculated lambts is lower than lamfa. For the purposes of this post I'm going to ignore all intricate details that Nyet describes about how the maps relate to each other and how to calculate lambts. What's important is that you actually increased requested lambda not decreased it. Higher lambda values means leaner. Effectively you had disabled any component protection via this map because lambts would most likely always be higher than lamfa. You would continue to run hot and have no way to resolve it except hopefully getting pushed into limp mode.

If you look back at your rev1, you raised the whole map by 0.2 lambda which basically meant that for a large portion of your load/rpm range you were requesting an AFR of 17.69. And, remember that spike I asked about? Yeah, that was a requested AFR of 19.41!

If you want to add fuel under high EGT you need to lower lambda value via KFLBTS. I think this may be a really, really common mistake for newbies like ourselves.

Something that may be helpful to note is that Nyet actually has two different KFLBTS definitions. One map is scaled to lambda (1.0 is stoich) and the other is scaled to AFR (14.7 is stoich).

I've updated my XDF to re-order these maps so that they are listed together. It's attached.

Great post thank you very much! I will go back and re-read desired afr. 

I don't mean to thread jack, but I wanted to let you guys know I posted my base stage 3 tune: http://www.nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=426

I feel this tune is a good starting point as I have tried to do everything "correctly".

It is the tune I run in my daily driver, but it has never been tested on the dyno.

Please use this as a reference of what to do or not to do.  ;D

Thanks, I will take a look.

Been pretty busy lately and just tonight got to take a look at the files...

Jude, yours threw the "17963 Charge pressure: Maximum limit exceeded" code but I'm assuming you've already taken care of that after having looked at Tony's stage 3 file. That's definitely been a help. I've taken that as an example and done just some minor changes for the time being. I don't want to do much until I get a wideband. I'll also be getting a turbo back exhaust here soon so I'll pick up the tuning more then. I'm still going to play, just not very aggressively..

Hope you're having fun with Tony's map as a base!

Yeah I fixed the overboost issue in rev. 3.  Tony's file has been a huge help ;D. I've added some timing and dialed the boost back a little to spike 18 psi, since it was hitting 20. I'll probably post it up tomorrow after I go through it one more time.
BTW, my car is almost done. I bolted up the tranny to the engine and finished the rear suspension, and new clutch pedal wiring today. 6 speed swap, oh yeah baby.

Glad to hear you guys are finding the file helpful. Let me know if anything in there looks weird.

rev 3 is up with changes i made based off tony's file and some feedback i got on my file.
i've added timing and cut the boost back a little.  I recomend using 93 octane.  let me know if you use 91 and if you have knock.
thanks.

Rev 3.1 is up
fixed limp mode from launch control

tony, thanks for consulting with gwerks, my tester, on this.

Version 1.7.0.1 of the ECU flasher has a few more fixes for Gwerks. He is a great tester, since he has an amazing talent for making things not work.  :D

I've also updated my thread for my base stage 3 tune to include the names of everything I changed.

I'm glad you are making progress on your tune. It's nice to see people working on this stuff, since I no longer seem to have any time to pursue it.

lol Yes, gwerks definitely finds the glitches with stuff.
We managed to fix the launch control for rev 2, but rev 3.1 still needs work.
3.1 is said to be great except for the launch control, it has a  much stronger top end.

One thing I noticed about rev3 is that you missed one of the columns in KFDLULS. You raised everything to max except for that column... I assume you meant to raise the whole map.

Yes, thank you.  I will fix it. 
I'm going to try and sort out the launch control on rev 3, it still hits limp mode but in rev 2.1 launch control does work.

I was just looking at the diffs between your rev3.1 and rev2. The most likely candidate to me is timing. I'd be curious if you set the timing maps back to stock if that wouldn't help. The other maps that seem to make sense are ldorxn and ldrxnzk. Although you shouldn't be hitting over boost because of your KFDLULS changes..

Sorry I can't give any more help here, I haven't tried a full launch on any of the revs yet. Partly because I don't have a good place to do it. Partly because I'm a chicken : ) I'd like my drivetrain in one piece, thank you.

Thanks for all the feedback guys, this is great.
my tune will be almost perfect before my clutch is broken in.

elementalvoid i'm pretty sure it's not the timing that is messing up the launch control. i'm pretty sure it was kfdluls.  I fixed rev 2 with a combo of kfdluls and kfmirl

rev 2 is up with launch control fixed
rev 3.2 is up hopefully with launch control fixed and the hiccup at 1800 rpms fixed as well via kflbts
rev 4 is up... more timing Oh yeah baby   :o 93 octane recomended

looking for testers that will try rev 3.2 with 91 octane... i think it will be fine.

Went ahead and tried 3.2 on my bone stock car. Everything flashed fine, started up, drove a bit... Car drove like a bat out of hell. During one 3rd gear pull the car went into limp mode, no CEL. I pulled over tried to read codes, and couldn't get a connection to the ECU. The car wouldn't start up either  :-[

Disconnected the battery for a few minutes and it started right up, but as soon as I shut it off and tried to start again... no dice. Same deal, no ECU connection, and it wouldn't start.

Went ahead and disconnected the battery for a bit, got the flasher to initialize and flashed my old file back on. All is well again. Just not as quick...

Anyways, just wanted to report on my fun tonight! I don't know if I did something retardedly wrong or what, but dang I sure want that tune to work!

edit: after all was said and done and the original tune was back on I pulled this code

17964 - Charge Pressure Control: Negative Deviation
        P1556 - 35-10 - - - Intermittent

thanks... i will take a look.
i have been having issues with my checksum plugin... i'm working with mtx to resolve them currently.
so update the checkusms before you flash.

rev 5 is up...  this rev caused a stock clutch to slip in 2nd gear... after that run a giac x tune was loaded and the clutch did not slip.  super fast. super smooth.  93 octane only... i hope your oh shit handle works.

try rev 4 on 91 octane... i think it will work, if you get knock drive easy till you relfash.

I just tried rev 4 with the same result as 3.2. I must be doing something wrong! I'll attach my log and my original backup file (that works every time I flash it luckily so I'm not stuck!)

Workflow:
Connect everything, Nefmoto open
Car ignition to on position
Connect
Flash new file
Get the success dialogue
Disconnect (with button)
Ignition off
Ignition on
Scan for DCT's and clear P1602
Start car once and it's good
Start car once more, and nadda
Nefmoto won't connect to ECU

Disconnect battery, connect with Nefmoto and flash original backup file and everything works as it should

Did u update the checksums? My plugin isn't working correctly, so they need to be updated.

Did u get limp mode with rev 4?

I didn't take it for a drive so I didn't give it a chance to hit limp mode.

As far as the checksums go, I'm on a new computer and haven't reloaded the software to manipulate anything yet. Just have the flasher... I'll have to find time to get that stuff up and running again.

i asked tony if he would update the checksums for revs 4 and 5... then post them back to this thread.
I want more opinions on my tune. How's it running? send me your logs... do a 1/4 mile. FATS. 
data please.

thanks guys the support from this community is amazing.

I'll give you 91 oct logs as soon those updated files are up!

I realized I have no idea how to really modify the bin files at all, let alone update the checksums. I've only played around with the software, I need to read some more...

I got my checksum plugin fixed, thanks to mtx-electronics.

I've posted up revs 4 and 5 with corrected checksums

Rev 4 is for 91 octane but has only been tested on 93.

Rev 5 is for 93 octane

I don't plan to go any further without tuning it to a specific vehicle... let me know of any issues u find.
I will also make these files without launch control when I get a chance.

I verified checksums in the two files posted with my own checksum software and they are all correct.

Thank you sir.

What was the problem? I'm also using the MTX plugin but have not had any issues. Was it a config problem or is there an updated plugin that I should be looking to get?

I had an older version of tunerpro.  The update came out like a day or 2 after I downloaded the program.1-30-11 or something like that.

Went ahead and flashed rev 4 onto my stock S4 (I'm running 91 octane). Initial impressions are great! Everything so far has been smooth and seamless, haven't hit a hiccup yet.

When I get some time I'll run some logs. Which blocks do you want logged specifically?

I would be happy to see measuring blocks
22, 23, and 24 together

3
26
27
112
115

Third gear pulls if possible please.
Thank you very much.
I'm glad you're enjoying my tune.

Rev 5 is for 93 octane and up only... it will ping badly on 91.

Rev 4 works great for 91 oct with cf's at about 6.
Thanks agentsmith988

Here are some quick 3rd gear pulls (not the best, but they give a baseline I suppose)

This is completely stock on rev 4 91 octane

You can see in the tail end of the pulls that the car drops into soft limp mode. I get a negative deviation code... Guess I have a leak to track down...

Thanks, ill look at these when I get home today... its a jumbled mess to look at on my phone.
Good luck tracking down the boost leak.

I suspect you do not have a boost leak. I finally got around to trying the rev3 and rev4 tune and also threw a negative deviation code with rev4. The car was sluggish and never seemed to build boost properly. I'm absolutely positive I do not have any leaks.

CF logs are attached. My CF's did creep up to the 10 range. I pulled the timing back to stock and it was much better. (attached, checksums updated) Sorry, no logs.

I will make an adjustment and send see if that fixes the soft limp.  I have had success with a couple of cars on rev 4 and 5, I'm not sure what's causing the sluggishness in your case.  I can email u a new rev tomorrow if u would try it please.

i put up stage 1 91 octane... no launch control.
7100 rpm rev limit.
profiled the load curve and adjusted timing.
should fix the soft limp you guys are getting from rev 4.
let me know how it goes.

Alright, I'm about 100 percent sure that I don't have a boost leak. I ran some comparison 3rd gear runs with the tune that's currently on my ECU (I have no idea what it is, but it runs pretty well, I'll include it so you can take a look at it if you'd like).

Soft limp mode is still engaging in the higher RPMs. Took a look at the logs and to me (I may be an idiot), but it looks like timing and requested boost need to come down proportionately in the higher RPM range.

The way it is tuned looks very similar to this one.
  http://www.nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=450.msg3167#msg3167
I suspect unless APR/GIAC/etc all have the same tuning philosophies that your tune is an AWE tune.

Also, I don't know what sort of difference this make, but your tuned file is a T-box file. At least according to the output of setzi62's ME7Check tool.

Can anyone provide information on M-box vs. T-box compatibility?

They are interchangable.

Yeah, sorry I forgot to mention that it's a T-box. I had read somewhere that they were interchangeable so I didn't know think that would be an issue.

Has anyone else been having issues being thrown into limp mode on the 91 octane tune? Or am I the only one? I find it strange that the unknown tune my car is running is running close to the same amount of boost levels and isn't displaying any issues. Or maybe the slight increase in timing and boost is the breaking point for my car...

For what it is worth, I flashed your original tune to my M-box and it would not start. I verified checksums before flashing and they were correct. I did not get any codes. I went ahead and copied all the maps into my stock M-box file and flashed it. The car started four times in a row, no issues. I've attached this M-box version.

Regarding limp mode. What exactly do you mean by limp mode? Do you get RPM limited? Are you just referencing the fact that boost is significantly pulled down? I have not tried the latest version, but my issue was that boost was cut.

Finally, regarding why the two tunes behave differently (specifically around limp mode). To me it doesn't seem to important that they run similar levels of boost/timing. Clearly, your original tune functions fine at these levels so it isn't the boost levels with the new tune. Timing made a difference for me, and Jude pulled some in the latest rev. Instead, I feel it's far more likely that the difference comes from how they are tuned. For example Tony, Nyet, Jude, myself, etc. are all increasing boost levels by increasing requested load while your original tune seems to be increasing boost by increasing requested/optimal torque and by reducing or eliminating the effect of the ECU cutting boost during overboost.

These two approaches will yield similar boost levels but with, I would suspect, drastic differences in side effects. But what I think your problem comes down to is that Jude's is a work in progress while your original tune likely has tens (hundreds?) of hours invested by professional tuner(s?) with small fixes over time for customers. It's more polished.

My 2 cents.

My understanding was that M-box tunes could be flashed on to T-boxes, but that T-box tunes couldn't be flashed (without modification) to other boxes.

I didn't mean any disrespect at all, really. I was only suggesting an idea that might help improve the tune. I'm really new to all of this so I probably come off as a little bit of an idiot at times. :)

It's only recently that I've been able to even tell that the tune that came on my car wasn't the original programming. Even so, I hope that file at least gave some good ideas for future tunes (wherever it came from).

And yes, I've been getting boost cut. During WOT in the upper RPM range, it cuts boost down to 5 lbs until I restart the car. And I just have a negative boost deviation code stored (no CEL).

I'll keep reading and tinkering, and hopefully soon I'll be able to help out a little bit more than just running logs!

I guess we just proved your understanding about M vs T box since I was unable to use your T-box file. It was easy enough to copy over the maps though. I did drive that tune today and it felt pretty weak in comparison to what I've been running. I'm not certain why though.

None taken. I didn't intend any remarks to lead you to believe that I had. I'm new to this as well so we're both learning as we go. My comments were an attempt to explain how I see the difference between the two tunes and why one is causing problems while the other isn't.

I think your M file and the one in the other thread I linked to definitely give some ideas. I've been reading this site, nyet's, etc. since I bought my S4 last August and had never seen a tune approached in that manner before. It is a very different approach to tuning that is advocated on the sites I listed. That's actually why I took the time to copy it into a M-box file and post it; so that I and others could see what was done and how it behaves in comparison.

Here's hoping jude can work that out for you. I'll see if I can get some time this weekend to run his tune and get some logs.

Thanks, I'll be looking forward to those logs. I want to get this ironed out soon, rev 4 has a date with the dyno after a few more tweaks. That knock control thread has me thinking...
How is your tune coming elementalvoid? I'm looking forward to giving it a go.

a little update. 
i've been working with several testers now... and i've made several revisions based on logs.  i am only developing my 91 octane stage 1 file in this thread now... too many different files makes it too confusing for me.

if anyone else would like to send me logs i would love to look at them... please specify what octane fuel you are running.

i feel like boost is not building as fast as it could. if anyone has any input as to how i could fix that i would be greatful. i have tried several kfldimx settings and none seem to yeild me that "faster spool" that i'm looking for.
i seem to be hitting 17 lbs max boost at 4000 rpms... this boost should be hitting 1200rpms earlier.

if boost is slow to build try to adjust the n75 control to open later

Unless you post logs, there is very little anybody can do to help.

logs
not the best but it's what i have to work with... thanks to agentsmith988 who provided these to me, otherwise i would have no logs. i have others from him but these are the latest.  the first 2 are in 3rd gear and the rest are 2nd... sorry no n75 duty cycle on the 3rd gear pulls.

after finally riding in one of these cars running my tune today i dont think the spool is that bad. i guess only looking at graphs and number tables starts to play tricks on you.

i rode in a car i tuned for 93 and it pulled very hard.  the guy is taking it to the dyno this week hopefully, and i will have some numbers to put up.

Ugh. Try to get ecux and please use a graphing program

lol, i wish every on had ecux... i need it badly.
i just got so used to looking at number tables, i can just make some graphs in excell i guess.

http://nyet.org/cars/ECUxPlot/

now all i need is ecux... i'll post those logs up in graph form later.

i put some graphs in the log files...

ECUxPlot can read VCDS logs.

Also why not just post the images?

nynet pm sent.... pics... there is a little more data in the excell files though, which is why i posted them that way.
red= specified boost
bule= actual boost
(http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww142/judeisnotobscure/boostrequestedvsactual.jpg)
(http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww142/judeisnotobscure/boostrequestedvsactual002.jpg)
(http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww142/judeisnotobscure/boostrequestedvsactual003.jpg)
(http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww142/judeisnotobscure/boostrequestedvsactual004.jpg)

Looks fine to me.

To me too for second gear.

Thanks guys, that's what I thought after finally riding  in a car with this tune.

Can someone do a checksum check on this for me?  I'm going to do a little testing of this tune myself, but I wanted to code out the EGTs and rear O2s. Still very new to this so I'm not 100% sure I did it correctly (followed the directions on s4wiki).  :-\

ME7Check found no checksum errors in this file.

Thanks, Matt.

But now, when I look at the file I supposedly "modified", the values I set to zero, then saved are back to where they were before I modified it.  What am I doing wrong here?

For example: I set this to 0 (as shown),then saved, then saved the bin file.  But when I reopen the file it's back to 1?
(http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/vv75/dbartley82/Car%20Stuff/tunerpro.jpg)

after you save it in the scalar or map you have open, are you saving the file as well.  you also have to use the save button in the top left of the screen... with how much tunerpro crashes, i save the file after every change i make.
first i use the save button in the map i have open to apply the changes i made to the open file.
then i use the file save button  in the menu bar at the top of the screen to save the file.

I just flashed the most recent file version to my car and took it for a spin.  I'm still throwing a P1454 (EGT bank 1) code, so I guess my write-out didn't work?  The file itself though seems to work really well.  Pulls hard, boost comes on quick, it spikes to 18psi then holds at 15psi for a bit, then starts to drop around 5000rpm or so.

Capt. did you ever fix the issue??

Any update on the file? looking to flash this file soon.

No update on the file as it's meant to be a guide on what change when tuning.  capt. did fix his issue, it was a bad definition file.

You will have no problems running this file on your car if it's an h, m, or t box.
otherwise you will need to change a few maps.

I didnt find this anywhere but what is the boost? Is it still the same as in the first post?

Yes, 16 psi taper to 11 psi.

This thread hasnot been replied for long, but i have a question on sth.

I looked at the files and tryed to learn what has been changed.

I compared the ori m fil with the AWE-M file that has been put together from the t-file.

What are the adresses / changes on adress 1FC1A and the following?

I could not find anything yet.

And sthg else: I have a D-Box, and I wonder about negative Ignition angles in the maps.. Has anyone else had a look on the d-box maps?
Normally they should be near similar to the other boxes i think, because of the nearly identical hardware and fuel need.

thanks forward :)

Is this still a good mild file? Also, does this still have EGT's in it? I'd like to keep my factory EGT's as I just replaced them and would like to keep close to stock as possible, with a little extra spice. ;)

Where is Rev 5 posted up at that is talked about it this thread? I can't seem to find it.

I believe that all tuned bin files were removed when Admin removed the "Tuned Files" sector.