NefMoto

Jives with my understanding? How are they setting IRL to 250, 260, or even 280 without touching IOP? This goes against everything I understand. It's not a fluke, EPL does it, MRC does it, etc, etc, etc.

What gives?

I have a Nuespeed tuned file for my 1.8t with stock IOP.

From phila's analysis, it should have no effect at WOT.

I understand that, but I find it hard to believe WOT is the only consideration when tuning.

I am of the understanding that many tuners make changes to the file to achieve an end result the best they know how/can....  Many tuners don't follow the actual FR/rules of changing the ECU parameters like Bosch intended.  Sometimes I think they do it because tricking the ECU instead of touching any real TQ related maps makes things far easier.

Of course I could just be talking out of my ass lol

i wondered this myself, i usually see, stock IOP values, raised IOP axis, and just the last column of IRL changed

ofcourse this was kind of what i did to mine, but i also am happy with the part throttle on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJgWq_kSR9w     lol

That seems to be around these parts the way to properly "modify" a stock map to keep the ECU happy as much as possible.

I can't help to think that if people really knew how to setup one of these ECU's from scratch of how much more you could change the dynamics of the car.  I find for the most part when it's done like that the car(s) feel asleep and holding back (I've said this numerous times in the past, some people dismiss it or think I'm crazy) as if there is still too much behind the scenes trickery going on in the ECU vs. say the same car/setup with just a stand alone and a manual gas pedal.

For one, KFMIRL has nothing to do with it.

It's all about rl_w, rlmax_w, and wped.

I'm not familiar with their files, but they are likely experiencing intervention at part throttle.

Also, underscaling load makes desired load completely irrelevant.


This is crap IMO.

Is this the file I sent?

It drives very nicely, but there's  a strange few tables in there!

Most of them just disable torque monitoring.

FF'd KFMI_UM, etc

Just one of the many that I don't quite understand.

This does nothing on it's own.

Level two should never be reached unless level one limits are tampered with.

^^ From when I played around with it, loosening KFMI_UM makes the car much smoother if you're making the car agressive.

It has nothing to do with how the car runs. You'll definitely know it if you have level two intervention.

KFMIOP map is one of the difficult understanding map. It cannot stand alone when calibrating and there is no possibility to have maximum load request if you leave it to 85% for example.

Maximum tuning of this map becomes only if you set load axis at ecu max load (191.7 at ME7) and the value at these RPM 100%!
Becareful because if you DON'T recalibrate the whole map at low and mid loads and low and mid RPM correctly, then you may have part load issues.

Of course you can say "Dude, I will deactivate torque monitoring and all will be fine"
Nop! It will be run a little bit better but not as smooth as stock. You can check it on your own, drive the car with low loads at part load 120-130% and go to block 003-060. You will see the throttle playing and the accPed stable ;)

Bosch isn't stupid to leave torque monitoring enabled.


The best in my opinion is to calibrate correct the KFMIOP and deactivate torque monitoring ONLY if you go further than a simple stage 1st file!

I really wish that people would stop perpetuating these myths.

The axis is NOT a charge limit.

Correct.

Tune KFMIOP properly and you will not ever have to mess around with torque limit maps or deal with level 2 intervention.

Yes yes, but my point is these guys aren't touching IOP. Conventional wisdom would suggest massive intervention. Thus, the thread!

lol

Do you know that they aren't getting torque intervention at part throttle?

Anything else torque related touched?

Is load underscaled?

How aggressive is LDRXN?

Very aggressive. I'm happy to post screenshots of specific maps, tell me what you want to see.

EPL underscales load, at least from what I've seen.  Stock-ish MLHFM for 85mm MAF + ~.07x KRKTE for 52 lb/min injectors.

Hm... i always do rework on whole kfmiop and kfmi_um (easiest way is jyst to change its axes to be same as kfmiop and then fill the table with kfmiop values). And whenever i tried touching kfmiop without doing kfmi_um i got lvl2 intervention (basically acc pedal gone :D)

Dont know if theres easier way doing this buf for me it is always kfmiop==kfmi_um == no lvl2 intervention and agressive as f... part throttle. Oh and i always have to rescale all the other maps that share same axes.

You get level 2 intervention because you FF the level 1 torque limit maps.

Who said that axis is a charge limit??? You just create a more detailed map because you will run at higher loads.

Bingo

What are you using to checksum when changing the UM maps?  setzi's checksum will not correct when I touch these.. Are you using nyet's checksum corrector?

winOLS

Send me your file if you needed it summed NB.

(http://i43.tinypic.com/bh0jud.jpg)

John, you're using the wrong definition for that file.

It's a T Box, from an ABT S4 tune.

MY bad, I was playing with an Mbox last time I played with TP.