NefMoto

Guys, I need some help. I have been working with this car for a long time; just to make a simple stage 1 tune  ::)
The problem is that I cannot get requested lambda quickly enough at low revs when the turbo starts to spool.
It gets (dangerously) lean... and the problem here is lambda requests. (actual lambda follows requested fine)

I have attached logs and original file (below is an extent)

Timestamp   RPM   Load   Boost (Req)   Boost (Act)   Lambda Act   Lambda Req     /min    %    mbar    mbar       657.85   2000   99.2   1820.0   1300.0   0.961   1.000 658.11   2080   110.5   1840.0   1420.0   0.969   1.000 658.35   2160   118.8   1860.0   1530.0   0.945   0.938 658.61   2240   127.1   1910.0   1660.0   0.922   0.922 658.85   2320   139.1   1970.0   1810.0   0.930   0.922 659.11   2440   154.9   2050.0   2000.0   0.922   0.914 659.35   2520   167.7   2110.0   2110.0   0.914   0.906 659.60   2680   172.2   2110.0   2120.0   0.899   0.906 659.86   2760   173.7   2110.0   2090.0   0.914   0.899 660.10   2880   172.2   2110.0   2070.0   0.906   0.899 660.36   3000   175.9   2110.0   2100.0   0.906   0.891 660.60   3160   175.9   2140.0   2110.0   0.899   0.891 660.86   3280   175.9   2140.0   2110.0   0.891   0.883 661.10   3360   174.4   2140.0   2120.0   0.875   0.883 661.36   3520   172.9   2150.0   2130.0   0.891   0.883 661.60   3640   172.2   2130.0   2140.0   0.891   0.875 661.85   3720   171.4   2130.0   2140.0   0.875   0.875 662.10   3880   171.4   2120.0   2130.0   0.891   0.875 662.35   3960   169.2   2120.0   2110.0   0.867   0.867 662.60   4080   169.9   2100.0   2100.0   0.867   0.867 662.85   4200   168.4   2090.0   2090.0   0.867   0.867 663.10   4320   168.4   2080.0   2070.0   0.867   0.860 663.35   4440   167.7   2070.0   2050.0   0.860   0.860 663.59   4520   169.2   2070.0   2050.0   0.860   0.860 663.85   4640   169.2   2060.0   2040.0   0.852   0.860 664.10   4760   169.9   2050.0   2040.0   0.844   0.860

You can see that @ 2100mBar boost request the lambda is 0.906 ... and I have seen higher in same situations.
(In the above example the time is short before enrichment starts, but please have a look at the attached logfiles)

Someone on this forum gave me a hint that it could be TLAFA. But that seems to be only 0.2s according to this ME7 logger -log. See below.
No problem with other 1.8T, LAMFA always works (if it is not a BEX engine - it has the same "problem" ;)

(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4254.0;attach=6783;image)


Logfiles attached. The file : a4_log_20130404_142045.xls is based on a stock run to try to figure out TLAFA delay value.

So, I'm pretty much out of ideas  :( If someone could help in any way I would appreciate it.

Cheers
/Lars

Set TLAFA to zero and raise ZKLAMFAW considerably

Thanks. One problem is that I can't find neither TLAFA, nor ZKLAMFAW. There are no suitable damos available and crosscorrelation (based on logged value) with other me7 damos gives several options for TLAFA address. I have tried many of them...

Could anyone perhaps help me with locations of these?

It looks like TLAFA is already zero in all ME7.1 2.7t files that I can find it in... does that sound right?

The time it takes for the value in lamfaw_w to propagate to lamfaws_w is 0.2 seconds according to log. So TLAFA should be 0.2 in my opinion.
The question is where it is located.... Any clever souls with IDA setup for C167 and ME7 memory layout are more than welcome to give it a shot :)

ZKLAMFAW i think is at 26F10. But should this really be raised? According to FR it is the timeconstant (T) for a first order lowpass.

val(new) = val(old) + (in - val(old)) * dT / T.

So if the expression dT/T goes towards zero, the new val = old val. So we would like T = 0 ?

KFTLAFA_0_A at 195F9
KFTLAFA_1_A at 19629
KLTLAFAKR at 19659

I'll let you figure out map sizes by yourself, this should already help you I think.

@IamwhoIam : Thank you very much!

Is KLTLAFAKR same as KFLAMKR = f(nmot,rl) in my ME7.5 FR? (The only one me7 doc I have)

You suggest I use this to take care of the lean situation instead of ZKLAMFAW and TLAFA?

I'm not familiar with your ECU, but that's not how it works in the S4 M box.

http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=2637.0title=

KFTLAFA=TLAFA as a 3-dimensional map

Ok, so 8bit, 8x6, factor 0.1, axis are load vs rpm? Correct?


Was this correct also? And could it be used instead of messing with KFTLAFA and KLTLAFAKR to achieve same goal?

@phila_dot, thank you. Then there could be a difference i think....

EDIT: 8x6

Maybe one axis is gear... 

axises are RPM vs gear (gangi)

KLTLAFAKR is Verzögerungszeit Lambda Fahrerwunsch bei Zündwinkelspätverstellung

KFLAMKR is Wichtungsfaktor für Anfettung bei Zündwinkelspätverstellung and that's located at 19128 6x6 map RPM vs load, factor 0.007813.

Ok, but I must still alter ZKLAMFAW because, even if the delay from lamfaw_w to  lamfaws_w is set to zero using KFTLAFA, there will still be a delay in the lowpass filter influenced by ZKLAMFAW ??

Thank you for all input, guys. Really appreciate it.
I will do a few logs with TLAFA set to zero, but I would like to try changing ZKLAMFAW also.
The only place I have found something when 2d-correating is at 26F10, but it doesn't match up as good as it should.

Anyone know where it is in this binary?

KFZKLAMFAW_0_A at 26D88 8x6 16-bit
KFZKLAMFAW_1_A at 26DE8 8x6 16-bit

@IamwhoIam : I'm very thankful that you shared this info. I suspect it will come in handy for others too...
I will prepare a few files, and get back with logs here.
Thanks all for the help so far :)



 

@IamwhoIam : Take a look at the picture, please. I have found KFALMKRL directly after KFALMKR. Can you confirm this?
It looks a bit strange, like if the addresses for both maps are defined in the middle of a bigger map...

(http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4254.0;attach=6824;image)

KFLAMKR_0_A ist at 1958D
KFLAMKR_1_A at 195B1

I don't know how I managed to post 19128 as a start address for it in my previous post, my bad.

Zeroing out TLAFA and increasing the time constant for ZKLAMFAW seems to have done the trick.
Thanks for all help, guys  :)

im with bfb and made KFTLAFA to 0, but how much is reasonable for ZKLAMFAW ? Now im with original value which is 10900. Thanks