|
Title: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: ddillenger on August 18, 2013, 12:07:18 AM Big, laggy turbo, trying to numb positive deviation diagnosis. Other than EDLDRP, what are the preferred methods, specifically for ME7.5?
My file is attached. I'm leaning towards 1A231 Title: Re: Location of EDLDRP in my file and preferred method of + pos. deviation threshold Post by: nyet on August 18, 2013, 12:47:27 AM How different is that file's positive deviation process from the 2.7t?
Title: Re: Location of EDLDRP in my file and preferred method of + pos. deviation threshold Post by: ddillenger on August 18, 2013, 12:51:28 AM So the address I thought might have been it (directly after DLUL) I now believe to be DPLPLGD
Nye: superficially, very different. DLULS is 8x1, with the addition of DLUL (single byte). Also, on the subject of deviation, anyone know the names of the time constants for overboost and underboost detection? Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: ddillenger on August 22, 2013, 03:43:41 PM Anyone?
Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: userpike on August 22, 2013, 07:03:58 PM Its at 19A2F in my file I believe.
Schwelle Regelabweichung für Diagnose LDR-Regelabweichung positiv (1x1) /hPa - 0 - 0 300.0 Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: ddillenger on August 22, 2013, 07:21:24 PM Its at 19A2F in my file I believe. Schwelle Regelabweichung für Diagnose LDR-Regelabweichung positiv (1x1) /hPa - 0 - 0 300.0 Acronym? Also, I forget which file's yours. Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: userpike on August 22, 2013, 07:33:47 PM That one above is EDLDRP
This one is @109A1 (TSFLDRA)Fehlersummenzeit: Ladedruckregelabweichung (1x1) 1 : 1 Umrechnug (dez/hex)/ - 0 - 0 255.00 out of my 032HS Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: userpike on August 22, 2013, 07:37:51 PM 19A38 (TDLDRA) Time threshold for Dia LDR - control deviation - Zeitschwelle für Dia LDR - Regelabweichung (1x1)
/s - 0 - 0 3.0000 Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: Bische on August 23, 2013, 11:19:12 AM 27E8B
Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: ddillenger on August 24, 2013, 01:26:17 AM 27E8B Bische: That address isn't accurate for the file I posted. That looks like KLDLULS (overboost deviation, which I have at 27F47). I'm not looking to disable overboost diagnosis, but rather underboost. Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: Bische on August 24, 2013, 04:52:23 AM Bische: That address isn't accurate for the file I posted. That looks like KLDLULS (overboost deviation, which I have at 27F47). I'm not looking to disable overboost diagnosis, but rather underboost. Oh, I misread the SW version #. But, im not quite sure I follow here. You have set a target boost that cannot be reached, and then you want to disable the diagnosis throwing a code for underboosting? :) Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: ddillenger on August 24, 2013, 07:26:30 AM I'm just having issues with underboost codes periodically on part throttle. I have boost following requested perfectly on WOT runs, I'd just like to numb deviation detection a bit so the code doesn't pop up during casual driving.
Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: Bische on August 24, 2013, 09:38:47 AM I have never had that problem, how big turbo are we talking?
But that would be handled in the map on my screenshot anyway. Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: ddillenger on August 24, 2013, 10:16:22 AM Bische: I checked the map posted, my file has different values (Factor 5*x).
Also, is the axis right before it? Factor? I assume it's HPA (the axis) not U/Min like I've seen. DLUL is deviation detection in general, not just for overboost like KFDLULS? Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: ddillenger on August 25, 2013, 11:25:02 PM So I have the underboost sorted by setting LDRXN to something a bit more reasonable for such a laggy turbo. I'm still getting code P0234 (overboost), mainly when letting off after a run. Looks like the N249 being missing may be the issue here, but I need to eliminate it. I have FF'd KLDLUL (or what I believe to be 27F47, 8x1), and DLUL (1 byte), but still getting the code. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: userpike on August 26, 2013, 12:10:42 PM So I have the underboost sorted by setting LDRXN to something a bit more reasonable for such a laggy turbo. I'm still getting code P0234 (overboost), mainly when letting off after a run. Looks like the N249 being missing may be the issue here, but I need to eliminate it. I have FF'd KLDLUL (or what I believe to be 27F47, 8x1), and DLUL (1 byte), but still getting the code. Thoughts? could you put a resistor in for the n249 to see if that is indeed where your DTCs are coming from? or just leave it plugged in without the vacuum lines attached. Why do you need to eliminate the n249? I thought they were a good thing. You couldn't just manipulate the diverter valve maps to open sooner or stay open longer or something? (I haven't messed with them personally so I don't really know) maybe the turbo is so huge that it needs 2 diverter valves? jk ldrxnzk? Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: ddillenger on August 26, 2013, 12:56:23 PM The N249 has been coded out via ESKONF and TMDLDUV to disable plausibility diagnosis. That's not the issue, rather the problem is the boost spike that results from not having it to open the diverter.
Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: userpike on August 26, 2013, 04:15:42 PM The N249 has been coded out via ESKONF and TMDLDUV to disable plausibility diagnosis. That's not the issue, rather the problem is the boost spike that results from not having it to open the diverter. KFLDRQ0,1,2 maybe? could you adjust the DV preload spring rate to open at the spike but stay closed for target boost? Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: Bische on August 28, 2013, 12:18:27 PM Bische: I checked the map posted, my file has different values (Factor 5*x). Also, is the axis right before it? Factor? I assume it's HPA (the axis) not U/Min like I've seen. DLUL is deviation detection in general, not just for overboost like KFDLULS? Mine is scaled for 5120, so mine is 10*x and those values are the stock ones. Axis before map. I have not looked at the code as I have not had any problems with deviation after correcting this map, and my understanding is that it covers deviation in general -both positive and negative. What exact code are you getting? I have a feeling you are poking in the wrong place.. Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: ddillenger on August 28, 2013, 12:21:05 PM Currently, P0234.
The axis is HPA, factor? Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: Bische on August 28, 2013, 08:18:22 PM hPa, factor 20*x for 5120, 10*x stock scaling.
What turbo is on there? WG setup? Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: Bische on August 28, 2013, 08:29:36 PM Here you go
Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: ddillenger on August 28, 2013, 08:40:40 PM Here you go Thanks Bische, address is what I had, my axis was incorrect, but I suppose that's irrelevant. Even with KLDLUL FF"d I get P0234. I ended up modifying the LDR timers and it's yet to throw a code. As for the turbo, it's a GT2871 with a .86AR hotside. Doesn't spool until 5k+. Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: nyet on August 28, 2013, 10:34:32 PM Even with KLDLUL FF"d I get P0234. I ended up modifying the LDR timers and it's yet to throw a code. WHOA. Ok. I thought it was just me, but i had the same issue in me7.1 mbox... nothing worked until i messed with the timers. Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: aysix on August 28, 2013, 11:10:51 PM Thanks Bische, address is what I had, my axis was incorrect, but I suppose that's irrelevant. Even with KLDLUL FF"d I get P0234. I ended up modifying the LDR timers and it's yet to throw a code. As for the turbo, it's a GT2871 with a .86AR hotside. Doesn't spool until 5k+. GT3071. Not a silly GT2871. Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: Bische on August 31, 2013, 01:00:00 AM Mismatch deluxe :D
Never encountered overboost code on liftoff spike though, sounds strange actually. Title: Re: Preferred method of increasing threshold for positive deviation detection Post by: nyet on August 31, 2013, 09:51:46 AM Mismatch deluxe :D Never encountered overboost code on liftoff spike though, sounds strange actually. Well DLUL is only for underboost (positive deviation) anyway isn't it? on the 2.7t the two paths are very very different at least.. |