NefMoto

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/1560771_817185887849_918530986_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/11546_817185932759_1292935636_n.jpg)

Seem to be having trouble with request boost. At peak I'm requesting 15.1psi which is 2060mb actual is around 13psi. Timing curve I'll have to work on smoothing there is no timing pull. Engine load looks about right for this boost pressure and I'm not exceedingor even close to  LDRXN, also since I am not experiencing knock LDRXNZK shouldn't be a factor if I'm not mistaken. I figured 185% in IRL would net at least 17psi. IRL isn't maxed out and I don't notice any intervention taking place. Kind of stumped

KFTARX

I figured with the iats werent hitting 50*+c in the winter months so I left everything stock from 60ish and up. Feels like your right I set all multipliers to 1 and I believe that did the trick but still need to make logs.

Forget target boost, figure out why actual isn't meeting target.

I'm right with ya Phila_dot. No reason why actual shouldn't be hitting target. Figuring either a decent leak in the charge side or possible tear in the DV . I already informed project owner to look into pressure testing. I figured someone here would pick up on that.  :P

(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1625666_817946229119_166008262_n.jpg)

(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/1538632_817946293989_1330739180_n.jpg)

From what I've read so far setting KFTARX to 1 (and when you do this I assume this is simply a multiplier for boost request) which should have corrected the issue... Could this have something to do with specified load passing spec. corrected?

I spotted KFTARX wasn't setup with the correct resolution so I corrected that hopefully that will fix the issue. I've come across threads on here where some users have flattened LDIATA but I'm not sure if I have to do that in this case. LDIATA is a correction factor for load regulation but I'm not sure what the values are. Possibly % correction in the n75 duty? So I assume set it to 0 or at least lower the values.

But my first step will be KFTARX again

rlmax_w is not the issue as it isn't limiting rlmx_w.

Did you log rlsol_w?

Did you touch any of the boost pid?

I havn't been able to figure out the me7logger yet so I'm not 100% sure I'm logging the correct engine load block in vagcom. I assumed engine load (specified) would be rlsol_w.

I didn't touch any other map in boost PID besides increasing the limiter in IMX. I also maxed HBN at 3.98

I've finally got the hang of the data logger so I'll check rlsol_w next still hitting some sort of limit with plsol. Last logs show from 2040mb to 1980mb peak request.

rlsol_w is desired load, specified load is rlmx_w.

You increased what IMX limiter and why?

You have zero PID response despite underboosting and holding at least one full psi below setpoint.

KFLDIMX I raised because its defined as integral control limits for charge pressure regulation. My interpretation of that is that it limits the duty cycle of the n75. I'll try reverting back to stock if thats not recommended.

You'll generally never need to raise it, only lower it.. and when you have to adjust it, it will be obvious

Heres the last log I took with rlsol, 168-172 request's I've seen. Request still hovers around 2030 - 1980mb with IMX back to stock.

You will get more comments if you post graphs

(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/1508043_820557705699_924977677_n.jpg)

Same boost curve as chart posted before. Sorry I was working on it wasn't sure if some of you preferred posting up the log.

Actual boost pressure still isn't meeting requested?

Have you confirmed that there are no mechanical problems?

Correcting this would be my first priority.

Original turbos and stock boost PID?

Rlsol_w isn't being limited by rlmax_w, so that's clearly not the issue with low target boost pressure. Is rlsol_w following KFMIRL? If not, then the torque request is too low possibly from torque intervention or something else within the torque model (possibly KFMIOP).

As I said, I would concentrate on getting actual to meet target first.

(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/1898049_820674696249_1981380359_n.jpg)

Well here is IOP and IRL.  IRL is stock. Thinking back on I remember scaling up IRL and IOP. Ddillenger suggested keeping IRL stock and I never changed IOP back to stock. I think that maybe where the intervention is coming from. So in IOP I added 5-7% torque and rescaled the load axis. I'll go back to the stock IOP values but keep the load axis and go from there.

Torque request is fine, look at KFMIRL and rlsol_w.

I see that rlsol_w is slightly lower then IRL. So that would indicate torque intervention taking place. I will revert back to stock IOP and keep the axis the same. Since I changed IOP's load axis how can you re-interpolate kfwzop/kfmds? I was hoping I didn't have to do this.

It's not lower, you're not going to be fully in the 99% column.

Look at your KFMIOP, your highest max torque request is ~85%.

 :o Now I'm understanding this relationship. I've been under the impression IOP was simply just used in the internal torque calculation but its also used as a cap for IRL. Tapp has all the IOP/IRL maps maxed out so I'm not used to working with stock, I believe he also underscales mafs to prevent intervention (you should see what KFLF looks like in some of the files). So I'll either have to max last column in IOP or rescale the axis to peak IRL(which is probably what I'll do then rlsol_w will be closer to 180% request.

So plsol is being capped by IOP. I also have to pressure test the system. Thanks for your help phila_dot

Just to update this thread and bring it all together for future reference of other members on here. I took a log of n75 duty cycle which ended up being pegged at IMX 94.9%. In conclusion that would  point me to either a clocked up solenoid or boost leak (pressure tested charge system nothing obvious). So we will swap the n75 valve out and go from there.

I still am not sure why the boost request be stuck at 2110, because hbn is still high.

If you want to avoid ps_w limits, underscale + KFLF hacks are unavoidable w/o using the 5120 hack.

http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=2747.0

Wow that makes perfect sense now why he would do that. It's no wonder using maestro made my head spin. Using his base file for v8 s4 maf stage 3 files where seeing such low actual engine loads(I've tuned around 5 different cars all with that problem on maestro), when I would try and rescale the maf instead of using his klaf(reverted to stock) I'd start experience intervention. I would keep backtracking and end up just end up right whre I started. It would have been great if he would have told me the maf was underscaled for that purpose instead of making the customer feel as though they were idiots.