NefMoto

Hi everyone,

I think I'm ready to load my 1.8t AUM with AUQ Maps and would like some help on checking that everything is good before flash writing!
I've extracted the file from the ecu, defined it since no definition file was available for this one and then I copied the data from the maps that were different in the AUQ to the AUM. I now have a .bin file with corrected checksum by winols 2.24, double checked with a ME7Check GUI (The one with the NOOB user interface since I don't know about cmd line so can't use the other soft).

The ECU is a 06A906032FC 0261207204 1037354889 mounted on a 2001 Audi A3 AUM engine.

Here are the maps modified (the one I found differnces between the two versions) :
KFFDLBTS (factor delta lambda for component protection)
KFBTS (Lambda for component protection)
LDRXN
LDRXNZK
VMAXNB (Maximum allowable speed, setted at 250.16, and went for a 299.99. yes, just in case and just because)

You will find attached :
-The file I read flashed from the car's ECU
- The winols file
- The .BIN file supposingly ready to flash THAT I WANT TO BE SURE OF


So if some flash genius could give me a hand on being sure the file is good and ready and avoir me to brick my ECU on first attempt haha, that'd be great !

Johan

The rest of the files

AUQ has K03S.

What you are doing is not correct.

And AUM is K03s too?

Maybe you could help him instead?

I think it varies between the K03s and a K03 on an AUM, depending on which car it is in. I have definitely seen K03s on AUM before.

AFAIK, all AUM's came with K03s.  They were all DBW, too.  AGU's, sure, came with K03.

Check to make sure you're requesting enough load, and I'd say you're good to go.

NO AUM came with a k03 turbo.

Well... While you were arguing on a "s" on a turbo reference (everyone know aum and auq are the same anyway) , i put my b*lls on the hood and flashed it and god +30hp feels good. Everything is working perfectly and for the first time, the engine feels like it is pulling the way it should (butt dyno approved and no timing pull + lambda showing good/percect figures)

So in order to put the auq maps that differ in the aum ecu :
1. Definition File based on aum ecu
2. Ctrl c + ctrl v the 4 maps that are different ( see previous posts)
3. Checksums checking
4. Enjoy 30hp free oem hp

Could probably just flash a 180bhp file straight on providing everything matches up.

When you say "providing everything matches up" do you mean that definition file must be fully compatible ? Or what do you mean ?

If yes, that was not the case unfortunately.

Bootrom I believe it is.   A lot of 7.5 ecu's are cross flashable.

Simple if you have 032FC just flash with 032HN and boom 180hp

Didn't look at engine code :/

In this case as said above, should have just flashed 032HN.
Full damos for that as well, shall you want to take it further.

Just to know and learnm how do you assess on wheather it is crossflashable or not ? This point scares me and I prefer to stay on the ori map.

Also does a crossflash can affect the immo in such cases ?

Cross flash usually does not affect immo (in this case the flash is from the same car).

To check if the software will boot, on some software versions it is enough to compare the first 32k of the binary (where ROM is contained in first page of flash).
If the first 32k match, it will boot for sure. However, on some versions the first page of flash no longer contains the ROM, in these cases the only way is to read out the processor content of both ECU's.

If you have access to bootmode, then just simply try it. Either it works or not. Besides checking the first 32k, a good rule of thumb is to not cross flash between different chassis... as sensors might be wired to different pins, throttle might not work and so on.

I'll add to that:

Don't crossflash an immo2 binary to an immo3 ecu or vice versa without using the matching eeprom.

Hello wayne.
I can´t see your AUQ reference file.
But didn´t you find differences in KFZW or KFMLDMX for example?
Thanks

I think I remember well when I modified my AUM file, all the maps between 032hj (aum) and 032hn (auq) were pretty the same except few of them

KFLBTS (a bit leaner, because LDRXN is higher in auq) and KFLDRL, but I think timing maps were the same

KFLDIMX (n75 map) was the same, only the last cell of the linearization (previously said as KFLDRL) was 75% in aum and 95% in auq... even today I don't understand why is 75% in aum, I changed it to 95%

KFMLDMX -> If I remember well 125g/s in aum and 145g/s in auq. I raised it, but in the first attempt I didn't touch it and the car was reading more than 150g/s (today 164) and ran well and without any DTCs, so I don't know this map's mission

Thanks.
I was asking because i have seen AUQ files with differences in KFZW.
And with 79,2 value in the last cell of KFLDRL.

Any of you have make logs including EGT before and after remap?
Just thinking about a way to estimate EGT.

I've got some of them, let me find a couple of good examples and I'll post the cvs here for you (Eres español?, lo digo por lo de biela jajaja)

Anyway, I recomend you to forget about egt, 150 and 180 hp engines don't have egt sensor and they simply calculate it. That's kind off accurate in a range of load, but when you tune the car, the error becomes quite big.

The way I've chosen and much more people did is just assume the egt threshold will be passed so LAMBTS will manage the spec lambda: LAMBTS = KFLBTS + (KFDLBTS * KFFDLBTS). So, if you choose this method, you'll have to tune KFLBTS with the desired lambda you want and zero KFDLBTS or KFFDLBTS


Edit: I only logged Intake temperature, not exhaust... but I remember they went higher than 800º... Anyway, calculated ones are useless so forget about it.

Yes, i am from Spain.
I wanted to calculate EGT from log data.
Thanks

Yes I confirm that the 400deg C threshold (that was on my AUM map didn't check if different on AUQ) is always triggered (which seems normal) while doing some WOT pull from what I've seen (fully warmed engine, in normal operations)...

However for a compenent protection features it seems pretty low... On dyno I used to richen the mixture to cool down the turbo only when reach a near material resistance limit (don't know if this is good english haha)
Anyway maybe it is normal for torque based ecu to have these kind of strategies (I've only worked on standart old school tunable ECUs... which is so much easier than that!)

It is normal.
There are different strategies on ME7.

1. Usually on cars without EGT's is a very low value temperature trigger point and all the fueling is basically done through BTS, sometimes LAMFA has some enrichment, other times not.
2. On cars with wideband EGT's - e.g. S3 225 facelift, RS6 LAMFA is set to 0.9-0.95, BTS is turned off completely, and an EGT limiter is set to around 970C.
3. On cars with narrowband EGT's - e.g. S4, RS4 LAMFA is not used, BTS is used as a pre-enrichment, and an EGT limiter is set to around 970C. On a WOT 2nd gear pull these will run lambda 1.

Out of these strategies 1. is by far the best from a component longevity standpoint, but has the highest fuel consumption.
2. is by far the worst, that's why RS6 have problems with disintegrating manifolds, and S3's like to go through manifolds and turbos as well. Has the best consumption though.
3. is somewhere in the middle, does not destroy parts and still manages to have very good fuel consumption, a bit dull response due to not using LAMFA at all.

It's just the way OEM's do it for emissions and low consumption.

I've done a tune for my stock AUM (based on these AUQ) and moved toward a BTS fueling strategy. By following the load path on BTS I did a WOT safe fuelling (Ldrxn points map on BTS and higher figures), and 80-90% load at rich mixtures  and left stock value for the partial loads. On the log everything is following what I expect like a charm, no enrichment at all, no timing pull, no torque intervention.

 After a 200kms drive (mix city - highway - multiple WOT logs), I'm not seeing much more fuel consumption than on the 180 map. I was averaging 10.6l/100kms with the stock 180 AUQ map and I'm now sitting at 11.5 in pretty much the same driving conditions. So I think (looking at the BTS value) that on part throttle the target lambda is set at LAMFA (1.0001) for partial request. Max load peak at 160 (3k rpm) and 155 at 5900 (resulting in 26psi from what I recall or 1.9bar). I'm reading 177g/s on the maf sensor from 5900 to 6500rpm and the acceleration si smooth with no overboost when reaching peak and pulling till the red line really strongly.

To conclude I don't think that BTS is the source of bad fuel economy if tuned properly, when you know that it'll be triggered at diferent load  paths when you increase load resulting in really rich mixture (Lambda 0.7).

RS4 for example however will run lambda 1 through a 2nd and third gear pull, and only enrich at 750C.
So fuel economy will definitely be better than enriching on each pull. Just the way it is.

I personally use LAMFA to control target fuel and BTS to enrich further should there be knock or other issues that can raise the EGT's.

1- Is your maf ok? I do think that reading is a bit high for an only remapped aum.
2- Did you zeroed the maps I told you? Otherwise resulting lambts will not follow exactly kflbts.
3- Driving safely around the town won't activate bts, so you're running on lamfa... for sure you are "happier" and that's why consumption increases.

4- If your maf readings are ok and your car is totally stock, congratulations, you've got a very good unit (Or you live in Siberia)

This is a horrible horrible idea. If you run into a bad batch of gas you will melt your engine with this approach.
Not useless at all, depends on the file, but stock they can be quite precise, as they EGT model is factory calibrated with EGT sensors.

Why? The ecu will do whatever it can to follow spec lambda if the problem is the composition, the density, or the specific combustion energy... If the problem is a poor RON, then the engine will knock and the ecu will apply timing retardation. Last but not least, if the problem is a dirty gas, then you can end up with a clogged injector, under LAMBTS or LAMFA anyway


Stock they can be quite precise, for the stock actuation range


I've read you lots of times through this forum and that's why I know my knowledge is microscopic compared to yours. So I'm sure you said those things for a reaseon, but I cannot see it, could you explain yourself a bit more?

You are missing the fact that when you retard timing EGT goes up. That is why there is DLBTS, and that is why it enriches on falling ignition angle efficiency, to reduce EGT.
By removing this, you make sure that the engine melts down on a batch of bad fuel. It will pull timing, and because LAMBTS module is messed up it will not enrich even with skyhigh timing pull, you will exceed EGT and damage your engine.

This has nothing to do with even ME7, it is just basics of how to control combustion temperature in an engine with a liquid fuel. Read up on this and you will understand why what you proposed is a horrible idea.

That makes a lot of sense. But maybe my strategy is not so bad for a stage1:

1: Did you forget about LDRXNZK? you can decrease specified load under knock

2: With the tiny stock IC, you're forced to use a pretty rich lambda if you want some power... let's say in the .80 area, that's a pretty conservative lambda for EGT (I think)


Even though, I'll read more about what you're saying and if it convinces me, maybe I'll change my tuning strategy, thank you prj.

It is bad on every single combustion engine on any stage.
Not active in many files, and relying on this is silly because reducing boost does not immediately reduce EGT, it takes time. Try it sometime on a dyno with an EGT probe. Look what EGT does when you lift the throttle and cut fuel to injectors on overrun.
That is why EGT is always controlled with fuel.
No it's not. You can easily melt the engine with 0.8 and bad fuel. Especially if you have a stretch of autobahn to use.

You can tune your car like you want. But telling others to disregard things that the OEM's have put in for a very good reason (there are multiple modules dealing with ignition angle efficiency) is not good.

Well, I didn't pretend to be bad influence for anyone, just tried to help with a simple tuning strategy for a beginner.

Thank you for the explanations.

Switching to the original topic, does anyone tried to crossflash the 032HN (AUQ) to the 032FC (AUM) ecu ?
I've compared by hand the first part of the two hex file and it seems identical but I'm still scared to crossflash...

crossflashing wont work , I have tried a couple of times years back but no luck

Files I have successfully flashed on to my 06A906032FC_354889_0001

06A906032HN_360646_0001
06A906032HN_363908_0002
06A906032HJ_362287_0002
06A906032HJ_366426_0003
8N0906018AP_369397_0001
8N0906018AP_369397_0003

Hi Wayne, thanks for posting this up. I have an Aum and was wondering if this would work. Are you still running an unmodified Auq map or have you played around with it a bit? My Aum experiences a lot of throttle cut at times due to a suspect "tune". So I would really like to try this out aswel. What boost does the Auq map request?

If you load up the AUQ tune and find the max value of RXN, you can convert this to "boost" if you check the Wiki page.

Forget "boost" anyway, it's not a measure of power.  You can make X horsepower at 15psi, but you can make X+Y horsepower at 15psi if you can make the head flow better.

Boost does not correlate to power.

I understand you are trying to get 30HP easily but IMHO stock AUQ software is junk :D You should rework at least timing and fueling... and add some load on top of it.

06A906032HK works also

Audi A3 8L 2003

Successfully flashed AUQ 180HP 06A906032BJ on AUM 150HP 06A906032HJ.
Without any IMMO adapt or something.

8L0 920 933 N - Instruments cluster (immo 3)

Sorry old topic I know.

But I guess it would be helpful if I chip in with this.



Edit: Wait not this one. See next post

This one

I know its an old post but also wanting to put an AUQ map on my AUM and wondering if anyone could be able to swap the maps mentioned above to suit my AUM stock map? ive attached both ori files below (LR02 file is AUM)

Thank you!  :)