I am still playing with E85, and now the weather got substantially colder (still not freezing or anything). My cranking is working fine so far, but I also noticed uneven AFR figures during the first minute of driving (maybe not even a whole minute). Is my conclusion that the wall wetting maps need some attention for E85 on the colder side correct?

EDIT: After careful analysis of my logs from this morning the question turns out to be rather rhetorical. The one that should be asked is by what order of magnitude I should modify KFBAKL/KFVAKL?

Not 60 for Ethanol, less, and precisely 43% for E85 in my case, but that's not what I asked :/

Interestingly, increasing KFBAKL / KFVAKL made things worse, my test area was 20 deg C. Will try with less, but the car needs to cool and it will be in use for the rest of the day. The other problem is a horrible lag in my AFR readings, makes log analysis very difficult.

Regarding logs I'd like to ask how do you log EGT? MultiEcuScan shows the parameter empty and says it's not possible. Is it related to SW version?

Most probably, I have never looked at EGT variables carefully, but I have seen other variables disabled in bins, even though the docs I have seen suggest they should give a reading.

BTW, following the other comment, I log EGT only to have the logging of it ready later when I get the actual EGT logged too to be able to see how (un)faithful the EGT model is. Just looking at the values I get and from previous experience with FIRE engines they seem about right, but this "about" can be actually off by over 50 degrees, which does make a difference.

LBTS might be one reason (and would be, but you can always edit LBTS to suit your AFR needs), but the other problems are notorious ignition retards on these setups which imply further enrichments. These you can also edit out in the LAMBTS module. And what's wrong with LBTS setting your fueling?

I think in the default setup this ECU runs mostly on KFLBTS. There is a delay on applying LAMFA (some ECUs 1s, some whole 5s!), which effectively means that KFLBTS will dictate the AFR before you know it. Following the description on the S4 wiki, LAMFA is mostly for preemptive fueling, which effectively means lower rpms and that only if you kill the delay sufficiently. Then it's all KFLBTS. So tune both to your AFR needs. 191% RL limit is not a problem IMO, this is ~1.2bar, at that point you should already be max rich and keep that way for higher boosts.

Who said these engines run lean? I am not accusing anyone of false claims, it's just that I think they are horribly rich, but I only personally dealt with one t-jet. But I did run a self turboed 8V FIRE engine before (successfully for several years and over 60kkm), and my lowest AFRs at 0.8-1bar boost were 11.8-11.5. The trick though was that the AFR table was fully static and conservative otherwise, 13.5AFR already is small vacuum, 12.5 AFR entering boost from 3000 RPM up, no BTS or WOT differentiation shit. Well, OK, admittedly the engine also had much lower CR than t-jet, but in any case it run absolutely sweet. The reason for cracking headers I heard of is simply a factory mistake in making it a fully solid design. Interestingly, mine is very likely cracked too, but I never had a chance to check, and I am far too lazy to replace it when there are no ill signs.

As for the retards, you are a second person saying they are not loggable, this should answer your first EGT question again - software differences. On my high resolution logs I first noticed retards because my actual torque figure was very spiked, this is the result of aggressively varying ignition between cylinders. You could try logging zwout and see if it's spiked and how far it is from your expectations from the tune. But in any case, you are guaranteed to have knock retards, so bad sometimes that the fuel goes insanely rich (I have seen 9.5 on my gauge a couple of times). You can try to kill it by editing DLBTS (I have seen people doing this).

To know if you run rich or not you'd have to have the real EGT connected I think, the figures I gave were just an example for essentially a different engine.

LPG... that would have to have a piggy back system of some sort, no? Could that be a problem, I mean its setup?

There are some issues swapping software in these ECUs. The software in general is swappable as far as the ECU itself is concerned (well, EEPROM size might be an issue, they came in two sizes), but the versioning spreads to the other ECUs too, CAN IDs in particular can be different. But, the logging interface has a configuration block in the data area, EGT and retards could be added, the only problem is it would require a small amount of disassembly work to find the block and variable addresses...