|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2011, 02:36:58 PM »
|
|
|
Which ones? I'll update the wiki time permitting. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own. Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
|
|
|
bigdo26
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 56
|
|
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2011, 07:20:23 PM »
|
|
|
OP - Is this tune sensitive to limiting boost via MBC? I run a MBC in parallel to cap boost spikes on my current GIAC tune, and I cannot limit boost below the requested amount without putting the car in limp mode with my current tune. I ask because at the track I prefer to limit peak boost. I'd be interested in running your tune with the ability to use the MBC to limit to 16psi or so for track days, but let it go with the full ~21psi on the street, as I don't often really push it on the street but like to have the aggressive tune available.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2011, 10:37:19 PM »
|
|
|
This tune shouldn't be all too sensitive, but I tried to leave 'most' safeguards in place instead of just removing them completely. So it is possible you will run into issues when capping the boost.
BUT, you can always edit this file and reduce the boost if you like and then switch the ECU program when ever you feel like it. That would be the proper way to do it instead of using an MBC.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bigdo26
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 56
|
|
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2011, 07:32:34 PM »
|
|
|
Yes, that would be the best way - I'm familiarizing myself with the software and processes to modify the program and reflash - just bought my spare ECU. I'll play around with it.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bigdo26
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 56
|
|
« Reply #19 on: December 28, 2011, 10:05:08 PM »
|
|
|
Loaded the file a little earlier and I'm very impressed with the tune. It's extremely smooth and easy to accelerate moderately (part throttle) without any boost fluctuations. WOT feels much better than my previous tune.
Thanks for sharing the tune - it will give me a great basis for making tweaks to support my driving style.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
amd is the best
|
|
« Reply #20 on: December 31, 2011, 02:58:10 AM »
|
|
|
I have opened up your file as well as the stock 001 M-box file and I am comparing the two to learn what you have done to accomplish the fueling changes. Now, correct me if I'm wrong here but the only two maps I see that have been change with any normal relation to fuel is LAMFA and KFLF. Is that correct? Per this thread: http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php/topic,141.0title,.html , from what I understood (which could be completely incorrect) is that LAMFA isn't the best way to control adding fuel and to use BTS. I've tried using BTS and it hasn't made a big difference where in your logs I see that the desired AFR is right where you have LAMFA set to at .81 @ WOT. Am I misinterpreting something here or can you shed some light on my ignorance, lol? Thanks in advance!!! Nick |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2012 Golf TDI
2001 Audi A4 2.8 30v Supercharged
1991 Audi 200 20v
|
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #22 on: January 01, 2012, 11:49:00 AM »
|
|
|
Loaded the file a little earlier and I'm very impressed with the tune. It's extremely smooth and easy to accelerate moderately (part throttle) without any boost fluctuations. WOT feels much better than my previous tune.
Thanks for sharing the tune - it will give me a great basis for making tweaks to support my driving style.
Great to hear some feedback... I have since made a few small tweaks to the tune (on the car I originally created it the A6 and fats for the last run are 5.13), I will post up the latest revision soon... But like any tune, especially aggressive ones they don't always react the same on cars with different hardware, etc. here is snippet of the LOG from REV4 of this tune showing the MAF... so pretty strong IMO:  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bigdo26
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 56
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 01, 2012, 12:29:22 PM »
|
|
|
That MAF does seem very strong...
I'm using your tune as my baseline to create 2 separate tunes - one for street driving and one for track days (road courses). I've tweaked the boost table to limit peak requested boost and once I finally get my MTX checksums license (still waiting...) I'm going to log and tweak timing.
Planning to have the less aggressive tune for the track where I'm running 30 minute sessions and don't want to stress the turbos too much.
I'd be interested to see the tweaks you've made recently as well - I'll post my renditions as well, although I'm very much a newbie at tuning at this point.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sqitis
Full Member
Karma: +2/-0
Offline
Posts: 58
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2012, 04:27:33 AM »
|
|
|
I read talk about replacing injectors for this tune and have a couple of questions.  Which injectors would work best/better for this tune and how do I "calibrate" them for this tune? TIA! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2012, 09:37:37 AM »
|
|
|
you don't need to replace injectors for this tune
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sqitis
Full Member
Karma: +2/-0
Offline
Posts: 58
|
|
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2012, 10:54:15 AM »
|
|
|
Ok just wanted to check.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
amd is the best
|
|
« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2012, 12:44:33 AM »
|
|
|
I'm running your file on my buddies 2000 S4 and we're not quite seeing the requested/actual load and boost pressure as high as yours. I have only converted the file over to Bosch MAF and added the antilag/nls stuff. Could it be hardware related, like a boost leak. I've tried increasing the LDRXN values and it make no difference at all.
Thanks in advance,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2012 Golf TDI
2001 Audi A4 2.8 30v Supercharged
1991 Audi 200 20v
|
|
|
bigdo26
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 56
|
|
« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2012, 09:59:51 AM »
|
|
|
likely hardware related. I've got 2 versions of this file for my car, and the one I run without any updates to the requested boost table allows my car to peak at just over 20psi per my boost gauge. Close to 21. Do your logs show that boost is not meeting target?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
amd is the best
|
|
« Reply #29 on: January 17, 2012, 10:22:41 AM »
|
|
|
We'll have to run a leak test on it. Here's the load and boost of one log (although they are pretty consistent): Load:  Boost:  I may have even increased LDRXN a bit yet yielding no change. Even if I push it way up, still doesn't pass what seems to be a limit (or leak) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2012 Golf TDI
2001 Audi A4 2.8 30v Supercharged
1991 Audi 200 20v
|
|
|
|
