The FR is freely available. I see no point in a wiki from an ECU firmware perspective.
Why would you read someone's interpretation of the facts when you can just get the facts directly?

I understand if we were tuning a mystery black box and reverse engineering it, but this thing is fully documented and the documentation is available for free.
I am aware this has not always been the case, but it is now.

I mean stuff should be there that is not in the FR.
For example the physical process of accessing the ECU (boot mode).
The pinouts.
Maybe info on checksums, flash tools.

But as for ECU internal data, it's not hard to get used to the FR.
If there are questions, as there inevitably will be, the forum is a good place to ask them, because you can gather multiple points of view and not only the one who wrote the paragraph in the wiki.

Agreed there, but forums are terrible for centralizing useful information. Even worse, there is no guarantee (to me anyway) that this forum will survive indefinitely, because I do not have access to the DB. I do have access to the s4wiki db, and, more importantly, would gladly distribute the contents to anyone willing to keep backups.

There is literally nothing preventing people from coming to a consensus on wording for a central location, ironically BECAUSE there is an FR to refer to if needed to settle disputes.

In fact, wikis were DESIGNED for this, because mailing lists (and their usenet/forum descendants) are terrible for collaborative work.

I appreciate your support, but it is missing the larger point:

I want people who find errors in the s4wiki to fix them, or at LEAST tell me what to fix.

Personally,from a noob perspective I find the wiki to be invaluable.

It's logical and methodical.Without it and having to rely solely on the FR would be an insurmountable task for most people.I think even those from a technical background with a bias toward engine tuning would find it utter torment to try and understand,without the wiki as an introduction or at least an aid.
The wiki is an invaluable and greatly appreciated document that should be commended.The dedication,comprehensiveness and effort that has been put into it by it's author (nyet) over the years,I doubt could be equaled anywhere in any other introductory document that there is on the subject.

This of course is a noob perspective on it but ultimately I see noobs as it's primary target audience.
Great work and many,many thanks for it.

All the best
O.T.   

Ignoring the larger point, again, which is to correct obvious errors.

30 seconds of time, vs who knows how long arguing in this stupid thread.

Which is in YOUR interest, so you don't have to constantly correct misunderstandings.

Thank you! Bear with me, and we can discuss them point by point..


I agree, but the stock FKKVS for the 2.7t is completely flat... and the calibrator seems to have decided to do fueling corrections lin KFLF, which is why it is worded the way it is..

I will add a note to that effect, but I think it already says as much.


I will try to fix this part as well.


I actually disagree here, since there is a bad side effect for people running at the boost sensor limit where req boost can be over the sensor limit. Not good for PIDs in general, especially since there is no way for the ECU to know this is happening, and that the PID is out of control. A slight inaccuracy in actual boost seems to be a fine way to prevent this.

Not sure if we can agree do disagree on this point, especially since the proper "fix" would be the 5120 changes AND a >2.5 bar sensor, which are (by now) well documented.

I will try to add a note to that effect.

As an aside, the only other proper way to "fix" this is ASM code to cap req boost at the maximum possible boost sensor reading.


I welcome a better explanation, I agree it is a mess


I will add a note that it is not recommended, but in my experience, even though the "accurate" thing is to alter request boost for a given req load when cam position changes, in reality, it disturbs the PID, and there doesn't seem to be a way to calm down the req boost while keeping the VE model accurate.


I agree, I will remove those sections


Yea, i would like to do this too, and i started to, but people seemed to want a single page they could print out.

Again, thank you for your input, it is extremely important to me (and hopefully others) to get this sort of information.