|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2017, 02:05:13 PM »
|
|
|
Another sign at a boost leak?
Take a look at your req/actual AFR as well. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
TijnCU
Hero Member
Karma: +60/-4
 Offline
Posts: 690
flying brick
|
|
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2017, 02:13:41 PM »
|
|
|
You need to verify maf part numbers from both engines. If not exactly the same, make sure you copy mlhfm over correctly to the new ecu. You can do a quick test by unplugging the maf, I bet you wont have any oscillation. Btw if the file is stock 150hp, I think the ecu should give a maf reading too high code with these values.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
amd is the best
|
|
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2017, 02:17:45 PM »
|
|
|
You need to verify maf part numbers from both engines. If not exactly the same, make sure you copy mlhfm over correctly to the new ecu. You can do a quick test by unplugging the maf, I bet you wont have any oscillation. Btw if the file is stock 150hp, I think the ecu should give a maf reading too high code with these values.
The ECU is 170hp and the car is 150hp. I'll verify the mlhfm when I get home. Original file is 018P and current file is 018CH. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2012 Golf TDI
2001 Audi A4 2.8 30v Supercharged
1991 Audi 200 20v
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2017, 02:18:47 PM »
|
|
|
Recommend doing an intake pressure test regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
amd is the best
|
|
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2017, 02:23:20 PM »
|
|
|
MLHFM is very different. Doh. I'll start there.
Thank you guys.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2012 Golf TDI
2001 Audi A4 2.8 30v Supercharged
1991 Audi 200 20v
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2017, 02:26:22 PM »
|
|
|
Fast and slow path torque intervention. Milsol will show the same oscillation
Just took another look; load is off the charts because of the abnormally high MAF readings, resulting in torque intervention. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2017, 02:43:54 PM »
|
|
|
duhh  Yep. You had it right to start with  |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2017, 02:44:48 PM »
|
|
|
Just took another look; load is off the charts because of the abnormally high MAF readings, resulting in torque intervention.
This. Load is higher than the threshold for the the given pedal position. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TijnCU
Hero Member
Karma: +60/-4
Offline
Posts: 690
flying brick
|
|
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2017, 02:49:07 PM »
|
|
|
btw, if you dont mind cross flashing you can try to use 4B0906018CA, I have posted a full damos in the file section. Or use that file to get your missing definitions for the 018CH |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
amd is the best
|
|
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2017, 07:20:54 PM »
|
|
|
So I did some testing this evening. Started back with a completely stock file, emissions deletes, vvt delete, changed MLHFM to match 4B0906018P and adjusted KRKTE for E85. The PN of the MAF on my car is 06A906461D FWIW.
I did one log with the MAF hooked up and one without. Something is still not right when the MAF is hooked up. The car runs a ton better without the MAF. MLOFS isn't defined in either of my files but it does look like it's always right after MLHFM and they both match, not sure if that's even in question. Also, the car has an open element filter, but not sure how much that changes things. I didn't adjust KFKHFM at all.
Here are some screenshots and the log files:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2012 Golf TDI
2001 Audi A4 2.8 30v Supercharged
1991 Audi 200 20v
|
|
|
|
amd is the best
|
|
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2017, 07:29:31 PM »
|
|
|
KFKHFM is a bit different between the two files but that shouldn't have an effect on load right? Just fueling. Still learning of course so please correct me if I am wrong.
The axis's are quite a bit different file to file so I didn't want to mess with it unless needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2012 Golf TDI
2001 Audi A4 2.8 30v Supercharged
1991 Audi 200 20v
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2017, 07:29:41 PM »
|
|
|
Imo you have a massive boost leak. The turbo can flow that much if it is all blowing into atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
amd is the best
|
|
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2017, 07:42:01 PM »
|
|
|
I will be testing for leaks asap.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2012 Golf TDI
2001 Audi A4 2.8 30v Supercharged
1991 Audi 200 20v
|
|
|
TijnCU
Hero Member
Karma: +60/-4
Offline
Posts: 690
flying brick
|
|
« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2017, 01:33:51 AM »
|
|
|
Looks like a MAF problem to me, AFR is on the lean side and with a boost leak it would be rich. Could be because of E85 adjustments, nothing unexpected. Also the difference between actual and req looks to be only <100mbar in the maf unhooked log. You have a known well working maf around? Boost leak test is always good, but I am not convinced that is the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
