Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: med9.1 n00B HERE  (Read 18278 times)
bbowers
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« on: March 24, 2018, 02:01:36 PM »

My car is currently boosting 7-8 psi with a stock tune that has never been reflashed.

I have opened up my bin and seperated the maps.  I have 6 ldrxn I suppose since I have a dsg it is seperated for each type, manual, auto, slap stick. As well as three maps for knock.

The max settings on these are 145.  What is stopping me from raising these to the determined limits in my other tables, lets say KFMIRL which has load for 3k at 96 percent accelration at 165.

Wouldn't I be able to keep this stock tune if I only wanted this little extra by changing the max load accepted in LDRXN.

LDRXN Numbers

95.02      125.02   130.01   138.00   140.02   137.02   137.02   137.02   137.02   140.02   143.02   146.02   135.00   129.00   117.00   105.00

KFMIRL Numbers at 90 and 96

164.79   163.43   162.73   161.32   159.59   157.57   154.22   150.77   148.27   146.77   146.20   146.27   146.51   146.67   146.65   146.53
176.09   174.61   173.88   172.41   170.63   168.61   165.30   162.09   159.68   157.78   157.10   157.10   157.45   157.95   158.44   158.93

Thanks for having me.

Also on a side note, I've read about people mentioning 10 and dead.  Does this apply to the med9.1.  I don't understand why a ecu would stop being programmable.

 
Logged
bbowers
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2018, 06:11:20 PM »

Ok I've been reading a bit more and have decided I need to change 3 files to stay on this "stock" tune.

Raising LDRXN Values to make KMFIOP push to max, which as far as I can see is 150 for this map.  So Raise all value's past 2500 RPM above 150, while tapering down at higher rpms still.  While also changing the values in KMFIOP to 95-96 in values above 2500 rpm to make sure they request maximum torque from KFMIRL.  That will request the maximum torque values for this tune which is around 160-157.  I believe this will give me these values even if LDRXN is below since the values requested are actually a percentage of KMFIOP to KFMIRL.  That's from my understanding of reading.

I am unsure if LDRXN will further limit the request load and this is the trouble that there will be a lot of different things, attempting to limit the Load request and they all need to be adjusted to reach the target boost.

Anyhow.  I can see that this has been covered alot in various different places. 
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +903/-420
Offline Offline

Posts: 5789


« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2018, 03:37:35 AM »

Nothing you write makes any sense.
Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly.
bbowers
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2018, 06:29:59 AM »

Most of what I just wrote is from reading information you posted cross referenced with https://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning#rlsol_to_plsol_calculation

So, in theory if nothing I wrote made any sense, you might want to consider your method of delivery. lol
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +903/-420
Offline Offline

Posts: 5789


« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2018, 07:29:49 AM »

Everything you detailed is exactly how not to do anything on this ECU.
You need to understand what the maps do.
The changes you suggested make 0 sense if you understand how the ECU works.

Start by learning what KFMIRL and KFMIOP are - torque to load and load to torque (inverse). Changing part of those maps make 0 sense.
LDRXN is the main load limiter, but you have lots of others.

Just by changing LDRXN on this ECU, you will have BTS intervene and run you into 0.75 lambda, the result will be that you will run out of HPFP in the midrange and the car will drive like a kangaroo.
Posting your file is also a good start.
Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly.
bbowers
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2018, 09:10:40 AM »

Ok,

That was helpful.  I will do some logs and monitor 

Engine Speed: 001
Throttle Position

Boost Pressure Specified: MB 115
Boost Pressure Actual

Engine Load Specified: MB 114
Engine Load Actual

Fuel Rail Pressure Specified
Fuel Rail Pressure Actual


Timing pull: MB 020
Intake Air Temperature (IAT): MB 118
Air/Fuel Ratio-lambfa: MB 031
Wastegate (N75) Duty Cycle: MB 118



Following this http://www.vaglinks.com/OBDII/Vag-com_Data_Logging_And_Graphing.pdf

I've also been able to located the following files on my bin

KFPED
KFPEDL
KFPEDR
KFMIRL
KFMIOP
KFZW
KFDPLGU
KFPLGUB
KLDLUL
KFFLLDE
KFLDHBN
LDRXN
LDRXNZK
KFLDIMX
KFLDRL
KFLBTS
KFLBTSZK
LAMFA

I'm going to take some logs with my stock tune with the previous log points in order to insure my engine is running to spec before making any changes.  I believe these will be good values to monitor as I slowly raise my max request load from the stock 145 until my goal of 173.

This way I will be able to monitor the lambda chock you speak of in the mid range as I alter the maps to increase load request.  I believe I will need to get good at logging and monitoring my engine before I will make any changes.  Thanks for your comments.
Logged
bbowers
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2018, 08:37:04 PM »

Everything you detailed is exactly how not to do anything on this ECU.
You need to understand what the maps do.
The changes you suggested make 0 sense if you understand how the ECU works.

Start by learning what KFMIRL and KFMIOP are - torque to load and load to torque (inverse). Changing part of those maps make 0 sense.
LDRXN is the main load limiter, but you have lots of others.

Just by changing LDRXN on this ECU, you will have BTS intervene and run you into 0.75 lambda, the result will be that you will run out of HPFP in the midrange and the car will drive like a kangaroo.
Posting your file is also a good start.

I changed my LDRXN and to 157 from 137.  May car raised the requested pressure from 1850 to 2050.   As you stated when I logged 3 runs it was limiting my fueling to the BTS maps.  While I didn't drive like a kangaroo, this is not optimal.  I have read that .8 is a good place for this.  I plan to change my KFLBTS maps to reflect a .8-.85 afr in this map section

110  1.0625   1.0469   1.0391   1.0313   1.0234   1.0156   1.0078   1.0000   1.0000   0.9688   0.9375   0.8984   0.8594   0.8359   0.8125   0.7891
125  1.0313   1.0156   1.0078   1.0000   0.9922   0.9922   0.9766   0.9609   0.9297   0.9063   0.8750   0.8438   0.8203   0.7969   0.7500   0.7266
140  1.0000   1.0000   0.9922   0.9766   0.9609   0.9531   0.9453   0.9063   0.8750   0.8516   0.8359   0.8047   0.8047   0.7422   0.7188   0.7109
155  0.9922   0.9844   0.9766   0.9453   0.9297   0.9219   0.9219   0.8672   0.8594   0.8281   0.8047   0.7891   0.7813   0.7188   0.7188   0.7109
170  0.9766   0.9609   0.9453   0.9141   0.8984   0.8828   0.8750   0.8516   0.8125   0.7734   0.7500   0.7266   0.7188   0.7188   0.7188   0.7109

This is my current BTS map.

Thanks for your help PRJ! At first I was put off, but you steered my in the right direction.

Attached you can see my log of 3 different pulls where as my load and rpm increased my Lambda follows my BTS map
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +903/-420
Offline Offline

Posts: 5789


« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2018, 03:55:03 AM »

Yes you don't have kangaroo because you added very little boost, so the HPFP can still keep up.
If you add even more boost and don't fix the fueling/timing then the HPFP will not keep up and rail pressure will drop... and it will cut.
Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly.
Kacza
Full Member
***

Karma: +20/-6
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2018, 06:23:12 AM »

My friend prj, Is it not that BTS is the protection of components?
Rather, we can not completely abandon it.
Is it better to make the main fuel after LAMFA?
Change the transition threshold to BTS?
BTS maps only slightly correct?
If HPFP is not going to be efficient, it's probably a safe tuning to make changes to the safe limit of the motor equipment. If we want more then we change turbo, injectors, HPFP, etc. for bigger ones?

I'm not strong at TFSI, that's why I ask. Cheesy
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +903/-420
Offline Offline

Posts: 5789


« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2018, 10:39:21 AM »

You should request correct AFR through LAMFA. BTS you will have to adjust so it is not as aggressive. I would not touch the threshold.
Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly.
bbowers
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2018, 09:20:30 PM »

You should request correct AFR through LAMFA. BTS you will have to adjust so it is not as aggressive. I would not touch the threshold.

This is what I have chosen to do. I do not want to remove any safety features built into the engine mapping. I have read from one person that Some professional tuners will disable these features, but I do not feel comfortable doing that with my limited knowledge.

I have changed the Lamfa Values to .825 in the 100 percent request row, and have went to do some logs.  Unfortunately it doesn't seem that the engine gets a chance to use these values as it immediately switches to BTS.

I am not certain, but it seems that the BTS map is definitely not on and off, and uses several other factors, as my EGT rises regardless of RPM, Load, Etc, it seems proportionately effected in my resulting lambda.  I may certainly be wrong, but this is what I observe.

I plan to make my LAMFA request .825 sooner, possible 80 percent and above, from 2250 where my boost kicks in and above.  I saw very little timing correction while doing these pulls.


Logged
Beaviz
Full Member
***

Karma: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2018, 12:51:17 AM »

I am not certain, but it seems that the BTS map is definitely not on and off, and uses several other factors, as my EGT rises regardless of RPM, Load, Etc, it seems proportionately effected in my resulting lambda.

BTS/component protection is not just one map.

The on/off/kangaroo effect is not directly caused by the calibrations but by the limitation of how much fuel the stock HPFP can deliver. You will run into that when running higher boost if you do not lean out some of the BTS maps.
Logged
bbowers
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2018, 02:33:43 AM »

BTS/component protection is not just one map.

The on/off/kangaroo effect is not directly caused by the calibrations but by the limitation of how much fuel the stock HPFP can deliver. You will run into that when running higher boost if you do not lean out some of the BTS maps.

Is this fix purely through leaning out BTS, or could I leave original protection in place while raising my rail pressure to 120-130.  Is the idea to get BTS to not go below .75 lambda or 11.16 AFR? I don't plan on going as high as a professional tuners. I'm only looking to gain half their numbers.  No more then 15 psi.


I have changed my mind on my AFR and am going to start rich since I am using 93 Octane fuel and going from .78 at WOT, .8041 at 96 , .8282 at 90, and .8438 at 80.  Hopefully this will prevent my EGT's from raising so that I won't be kicked into BTS map.

Thanks for your inputs.  I'll post another log tomorrow with the new flash.
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +903/-420
Offline Offline

Posts: 5789


« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2018, 06:31:28 AM »

Wrong approach. At least look what sensors your car has and does not have.

There is no EGT sensor. It's a purely calculated theoretical value.
Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly.
bbowers
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2018, 05:05:36 PM »

Wrong approach. At least look what sensors your car has and does not have.

There is no EGT sensor. It's a purely calculated theoretical value.

If the car is using this information in its calculations it's good enough for my purposes.  Although my strategy didn't seem to work.  As I preemptively added fuel before the requested load to prevent knock, but still ended up in BTS.  Although I raised BTS on the High Load, High Rpm it was still limiting me extremely. 


Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.056 seconds with 16 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.001s, 0q)