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.

 

Nothing you write makes any sense.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.