jochen_145
Full Member
Karma: +9/-4
 Offline
Posts: 177
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2020, 04:33:12 AM »
|
|
|
For someone who allegedly knows so much, you do not even know that there is no torque to pressure in VAG DSG?
It is friction coefficient -> ikp adaptation -> microslip controller. Sorry, but what you decribe is chance of "torque-to-pressure" (or a torquebased "current-to-pressure"), even if there is no one special map for that  clutch adaption will not work automatically, if you just chance count of clutches or friction and letting base application constant. But ones again: I will not have an argument about this BUT in the case of DQ250 you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. I have probably over 1000 cars running over 600Nm on stock DQ250 clutches, and at least 50 of them making in the vicinity of 750 to 780Nm of real clutch torque on STOCK clutches Same to you: my experiments are differend. Starts with the definition of "running" or how long will DCT handle > 500Nm of input-torque.. For sure because I am on a differend quality level based on condition of work. And again, I will not have an argument about this so pls. back to topic and be gentle to eatch other |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2020, 05:34:45 AM »
|
|
|
clutch adaption will not work automatically, if you just chance count of clutches or friction and letting base application constant. I never said it would. Hence why clutch description in calibration must match reality, otherwise clutch will grab way too hard if you have higher friction coefficient or different size. But torque-to-pressure - such thing does not exist in calibration, it's not how DQ250 works. And for anything above 450 Nm input torque you must patch the software, because otherwise clutch torque will be clipped at 500 Nm no matter what you do. Unless you cheat the entire process. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 05:37:09 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jochen_145
Full Member
Karma: +9/-4
Offline
Posts: 177
|
|
« Reply #32 on: February 14, 2020, 03:39:34 AM »
|
|
|
But torque-to-pressure - such thing does not exist in calibration, it's not how DQ250 works. Yes, not in calibration, but at the end troque capacitiy at clutch based on pressure at clutch. Physicaly ALL DCTs works via "torque-to-pressure". DQ250/DQ381/DQ400e/DQ500 etc. control pressure via current at values and clutch adaption is a current-based correction, your are right. But at the end, this is the way "pressure-to-troque" is realised in software and mechatronic. As you know, there are still two importend pressure-sensors. Application and testing clutchbehaviour will allway have torque and pressure as base. Thats the major values to measure and to judge. So of cause there is " torque-to-pressure" at DQ250 and it is the way DCT work Ones a again, we are argumenting basic definition of differend ways to work |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #33 on: February 14, 2020, 06:52:49 AM »
|
|
|
Yes, not in calibration, but at the end troque capacitiy at clutch based on pressure at clutch.
Physicaly ALL DCTs works via "torque-to-pressure".
DQ250/DQ381/DQ400e/DQ500 etc. control pressure via current at values and clutch adaption is a current-based correction, your are right. But at the end, this is the way "pressure-to-troque" is realised in software and mechatronic. As you know, there are still two importend pressure-sensors.
Application and testing clutchbehaviour will allway have torque and pressure as base. Thats the major values to measure and to judge.
So of cause there is "torque-to-pressure" at DQ250 and it is the way DCT work
Ones a again, we are argumenting basic definition of differend ways to work
I am not disputing this. The way you said it, was very misleading - like there is some magical torque to pressure map in the calibration. When actually there is not. It calculates the characteristic (which is ... a straight line) based on inputted values and adaptation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
birchbark506
|
|
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2020, 02:35:54 PM »
|
|
|
dose anyone know the maps for the paddles shifter?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kenneth26r
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 10
|
|
« Reply #35 on: February 16, 2020, 04:08:21 AM »
|
|
|
Post logs of engine torque from DQ500 gearbox WOT in 3rd or 4th gear.
If the torque is not correct, then your ECU tune had underscaled torque and your DQ250 had fudged pressure adaptation values.
You're right. The reported torque of the motor is incorrect. Only report arround 300-320NM of 580NM... They did it with bad intention. For now, I don't want to correct the ecu. I wish I could patch the code of TCU, to force wrong adaptation and have fudged pressure adaptation values like the DQ250. Regards |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2020, 05:39:01 PM »
|
|
|
Good luck.
Correct way is to tune the engine properly.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kenneth26r
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 10
|
|
« Reply #37 on: February 18, 2020, 01:33:20 AM »
|
|
|
The scaling from the MDNORM on the CAN bus only goes up to 512NM and that is not enough for turbos. This would lead to malfunctions on the bus, which is why the MDNORM on the Turbo is usually set to 320NM and the gearbox corrects it. It is right?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #38 on: February 18, 2020, 03:53:50 AM »
|
|
|
The scaling from the MDNORM on the CAN bus only goes up to 512NM and that is not enough for turbos. This would lead to malfunctions on the bus, which is why the MDNORM on the Turbo is usually set to 320NM and the gearbox corrects it. It is right?
No, that's total bullshit. There is a scaling variable on CAN to double the range. There is no problem to have proper mdnorm. Your problem is not only mdnorm, your problem is that the calibration is shit and the torque is not linear... if it was exactly halved 1/2 it would still work most likely, because ikp would be 2x higher and everything would fall into place. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
birchbark506
|
|
« Reply #39 on: February 18, 2020, 04:39:45 AM »
|
|
|
i have everything working good on dq500 but i need to improve these things
Take off
- clutch engagement
- engagement delay time
Launch
- launch shifting times
- launch shifting delay
Paddles
- shift delay
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RBPE
|
|
« Reply #40 on: February 18, 2020, 07:04:04 PM »
|
|
|
His tq will likely be as per factory, 350nm 2.8, 410-420nm R32, CAN rpm/tq amount same as factory in the flash etc if it's an RC/RL 0-100% interpretation rather than extension, the rest is maths - %'s, fractions etc calc'd off the oem logic.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 06, 2020, 03:36:35 PM by RBPE »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jochen_145
Full Member
Karma: +9/-4
Offline
Posts: 177
|
|
« Reply #41 on: February 19, 2020, 07:08:11 AM »
|
|
|
No, that's total bullshit.
There is a scaling variable on CAN to double the range. There is no problem to have proper mdnorm. +1, correct ! double or tripple, if needed. But accurisy will also change Your problem is not only mdnorm, your problem is that the calibration is shit and the torque is not linear... This is the problem of most ECUs tunings, witch have very bad influcens to clutch behaviour during slip. Why you kenneth26r tell differend, when I asked you, if you troque on CAN is correct ?  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 19, 2020, 07:10:00 AM by jochen_145 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ktm733
|
|
« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2020, 03:49:14 PM »
|
|
|
Not trying to change course of this discussion, but does the dl501 gen 2 from the s4 b8.5 platform correlate to anything you guys are talking about? As in torque limitation. Yes I do know there’s limiters but what about hard limiters?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sline
Newbie
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 13
|
|
« Reply #43 on: April 12, 2020, 01:15:47 AM »
|
|
|
No, that's total bullshit.
There is a scaling variable on CAN to double the range. There is no problem to have proper mdnorm.
Your problem is not only mdnorm, your problem is that the calibration is shit and the torque is not linear... if it was exactly halved 1/2 it would still work most likely, because ikp would be 2x higher and everything would fall into place.
But is it not important to have the same MDNORM Value in ECU and TCU? I have an A6 4F with EDC17 (CDY engine and 6HP19A automatic transmission). Torque and injector opening time maps are extrapolatet to higher torque and rail pressure. So linearity of the torque model should not be an issue. If I change the map Maximales Moment am Can to higher values than 630 Nm I see less torque in the TCU and the up and down shifts are shit. So I thought that the ecu sends a percentage value of the actual torque on can bus and the Norm values help to define right input for shifting tables and so on. I think it differs also with can version. On UDS Can versions I never had this problems and on MD1 ecus this Max Moment am Can is most time 0. So what do you mean with scaling factor? I must say, that I have similar problems with DQ500 from RSQ3 build in a Polo with 2.0 TFSI CDL engine with EFR turbo and 2bar + boost. I'm trying to get it right and I can say that playing with the torque model in ecu have really big influence on shifting quality. Till now I haven't found the right way to get it perfect. But I think it just needs a little more time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jochen_145
Full Member
Karma: +9/-4
Offline
Posts: 177
|
|
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2020, 07:47:38 AM »
|
|
|
But is it not important to have the same MDNORM Value in ECU and TCU? At PQ/PL-based CAN-communication there is only one source for MDNORM and scaling (ECU) Torque and injector opening time maps are extrapolatet to higher torque and rail pressure. So linearity of the torque model should not be an issue. If I change the map Maximales Moment am Can to higher values than 630 Nm What exactly you´ve changed ? MDNORM or MDMAXKBI ? "Maximales Moment am CAN" ist normaly MDMAXKBI and only used for display on kombi and tuning-protection. I see less torque in the TCU and the up and down shifts are shit. Check values on CAN-bus itself. If you changed everything correctly, troque in ECU, on CAN and in TCU MUST be simular. I think it differs also with can version. On UDS Can versions I never had this problems and on MD1 ecus this Max Moment am Can is most time 0. it differes just CAN generation based: all PQ / PL based can bus systems work with %MDI troque based on MDINorm (witch is simular to MDNORM in ME7). MQB CAN bus got differend torque communication. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
