Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Another kfmirl/kfmiop about PROPER tuning in MED9.1 TFSI ea113 thread  (Read 911 times)
artec12
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10



Hello,

I have read several threads in this forum about kfmirl/kfmiop and I still have some questions that I hope someone will be able to help. So in order to increase boost in my 2.0 tfsi ea113 med9.1 ecu I will eventually have to increase kfmirl (amongst other maps but this really isn't the topic of the thread). By reading all these posts I have come to a conclusion that the best way to tune this map is not to change only the last row (90% torque) beacause in this case the torque model is incorrect above 80% torque. Instead the correct way I believe is something like the following:

So in the stock KFMIRL map at 90% torque the load is approximately 190% so it's obvious that at 260-270% load (which is the goal here, around 2 bars of boost) the torque is over 100% (approximately 120% with interpolation). Obviously the kfmirl axis can't have values over 100% so I will have to normalise it by dividing the new KFMIRL map torque % axis by 120%, so now I have a map kfmirl with proper 0-100% torque values on the axis and load values up to 270% which was the goal here. To reflect this 120% axis division on the torque I will have to multiply MDNORM by 120% for example 100% torque was 500 NM before thus 120% torque at 270 load would be 600 NM, so now new mdnorm will be 600 NM and 100% torque will be 600 NM as well at 270 load, so the torque model is not bent. Now we can produce kfmrop by inversing the KFMIRL map (since those two are inverse maps). Obviously now the KFMIOP map load axis will have to be rescaled.

So here comes question number one, is there an axis load value limit here in KFMIOP map? Winols will let me raise it even over 300 but not sure if there is some kind of limit there.
 
At this point it is obvious that the same torque percentage corresponds to a larger load, so this would have to be addressed in kfped, or the throttle pedal could be very agressive, but this can obviously be tuned. After tuning this there is still a big problem.

The problem is that many maps have one axis being torque % such as rail pressure, flaps (LBK) and LAMFA. Those will obviously have to be modified as well to reflect this torque change (ie those maps will read lower torque in the same load conditions).

Here comes question #2: which maps are those (with ANY torque input, not just sharing the kfmirl torque axis), how many are they? Is it feasible to interpolate all of those and make the tune and torque model accurate?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2020, 06:49:56 AM by artec12 » Logged
yangbohan
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2021, 12:44:11 AM »

Thank you! Very good method, I have been researching KFMIOP and KFMIRL, but did not find any calculation method
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +373/-94
Offline Offline

Posts: 4011


« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2021, 02:50:11 PM »

Not feasible.
The entire idle pid as well as the friction torque maps and so on have the same issue.

It's probably only feasible by writing a tool which will look at a2l and axis and rescale programmatically, otherwise you're gonna go nuts.
Logged
artec12
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2021, 05:37:45 AM »

Not feasible.
The entire idle pid as well as the friction torque maps and so on have the same issue.

It's probably only feasible by writing a tool which will look at a2l and axis and rescale programmatically, otherwise you're gonna go nuts.

Thanks for your reply. so idle will be problematic and engine friction calculation will be wrong.
Logged
eliotroyano
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +42/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 757


« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2021, 04:15:17 PM »

Now we can produce kfmrop by inversing the KFMIRL map (since those two are inverse maps). Obviously now the KFMIOP map load axis will have to be RESCALED.

what about torque monitoring threshold???
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.017 seconds with 17 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0s, 0q)