doktor
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 36
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2024, 11:51:34 AM »
|
|
|
Actually, timing makes most of the power change in this case: yes 150 to 180hp is a noticeable change, but 210nm to 235 isn't. The change is basically in air flow, but in Stage 1 style of tunes, these cars can go easily to 290 to 300nm while still being safe. And this is done mostly with timing. Be sure these 1.8t's have room to work with. I you want to touch KFZW I recommend to search and look for tunes all over the internet (they are) which have been run, and develop your own ignition map (most changes are made on the higher load rows).
I get it you mean tuned timing maps for ME7.5, after proper load recalculation? As I was not able to find a tune file for M3.8 other than the one floating on Youtube, from which I had to rewrite all the values by hand one-by-one.  Some of his edits are Italian-style, like almost disabling protective features, but the timing map looks quite reasonable(?). I think there is no reason why ME7.5 timing maps should not work, but the load recalculation must be done properly, I have the basic idea how to do this but not sure about precision. Thanks again. P.S. this is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raAmPkPr_8wEdit: After investigating the timing maps further, the youtube tune looks somewhat extreme... +9 maximum advance... But it is not far away from a stock 180hp ME7.5... Another edit: Does the M3.8.x implement a functional knock timing retard? I was not able to find this info anywhere... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 15, 2024, 04:57:16 AM by doktor »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jelto
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 3
|
|
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2024, 05:58:52 AM »
|
|
|
when running a log on vcds for ignition retard it definetly cuts out ignition angle, so yes the ecu has a routine for detecting engine knocking
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2024, 07:15:25 AM »
|
|
|
There was adaptive knock control already in M2.3.2 and knock control in M2.3, so of course M3.8 has adaptive knock control.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
doktor
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 36
|
|
« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2024, 07:33:38 AM »
|
|
|
Cool, thanks. And sorry for the noob questions |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #34 on: November 15, 2024, 09:00:05 AM »
|
|
|
Knowledge is power, I understand your point. PM me with a price so I know what you are considering. Maybe I won't go for it right now but surely the time will come in the following months.
I appreciate you offering to provide your work.
Best regards
You can find it on the file site now, if you ever need it. I threw in an XDF as well. I think if you're doing something with larger turbo, this info will save you at least 10 hours of calibration and chasing all kind of messed up problems like car not starting right hot & cold etc. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
doktor
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 36
|
|
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2024, 04:34:05 AM »
|
|
|
Some of my findings:
KFLDTV is not a starting point for N75 duty. It is the actual limitation. I was having problems with a constant underboost and raising the values in KFLDTV fixed the issue.
From what I gathered, for a Stage 1 tune, stock AGU (or equiv) internals:
-KFZW (.0, .1, .2): add a few degrees in the high load area. I used similar values like in 132kW AUM engine and I have an ocassional ignition pull. Dunno why, the AGU should breathe better...
-KFMLDMX: Might not even need altering. I did a +10% in the whole map.
-KFLDS: I left the low to medium load areas intact. For a high load, 9ms between 2k and 4k rpm is safe, taper off a bit to higher speed. Some tuners use up to 10.5ms.
-LDSMXN: Basically use the highest load line from KFLDS.
-KFLUL: Adjust percentage in whole map to be a bit higher than KFLDS for normal altitudes.
-KFLDTV: High torque areas should see something like 80%, or even a bit more. Depends on your actual turbo, n75 and engine health...
Do not alter the following: KFLF, KFTLWS, KFLDSAK, KFTVLDRE, TLRAN.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
marantzvieta
Full Member
Karma: +2/-1
Offline
Posts: 70
|
|
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2024, 04:58:31 AM »
|
|
|
Some of my findings:
KFLDTV is not a starting point for N75 duty. It is the actual limitation. I was having problems with a constant underboost and raising the values in KFLDTV fixed the issue.
Regards
Hi doktor, this statement is wrong. N75 is in fact starting point and must be used to obtain a fine airflow delivery from the turbo. PID is the actual limitator of how much it can correct the deviation based on how off the request is from KFLDTV. Have been there. Raising values in KFLDTV just allows the PID to work on its intented range, but relying in PID is not the best way. Make a log of channel 027 and tune KFLDTV with the results of the log +1 / +2% on the last three rows. See how turbo work is smoothed and so power delivery. Some of my findings:
Do not alter the following: KFLF
Regards
I suggest you tune a bit KFLF on the high load and high RPM zones if you intend to run the car frequently there. I would not drive in the autobahn or a track without the peace of mind that it gets enough fuel there. Also take in consideration that with more boost and fuel, ignition advance should be less, not more, to avoid detonation. This is because denser air burns faster and reaches peak cylinder pressure earlier too. Best regards |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 17, 2024, 06:05:44 AM by marantzvieta »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
marantzvieta
Full Member
Karma: +2/-1
Offline
Posts: 70
|
|
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2024, 05:00:00 AM »
|
|
|
You can find it on the file site now, if you ever need it. I threw in an XDF as well.
I think if you're doing something with larger turbo, this info will save you at least 10 hours of calibration and chasing all kind of messed up problems like car not starting right hot & cold etc.
I appreciate it. Time will come in the following months. I like to see this kind of jobs to understand the work you made and learn about it, so I really appreciate giving the opportunity to access it. Best regards |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
doktor
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 36
|
|
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2024, 08:17:28 AM »
|
|
|
Hi doktor, this statement is wrong. N75 is in fact starting point and must be used to obtain a fine airflow delivery from the turbo. PID is the actual limitator of how much it can correct the deviation based on how off the request is from KFLDTV.
Hi marantz, I get the impression that the table might be a "linearization map" as can be sometimes found on the net. Like it is a correction factor between the PID output and actual duty. In that case, the output duty could never go higher than the last row in KFLDTV, and that was basically my observation. I was getting a constant and predictable underboost with a relatively low N75 duty, the ECU did not want to increase it even for a several second long underboost. On a closer inspection, the N75 duty was close to the last row in KFLDTV. Raising the values fixed this problem without issues. Also take in consideration that with more boost and fuel, ignition advance should be less, not more, to avoid detonation. This is because denser air burns faster and reaches peak cylinder pressure earlier too.
Well, the axis of the table is LOAD. If you run more boost, you have more LOAD, so you are automatically pulling numbers further from the table, which are naturally lower. So even without altering KFZW and increasing only boost and fuel, you get less timing, ig your timing table is sensible. by the way, WOW, I just logged timing pull for my other AUM engine (110kW), which has been remapped to factory AUQ maps (132kW). The engines themselves are identical so this shoud be a perfect fit. But, I am getting a steady 6° retardations for a WOT pull, some numbers are even higher. This is much more serious than my little 2s for AGU tune and basically with factory maps. The car is mapped like this for maybe 2 years, almost daily driving and there are absolutely no issues with it. And an interesting finding, there is always 0 pull for cylinder 1. This is the same for AGU and AUM. Thanks again for the discussion. Jan |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 17, 2024, 08:19:38 AM by doktor »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
marantzvieta
Full Member
Karma: +2/-1
Offline
Posts: 70
|
|
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2024, 03:09:18 AM »
|
|
|
Hi marantz,
I get the impression that the table might be a "linearization map" as can be sometimes found on the net. Like it is a correction factor between the PID output and actual duty. In that case, the output duty could never go higher than the last row in KFLDTV, and that was basically my observation. I was getting a constant and predictable underboost with a relatively low N75 duty, the ECU did not want to increase it even for a several second long underboost. On a closer inspection, the N75 duty was close to the last row in KFLDTV. Raising the values fixed this problem without issues.
Well, the axis of the table is LOAD. If you run more boost, you have more LOAD, so you are automatically pulling numbers further from the table, which are naturally lower. So even without altering KFZW and increasing only boost and fuel, you get less timing, ig your timing table is sensible.
by the way, WOW, I just logged timing pull for my other AUM engine (110kW), which has been remapped to factory AUQ maps (132kW). The engines themselves are identical so this shoud be a perfect fit. But, I am getting a steady 6° retardations for a WOT pull, some numbers are even higher. This is much more serious than my little 2s for AGU tune and basically with factory maps. The car is mapped like this for maybe 2 years, almost daily driving and there are absolutely no issues with it. And an interesting finding, there is always 0 pull for cylinder 1. This is the same for AGU and AUM.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Jan
Hi doktor. I have logged N75 duty cycles higher than those on KFLDTV, almost 10% higher than those on the map. My car was mapped in winter when air is colder and denser, so on summer the turbo had to work almost a 10% extra to move the same air quantity. I did notice the car behaving ever so slightly different when it started the hot days here, and as obssesed I am with this I ran some logs and noticed it. Leveling out KFLDTV has allowed me to keep the same behaviour and performance all year around even though we have like 25-30ºC difference between winter and summer here where I live. I believe (but cannot confirm) a "perfect tune" would have compensate the PID maps somehow for this kind of cases, as it is not the same having to do compensation work for 0,5bar than for 1 or 1.1bar, or even more in the future (bigger turbo incoming). But I do not understand the PID maps yet, it is some work I still have to do. If someone knows about it, I would appreciate it a lot if you could chime in and give some insight about it!  About timing: how are your spark plugs and coils? When I was on stock tune, I had 3-4º of timing pull with the plugs the car came with, and with a fresh new set (PFR6Q for 1.8t AEB), it went down to zero. With my actual tune I only get occasionally 1-2º of timing pull on 95 octane petrol. With 98 (highest available in my area) it is basically zero. Let's keep this chat up, I haven't had many opportunities to be able to have a long chat about discoveries with this ecu. Best regards |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
doktor
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 36
|
|
« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2024, 01:48:12 PM »
|
|
|
Marantz, thx for the info with spark plugs, I have this car only for a while so they might be worth replacing.
As this is meant as a guide, here is my take on boost vs "load": The standard boost level on a 150hp AGU engine is allegedly 0.55bar, which translates to 1.55bar MAP. The requested load for this level seems to be around 7ms. So, running at 9.5ms (as I am now), this should translate to around 2.1bar, or 1.1bar boost. Seems quite a lot. On some tunes, I have seen numbers as high as 10.5ms, this translates to over 1.3bar boost? How does the poor k03 cope with this?
I shoot an equation: MAP = load[ms] * 0.22. But I believe the turbo efficiency comes into play a bit here...
Btw, the apparent difference when going from 7ms to 9.5ms actual load is BIG. The stock engine is not sluggish, but it is boring. There is no turbo kick. After the remap it is fun to drive.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
marantzvieta
Full Member
Karma: +2/-1
Offline
Posts: 70
|
|
« Reply #41 on: Yesterday at 04:28:21 AM »
|
|
|
Marantz, thx for the info with spark plugs, I have this car only for a while so they might be worth replacing.
As this is meant as a guide, here is my take on boost vs "load": The standard boost level on a 150hp AGU engine is allegedly 0.55bar, which translates to 1.55bar MAP. The requested load for this level seems to be around 7ms. So, running at 9.5ms (as I am now), this should translate to around 2.1bar, or 1.1bar boost. Seems quite a lot. On some tunes, I have seen numbers as high as 10.5ms, this translates to over 1.3bar boost? How does the poor k03 cope with this?
I shoot an equation: MAP = load[ms] * 0.22. But I believe the turbo efficiency comes into play a bit here...
Btw, the apparent difference when going from 7ms to 9.5ms actual load is BIG. The stock engine is not sluggish, but it is boring. There is no turbo kick. After the remap it is fun to drive.
Hi mate, it's all about code optimisation. I cannot explain myself how a reputable tuner everybody knows across europe and the states only managed to make 187hp from absurdly high values in KFLDS. This is something I have seen personally, no assumptions made or "a friend told me". My advice is to follow your own path as I did and as you're doing: make your own learning, observations, experience, and do what works for you. I learnt a ton from this and other forums, but I did my own testing and observations and I am using what has been working for me. Also yes, the stock tuning while obviously super reliable, is obviously super boring too. Since I made my first test to 180hp I haven't understand how Audi/VW ever let the 1.8t go into production with only 150hp. I believe this had to be a financial decision as they also had to sell those V6's and 180hp versions for an extra cost. There is a cool video on youtube of two A4 B5, 180hp AJL and a V6 30v 193hp runs compared, and the 180hp keeps up with the V6 untill 200km/h. Best regards, |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
doktor
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 36
|
|
« Reply #42 on: Yesterday at 01:51:12 PM »
|
|
|
I cannot explain myself how a reputable tuner everybody knows across europe and the states only managed to make 187hp from absurdly high values in KFLDS. This is something I have seen personally, no assumptions made or "a friend told me".
I wonder how anyone could get any more with stock turbo. The 180hp variant runs at about 140g/s MAF at full power. See attachment...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Leonhard
Full Member
Karma: +29/-2
Offline
Posts: 115
|
|
« Reply #43 on: Today at 12:14:24 AM »
|
|
|
you are showing the wrong compressor map for 1.8T, 1870E is the one for 2.7BiTurbo.
1.8T uses 2072G and later models 2075E compressor.
There is still some room for tuning, noticing the 180PS line (red)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
doktor
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 36
|
|
« Reply #44 on: Today at 01:37:01 AM »
|
|
|
Leon, thanks for the reply. There were two variants of the 1.8t 150hp engine, the earlier like AGU with large port head and smaller k03 turbo (and mostly M3.8 ECU), and later like AUM with small port head and slightly larger "k03s" (though Im not sure if this is the official designation). The compressor map you posted is for the smaller k03? I was not able to find the exact type number and assumed its the 1870.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
