|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2012, 09:47:28 AM »
|
|
|
i just need to get a kbox kp together using prj's conversion as a base
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
s5fourdoor
|
|
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2012, 10:47:37 AM »
|
|
|
Is this seriously all? Obviously MLHFM+MLOFS+KRKTE+TVUB would need immediate adjustment for base startup, right?
Other than that, is there anything risky? It seems very straightforward. Ohh, we'd need to publish an XDF which has the modified launch control, right? So that will need porting as well...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2012, 10:53:04 AM »
|
|
|
yea basically. i am not currently using launch control so that part doesn't worry me  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
s5fourdoor
|
|
« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2012, 11:51:25 AM »
|
|
|
the grind continues...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
s5fourdoor
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2012, 06:08:23 PM »
|
|
|
Large update to follow: RS4 ignition timing successfully reverse-engineered.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
s5fourdoor
|
|
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2012, 02:51:51 PM »
|
|
|
Using MATLAB, I did a fine-grained linear interpolation for both the S4 and RS4 KFZW/OP tables.
Please let me be very clear about this. I used a technique known as blending to jump over the Variable KFNW issue.
This means the following for the high-level executive thinkers here:
On one end of the spectrum I had the correctly interpolated RS-4 tables.
On the other end I had the S-4 tables.
To the RS-4 tables I associated a value Lambda, to which the (1-Lambda) residual from the S4 was added to create the tables.
Audi knew what they were doing. They run much lower timing during sub-50% load situations. This isn't to be ignored.
Please note that the lambdas are 1.00 in idle-to-low throttle situations...
If you guys want a different table, with different lambda values, don't spit venom at me.
Tell me what you want and i'll input this into my routine and give you the results.
I chose these lambdas to be conservative because the RS4 has different compression, rods, and heads...
TBH, there probably isn't too much risk to run Lambda 1.0, perhaps somebody will volunteer to do some logs?
The methodology used to chose these Lambda's focused on where in the maps I thought the K03's / K04's were active.
[We can diverge on this more, but I think it's OT to get into more detail.]
Load Lambda
9.75 1.0
18.00 1.0
27.00 1.0
39.00 0.8
50.25 0.6
62.25 0.4
74.25 0.4
97.50 0.4
120.75 0.4
144.75 0.4
168.00 0.6
191.25 0.8
This applies to KFZW1 / KFZW2 / KFZWOP1 / KFZWOP2. Leave KFNW and KFNWWL alone. [For now.]
For KFZWMS and KFZWMN straight RS-4 tables were used as input, rather than a blending.
I HAVE NOT FULLY TESTED THESE TABLES YET. You are an alpha tester just like me and are at your own risk.
Please see the original download for the updated attachment.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 03:09:54 PM by nehalem »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2012, 03:27:53 AM »
|
|
|
You are making some sort of mistake.
0.4 is well below rich limit.
That's 5.9 AFR...
P.S.
I don't see the point in over-analyzing this. Just use RS4 software. Trying to port it to M-Box is dumb.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 03:37:41 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
s5fourdoor
|
|
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2012, 07:38:41 AM »
|
|
|
You are making some sort of mistake.
0.4 is well below rich limit.
That's 5.9 AFR...
P.S.
I don't see the point in over-analyzing this. Just use RS4 software. Trying to port it to M-Box is dumb.
I should not have used the term lambda. I should have used the term blending-factor. Yes, everyone is more than excited to switch the new ecu-box, but nobody has tried it to my knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2012, 08:11:32 AM »
|
|
|
Works just fine on my car, added NLS to it etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
s5fourdoor
|
|
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2012, 09:26:12 AM »
|
|
|
Can you provide more details?
Was your car originally a M-box? What tables did you change from the stock box?
Is this the XDF you posted a few weeks ago...?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2012, 02:52:40 PM »
|
|
|
Yes, it's the XDF I posted, I continued working on it and found the needed parameters that were missing.
My car is originally K-Box, but M-Box to K-Box needs 95040 flash and immo delete AFAIK.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2012, 03:28:13 PM »
|
|
|
I would expect alot of changes would be required to account for the differences in the engine.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
s5fourdoor
|
|
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2012, 03:37:31 PM »
|
|
|
I would expect alot of changes would be required to account for the differences in the engine.
my reservations exactly... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2012, 03:45:04 PM »
|
|
|
Not really.
Only specific thing is oil temp based rev limiter, but that can be easily fixed by setting to the same value across the table.
Just set KRKTE and MAF correctly, and it'll work just fine. You guys are way overcomplicating these things. Mass-flow systems adapt really well, and the changes in VE between RS4 and S4 are not THAT big anyway.
It's still all about conditions for certain cylinder filling and the engines are close enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2012, 03:55:27 PM »
|
|
|
Considering the amount of time i've wasted copying F box PID stuff to my base mbox k04 file, i'd say using k-box as a starting platform would be a great idea.
I just need to get prj's xdf into a usable (pared down, english, foldered) .kp
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
