|
|
|
phila_dot
|
 |
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2012, 11:56:14 AM »
|
|
|
Yea...very tedious. Did you rescale the linearization or just slap it in there? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rick
|
|
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2012, 01:32:39 PM »
|
|
|
This is a nice to have and something I have looked at doing but no time for it. In practise it really isn't hard to tune around as prj notes. I have a stroked 1.8 I'm tuning now which should be doing around 600hp, I'll see how that comes along.
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2012, 01:38:18 PM »
|
|
|
How about making a dedicated thread for it, and starting with the rescaling work, assuming a factor of two?
Also, do not just post a huge list of maps or variables, but post for each variable why you think it should be changed.
Some things are obvious, others are not.
Stuff like KFBRK and KFBRKNW can be just zeroed out as I understand it. This is done from factory as well on some files IIRC.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
elRey
|
|
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2012, 02:11:07 PM »
|
|
|
Yea...very tedious.
Did you rescale the linearization or just slap it in there?
Rescaled it. How about making a dedicated thread for it, and starting with the rescaling work, assuming a factor of two?
Also, do not just post a huge list of maps or variables, but post for each variable why you think it should be changed.
Some things are obvious, others are not.
Stuff like KFBRK and KFBRKNW can be just zeroed out as I understand it. This is done from factory as well on some files IIRC.
That was a starting point. We need to start with a list, then discuss/decide if it shuold be modified. However, identifying ALL the maps that should be considered is the first step. Hence the list (tho incomplete) of maps. And where did you get a factor of 2 from? The factor will be dictated by the MAP sensor used. If you are going to go thru all that that trouble, why start with a 'shoot from the hip' factor when the MAP sensor specs will give you an exact factor? sorry this should be continued in a dedicated thread as stated above. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 02:17:35 PM by elRey »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2012, 09:21:37 PM »
|
|
|
I like this train of thought and would like to assist in any way I can, once I get my car into shape to where I'm able to boost above 2560mBar without running out of fuel first. I think this could possibly go hand-in-hand with the desired swap for us M-box people to go to K-box, since to do the uprated ps_w, we'd have to start over with a file with all of these tedious changes made anyways. Thinking about the potential higher-rated MAP sensors, does anyone have any thoughts on which sensor we might use? Is there a different Audi part that would be form-swappable with our MAP, in the TBB? I'm currently running a Zeitronix 0-5V 5-bar boost sensor (that isn't manufactured by Zeitronix) in addition to my stock MAP sensor, to log boost above the stock MAP threshold, and when I was deciding to do this, I did some research on the Zeitronix 3 and 5 bar pressure transducers. I'll have to review my notes for actual values, but the 5-bar sensor had tighter tolerances than the 3-bar on accuracy, so even though the 5-bar has a larger range, it's precision was right about the same as the 3-bar (accurate to just under .1psi IIRC). The 5-bar sensor is a really good one, though it would be tough to make it fit in the stock MAP hole (which shouldn't be a big deal), and I agree with elRey, if we're going to undertake this project that would require a bunch of work, we should figure out the exact right factor for whatever MAP sensor we use. If people do want to try to use the 5-bar sensor that Zeitronix (and a ton of other people) use, I would be willing to sell them a sensor at distributor's cost for this project, just hit me up. Stuff like KFBRK and KFBRKNW can be just zeroed out as I understand it. This is done from factory as well on some files IIRC.
That would disable variable timing, no? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 09:34:12 PM by jibberjive »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2012, 01:46:32 AM »
|
|
|
And where did you get a factor of 2 from? The factor will be dictated by the MAP sensor used. If you are going to go thru all that that trouble, why start with a 'shoot from the hip' factor when the MAP sensor specs will give you an exact factor? Hell no. Why would you use a MAP sensor as the base? The pressure does not have to max out where the MAP sensor maxes out and vice versa. And a factor of two is the easiest to do. That way you can theoretically read 2560*2 = 5120 mbar. Or up to 4 bar of boost. Whether you use the range or not is completely irrelevant. You are just changing the factor for the pressure inside the ECU by a factor of two. This also means you can do the rescaling work *once* and then the file can be used with any sensor up to 5 bar by changing DSLOFS and DSLGRAD. That would disable variable timing, no? Not at all, what makes you think that? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 01:48:33 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2012, 03:14:29 AM »
|
|
|
Not at all, what makes you think that?
I was actually thinking of KFNW & KFNWWL when I wrote that. But considering KFPBRKNWS is titled "factor to correct pressure at combustion chamber by active Camshaft control", and the fact that it eventually affects rl_w, doesn't that mean that it will affect proper use of the NWS cam switching usage (on boxes that weren't 0 to begin with in those maps)? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2012, 04:02:01 AM »
|
|
|
I was actually thinking of KFNW & KFNWWL when I wrote that. But considering KFPBRKNWS is titled "factor to correct pressure at combustion chamber by active Camshaft control", and the fact that it eventually affects rl_w, doesn't that mean that it will affect proper use of the NWS cam switching usage (on boxes that weren't 0 to begin with in those maps)?
I don't think so. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
elRey
|
|
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2012, 08:08:23 AM »
|
|
|
Why would you use a MAP sensor as the base? The pressure does not have to max out where the MAP sensor maxes out and vice versa. Resolution. The larger the scale the lower the resolution. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2012, 10:00:39 AM »
|
|
|
Resolution. The larger the scale the lower the resolution.
This is completely irrelevant. The pulsations in the intake and the smoothing of the read MAP values lowers the precision way more than 20mbar in case of an 8 bit variable. And with 16 bit, it's not even important. You are thinking too much in numbers and theory - from a practical point of view, I have used 8 bar sensors with 8 bit resolution and that means a stepping of 0.03 bar. You are worried about the difference between 0.01 bar and 0.02 bar. Can you give at least one example of why that would even remotely affect anything? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 10:05:53 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bische
|
|
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2012, 11:21:39 AM »
|
|
|
Thanks for another really good thread!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2012, 02:03:04 PM »
|
|
|
Agreed, thanks guys.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own. Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2012, 03:28:44 PM »
|
|
|
Do we have a concensus?
Let's formulate a solid plan, then we can split up the work and tackle this.
Who's in?
prj, elray...anyone else? Silentbob?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2012, 04:07:54 PM »
|
|
|
Do we have a concensus?
Let's formulate a solid plan, then we can split up the work and tackle this.
Who's in?
prj, elray...anyone else? Silentbob?
I'm in... but I'm retarded. Let me know if there's something you want hard-tested, or whatever a non-programmer/disassembler can contribute towards. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
