NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
 Offline
Posts: 1056
|
 |
« on: June 03, 2013, 06:48:24 PM »
|
|
|
Yes it seems LDRXN (load) has something to do with it, but for whatever reason on my 1.8T I'm seeing that it doesn't really "define" req. boost.
In the example attached here, I'm specing approx 178 load, going by the wiki that I can expect approx 15.5psi boost, yet requested max is like 20.5 psi (then tapering to around 16-17 psi).
Makes no sense to me. I've attached the logs of my run (please excuse the weirdness, the car developed a large boost leak so boost never actually reaches requested in these logs due to it (just happened) but it would meet req. previous to the boost leak.
But my question still stands... how is requested boost actually derived from spec load. Is it possible that mine is a higher request because of a modifier (IAT load changes to spec boost)? I'm obviously missing something on my 1.8T here.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2013, 06:53:13 PM »
|
|
|
Are you at elevation?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
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 experience!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2013, 09:21:48 PM »
|
|
|
What is rlsol?
Edit: just saw the graph...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 09:24:08 PM by phila_dot »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2013, 09:26:03 PM »
|
|
|
Are you at elevation?
Toronto is pretty much @ sea level (101 KPA) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2013, 09:39:41 PM »
|
|
|
Is it possible that req. boost actually follows IRL regardless if it is capped/limited lower via LDRXN?
I just noticed that the bost curve could be fairly close to what looks to be my IRL table (2080+300=2380mbar=19.9 PSI)?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2013, 09:42:27 PM »
|
|
|
I can't see the csv on my phone, but did you log anything that would show cam state?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2013, 09:46:20 PM »
|
|
|
Is it possible that req. boost actually follows IRL regardless if it is capped/limited lower via LDRXN?
I just noticed that the bost curve could be fairly close to what looks to be my IRL table (2080+300=2380mbar=19.9 PSI)?
Nope. max((rlsol / fupsrl + pirg) / fpbrkds / vpsspls, pu) Edit: ^^^S4 M box, but it won't be much different in other flashes |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 09:51:32 PM by phila_dot »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2013, 09:52:59 PM »
|
|
|
I can't see the csv on my phone, but did you log anything that would show cam state?
yes I did wnwise_w |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2013, 10:13:39 PM »
|
|
|
yes I did wnwise_w
Better have after making me dig up my template to find it. lol Savages4 had an issue like that. To get boost sane he cut load down to the 180s (still 20psi) via LDRXN. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
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 experience!
Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com
Email>PM
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2013, 05:24:55 AM »
|
|
|
yes I did wnwise_w
Any correlation with the notchiness of target boost? I'm assuming that you disabled ldo? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2013, 06:22:11 AM »
|
|
|
Better have after making me dig up my template to find it.
lol
Savages4 had an issue like that. To get boost sane he cut load down to the 180s (still 20psi) via LDRXN.
lol.. If I lower LDRXN (tried that a few revisions ago, the car feels like a dog). Any correlation with the notchiness of target boost?
I'm assuming that you disabled ldo?
Not that I can see no. Requested boost is pretty stable. yes LDO is maxed out |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2013, 07:01:02 AM »
|
|
|
Phila, here is a snippet of the log w/ cam angle:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2013, 07:48:11 AM »
|
|
|
I could be wrong, but isn't wnwise just wnwi_ad?
So doesn't it just show the correction to bring the cam position to the reference position in relation to the crank reference?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
vagenwerk
Full Member
Karma: +2/-0
Offline
Posts: 182
|
|
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2013, 04:01:33 PM »
|
|
|
on 1.8T 150/164/180ps engine cam isn't switched, it stay always in one position.
Only 210/225 version have variable cam timming active.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
userpike
|
|
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2013, 07:56:12 PM »
|
|
|
on 1.8T 150/164/180ps engine cam isn't switched, it stay always in one position.
Only 210/225 version have variable cam timming active.
"1.8 liter engines with codes AWW and AWP use a camshaft adjuster unit with an electronically operated solenoid to adjust camshaft timing. The engine control module (ECM) will signal the solenoid to adjust camshaft timing based upon engine load and RPM. This allows for variable valve timing, resulting in cleaner emissions." This is quoted from my Bentley service manual. The 1.8ts with the AWW engine code are 150hp and AWP is 180hp rated. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
