|
masterj
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2013, 12:24:21 PM »
|
|
|
See the attached file for translated ZUESZ. Here is the snippet describing calculation of dwell time.
Calculation of angle output
The basic closing time for a selected voltage (eg 12 volts) is available in KFTSRL = f (nmot, rl).
The characteristic of the voltage increases FSWTM offer in the cold start and warm-up.
With dynamic load (B_swdy = 1), the closing time is multiplied by the factor ftsdrl until the time of TZSUDYN has expired. As long B_swdy is active, which has been triggered by B_swdy maximum occurred tsdrlmx the source for the factor of FTSDRLW. B_swdy is reset as long as drlsolf_w> DTSDRL is (re-triggering).
Calculated by then closing time is limited by TSMx upwards.
The correction of the influence of Ubatt is by the factor in the characteristic field KFSZDUB. A voltage offset between the measured and the voltage at Ubatt ignition module can be taken into account with DUBZS.
A positive speed gradient is corrected in the map KFTSDYN. The minimum open time limit applies separately to each ignition output.
I have only changed KFTSRL, FSWTM, KFSZDUB, and FTSDRLW and my tsrldyn values were indeed lower. I have not touched KFSZT.
Thanks catbed, that explains to me something: in MED9 the output variable from ZUESZ is called szout_w, but in ME7 same variable is called szrl_w, even though ME7 has another variable szout_w that is basically FSZTM x KFSZT. Now for the MED9 to ME7 transfer I did this: --------------------------------- TZSUDYN = 0s
KFTSRL = KFTSRL
FSWTM = FSZTM
TSMXNL = TSMXNL
NMNZUESA = NMNZUESA
NMXZUESA = NMXZUESA
TSMX = TSMX
KFSZDUB = KFSZDUB
DUBZS = 0
KFTSDYN = 1s--------------------------------- szrl_w (ME7) == szout_w (MED9) Also I found out that in MED9 SA(T) subfunction of ZUESZ is disabled by set very high rpm lower limit. Only things that left different were ftsdrl and KFTSDYN. KFTSDYN I have set to 1s to disable it. To disable ftsdrl correction I have set TZSUDYN = 0s. One more thing to consider: DUBZS. I believe this offset should be set to 0 if it isn't already. P.S> Some of the maps listed have already same values in ME7 and MED9, but to be non ecu dependable this list had to be such. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
catbed
|
|
« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2013, 02:43:53 PM »
|
|
|
Thanks catbed, that explains to me something:
in MED9 the output variable from ZUESZ is called szout_w, but in ME7 same variable is called szrl_w, even though ME7 has another variable szout_w that is basically FSZTM x KFSZT.
Now for the MED9 to ME7 transfer I did this:
---------------------------------
TZSUDYN = 0s
KFTSRL = KFTSRL
FSWTM = FSZTM
TSMXNL = TSMXNL
NMNZUESA = NMNZUESA
NMXZUESA = NMXZUESA
TSMX = TSMX
KFSZDUB = KFSZDUB
DUBZS = 0
KFTSDYN = 1s
---------------------------------
szrl_w (ME7) == szout_w (MED9)
Also I found out that in MED9 SA(T) subfunction of ZUESZ is disabled by set very high rpm lower limit. Only things that left different were ftsdrl and KFTSDYN. KFTSDYN I have set to 1s to disable it. To disable ftsdrl correction I have set TZSUDYN = 0s.
One more thing to consider: DUBZS. I believe this offset should be set to 0 if it isn't already.
P.S> Some of the maps listed have already same values in ME7 and MED9, but to be non ecu dependable this list had to be such.
Glad I could help.  Good idea about DUBSZ, I missed that. Another way to deal with ftsdrl correction is to change FTSDRLW to 1, since that is ftsdrl's source. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #62 on: May 11, 2013, 12:16:13 AM »
|
|
|
Any longer term feedback, or feedback from newer people who have made these adjustments with their 2.0 coilpacks? New people, did it make a tangible difference with these settings? Older people, still no blown 2.0 coils?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sn00k
|
|
« Reply #63 on: May 11, 2013, 02:51:44 AM »
|
|
|
Any longer term feedback, or feedback from newer people who have made these adjustments with their 2.0 coilpacks? New people, did it make a tangible difference with these settings? Older people, still no blown 2.0 coils?
Been using the 2.0T coils this whole winter season, on E85, ~6-7 months, no issues at all, changed to the 2.0T values in january, and it runs quite a bit smoother then it did when just plugging the new coils in. noticed gain in low/mid rpm, as in; you dont have to press the throttle as far to keep the speed up. what supposedly was compressor surge is now gone, so id say the coils themself are a big improvement, esp with plugs that are gapped wider.. running ~1.1mm now, very good spark compared to the original setup. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 02:54:33 AM by sn00k »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
catbed
|
|
« Reply #64 on: May 11, 2013, 09:58:20 AM »
|
|
|
Any longer term feedback, or feedback from newer people who have made these adjustments with their 2.0 coilpacks? New people, did it make a tangible difference with these settings? Older people, still no blown 2.0 coils?
Haven't blown a coil since I made these changes, but I also re-worked the harness so I can't say dwell time fixed it. Changed the dwell time on my buddy's stage 3, it seems to run smoother when boost comes on. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Axis
Full Member
Karma: +4/-4
 Offline
Posts: 91
|
|
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2013, 05:57:19 PM »
|
|
|
As I understand FSZTM*KFSZT is one source, but this is not used in 2.7TT (CW_FUBND=0).
I disagree, FFLDZ and KFFFANZ are the ones skipped in 551M due to CW_FUBND=0 DISCLAIMER: there could be some errors in this code but not concerning CW_FUBND From what I can tell FSZTM & KFSZT are active. FSZTM & KFSZT: loc_88B28C: ; CODE XREF: sub_88B264+2
; sub_88B264+A ...
bclr word_FDC4.1 ; B_zuesa Bedingung Schließwinkelausgabe bei SA
loc_88B28E: ; CODE XREF: sub_88B264+26
mov r4, nmot_w_word_F87A
cmp r4, #1770h
jmpr cc_UGT, loc_88B2FC
mov r12, #2340h ; FSZTM
mov r13, #206h
movbz r14, tmot_byte_380BCC
calls 80h, LookupI_80430a ; References a lookupI table
shl r4, #8
mov [-r0], r4
mov r12, #240Dh ; KFSZT Schließzeit-Kennfeld
mov r13, #206h
movbz r14, ub_byte_380AF3
movbz r15, nmot_byte_F878
calls 80h, LookupM_8044ea ; References a lookupM table
mov r5, [r0+]
mulu r4, r5
mov r9, MDL
add r9, r9
mov r9, MDH
addc r9, r9
jmpr cc_NC, loc_88B2D6
mov r9, #0FFFFh
loc_88B2D6: ; CODE XREF: sub_88B264+6C
cmp r9, #3
jmpr cc_NC, loc_88B2E2
mov r4, #3
mov word_382EB0, r4
jmpr cc_UC, loc_88B2E6
CW_FUBND follows loc_88B456: ; CODE XREF: sub_88B264+1E8
mov szrl_w_word_382EA4, r9
mov r12, szrl_w_word_382EA4
shl r12, #2
mov r13, #61A8h
mov r14, #29Ah
calls 0, word_6C9C
mov word_382EAE, r4
mov r5, szrl_w_word_382EA4
mov word_382EB2, r5
movb rl4, nmot_byte_F878
extp #206h, #1
cmpb rl4, FWNMOTbyte_81A34C
jmpr cc_NC, loc_88B4E6
extp #206h, #1
movb rl5, CW_FUBNDbyte_81A333
cmpb rl5, #0
jmpr cc_ULE, loc_88B4E6
movbz r4, ub_byte_380AF3
mov [-r0], r4
mov r4, #3302h ; FFLDZ
mov r5, #207h
mov [-r0], r5
mov [-r0], r4
extp #207h, #1
movbz r12, FFLDZbyte_81F2F8
mov r13, #32F9h ; FFLDZ x-axis volts
mov r14, #207h
calls 80h, sub_804C5E
add r0, #6
mov szfuba_w_word_382EA0, r4
extp #207h, #1
mov r5, FUBAOFword_81F312
mov offz_w_word_382E9E, r5
mov r12, #234Dh ; KFFFANZ
mov r13, #206h
movbz r14, tmot_byte_380BCC
movbz r15, nmot_byte_F878
calls 80h, LookupM_8044ea ; References a lookupM table
movb fubaanz_byte_380DA7, rl4
bset word_FDC2.14 ; B_ff Bedingung Folgefunkenzündung
jmpr cc_UC, loc_88B4EC
; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
loc_88B4E6: ; CODE XREF: sub_88B264+220
; sub_88B264+22Cj
bclr word_FDC2.14 ; B_ff Bedingung Folgefunkenzündung
movb fubaanz_byte_380DA7, ZEROS
loc_88B4EC: ; CODE XREF: sub_88B264+280
mov r9, [r0+]
rets
; End of function sub_88B264
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #66 on: July 13, 2013, 06:44:59 AM »
|
|
|
Looked into it a little, I think it should be that one logic is used only for starting the engine and the other one is used the rest of the time.
During driving the load based one is always used.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
20VTMK1
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 113
|
|
« Reply #67 on: September 27, 2013, 02:05:52 PM »
|
|
|
Been using the 2.0T coils this whole winter season, on E85, ~6-7 months, no issues at all, changed to the 2.0T values in january, and it runs quite a bit smoother then it did when just plugging the new coils in.
noticed gain in low/mid rpm, as in; you dont have to press the throttle as far to keep the speed up.
what supposedly was compressor surge is now gone, so id say the coils themself are a big improvement, esp with plugs that are gapped wider.. running ~1.1mm now, very good spark compared to the original setup.
Hi SnOOk , Have you done this on the 1.8T engine ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
20VTMK1
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 113
|
|
« Reply #68 on: September 27, 2013, 02:08:42 PM »
|
|
|
Maybe someone could screenshot maps from fsi golf mkv? red coils code: 06E 905 115Or attach defined ols/xdf file  TIA Hi MasterJ , Did you manage to get hold of the values associated to these coils ? I have these coils as well and was wondering if you could help out . I tried the search function with no luck. Am I correct to assume that these Red Tops will have different values for KFTSRL , FSWTM , KFSZDUB and FTSDRLW when compared to the earlier grey coils ? Thank you |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sn00k
|
|
« Reply #69 on: September 28, 2013, 11:21:54 AM »
|
|
|
Hi SnOOk ,
Have you done this on the 1.8T engine ?
yes |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
20VTMK1
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 113
|
|
« Reply #70 on: September 29, 2013, 06:07:20 AM »
|
|
|
Hi SnOOk ,
How did this work out for you ? Was it worth changing the maps ?
I have the red top coils .
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ABCD
Full Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 78
|
|
« Reply #71 on: October 01, 2013, 07:55:57 PM »
|
|
|
Has someone come across follow up sparks (post spark /multiple spark) in a cycle?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
catbed
|
|
« Reply #72 on: October 01, 2013, 11:11:58 PM »
|
|
|
Has someone come across follow up sparks (post spark /multiple spark) in a cycle?
There was a thread that discussed multispark when dealing with e85 I believe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABCD
Full Member
Karma: +4/-0
Offline
Posts: 78
|
|
« Reply #74 on: October 02, 2013, 08:06:10 PM »
|
|
|
Thanks catbed and julex, this was informative!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
