Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Author Topic: Spec load, requested load, and actual load and boost  (Read 48461 times)
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +58/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #30 on: November 04, 2013, 06:05:53 AM »

I understand you since I mess up and expiriment with my car a lot regarding throttle response, turbo spool etc.  Smiley
My first file was made with ME7Wizard and I remember I had problems with part throttle,not WOT though
I remember when my KFMIOP was way off KFMIRL the car didnt spool as it should and req =/= actual .

Since you are expirimenting to find if it is your Remap or hardware related I would do this.
KFPED= stock
KFMIOP=manually as 1:1 as you can with KFMIRL
KFMIRL=dont go from 160-200 I would do it more linear.

You're right that should be my next step. Smiley
Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
phila_dot
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +172/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709


« Reply #31 on: November 04, 2013, 07:36:59 AM »

If rlsol follows rlmax, then you can stop looking at the torque model.

It should be easy to track down where the problem is by logging the right variables (%LDRLMX and %MDFUE).
Logged
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +58/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2013, 09:09:26 AM »

rlsol_w doesn't ever meet rlmax_w, rl_w meets rlsol_w more or less (to the point where I don't think that is causing any major issues).

But that is my question.. why doesn't rlsol_w meet rlmax_w, I cannot seem to find any reason why it wouldn't in my file.  I will add the suggested variables to my log for next time Smiley 

Thanks Phila
Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12233


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2013, 10:37:01 AM »

Dude can you post a freaking graph and not a screen shot of a spreadsheet ;P
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please 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 experience.
oldcarguy85
Full Member
***

Karma: +15/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 247


« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2013, 10:53:12 AM »

There are a few things that will limit requested load.

Namely:

KFTARX
KFTARXZK (if you're getting heavy knock)
KFLDHBN
LDRXN
LDORXN (if you have overboost codes)
LDPBN (if you're overheating, or in later files all the time)

Make sure all of these are set above the load you're requesting. KFTARX should be set to all 1's anyway, the same way you set LDIATA to all 0's. It keeps things consistent.


I've tried everything you suggested (almost) to no avail....
KFTARX set to all 1s
--no change

KFTARXZK (i dont think this is getting used, as i dont have knock) -- raised
--no change

KFLDHBN -- set over 3 in all values
--no change

LDORXN - raised
--no change

LDPBN -- have not located, but i'm not overheating.  Coolant temperature logged to a normal 180deg F

I tried a couple things just to see what happened...

Increased last row of KFLDRL to 95% (removed dip in mid-range RPM).  Created higher spikes (which is what i expected), but boost just surged right back down to 15/16psi and kept surging.

Increased last row of KFMIOP from ~82% to 98%.  This didn't appear to affect anything -- my request in KFMIRL and LDRXN is VERY high, so i didn't expect this to have an impact, although it's still unclear to me if the 82% in this last row would basically take my request, and reduce it to 82% (even if it did, with my very high requests, it shouldn't matter).

Thanks again for any help (and sorry to hi-jack the thread -- My thread was merged into this one)
Logged
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +58/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2013, 10:56:30 AM »

Dude can you post a freaking graph and not a screen shot of a spreadsheet ;P

I'm used to looking at it that way.  Besides, the logs are attached to my 2nd post in full. Wink
Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +58/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2013, 10:57:45 AM »

I've tried everything you suggested (almost) to no avail....
KFTARX set to all 1s
--no change

KFTARXZK (i dont think this is getting used, as i dont have knock) -- raised
--no change

KFLDHBN -- set over 3 in all values
--no change

LDORXN - raised
--no change

LDPBN -- have not located, but i'm not overheating.  Coolant temperature logged to a normal 180deg F

I tried a couple things just to see what happened...

Increased last row of KFLDRL to 95% (removed dip in mid-range RPM).  Created higher spikes (which is what i expected), but boost just surged right back down to 15/16psi and kept surging.

Increased last row of KFMIOP from ~82% to 98%.  This didn't appear to affect anything -- my request in KFMIRL and LDRXN is VERY high, so i didn't expect this to have an impact, although it's still unclear to me if the 82% in this last row would basically take my request, and reduce it to 82% (even if it did, with my very high requests, it shouldn't matter).

Thanks again for any help (and sorry to hi-jack the thread -- My thread was merged into this one)


Sounds like you're seeing the exact same issue as I am. Very strange. 
Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
oldcarguy85
Full Member
***

Karma: +15/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 247


« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2013, 11:08:20 AM »

i feel like there's some secret to this or something lol.  This can't be this difficult, there are TONS of 1.8T tunes out there!  -- Hopefully one of the experts will be able to help.
Logged
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +58/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2013, 11:17:59 AM »

I didn't have this issue with my LP box that's for sure
Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
userpike
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +22/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2013, 11:39:24 AM »

Talk to Dan (littco)


I inquired via PM to littco like 2 months ago-ish on a hybrid set up and have yet to get a responce. The last I read, he responded to a request I asked for a ball bearing conversion for the k04, to which he replied he should have a prototype within a few weeks. this was a month or so atleast. I forget exactly how long its been but there isn't update in the thread on that either. I guess he's too busy right now.
Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12233


WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2013, 11:43:07 AM »

Looks like you'll have to log rlsol -> plsol path... i assume you have ME7L working?
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please 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 experience.
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +58/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2013, 12:21:03 PM »

I've taken the IOP/IRL out of my working LP box, because when I checked the logs on that one (LP) rl_sol does meet rl_max just as it is supposed to, so maybe it will end up just being a funky IRL/IOP situation here and if that is the case I will know not to use masterj's ME7 wizard for that purpose again.

I will update either way.
Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
TCSTigersClaw
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +15/-6
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2013, 12:23:44 PM »

IRL/IOP was my problem back then too.Your situation reminded mine a lot.

 I give more  emphasis now to KFMIRL/IOP than I did in the past.Also your KFPED some times is 100% at 50% throttle angle !! Smiley
Logged

VAG cars newbie tuner Smiley
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +58/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2013, 12:51:58 PM »

Actually rechecking my RN file, I never did mess with KFPED or the axis, so the weirdness must be from IRL/IOP not being aligned I suppose.
Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
oldcarguy85
Full Member
***

Karma: +15/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 247


« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2013, 01:15:25 PM »

Actually rechecking my RN file, I never did mess with KFPED or the axis, so the weirdness must be from IRL/IOP not being aligned I suppose.

With my issue i don't understand how IRL/IOP could be the problem.  I have last row of KFMIRL at 250 across the board.  I have tried last row of IOP at 95% (stock is about 82%) and really no change.  THe only thing i could think is you MUST change the last axis value (i believe it is 160 stock, but im not looking at it at teh moment) for KFMIOP, but from all the reading on here, that doesn't appear to be the case.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.025 seconds with 17 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.001s, 0q)