weijie
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 46
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2014, 12:14:58 PM »
|
|
|
1.6 bar of boost or 2.6 bar of boost?
Do you know why that equations has the "-1000" in it?
Please, step back a moment and understand what load is :/
There is so much terrible information in this thread, I wish i'd spotted it sooner.
Its 1.6 bar, i did not subtract atom pressure off the column. Terrible information? Care to point some out? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2014, 12:18:58 PM »
|
|
|
Start with your target max load.
Why did you pick 215?
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
weijie
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 46
|
|
« Reply #47 on: August 11, 2014, 12:48:21 PM »
|
|
|
Start with your target max load.
Why did you pick 215?
I've changed it to 190, e previous screenshots u see was what i went with initially. I should had posted e bin and some 'correct' logs up when i asked for help. Apologies on that.. Im going with 190 because ((load *10)+300)-1000 = boost in mbar approximately and although im not gonna get exactly 1.2bars but thats e minimum that i wish to be boosting to.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #48 on: August 11, 2014, 01:22:31 PM »
|
|
|
My advice would be to put IOP back to stock, and to not worry about torque intervention unless you actually log it.
Keep IRL mostly stock (like you said you did).
I wouldn't mess with KFPED either, until the rest of the tune is solid. Do it last. It is irrelevant at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
majorahole
|
|
« Reply #49 on: August 11, 2014, 06:04:07 PM »
|
|
|
so how do adjust maps to request 1.5bar of boost? you don't go to 215 load? just wondering your process with the med9
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #50 on: August 11, 2014, 08:54:30 PM »
|
|
|
I don't know enough about MED9 to say, but what is the limit of the MAP sensor?
By 1.6 bar, do you mean 2600 mbar?
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
majorahole
|
|
« Reply #51 on: August 11, 2014, 09:04:45 PM »
|
|
|
1.5bar and yes 2500mbar. map limit is the same at 2550mbar
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
weijie
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 46
|
|
« Reply #52 on: August 11, 2014, 11:16:46 PM »
|
|
|
1.5bar and yes 2500mbar. map limit is the same at 2550mbar
I thought golfR's MAP sensor is limited at 3bars? I can use 215 load to get 1.5bar of boost but as it is currently with 190 load, i am already exceeding that (1.9bar) so i can stick to 190 load and not change the axis on IOP & IRL? Is my understanding wrong/incomplete? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Beaviz
Full Member
Karma: +8/-4
Offline
Posts: 190
|
|
« Reply #53 on: August 12, 2014, 12:33:38 AM »
|
|
|
2. Can i raise the values in LDPBN from 2550 to 2920 since the actual boost is 2920 @ 3600RPM? LDPBN is an 8bit value and can not be set any higher than 255 / 11111111. I am wondering why you see such high boost spikes. Have you been doing any changes to the PID in the SW or the wastegate/actuator? Do you have 190 as the highest value in IRL and LDRXN? The K04 equipped cars have a 3bar sensor. But that does not mean that they can request more than 2550mbar anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
weijie
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 46
|
|
« Reply #54 on: August 12, 2014, 02:46:56 AM »
|
|
|
LDPBN is an 8bit value and can not be set any higher than 255 / 11111111.
I am wondering why you see such high boost spikes. Have you been doing any changes to the PID in the SW or the wastegate/actuator? Do you have 190 as the highest value in IRL and LDRXN?
The K04 equipped cars have a 3bar sensor. But that does not mean that they can request more than 2550mbar anyway.
Got it, thanks for the lesson. Anyway i found that hopping between race2000 and winols retained the load at 215 in LDRXN and i also found that 214.43 was the highest value defined in my stock IRL. Nyet, i guess that also answered your question for me as well. Stock IOP & IRL |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
weijie
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 46
|
|
« Reply #55 on: August 12, 2014, 03:55:07 AM »
|
|
|
Ok, here's me starting afresh from a stock map with the changes below and i'll do some logging if the weather permits. Just a question, do i need to change the axis in KFZW to coincide with the axis change in IOP? LDPBN - 2550 all round IRL - 215 at 90 load IOP - change last load row axis to 215 and used 90 as value throughout - removed 120 load axis - shifted 150 load axis up 1 row to replace the original row of 120 load with 150 load values - shifted 180 load axis up 1 row to replace the original row of 150 load with 180 load values KFZW - -0.75 from rpm(3520,6520) and load(150-190) - do i need to change the axis here to coincide with the axis change in IOP?Edited maps   |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #56 on: August 12, 2014, 04:07:58 AM »
|
|
|
Rescale the KFZW axis to coincide with the load you'll be seeing. It doesn't necessarily have to match KFMIOP, just try to make the most use of it.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
weijie
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 46
|
|
« Reply #57 on: March 07, 2015, 03:34:54 PM »
|
|
|
After a break, i'm starting afresh in pursue of the stage 1 that is tailored to my liking. But i still have somethings that i cant figure out, i've attached logs and my work. 1. Which map should i adjust to increase the rail pressure? 2. Why didnt my AFR follow BTS? 3. Why boost doesnt seem to follow specified after 5040RPM? 4. Why does the load decrease after 5080RPM? What should i do if i want it to maintain above/remain at 191.7? Any hints/help would be very much appreciated!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Beaviz
Full Member
Karma: +8/-4
Offline
Posts: 190
|
|
« Reply #58 on: March 08, 2015, 08:41:40 AM »
|
|
|
After a break, i'm starting afresh in pursue of the stage 1 that is tailored to my liking. But i still have somethings that i cant figure out, i've attached logs and my work. 1. Which map should i adjust to increase the rail pressure? 2. Why didnt my AFR follow BTS? 3. Why boost doesnt seem to follow specified after 5040RPM? 4. Why does the load decrease after 5080RPM? What should i do if i want it to maintain above/remain at 191.7? Any hints/help would be very much appreciated! First, I have not opened your file.  1. Take a look at the KFPRSOLxxx and KLPRxxx maps. 2. Are you expecting it to follow KFLBTS? Have you changed DLBTS or KFFDLBTS? The BTS target calculation is not based on KFLBTS only. 3. You request more than the turbo is capable of. 4. Same as 3. In your logs it also looks like you have been doing something to your LAMFA maps? Specified should be 1.00 under light load and idle. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nottingham
Full Member
Karma: +13/-1
Offline
Posts: 204
|
|
« Reply #59 on: March 08, 2015, 04:51:14 PM »
|
|
|
Have you checked your MAF readings?
In the log you posted they make absolutely no sense.
At 3240rpm it reads 127.31g/s and at 3360rpm 198.72g/s.
It is just not possible.
Also you are making far too much torque at too low rpms.
1.76 bar of boost is a rod killer when the rpms are so low (3300rpm).
The engine is running way too rich from 3500rpm and up.
You could easily make it leaner by 0.1 as the optimal is between 0.85 - 0.8.
In few spots you are already getting torque intervention as the lambda exceeds the protection threshold (actual is 0.04 greater than requested).
I´m no guru but I would personally start making a new software from scratch.
The current one is not safe to run IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
