|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #105 on: October 14, 2014, 08:16:48 PM »
|
|
|
http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=2637.msg42320#msg42320We need to find out which one is being used, and what the axis are first. I'm running stock 20% on my 2.7t file, but the 2.7t only has one value, not a table. 100% (according to phila) is no filtering, but I have not personally tested it. You could experiment by setting one of the tables to 100%, and leaving the other stock, to find out which one is used (and trying the opposite if it doesn't work).
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #106 on: October 14, 2014, 08:39:49 PM »
|
|
|
Guys, I just want to say, this thread is great. Good work everyone.
With that said, I think we need to split it. Right now, we're at 100 percent IDC and about to modify additional fueling maps.
I would like to have a concrete stage1, where the hardware is NOT maxed. Very simple, fueling via LAMFA and boost via LDRXN. Then, we end it, and continue the BTS/ZKLAMFA discussion into a new thread, stage2.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #107 on: October 15, 2014, 04:41:34 AM »
|
|
|
With that said, I think we need to split it. Right now, we're at 100 percent IDC and about to modify additional fueling maps.
I would like to have a concrete stage1, where the hardware is NOT maxed. Very simple, fueling via LAMFA and boost via LDRXN. Then, we end it, and continue the BTS/ZKLAMFA discussion into a new thread, stage2.
The problem is, IMO, simple changes like this won't result in an acceptable stage I tune. If you are okay with a .90 fuel request for a stage I, then fine, but there is no way get a decent fuel request and stay out of BTS fueling and thus > 100% IDC using these methods. We wouldn't be prodding this maps if we could get fueling to do what we wanted it to do via LAMFA. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vwaudiguy
|
|
« Reply #108 on: October 15, 2014, 08:26:40 AM »
|
|
|
The problem is, IMO, simple changes like this won't result in an acceptable stage I tune. If you are okay with a .90 fuel request for a stage I, then fine, but there is no way get a decent fuel request and stay out of BTS fueling and thus > 100% IDC using these methods. We wouldn't be prodding this maps if we could get fueling to do what we wanted it to do via LAMFA.
I agree. Also since we aren't seeing timing pull yet, wouldn't we want to advance until we see some action? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If you have a chinese turbo, that you are worried is going to blow up when you floor it, then LOL."
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
 Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #109 on: October 15, 2014, 02:48:37 PM »
|
|
|
Not to distract from the above discussion, however I believe I located (but need verification) a few other maps that still required to be defined based on the current XDF or 2.7T STG 1 XDF. KFDLULS – I believe that this map does not exist, click , in this binary instead it should be KFDLUL KFDLUL – 8x1, 27F47, 8 Bit TABGBTS – 1x1, 26EB2, 16 Bit LSB First NMAX – 1x1, 168A2, 16 Bit LSB First NMAXF – 1x1, 1D83A, 16 Bit LSB First NWPMBBR – 1x1, 10DC0, 8 Bit VWPMBBR – 1x1, 10DDA, 8 Bit VMAXNB – 1x1, 29F8C, 16 Bit LSB First |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #110 on: October 15, 2014, 04:08:41 PM »
|
|
|
The problem is, IMO, simple changes like this won't result in an acceptable stage I tune. If you are okay with a .90 fuel request for a stage I, then fine, but there is no way get a decent fuel request and stay out of BTS fueling and thus > 100% IDC using these methods. We wouldn't be prodding this maps if we could get fueling to do what we wanted it to do via LAMFA.
I agree with this. I'm not after big numbers. If we can't get fueling dialed properly on the stock hardware, then I'll try turning things down and log again. I think we're close, and I (for one) would like to try a few more things. Is it simple? No. But that's ME7. I do plan on upgrading some hardware in the future, and when I do, I'll be happy to work in the stage 2 project. For now, lets just see what is possible, and make it safe and drivable. Clearly the commercial stage 1 tunes are popular enough, there must be a way to make the stock hardware work for our purposes. I agree. Also since we aren't seeing timing pull yet, wouldn't we want to advance until we see some action?
I think the consensus is that we will attempt small timing advance once our fuel and boost are optimized. I'm all for it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #111 on: October 15, 2014, 07:13:21 PM »
|
|
|
I made some modifications to the LAMFA table per SB_GLI's suggestion earlier (bring in fuel preemptively to get ahead of the time delays) and I'm going to try maxing out one of the ZKLAMFA tables like nyet suggested to see which one(s) actually works. I'll log again tomorrow and post a csv. Nyet, can you help me make sense of the differences? I'm not sure what to compare to see if LAMFA is on track?
Hopefully with enough enrichment at the right places, we'll avoid the BTS from taking over and maxing out IDC. Or maybe I just need some bigger injectors........
I agree, it would be nice to have the ZKLAMFAW axis defined.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 07:23:53 PM by thelastleroy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #112 on: October 15, 2014, 07:29:06 PM »
|
|
|
Not to distract from the above discussion, however I believe I located (but need verification) a few other maps that still required to be defined based on the current XDF or 2.7T STG 1 XDF. KFDLULS – I believe that this map does not exist, click , in this binary instead it should be KFDLUL KFDLUL – 8x1, 27F47, 8 Bit TABGBTS – 1x1, 26EB2, 16 Bit LSB First NMAX – 1x1, 168A2, 16 Bit LSB First NMAXF – 1x1, 1D83A, 16 Bit LSB First NWPMBBR – 1x1, 10DC0, 8 Bit VWPMBBR – 1x1, 10DDA, 8 Bit VMAXNB – 1x1, 29F8C, 16 Bit LSB First A4Rich: Are these locations for the 368072 version, or the 367307? I've decided not to entertain the 367307 for this project because it apparently has some fueling gremlins. If these work for 368072 I'll try and update my xdf. Thanks for your hard work! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #113 on: October 15, 2014, 08:13:28 PM »
|
|
|
A4Rich:
Are these locations for the 368072 version, or the 367307? I've decided not to entertain the 367307 for this project because it apparently has some fueling gremlins. If these work for 368072 I'll try and update my xdf. Thanks for your hard work!
Just Rich is ok.  These are for 368072, I will email you the XDF I am working on. I came to the same conclusion as well...I think that most of defined maps in the other software will be straight forward to find... will just take some time. Thanks ddillenger for detailing the reasoning you don't use the 367307! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #114 on: October 15, 2014, 08:27:58 PM »
|
|
|
Thanks for your hard work!
I think I should be thanking you!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #115 on: October 15, 2014, 08:48:33 PM »
|
|
|
Should we include the P1681 control module programming not finished work around, click? I know the first time I read my ecu this happened...lol (now) The byte to be changed appears to be located at 6B3AE. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 07:12:08 AM by A4Rich »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #116 on: October 16, 2014, 04:29:49 AM »
|
|
|
I made some modifications to the LAMFA table per SB_GLI's suggestion earlier (bring in fuel preemptively to get ahead of the time delays) and I'm going to try maxing out one of the ZKLAMFA tables like nyet suggested to see which one(s) actually works. I'll log again tomorrow and post a csv. Nyet, can you help me make sense of the differences? I'm not sure what to compare to see if LAMFA is on track?
I don't think we need to do that with lamfa now that we have the time delay/filter tables correctly defined. I say we leave lamfa at what we really want it to be and work the zk/tlafa tables until we get what we want. See my table value suggestions from a few posts back. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #117 on: October 16, 2014, 04:30:36 AM »
|
|
|
Should we include the P1681 control module programming not finished work around, click? I know the first time I read my ecu this happened...lol (now) The byte to be changed appears to be located at 6B3AE. Ahh yes, there's that too. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ktm733
|
|
« Reply #118 on: October 16, 2014, 05:22:10 AM »
|
|
|
I made some modifications to the LAMFA table per SB_GLI's suggestion earlier (bring in fuel preemptively to get ahead of the time delays) and I'm going to try maxing out one of the ZKLAMFA tables like nyet suggested to see which one(s) actually works. I'll log again tomorrow and post a csv. Nyet, can you help me make sense of the differences? I'm not sure what to compare to see if LAMFA is on track?
Hopefully with enough enrichment at the right places, we'll avoid the BTS from taking over and maxing out IDC. Or maybe I just need some bigger injectors........
I agree, it would be nice to have the ZKLAMFAW axis defined.
Can you update the xdf please so I can define the the table in my xdf? Thank you. Great work but what I'm comfused about is when I read s4 tuning wiki they have a way different fueling strategy based off egt. How did you guys come up with this strategy? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #119 on: October 16, 2014, 06:05:02 AM »
|
|
|
The most recent xdf is on pg 1, post 1
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 29, 2014, 07:04:05 PM by thelastleroy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
