|
thelastleroy
|
 |
« Reply #330 on: December 02, 2014, 04:11:52 AM »
|
|
|
The max requested load (LDRXN) for the stage 1 file tapers down to the stock value by redline. The curve is designed not to exceed the limitations of a small stock turbocharger, and small stock fuel injectors. If we request any more load (and therefore boost) after about 4500rpm the injector duty cycle will be well over 100%
I see you have timing corrections all over your pulls. What fuel are you on? You might need to dial back KFZW (compare the stage1 table vs the stock table) to bring timing into check.
Here's a pic of the LDRXN curve from tunerpro.
On a second look, it looks like your load requested is actually more than your load specified. Not sure what to make of that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MadCow
Full Member
Karma: +3/-1
 Offline
Posts: 108
|
|
« Reply #331 on: December 02, 2014, 07:31:17 AM »
|
|
|
Ok cool, I thought it was odd that your last log showed requested load plateau at around 3k and held there until 5k-ish before it drops significantly while mine peaks at 3.5k and drops off instantly. Injector duty cycle also just barely reaches 80%, so there still should be a bit of headroom, no? I was running 93 octane, so it shouldn't be pulling any timing.
I noticed the weirdness with load too, maybe due to some difference in how load is calculated between the different software? Your load specified closely follows fload corrected while in my case requested follows corrected. I'm guessing that spike in mine at 3.5k was because I only started the run at 3k. My actual AFRs are also always under desired, is that a LAMFA issue?
Just to confirm, I copied over KFZW, KFMIOP - load axis, KFMIRL, LAMFA - both axes, TABGBTS, LDRXN. I couldn't find ZKLAMFAW but it shouldn't have too much bearing, would be nice if I could lower it though.
It seems like there's a whole bunch of small problems with my run, nothing serious but enough to make me wanna look into it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #332 on: December 02, 2014, 05:33:15 PM »
|
|
|
Ok cool, I thought it was odd that your last log showed requested load plateau at around 3k and held there until 5k-ish before it drops significantly while mine peaks at 3.5k and drops off instantly. Injector duty cycle also just barely reaches 80%, so there still should be a bit of headroom, no? I was running 93 octane, so it shouldn't be pulling any timing.
I noticed the weirdness with load too, maybe due to some difference in how load is calculated between the different software? Your load specified closely follows fload corrected while in my case requested follows corrected. I'm guessing that spike in mine at 3.5k was because I only started the run at 3k. My actual AFRs are also always under desired, is that a LAMFA issue?
Just to confirm, I copied over KFZW, KFMIOP - load axis, KFMIRL, LAMFA - both axes, TABGBTS, LDRXN. I couldn't find ZKLAMFAW but it shouldn't have too much bearing, would be nice if I could lower it though.
Your log is showing timing corrections even with the 93 octane. Check timing overall vs timing requested. If the triangles don't line up, the ECU is pulling timing. Nyet or DDillenger might be able to tell you if this timing pull is from torque monitor intervention or just too much timing advance in the map. If you aren't getting intervention, you can pull back 0.75 degrees at a time from KFZW in the areas with corrections until you see it clean up. Did you mean you copied the KFMIOP map AND the load axis, or just the load axis? You'll need both, but I assume you've got it. Hope you can get the file sorted to where you are confident in the tune. Unfortunately, I can't be of much help with advanced diagnostic troubleshooting on this system, I still have much to learn. DDillenger? Nyet? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #333 on: December 02, 2014, 06:47:21 PM »
|
|
|
On second inspection, timing is all over the place. I can't tell if it is torque intervention or ARMD. Need to log mibas, mrfa, mimax, mizsolv (TorqueForTimingIntervention) to be sure.... or the appropriate ARMD variables - mkar, dmar, B_ar etc... unfortunately, they aren't in the standard ME7L list..
Alternately, you can dork with the ARMD maps as described in the wiki and see if the oscillations go away.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
MadCow
Full Member
Karma: +3/-1
Offline
Posts: 108
|
|
« Reply #334 on: December 02, 2014, 10:10:31 PM »
|
|
|
I'm gonna try to do a few pulls as is first to get a better baseline, then I guess I'll read up on ARMD and torque intervention. I've jumped into this too quickly so I'm still very clueless in general. Any advice regarding the load variables I mentioned in my last post?
@leroy: Yea I copied KFMIOP and the load axis, same deal with LAMFA but with both axes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
littco
|
|
« Reply #335 on: December 03, 2014, 12:41:41 AM »
|
|
|
I'm gonna try to do a few pulls as is first to get a better baseline, then I guess I'll read up on ARMD and torque intervention. I've jumped into this too quickly so I'm still very clueless in general. Any advice regarding the load variables I mentioned in my last post?
@leroy: Yea I copied KFMIOP and the load axis, same deal with LAMFA but with both axes.
Unfortunately there is no cwarmd variable that i have found so i havent been able to turn it off ditectly. If people dont have the maps for torque monitoring i can post them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #336 on: December 03, 2014, 03:51:54 AM »
|
|
|
Unfortunately there is no cwarmd variable that i have found so i havent been able to turn it off ditectly. If people dont have the maps for torque monitoring i can post them.
The xdf has a few maps that involve torque monitoring. Already have (KFMIZUFIL) and (KFMIZUOF). Which ones are needed? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 05:23:17 AM by thelastleroy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #337 on: December 03, 2014, 05:20:55 AM »
|
|
|
Latest log for the 518AK file. Not sure if my LAMFA 90%modification worked properly based on the log. Any other areas to improve?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
em.Euro.R18
Full Member
Karma: +4/-5
Offline
Posts: 219
|
|
« Reply #338 on: December 03, 2014, 09:08:48 AM »
|
|
|
Yeah, this was a bad suggestion on my part.
Hey man no worries there are experienced tuners using the same philosophy. In the real world you will find the benefits are minimal at best. I was under the same impression a while back and I've since proven myself wrong on the dyno. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #339 on: December 03, 2014, 09:57:48 AM »
|
|
|
Hey man no worries there are experienced tuners using the same philosophy. In the real world you will find the benefits are minimal at best. I was under the same impression a while back and I've since proven myself wrong on the dyno.
That suggestion was really just so he'd hit his real target lambda because we couldn't figure out the filtering in the beginning. While it would have probably worked just fine for a 3rd gear WOT pull, it would have over-fueled in a 4 or 5th gear pull where the filter had a longer time to drop the requested lamfa. With the filter figured out, now all is well. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SB_GLI
|
|
« Reply #340 on: December 03, 2014, 10:00:38 AM »
|
|
|
Latest log for the 518AK file. Not sure if my LAMFA 90%modification worked properly based on the log. Any other areas to improve?
you just need to keep an eye on mrfa in different driving conditions. Understand what mrfa will be when you are part throttle, cruising around town, WOT, going up a hill... all that stuff. When you understand when you will hit those values, you will know how to modify lamfa accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
littco
|
|
« Reply #341 on: December 03, 2014, 11:05:35 AM »
|
|
|
Latest log for the 518AK file. Not sure if my LAMFA 90%modification worked properly based on the log. Any other areas to improve?
There is definitely some torque intervention going on in those logs, 6 degree timing swings , if you set the Torque maps to 99 across the maps you'd see them hopefully drop down to 1-2 degrees. I see no VVT action in those logs though, which maybe why the lower rpm , ie before boost timing values are low.. Have you removed the vvt? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #342 on: December 03, 2014, 03:38:14 PM »
|
|
|
There is definitely some torque intervention going on in those logs, 6 degree timing swings , if you set the Torque maps to 99 across the maps you'd see them hopefully drop down to 1-2 degrees.
I see no VVT action in those logs though, which maybe why the lower rpm , ie before boost timing values are low.. Have you removed the vvt?
Littco, could you be more specific on which maps to set to 99? I'm assuming that this defeats TM entirely? The VVT on this software isnt used during normal operation. Someting about cold start or emmissions iirc. One of these days we'll get around to using the VVT for performance gains. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #343 on: December 03, 2014, 04:17:47 PM »
|
|
|
Your torque limit is maxed, i dont think that is the issue. I feel it is ARMD.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #344 on: December 03, 2014, 05:57:17 PM »
|
|
|
Your torque limit is maxed, i dont think that is the issue. I feel it is ARMD.
Yeah after reading about this in the Wiki, it seems ARMD is the culprit. Do you think the engine is throwing the anti-jerk function for a loop because the drivetrain is oscillating outside of its calibration range? This function might serve a noble purpose, but it sounds more likely that it was invented to keep things quiet in the cabin. From the Wiki: "The anti-jerk function detects oscillations of the power train and damps them out by applying opposing-phase torque interventions. The torque intervention is converted into an ignition angle offset by the torque interface" This would explain the up-down-up-down-up-down timing results on the logs. The ARMD must set timing out of phase with the proper timing to cancel out these oscillations. So with this system disabled, and proper timing restored all the way through the pull, we should see some gains. The real question is: do we simply disable the ARMD system entirely, or tune/recalibrate it to our needs? Who's up to the task of finding the CWARMD codeword? DD? Nyet? Phila? Call it a race  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
