|
nyet
|
 |
« Reply #405 on: December 17, 2014, 07:44:36 PM »
|
|
|
Oh, another thought: if you can bring up load requested w/o affecting requested boost (i.e. increase requested load, but compensate the req load->boost calculation (via FWFTBRTA/KFPBRK/KFPBRKNW) or any of the other tables in the path) so you get less boost for a given requested load, it will always bring req load up but actual load down.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
S4addict
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
 Offline
Posts: 80
|
|
« Reply #406 on: December 23, 2014, 01:10:19 PM »
|
|
|
were you guys having any immobilizer issues with flashing these? im trying to get my buddy on here to learn how to flash his but i wana make sure he dosent kill his ecu haha.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #407 on: December 23, 2014, 05:51:29 PM »
|
|
|
were you guys having any immobilizer issues with flashing these? im trying to get my buddy on here to learn how to flash his but i wana make sure he dosent kill his ecu haha.
I didn't have this problem. Not sure which generations (if any) 1.8t has IMMO. Post original ECU/Software # or .bin file and someone should be able to tell you. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ddillenger
|
|
« Reply #408 on: December 23, 2014, 05:52:52 PM »
|
|
|
I didn't have this problem. Not sure which generations (if any) 1.8t has IMMO. Post original ECU/Software # or .bin file and someone should be able to tell you.
All B6 (and newer) has immobilizer. Flashing it won't affect it however. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
S4addict
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 80
|
|
« Reply #409 on: December 23, 2014, 06:30:04 PM »
|
|
|
Ok thank you guys if i can get him to log it ill sharee the data
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
S4addict
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 80
|
|
« Reply #410 on: December 24, 2014, 08:46:31 AM »
|
|
|
i couldnt find anything anywere else the memory layout is 800bb no?
when i try and read his ecu to save the oem file it says memory layout is invalid
any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
S4addict
Full Member
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 80
|
|
« Reply #411 on: December 24, 2014, 09:17:29 AM »
|
|
|
**edit changed baud rate down to 9600 and the error went away these cars are strange...
so for future refrence 10400 will cause a invaild memory and 9600 wont as far as ive seen
hope that helps someone!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #412 on: December 27, 2014, 02:02:29 PM »
|
|
|
i couldnt find anything anywere else the memory layout is 800bb no?
when i try and read his ecu to save the oem file it says memory layout is invalid
any suggestions?
Yes, the files discussed in this thread are for 800bb. I have also had this "unable to validate memory layout" message when flashing. As long as it's set for 800bb and the file is checksummed, I have had no issues flashing it even with this message. Can't wait to see some logs! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 27, 2014, 02:04:16 PM by thelastleroy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Bassen
Newbie
Karma: +2/-0
Offline
Posts: 19
|
|
« Reply #413 on: December 30, 2014, 06:59:25 PM »
|
|
|
Hey all, I used the v6 xdf as a starting point for the XDF I'm building for some hot tooning action on my car (Comp 5858 build), in a month or two. I've filled out a bunch of other common variables using various other XDF's as a base (the community M-box xdf, Yanku Marrah's very complete 518AK 0004 xdf, etc), corrected the offset for a couple parameters, and added the map based thermostat parameters. I still need to fill in a few more (coil dwell, knock sensors, etc), but figured I'd post up what I've got so far, in case anyone wanted to incorporate it into the community stage1 xdf.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #414 on: December 30, 2014, 07:36:18 PM »
|
|
|
You're a prince!
Thanks for adding this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #415 on: December 30, 2014, 10:15:44 PM »
|
|
|
Quick clarification regarding the use of the TT 225 maps, in addition to the using KMFIRL/KMFIOP, were KFZWOP/KFZWOP2 changed as well?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #416 on: December 31, 2014, 04:11:49 PM »
|
|
|
Steve thanks for posting your XDF!  Attached are ignition coil maps I located based on this thread. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Bassen
Newbie
Karma: +2/-0
Offline
Posts: 19
|
|
« Reply #417 on: January 01, 2015, 02:26:23 PM »
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks, Rich!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
A4Rich
Full Member
Karma: +10/-0
Offline
Posts: 116
|
|
« Reply #418 on: January 02, 2015, 08:06:05 AM »
|
|
|
Quick clarification regarding the use of the TT 225 maps, in addition to the using KMFIRL/KMFIOP, were KFZWOP/KFZWOP2 changed as well?
Located some helpful information about KFZWOP/KFZWOP2 from another thread, see below. I always rescale KFZWOP when changing KFMIOP axis (shares same axis). Other than that only thing I can think of is when going to better fuel and seeing no knock while maximizing KFZW > KFZWOP
There is nothing to gain from this table. It is strictly used for interventions.
It is solely used to calculate ignition angle efficiency for a few different interventions. Ignition angles exceeding KFZWOP is fine. This will numb some interventions, but that's it.
Where it can really hurt you is in the torque model. It has a significant affect on torque intervention.
If you are greatly exceeding KFZWOP with zwbas and would like to preserve all of these wonderful interventions, then you can raise it's values. If you would like to numb these interventions further then you can lower it's values. I prefer to just leave it alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thelastleroy
|
|
« Reply #419 on: January 06, 2015, 05:35:41 PM »
|
|
|
Thanks for posting that Rich, I read it over and over again and then I remembered changing the KFZWOP/KFZWOP2 tables previously when I was tuning IOP/IRL. This as we know now, affects torque intervention behaviour (thank you again for finding this info, and to phila for sharing it!)
I went back to the file today and switched the KFZWOP/KFZWOP2 tables back to stock values and did a log. Looks like the timing swing situation is resolved. I'm happy with the way the 225 IOP/IRL file drives so if anyone wants to check it out, here's the latest revision of the tune with a log.
I really want to see some logs from other cars running this file, or any version of it, to compare notes and fine tune the thing.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 05:47:57 PM by thelastleroy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
