Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 52
Author Topic: Nefmoto community project: Stage1 1.8t ME7.5 A4 (8E0909518AK-0003)  (Read 512483 times)
Three77
Full Member
***

Karma: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #450 on: January 24, 2015, 07:39:32 PM »

Do you have logs with the new injectors? I'd like to see them  Cool. Have you dialed in the injectors properly for fuel trims etc? You should start working things out publicly on the "Stage 2" thread, it has stalled again. Once I'm able I'll get some new nozzles too. The Great minds of this forum have been very kind to us new guys. Glad things are working out.

I do! I'll post today's log up once I get back from a party I'm obligated to attend. My trims are pretty good without any tweaking, idle being +3, and partial 1<. I am still having a problem with my SAI delete not working, a P0411 code is being thrown, even though I followed the process in the tuning wiki to a T. I posed a question regarding this about a week ago but never received a response, I'll eventually work it out.
Logged
erack
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #451 on: January 28, 2015, 05:22:22 PM »

awesome thanks guys i will check out me7logger and see if it will work with my eBay cables
will report back when i can very hectic around here lately
cheers
Logged
narf0815
Full Member
***

Karma: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


« Reply #452 on: January 29, 2015, 02:04:28 AM »

Hi,
if i compare 8E0909518AK_368072_NEF_STG_1_Stock.bin and 8E0909518AK_368072_NEF_STG_1_Tunedv7.bin
there are differences at the addresses
0x16906 - 0x16985
0x9FE66 - 0x9FEEB
and i could not find any .xdf with declaration of these.

Can someone tell me the name of these 2 maps?
Logged
thelastleroy
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



« Reply #453 on: January 29, 2015, 04:19:02 AM »

If it's not in the xdf, I didn't change it. The only thing that was modified outside of tunerpro is the "programming not complete" fix.

Not sure, maybe it's checksum correction-related?
Logged
narf0815
Full Member
***

Karma: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


« Reply #454 on: January 29, 2015, 05:20:28 AM »

"programming not complete" fix is @ 0x6B3AE

Why i'm asking for this? Because i'm still not able to delete EVAP...
The stock file i set CDLDP to 0 and everything is fine, but not with this Stage1 file  Huh


Logged
A4Rich
Full Member
***

Karma: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #455 on: January 29, 2015, 07:33:50 AM »

there are differences at the addresses
0x16906 - 0x16985
0x9FE66 - 0x9FEEB

These addresses are apart of the RSA signatures, see below me7sum output from my stock (+ programming not complete) 518AK 003 bin.
Code:
Step #3: Reading RSA signatures ..
 Searching for RSA offset #0...OK
 Searching for RSA offset #1...OK
         Signature: @9fe66-9fee6
           Modulus: @16906-16986
          Exponent: @16986 = 3
 Searching for MD5 ranges...OK
 MD5 Block Offset Table @168e2 [32 bytes]:
 1) 0x00010002-0x00013FFE
 2) 0x00014252-0x00017F4E
 3) 0x00018192-0x0001FBDC
 4) 0x00026A00-0x0002FFFC
 EncrMD5: 17 f8 f0 43 02 cc 96 d1 f1 a4 05 65 ab c3 f3 78
 CalcMD5: 17 f8 f0 43 02 cc 96 d1 f1 a4 05 65 ab c3 f3 78
  OK
Logged
BlkSerialKilla
Full Member
***

Karma: +18/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


That's Just The Nature Of The Beast...


« Reply #456 on: January 29, 2015, 01:03:21 PM »

figured this was worth mentioning but the main xdf posted may have an incorrect factor calculation for TABGBTS also FBSTABGM is defined as pictured for those looking for it. factor I noted was "X*0.019531" vs "X*0.019531-50" which I've seen in the BAM for instance.
Logged
thelastleroy
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



« Reply #457 on: January 29, 2015, 07:45:28 PM »

Thanks for the detective work. I wonder what the reason is for the -50 in the factor for TABGBTS on the BAM file? The main calculation is the same (x*0.019531). Is this just a calibration change for the 225hp hardware? Anyone able to offer insight for this? If the xdf is confirmed incorrect I will make the necessary adjustments and update the file on page 1.
Logged
A4Rich
Full Member
***

Karma: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #458 on: February 02, 2015, 08:12:31 AM »

Thanks for the detective work. I wonder what the reason is for the -50 in the factor for TABGBTS on the BAM file? The main calculation is the same (x*0.019531). Is this just a calibration change for the 225hp hardware? Anyone able to offer insight for this? If the xdf is confirmed incorrect I will make the necessary adjustments and update the file on page 1.

I looked at several other 1.8t damos files and the value equation has been (x*0.019531) - 50 for them.
Logged
A4Rich
Full Member
***

Karma: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #459 on: February 02, 2015, 08:43:09 AM »

Attached are ignition coil maps I located based on this thread.

Been working on adjusting for 2.0t coils as the 2.0t coils I have had installed for the last ~30k miles just started to getting sluggish in low rpms.

I did some logs of my first 12 mins of everyday driving from a cold start on both a set of good 1.8t coils and good 2.0t coils.  I compared tsrldyn for both sets of coils, see attachment, and with adjustments to  FTSDRLW, KFTSRL, FSWTM, KFSZDUB, KFTSDYN, FTOMN, and KFSZT tsrldyn is lower especially in the low rpm range.  So far the car seems to be more responsive,will get some more logs and report back.
Logged
thelastleroy
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



« Reply #460 on: February 02, 2015, 08:49:36 AM »

I looked at several other 1.8t damos files and the value equation has been (x*0.019531) - 50 for them.

Ok, XDF updated!
Logged
Joelito138
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #461 on: February 13, 2015, 09:47:04 AM »

hey i tried using the 8E0909518AK tune file from this thread attach below on my  8E0909518AF ECU it only completed 15 out of 19 sectors. what should i do to make the checksums correct?sorry i know i should do more research but i know some of you guys are more knowledgeable so im asking for some help lmfao  Grin I also attach my stock file

Erase flash memory routine did not start or complete correctly.
Skipping flash sector and continuing flashing process.
98% complete.
Starting to flash data block.
Calculating flash checksum to determine if flashing is necessary for range: 0x008FC000 to 0x00900000
Flash checksum does not match new data, flashing is necessary.
Requesting flash memory erase for address range 0x008FC000 to 0x008FFFFF.
Erase flash memory routine did not start or complete correctly.
Skipping flash sector and continuing flashing process.
100% complete.
Disconnecting from ECU to force it to recognize successful completion of flash write.
Writing ECU flash memory succeeded. Wrote 15 of 19 sectors in flash memory.
Flashing time was 00:16:32.
Estimated premium full write time: 00:16:08.
Estimated premium fast write time: 00:01:31.
Restoring Windows sleep mode.
Disconnecting...
Disconnected
Logged
N7CommanderShepard
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #462 on: February 13, 2015, 10:33:25 AM »

I'm also curious about that but I'm even more curious to know if we can indeed use the AK file on a AF ecu? Huh
Logged
Joelito138
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #463 on: February 13, 2015, 11:09:12 AM »

yea what he said ^^
Logged
A4Rich
Full Member
***

Karma: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #464 on: February 13, 2015, 02:27:51 PM »

I'm also curious about that but I'm even more curious to know if we can indeed use the AK file on a AF ecu? Huh

Based on Joelito138 experience I would guess no.  Personally I would create an XDF based on the ECU you have using the AK XDF as a guide to locate maps (use the test version of winols then translate to XDF).
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 02:29:38 PM by A4Rich » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 52
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.028 seconds with 19 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.001s, 0q)