Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: How ME7 calculate airflow at low loads-idle?  (Read 22143 times)
a200tq
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« on: June 28, 2011, 03:07:49 PM »

So, according to vag-com, croup 3, in idle, there is airflow about 3.7-5 g/s, on very light cruise about 30 g/s.
But, when i am looking in MLHFM (551F rs4 SW), there is minimum value of airflow=124,6 kg/h=34,6 g/s (at 0v on MAF).

Question is: how ME7 know about airflow value, when it below MLHFM minimal limit, for example at idle and very light cruise? Is it calculated with math-model, or how?
Logged
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +58/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2011, 03:31:49 PM »

good question.. I'd like to know the answer to this as well.

I have the issue where my idle AFR's are ok.. but anything below 22ih Hg of VAC (so just barely touching the throttle) the AFR's fall to 12's or even 11's.  I noticed that the inj. PW never goes below 1.7ms which is probably why. And the min. on time is set to 0.50ms so it's not that parameter.

Where to correct this I have no idea.
Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
Rick
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +62/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 704


« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2011, 02:23:00 AM »

Not looked into this fully, but there is an offset on the Bosch sensor which means it can give negative readings.

Rick
Logged
a200tq
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2011, 05:43:00 AM »

Is this a physical offset (negatve voltage value from MAF output) or map for offset? When MAF is replaced (for example S4-RS4), the only MLHFM and KFKHFM (right?) changed and all work good including idle.
Logged
judeisnotobscure
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +38/-10
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2011, 11:47:52 AM »

map offset, not negative reading.
Logged

I have a b5 s4
but i just want to dance.
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12233


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2011, 03:34:50 PM »

Not sure if this is relevant, but for bosch files, MLOFS is 200kg/hr but 0 for hitachi files.

200kg/hr is approx 55 g/sec
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please 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 experience.
a200tq
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2011, 10:18:23 AM »

Not sure if this is relevant, but for bosch files, MLOFS is 200kg/hr but 0 for hitachi files.

200kg/hr is approx 55 g/sec

Yes, last night i am study functionrahmen. Look at the page 262. all about pulsation corrections=1, because SY_turbo=true. Other things is not so difficult at first look: signal voltage from maf go through MLHFM, after that trough  GGABT (what this?), after that from this signal MLOF subtracted, then multiplied with KFKHFM, and roughly maf signal is ready.

After that, i compare MLHFM for 2.7tt hitachi maf and 2.7tt bosch maf. Hitachi start readings from near zero g/s, and MLOF=0. Bosch start from about 36 g/s, and MLOF=200. So, i think answer is= (AIRFLOW at aidle/low loads)=(signal from first few cells of MLHFM)-(MLOF). But i dont lok at the MLHFM for bosch NOT rs4 maf, and MLOF for this maf.

But there some lack of understanding about KFKHFM. I think recently, that this map is related to MAF specs. But in functionsrahmen, i read that this map is engine-related (camshaft, VE, and other specs). Next week, my task will be instalation of RS4 maf on 1.8t engine. So, change MLHFM and MLOF on RS4 specs is simple, but what about KFKHFM?? As i understand, entire map from RS4 will totally not work for 1.8t engine?? 
Logged
gremlin
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +180/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 572


« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2011, 12:15:10 PM »

  GGABT (what this)

It's simple... Аrithmetically averaged реr segment HFM value.
I.e sum of scans (usually 1 scan per ms) divided by the number of scans of the last segment.
Logged
a200tq
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2011, 11:07:33 AM »

  GGABT (what this)

It's simple... Аrithmetically averaged реr segment HFM value.
I.e sum of scans (usually 1 scan per ms) divided by the number of scans of the last segment.

Gremlin thank you again!) Maybe you can tell something about KFKHFM?
Logged
gremlin
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +180/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 572


« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2011, 02:59:51 AM »

Maybe you can tell something about KFKHFM?

It's hard to recalibrate KFKHFM ideally using road run or dyno run tests.
Until you put standalohe engine on specially motor-tester equipment it can take a long time.
But you can do some experimental aproximation enough for real life.
Start with KFKHFM=1.0 and try correct it corresponding fuel/ignition results of engine operation. 
Logged
Giannis
Full Member
***

Karma: +11/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2011, 04:47:19 AM »

I did the same think as i was trying to make the engine to burn leaner. I simply lowered the values in KFMHFM in the areas i wanted to lower the injection period. Also if you want to go leaner you can adjust the injection times using FKKVS. The minimun injection time won't make the trick.
Sorry about my english. Wink
Logged
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +58/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2011, 03:26:02 PM »

I did the same think as i was trying to make the engine to burn leaner. I simply lowered the values in KFMHFM in the areas i wanted to lower the injection period. Also if you want to go leaner you can adjust the injection times using FKKVS. The minimun injection time won't make the trick.
Sorry about my english. Wink

Well I tried this today.. I lowered the first column (9.7 I think) in KFMHFM from 1.0 to 0.90 and it didn't do anything...

My problem is maybe slightly different and I'm gussing FAR out of the range of the MAF correction table at that point.

To give you an idea.  It runs mid to low 11 AFR when I barely give it enough throttle to get out of overrun, and slowly goes up to 1.0 lambda as I give it more throttle.

I really don't know where else I should look, I'm guessing fuel system correction table?  I'd have to check but I'm guessing the inj. pulse width is still not going lower then 1.7ms (which is obviously too high.  Why this is I have no idea.
Logged

SCHNELL ENGINEERING BLOG ·  STANDALONE ECUS · TUNING · DYNO · WIRING · PARTS · VEMS
Google Talk: NOTORIOUS.VR
n00bs start here: http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +604/-166
Offline Offline

Posts: 12233


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2011, 05:01:23 PM »

What is your TEMIN?

ETA Oh lol nvm i saw you lowered it. Odd.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide (READ FIRST)
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum checker/corrrector for ME7.x

Please 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 experience.
Giannis
Full Member
***

Karma: +11/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2011, 06:35:04 AM »

i had the same problem. As soon as i was touching the accelaration pedal it was goind too rich. At higher pedal values it was ok. I was using stock injectors at the time and i didn't think right to mess with injection latences at the time, but it prouved that i had to lower them a bit and to adjust FKKVS and KFMHFM as well. Then everything was ok. Good luck.
Logged
a200tq
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2011, 08:36:28 AM »

Thank you guys! I will try to play with KFKHFM and FKKVS
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.043 seconds with 17 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.007s, 0q)