|
ddillenger
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2015, 04:33:00 PM »
|
|
|
Cross flash usually does not affect immo (in this case the flash is from the same car).
To check if the software will boot, on some software versions it is enough to compare the first 32k of the binary (where ROM is contained in first page of flash).
If the first 32k match, it will boot for sure. However, on some versions the first page of flash no longer contains the ROM, in these cases the only way is to read out the processor content of both ECU's.
If you have access to bootmode, then just simply try it. Either it works or not. Besides checking the first 32k, a good rule of thumb is to not cross flash between different chassis... as sensors might be wired to different pins, throttle might not work and so on.
I'll add to that: Don't crossflash an immo2 binary to an immo3 ecu or vice versa without using the matching eeprom. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
biela
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 25
|
|
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2015, 08:59:05 PM »
|
|
|
Hello wayne.
I can´t see your AUQ reference file.
But didn´t you find differences in KFZW or KFMLDMX for example?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Racing is life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
|
|
|
dgpb
Full Member
Karma: +3/-3
Offline
Posts: 176
|
|
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2015, 06:48:55 PM »
|
|
|
Hello wayne.
I can´t see your AUQ reference file.
But didn´t you find differences in KFZW or KFMLDMX for example?
Thanks
I think I remember well when I modified my AUM file, all the maps between 032hj (aum) and 032hn (auq) were pretty the same except few of them KFLBTS (a bit leaner, because LDRXN is higher in auq) and KFLDRL, but I think timing maps were the same KFLDIMX (n75 map) was the same, only the last cell of the linearization (previously said as KFLDRL) was 75% in aum and 95% in auq... even today I don't understand why is 75% in aum, I changed it to 95% KFMLDMX -> If I remember well 125g/s in aum and 145g/s in auq. I raised it, but in the first attempt I didn't touch it and the car was reading more than 150g/s (today 164) and ran well and without any DTCs, so I don't know this map's mission |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 07:03:33 PM by diegogpb »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
biela
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 25
|
|
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2015, 06:48:05 AM »
|
|
|
Thanks.
I was asking because i have seen AUQ files with differences in KFZW.
And with 79,2 value in the last cell of KFLDRL.
Any of you have make logs including EGT before and after remap?
Just thinking about a way to estimate EGT.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Racing is life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
|
|
|
dgpb
Full Member
Karma: +3/-3
Offline
Posts: 176
|
|
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2015, 01:54:57 PM »
|
|
|
Thanks.
I was asking because i have seen AUQ files with differences in KFZW.
And with 79,2 value in the last cell of KFLDRL.
Any of you have make logs including EGT before and after remap?
Just thinking about a way to estimate EGT.
I've got some of them, let me find a couple of good examples and I'll post the cvs here for you (Eres español?, lo digo por lo de biela jajaja) Anyway, I recomend you to forget about egt, 150 and 180 hp engines don't have egt sensor and they simply calculate it. That's kind off accurate in a range of load, but when you tune the car, the error becomes quite big. The way I've chosen and much more people did is just assume the egt threshold will be passed so LAMBTS will manage the spec lambda: LAMBTS = KFLBTS + (KFDLBTS * KFFDLBTS). So, if you choose this method, you'll have to tune KFLBTS with the desired lambda you want and zero KFDLBTS or KFFDLBTS Edit: I only logged Intake temperature, not exhaust... but I remember they went higher than 800º... Anyway, calculated ones are useless so forget about it. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 02:06:45 PM by diegogpb »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
biela
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 25
|
|
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2015, 05:44:08 AM »
|
|
|
Yes, i am from Spain.
I wanted to calculate EGT from log data.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Racing is life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
|
|
|
wayne
Newbie
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 22
|
|
« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2015, 06:37:44 AM »
|
|
|
Yes I confirm that the 400deg C threshold (that was on my AUM map didn't check if different on AUQ) is always triggered (which seems normal) while doing some WOT pull from what I've seen (fully warmed engine, in normal operations)...
However for a compenent protection features it seems pretty low... On dyno I used to richen the mixture to cool down the turbo only when reach a near material resistance limit (don't know if this is good english haha)
Anyway maybe it is normal for torque based ecu to have these kind of strategies (I've only worked on standart old school tunable ECUs... which is so much easier than that!)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2015, 04:54:56 PM »
|
|
|
It is normal.
There are different strategies on ME7.
1. Usually on cars without EGT's is a very low value temperature trigger point and all the fueling is basically done through BTS, sometimes LAMFA has some enrichment, other times not.
2. On cars with wideband EGT's - e.g. S3 225 facelift, RS6 LAMFA is set to 0.9-0.95, BTS is turned off completely, and an EGT limiter is set to around 970C.
3. On cars with narrowband EGT's - e.g. S4, RS4 LAMFA is not used, BTS is used as a pre-enrichment, and an EGT limiter is set to around 970C. On a WOT 2nd gear pull these will run lambda 1.
Out of these strategies 1. is by far the best from a component longevity standpoint, but has the highest fuel consumption.
2. is by far the worst, that's why RS6 have problems with disintegrating manifolds, and S3's like to go through manifolds and turbos as well. Has the best consumption though.
3. is somewhere in the middle, does not destroy parts and still manages to have very good fuel consumption, a bit dull response due to not using LAMFA at all.
It's just the way OEM's do it for emissions and low consumption.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wayne
Newbie
Karma: +1/-0
Offline
Posts: 22
|
|
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2015, 08:55:13 PM »
|
|
|
I've done a tune for my stock AUM (based on these AUQ) and moved toward a BTS fueling strategy. By following the load path on BTS I did a WOT safe fuelling (Ldrxn points map on BTS and higher figures), and 80-90% load at rich mixtures and left stock value for the partial loads. On the log everything is following what I expect like a charm, no enrichment at all, no timing pull, no torque intervention.
After a 200kms drive (mix city - highway - multiple WOT logs), I'm not seeing much more fuel consumption than on the 180 map. I was averaging 10.6l/100kms with the stock 180 AUQ map and I'm now sitting at 11.5 in pretty much the same driving conditions. So I think (looking at the BTS value) that on part throttle the target lambda is set at LAMFA (1.0001) for partial request. Max load peak at 160 (3k rpm) and 155 at 5900 (resulting in 26psi from what I recall or 1.9bar). I'm reading 177g/s on the maf sensor from 5900 to 6500rpm and the acceleration si smooth with no overboost when reaching peak and pulling till the red line really strongly.
To conclude I don't think that BTS is the source of bad fuel economy if tuned properly, when you know that it'll be triggered at diferent load paths when you increase load resulting in really rich mixture (Lambda 0.7).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2015, 03:11:24 AM »
|
|
|
RS4 for example however will run lambda 1 through a 2nd and third gear pull, and only enrich at 750C.
So fuel economy will definitely be better than enriching on each pull. Just the way it is.
I personally use LAMFA to control target fuel and BTS to enrich further should there be knock or other issues that can raise the EGT's.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dgpb
Full Member
Karma: +3/-3
Offline
Posts: 176
|
|
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2015, 12:05:05 PM »
|
|
|
I've done a tune for my stock AUM (based on these AUQ) and moved toward a BTS fueling strategy. By following the load path on BTS I did a WOT safe fuelling (Ldrxn points map on BTS and higher figures), and 80-90% load at rich mixtures and left stock value for the partial loads. On the log everything is following what I expect like a charm, no enrichment at all, no timing pull, no torque intervention.
After a 200kms drive (mix city - highway - multiple WOT logs), I'm not seeing much more fuel consumption than on the 180 map. I was averaging 10.6l/100kms with the stock 180 AUQ map and I'm now sitting at 11.5 in pretty much the same driving conditions. So I think (looking at the BTS value) that on part throttle the target lambda is set at LAMFA (1.0001) for partial request. Max load peak at 160 (3k rpm) and 155 at 5900 (resulting in 26psi from what I recall or 1.9bar). I'm reading 177g/s on the maf sensor from 5900 to 6500rpm and the acceleration si smooth with no overboost when reaching peak and pulling till the red line really strongly.
To conclude I don't think that BTS is the source of bad fuel economy if tuned properly, when you know that it'll be triggered at diferent load paths when you increase load resulting in really rich mixture (Lambda 0.7).
1- Is your maf ok? I do think that reading is a bit high for an only remapped aum. 2- Did you zeroed the maps I told you? Otherwise resulting lambts will not follow exactly kflbts. 3- Driving safely around the town won't activate bts, so you're running on lamfa... for sure you are "happier" and that's why consumption increases. 4- If your maf readings are ok and your car is totally stock, congratulations, you've got a very good unit (Or you live in Siberia) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2015, 05:13:24 PM »
|
|
|
So, if you choose this method, you'll have to tune KFLBTS with the desired lambda you want and zero KFDLBTS or KFFDLBTS This is a horrible horrible idea. If you run into a bad batch of gas you will melt your engine with this approach. Edit: I only logged Intake temperature, not exhaust... but I remember they went higher than 800º... Anyway, calculated ones are useless so forget about it. Not useless at all, depends on the file, but stock they can be quite precise, as they EGT model is factory calibrated with EGT sensors. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dgpb
Full Member
Karma: +3/-3
Offline
Posts: 176
|
|
« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2015, 11:39:06 AM »
|
|
|
This is a horrible horrible idea. If you run into a bad batch of gas you will melt your engine with this approach. Why? The ecu will do whatever it can to follow spec lambda if the problem is the composition, the density, or the specific combustion energy... If the problem is a poor RON, then the engine will knock and the ecu will apply timing retardation. Last but not least, if the problem is a dirty gas, then you can end up with a clogged injector, under LAMBTS or LAMFA anyway Not useless at all, depends on the file, but stock they can be quite precise, as they EGT model is factory calibrated with EGT sensors.
Stock they can be quite precise, for the stock actuation range I've read you lots of times through this forum and that's why I know my knowledge is microscopic compared to yours. So I'm sure you said those things for a reaseon, but I cannot see it, could you explain yourself a bit more? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 11:42:20 AM by diegogpb »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2015, 04:04:22 PM »
|
|
|
Why? The ecu will do whatever it can to follow spec lambda if the problem is the composition, the density, or the specific combustion energy... If the problem is a poor RON, then the engine will knock and the ecu will apply timing retardation. Last but not least, if the problem is a dirty gas, then you can end up with a clogged injector, under LAMBTS or LAMFA anyway You are missing the fact that when you retard timing EGT goes up. That is why there is DLBTS, and that is why it enriches on falling ignition angle efficiency, to reduce EGT. By removing this, you make sure that the engine melts down on a batch of bad fuel. It will pull timing, and because LAMBTS module is messed up it will not enrich even with skyhigh timing pull, you will exceed EGT and damage your engine. This has nothing to do with even ME7, it is just basics of how to control combustion temperature in an engine with a liquid fuel. Read up on this and you will understand why what you proposed is a horrible idea. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 04:07:43 PM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dgpb
Full Member
Karma: +3/-3
Offline
Posts: 176
|
|
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2015, 04:53:03 AM »
|
|
|
You are missing the fact that when you retard timing EGT goes up. That is why there is DLBTS, and that is why it enriches on falling ignition angle efficiency, to reduce EGT.
By removing this, you make sure that the engine melts down on a batch of bad fuel. It will pull timing, and because LAMBTS module is messed up it will not enrich even with skyhigh timing pull, you will exceed EGT and damage your engine.
This has nothing to do with even ME7, it is just basics of how to control combustion temperature in an engine with a liquid fuel. Read up on this and you will understand why what you proposed is a horrible idea.
That makes a lot of sense. But maybe my strategy is not so bad for a stage1: 1: Did you forget about LDRXNZK? you can decrease specified load under knock 2: With the tiny stock IC, you're forced to use a pretty rich lambda if you want some power... let's say in the .80 area, that's a pretty conservative lambda for EGT (I think) Even though, I'll read more about what you're saying and if it convinces me, maybe I'll change my tuning strategy, thank you prj. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 10, 2015, 04:57:49 AM by diegogpb »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
