Well, I managed to go about 10 days before I cloned my 2005 tiptronic S4 ECU and tossed it on a spare 2004 6-speed 560A ECU I had. So let the tweaking begin....

I figured I'd post up my tuned binaries and definition files as go in case anyone wants to review/try/modify them for themselves.

First off, the 560A and 560G files are NOT interchangable. winOLS indicated they are only about 75% similar, so it's not just a byte here and there.

For the most part, it's just that the maps are in different places. However I have found some variability even within the maps as between the two. So don't try and cross flash the two with the same binary.

So far I haven't changed much. I added about 10-15% gradually to the first half of the KFPED map to try and quicken up the throttle response a bit since 'D' mode is suggish and 'S' mode is far to aggressive for daily driving.

Second, I changed up the Driver Lambda wish. These cars seem to be tuned from the factory to run lean right up until 6000+ RPM. I suspect it's for fuel economy/emissions and catalytic converter logevity.

Stock fueling

10        20             40             60             80             100            % LOAD

1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.91412  520 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.91412  1000 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.91412  1520 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.91412  2000 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.91412  2520 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.91412  3000 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.97663   0.96100   0.91412  3500 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   0.98444   0.95319   0.94537   0.90631  4000 RPM
1.00006   0.97663   0.95319   0.93756   0.92975   0.90631  4520 RPM
1.00006   0.97663   0.95319   0.92975   0.91412   0.89850  5000 RPM
1.00006   0.95319   0.93756   0.92193   0.90631   0.88287  5520 RPM
1.00006   0.93756   0.92193   0.90631   0.89068   0.88287  6000 RPM
1.00006   0.91412   0.88287   0.89068   0.88287   0.86724  6520 RPM
1.00006   0.90631   0.87506   0.85943   0.85162   0.85162  7000 RPM
1.00006   0.90631   0.86724   0.85162   0.85162   0.85162  7520 RPM

However, my understanding is that on a N/A engine, you should richen up to about 12.5:1 (0.85V) at peak torque then lean out to about 13:1 - 13.5:1 as the revs rise towards redline.


My revised fueling settings

10        20             40             60             80             100            % LOAD

1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.92975   0.85943  500 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.92975   0.85943  1000 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.96881   0.89850   0.85943  1520 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.93756   0.86724   0.85943  2000 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.92975   0.85943   0.85943  2520 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.90631   0.84380   0.84380  3000 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   1.00006   0.89850   0.84380   0.84380  3520 RPM
1.00006   1.00006   0.98444   0.89068   0.84380   0.84380  4000 RPM
1.00006   0.97663   0.95319   0.88287   0.84380   0.84380  4520 RPM
1.00006   0.97663   0.95319   0.88287   0.85943   0.84380  5000 RPM
1.00006   0.95319   0.93756   0.88287   0.85943   0.85943  5520 RPM
1.00006   0.93756   0.92193   0.88287   0.86724   0.85943  6000 RPM
1.00006   0.91412   0.88287   0.88287   0.86724   0.85943  6520 RPM
1.00006   0.90631   0.87506   0.86724   0.86724   0.86724  7000 RPM
1.00006   0.90631   0.86724   0.86724   0.86724   0.86724  7520 RPM


As you can see, the stock fueling has you running lean under load and then richening up only after peak torque at 5500 RPM

Now, I don't know about anyone else's cars, but mine seems to be pulling a bunch of timing (3-5 degrees on almost all cylinders) and I suspect it's on account of the lean running conditions as you get into load. The logs I've taken so far seem to show much more consistent overall timing with the revised fueling pattern. So it's a start.

I also included the P1681 EEPROM error workaround by changing the 8 bit value at address 8897E from 2D to 0D, so you shouldn't get that error with the file I'm providing.

As for the KFPED changes, they seem to work. I'm cautious about changing them too much as the TCU might freak out if the torque values end up exceeding what slushbox is expecting at a given RPM/pedal position. But so far I have't seen or felt any such interventions.

As always, comments are welcome.

I should also note that a bunch of the smaller maps in my .kp pack aren't labelled, let me know if you do label them and fire me back a revised .kp pack so I can update on my end.

Enjoy.

EDIT, I've posted the .bin file for my file with the modified cam timing as well

I'm also debating changing the valve timing to allow for more overlap for a longer period of time.

My reasoning is that since I have the stock cats in place, there's really no advantage to trying to rely on scavenging at anything under 5000 RPM. You'll note that the stock cam timing drops the advance off sharply after 3000 RPM.

My guess is that's supposed to coencide with the mid-length intake runner position  (see chart below). No perhaps in order to take advantage of that particular intake harmonic, you need less valve advance.

However, when you look at the dyno posted below, you can see that the torque drops off right when the valve timing retards at 3000 RPM. That's what's got me thinking that maybe keeping more valve timing advance right until the short runner configuration kicks in around 5000 RPM might give a little more torque from 3000-4000 RPM.

Here's what my revised map would look like vs the stock map (they're inverse as they make more sense that way IMO)

Thoughts?  

EDIT: added a pic of the dyno next to the cam timing maps so it's easier to see how the power dips match the stock cam timing profiles.