|
|
ohhello
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 28
|
 |
« Reply #121 on: May 10, 2012, 07:31:27 PM »
|
|
|
So if you adjust the data within the map but not the axis will that be sufficient?
If the axis aren't changed but the IRL values exceed the IOP axis is torque intervention going to occur?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RaraK
|
|
« Reply #122 on: May 11, 2012, 05:20:35 AM »
|
|
|
yes. But be careful
no tq intervention if done properly.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tuffty
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-2
Offline
Posts: 28
|
|
« Reply #123 on: May 11, 2012, 12:40:07 PM »
|
|
|
I have read this thread through 3 times now and only just starting to get my head around it lol... (at least I think I am) From what I have seen of the maps on my car from previous tunes etc the '%' axis gets lifted to a higher figure in the last row as does the corresponding data across the RPM range to a value of up to 100%... you then lift the 99/100% row in IRL to a value some 5-8% above the '%' value added to the IOP axis... rightly or wrongly of course... but, rather than 'copy' other peoples stuff I prefer to understand the logic/benefits of doing anything with this and its context to So... my very limited understanding (so far) is this... IRL represents a load request based on pedal position and rpm... IOP I am still not 100% on ... I understand why this is being used (having used an MBC on my car before) but not sure of changing it in context of my current level of tune.. Most of the stuff being discussed on here does tend to revolve around S4's/ME7 etc but I have a 1.8t S3/ME7.5 so trying to carry the context over as the values look different load wise to mine... My current setup is based on a GT3071 (T3), Tial 38mm ext gate, AEB large port head and Supertech valve gear... I currently have an rpm limit of 7.8k too... Here are my current IRL/IOP tables... all I have done is scaled rpm a tad to bring it inline with my raised rev limit (seemed a sensible thing to do)  I am planning to run at least 1.6bar boost and have already reached the limit of my current MAF (292.58gs) which will be changed for an RS4 one in due course... I am trying to understand the logic behind raising the load in IRL in context of my setup (or any for that matter) although I get the rescaling of the IOP '%' axis but not why in the case of my std IOP/IRL tables why the load scale tops at 190 and for the most part of 100% pedal in IRL its over 200... Great thread though (even if I still don't quite get it lol) <tuffty/> |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tuffty
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-2
Offline
Posts: 28
|
|
« Reply #124 on: May 20, 2012, 12:48:01 PM »
|
|
|
Ok... have tweaked IRL/IOP tables but not tried this file in the car yet as I was hoping for a some advice to if I am heading in the right direction... Std tables... (only changed rpm range as I have done on some other tables) Altered tables...  I upped IRL at 100% across the rev range by 25%, re-scaled IOP load scale in the last 2 columns to 240 (from 190) and 190 (from 175) and upped the 240 column from 3k to 95... Anyone care to comment and advise please? the changes I made make sense to me... Thanks <tuffty/> |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #125 on: June 03, 2012, 01:17:51 AM »
|
|
|
I want to mention in this thread, in case it was not mentioned before.
If KFMIOP is tuned the wrong way by raising values (instead of rescaling axis and lowering them/leaving them the same), then that has SEVERE implications on the workings of the traction control.
The traction control kicks in a lot more violently with incorrect KFMIOP. I am guessing because initially it does not reduce enough, and as it still sees high wheelspin, it gives a very strong interruption.
I had serious problems with the tune my car came with, as driving over bumps when accelerating made my car cut out violently and the power remained cut for a long time.
Now, with correct settings, driving over a bump briefly flashes the ESP sign and very slightly reduces power, and it's restored right away.
So - calibrate your KFMIOP/KFMIRL correctly!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tuffty
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-2
Offline
Posts: 28
|
|
« Reply #126 on: June 03, 2012, 10:31:50 AM »
|
|
|
....So - calibrate your KFMIOP/KFMIRL correctly!
This is what I am trying to work out... I don't know if I have missed something in this thread or just don't actually understand this at all but I am trying to understand the process here... Most maps I have seen appear to up IRL across the rev range at 100% pedal (I have seen a couple that only up values from 3k rpm up rather than the whole rpm axis)... I am trying to understand firstly the reasoning/benefits of doing this and secondly how you derive the correct values in context of sticking a larger turbo on (in my case a GT3071r on a 1.8 20v)... I am currently driving on a map where IRL/IOP is completely std apart from a rescaled RPM axis as my rev limit is 7.8k.. I have done a version of my current map using the IRL advisor in the ME7 tuning wizard spreadsheet and done the IOP map too as well as rescaling the axis of the ignition maps... I haven't flashed this in yet as tbh rather than go in blind I really want to understand how to adjust this to suit particular setups... Anyone care to do a bit of IOP/IRL 101 for the benefit of others? any help/advice is greatly received  <tuffty/> |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nottingham
Full Member
Karma: +13/-1
Offline
Posts: 204
|
|
« Reply #127 on: June 24, 2012, 12:54:25 AM »
|
|
|
Regarding the KFMIRL:
I calculated the exact percentage where the limit (LDRXN) is reached at each RPM.
If LDRXN & KFMIRL is altered would it be desirable to keep the percentage the same?
E.G the stock LDRXN is 135,003 @ 2000rpm and KFMIRL reaches this value (becomes limited by LDRXN) at 69,7%.
If LDRXN is raised to 142, should to 70% KFMIRL value be raised ~142,61 (70/69,7 * LDRXN). If the same scaling (70%>) is kept the KFMIRL values get quite high at the top end (%).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nottingham
Full Member
Karma: +13/-1
Offline
Posts: 204
|
|
« Reply #128 on: June 25, 2012, 02:04:43 AM »
|
|
|
Any thoughts about this rescaled / calculated KFZWOP map (for KFMIOP/KFZWOP/2 X-Axis change)?
I used the matching data points (10,20,50%) to calculate the values for rescaled axis.
From 10-190% it follows the trend of original map, for 0% model from higher-end variant is used.
These values are much lower than the one "calculated" by masterj excel sheet.
The original values can be interpolated from the new data / axis so it should not be a complete mess up?
I have also understood that KFZWOP is the "goal" the ECU tries advance the timing to, until knock is detected.
So even in the worst case the timing just won´t be optimal (the delta between KFZW - OP too small) and the knock control comes to rescue if the delta is too high?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #129 on: June 25, 2012, 04:28:56 AM »
|
|
|
I have also understood that KFZWOP is the "goal" the ECU tries advance the timing to, until knock is detected. No, KFZWOP is only used for torque and efficiency calculations. It is never used for ignition timing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nottingham
Full Member
Karma: +13/-1
Offline
Posts: 204
|
|
« Reply #130 on: June 26, 2012, 03:21:49 AM »
|
|
|
When KFMIOP X-Axis (& values) is scaled is it necessary to rescale other load axises too? According to kenmac ( http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=2160.0title=) the KFZW(/2) X-axis and values should be rescaled too to prevent ECU from trying to use too optimistic timings (and relying on KC / CF). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
littco
|
|
« Reply #131 on: June 26, 2012, 03:50:58 AM »
|
|
|
Would a bad Kfmirl/Iop explain why on my current map, see log below my requested and actual don't follow my specified?
From what I can tell Specified Load follows LDRXN and Requested follows KFMIRL/Iop (in part) therefore as it always takes the lower load of the 2 ( limiting load) it will as shown in the log make actual follow the requested.
If this isn't correct, could someone explain why the 2 don't follow each other. I tried a stock kfmirl/iop map in its place and specified and requested followed each other.
I used the KFMIRL excel spread sheet to create a good kfmirl/iop map but it only gave a max value which wasn't high enough for my turbo.
But it did work well, just then I was limited to max value of the map which was less than I could run
Please ignore the blips, they are knock related.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
20VTMK1
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 113
|
|
« Reply #132 on: August 07, 2012, 10:01:43 AM »
|
|
|
attached now  P.S> Found also this map: KFMI_UM, which looks like is overall optimal torque map for torque monitor. Maybe I should match it to kfmiop? Hey Guys , Does the above statement hold any validity - does KFMI_UM need to be matched to MIOP and scaled correct as well ? RPM vs Load vs % torque ? Thanks |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #133 on: August 07, 2012, 11:02:14 AM »
|
|
|
Would a bad Kfmirl/Iop explain why on my current map, see log below my requested and actual don't follow my specified?
You actually dont want our actual too close to specified, or you WILL get torque intervention. In fact, I doubt those blips are knock related; that is torque intervention right there. Consider logging corrected specified load; I bet you'll see those blips co-incide to places where actual load goes over corrected specified. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
airtite
|
|
« Reply #134 on: September 05, 2012, 09:09:25 AM »
|
|
|
just to add, I have been running with TM disabled for a few days now and I actually like the way the car responds yes it is much more aggressive but for me its perfect, this way I am able to tune everything else with out having TM stepping in.
I followed the changes in the first post
Table KFMIZUOF = 99.6% for all base points
Scalar TMNSMN = -48 C
Scalar TANSMN = -48 C
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
