Mboost setting

[ckh091020]

Currently I am logging parameters through MHD, anyone able to log the DCT parameters? such as clutch clamping pressure, slip/sync condition?
I am running standalone DCT on my other car, it is very hard to modulate at take off from standstill , so having PID control between DME and DCT at take off ( tq reduction) is a luxury , I wouldn't want to turn them off and burn the clutch.

 

[RSL]

I log DKG with Testo using a standard Edibas job. It includes a fair bit of params, but you'd need IDs and custom jobs to see anything not included.

If multiple modules can be read at the same time, it would be great to have engine and trans data in the same logs with MHD. Probably not a high volume item, but even a standalone trans logger that's customizable and less cumbersome than Ediabas would be nice @jyamona

 

[carabuser]

You can add extra channels to MHD logging for the trans. The shift status flag "STATE_TCT_INTV" is pretty useful, Jake could add that easily.

To log DCT RAM you would need xHP to implement that, MHD don't have the address info required for the params and i've heard the RMBA service on the DCT is off by default.

 

[ckh091020]

MHD can sell it as " monitor module plus " , it will be very handy you can enter in custom CAN IDL to monitor , and it will be great to integrate this for the logging ! @jyamona

 

[RSL]

MHD reads from DME memory addresses, not CAN. Most params the DME will see from trans are status/flags, but they can be read out of the DME since they are there. Internal operating values, like hydraulic pressures, shaft speeds, etc., aren't broadcast anywhere because nothing else needs to know them. They'd have to be read specifically from the TCU.

I don't know why XHP doesnt have one.

 

[Maroon_e90]

Load does not equal boost, if you want flat boost you must adjust load accordingly. Also to me it looks like your n20 sensor is calibrated incorrectly.

 

[Maroon_e90]

Load does not equal boost, if you want flat boost you must adjust load accordingly. Also to me it looks like your n20 sensor is calibrated incorrectly.

I should also add Mboost is just a bit of code to increase the capped load target from 200 to 220. It is only "active" when you use load targets above 200.

 

[tony@codewerx]

I should also add Mboost is just a bit of code to increase the capped load target from 200 to 220. It is only "active" when you use load targets above 200.

What makes you say that ?

 

[Maroon_e90]

What makes you say that ?

"For standalone- bbflash/OFT can only have a maximum of 200 load, and they will not target this at higher RPM due to logic of the load targeting system. MHD and Cobb can target a maximum of 220 load."

Quoted from v8bait tuning guide

 

[carabuser]

"For standalone- bbflash/OFT can only have a maximum of 200 load, and they will not target this at higher RPM due to logic of the load targeting system. MHD and Cobb can target a maximum of 220 load."

Quoted from v8bait tuning guide

That's wrong. Probably confusion caused by the boost ceiling.

Maximum load target is 327%.

 

[JohnDaviz]

That's wrong. Probably confusion caused by the boost ceiling.

Maximum load target is 327%.

We tried Load 240 and 260 on a car with IKM0S and a n20 sensor scaled to Load 220 = 21 psi.

There was no change at all.

 

[tony@codewerx]

"For standalone- bbflash/OFT can only have a maximum of 200 load, and they will not target this at higher RPM due to logic of the load targeting system. MHD and Cobb can target a maximum of 220 load."

Quoted from v8bait tuning guide

Don’t think mboost is just for load targeting only though … there’s other stuff that mboost would come into the picture.

 

[tony@codewerx]

We tried Load 240 and 260 on a car with IKM0S and a n20 sensor scaled to Load 220 = 21 psi.

There was no change at all.

What was the boost ceiling ?

 

[carabuser]

MBoost is simply a logic change.

The exact deviation from the stock logic is that the parameter "K_MAX_PSSOLBER" is altered so that it's loaded into memory as an unsigned 16bit (Min:0 Max:65535) rather than a signed 16bit (Min:-32768 Max:32767).
There's a couple of tweaks needed in the logic after when referencing this RAM value but that's largely the extent of the change.

There's other logic changes in the code. The maximum MAF reading caps out at 277g/s in the stock logic so this also needs to be altered to be unsigned but that is a change which has been around for a long time and is unrelated to increasing the boost target.

Just because your boost doesn't rise when you increase the load limit table it doesn't mean you've reached the maximum load, rather than you have other tables limiting the target load.

 

[JohnDaviz]

Just because your boost doesn't rise when you increase the load limit table it doesn't mean you've reached the maximum load, rather than you have other tables limiting the target load.

Which tables are these? Glad if you could help.

I change load target to 240 and the cells become red
I changed boost ceiling to 1.6 bar and boost didn´t go over 21.x psi as it was with load 220.

Boost limit multi is set to 3 across the board
Bro is set to 84 across the board

 

[ckh091020]

By looking at the graph , I think I am getting somewhere, not good enough thou, low end seem to be slower to get to target, MAF req seems to be off and Tq request also not coming on as aggressive and used to be ? how so?

MBoost actived

		

			

				
				
				
				
				
				
				

				

				

				

				
				
				

				

				

				
					
			

				

				

					

						

						

				Hide legend
							Reset zoom
					
				
			
		
				

				
			
		

By comparison, the non-Mboost log, the MAF req come on more aggressive, so is Tq output, Load req vs Load actual closer to each other at low end. What driven MAF req ( g/s) ? while M boost, I see MAF req is lazier and Tq output not very smooth. L2T has been increased match with the new Load too, what gives?

 

[ckh091020]

vs.

Non-Mboost

		

			

				
				
				
				
				
				
				

				

				

				

				
				
				

				

				

				
					
			

				

				

					

						

						

				Hide legend
							Reset zoom
					
				
			
		
				

				
			
		

 

[ckh091020]

I want to Thank you to everyone who've helped me here , and the hard-work of the XDF being shared among the community. Looking back the 1.8t and 2.7t days , we had to compare parameters in the bin and define maps , this is Luxury , consider yourself fortunate.

 

[carabuser]

Which tables are these? Glad if you could help.

I change load target to 240 and the cells become red
I changed boost ceiling to 1.6 bar and boost didn´t go over 21.x psi as it was with load 220.

Boost limit multi is set to 3 across the board
Bro is set to 84 across the board

The cells turning red in TunerPro just means your getting close to the defined high range in the XDF, you can turn that off. The actual limit in the code is 327.

21PSI at 220 load is about right. You also need to keep in mind that the boost ceiling param is halfway through the boost pressure target calc so if it's limited to 22.5PSI by the ceiling then it'l also be further reduced by the KF_PSPLD_ECO table that I posted here a while ago.

 

[carabuser]

I want to Thank you to everyone who've helped me here , and the hard-work of the XDF being shared among the community. Looking back the 1.8t and 2.7t days , we had to compare parameters in the bin and define maps , this is Luxury , consider yourself fortunate.

With your problem I'd suggest posting then BIN file that you are using. I can see problems straight away in the logs and I suspect it's a combination of issues, your load target is only 160 in the non-mboost log but the boost target is high.

I'd also be interested to know what turbos you have. On the MBoost log you are seeing over 20PSI at 34% WGDC. I think you have some scaling tables set very wrong.