Leistungsverlust - Fehler im Log erkennbar? | Posts 16+

Unfortunately, I am unable to assess whether they are capable or not. I can only assume that tuners like Digi-Tec or OBD-Tuning, which are often featured in magazine tests, should have these basic features.

I guess I'm not exactly driving a rare classic car with a 1Z engine and a 1996 AT engine control unit, am I? As I mentioned, I'll try to get the software to someone who can tell me more about the programming of the characteristic maps.

Regarding a more pressing and confusing issue: As you can see from the first log of this thread, my "semi-tuned" car now takes approximately 9.2 seconds to accelerate from 2000 to 4000 rpm. Previously, with the same engine control unit (ECU), it took 8.0 seconds, which translates to roughly 105 horsepower. Now, many people will say: "Well, then you've introduced a new problem with the engine."

What I don't understand is: I tested the original control unit again yesterday, immediately after, and with that, I can also pass the acceleration test in about 9.5 seconds. This corresponds to a good standard performance of 92 horsepower (it's important to note that this is the B control unit and it's not chipped).

If I'm getting the serial power output from the stock engine control unit, and with the chipped version, I initially got 105 horsepower, and now, despite increased fuel injection and boost pressure according to the log, I'm getting almost the same acceleration, then something must be wrong with the engine control unit, right?

P.S. I also know that, in theory, it shouldn't be possible for the same power output to be achieved despite a higher injection volume, but the test results have confirmed this. Or could it mean that a component of the fuel supply system is aging and, despite higher demands, only the standard amount of fuel is reaching the engine?

You can leave them here or send them to me.

Unfortunately, a professional appearance does not guarantee the tuner's skills.
(It would certainly be an exaggeration to say that the opposite is true, but it's not incorrect.)


Best regards,
Rudi

Roadrunner505 wrote:

Yesterday, I tested the original control unit again, immediately after, and with that, I can also pass the acceleration test in about 9.5 seconds - and that corresponds to a good standard performance of 92 horsepower (note that this is the B control unit and it is not chipped). If I'm getting the serial power output from the stock engine control unit, and with the chipped version, I initially got 105 horsepower, and now, despite increased fuel injection and boost pressure according to the log, I'm getting almost the same acceleration, then something must be wrong with the engine control unit, right? p.s. I also know that it really shouldn't be possible.

How accurate and comparable are your DDR (Dynamic Random Access Memory) timings?
Number of measurements? Spread?
Environmental conditions? (Weight, weather, wind, different tires, and so on.)

The conditions were comparable to all the dives I've done before.
Straight road, no wind, dry.

Since I'm logging data for groups 3, 8, and 11, I have the times for each group.
Therefore, for each log, you already have 3 interpolated times that can be averaged.

In addition, I have confirmed the data measured above with 2-3 further measurements.

Roadrunner505 wrote:

The conditions were comparable to all the logs I have made.

So, measurement errors are pretty much ruled out... what did you find out from your hearing test yesterday?

Okay, I need to correct myself - I was supposed to contact them yesterday, but I only got an appointment for April 18th. However, I'm getting a CD with the software today, and I might go to a tuner tomorrow who offered to check the engine maps. Maybe he'll come across something useful.

At least, I can then show the software to anyone who thinks it might be due to a bug in this.

I have the software now.
If anyone would like to take a look to see if there are any errors, please send me a private message with an email address.
Thank you in advance.

Subject to my limited knowledge of CT (presumably referring to a specific technology or system), the tuning file was, in my opinion, at least partially created by someone who was intoxicated.
Here are some of the "best" highlights that I noticed upon first glance:

"What is the point of needing 0.9 bar of boost pressure (1.9 bar absolute) if only 15 mg of diesel are supposed to be burned at 3500 rpm?" This amount should even allow a completely soot-free operation of an SDI (Selective Catalytic Reduction) system.
Whether burning 15 mg can actually provide the energy needed to achieve the target pressure of 0.9 bar is a separate question.
However, if there's incorrect or nonsensical data in the dataset, it could ultimately lead to errors in the turbocharger pressure control system.

2. The turbidity chart actually only goes up to 42 mg at 850 mg of air. This results in a full-load lambda of approximately 1.4, which suggests that the blurring effect was simply forgotten to be adjusted.

"One of the two torque curves (likely for different encodings) drops from 46 mg to 34 mg between 3700 and 4000 rpm, and then rises again to 44 mg." Most likely, the default value was simply left in place at the support point.

Furthermore, the torque curve sometimes falls below and sometimes exceeds the full-throttle requirement, as defined by the driver's desired performance map, which presumably has not been modified.
But in reality, no performance is lost, because the blurring effect is actually the main limiting factor .

To say more, I would need an original dataset.
Nevertheless, I would classify this tuning file as "unfinished"... but at least it doesn't seem to contain any values that would severely stress the materials, so you can probably still use it to extend the engine's lifespan somewhat.
And not to be forgotten: As long as everything is intact, the car will, thanks to the standard particulate filter, practically no longer produce soot emissions compared to its state without tuning .

Hi Ulf,
Attached is the original document.


Best regards,
Rudi

The thing is, it's only tuned using percentages , and some of those percentages are in a completely nonsensical range. Many control units (KFs) have their values adjusted by a constant percentage (usually around ~10%) across the entire range, from idle speed to maximum speed, and from the minimum injection amount to the maximum injection amount. I couldn't find any investment fund where only a single area hadn't been increased by a fixed percentage.

So, it seems someone messed around who really only had a very vague idea of what they were doing. Because their knowledge was only sufficient for the somewhat correct calibration tables. He absolutely didn't know how or in which areas he had to change his vehicle registration details.

But it's interesting that something like that can still be drivable and almost go unnoticed. One wonders what else is out there on German roads...

Wishing everyone a good night.
Guste.

@Rudi: Thanks for the original!

guste100 wrote:

I couldn't find any KF where only a single area wasn't simply increased by a constant percentage.

However, it seems that a significant effort was made regarding the torque limitation – with the exception of the 3906 rpm value in 2nd gear. KF, at a production level

Quote:

But it's interesting that something like that can still be drivable and almost go unnoticed. One wonders what else is out there on German roads...

Of course. "When I see things like that, I would spontaneously advise potential customers who don't have the means to verify their vehicle's VP chip tuning to opt for 3-pot boxes."
Because with it, you can adjust things yourself and roughly estimate what you're doing to your engine.

By the way, contrary to my initial assessment, both the turbidity and the driver's desired setting have actually been increased. And even the pump's configuration file, he found it and modified it.
However (as guste already mentioned), only in the most basic way, using uniform percentage values.


EDIT
With a 6% quantity increase based on the RWG voltage and a 10% increase based on the turbidity, a car should perform significantly better than the standard version with this file (although I cannot precisely estimate how much real extra quantity this represents).

I can't explain why the tuning doesn't seem to be having much effect based on the file I'm looking at... I'm therefore initially suspecting a hardware problem (e.g., fuel delivery?).

Okay, so that was probably my last visit to OBD-Tuning in Harburg. When I made the appointment, it was just to get a different chip for my secondary control unit (without an immobilizer). I wanted to see if, if the smoke limit remains at 40mg, whether that's also the case in other TDIs. I could have easily compared it to any other 1Z model because the STG lacks the WFS feature.

Meanwhile, I now have a chip installed that doesn't exhibit this problem. Furthermore, reading the software in the OBD chips would have raised questions. As a prime example, I mentioned that the smoke limit, as programmed in the OBD chip, only goes up to a maximum of 42mg. "It's impossible for it to inject more than that amount, which means the desired performance simply cannot be achieved."

I was then told that these limitations should not be tampered with, that the limitations were caused by flaws in the car's design, and that I probably had a cheap, poorly-made chip installed, similar to "Polentuning," which ignores obvious mechanical problems with the motto: "Full throttle!" This is the worst kind of amateur work and has nothing to do with serious tuning.

After a lengthy discussion about limitations, I suggested that they could test a chip in my car's secondary control unit to see if the OBD chips in my car behave differently than in another car. In response, I received the answer that they were no longer interested in helping me. My assurances that I had no intention of doing anyone any harm, but simply wanted to make a comparison, were ignored.

One would have to be incredibly arrogant to try to prove something, and even more so to explain other people's jobs, and the audacity to post in these forums would be the absolute last straw. Apparently, I was also said to have threatened Autobild, threatened to be rude, and that I had already cost the company enough money in service fees.

All in all, it was quite rude of me to stand there and say, "I have something that works, why doesn't it work for you?," and to suggest that I should leave because otherwise people would get really angry...

Dear everyone, to be honest: I was always willing to actively search for a solution to my problem. Yes, I also contacted my colleagues at Autobild, but with the request that they might offer me some assistance in troubleshooting within their tuning departments. Is that a threat?
I have never spoken negatively about OBD tuning in any forum; rather, I have always tried to stick to the facts. Instead, I have tried to calm down the people who have been complaining and making a fuss here. "Surely, no one can accuse me of defamation or a lack of neutrality, can they?"
But where exactly should one turn when there's a problem with the car and you're relying on the opinions of others? That's why I also admit that when troubleshooting, I initially suspect all components, as well as all wear and tear parts that I've previously checked and replaced, including my chip. And if I haven't heard anything else about the problem except that it's related to the chip, shouldn't I at least investigate that possibility further?

It's also possible that the "gods" are at OBD, while everyone else is just a bunch of amateurs who don't know anything about tuning, and that all of this is just a smear campaign. However, I am unable to judge that... The truth about what the actual error was or is lies in Harburg, or with everyone else.

Roadrunner505 wrote:

It is, of course, also possible that the "gods" are at OBD, while everyone else is just a novice who doesn't understand tuning, and that all of this is a smear campaign.

Yes, of course. A common tactic to prevent others from cornering you due to proven errors is to replace a lack of arguments with bluster and volume.

But we also don't know anything about tuning, and what I, for example, recognized as nonsense in the OBD file actually has a purpose - far beyond my understanding.

Hi,

What are the legal aspects regarding smoking restrictions? Is it really true that the tuners are not allowed to adjust these values?

Regards,
Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

"Micha"

Mephisto wrote:

What are the legal aspects regarding the smoking restrictions? Is it really true that the tuners are not allowed to adjust these values?

Of course, adjustments can be made to the opacity, as long as the emission limits in the standard driving cycle, which does not contain (significant) full-load portions , are not exceeded.

Nobody cares how the amounts of pollutants would differ between a standard car and a tuned car, for example, in a traffic light sprint driving cycle (instead of a standard cycle).

This is the "legal loophole" that is exploited in legal TDI tuning.

My opinion on this: As a diesel driver, I already pay such high "polluting machine" taxes that I feel I can enjoy the potential fun without feeling guilty.
-> If there were a sticker that said "I pay xy times more tax per year than a gasoline car, so I'm allowed to stink," I would put it on the back of my car .