P0299 causing power loss at full load in a VW Phaeton 3.0 TDI, engine code: CARA | Posts 16+

Does anyone have access to KDATASCOPE? They could simply open and view the logs I sent using something like KDATASCOPE, right?

Can you get the demo version directly, or is it a software CD?

Best regards,

SvenVortech wrote:

Does anyone of you have access to KDATASCOPE? They could simply open and view the logs I sent using something like KDATASCOPE, right? Can you get the demo version directly, or is it a software CD? Greetings

Hello,

Demo version via the shop, or simply post the logged CSV file, clicking on the CSV file on "my page" shouldn't be the issue.

It is important to think about what you want to log and why, even before you start logging.

Hello Rainer,

Should I upload the raw CSV file here, or does it not matter?
I have already posted these CSV files before.
So, will you receive the demo version immediately, or will it take a few days? Is this a software file that's easy to install?

I'm sorry, I don't understand much of it.
I've been thinking about your schema and have followed it, considering things like logging and what to pay attention to, including the smoke limit, etc. You had posted a description/guide about that.
What Herbert just mentioned.

Best regards,

Choose the "Demo version" option, which is located at the very bottom. https://shop.dieselschrauber.org/en/kdatascope-obd-logdateien-analysieren-p-52.php

I have another piece of information.
In another online forum, someone mentioned that the turbocharger was producing too much boost pressure. The absolute boost pressure can reach up to 2519 mbar.
Then it readjusts to the target value of 2488.80 millibars. The air mass concentration value is also, in some cases, up to 1257 mg/H, as seen in the previous log files.
I saw on another user's post that they have a lower air mass reading on their Q7 3.0 TDI compared to mine. They have a target air mass of 1198.50 mg/H and an actual value of just under 1100 mg/H, while the target and actual boost pressure are around 2300 mbar absolute, which seems to be standard for a 233 hp engine.
Is there a connection between the fact that my VTG adjustment is not properly set and the fact that the turbocharger from BR-TURBO might not be a good fit for the car? Should I rather use an original one from GARRETT, as others suggest?
Here is the measurement protocol from BR-TURBO.

Hi,
2519 mbar and 2488 mbar are the same, differing by only 30 mbar. Difference: 1.5%.
The air mass value of 1257 mg/stroke is something you can only compare to a limited extent with the values of the other engine. If the target value were 1200 mg/stroke, your engine would also be within the 5% range. What is the target value for your engine?
The error indicates either insufficient boost pressure for the air mass, or excessive air mass for the boost pressure, as mentioned in my previous post. Please record the error case using VCDS with the Autoscan function.
hg
Herbert.

I can't find a measuring block with the "air mass desired value" in VCDS.
I only see the current value, and I've noticed this on some online platforms as well. I need to figure out how to resolve this.
Whenever I use a LMM (likely referring to a liquid medication measuring device), I always end up administering at least 100mg less than the prescribed dose.
It displays the values that are stored in the control unit.
Check out the log file (page 3). "Starts roughly at full throttle without a mass airflow sensor (MAF sensor), which is bad."
You can see that the LMM actual value briefly reaches a maximum of 1122 mg/H. And the actual boost pressure is 2458 millibars.
The actual value is slightly below the target value of 2488.8 mbar, which represents a tolerance of 1.2%.
But despite that, the performance degradation still occurred.
It should be noted that the previous owner replaced the mass airflow sensor (MAF sensor) with a non-original part from HERTH & BUSS Elparts. OEN is 059906461K.
Is this original equipment from Hitachi, model AFH 70-46? Does that make a difference?

Quote:

Okay, the charging behavior appears to be good in the best-case scenario. LMM values are also useful.

That's perfectly fine.

I had written more...

I once tried using Kdatascope. Let me know if you can make sense of this and what I can change or improve regarding the view or file type, etc.
I tried to upload a .jpg file, but I always get the error message "(this request cannot be processed)". On a new page, it seems the file is too large (2.35MB), even though the upload limit is supposedly 16MB for .jpg files.

dieselschrauber wrote:

, or simply post the logged CSV file

.
Life could be so simple...

Hello Rainer,

As I understand it, the .csv file should be the original, unedited version, not a modified one, is that what you mean because of the logged .csv entries? That's why I posted the log files at the beginning, there were eight of them.

Best regards,

Hello,

in

Quote:

Description: P0299, power loss at full load, VW Phaeton 3.0 TDI, engine code: CARA. P0299, power loss at full load, VW Phaeton 3.0 TDI, engine code: CARA. Download. Filename: 5.Gang Vollgas.CSV

Is there actually a loss of boost pressure/air mass, which can be compensated for with a corresponding reduction in fuel injection?

I actually thought that the boost pressure wouldn't decrease in case of a fault? At least, there was no indication of this in previous logs, or we may have misunderstood something, or perhaps there's been a mix-up with the login names...

In this case, the drop in performance is clear, but it's unclear whether the boost pressure dropped due to insufficient air mass, or whether the air mass is dropping due to insufficient boost pressure.

Trying a different LLM would be helpful. Also, also check if, in the event of an error, the desired versus actual boost pressure remains consistently (for several seconds) more than 100 mbar apart (the error threshold is usually even higher). A difference of 50 mbar more or less is completely irrelevant.

Best regards, Rainer.

Hello Rainer,

First of all, thank you very much for your analysis!
I was already suspecting there might be a problem with the mentioned measurements.
The last logs were read directly and saved without any processing. The previously modified and simplified version now includes "(Edited)" in the log file name.

I'm going to try a used, original mass airflow sensor (MAF) from an auto parts supplier. They've been tested for functionality, etc., and come with a warranty. If it's not this, then it must be the turbocharger, right?

"In case of an error, should we log data when the performance drops but before an error message appears, specifically checking if the difference between the target and actual boost pressure exceeds 50 mbar under full or partial load?"

Here are 3 more logs, unedited. One of them is the 5th gear, which is not functioning properly; possibly, not all the necessary sensor modules are installed.

Best regards,

Quote:

If that's not the case, then it must be the turbocharger, right!?

No, as I mentioned before, if there's a problem with the wiring harness to the mass airflow sensor (MAF), movements of the engine can cause the signal from the MAF to be interrupted, which can lead to a reduced fuel injection amount, resulting in lower boost pressure.

You should check all the points I mentioned and not simply exchange them.

I understand that this is time-consuming, but there's nothing we can do about it.

Hello Rainer,

Okay, I understand. However, I've tested the wires from the mass airflow sensor for electrical conductivity, both when the engine is stationary and when it's running.
How do you access the cable that's located to the left of the air filter housing, down below, and disappears into the wiring harness? It looks like you'll need to remove all the insulation from the cable to inspect it. And even there, I can't reach 100% everywhere.

Best regards,

Hello everyone.

I tested an original, used Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor, part number OEN 059906461K, manufactured by Hitachi, model HTC AFH70-46. I drove with it, and the airflow is less than with the mass airflow sensor (MAF) from the third-party supplier HERTH & BUSS ELPARTS.
"In the initial test, the original LMM (mass airflow sensor) briefly registered a maximum airflow of 1145 mg/H, after which it readjusted slightly. The actual boost pressure momentarily reached 2529 mbar, then readjusted and remained 20-50 mbar below the target value, after which the performance dropped again. In the second test, the airflow was 1122 mg/H, and the actual boost pressure was 2478 mbar, after which the performance dropped again." Both times, full throttle in 3rd gear.

Summary: The air mass is at least 100mg/H less than with the third-party LMM, but the boost pressure remains similar.

My suspicion is that the new turbocharger from BR-TURBO isn't a good fit for the car. It's best to use original GARRETT turbochargers. That is my opinion.