NW verstellen / Platzende PDEs nach Tuning | Posts 16+

loveme wrote:

I noticed that the timing mark on the crankshaft pulley , with the alignment pin attached , when viewed from below with the timing cover removed , is not exactly aligned with the mark in the inspection hole on the transmission housing

, but is shifted by 2mm.

Quote:

Okay, so a comparison between the crankshaft sprocket and the clutch side?

I believe that the setting value with the dowel pin on the crankshaft is more accurate than this notch on the flywheel!

Quote:

Do you mean this crankshaft stopper, that is, this toothed gear with the protruding bolt attached? Due to the design of the KW (torque wrench) stop, there must be some clearance – otherwise, you won't be able to fit the tool onto the gear, move the bolt within the tool, or insert it into the pilot hole. These three gears add up, and due to the small radius to the crankshaft axis, they create a noticeable amount of rotation that the flywheel could potentially turn, even though the crankshaft is locked (it's best not to try this, otherwise you might damage the tool or the crankshaft gear). Therefore, I tend to rely more on the better "resolution" provided by the larger radius of the flywheel.

P.S.: Feel free to continue using my test results! }
Coming up in the next issue of the journal...

Hi!

Quote:

Due to the system design, there must be some play in the KW stop - otherwise, you won't be able to fit the tool onto the gear, move the bolt in the tool, or insert it into the alignment hole.

So... I've been unintentionally and very intensely dealing with the crankshaft lock. And I couldn't detect the slightest bit of movement when the crankshaft lock was engaged! It fit perfectly and 100% precisely onto the crankshaft pulley. The bolt itself is also not movable within the tool. When the bolt engages with the engine block, you're essentially sliding the entire tool back and forth on the crankshaft pulley. And this bore in the engine block is also extremely precise. I certainly didn't expect it to be that precise. Therefore, I can't imagine a 2mm difference given these circumstances. What would be bad is the possibility that the transmission might have some "play" when installed...

Dirk.

brezelmann01 wrote:

It fit perfectly and was 100% precisely aligned on the crankshaft pulley. The bolt itself is also not movable within the tool. When the bolt locks into the engine block, you essentially slide the entire tool back and forth on the crankshaft pulley. And this bore in the engine block is also extremely precisely aligned.

It just raises the question of whether, especially with the crankshaft stub, the gear, and the fit between them, there are absolutely no manufacturing or assembly tolerances. Because only then would the locked gear be a "true" TDC (Top Dead Center) reference.

Regarding the flywheel , I suspect that the notch is only cut after assembly, and therefore marks the actual Top Dead Center (TDC) . . . does anyone know something different?

Hello!

I have now completed several tankfuls with the aforementioned NW setting.
(see some previous responses)

The calculated fuel consumption, based on fuel receipts and kilometers driven.
it was always lower than the overall average displayed by the MFA.

On average 2.4% lower (approximately 0.2 to 0.3 liters).

Considering that I used to get exactly the same result with the factory default settings for the NW (Network Watcher) configuration...
I observed the opposite effect!
Back then, the MFA (Multifunction Analyzer) always showed about 0.2 liters less than the calculated value.

Very strange!
I actually expected the complete opposite!

Because the maximum fuel consumption during acceleration in 6th gear, according to the MFA (Multi Function Display), has not changed.
(still 13.7 liters), the current fuel consumption at idle, without any accessories running, is 0.8 liters.
and the car runs like a plague.

So, here's my thought process:

The MSG believes it is injecting the same amount of fuel (e.g., 13.7 liters), but in reality, it is less, namely 13.4 liters (13.7 - 2.4% = 13.4 liters).

Only in this way can the deviation of approximately 2.4% be achieved.

I don't understand it - more power with less fuel!
That's a contradiction!
Earlier fuel injection - higher combustion pressure - potentially better efficiency - but not by that much!

Maybe someone here has an explanation!

Hi,

IMO, you've already given the explanation... earlier injection timing means higher efficiency, and that can certainly explain a 2.4% improvement, because that's not a huge amount.

Best regards,

Jan.

Jan6K wrote:

IMO, you've already given the explanation... earlier injection timing means higher efficiency.

This cannot happen in a typical PD system: the start of injection is electrically determined by opening the valve, regardless of how far the cam has already rotated.

The calculated overconsumption can, in my opinion, stem from the "assumed increased" fuel injection amount at idle...

The main reason I'm reviving this old thread is due to my lack of technical knowledge regarding the labor pains of my ARL.

After I have now tripled the intake diameter and eliminated the EGR, I am almost at the finish line. Apart from the poor acceleration from a standstill (I can't get up the driveway ), the car performs reasonably well in the 1000-2000 RPM range.
Okay, I can't seem to turn off the warning light, even with the maximum value in adaptation channel 3, but honestly...
The shaking sensation in the standing position (which felt like pushing duck- or chicken-sized chunks of the same consistency through the exhaust tract ) has also been reduced to an acceptable minimum.

Now, the issue of engine roughness starting at 3500 RPM remains, which needs to be addressed. This can be resolved using Ulf's technical article and related threads on topics such as valve timing and camshaft adjustment.

The car, with M+S/215 tires, reaches a speed of 208 km/h (approximately 3900 RPM) on a straight, wind-corrected, but it should ideally reach at least 4000 RPM and 215 km/h.
(I don't think the rolling resistance of the tires justifies it). According to my friend, who meticulously measured and logged everything, everything is within the normal range.

Meine Verständnisfragen wären eigentlich nur, was passiert mit den Ventilsteuerzeiten und welchen Effekt haben deren versetzte Öffnungsintervalle. Was sagt die ZKD zu dem Einspritzverhalten bzgl. SpImpressions?

Another question that came up for me during the transition, and one that I couldn't answer:

Why can a drilling/hub, a close relative of the legendary AFN ( my baby), rev up to almost 4500 willingly, while Madam ARL says that it can start losing power above 3500. What is the reason for this? The weak low-end power is due to the exhaust emission regulations and the large turbo, right?

ObenbeiMutti wrote:

.... Why can a drilling/hub, a close relative of the legendary AFN ( my baby), rev up to almost 4500 willingly, while Madam ARL says that hers might start to lose power above 3500. What is the reason for this? The weak bottom end is explained by the exhaust emission regulations and the large turbocharger.

The overall lack of performance is largely due to emission regulations.
All vehicles are affected by this issue. It doesn't matter if they are gasoline or diesel powered.
Your new car is probably heavier due to some extra luxury features.

That's true, he's a whole 300 kg heavier.

Despite this, I miss the bite starting at 3500 RPM, which is a shame, because what other reason, besides emissions regulations, could cause an AFN engine to detune its rated power at 4250 RPM?
and the ARL is 4000, in my case probably 3800 ....
...which I don't have, as I almost lacked the strength to push the cart there in the last attempt.

I mean that a 220CDI or a 20d from the competition wouldn't behave in such a way, unlike 'the inventor of the modern diesel' with its then-flagship engine.

Someone should really pay for that, in that particular class...

Shaking while stationary... unforgivable.
Poor acceleration (when cold) ... unforgivable.
Toughness at the top... unforgivable.
I don't mind the characteristic PD rumble; I actually like the full sound it produces during acceleration.

ObenbeiMutti wrote:

I can't turn off the warning light, even with the maximum value in adaptation channel 3.

You could try using a longer VTG (Variable Turbine Geometry) vane -> this might reduce low-load torque dip. Perhaps it will lower the air mass below the EGR fault threshold without making the engine feel generally weak.

Quote:

My questions are mainly about what happens to the valve timing and what effect the offset opening intervals have. What does the head gasket say about the injection behavior with regard to peak pressures?

The electronically controlled injection times will remain the same anyway.
I would estimate that the material will not be overloaded in any way by a shift of the valve opening times by perhaps 3° KW.
Because more air (-> higher effective compression) is achieved more easily with extended opening times / a larger overlap, allowing more air to enter the cylinders as "swirl."

What is the year of manufacture / model year of your Leon?

Hello Ulf,

Okay, here's the translation:

'The car was released for the Spanish market by Seat on March 11th, and was first registered in February 2004.'

The injection times remain the same, which you described very well and clearly in the technical article and related threads . If I understand correctly, while it arrives within the correct time window, there's a noticeable increase in 'bump' due to the larger amount of fuel.
Depending on the shifted angle of the camshaft lobe, the amount of fuel injected changes, with less fuel being injected at low RPMs and more fuel being injected at high RPMs.
(which then essentially only shifts the ZKD maximum load from the low to the high speed range ).

I've finally found a tuner I trust who created a custom file for me. It behaves like a 'tame' *** file up to almost 3000 RPM (375 Nm max), and then, once the harmful torque peak is passed, it runs 'powerfully,' meaning 185 horsepower.
I considered this to be the least critical option, in terms of increased performance and reduced wear and tear on the equipment (most of the time, I operate with a load of around 3000 tons).
Your article, in any case, opens up completely new perspectives for me regarding performance improvements. In other words, I can then drive a 100% 'tame' profile (which would be perfectly sufficient for me, aside from the lack of power above 3500 RPM).

Oh yeah...

...the file was deleted after two weeks because the clutch still couldn't handle the power. In the spirit of good customer service, the tuner promptly offered, at my request and without charge, to make the data set even weaker.
'However, the standard clutch is already at its limit. In my opinion, the extra cost of a performance clutch plus installation exceeds the price one would pay for cheap tuning.'

As I said, the poor starting performance, inability to start uphill from a standstill, shaking at idle, sluggishness at higher RPMs, and weak clutch all make me quite frustrated with this piece of German/Spanish high technology.

What we can hardly assess is the effect of the also altered valve timing.
Hello,

Advancing the camshaft timing can have disadvantages at high engine speeds. However, the earlier injection timing seems to be beneficial enough to outweigh this disadvantage. However, I cannot make any quantitative statements about this.
With a late camshaft timing, the scavenging process at the end of the 4th stroke or the beginning of the 1st stroke is indeed impaired, but the cylinder filling is improved after the intake stroke. This advantage outweighs the disadvantage. When the piston is at the bottom of its stroke, the pressure in the cylinder is lower than the pressure in the intake manifold due to the inertia of the gas. This means that air is still being drawn in even though the piston is already on its way back up. This effect is more pronounced at higher engine speeds. This is precisely the principle behind a variable valve timing system, such as the Vanos used by BMW.

Best regards, Matthias.

matt wrote:

A rotation of the camshaft that advances the timing can have disadvantages at high engine speeds. The earlier injection timing appears to be so beneficial that this disadvantage is offset.

Hi,

"In principle, an earlier start to the injection process is not possible, as it is determined by the MSG (Main System Controller) through the activation of the PDE (Pressure Discharge Element) current."

When the injection timing is adjusted, only the pump plunger will be slightly higher or lower at the start of injection. Depending on the pitch of the injection cam and the residual volume in the high-pressure chamber, this can fundamentally lead to altered delivery rates (mg per degree of injection timing rotation).

You're right! But ultimately, it's like an earlier injection start. Because the proportion of the fuel injection volume is shifted earlier due to the different camshaft timing. I didn't really want to discuss this further. I just wanted to point out the dependence of cylinder filling on camshaft timing.

Best regards, Matthias.

When the camshaft is misaligned, only the pump plunger will be slightly higher or lower at the start of injection. Depending on the pitch of the injection rocker and the residual volume in the high-pressure chamber, this can fundamentally lead to altered delivery rates (mg per degree of camshaft rotation).

In addition, there is a reduction in the theoretically possible total injection time.
If I advance the injection timing (NW) and the engine control unit (MSG) doesn't adjust the injection timing accordingly, the corresponding angle by which the injection timing was advanced won't be used for the injection. However, this angle becomes relevant at the end of the injection process if, for whatever reason, I want to inject extremely late and/or for a long duration (e.g., during DPF regeneration). I don't believe this is significant in normal operation, though.

It would be interesting to know whether the engine control unit (ECU) truly does not change the injection timing when the camshaft is in a different position. After all, the exact position of the camshaft relative to the crankshaft can be determined by the crankshaft sensor and the camshaft sensor within the ECU.

In principle, an earlier start to the injection is not possible, as it is determined by the MSG by activating the PDE current.
You are right! But ultimately, it's like starting the injection earlier.
If Ulf is correct, there will be no earlier start to the injection, and advancing the timing will not offer any performance advantages.

If the MSG changes the injection timing, Ulf is wrong, and the result is the same as before.

Best regards, Jochen.

Hello everyone,

Since I recently started using a PD AVF, I've also decided to...
focused on recruiting PDs.

I also read the article on this topic by Ulf.
But I haven't really figured it out from that.

So: Could the NW (needle width) possibly be incorrectly set from the factory, or...?
It seems Ulf's perspective was solely based on the fact that the engines only started to perform well above 3500 RPM.
to work; to have an effect; to act; to function.