NW verstellen / Platzende PDEs nach Tuning | Posts 16+

loveme wrote:

I noticed that the OT (Offset) with the dowel pin on the crankshaft pulley located at the bottom, when the timing belt cover is removed , is not aligned with the marking on the inspection window on the transmission housing , but is shifted by 2mm.

Okay, so a comparison between the crankshaft's timing chain side and the clutch side?

Quote:

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

Do you mean this crankshaft stopper, that is, this toothed gear with the protruding bolt on it?

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 alignment hole.
These three added increments, due to the small radius relative to the crankshaft axis, result in a noticeable amount that the flywheel could be rotated, 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.

Quote:

P.S.: Feel free to continue using my test results!

Coming up in the next feature article...

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 within the tool, or insert it into the pilot hole.

Okay, so... I've been unintentionally and very intensely dealing with the crankshaft lock. And I couldn't detect the slightest bit of play when the crankshaft lock was engaged! It fit perfectly and 100% precisely onto the crankshaft pulley. The bolt itself isn't movable within the tool either. 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, of course, is the possibility that the transmission might have some "play" or looseness when it's installed.

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

"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 sized.

It just raises the question of whether any manufacturing or assembly variations could occur, especially in the short end of the kilowatt axis, the gear, and the fit between them. Because only then would the blocked gear be a "true" OT (occupational therapy) 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've now used the aforementioned product for several tankfuls. NW qualification completed.
(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),...
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 occurs during acceleration in 6th gear. According to the MFA, the situation remains unchanged.
(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).

This is the only way to achieve a deviation of approximately 2.4% less.

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!

Perhaps someone here has an explanation!

Hi,

IMO you've already given the explanation... earlier fuel injection 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 with a conventional PD system: the start of injection is electrically determined by opening the valve, regardless of how far the camshaft 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 (presumably referring to a piece of equipment or technology).

Having now tripled the intake port size and eliminated the EGR system, I'm almost there. The car, aside from the poor acceleration from a standstill (I can't get up the driveway ), 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 oh my god.
The cold shaking of the sediment (felt like it was releasing pieces about the size of ducklings or chicks). Consistency achieved by forcing air through the exhaust system ) has also been reduced to an acceptable minimum.

Now, the issue is the stiffness that starts at 3500 RPM, which needs to be addressed, and which can be tackled using the methods described in Ulf's article and related resources. Threads related to valve timing/variable valve timing can be used to troubleshoot issues.

The car reaches a top speed of 208 km/h (approximately 129 mph) on a straight road, adjusted for wind, with M+S/215 tires, which translates to roughly 3900 RPM. It should, at the very least, reach a speed of 4000 [units - likely RPM or similar] and a top speed of 215 km/h.
(I don't think the rolling resistance of the tires justifies this). According to... According to my friend, who meticulously measured and logged everything, all the values are nominal.

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? Sure, here's the translation:

'Slang expressions?'

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

Why can a drilling/pumping relative, the legendary AFN ( my baby), run almost 4500 willingly, while Madam ARL says that hers might run out of steam above 3500. What is the reason for this? The lack of power in the lower RPM range is due to the emissions regulations that required catalytic converters and the large turbocharger.

ObenbeiMutti wrote:

.... Why can a drilling/pumping relative, the legendary AFN ( my baby), run almost 4500 willingly, while Madam ARL says that hers might run out of steam above 3500. What is the reason for this? The lack of low-end power is due to the exhaust emission regulations that necessitated castration and the use of a large turbocharger.

The overall lack of performance is largely due to emission regulations.
All vehicles suffer from this syndrome. Whether it's gasoline or diesel.
Your new car is probably also heavier due to some added 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 ....
...Something I don't have, as in the last stretch, I almost lacked the strength to push the cart there.

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

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

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

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 rod -> this might reduce the low-load distortion. Perhaps this will cause the air mass to drop below the EGR error threshold without the engine becoming too sluggish overall.

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 in relation to this? Top bargains?

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 / greater overlap, allowing more air to enter the cylinders as "swirl."

What year/model is your Leon?

Hello Ulf,

Okay, here's the translation:

'The car was ordered from Seat on March 11th for delivery to Spain.' 'Taken off the market and first registered on 02/04...'

The injection times remain the same, which you described very nicely and clearly in the technical article and corresponding threads, and it was particularly helpful for me. If I process this correctly, it will occur within the correct timeframe, but there will be a noticeable increase in fuel consumption.
'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-Max 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 problematic option, in terms of performance and other factors. Material conservation (I usually move around 3000 tons at a time).
Your article, in any case, opens up completely new perspectives for me regarding performance improvements. In other words, I can then run 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 again after two weeks, because the clutch still couldn't handle the strain. In the spirit of good customer service, the tuner promptly offered, at my request and without charge, to further reduce the strength of the data set.
'But the clutch is already fully worn out from the factory.' However, in my opinion, the additional cost of a sports clutch plus installation exceeds the 'pain threshold' 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 German/Spanish-built car. 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 offer such benefits that this disadvantage is outweighed. However, I cannot make any quantitative statements about it.
With a late camshaft, the scavenging process at the end of the 4th stroke or the beginning of the 1st stroke is indeed impaired, but the filling process after the intake stroke is improved. This advantage outweighs the disadvantage. When the piston is at the bottom of its stroke, due to the inertia of the gas in the cylinder, there is less pressure than in the intake manifold. This means that air is still being drawn in, even though the piston is already on its way back up. This effect is, of course, more pronounced at higher engine speeds. That's precisely the approach used by a Vanos system, like those found in BMWs.

Best regards, Matthias.

matt wrote:

A rotation of the camshaft towards earlier timing can have disadvantages at high engine speeds. The earlier start of injections seems to be so beneficial that this disadvantage is outweighed.

Hi,

A premature start of the injection process is generally not possible, as it is determined by the MSG (Main System Controller) by activating the PDE (Pressure Discharge Element) current.

Therefore, when the nozzle is misaligned, the pump piston will be slightly higher or lower at the start of the injection process. Depending on the angle 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 crankshaft rotation).

You're right! But ultimately, it's like an earlier injection start. Because the proportion of the fuel quantity 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 relationship between the cylinder filling and the camshaft position.

Best regards, Matthias.

When the NW (northwest) is misaligned, only the pump piston will be slightly higher or lower at the start of the injection. Depending on the angle 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 crankshaft 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 crucial at the end of the injection process when I want to inject extremely late and/or for a long duration (e.g., during DPF regeneration). I don't believe it's significant in a production environment.

It would be interesting to know whether the MSG (presumably a type of engine management system) truly does not change the injection timing when the camshaft is in a different position. The exact position of the crankshaft (KW) relative to the camshaft (NW) must be determined using the crankshaft sensor and the camshaft sensor in the engine control unit (MSG).

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 starting earlier will not offer any performance advantages.

If 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 that 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...?
"This was only Ulf's perspective, because the engines only started to produce significant power from 3500 RPM."
to work; to have an effect; to be effective.