Effekte bei Düsentuning (Theorien) | Posts 32+

Hi Ulf,

"They definitely didn't measure it like that... It was a Seat workshop using a VAS5051 or some other OBD emissions tester." They also read the cooling water temperature... it's also printed on the report, so I don't think they would go to such lengths.

Furthermore, the expression starts by displaying the tolerance range, then shows the actual minimum value as 5043, and finally lists the specific measured values. It seems more likely that they will read the engine control unit (ECU) via OBD to determine the engine's actual operating speed, and then proceed with their attempts based on that information.

I don't think the 5043 values, which are listed separately, come from a single measurement; I believe they were read from somewhere.

Best regards,

Jan.

Jan6K wrote:

So, it seems to me that they will likely read the data via OBD, to see what the engine control unit considers to be the actual engine speed, and then proceed with their attempts based on that.

Hi Jan,

If you mean that this is a prediction made by the engine's computer, then I'm not so sure I believe that.
Because for that, he would have to know, from the beginning, for example, the calorific value of the current fuel tank, the actual friction losses of the engine (keyword: synthetic oils ), and the achievable air mass per crankshaft revolution, etc.

I believe that the testing software simply prints the minimum actual result after all measurements have been completed to a "special" location.

Hi Ulf,

not as a prediction, but rather as a stored calibration speed - which naturally raises the question of why there's a tolerance, and why it's such an unusual speed (5043).

The fact is that the three high-rev attempts were all recorded, and any speeds *above* that limit were not achieved; there is no record of any attempt that actually reached those speeds. Therefore, there is no experimental minimum.

Probably, we will never figure that out... maybe this number simply came about because the person from Seat typed it in .

Best regards,

Jan.

Deleted as requested.

Jan6K wrote:

...and why it's such a strange RPM (5043).

Hi Jan,

I believe these unusual numbers are likely due to the "quantization" of digital systems.

For example, the dimensionless values in the VAGCOM group 0, ranging from 0 to 255, correspond to 256 = 2^8 levels, which means an 8-bit resolution ( ).

The absolute zero mg speed in the torque curve of the AFN is 5355 rpm. Dividing it by 255 (steps) yields a resolution of 21 rpm.

And what's more: VAGCOM (when used with the AFN engine) displays the engine speed in increments of 21 rpm, meaning that every recorded engine speed is divisible by 21.

Hi Ulf,

Ugh... thanks... I should have figured that out myself!

Sorry and best regards,

Jan.

hi,
Yesterday, I spoke with the people at Tuneline about tuning with larger injectors. The statement was that the 81kW TDI engine can handle the larger 216 injectors and also develop 'healthy' fuel lines. 8) :lol:

The 66KW 1Z engines would not be as well-suited for performance increases with turbochargers due to their mechanical design, resulting in a less efficient power output compared to the ALH engines. :evil: :roll:

Hi Ulf!

the proportionality of the maximum. Cylinder power outputs of the different engines (16.5 / 20.25 / 22.2 kW) with the injection cross-sections of the respective nozzles (simply squared hole diameters: 0.034 / 0.042 / 0.047 mm²) is quite remarkable .

Yes, I also think that the hole size is the main factor. It's important that more of the volume being pumped actually reaches the cylinder. However, I wouldn't say that the rest is just fine-tuning.
According to Tim's call to tuneline, various engines may experience varying degrees of performance gains, or sometimes the tuning may be completely ruined.

Best regards.
Ernst.

Hey guys,

Sorry for interrupting the discussion so rudely.

I've been using 0.216 injectors in my ALH for quite some time.
Without any problems.

What I'm still wondering is how does the spray pattern of these nozzles compare to the original ALH 0.184 nozzles?
Is it 100% compatible with the 1.9L block, I mean, regarding the cylinder bore?
Cylinder/piston ??????

wuze60 wrote:

Sorry for interrupting the discussion so rudely

.

Hi.

Why are you saying sorry?
I understand "cheeky" to mean something different...

Quote:

I've been using 0.216 injectors in my ALH for quite some time. Without any problems.

Do you have any objective before-and-after comparison data (e.g., DZR times, consumption, starting behavior, settling speed, etc.)?

Quote:

What I still wonder is how does the spray pattern of these nozzles compare to the 0.184 ALH original nozzles? Is it 100% compatible with the 1.9L block, I mean, regarding the cylinder bore? Cylinder/Piston ???????

According to my opinion, the outer diameter of the piston is relatively unimportant (especially if the difference is only 1.5 mm).
More importantly, the design of the combustion chamber, which is essentially machined into the piston, and where the nozzle injects the fuel, is crucial. It must fit the nozzle.

In one of my other threads about nozzles...
Okay, I understand. Please provide the German text you want me to translate into English. I will only provide the translation.
Maciek included a photo of the piston stroke. Take a look at this, and then you will understand .

Do you have any objective before-and-after comparison data for this (e.g., DZR times, consumption, starting behavior, settling speed, etc.)?

I had the software tuned at Tuneline to see if there's still anything it can improve.
Fuel consumption is around 5.5 - 6 liters per 100 km (I only drive on country roads).
Starting behavior: I have to be honest, it starts better and more easily than before with the 0.184 nozzles. Before, I had to crank the starter for almost a second longer. When it's cold, the idle speed is often around 1100 (for about 3-5 minutes).
Abregeldrehzahl: I've never revved it higher than 4300-4400 RPM, and I don't really want to, somehow.

Engine performance: It runs much quieter/smoother than with the smaller nozzles! This should normally be the other way around, but it's not the case in my situation.

DZR times? Transit times or ???
I don't have Excel .
I've often wanted to do this, but without Excel, I can't access the files.


More importantly, the design of the combustion chamber, which is essentially machined into the piston, and where the nozzle also injects fuel, is crucial. It must fit the nozzle.

Okay, it would be good to know now if this works, hmm.
We might find out somehow eventually.

wuze60 wrote:

I don't have Excel I've often wanted to do this, but without Excel, I can't access the files.

Hi,

You don't need Excel for that!

Look at this.




is much more expensive http://www.openoffice.org (0 Euros) and better! Okay, hier ist die Übersetzung des Textes ins Englische:

Please provide the text you would like me to translate from German to English. I will only provide the translation, without any explanations.

coool, thanks!

wuze60 wrote:

I had the software tuned at Tuneline to see if there was a comparable option. anything else, what does

Hi.

No, in that case, it would hardly be significant... What would be really interesting, in my opinion, are measured "net effects" of a jet swap, meaning with unchanged electronics.
Ideally, with the "limp mode" diagnostic trouble codes (VAGCOM channel 1) cleared, because that's something that's essentially possible for "anyone" to do.

wuze60 wrote:

Hey guys. Sorry for interrupting the discussion so rudely. I've been using 0.216 injectors in my ALH for quite some time. Without any problems.

It would also be interesting to see a direct comparison of the 0.205 and 0.216 versions in the ALH! Especially what exact performance gain it brings without further software modifications, or to what extent the exhaust emissions worsen!

Hello,

To shed some light on this interesting topic, here are a few figures:

0.184 nozzles - 6.8 seconds.
0.216-inch nozzles - 5.3 seconds.

'Everything with the same software versions and tire specifications, under similar environmental conditions (fuel level, temperature, air pressure, etc.).'

My problem is also the next one: the idle speed isn't an issue (5090 RPM), but the roughness. I'm going to try something this week to counteract that, let's see if it works.

Best regards,