RomRaider

CA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I found some diferences on the sound...it seems deeper actually...roaring a little more in low rpm...

The performance...not sure about...maybe some more power on the low rpm but i cant found any on high rpm...

Been busy doing other things but here is new definition file:

Added the previously discussed KF_TI_DK_VUE_FAK map by "overlap based throttle angle multiplier" -name. If you know some other name that is already used somewhere else, please tell me. Or if you know better name. It can be changed. Also the axes naming is my best guess. BTW funny thing. In Alpina bin that map is set to 1.

v0.39 changes:
- fixed vehicle speed limiter addresses
- added some items that were missing in some specific versions
- changed the Secondary Air pump switch right way around. As suggested by janithdg. Disabling SAP using this still untested.
- added overlap based throttle angle multiplier -map (thanks to ghostrider328ci and ecru)

I think we should discuss the KF_TI_DK_VUE_FAK/ip_ti_pvs_vo_fac__vo a bit more as the quoted explanation that was posted earlier jumps to some fast conclusions.

We can start by breaking down the table name from the MS43 A2L ip_ti_pvs_vo_fac__vo.

ip - interpolated table
ti_pvs - injection compensation/correction during pvs changes
vo - valve overlap
fac - factor
__vo - valve overlap x-axis

So it's a 2D table containing valve overlap injection correction factors that is used to correct the wall film compensation during different overlaps.

I believe the reason Alpina has set the table to "1" is because they only turn the vanos on or off.

There are also 8 VUE maps such as the below image



Any idea what all of these VUE maps do and how they can be modified for enhanced performance?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I still have no capability to see what happens in the code so I'm just guessing. But I'm planning to set the valve duration to something grazy which should cause lot of overlap in ecu calculations. Also another tune by setting that map to 1. Then do WOT log with those two tunes plus stock tune and see if there is any changes ignition, ipw, maf, load and thorttle position actual. My assumption is that I will see changes in thorttle position actual which will affect also other. But if only ipw and/or ignition is affected, that map should not limit any power gains, because the effect can be worked around by adjusting other maps.

The vue/vo tables are used to filter the injection load value and is filtered in the same way in both the MS42 and MS43.

The load measured by the maf sensor(ov_maf_mes) is converted to a calculated manifold air pressure(ov_map) with the help of the intake model tables(ip_vol_im_*)

This calculated map value is then used in one of the vo tables to pick out the load value that will be used by the injection tables(ov_maf_ti)

In total there are 4 load values that are filtered/derived from ov_maf_mes
ov_maf_ti - injection load
ov_maf_iga - ignition load
ov_maf_ivvt - vanos load
ov_maf_mmv - moving mean value load

The image below is from a stock 330i where the red line is the load measured by the maf and the rest are the filtered load values.

So is there a way to optimize for best performance or should these maps/values be left as is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm no tuner but when logging ov_maf_ti on a stock 330i and a 330i with headers it followed the measured maf load very closely so I would say that on a stock engine or with headers these tables will not need to be altered.

Intake manifold swaps, aftermarket cams or boost could possible need some tweaking to the intake model or vue/vo tables but I haven't logged cars with those modifications so I can't be sure if that is the case.

Names of the intake model maps...we need that thing

The MS42 only uses 2 maps compared to the 4 maps used in the MS43. The _neg_ tables are used in trailing throttle conditions.

MS43:
ip_vol_im__n__maf_mes
ip_vol_im_is__n__maf_mes
ip_vol_im_neg__n__maf_mes
ip_vol_im_neg_is__n__maf_mes

MS42:
kf_vsr__n__lm_gem
kf_vsr_neg__n__lm_gem

But I would avoid modifying the intake model/vo tables as incorrect modifications can make the fueling go all over the place.
I believe the only time we should consider modifying these tables is if ov_maf_ti is not following ov_maf_mes which should show up as strange fueling behavior.

In theory the

ip_vol_im__n__maf_mes ITS EQUIVALENT TO kf_vsr__n__lm_gem

and

ip_vol_im_neg__n__maf_mes TO kf_vsr_neg__n__lm_gem

Right?

What means ''_is_'' on ms43?

If you compare the values from MS42 to MS43 you can see that they are similar in the values relation...there are 6 lines on MS42 but 8 on MS43, by the way the first 2 lines on MS43 are the same so it doesnt matter

Yes that is correct



_is_ is idle speed



Yes the overall shape of the tables is pretty consistent between the MS43 330i and the MS42 engines. But the MS43 320i and 325i have a different shape to the ip_vol_im__n__maf_mes table

Would be interesting to know if those with M54B30 intake manifold conversions on non 330i M52/54 engines would benefit from modification of any of the listed maps and/or any other related
maps regarding this topic. I also did notice the similarities of the MS42/43 maps noted by andrebrito88 and wonder if positive enhancements could be made for better performance.

The MS43 maps i compared to the MS42 328 maps were from a 330i and being they are basically the same would rule out any possible B30 variations that could provide any added benefits to those with B30 intake manifolds on their non-330i E46 vehicles. Unless anyone has further insight into this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dont think it will increase the performance...

It probably could increase the driveability of the car because the ecu knows better the suposed load...

Just me