Optimum Torque, Normalized Torque, Torque to Load: Calculations, Effects, p061, etc

Just wanted to add some interesting info.

After reading this thread and trying to figure out the best approach, i decided to change the scaling of my optimum engine tq tables to match the tq to load tables.

I kept all the other numbers on the table exactly how i had it, but I changed the increments of the load row on optimum engine tq

so for example if im looking at MY tq to load tables (your values will be different but the principal is the same)

Lets say the bottom row of tq to load, which is 100% tq, the values are 243% engine load

So i go to the optimum tq table and change the last row, or engine load % to 243 so it matches the tq to load tables.


The result of this was i picked up boost, around 2 psi. and my engine load actually went up also.
Boost actually went up a little too much and started getting some more knock. But i am on 91 right now so i am octane limited. Had to dial it back a bit, but I think this might help other people. I will be doing more testing as well and will report back.

But it makes sense since optimum engine tq is the inverse of tq to load, you do want them to match and make sense

I did not change the scaling of optimum engine tq (monitoring). I am testing it like this for now. But i will test out changing that scaling to match too later, and see if it has any positive effects

@chevota I just read your last post and it seems you already experimented with this in a similar fashion



Okay to add to the research again.

I tried Optimum Tq and Tq to load set to stock values and ONLY
changed the scaling of the row axis by changing the last or max load number to match the max load seen on the tq to load tables.

This felt great, netted even more boost, while also having limited to no knock. However my clutch tq and indicated tq are lower than before. I'm not sure what to make of that, more boost but less tq?
Tq request is still hitting 99.89 % so shouldnt be anything limiting it.

Maybe the tq readings/calculations were simply off before when I had changed the other tables? not sure

I think the gist of it is the values in Optimum need to equal (or exceed) the Scaling in Torque to Load. But I'm not sure exactly what drives Optimum, and if I/we go far enough to hit that last row? In my case Tq to Load scaling is 0-80% so if the values in Optimum are 80 in the bottom row I "believe" that puts me on the 80%/max row in Tq to Load. But am I really hitting that last/max row in Optimum? I have raised those #'s and netted nadda so I'm guessing I am hitting it. Or maybe my Torque to Load is set higher than I'll ever get so a 10% loss in math didn't matter? So frustrating not knowing what this stuff is and not being able to see the output math. Trial and error testing is iffy at best. I have similar equipment at work but there I can plug in false values and instantly see what the output is. With HP, or at least my car, I not only can't, but I can't trust the torque reading either. This week for example I was making full power but the torque readings were ~15% lower than last week. I have to measure my speed gains per second in the Scanner to see if it's running right, but then to throw another wrench in there I don't know how far off the speed data is, or if it's consistently off or not. It's correct at steady state, but the faster the change the less I trust it. Same with RPM and other data which I just a post about: https://forum.hptuners.com/showthread.php?102508

Since you gained power by raising Optimum scaling, then maybe it works differently in an Audi? I dunno, just that raising the Opt scaling, which I did at least three times, all netted less power. I raised my 180 scaling to 190 and 200, and 190 lost power and 200 lost even more, and I'd estimate it was about the same % power loss as the difference in those #'s, or more. I can only assume raising them to 250, where my Tq to Load values are now, would kill it. Yet somehow it works for you? I dunno, I think that's what you meant in that last part.

As for Optimum Torque (Monitoring), I have its scaling back to the oem 185 but I lowered the values in the max row 10% lower (x.9) and it seems to do the same as oem values but raising the scaling. So either way, raising scaling or lower values net the same result for me, which, imo, is changing the math so the torque # is lower so the boost/power go up. If it were me I'd leave Optimum and (Monitoring) scaling and values oem and just bump your Tq to Load as needed. That way your torque reading should be more accurate? If Tq to Load can't hit the mark you want, then I'd adjust Opt (Monitoring) like I did to trick it into making more power. Or whatever tweaking works for your car.

I still don't know what Optimum Torque is, or wth feeds it? If the above is true and it's values feed Tq to Load, then something is feeding Optimum via the scaling. Nothing I see feeds that kind of #, unless it's fed by the scaling of Optimum Torque (Monitoring). If so, then Monitoring is fed via the values which for me are 0-76 (oem), but now 68 since I lowered them. If so, what feeds that? If it's throttle, via the Driver Command chart which I've always assumed, then 68% of Driver Command is the same as 100%? That can't be right? I guess I should adjust my Driver Command values to cap at 68 and see what happens?
Getting a headache just thinking about it... Why would it be called "Monitoring" if feeds directly into Optimum? And why does any of that crap exist in the first place? It should be pedal position 0-100% feeds Torque to Load 0-100%, the end. But why would they do that when they can make it into a level 10 chinese puzzle?

Per the HP description, which is often wrong imo;
Optimum Engine Torque: A representation of the optimum torque that could be achieved if fuel and spark efficiency were both 100%.
Optimum Engine Torque (Monitoring): Optimum engine torque used in function monitoring, checked against main optimum torque table.
I read that as Optimum is not a factor in actual power output, but instead says "you could make this if everything is working right". Then (Monitoring) seems to be just that, monitoring, does nothing but "check" against the Optimum #'s. Considering (Monitoring) changes will change power, it isn't just checking or monitoring now is it?
Torque to Load makes sense, and is imo a straight up command: Torque to Load: This converts a desired indicated torque to a desired relative air load.
I read that as you want more torque so you raise the values and it commands the air (throttle/boost) to get there. Assuming other limiters allow it.

I'd love to have an actual map for this ECU, and it's programming, to see wth is really going on.

Then there's the whole thing about being "off" on your torque, which clifftoo mentioned in the second post about being ~50 torques off will cause a fault? It can't be actual torque because I break that all the time. My best guess is Optimum Torque vs Optimum Torque (Monitoring), but only because I can't think of anything better. If so, then raising Optimum values and lowering (Monitoring) values, like I've done, puts me at risk? I've had that P061a code he mentioned once or twice, but it was not from messing with either Optimum chart because I got the code before I touched those, and have not had it since touching them, so I don't know what it means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chevota

I think the gist of it is the values in Optimum need to equal (or exceed) the Scaling in Torque to Load. But I'm not sure exactly what drives Optimum, and if I/we go far enough to hit that last row? In my case Tq to Load scaling is 0-80% so if the values in Optimum are 80 in the bottom row I "believe" that puts me on the 80%/max row in Tq to Load. But am I really hitting that last/max row in Optimum? I have raised those #'s and netted nadda so I'm guessing I am hitting it. Or maybe my Torque to Load is set higher than I'll ever get so a 10% loss in math didn't matter? So frustrating not knowing what this stuff is and not being able to see the output math. Trial and error testing is iffy at best. I have similar equipment at work but there I can plug in false values and instantly see what the output is. With HP, or at least my car, I not only can't, but I can't trust the torque reading either. This week for example I was making full power but the torque readings were ~15% lower than last week. I have to measure my speed gains per second in the Scanner to see if it's running right, but then to throw another wrench in there I don't know how far off the speed data is, or if it's consistently off or not. It's correct at steady state, but the faster the change the less I trust it. Same with RPM and other data which I just a post about: https://forum.hptuners.com/showthread.php?102508

Since you gained power by raising Optimum scaling, then maybe it works differently in an Audi? I dunno, just that raising the Opt scaling, which I did at least three times, all netted less power. I raised my 180 scaling to 190 and 200, and 190 lost power and 200 lost even more, and I'd estimate it was about the same % power loss as the difference in those #'s, or more. I can only assume raising them to 250, where my Tq to Load values are now, would kill it. Yet somehow it works for you? I dunno, I think that's what you meant in that last part.

As for Optimum Torque (Monitoring), I have its scaling back to the oem 185 but I lowered the values in the max row 10% lower (x.9) and it seems to do the same as oem values but raising the scaling. So either way, raising scaling or lower values net the same result for me, which, imo, is changing the math so the torque # is lower so the boost/power go up. If it were me I'd leave Optimum and (Monitoring) scaling and values oem and just bump your Tq to Load as needed. That way your torque reading should be more accurate? If Tq to Load can't hit the mark you want, then I'd adjust Opt (Monitoring) like I did to trick it into making more power. Or whatever tweaking works for your car.

I still don't know what Optimum Torque is, or wth feeds it? If the above is true and it's values feed Tq to Load, then something is feeding Optimum via the scaling. Nothing I see feeds that kind of #, unless it's fed by the scaling of Optimum Torque (Monitoring). If so, then Monitoring is fed via the values which for me are 0-76 (oem), but now 68 since I lowered them. If so, what feeds that? If it's throttle, via the Driver Command chart which I've always assumed, then 68% of Driver Command is the same as 100%? That can't be right? I guess I should adjust my Driver Command values to cap at 68 and see what happens?
Getting a headache just thinking about it... Why would it be called "Monitoring" if feeds directly into Optimum? And why does any of that crap exist in the first place? It should be pedal position 0-100% feeds Torque to Load 0-100%, the end. But why would they do that when they can make it into a level 10 chinese puzzle?

Per the HP description, which is often wrong imo;
Optimum Engine Torque: A representation of the optimum torque that could be achieved if fuel and spark efficiency were both 100%.
Optimum Engine Torque (Monitoring): Optimum engine torque used in function monitoring, checked against main optimum torque table.
I read that as Optimum is not a factor in actual power output, but instead says "you could make this if everything is working right". Then (Monitoring) seems to be just that, monitoring, does nothing but "check" against the Optimum #'s. Considering (Monitoring) changes will change power, it isn't just checking or monitoring now is it?
Torque to Load makes sense, and is imo a straight up command: Torque to Load: This converts a desired indicated torque to a desired relative air load.
I read that as you want more torque so you raise the values and it commands the air (throttle/boost) to get there. Assuming other limiters allow it.

I'd love to have an actual map for this ECU, and it's programming, to see wth is really going on.

Then there's the whole thing about being "off" on your torque, which clifftoo mentioned in the second post about being ~50 torques off will cause a fault? It can't be actual torque because I break that all the time. My best guess is Optimum Torque vs Optimum Torque (Monitoring), but only because I can't think of anything better. If so, then raising Optimum values and lowering (Monitoring) values, like I've done, puts me at risk? I've had that P061a code he mentioned once or twice, but it was not from messing with either Optimum chart because I got the code before I touched those, and have not had it since touching them, so I don't know what it means.

---

Can you post your tune brother I will add some tweaks on there for you to try out on these tables. Its easier than trying to explain the logic and you can see what you think of it. I did have the oppurtunity to look at the tq to load and optimum engine tq tables from a reputable tuner from my platform so I get the idea of the logic behind the tables a little more now

This is what I have in it right now, plus my oem file for comparo.
Optimum Tq has the values bumped to just above 80 to hit the 80 on Tq to Load.
Optimum (Monitoring) has values lowered by 10%, which was just a random % to see if helps, and it does.
Attachment 129512
Attachment 129513

And thanks for the Meth injector info, now I don't worry mine are too big. I have two #4 SnowPerf nozzles at 250cc ea, so half what you had, assuming the same psi.
I wanted to mention that I worry dumping your meth in so close to the throttle will make some cyls rich and some lean because I do not believe it will disperse evenly. I know it seems like it would, but after seeing how air flows in tests at work I don't believe it will. There is also a video online I saw last year from a meth injector company showing how well their newest injector atomizes. It also shows the meth is following a distinct path leaving half the flow passage rich and the other virtually dry, even several feet down the tube. I tried to find that vid but apparently it has been pulled, maybe for that very reason? Who knows what happens in your intake with your injector, but it worries me enough that I don't think I want to try it on mine. Makes me wonder about nitrous too, if maybe that's part of why people burn parts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chevota

This is what I have in it right now, plus my oem file for comparo.
Optimum Tq has the values bumped to just above 80 to hit the 80 on Tq to Load.
Optimum (Monitoring) has values lowered by 10%, which was just a random % to see if helps, and it does.
Attachment 129512
Attachment 129513

And thanks for the Meth injector info, now I don't worry mine are too big. I have two #4 SnowPerf nozzles at 250cc ea, so half what you had, assuming the same psi.
I wanted to mention that I worry dumping your meth in so close to the throttle will make some cyls rich and some lean because I do not believe it will disperse evenly. I know it seems like it would, but after seeing how air flows in tests at work I don't believe it will. There is also a video online I saw last year from a meth injector company showing how well their newest injector atomizes. It also shows the meth is following a distinct path leaving half the flow passage rich and the other virtually dry, even several feet down the tube. I tried to find that vid but apparently it has been pulled, maybe for that very reason? Who knows what happens in your intake with your injector, but it worries me enough that I don't think I want to try it on mine. Makes me wonder about nitrous too, if maybe that's part of why people burn parts?

---

Heres a file I only tweaked those tables and left everything else as you had it. Try it out and see what you think. Its hard not knowing what load your car is actually hitting typically but i set up similar to mine. Your scaling on your tq to load and optimum tq are different than mine from factory so this may or may not help. It should though

as for the methanol i agree spraying at the TB is not the best for atomization. The best is port injection with a nozzle at each port ideally, but as close to that as possible if not. its also better to have a nozzle before your IAT sensors so the car can actually pick up the temperature drop from the methanol and allow more power.

The key to not damaging anything with methanol is not relying on it too much for fueling. If you are trying to meet power demands where you absolutely need meth spraying and something happens to the system or some cylinders aren't getting enough spray then damage will be done.

But if you are spraying enough its just an extra fuel source for the engine. The car is always trying to reach stoich so when it detects the meth (or extra fuel) it pulls fuel out accordingly to acknowledge the fuel it has, and stoich is achieved regardless. With meth your fuel system does not have to work as hard. You can also run a higher octane Map on pump gas+ meth

I tried (almost) exactly what you did and it was a fail. The only difference is I blended the scaling and values. Eg; scaling on Tq to Load didn't jump from 70 to 100, but instead was a smoother transition starting from a lower #. Same with Opt but the end result was Tq to Load scaling was 100, Opt scaling 200 and Opt values 100. The problem, is the scaling on Optimum. Anything above the oem 180 reduces power for me.
If the same settings were used but Opt scaling was 180, then it works fine. No gain, but it doesn't lose power either. If scaling is set to 190 I also lose power, but not as much as when set to 200. So basically what feeds it cannot support that.

Opt (Monitoring) scaling is 185, for me, and maxes out at 191. "If" (Monitoring) scaling feeds Opt scaling as I believe, then Opt scaling of 200 is unattainable no matter what you do. That means the values on the bottom row of Optimum (100) are unattainable which means the bottom row on Tq to Load with a scaling of 100 are unattainable. Of course you can adjust things elsewhere to make up for it, but I'd rather they be more oem-ish and work as they should.

When I changed Tq to Load scaling from 80 to 100 and changed the values in Optimum from 80 to 100, but left Opt scaling oem, it changed nothing as mentioned. This is why I believe the values in Optimum feed directly into the scaling in Tq to Load and I'd imagine as long as those #'s match it'll work, regardless of the #'s used. So no need for Tq to Load scaling to be 100 and is why my 0-80% works fine. I suppose you could try it by lowering your Opt values and Tq to Load scaling to 80 and nothing else just to see what happens. My guess is it'll still end up on the bottom row of Tq to Load which is all that matters.

Since I think (Monitoring) scaling feeds into Opt scaling, then (Monitoring) scaling needs to be as much or greater than Opt scaling or it won't hit the bottom row. My oem scaling is 180 Opt and 185 (Monitoring) so it makes sense. If all this is true then wth feeds (Monitoring)? And how can I be sure what feeds it is enough to trigger the bottom row of (Monitoring) and thus continue on as such? Since lowering the values in (Monitoring) by 10% helped a bit, I can only assume I was not fully hitting the bottom row before. The oem values in that row are only ~75-76, so what is unable to feed that? What has a peak output less than that? Nothing I can see so I have to assume something is missing, and I assume that something sits between Driver Demand and Opt (Monitoring)? Or my aforementioned theory is all wrong, but so far every tweak I do reinforces it.

In your case I would pull back the Opt scaling to oem so (Monitoring) scaling is a bigger value. Maybe also raise the Opt (Monitoring) scaling to its max of 191.
Or maybe this level 10 chinese puzzle could be different for you and what makes power for one of us makes less for the other. The programmers just F'ing with us. Like a video game from the past I remember had a cheat code for all weapons, but the next version of the game the same code stripped your weapons, or something bad and I forget what, but they did it to F with people.

I've always wondered about port injecting Meth because imo it's robbing the potential air flow. It's condensing air that is in the port, a bit, and more so in the cyl which is great for cooling but I don't believe it will drawn in nearly as much air compared to spraying further upstream.
I have less air flow than I need so cooling at the port would likely do little to nothing for flow. Sprayed at the throttle is no doubt better. Before the intercooler would work to a degree but I'd think it would net less lbs/sec and of course higher temps than at the throttle.
So my theory of spraying long before it gets to the turbos, before the major restrictions and turbo limitations, is it allows in more air by weight. Say my turbos are maxed out as-is, and I'm certain they are, and I spray at the throttle. The only way it could flow more is if all pressure after the turbo is lower. Say psia is normally 30, and that's it, turbo is maxed. Add meth after the turbo and it drops psia to 25. I can only assume that will allow a little more air past the turbo, but how much I don't know. It would also be a balance because if MAP increases, flow would decrease. So it would be relying on meth to maintain the lower psi but also be dense enough that the lower psi is still more in lb/min. More lbs/min spins the turbo faster but also opens the wastegates more. If it does spin it faster I suppose it would help a bit. Ugg, so many factors all intertwined...

As for relying on Meth, I believe just that, per this example: If my fuel inj sys was maxed out at full load, and adding Meth gave me both more air and fuel, I don't think it would hurt if I suddenly lost Meth. Reasoning is I would also, instantly, lose my additional air flow and be back to normal. Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I see it is it could only hurt if you were relying on Meth because your turbos normally supply more air than your fuel sys can handle. Then, obviously, at full throttle you'd suddenly have more air than fuel, and ooops. In my case I have more fuel than air so no worries. One thing I do wonder about is when Meth cools the air and makes it denser, is the added Meth itself enough fuel for the additional air by weight? Meaning if your fuel supply was on the edge normally, and you add meth, will the net result be rich, lean, spot on? I have always assumed it would be rich but I really don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chevota

I tried (almost) exactly what you did and it was a fail. The only difference is I blended the scaling and values. Eg; scaling on Tq to Load didn't jump from 70 to 100, but instead was a smoother transition starting from a lower #. Same with Opt but the end result was Tq to Load scaling was 100, Opt scaling 200 and Opt values 100. The problem, is the scaling on Optimum. Anything above the oem 180 reduces power for me.
If the same settings were used but Opt scaling was 180, then it works fine. No gain, but it doesn't lose power either. If scaling is set to 190 I also lose power, but not as much as when set to 200. So basically what feeds it cannot support that.

Opt (Monitoring) scaling is 185, for me, and maxes out at 191. "If" (Monitoring) scaling feeds Opt scaling as I believe, then Opt scaling of 200 is unattainable no matter what you do. That means the values on the bottom row of Optimum (100) are unattainable which means the bottom row on Tq to Load with a scaling of 100 are unattainable. Of course you can adjust things elsewhere to make up for it, but I'd rather they be more oem-ish and work as they should.

When I changed Tq to Load scaling from 80 to 100 and changed the values in Optimum from 80 to 100, but left Opt scaling oem, it changed nothing as mentioned. This is why I believe the values in Optimum feed directly into the scaling in Tq to Load and I'd imagine as long as those #'s match it'll work, regardless of the #'s used. So no need for Tq to Load scaling to be 100 and is why my 0-80% works fine. I suppose you could try it by lowering your Opt values and Tq to Load scaling to 80 and nothing else just to see what happens. My guess is it'll still end up on the bottom row of Tq to Load which is all that matters.

Since I think (Monitoring) scaling feeds into Opt scaling, then (Monitoring) scaling needs to be as much or greater than Opt scaling or it won't hit the bottom row. My oem scaling is 180 Opt and 185 (Monitoring) so it makes sense. If all this is true then wth feeds (Monitoring)? And how can I be sure what feeds it is enough to trigger the bottom row of (Monitoring) and thus continue on as such? Since lowering the values in (Monitoring) by 10% helped a bit, I can only assume I was not fully hitting the bottom row before. The oem values in that row are only ~75-76, so what is unable to feed that? What has a peak output less than that? Nothing I can see so I have to assume something is missing, and I assume that something sits between Driver Demand and Opt (Monitoring)? Or my aforementioned theory is all wrong, but so far every tweak I do reinforces it.

In your case I would pull back the Opt scaling to oem so (Monitoring) scaling is a bigger value. Maybe also raise the Opt (Monitoring) scaling to its max of 191.
Or maybe this level 10 chinese puzzle could be different for you and what makes power for one of us makes less for the other. The programmers just F'ing with us. Like a video game from the past I remember had a cheat code for all weapons, but the next version of the game the same code stripped your weapons, or something bad and I forget what, but they did it to F with people.

I've always wondered about port injecting Meth because imo it's robbing the potential air flow. It's condensing air that is in the port, a bit, and more so in the cyl which is great for cooling but I don't believe it will drawn in nearly as much air compared to spraying further upstream.
I have less air flow than I need so cooling at the port would likely do little to nothing for flow. Sprayed at the throttle is no doubt better. Before the intercooler would work to a degree but I'd think it would net less lbs/sec and of course higher temps than at the throttle.
So my theory of spraying long before it gets to the turbos, before the major restrictions and turbo limitations, is it allows in more air by weight. Say my turbos are maxed out as-is, and I'm certain they are, and I spray at the throttle. The only way it could flow more is if all pressure after the turbo is lower. Say psia is normally 30, and that's it, turbo is maxed. Add meth after the turbo and it drops psia to 25. I can only assume that will allow a little more air past the turbo, but how much I don't know. It would also be a balance because if MAP increases, flow would decrease. So it would be relying on meth to maintain the lower psi but also be dense enough that the lower psi is still more in lb/min. More lbs/min spins the turbo faster but also opens the wastegates more. If it does spin it faster I suppose it would help a bit. Ugg, so many factors all intertwined...

As for relying on Meth, I believe just that, per this example: If my fuel inj sys was maxed out at full load, and adding Meth gave me both more air and fuel, I don't think it would hurt if I suddenly lost Meth. Reasoning is I would also, instantly, lose my additional air flow and be back to normal. Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I see it is it could only hurt if you were relying on Meth because your turbos normally supply more air than your fuel sys can handle. Then, obviously, at full throttle you'd suddenly have more air than fuel, and ooops. In my case I have more fuel than air so no worries. One thing I do wonder about is when Meth cools the air and makes it denser, is the added Meth itself enough fuel for the additional air by weight? Meaning if your fuel supply was on the edge normally, and you add meth, will the net result be rich, lean, spot on? I have always assumed it would be rich but I really don't know.

---

It definitely put me off that your tq to load scaling only goes to 80%, trying at 100% for scaling was my first thought as an experiment, not knowing if you tried that already. But assuming stock scaling remains for that column, It would still work fine.

I'm going to attach the file with that part tweaked back to normal.

The reason i left your monitoring at stock because if its highest reference point is 185% load, and the values it is looking for is between 73% and 76% tq then it will look at the tq set from the optimum tq and determine everything looks good. If for some reason it was seeing 80% tq at this reference point, because the optimum engine tq is requesting that for optimum spark and fuel conditions then It would probably limit tq because its higher than it wants to see. I have med 17.1.1 not 17.7 so the logic could be very different but this is what worked for me.

So for where ive set it, If i dont change your scaling on your optimum engine tq, 160%load is your increment before the 200% I put. On my tables, on my car my monitoring reference point is 191% load, and 190% load is one of the increments for the scaling on optimum engine Tq. So its easy to reference if everything is making sense or not. For your car I have to infer, if 160% load is 70% tq, and at 185% load monitoring wants to see 73-76% tq, then one can infer that it should be somewhere around there. Just from looking at your stock tables we can tell that the ecu is able to "infer" what is needed beyond what the scaling is set at. Because your optimum engine tq goes to 180%load but your monitoring scaling is set at 185% load and we can tell from the tables where it wants to be, and the numbers match up.

So what ive done on this revision is increase the values but while also keeping that formula that does not throw off the optimum engine tq monitoring equation if that makes sense

as long as we dont upset this balance of the optimum tq/tq to load/ optimum tq monitoring, then all systems should be a go.


like what you said before its really the blind leading the blind around here lol, so this is just what has worked for me and what ive also observed from viewing the maps from an experienced tuner for my platform, See how it works for you. Even if it doesn't, the information might help you stumble upon more answers too. You have changed a lot of stuff on your tune that i havent as well, especially in regards to tq, so its very well possible that it doesn't pick up power in your scenario. Maybe you could try these on a stockish file and see if it does anything too. But yeah hopefully the logic makes sense regardless, i think it should pick up some power or at least run more optimally. Let me know what you think

Its also true what you said about the numbers at the bottom of these tables being unattainable, im not sure why its that way but its definitely like that on the tables for reputable tuning companies too, and I can say that the values do matter albeit unattainable or not.

As for methanol, just think of it as port fuel injection in that scenario, and combined with direct injection its dual injection for your engine. Port fuel injection is a common and highly beneficial mod for direct injection engines. Its a popular upgrade for the audi 4.0t and 3.0t engine as well as the bmw b58 engine and many other engines such as the LS , so the philosophy in a sense is confirmed as valid for direct injection engines. I actually forgot to mention the main benefit of ethanol/methanol, its the knock resistance. It combats detonation/knock so you can run more boost and more timing advance. So that along with the cooling benefits overall makes your car much more reliable as it is constantly operating in ideal environments.

Ive always considered preturbo as well just as an additional meth source but ive also heard that wmi damages the turbos over time. I think volvo did a lot of long term testing on this and reported that for their findings. Since their is no easily installable direct port solutions for my car, I will have to settle for as close as I can get, while also still being before the IAT sensor to actually yield the cooling benefits as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boostboy

It definitely put me off that your tq to load scaling only goes to 80%, trying at 100% for scaling was my first thought as an experiment, not knowing if you tried that already. But assuming stock scaling remains for that column, It would still work fine.

I'm going to attach the file with that part tweaked back to normal.

The reason i left your monitoring at stock because if its highest reference point is 185% load, and the values it is looking for is between 73% and 76% tq then it will look at the tq set from the optimum tq and determine everything looks good. If for some reason it was seeing 80% tq at this reference point, because the optimum engine tq is requesting that for optimum spark and fuel conditions then It would probably limit tq because its higher than it wants to see. I have med 17.1.1 not 17.7 so the logic could be very different but this is what worked for me.

So for where ive set it, If i dont change your scaling on your optimum engine tq, 160%load is your increment before the 200% I put. On my tables, on my car my monitoring reference point is 191% load, and 190% load is one of the increments for the scaling on optimum engine Tq. So its easy to reference if everything is making sense or not. For your car I have to infer, if 160% load is 70% tq, and at 185% load monitoring wants to see 73-76% tq, then one can infer that it should be somewhere around there. Just from looking at your stock tables we can tell that the ecu is able to "infer" what is needed beyond what the scaling is set at. Because your optimum engine tq goes to 180%load but your monitoring scaling is set at 185% load and we can tell from the tables where it wants to be, and the numbers match up.

So what ive done on this revision is increase the values but while also keeping that formula that does not throw off the optimum engine tq monitoring equation if that makes sense

as long as we dont upset this balance of the optimum tq/tq to load/ optimum tq monitoring, then all systems should be a go.


like what you said before its really the blind leading the blind around here lol, so this is just what has worked for me and what ive also observed from viewing the maps from an experienced tuner for my platform, See how it works for you. Even if it doesn't, the information might help you stumble upon more answers too. You have changed a lot of stuff on your tune that i havent as well, especially in regards to tq, so its very well possible that it doesn't pick up power in your scenario. Maybe you could try these on a stockish file and see if it does anything too. But yeah hopefully the logic makes sense regardless, i think it should pick up some power or at least run more optimally. Let me know what you think

Its also true what you said about the numbers at the bottom of these tables being unattainable, im not sure why its that way but its definitely like that on the tables for reputable tuning companies too, and I can say that the values do matter albeit unattainable or not.

As for methanol, just think of it as port fuel injection in that scenario, and combined with direct injection its dual injection for your engine. Port fuel injection is a common and highly beneficial mod for direct injection engines. Its a popular upgrade for the audi 4.0t and 3.0t engine as well as the bmw b58 engine and many other engines such as the LS , so the philosophy in a sense is confirmed as valid for direct injection engines. I actually forgot to mention the main benefit of ethanol/methanol, its the knock resistance. It combats detonation/knock so you can run more boost and more timing advance. So that along with the cooling benefits overall makes your car much more reliable as it is constantly operating in ideal environments.

Ive always considered preturbo as well just as an additional meth source but ive also heard that wmi damages the turbos over time. I think volvo did a lot of long term testing on this and reported that for their findings. Since their is no easily installable direct port solutions for my car, I will have to settle for as close as I can get, while also still being before the IAT sensor to actually yield the cooling benefits as well.

---

Methanol could be injected in the charge pipe on each bank before the intercooler and you will get best cooling and much more space to add power !

You dont have to think of all that monitoring calculations on the torque section specially with some maps that arent included.
Either leave it as it is and still you will push power over it because the ecu dosent think as human it just takes what you are feeding either it trims or it limps (MED17.7.3 does that alot !!)
I must say tuning a 63 biturbo platform is easier than 550 biturbo platforms because of the torque monitoring is so conservative

This one is different but a little worse, imo. Same issue with Optimum scaling being an unobtainable 200, but now the values for Tq to Load are 200 vs your previous 220.
So my guess is the net Tq to Load command would end up ~180 vs your previous one I est would hit ~190. So while it goes about it differently, it ends up at virtually the same # as oem, ~180. Both end up falling short of the bottom Tq to Load row because they can't get there thanks to Optimum. Since the 70% row is 160, falling short is harsh.
To make it work with those Opt and Monitoring settings I would bump 70% Tq to load row by 50% to make up for it all.

As for the Opt (Monitoring), I've heard many times that it's for comparison to Optimum, like you're saying, and is just monitoring as it claims, but I don't believe it. If it were only monitoring then why do changes to it change power? If it were for comparo to net ideal spark etc, then my wonky settings would make things worse, but they make it better. This is why I think Monitoring may feed into Optimum, but I just don't know. If it does not feed into Opt then my other theory is Monitoring is simply part of the math that estimates power output, so by raising the scaling or lowering the values it's the same/similar as lowering Normalized Tq. I see clues for both theories but it would take more testing to figure out which, if either, is right. I do know it's not just comparing and matching #'s, or making spark better.

Right now my Monitoring values peak at 68, Optimum at 85. If this is a comparo chart, and the claimed rule of "50 torques" is true, I'm well beyond 50 yet nothing is wrong. Clearly they do not need to match.
If I raise Monitoring to 85, or lower Optimum to 68, so they do match, boost/power will drop, a LOT. If I did that but also kept the 200 Tq to Load settings, I believe I'd lose a good third of my current power. 0-60 in 6 seconds with zero wheel spin. Ask me how I know ;)

It could be like we both suspect and the programming between our cars is different. If so, my guess is yours is normal and my car is an outcast altogether.

I'll be spraying 100% Meth before the turbos. I know what water will do to them, but considering how often it'll be used I wouldn't be worried anyway. My concern is denser air into the turbos. The octane is a bonus, but we'll see if it changes anything. My current 30-35% Ethanol mix only buys me 3 deg timing, and that's only on half the cyls so really an avg of 1.5 deg. Not sure how much Meth it'll take to equal that Eth content, but I guess I'll find out, one of these days...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chevota

This one is different but a little worse, imo. Same issue with Optimum scaling being an unobtainable 200, but now the values for Tq to Load are 200 vs your previous 220.
So my guess is the net Tq to Load command would end up ~180 vs your previous one I est would hit ~190. So while it goes about it differently, it ends up at virtually the same # as oem, ~180. Both end up falling short of the bottom Tq to Load row because they can't get there thanks to Optimum. Since the 70% row is 160, falling short is harsh.
To make it work with those Opt and Monitoring settings I would bump 70% Tq to load row by 50% to make up for it all.

As for the Opt (Monitoring), I've heard many times that it's for comparison to Optimum, like you're saying, and is just monitoring as it claims, but I don't believe it. If it were only monitoring then why do changes to it change power? If it were for comparo to net ideal spark etc, then my wonky settings would make things worse, but they make it better. This is why I think Monitoring may feed into Optimum, but I just don't know. If it does not feed into Opt then my other theory is Monitoring is simply part of the math that estimates power output, so by raising the scaling or lowering the values it's the same/similar as lowering Normalized Tq. I see clues for both theories but it would take more testing to figure out which, if either, is right. I do know it's not just comparing and matching #'s, or making spark better.

Right now my Monitoring values peak at 68, Optimum at 85. If this is a comparo chart, and the claimed rule of "50 torques" is true, I'm well beyond 50 yet nothing is wrong. Clearly they do not need to match.
If I raise Monitoring to 85, or lower Optimum to 68, so they do match, boost/power will drop, a LOT. If I did that but also kept the 200 Tq to Load settings, I believe I'd lose a good third of my current power. 0-60 in 6 seconds with zero wheel spin. Ask me how I know ;)

It could be like we both suspect and the programming between our cars is different. If so, my guess is yours is normal and my car is an outcast altogether.

I'll be spraying 100% Meth before the turbos. I know what water will do to them, but considering how often it'll be used I wouldn't be worried anyway. My concern is denser air into the turbos. The octane is a bonus, but we'll see if it changes anything. My current 30-35% Ethanol mix only buys me 3 deg timing, and that's only on half the cyls so really an avg of 1.5 deg. Not sure how much Meth it'll take to equal that Eth content, but I guess I'll find out, one of these days...

---

I would recommend spraying on charge pipes post turbo's not pre turbo, by this way (charge pipe) you will be spraying the already compressed air not while compressing (pre turbo) as Methanol will take some of the volume not allowing more oxygen from the fresh air.

Charge pipe would yield 3-4 deg and more boost also depending on your nozzle size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outlaw_50

Methanol could be injected in the charge pipe on each bank before the intercooler and you will get best cooling and much more space to add power !

You dont have to think of all that monitoring calculations on the torque section specially with some maps that arent included.
Either leave it as it is and still you will push power over it because the ecu dosent think as human it just takes what you are feeding either it trims or it limps (MED17.7.3 does that alot !!)
I must say tuning a 63 biturbo platform is easier than 550 biturbo platforms because of the torque monitoring is so conservative

---

Great points. Like i said, logic may be different for your ecu, but yeah whatever works in your case.

also for the WMI you are definitely right about that. chargepipe is a good spot to spray too preturbo also has great benefits but I am more worried about damaging the seals or compressor wheel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chevota

This one is different but a little worse, imo. Same issue with Optimum scaling being an unobtainable 200, but now the values for Tq to Load are 200 vs your previous 220.
So my guess is the net Tq to Load command would end up ~180 vs your previous one I est would hit ~190. So while it goes about it differently, it ends up at virtually the same # as oem, ~180. Both end up falling short of the bottom Tq to Load row because they can't get there thanks to Optimum. Since the 70% row is 160, falling short is harsh.
To make it work with those Opt and Monitoring settings I would bump 70% Tq to load row by 50% to make up for it all.

As for the Opt (Monitoring), I've heard many times that it's for comparison to Optimum, like you're saying, and is just monitoring as it claims, but I don't believe it. If it were only monitoring then why do changes to it change power? If it were for comparo to net ideal spark etc, then my wonky settings would make things worse, but they make it better. This is why I think Monitoring may feed into Optimum, but I just don't know. If it does not feed into Opt then my other theory is Monitoring is simply part of the math that estimates power output, so by raising the scaling or lowering the values it's the same/similar as lowering Normalized Tq. I see clues for both theories but it would take more testing to figure out which, if either, is right. I do know it's not just comparing and matching #'s, or making spark better.

Right now my Monitoring values peak at 68, Optimum at 85. If this is a comparo chart, and the claimed rule of "50 torques" is true, I'm well beyond 50 yet nothing is wrong. Clearly they do not need to match.
If I raise Monitoring to 85, or lower Optimum to 68, so they do match, boost/power will drop, a LOT. If I did that but also kept the 200 Tq to Load settings, I believe I'd lose a good third of my current power. 0-60 in 6 seconds with zero wheel spin. Ask me how I know ;)

It could be like we both suspect and the programming between our cars is different. If so, my guess is yours is normal and my car is an outcast altogether.

I'll be spraying 100% Meth before the turbos. I know what water will do to them, but considering how often it'll be used I wouldn't be worried anyway. My concern is denser air into the turbos. The octane is a bonus, but we'll see if it changes anything. My current 30-35% Ethanol mix only buys me 3 deg timing, and that's only on half the cyls so really an avg of 1.5 deg. Not sure how much Meth it'll take to equal that Eth content, but I guess I'll find out, one of these days...

---

try this one out. I redid those 2 tables similar to mine but higher numbers. I saw a video from a mercedes tuner working with a c63 so may not be the same, but he had to add rows to optimum engine tq as I suspected. It makes sense in a way and tuners on my platform do the same, so try this one and see how it feels. I left the monitoring alone, you can tweak it how you like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boostboy

Lets say the bottom row of tq to load, which is 100% tq, the values are 243% engine load

So i go to the optimum tq table and change the last row, or engine load % to 243 so it matches the tq to load tables.

---

Was the previous axis value less or more than 243% on that last row?

If it was higher than I can see how lowering to 243 can increase the optimum torque sooner at lesser load.