C63 Supercharged Timing target/throttle problems

[samtuning]

Hello,i did tune this c63 superchaged running 4.5-5 psi .
whenever i change the main timing tables timing drop much lower than the target...if i touched the main or mbt tables timing drops crazy.
so i have used the the maximum durability tables as a timing cap/target.
it worked fine until the customer was complaining of hesitation sometimes on high gear/low rpm hesitation sometimes.
so i tested the car and found it pass the maximum durability tables by 2-4 degrees and its not constant.
and for the throttle i found that the throttle overshoot sometimes and stabilize quickly which causes a slight hesitation...i only cured this by lowering the throttle angle max flow limit @ lower rpms.
my tune and old/new logs attached.

[samtuning]

update on low timing target..i am feeling there is sort of limiter or tcu retard.

[samtuning]

an update i finally got some progress.
as for the timing i pulled the file from ecu and opened it by winols and found out that the ignition timing differs from winols to hptuners..it seems the offset is off.

for the throttle,i have spent sometime on torque to load and load to torque tables which dialed everything.
it need some work on the lower load as its not an Supercharged car and once torque bounce on the lower loads the car do crazy things.

[bradsm87]

an update i finally got some progress.
as for the timing i pulled the file from ecu and opened it by winols and found out that the ignition timing differs from winols to hptuners..it seems the offset is off.

for the throttle,i have spent sometime on torque to load and load to torque tables which dialed everything.
it need some work on the lower load as its not an Supercharged car and once torque bounce on the lower loads the car do crazy things.

What tool did you use to get the bin file from the ECU? I also worry about the HPTuners definitions. You should lodge a support ticket with HPTuners and raise your concern.

[samtuning]

i have used magicmotorsport on stock bin and compared it to hptuners stock file.
i haven't seen anything wrong though except the timing seemed different.
i also wish that hptuners uses bosche/siemens bosche abbreviations..and keep the map/explanation name in the bottom as it is.

[bradsm87]

i haven't seen anything wrong though except the timing seemed different.

That's pretty important. It's definitely worth submitting a support ticket and asking the question. They will either tell you the reason why it's different or they'll realize there is a mistake that needs fixing.

i also wish that hptuners uses bosche/siemens bosche abbreviations..and keep the map/explanation name in the bottom as it is.

Yes that would be great

Do you have a complete DAMOS/OLS for M156? If so, can you see any tables that would allow modifying the lambda target at lighter loads?

[samtuning]

for me Hptuner is much easier but it can be way better
i dont have Damos/OLS but i can get it easily for you if you want it..it wasnt important for me i did find KFZW manually and the offsets are easy..
as for the driver wish lambda map i didn't see it in hptuner..i didn't see a damos/OLS/A2l for this car so far to confirm..but the car i have tuned was happy with the lambda vs exhaust temp,unless you want to trigger lambda protection very early..i am still getting on it.

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

For one, optimum spark should be higher than main spark. Usually around 5* works well in mid to high load areas. Also, it always seems actual is a few degrees lower than your main spark table no matter what Ive tried. I wouldnt focus tooooo much on the value in main spark, work it up in sync with optimum and max durable until you get the actual timing you're after. It seems bass ackwards, I agree, but sometimes you just have to go with what works!

[samtuning]

you know where is the problem is,
i was having 18 degree by redline and after sometimes i saw 22-23 and that was not my target at all,i am not sure if its torque to load and load to torque thing affecting the axis or what's going on,i had to start again from scratch..
but as for the timing i can assure the spark offset is wrong.
thanks for the tip
i used the KFMIRL Adviser/KFMIOP interpolator it fixed most of my issues.
how do you work your KMFIRL torque to load tables?

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

Could very well be a cat temp or IAT temp spark modifier coming into play. Log both to see whats changing it and adjust to suit

[samtuning]

Thanks for the tip

[c0ke]

for me Hptuner is much easier but it can be way better
i dont have Damos/OLS but i can get it easily for you if you want it..it wasnt important for me i did find KFZW manually and the offsets are easy..
as for the driver wish lambda map i didn't see it in hptuner..i didn't see a damos/OLS/A2l for this car so far to confirm..but the car i have tuned was happy with the lambda vs exhaust temp,unless you want to trigger lambda protection very early..i am still getting on it.

hptuners doesn't work much like the european software where you just set lambda targets and be done with it, you actually have to log AFRs and tune the maf when using hpt for the m156. The only valuable maps with actual lambda data is the rich limit and the lean limit in fueling

in terms of spark I noticed it likes to run off the Durability spark map as a base ignition table and the 4 cam base tables and 4 cam MBT tables are as Backyard said, always going to be higher then the actual spark. In your log it looks like the IAT map might be pulling 4.5 degrees and that's why you're coming to that final number

I only viewed the log/tune in your second post

[bradsm87]

Is anyone else interested in pitching in to buy the M156 DAMOS which will tell us all available tables in this ECU so we can better understand it and also so we know the table names for extra tables to ask HPTuners to add to HPTuners? I know someone that can sell it for 250 Euro.

[c0ke]

Is anyone else interested in pitching in to buy the M156 DAMOS which will tell us all available tables in this ECU so we can better understand it and also so we know the table names for extra tables to ask HPTuners to add to HPTuners? I know someone that can sell it for 250 Euro.

Not worth it, hptuners already has all the tables necessary in the m156 for an excellent quality tune

[bradsm87]

There would be so much more useful stuff in there. One being default lambda target for light/medium load plus dozens of other handy smaller bits and pieces.

[samtuning]

it will be challenge for everyone to look into damos vs hptuners as hptuners don't use bosch abbreviations or map names,hptuners uses a simple map naming but the thing is its now how its made or translated in winols for example...hptuners is 10000 times easier to work on this platform but it would be a great move to copy over bosch/damos names into hptuners for future..it will be like a solid future base i believe.

[c0ke]

There would be so much more useful stuff in there. One being default lambda target for light/medium load plus dozens of other handy smaller bits and pieces.

1 lambda unless otherwise adjusted.... I'm telling you there isn't much if anything that hptuners hasn't covered for the m156

[bradsm87]

1 lambda unless otherwise adjusted.... I'm telling you there isn't much if anything that hptuners hasn't covered for the m156

There is no otherwise adjusted unless HPTuners expose that adjustment. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the stoich multiplier to adjust for different fuel energy density. I'm talking about target lambda.

You can only make that statement if you've thoroughly looked through all the maps in the full proper M156 DAMOS otherwise you can't know what you're missing.

[bradsm87]

it will be challenge for everyone to look into damos vs hptuners as hptuners don't use bosch abbreviations or map names,hptuners uses a simple map naming but the thing is its now how its made or translated in winols for example...hptuners is 10000 times easier to work on this platform but it would be a great move to copy over bosch/damos names into hptuners for future..it will be like a solid future base i believe.

I'm not so much talking about comparing the two. I'm talking about exposing new useful tuning tables then asking HPTuners to implement the ability to adjust those additional tables.

[bradsm87]

After having a good look at my logs, the timing makes less sense to me that ever. I really, really don't want to mess with the MBT tables because increasing that throws off many other spark efficiency calculations BUT I also don't want to raise the main table values higher than the ones in the MBT table. I already seem to be running well above the maximum spark durability table so i doubt raising that will suddenly give me more timing under the same conditions.

What I would be most interested in finding is more modifier tables than just the ECT x IAT one that we currently have access to. I would be almost certain that there are more modifier tables that contribute to the final timing being well below what's in the main table. It seems to me that that would be the best and most correct way to get an extra 1-4 degrees where possible without putting fake MBT figures in or raising main table values above MBT ones.

It seems none of us really know under what conditions the max spark durability table comes in to play and under what conditions it doesn't.