Bill did post early in this thread, dunno if he's still got the subscription - is it bad form to PM him and ask for comments? Just I know he's a busy man...
Cupra R - Forge Remap Logs....feels slow
- Thread starter ChrisGTL
- Start date
Bill did post early in this thread, dunno if he's still got the subscription - is it bad form to PM him and ask for comments? Just I know he's a busy man...
My last power/torque graph and air/fuel ratio:
And injector duty cycle over same runs:
The dyno operator told me that it should be getting richer over the course of the run, down to around 12.5:1 by WOT. He reckoned that the low injector duty cycle was a product of underfuelling rather than suggesting that it was the cause.
And injector duty cycle over same runs:
The dyno operator told me that it should be getting richer over the course of the run, down to around 12.5:1 by WOT. He reckoned that the low injector duty cycle was a product of underfuelling rather than suggesting that it was the cause.
graph
What I mean with regard to the fuelling on the logs I have seen (maybe you would like to send them and we will take a look closer for you) is the fuelling the ecu is requesting hence what the map is asking for is being met by the ecu in the actual lambda figure. If your injector duty cycle is not massively high this is a good thing as it means the other components such as the reg and pump are most likely O.K. So your car doesen't really have a problem with it's fuelling as it is making what it is asked to by the map.
What I mean with regard to the fuelling on the logs I have seen (maybe you would like to send them and we will take a look closer for you) is the fuelling the ecu is requesting hence what the map is asking for is being met by the ecu in the actual lambda figure. If your injector duty cycle is not massively high this is a good thing as it means the other components such as the reg and pump are most likely O.K. So your car doesen't really have a problem with it's fuelling as it is making what it is asked to by the map.
I get what you're saying, my understanding was that extra fuel in the mixture was used at higher engine speeds in order to keep the power up and to reduce cylinder temps. I was told this by the dyno operator (a well-known and respected guy in this field around here) and this was corroborated by numerous people on here. Are you saying this isn't the case?
This is the last log I had done including block 031 for lambda values. I'm still unclear as to whether the two values are pre- and post-cat, or actual vs. requested, I've been told both. If it's actual vs. requested then there's something wrong with the map as it should be richening up as the revs increase but if (as I suspect) it's pre-and post-cat then something else is amiss somewhere.
This is the last log I had done including block 031 for lambda values. I'm still unclear as to whether the two values are pre- and post-cat, or actual vs. requested, I've been told both. If it's actual vs. requested then there's something wrong with the map as it should be richening up as the revs increase but if (as I suspect) it's pre-and post-cat then something else is amiss somewhere.
Code:
Saturday 4 September 2010 14:58:15:65413 VCDS Version: Release 10.6.0 (x64) Data version: 20100630
1ML 906 032 A 1.8l R4/5VT 0002
Group A: 010 Group B: 031 Group C: 115
RPM Load Load Ign. Timing Lambda Factor Lambda Factor Bin. Bits Bin. Bits RPM Load Absolute Pres. Absolute Pres.
TIME TIME TIME
Marker STAMP /min % % °BTDC STAMP STAMP /min % mbar mbar
109.95 1720 13.5 5.5 -6.8 110.23 1.99 1.05 110.53 1720 14.3 990 1000
110.85 1680 13.5 5.1 -7.5 111.14 1.99 1.05 111.44 1640 13.5 990 1000
111.74 1600 13.5 5.1 -7.5 112.04 1.99 1.05 112.34 1520 13.5 990 1000
112.65 1480 13.5 4.7 -7.5 112.95 1.99 1.05 113.25 1320 13.5 990 1000
113.55 1280 13.5 4.3 -8.3 113.85 1.99 1.05 114.15 1200 13.5 990 1000
114.46 1160 14.3 4.7 -5.3 114.76 1.99 0.95 115.06 1200 21.8 990 990
115.36 1240 78.9 58 12 115.67 0.84 0.95 115.97 1360 81.2 1510 1040
116.28 1440 83.5 66.7 12.8 116.57 0.97 0.95 116.87 1640 90.2 1680 1140
117.18 1720 93.2 78.8 12.8 117.48 0.96 0.95 117.78 1960 100.8 1850 1270
118.08 2080 108.3 91.4 11.3 118.39 0.96 0.95 118.69 2320 127.8 1890 1510
118.99 2480 136.8 98.8 10.5 119.29 0.98 0.95 119.59 2760 160.9 1800 1900
119.9 2960 169.9 100 3.8 120.2 0.94 0.95 120.5 3280 160.9 1820 1860
120.8 3440 159.4 100 12 121.1 0.96 0.95 121.4 3760 158.6 1830 1830
121.71 3920 160.9 100 14.3 122.01 0.96 0.95 122.31 4240 157.9 1820 1840
122.61 4400 159.4 100 17.3 122.92 0.95 0.95 123.22 4720 152.6 1810 1830
123.52 4880 155.6 100 15.8 123.82 0.95 0.95 124.44 5160 158.6 1850 1800
124.73 5400 163.9 100 15 125.03 0.98 0.95 125.33 5680 159.4 1920 1890
125.63 5800 160.9 100 15.8 125.93 0.94 0.95 126.23 6040 156.4 1880 1880
126.54 6200 157.9 99.6 17.3 126.84 0.94 0.95 127.14 6400 151.1 1790 1860
127.44 6480 150.4 99.6 19.5 127.74 0.95 0.95 128.05 6680 142.1 1640 1760
128.35 6360 12 8.2 8.3 128.66 0.77 0.96 128.96 5320 14.3 990 1110fuel
Hi what your dyno guys are saying is right the fuelling will increase to keep the cylinders and EGT's cooler. What age is your leon? what you are seeing is actual and requested lambda, if that is a mapped car then they haven't touched your fuel map as 225's stock run .95 fuel, which anyone in tuning will tell you is to lean but it is how they are standard. What map are you running?
Hi what your dyno guys are saying is right the fuelling will increase to keep the cylinders and EGT's cooler. What age is your leon? what you are seeing is actual and requested lambda, if that is a mapped car then they haven't touched your fuel map as 225's stock run .95 fuel, which anyone in tuning will tell you is to lean but it is how they are standard. What map are you running?
Have you asked Forge what afr request they would expect from this map?
They would I imagine have logs of equivalent vehicle to yours as comparison.
Yours would'nt be the only car to run leaner under boost than you might expect. I have seen quite a few since having my dyno and logging everything I can think of.
I cant see it being anything like fpr, pump etc... The logs show the requested fueling is being achieved, and the discrepency being chased here is its asking for 0.9x fueling under boost not a 0.8x level which is more appropriate to lbt
The map is getting the fueling it is asking for.
You can verify this by initially looking at block 032 and seeing what the fuel trims are sitting at, and then logging block 001, and 031 and watching the lambda fuel adjust during the power run.
The logs as posted show the map to be a conservative one relative to some in boost terms, and fueling which is'nt hardly adjusted from stock at all.
Thanks a lot Bill. I should have mentioned, my car is not remapped, as far as I know it's the stock 225 OEM map that's on mine. In view of that, does that change your opinion on the AFRs? Last time I had the fuel trims checked it was showing about -7.6 on the one that shows "under-load" trim (can't remember which is additive and which is multiplacitive). Looking at my logs and graphs on this page above, could it be that I have a dodgy remap on my car or does it look stock to you too?
Would a remap from a reputable tuner fix this in my case?
Would a remap from a reputable tuner fix this in my case?
on std cars they run a lot leaner yes.
remapped not the case... or should'nt be
until it goes into egt protection when it will drop into 0.69-0.75 uber fueling as you will see from block 112 and 031
OK well by the sound of it I've been chasing a ghost for the last couple of months so thanks bill for confirming and thanks to tsrperformance for your comments also.
Ben, I guess that leaves you with another suggestion, as Bill says you may want to check with Forge as to what the air/fuel ratios their map specifies.
Ben, I guess that leaves you with another suggestion, as Bill says you may want to check with Forge as to what the air/fuel ratios their map specifies.
Sorry I've been away back in Huddersfield for a week so hadnt seen all this until today...
Bill, I asked them when they reflashed it what the AFR/Lambda readings should be but the bloke who was doing it could not tell me what they were supposed to be...
I think I will take them up on their offer to flash back to standard, then relog and see how it is behaving.
Bill - my block 32 readings are also showing around -7% on the second block (multiplicative trim) which, as I understand, means that the engine is trying to run rich, but the ECU is leaning off the mixture and pulling back to the 0.953 values that it is running at... is this correct?
Do you have any ideas/explanations as to why this is happening - could it be something along the lines that I have a boost leak somewhere (explaining the low boost values earlier on) making the engine run rich, and the Forge map does not incorperate much alteration of fuelling requests from standard map, so is leaning out the mixture back to the 0.953 value?
Thanks very much all of you for your input it is much appreciated!
Bill, I asked them when they reflashed it what the AFR/Lambda readings should be but the bloke who was doing it could not tell me what they were supposed to be...
I think I will take them up on their offer to flash back to standard, then relog and see how it is behaving.
Bill - my block 32 readings are also showing around -7% on the second block (multiplicative trim) which, as I understand, means that the engine is trying to run rich, but the ECU is leaning off the mixture and pulling back to the 0.953 values that it is running at... is this correct?
Do you have any ideas/explanations as to why this is happening - could it be something along the lines that I have a boost leak somewhere (explaining the low boost values earlier on) making the engine run rich, and the Forge map does not incorperate much alteration of fuelling requests from standard map, so is leaning out the mixture back to the 0.953 value?
Thanks very much all of you for your input it is much appreciated!
Thread revival 
Ben, did you get anywhere with this? I was speaking to someone today who said he thought fuel pump or pressure regulator may be at fault. He said to log block 001 and 115 to check boost and some correction values. Might want to try that if you can?
Ben, did you get anywhere with this? I was speaking to someone today who said he thought fuel pump or pressure regulator may be at fault. He said to log block 001 and 115 to check boost and some correction values. Might want to try that if you can?Kept meaning to update this but never got round to digging it out lol.
I took it back to Forge a couple of weeks back, who, true to their word, removed the map, put it back to factory (or their version of factory or whatever) and gave me a full refund, so have nothing but respect for them for that after 12 months, they certainly have stood up to their excellent customer service reputation.
To be honest I havent noticed a huge difference in performance drop, and this is backed up by a couple of logs I did the other day (at work so can't paste them up) where the MAF values still seemed to be peaking around 170ish. Turned the timing forwards 4.5 degrees in unisettings to the point where my CFs were approaching 6, and the MAF values seemed to pull up to around 180 (not sure if this is supposed to happen or not but seems to be running alright either way).
I'm happy with it how it is, not going to look into remapping it again, as I've just had my insurance jump 120 quid from by moving house!! and also my new commute is 50 miles a day so definately going to be looking at a diesel now.
Isnt block 115 req vs actual boost? what are the correction values you talking about on the two blocks?
I took it back to Forge a couple of weeks back, who, true to their word, removed the map, put it back to factory (or their version of factory or whatever) and gave me a full refund, so have nothing but respect for them for that after 12 months, they certainly have stood up to their excellent customer service reputation.
To be honest I havent noticed a huge difference in performance drop, and this is backed up by a couple of logs I did the other day (at work so can't paste them up) where the MAF values still seemed to be peaking around 170ish. Turned the timing forwards 4.5 degrees in unisettings to the point where my CFs were approaching 6, and the MAF values seemed to pull up to around 180 (not sure if this is supposed to happen or not but seems to be running alright either way).
I'm happy with it how it is, not going to look into remapping it again, as I've just had my insurance jump 120 quid from by moving house!! and also my new commute is 50 miles a day so definately going to be looking at a diesel now.
Isnt block 115 req vs actual boost? what are the correction values you talking about on the two blocks?
115 is boost figures, yes. Block 001 is something to do with fuelling corrections, this is the ECU adjusting some parameters based on whether it can get enough fuel in or not. Might be worth checking out anyway!
Know what you mean about the insurance, my insurer tried to put mine up by £236 when I moved into my g/f's flat. Thing is it was only round the corner from my previous flat, literally 5 or 6 minutes walk and only the last 2 letters of our postcodes were different!
Sorry to hear you're looking to change car but then 50 miles a day on VPower is going to hurt!
Know what you mean about the insurance, my insurer tried to put mine up by £236 when I moved into my g/f's flat. Thing is it was only round the corner from my previous flat, literally 5 or 6 minutes walk and only the last 2 letters of our postcodes were different!
Sorry to hear you're looking to change car but then 50 miles a day on VPower is going to hurt!
Yeah especially now its like 1.35 a litre and I keep ending up stuck in traffic then having to boot it to catch up on time - even though its 95% motorway I am struggling to hit anywhere near 30mpg at the mo! Easily rinsing 50 quid a week, it's definately not nice!
Insurance is an absolute joke, I told them the remap had been taken off so that should make it cheaper, and also it's now on a driveway with locked gates rather than in a public carpark, and its still jumped up! pr!cks!
Insurance is an absolute joke, I told them the remap had been taken off so that should make it cheaper, and also it's now on a driveway with locked gates rather than in a public carpark, and its still jumped up! pr!cks!
Similar threads
