# 180Q to 225 transplant / swap / conversion complete



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

So the week before Christmas, the stock clutch in my 180Q started slipping out of the blue (106K miles). I didn't want to put a stock setup back in it and was in a time crunch for the holidays as far as ordering something. I'm of the opinion that if you have the means, it's easier to remove the engine and trans rather than just the engine in our cars. This led to a full 225 conversion with donor parts from my 01. It's all OEM from TIP to tailpipe except for a custom pipe I had to fab up for the MAP since that plastic molded piece was broken on my 225, and the addition of a small port SEM intake manifold so I could use the dual SMIC setup (I sold the 225 intake mani long ago). I'm still using the AWP/180 MAF housing in the 225 TIP, and installed my adjustable FPR in the 225 fuel rail set at ~4 bar. I also swapped the 5 speed 02M out for the 6 speed 02M, along with the billet aluminum flywheel (don't know the weight) and 6 puck sprung Clutchnet disc and pressure plate from my GTI in place of the OEM setup. I also installed an 82* thermostat to help out in the cooling department and deleted the front swaybar since mine had a habit of creeping to one side ever since I replaced the cracked OEM bushing sleeve and went to poly bushings. 

The screen on my phone died yesterday, so no Torque logs and I haven't broken out the VAG COM yet, but it's MUCH more responsive (lightweight FW and intake manifold) and holds boost much better into higher rpms. The DP/exhaust is giving some vibration in low rpm acceleration or high rpm engine braking, but I'm not sure where it's hitting so I need to get under the car and have a look. The trans grinds going into 5th gear only, so I need to align the linkage (didn't do that during the swap, everything felt good going through the gears with the car off) and bleed the clutch again to see if that helps. Otherwise, I'm very happy with the whole transformation that put some much needed pep in my daily driver. Since I'm still running K03 injectors and chipped software, the one 4th gear pull I did today on the way to work felt great spiking to 21 and holding ~16 psi at 6200 rpms when it limped out. I don't know if it was a boost cut or throttle closing but it was harsh, so I have some logging/tuning/tweaking to do. Logs to follow maybe this weekend.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

This is going to be interesting! 

MBC -- Diode to clamp the pressure signal (or delete the N249) -- adjust fuel pressure to get desired AFR

Grabbing my opcorn: for your progress on this! (and what happen to posting pictures? )


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> This is going to be interesting!
> 
> MBC -- Diode to clamp the pressure signal (or delete the N249) -- adjust fuel pressure to get desired AFR
> 
> Grabbing my opcorn: for your progress on this! (and what happen to posting pictures? )


I have some parts to collect to tweak (diode, fuel pressure gauge) and MBC to install. I'm hoping the K04 isn't as super responsive at low rpm part throttle like the K03 is with the MBC installed. N249 opens DV? It's been deleted as DV has a straight connection to intake manifold. Pictures? They're all on my phone, with the screen that doesn't work. It kinda makes it hard to upload or email them. :laugh:

All things being equal, the 9.5:1 compression of the AWP "should" make 6.7% more power than the AMU/BEA 8.9:1 compression. That doesn't account for mechanicial efficiency (ignition timing) though, with the lower compression theoretically allowing more timing with all else equal. Basically, I need to datalog.


----------



## 20psi now (Feb 26, 2009)

20v master said:


> I have some parts to collect to tweak (diode, fuel pressure gauge) and MBC to install. I'm hoping the K04 isn't as super responsive at low rpm part throttle like the K03 is with the MBC installed. N249 opens DV? It's been deleted as DV has a straight connection to intake manifold. Pictures? They're all on my phone, with the screen that doesn't work. It kinda makes it hard to upload or email them. :laugh:
> 
> All things being equal, the 9.5:1 compression of the AWP "should" make 6.7% more power than the AMU/BEA 8.9:1 compression. That doesn't account for mechanicial efficiency (ignition timing) though, with the lower compression theoretically allowing more timing with all else equal. Basically, I need to datalog.


The BEA was a 9.1 compression engine same with the AMU.

Engine Code: AMU
Model Years: 2001-early '03 
Compression Ratio: 9:1
Horsepower (SAE Net): 225hp @ 5900RPM
Torque: 207ft. [email protected] 2200-5500RPM
ECU: Motronic ME7.5
Turbo: K04-20
OE Boost:1 Bar (14.7psi)
20mm wrist pin rods (144/20mm)
narrowband o2 sensor - primary
nonVVT

Still uses nbo2 to control a/f and has smaller ecu.
still uses nonVVT

Engine Code: BEA
Model Years: 2003+
Compression Ratio: 9:1
Horsepower (SAE Net): 225hp @ 5900RPM
Torque: 207ft. [email protected] 2200-5500RPM
ECU: Motronic ME7.5
Turbo: K04-22/23
OE Boost:1 Bar (14.7psi)
20mm wrist pin rods (144/20mm)
wideband o2 sensor - primary
VVT - variable valve timing

Uses a wbo2 to control a/f ratios and has larger ecu
comes with VVT


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

20psi now said:


> The BEA was a 9.1 compression engine same with the AMU.
> 
> Engine Code: AMU
> Model Years: 2001-early '03
> ...


I've seen it listed as both, with more sources saying 8.9 vs 9.0. Either way, 0.1 isn't a huge discrepency. 

"The higher-output 165-kW (225-hp) engine uses a high compression ratio (8.9:1) for a turbocharged unit. 

...from here.

Even at 9.0:1, the AWP compression will add 5.5% power.


----------



## 20psi now (Feb 26, 2009)

Did not know it was listed as two different CR's. I thought it was a 9.1 but ehh its all good, the higher the compression the better if you ask me.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> I have some parts to collect to tweak (diode, fuel pressure gauge) and MBC to install. I'm hoping the K04 isn't as super responsive at low rpm part throttle like the K03 is with the MBC installed. N249 opens DV? It's been deleted as DV has a straight connection to intake manifold. Pictures? They're all on my phone, with the screen that doesn't work. It kinda makes it hard to upload or email them. :laugh:
> 
> All things being equal, the 9.5:1 compression of the AWP "should" make 6.7% more power than the AMU/BEA 8.9:1 compression. That doesn't account for mechanicial efficiency (ignition timing) though, with the lower compression theoretically allowing more timing with all else equal. Basically, I need to datalog.


The 9.5:1 motor is the "hot" motor at the level of tuning that you'll be taking this! It will have much better off-boost response and make more power than the lower 8.9:1 compression big brother. For the ignition timing and boost level to make up for it, you'd need to be pushing past the limit of what the 8.9:1 will accept (as far as I know nobody is crazy enough to do this except the Madmax guy). So, yes 8.9:1 with the K04-02x is the dream ticket for the street and a mild tune! :beer:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> I've seen it listed as both, with more sources saying 8.9 vs 9.0. Either way, 0.1 isn't a huge discrepency.
> 
> "The higher-output 165-kW (225-hp) engine uses a high compression ratio (8.9:1) for a turbocharged unit.
> 
> ...





20psi now said:


> Did not know it was listed as two different CR's. I thought it was a 9.1 but ehh its all good, the higher the compression the better if you ask me.


It's closer to 8:9:1 but most spec sheets just round it off to keep things easy. It's like everyone saying 1.8t, as in 1.8L motor, when our engine capacity is really 1781cc or 1.78 Liter.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> The 8.9:1 motor is the "hot" motor at the level of tuning that you'll be taking this! It will have much better off-boost response and make more power than the lower 9.5:1 compression big brother. For the ignition timing and boost level to make up for it, you'd need to be pushing past the limit of what the 8.9:1 will accept (as far as I know nobody is crazy enough to do this except the Madmax guy). So, yes 8.9:1 with the K04-02x is the dream ticket for the street and a mild tune! :beer:


This post really confused me.  Either you got the compressions in the wrong spots, or somehow lower compression gives better off boost response and makes more power?  Or did you mean since I won't push this setup like you do, the higher compression will make it better for a milder street setup? I'd LOVE to push it to over 300whp, but it's my daily, and the BT stroker gutted other car will be my weekend toy in ~6 months or so.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> This post really confused me.  Either you got the compressions in the wrong spots, or somehow lower compression gives better off boost response and makes more power?  Or did you mean since I won't push this setup like you do, the higher compression will make it better for a milder street setup? I'd LOVE to push it to over 300whp, but it's my daily, and the BT stroker gutted other car will be my weekend toy in ~6 months or so.


Fixed for you in the original confusing post of mine.

Higher compression (9.5:1) = better off-boost response and more power on a mild/street tune.

Lower compression (8.9:1) = more potential for boost, timing, and ultimately power, but *if and only if you can push the tune to the level that will make that happen*. Think 35-up psi of boost and timing flirting with MBT - which btw will be considerably lower on the 9:5:1 motor, on equal fuel.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Well no full logs but got a new phone and looked at Torque some on the way to work. IAT's are MUCH better, MAF values are way up, AFR is good, but didn't log ignition timing. It definitely has some throttle closure ~6K rpms. I'll get some good VAG COM logs this weekend. I'm real interested to compare to 225 logs as this is still an AWP/180 ECU, and I have no experience with the K04 setups so I don't know what typical values are. What MAF values do chipped 225's typically see on stock DP/exhaust?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Around 200 G/s


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Around 200 G/s


210 g/s at 5700 rpms. What about boost spike? Rough idea in upper gears at what rpm peak boost should be? I'm pulling good vac at idle but wondering if the SEM manifold has helped spool at all.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Well, did some real datalogging yesterday (a few more useful things available in VAG COM vs Torque). Anemic timing and a fuel system that can't keep up = limp/throttle closure/boost drop. I don't know if the high injector duty is from injectors too small or the 180Q pump not keeping up, but both will be changed shortly. IAT's with the dual SMIC don't climb like a rocket like on the single SMIC, though the K04 should be more efficient than the K03 so the difference is a product of both changes. Either way, she's faster now but not happy. 


























I won't know if a diode is needed on the 180Q chip until I get the fueling straigtened out. You can see where injector duty cycle (IDC) spikes over 100 in the mid 5K rpms, and the ECU lowers boost, closes the throttle briefly, and dumps fuel to compensate and attempt to keep things cool/safe. More fuel coming up.....


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Not bad at all! Aside from IDC being way maxed out, everything is decent and where they should be on a typical box tune. What I like is the wastegate duty profile, it's not dumbed out like some of the popular "protect my ass" files. Your correction factors are also in good shape and your actuals are acceptably meeting the requests. 

What I don't like is the AFR profile! Stoich at onset and fattening to 11s (11.5 request) up top isn't something I can get passed. However, it can easily be fixed (in the adaptation channels) by adding fuel overall with the primary fuel channel (this will fix the lean onset); and then lower the enrichment under load (this will flatten the tapering profile and stop it from going crazy rich up top).

I say get injectors that can support the flow without going static. The pump upgrade isn't a bad idea either, but it isn't the reason you see IDC > 100%, the injectors are what determine IDC (if the pump was maxed out, you'd go lean but with acceptable injector dutie values). :beer:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> What I don't like is the AFR profile! Stoich at onset and fattening to 11s (11.5 request) up top isn't something I can get passed. However, it can easily be fixed (in the adaptation channels) by adding fuel overall with the primary fuel channel (this will fix the lean onset); and then lower the enrichment under load (this will flatten the tapering profile and stop it from going crazy rich up top).
> 
> I say get injectors that can support the flow without going static. The pump upgrade isn't a bad idea either, but it isn't the reason you see IDC > 100%, the injectors are what determine IDC (if the pump was maxed out, you'd go lean but with acceptable injector dutie values). :beer:


I wouldn't read too much into the AFR request, especially the first cell as it could be a delay from sampling rate based on what data I grabbed to graph and when the ECU registered WOT. As for the 11.5 up top, that's AFTER the boost cut/throttle cut, so the ECU has gone into dump fuel for protection mode. Also, wouldn't the ECU increase pulse width at the first sign of not meeting AFR target, regardless if it's from too small a pulse or too little pressure behind the injector? I have a "gauge extension" hose I can rig up and run to the cowl so I can visually see the fuel pressure gauge during a run. That's the easy way to find out of it's a pump problem. Obviously we know the injectors are a problem, but Audi didn't put a higher flowing pump in the 225 for no reason. More testing is needed. Unfortunately, it's going to be rainy the next few days, but I'm off work next Monday, so it will have to wait til then.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Installed a new battery and a Forge TIP yesterday. Seems to help with the boost cut at ~6200 rpms, maybe the OEM was doing it's famous sucking in and deforming trick? I"ll follow up with some logs tonight. :thumbup: I also played with adjusting the N75. That didn't work out so well. I turned it CW, and ended up not able to get over 14 psi. I turned it back CCW, and got to 20 psi. Then I broke two small screwdrivers trying to turn it more CCW. I threw that valve in the trash and put another stock valve in, and got back to my previous boost levels with no surging, so I'm happy (for now). :thumbup:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Ignore the boost spike value, it hit ~25 psi on my gauge, but Torque interpolates MAF and RPM to get boost since obviously our MAP's don't read that high. It's not exact but close enough for monitoring.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Wow, last log is looking really good! Perfect AFR curve and you're reaching 200 G/s of airflow with decent timing for an unmodified file. Once you tame the rapidely climbing IAT, add some timing, this thing is going to be a beast. :thumbup:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

I installed the exhaust hanger bracket 8L9253193C that mounts to the rear of the subframe and secures the front of the DP as well as dogbone inserts last night, and still have the upper/passenger side of the two DP splits hitting the body under heavy load. I can even make it vibrate by turning hard to the left (think emergency lane change maneuvers). That leads me to believe some tweaking of the other two motor mounts may give me some more clearance? If not, my other option is to install both my side VF mounts, which I didn't want to do in my daily but I'd rather have mild vibration all the time vs heavy vibration some of the time. :screwy: Thoughts?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

25psi on a stock AWP motor is dodgy. Can you put in a MBC to cap things at closer to 22? Otherwise, it's nice to see real logs from a K04-02x car.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> 25psi on a stock AWP motor is dodgy. Can you put in a MBC to cap things at closer to 22? Otherwise, it's nice to see real logs from a K04-02x car.


The current setup just barely spikes to 25 and drops to 22ish, I'm not worried about it. I'm going to install my Greddy Type S EBC soon when I install injectors so I can cap the spike as well as decrease the taper. More logs will follow. :thumbup:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> 25psi on a stock AWP motor is dodgy. Can you put in a MBC to cap things at closer to 22? Otherwise, it's nice to see real logs from a K04-02x car.


Based on the debatable theory that we both agree on (the 20 mm rods are identical to the 19 mm ones where it really counts), I don't see how a modest 25 psi spike could be a problem. I was spiking 30 psi on stock rods for a few seasons, before I converted to E85 (it was fine). Old GIAC files offered 25-26 psi spikes back in the day (AFIK all these cars are fine! The proof is that some of them, which happen to be 180TTs, are still members of Quattroworld). I am pretty confident in saying that as long as AFR is on point, timing correction isn't out of spec, and IAT is reasonable, this kind of boost is totally safe for the AWP to handle. I think Adam should be fine, spiking 25 psi! :beer:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Based on the debatable theory that we both agree on (the 20 mm rods are identical to the 19 mm ones where it really counts), I don't see how a modest 25 psi spike could be a problem. I was spiking 30 psi on stock rods for a few seasons, before I converted to E85 (it was fine). Old GIAC files offered 25-26 psi spikes back in the day (AFIK all these cars are fine! The proof is that some of them, which happen to be 180TTs, are still members of Quattroworld). I am pretty confident in saying that as long as AFR is on point, timing correction isn't out of spec, and IAT is reasonable, this kind of boost is totally safe for the AWP to handle. I think Adam should be fine, spiking 25 psi! :beer:


Yeah, it's not the psi, it's the torque. I'm still on a full stock exhaust, so it's not making enough torque to do damage. And I ran for many many many miles on my original K03S in my GTI spiking and briefly holding that psi, but that's a different turbo and doesn't make as much torque. Now that that's settled, I'm more interested in if there's something I'm missing or not thinking of as to why the DP is hitting the chassis.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Added the 225 MAF housing this weekend. Previously I was running the stock MAF housing, but was hitting limp at ~6200 rpms. I switched to a gutted descreened housing and it helped quite a bit with that, though it still happened occasionally. These are the logs with the 225 MAF housing, running 4.5 bar FPR and -3* timing removed from the timing curve. MAF readings scaled down more than I expected, from peaking over 200 g/s to under 150 g/s. Fuel trims are still too far on the plus side at +1.7% idle and +18% long term. You can see injector duty cycle is still too high. This is all on the same tapering K03 chipped boost request seen in the above logs. 


















Actual AFR is pegged at the lowest the sensor can read @ 11.025:1 (0.75 lambda) in the upper rpms as the ECU is dumping fuel for safety. The lower MAF readings resulted in more ignition timing, but I'm right on the limit of comfort with 6* being pulled and I'm still getting more timing than I was on the stock MAF housing. Injectors are the next step, and then I'll add my EBC to be able to run flatline boost instead of tapering to redline. At that point, I'll be beyond what I'm confortable with taxing the OEM dual SMIC setup (+14*C on this single 4th gear pull) and either move to a FMIC or W/M injection.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Nice, your IDC is pegged over 100% for half of the powerband (I saw Ed yesterday and he told me that he ordered the injectors but haven't seen them yet!). It was to be expected that the MAF values would go down dramatically, 200 G/s was suspect at your boost/power level (I see around 245 G/s in my car with much higher boost and a lot less restrictions). Once you take care of the fueling, the setup should run pretty good! For some reason, I don't find the logged IAT delta being an issue at all, yes it can definitely be improved but it's not bad at all. One more thing is you might have a hard time keeping that flat boost curve you spoke about when you run your EBC, at least without taxing efficiency... but you already know that this can only be achieved with improved wastegate actuator rate. :beer:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Nice, your IDC is pegged over 100% for half of the powerband (I saw Ed yesterday and he told me that he ordered the injectors but haven't seen them yet!). It was to be expected that the MAF values would go down dramatically, 200 G/s was suspect at your boost/power level (I see around 245 G/s in my car with much higher boost and a lot less restrictions). Once you take care of the fueling, the setup should run pretty good! For some reason, I don't find the logged IAT delta being an issue at all, yes it can definitely be improved but it's not bad at all. One more thing is you might have a hard time keeping that flat boost curve you spoke about when you run your EBC, at least without taxing efficiency... but you already know that this can only be achieved with improved wastegate actuator rate. :beer:


See, that's the thing about MAF readings and taking them with a grain of salt. Your 245 is also with a larger/scaled housing, so how does that compare to my 145 on a smaller housing, or 205 on an even smaller housing? :screwy: A 36% larger housing, which is the area increase from AWP housing to AMU housing, should see a similar drop in flowrate, which would actually give less airflow than I'm seeing. Your ECU is set to read the 225 housing stock, so what percentage increase is the S4 housing you're using? I have an R32 housing that I'm pretty sure I'll have to use if I go with the 630cc's as they're just outside the range of what will work on the MAF housing/ECU I have. You say the 200 g/s was suspect, but on that ECU and stock turbo and MAF, 180 is a perfectly normal number, so the larger K04 and SEM manifold wouldn't add 20 g/s peak? I didn't think they were questionable numbers, which is part of why I left the OEM MAF housing in when I did the swap, to see straightforward gains with no scaling as well as to see how the software handled it. Otherwise, the swap to the 225 MAF was pretty painless as far as driveability/running wise. 

IAT's aren't _awful_...yet, but with more boost will come more delta T. And yes, there's already one spring on the WG actuator. Installing a second is obviously easy. :thumbup: For now, I'm happy with the gains in timing advance.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Well I've played with the fuel trims a little, and it's sitting at 0.2% idle and 1.6% long term with 4.5 bar fuel pressue and +3% primary fuel in Unisettings. It runs awesome except for the occasional limp mode right around 6200 rpms. I have -4.5* removed from the base timing map due to the larger MAF housing (225 housing on an 180hp ECU). 

Timing drops a little too low at boost spike/peak TQ for my tastes, but that's to be expected with the -4.5*. I can't do much about that until I improve the intercooling, because while peak correction factors are borderline okay (~6*) right now, as soon as I start to dial back that -4.5* it just increases CF and the net results is the same. IAT's are climbing a little too quickly, but not horribly, especially considering the tapering boost I'm currently running off the N75/ECU (180hp K03S boost request, less and less boost as rpms rise but IAT's still climbing).









Now for fueling, actual AFR matches requested AFR spot on, but I've put the red cicle around the ~6200rpm limp mode where you can see the MAF drop, IDC drops accordingly, and boost request goes down. It drops me to ~9-10 psi of boost (due to Max's extra WG spring mod). This is right around where injector duty cycle has been over 100% for a few seconds and I think is the root cause of the limp mode. At 6400 rpms, the IDC goes from 110 to 120% and the actual AFR reads 0.75 lambda (=11.025:1 AFR, the richest the sensor can read), so the ECU is dumping fuel for protection at that point. The only solution for this is more fueling via injector, as I don't want to run any more fuel pressure than I already am for fear of straining the OEM pump. 

















So the diodes I ordered arrived yesterday, which will allow me to install my EBC and get rid of the tapering boost. Next up will be injectors, but they'll have to wait a few weeks as I just installed a set of the new Direzza ZII's this past weekend. Fueling will be done before May 6th as I have a road course event that day and want to really let it rip (naturally). I may have to go ahead and install a FMIC by then (sorry Max ) as IAT's will definitely be an issue at that point.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Been a while since I updated, and I finally installed the 630cc injectors this weekend so here goes. 

I didn't mess with fueling and boost at all before the track day on 05.06/13. A buddy was also doing sessions in the car, so didn't want to tax things thermally and didn't want to add all possible power so as to remain focused on cornering lines/braking zones/etc. 

Currently running 225 MAF housing, 630cc injectors at 3bar fuel pressure, no diode. Previously, on 318cc AWP injectors and the 225 MAF, I had to run ~65 psi of fuel pressure (~4.5 bar) and +15.990% primary fueling in Lemmiwinks to get fueling close and to keep injector duty down in upper rpms. 

Installed 630cc, set primary fuel to -24.990%, set the adjustable FPR to 3 bar, and let the car idle for a few minutes to get o2 sensors up to temp and allow adaptation to start/go active. The engine idled very smooth until adaptation started, which causes a slight hiccup at idle. After driving roughly 50 miles without much WOT, the fuel trims setttled at -0.6% and -14.1%. It runs and drives fine, but obviously the fueling isn't "right." 

I did some WOT logs today on the way to work to see where it stands as far as WOT fueling as opposed to "target 14.7 AFR at all times" like during idle, cruise, part throttle, etc. This was the first real WOT duty so it seems the first log is a little jumpy in targeting WOT AFR. 


















And one with timing logged to see how it's doing with -4.5* taken out due to the larger 225 MAF housing. 









Obviously, IDC is MUCH lower, and the ECU is correctly targetting WOT AFR, though I will play with secondary fueling a little in attempt to get it dialed in better. The ECU does dump fuel past ~5800-6000 rpms (actual AFR = 11.025:1) in the second and third logs, but there is no limp mode or boost cut. I'll have to log a few other things to figure out what the cause is there. 

Timing isn't bad for ~65*F ambient and good highway speeds airflow, but without an IAT log (which I'm sure is horrible), not much to go on other than knowing I'll need a cooling upgrade if I want to push and sustain power. I have a diode to install along with an EBC so I can turn boost up to true chipped 225 levels (still running K03 software, so the boost request taper is there as seen in the boost log above), and a 42DD 3" DP to install, so some hardware changes will be coming soon to improve efficiency and let me open up some top end power. My new E85 gas station opens June 6th, so a fuel pump will be coming soon so I can make the switch to corn when I want. :beer:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

It should be interesting to compare notes when you finally get to play with some corn!

My 630s needed quite a bit of secondary fuel channel tweaks to feel "right" (15-17 percent made it much better although it will never be 100% for a spray pattern that's not designed specifically for the combustion chamber). As far as the trims, you may not be able to get them down to nothing on pump when only using the adaptation channels. Properly re-scaling for the injectors is about the only way to get the 630s down to negligible trims, however you'll be able to get the trims spot on with E85. Get that boost curve up and sustained past midrange and the setup should pretty good! :beer:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> It should be interesting to compare notes when you finally get to play with some corn!
> 
> My 630s needed quite a bit of secondary fuel channel tweaks to feel "right" (15-17 percent made it much better although it will never be 100% for a spray pattern that's not designed specifically for the combustion chamber). As far as the trims, you may not be able to get them down to nothing on pump when only using the adaptation channels. Properly re-scaling for the injectors is about the only way to get the 630s down to negligible trims, however you'll be able to get the trims spot on with E85. Get that boost curve up and sustained past midrange and the setup should pretty good! :beer:


Can you elaborate on the 15-17%? I'm aware the spray pattern isn't "right," but I'm not really clear on secondary fuel channel. It "increases injector response."? So you added 15-17%, not took it away? I'm not really concerned with fuel trims getting to zero, as long as there is correction available in the direction that avoids BOOM! :laugh: When the boost comes up and the corn goes in, I'll be in rod bending territory, so I'll have to limit things until December when I can pull the motor again.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> Can you elaborate on the 15-17%? I'm aware the spray pattern isn't "right," but I'm not really clear on secondary fuel channel. It "increases injector response."? So you added 15-17%, not took it away? I'm not really concerned with fuel trims getting to zero, as long as there is correction available in the direction that avoids BOOM! :laugh: When the boost comes up and the corn goes in, I'll be in rod bending territory, so I'll have to limit things until December when I can pull the motor again.


In general, high impedance injectors like our OEM ones have lazy reaction time. Although the 630 are still high impedance for our stock ECU to control, the bigger these injectors go in size, the lazier they also tend to become in response. The engineers, knowing this, added the response time tables to help offset the injector reaction deficit in various trims of the same motor or same ECU family powering different motors. Luckily for us, the secondary adaptation channel seems to be a gross multiplier for these response tables (only capable of of making changes overall but not in specific areas needed). An example of this can be seen in our TTs, the same motor powered by the same ECU family, but running 386cc in the 225 and a smaller injectors for the 180 version - the reaction tables are not the same between the two mapping because they use differently sized injectors. 

Since your ECU is originally for 180 injectors, my recommended 15-17% might need some additional tweaking to find the sweet spot (but it's a good enough starting point). :beer:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> In general, high impedance injectors like our OEM ones have lazy reaction time. Although the 630 are still high impedance for our stock ECU to control, the bigger these injectors go in size, the lazier they also tend to become in response. The engineers, knowing this, added the response time tables to help offset the injector reaction deficit in various trims of the same motor or same ECU family powering different motors. Luckily for us, the secondary adaptation channel seems to be a gross multiplier for these response tables (only capable of of making changes overall but not in specific areas needed). An example of this can be seen in our TTs, the same motor powered by the same ECU family, but running 386cc in the 225 and a smaller injectors for the 180 version - the reaction tables are not the same between the two mapping because they use differently sized injectors.
> 
> Since your ECU is originally for 180 injectors, my recommended 15-17% might need some additional tweaking to find the sweet spot (but it's a good enough starting point). :beer:


But what feedback am I looking for from the motor? The only obvious sign to me (since I don't have a wideband onboard) that the fueling isn't "right" (as dicated by Audi) is a slightly lumpy rpm at idle, and I can't even hear that in the exhaust note, only see it on the tach.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> But what feedback am I looking for from the motor? The only obvious sign to me (since I don't have a wideband onboard) that the fueling isn't "right" (as dicated by Audi) is a slightly lumpy rpm at idle, and I can't even hear that in the exhaust note, only see it on the tach.


One easy symptom, besides the idle characteristic, is the distinctive injector tick that's inherent to the motor. With the bigger injectors, that ticking sound becomes much more lazy and unhealthy sounding (it could be picked up by mechanic stethoscope over a loud exhaust). It's really a feel thing about how the engine runs, but I guess that it's harder for you after so many changes at once and not having a reference point.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Engine was still up to temp after I got done jogging, so I added 20% to secondary fueling. It seemed to idle smoother afterwards but will need some time to tell. On a side note, I'm now getting 48mpg according to the trip computer. :laugh:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Well the idle is smoother, but still not perfect. I'll have to spend some time and actually play with the secondary values instead of just guessing a number and going. :laugh: The injector clicking is quieter now though. 

I took another log this morning to see IAT's and some other things. This was the first log of the morning after cruising on the interstate to get things to temp. 










As expected, IAT's rise 20* in a single 4th gear pull, ie way too much. Other than that, fueling looks good until 6K rpms, where it dumps fuel (going into "protection" mode based on various inputs). The inputs that cause this aren't always shown in logs, ie requested AFR doesn't dip to 11.025:1 (0.75 lambda, the lowest the sensor/ECU can read). IDC is in check, MAF values don't take a spike, boost doesn't rise at 6K, no sudden timing pull increases, coolant temp is good, so the big thing that stands out to me is the IAT climb. I'm hoping this is causing the fuel dump, because with repeated WOT pounding, it will start dumping fuel earlier and earlier in the rpms. I took a few other logs with time between the logs to allow coolant and the IC's to come back to normal, and the fuel dump at 6K is in every log, so something is going on. I'm resistant to install water/meth just because this is my daily, and I hate the notion of adding anything but gasoline, though I have a feeeling once I play with w/m, I'll get over that. :laugh:

PS Max, I'm not sure what your issue is with the thermostats, but you can see mine works fine.  Have you deleted the oil cooler? I know you don't like how long it takes to get up to temp, but I definitely don't have that problem. I was at 79*C coolant as I hit the onramp onto the interstate this morning which is ~2 miles from my house.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

The OEM cooler is still in the car. I think it's just my luck with faulty thermostat units, that's my second attempt and I keep getting the same outcome with the longer time needed to get to temp. What's puzzling this time around, with a brand new unit, my coolant temp plateau at around 90* C (rising as high as 93* C after repeated pulls). If the unit was sticking open to explain the delayed warm up, it also shouldn't make my terminal heat soaked temp rise almost 10* C. :screwy:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Decreased fuel enrichment on increasing load to 80%. It didn't seem to have much effect (fuel dump/rich at 6K). Max, what were typical percentages you are/were using here? E85 station opens today so I want to get this corrected if possible before I start playing.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> Decreased fuel enrichment on increasing load to 80%. It didn't seem to have much effect (fuel dump/rich at 6K). Max, what were typical percentages you are/were using here? E85 station opens today so I want to get this corrected if possible before I start playing.


Oh, 80% load enrichment is barely scraping the surface and way too much. I typically run around 10% load enrichment just so I have a slight taper towards redline (0.85 lambda to 0.83 lambda). I found that with the enrichment mapped in the flash in my ECU, 15% load enrichment (through adaptation channel) is the most I can get away with without having the nasty fuel dump inherent to the screwy mapping. If the 'can' tune in your car is anything like mine, you need to remove as much enrichment as you can to get rid of the overly aggressive fuel dump up top (the tuning companies do that to protect the cars against typical vortexers I think :laugh.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Oh, 80% load enrichment is barely scraping the surface and way too much. I typically run around 10% load enrichment just so I have a slight taper towards redline (0.85 lambda to 0.83 lambda). I found that with the enrichment mapped in the flash in my ECU, 15% load enrichment (through adaptation channel) is the most I can get away with without having the nasty fuel dump inherent to the screwy mapping. If the 'can' tune in your car is anything like mine, you need to remove as much enrichment as you can to get rid of the overly aggressive fuel dump up top (the tuning companies do that to protect the cars against typical vortexers I think :laugh.


Okay, just so we are clear: initial setting is 100%. You mean you reduce this to a setting of 10%, so 90% less enrichment? I have never played with this adaptation channel as I had custom software previously, so I thought removing 20% would be a good place to start. So maybe take another 50% out to get to 30%, log again, see where I stand, and keep chipping away at it until the fuel dump is gone and AFR stays in acceptable ranges?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> Okay, just so we are clear: initial setting is 100%. You mean you reduce this to a setting of 10%, so 90% less enrichment? I have never played with this adaptation channel as I had custom software previously, so I thought removing 20% would be a good place to start. So maybe take another 50% out to get to 30%, log again, see where I stand, and keep chipping away at it until the fuel dump is gone and AFR stays in acceptable ranges?


Correct! Default is 100% and you're removing a fraction of the full pie (measured in percentage). In other words, you're removing X percent from the original load enrichment hard-written in your flash by using the convenient adaptation channels. Like you said, remove another 50% and log where that takes you, rinse and repeat until you reach the desired goal. 

The only thing that may prevent success with this, is if the fuel dump is not from actual load enrichments, but from protection maps (BTS) that are also written in the ECU and kicks in when a threshold is exceeded (EGT, IAT, Coolant temp, etc. all have protection maps that will come in effect if the preset thresholds are meet). 

For example, our ECU has a 850*C EGT protection map (calculated number from 02 sensor temp and loads in cars without factory probe). If that threshold is exceeded, these conservative maps will be referenced to, in order to prevent things from braking.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Correct! Default is 100% and you're removing a fraction of the full pie (measured in percentage). In other words, you're removing X percent from the original load enrichment hard-written in your flash by using the convenient adaptation channels. Like you said, remove another 50% and log where that takes you, rinse and repeat until you reach the desired goal.
> 
> The only thing that may prevent success with this, is if the fuel dump is not from actual load enrichments, but from protection maps (BTS) that are also written in the ECU and kicks in when a threshold is exceeded (EGT, IAT, Coolant temp, etc. all have protection maps that will come in effect if the preset thresholds are meet).
> 
> For example, our ECU has a 850*C EGT protection map (calculated number from 02 sensor temp and loads in cars without factory probe). If that threshold is exceeded, these conservative maps will be referenced to, in order to prevent things from braking.


Yeah, I understand. The only thing that could be out of the ordinary that would cause me to enter these conservative maps would be the calculated EGT or the IAT. Even then, the IAT's aren't horrible, they just climb rapidly the more you beat on the engine. Everything else appears inline or below acceptable values (unless the scaled down MAF readings would trip up the logic also).


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Went from 80 to 25% with no change in Fuel Enrichment under Increasing Load. Tried 15% and it's getting slightly better regarding the fuel dump issue. Will try 10% after work today and hopefully fill up with E85 shortly after.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Down to 5% on enrichment on increasing load and not seeing a change in WOT AFR. The second log goes full rich just past 5K rpms. I usually never pay attention to it, but load is actually decreasing, so should I be lowering enrichment on decreasing load? Anyone have a log of load on a chipped 225 to compare?


----------



## Boulderhead (Oct 21, 2012)

Adam, just to be clear you are looking for engine load for 4th gear redline pull? Migh already have some data I can share.. But if not would be happy to help get you what you need. :beer:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

That's correct. My MAF housing will have lowered my readings, but I'd still like to compare.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Just sent you a text before, but it's normal for load to taper a bit past peak power on our small frame turbos. Our load is a calculated value (not absolute load value), and usually the PID calculations factors current airflow, peak airflow values for the engine/turbo combo at sea level etc. (if load values didn't flatline at a low value in VCDS, the values would have been a good indication of actual power curve). :beer:


----------



## Boulderhead (Oct 21, 2012)

*4th Gear Redline Engine Load and MAF*

This is from my run last weekend with MAF readings included









Quick edit to improve the scale on the graph..


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Adam, your AFR curve is perfect now! I'm talking about the profile of the curve, it flatlines at about 11:1 all the way through (without the nasty taper you had before). That's what the load enrichments are for, changing the profile of the curve. If you're looking to modify the entire curve under WOT now, you need to go to the primary fuel channel and add/remove a percentage (overall curve) as needed.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Boulderhead said:


> This is from my run last weekend with MAF readings included
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tony, your graph illustrates what I just told Adam and what a typical load curve looks like on a small frame turbo. Right after boost onset (3700 rpm where the boost spike ends), it starts tapering all the way to redline, mimicking the flow characteristic and limitations of the small turbo. I bet if you go to a dyno and overlay your TQ curve to that load curve, they'll have exact identical profile vs the rpm axis.


----------



## Boulderhead (Oct 21, 2012)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Tony, your graph illustrates what I just told Adam and what a typical load curve looks like on a small frame turbo. Right after boost onset (3700 rpm where the boost spike ends), it starts tapering all the way to redline, mimicking the flow characteristic and limitations of the small turbo. I bet if you go to a dyno and overlay your TQ curve to that load curve, they'll have exact identical profile vs the rpm axis.


Thanks for tying your previous explanation to the visualization, it really does help someone like me. I plan on getting on a dyno (for some baseline numbers) before I start tackling any major power mods. In the meantime I am trying to enjoy the K04 as much as I can while other systems are dialed in to my liking :beer:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Adam, your AFR curve is perfect now!


 I guess I just don't understand. If the ECU is dumping fuel to the point the sensor can't read any more rich, how is that perfect considering actual is more rich than requested? I get what you are saying about the profile, but doesn't the ECU target requested values written into the software regardless of enrichments? 

Either way, I fueled up with a half a tank of E85 on Saturday, and adjusted my primary fuel channel based on fuel trims and added timing back in. It runs pretty great other than cold start, so I need to play with the fueling there some. I didn't run an WOT logs but looked at AFR while doing some driving, and the ECU is targeting and achieving lambda 1.00 during cruise and idle as expected. I'll get some WOT logs tonight or tomorrow when I'm doing dealing with a rear brake caliper issue (spent most of yesterday dealing with that). 

On another note, E85 is $2.67/gallon here, so even with the loss in fuel mileage, the costs/mile comes about close enough to pump gas that I will gladly fill up more often for the performance benefits.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> I guess I just don't understand. If the ECU is dumping fuel to the point the sensor can't read any more rich, how is that perfect considering actual is more rich than requested? I get what you are saying about the profile, but doesn't the ECU target requested values written into the software regardless of enrichments?


 I was basing my judgement on the graphs posted, and not remembering to take into consideration that the actual AFR curve may have flatlined due to the sensor bottoming out (I didn't know the sensor could have such a shallow range below stoich or lambda 1). As far as the variance between actual and requested, it's not outside the noise range and within the norm of what the ME7 ECU does in terms of accuracy (again, still basing off of the posted graphs that may be unusable due to the sensor readings bottoming out). Regardless, going back to the primary fuel adaptation channel and removing fuel overall will allow you to lean out the entire curve - and that's independent of the requested curve specific to the flash (if the ECU alway went for the flashed AFR request, we wouldn't be able to run E85, fix curve profiles, and adjust timing without a re-flash ).


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Regardless, going back to the primary fuel adaptation channel and removing fuel overall will allow you to lean out the entire curve - and that's independent of the requested curve specific to the flash (if the ECU alway went for the flashed AFR request, we wouldn't be able to run E85, fix curve profiles, and adjust timing without a re-flash ).


 That would be true if I wasn't already at -24.9% on primary on the 630's on pump gas. Even then, you don't see a change in WOT AFR, only the fuel trims and how much correction the ECU is using to get to the target AFR. As for the part in parenthesis, it would make it MUCH easier to run E85 and bigger injectors as you'd be targeting the same lambda reqardless of fuel or injector size.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> That would be true if I wasn't already at -24.9% on primary on the 630's on pump gas. Even then, you don't see a change in WOT AFR, only the fuel trims and how much correction the ECU is using to get to the target AFR. As for the part in parenthesis, it would make it MUCH easier to run E85 and bigger injectors as you'd be targeting the same lambda reqardless of fuel or injector size.


 I see what's going on here, with the 630s running pump gas, *and* your APR tune with a rich AFR request, there is not enough adjustment through adaptation channels to get the fuel curve to 11:1 AFR or leaner. Really doesn't matter much though if you're going to run on corn primarily (where the 630s are about perfectly sized all the way up to the limit of the stock turbo).


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Who said I have an APR tune?  I am on Unitronics software. So basically, your experience says requested AFR is a pretty meaningless target, you adjust the curve profile with enrichment channels, and you adjust primary fueling to get where you want overall, since the ECU has so much going on behind the scenes that it ignores target AFR? Is this for WOT open loop only?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> Who said I have an APR tune?  I am on Unitronics software. So basically, your experience says requested AFR is a pretty meaningless target, you adjust the curve profile with enrichment channels, and you adjust primary fueling to get where you want overall, since the ECU has so much going on behind the scenes that it ignores target AFR? Is this for WOT open loop only?


 APR, Unitronic, and Revo are all a blur and the same to me :laugh:... and I keep forgetting you were [email protected] in one of your previous lives. You are correct, it doesn't matter what the request is asking for (that can't be changed except for a remap). As long as you add/remove fuel via adaptation channels and get to your desired target and profile, it's rather meaningless. Not really the best approach but with the tools available to us, it gets the job done!


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Well I just logged some WOT on E85. 24-27* BTDC up top and AFR looking pretty good with no timing pull as expected. Definitely quicker and feels smoother all around. I'll pst some good graphs in the AM.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

It's the timing at peak power (bottom of the curve) that interests me the most. How much more are you sustaining compared to before? How much more are you able to add with your higher compression motor? 

PS: Calc EGTs can be used to prevent going past MBT; More advance will naturally net lower EGTs until MBT is reached, and after that, the resulting cyl pressure will start raising the gas temps with more advance.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> It's the timing at peak power (bottom of the curve) that interests me the most. How much more are you sustaining compared to before? How much more are you able to add with your higher compression motor?


 Not as much as I had hoped. :laugh: 

This is a log from this morning with timing from a log in February on 93 octane overlayed to compare ignition timing advance on E85. 









Fueling: 









I'm going to try to install my EBC this weekend to get rid of the surging I'm getting with N75 boost control (was much smoother in cooler weather, now the ECU/N75 isn't handling the boost spike very well as seen in the jumpy MAF readings).


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

That's a pretty substantial bump at the bottom of the curve where it counts the most. I am sure it can easily take another nice global bump before reaching your limit (will happen at the bottom of the curve when using overall timing increase with adaptation channels).

Your AFR curve looks decent but could be a tad leaner to fully take advantage of the fuel. :beer:


----------



## tedgram (Jul 2, 2005)

This thread will help me tune my 550cc injectors. Wish I had noticed it before. :thumbup:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

tedgram said:


> This thread will help me tune my 550cc injectors. Wish I had noticed it before. :thumbup:


 550's should be easier to tune than me (630's on 318cc ECU, you'd be going from 386cc ECU to 550cc, so a smaller change), and it was painless for me. :thumbup:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

I filled up with E85 last night for $42 for a full tank.  I added more timing to a setting of +10.5* in Unisettings, and my timing curve didn't change much even though there is no timing pull. This would point to the ECU not advancing anymore based on IAT, coolant temps, calculated EGT, etc rather than the ECU pulling timing due to knock. This means I'm pretty much stuck at this timing level until I improve cooling (air and water both). After running a few gallons of 93 octane due to poor planning, and switching back to the E85 last night, it's a mild but definitely noticeable improvement on driveabiltiy and overall "peppiness." Granted, I'm on a stock DP and catback. With proper exhaust, the difference would be much more noticeable. The next step will be a diode and my EBC, and then I'll be leaving everything alone for the time being until I install my 3" DP and cutout in the next few weeks. :beer:


----------

