Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!


Recommended Posts

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Attention: The first 30 or so pages of this thread are outdated. Please refer to the M4.4 Wikia article where all the relevant information is currently being collated. Before asking any questions p

Crush it.

After alot of testing and rewriting code, we finally got a useful new mod working. As we all know, some time ago my dad Piet found out how to convert to bigger maf housings with the maf factor. Conver

Posted Images

Device manager COM settings (i've also tried different baud rate and 25ms latency):

image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

Now about realterm. I put the ECU in bootmode and I opened the com port at 125000 baud rate and ansi mode and I got which seems some information from the ECU (see pictures below - it doesn't stop from receiving that information). I can't send anything, I'm always receiving that. What am I doing wrong about realterm?

If I disconnect the K-line i stop getting those echos and as soon as I connect I start receiving it. If I try to connect without bootmode on ECU I don't get anything (which is supposed I think).

7_1.jpg

Now tuningpro flash attempt

image.jpg

What do you guys think about this?

Piet, I tried to uninstall and install it again and leave it at its port (COM 8). It made no difference.

PS, my wiring:

wiring1.jpg

wiring2.jpg

wiring3.jpg

Edited by S70-R
Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like your interface might be working.

Change display to hex to see what kind of numbers you are receiving.

In bootmode you shouldn't get anything unless you send something, and it should be 9600 baud.

Break condition is often seen when wrong baud rate is selected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Wallwart is only good for 800ma so it might not be able to provide enough current during flashing. I've only ever had luck with in car flashing hooked up to a battery charger. Good idea to monitor voltage too.

That Wallwart is only good for 800ma so it might not be able to provide enough current during flashing. I've only ever had luck with in car flashing hooked up to a battery charger. Good idea to monitor voltage too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like your interface might be working.

Change display to hex to see what kind of numbers you are receiving.

In bootmode you shouldn't get anything unless you send something, and it should be 9600 baud.

Break condition is often seen when wrong baud rate is selected.

If I recall correctly all I was getting was double 0's in hex mode. I took my lunch hour to get home and do the testing and screenshots. I can only confirm the hex numbers by the end of the day when I get home again but I'm almost sure they were 0's.

I'll try with 9600 baud instead of 125000. I used 125000 because in wikia it mentions that baud rate to test conectivity with ECU.

Break condition explain why I'm not being able to do anything right? The question is why I'm getting that break condition. Apart from the baud rate what else can cause that condition?

I also received errors.

That Wallwart is only good for 800ma so it might not be able to provide enough current during flashing. I've only ever had luck with in car flashing hooked up to a battery charger. Good idea to monitor voltage too.

That Wallwart is only good for 800ma so it might not be able to provide enough current during flashing. I've only ever had luck with in car flashing hooked up to a battery charger. Good idea to monitor voltage too.

Even if this is not enough for flashing (14v should be anyway), it should be enough to test conectivity with ECU, right?

I don't have any voltmeter to be sure...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well..... I did the testing on this one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/151008723686?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

which is 3.5"OD, 3.25"ID

Don't know if another type 3.25" MAF like in your link wil give the same results, though.

While testing a 3" ID maf it became clear that the position of the sensor in the maf has a great influence on the voltage output of the maf.

So if for instance the mounting flange for the sensor differs in height my maftable will not be valid for that one!

The plastic bosch like MAF is much cheaper than the aluminum one, while the latter has no real advantages anyway.

It appears that as long as the flow through the maf stays laminar it will not matter what's behind it.

Haven't tested a reducing elbow from 3.25" ID to 2.5" yet,

But I will be doing that soon as i'am planning to do a permanent install of the 3.25" ID maf on my 2.5" intake tube.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We did some measurements on the 3" ID audi A8 MAF, Lookforyou send us, with some rather surprising results.

We mounted the 3" audi A8 MAf, with a stock sensor installed, in front of the airbox and measured the output voltage with an arduino together with the outputvoltage of the stock maf which was in its normal position.

Before that we had a stock 850 MAF installed in the primary postion and a stock 850 MAF in the secundary postion to see if there was any offset due to the mountng position.

There was no offset, there was virtually no difference in outputvoltage over the whole 0 to 5 volt range between both stock 850 MAF's which made us conclude that our method was valid.

We expected a higher capacity with the 3" audi A8 maf as with the 2.75"ID S90 MAf, but this was not the case.

To be sure we did a second measurement with the S90 MAF as the primary maf and the audi maf as the secondary..... same results.

On closer inspection we noticed that the mounting flange for the sensor of the audi maf was 5 mm shorter and therefore the sensor went in deeper.

As a result the sensor filament in de S90 maf was more in the center then in the audi maf.

S90_audi%20maf.jpg

Closer to the wall the airflow is slower with a laminar airstream.

An explanation therefore could be that being closer to the wall in a audi A8 maf, the sensor filament cools down less.

If this is true then elongating the mounting flange of the audi maf should improve its measuring capacity...... that will be the next experiment we will conduct.

There are some myths regarding the MAF system.

One of them for sure is that the intake setup has an influence on the measurement of the maf... we found that this is absolutely not the case.

As long as the airstream through the maf is laminar and not turbulent (as it should be, otherwise the intake setup is designed wrongly anyhow) the maf has no knowledge of what's in front or after it.

It simply does what it should do, it just measures the amount of air which passes through the maf.

Whether there is an airbox in front of it or not, or it has a 3" or a 4' intake tube, with or without a 90 degree bend directely after or before it, it makes absolutely no difference,

We have tested it..

This makes dialing in a bigger maf a lot easier, once you have downloaded a valid maf table for your maf you are good to go.

Another probable myth maybe is that you loose to much "resolution" with a bigger MAF.

Not that I have noticed so far but more testing has to be done.

There is absolutely no difference in driveability and idling with my S90 maf installed instead of the stock 850 MAF.

I have not driven with the 3.25" maf yet though, I will do that shortly, but I suspect that the resolution of a maf is intrinsically high enough to go way bigger without noticing any effects of a lowered resolution.

But that's something I'am not 100% sure of yet.

I

Piet,

Just wondering....

I see one MAF with an air straightener and one without. Did you find any differences regarding air turbulence between the two?

From testing in situ the difference between the same 3.25" and 3" MAF with and without air straighteners is significant. With the 3.25" and no air straightener air fluctuates ±6 kg/hr, with an air straightener its around ±2.5kg/hr. Considering the air consumption at idle is 14kg/hr that is a substantial difference.

Yes, we thought of that to.

That's why we want to do a test with a shim of 5 mm to get the sensor more in the center and see if there is an improvement.

If not then it has to be the lack of the air straightener that makes the difference.

Fabricating an airstraightener is somewhat less simpeler.

But I have to say that the curve we've got isn't a fluctuating one, it follows the curve of the S90 maf rather precisely.

So our suspicion is that the sensor being off center is the main cause.

This is interesting, as I don't seem to see that much deviation with / without the the straightener. I added one back after previous comments on the effect of the straightener, but I cannot say that it makes any difference on my setup. Perhaps it has more effect on a stock cam / base idle setup? Mine does not idle with similar values to stock.

I did some testing with a 4 mm shim between the sensor flange of the maf and the sensor. I tested it against my S90 maf which is my standard maf now.

This gave an immediate improvement. The audi maf measures significantely more kg/hr airflow per volt this way..

This was a quick rough test for now but it proves that the postion of the sensorfilament is very important.

Later on this week I will do a measurement against the stock 850 maf and with the sensor more precisely positioned in the audi maf in an effort to esthablish a valid curve for it.

This does not mean that the air straightener is not important however, since the airflow must be as laminar as possible for a good reading of the maf.

Especially in the lower flow ranges the audi maf without the air straightener had a significantely more fluctuating curve then the S90 maf with an air straightener.

I have to say that the audi maf would'nt be my first choice MAF.

I would go for the S90/960 MAf instead and if this one comes short, I would move to the 3.25" bosch(like) maf housing. (which I'am)

Edited by Piet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for changing the subject. Ive just taken a supposedly Rica 340 chip out of a ECU for someone, they wanted a 310 fitting instead. Ive compared the binary to the 310 and it is certainly different. Anyone want a peek ;)

i wouldn't mind looking, as long as you wont get in trouble for showing it.

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites

This does not mean that the air straightener is not importand however, since the airflow must be as laminar as possible for a good reading of the maf.

Especially in the lower flow ranges the audi maf without the air straightener had a significantely more fluctuating curve then the S90 maf with an air straightener.

This part about straighteners etc is going to be important for me.

I have the S90 maf waiting to be fitted (i'm just waiting to get the ECU flashed).

To fit I will need to get a reducer from the maf housing (80mm outer diameter) to the ipd short ram filter (70mm inner diameter).

It will looks something like this:

intake_piping.jpg

Do you think this will affect maf perfomance (specially with your s90 maf values)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some testing with a 4 mm shim between the sensor flange of the maf and the sensor. I tested it against my S90 maf which is my standard maf now.

This gave an immediate improvement. The audi maf measures significantely more kg/hr airflow per volt this way..

This was a quick rough test for now but it proves that the postion of the sensorfilament is very important.

Later on this week I will do a measurement against the stock 850 maf and with the sensor more precisely positioned in the audi maf in an effort to esthablish a valid curve for it.

This does not mean that the air straightener is not importand however, since the airflow must be as laminar as possible for a good reading of the maf.

Especially in the lower flow ranges the audi maf without the air straightener had a significantely more fluctuating curve then the S90 maf with an air straightener.

I have to say that the audi maf would'nt be my first choice MAF.

I would go for the S90/960 MAf instead and if this one comes short, I would move to the 3.25" bosch(like) maf housing. (which I'am)

Thank you for the additional info. I'll have to see if I can get a larger screen for my new 3.75" ID housing before I install it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Ascii characters it doesn't look like all numbers are 0x00

Typical serial signal (K-line side) works by some electronics pulling down the line voltage for 1/baudrate seconds to indicate a start of a byte. Then 8 databytes are sent, and 1 stop byte which is the same high voltage as idle line.

0x55: ---------_-_-_-_-_-----------------

11111111111 0 10101010 1 11111111111111111111 (least significant bit first. i.e. backward)

Receiving circuit will detect the drop in voltage and start counting time and measure line voltage at 1/baudrate seconds intervals to read bits.

If the selected baudrate or number of bits is wrong, the circuit will get out of sync and fail in reading the expected number of bits.

One slow zero bit can be read as a full 8-bit 0x00 if the receiving speed is set too high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This part about straighteners etc is going to be important for me.

I have the S90 maf waiting to be fitted (i'm just waiting to get the ECU flashed).

To fit I will need to get a reducer from the maf housing (80mm outer diameter) to the ipd short ram filter (70mm inner diameter).

It will looks something like this:

intake_piping.jpg

Do you think this will affect maf perfomance (specially with your s90 maf values)?

The design looks good to me, i don't think that it will effect the maf performance.

Especially with the 45 degree elbow in front of it.

I have done a test with a 90 degree elbow in front if it, even that had no effect on the maf performance.

Athough I would prefer an airfilter with a 80 mm neck and 80 mm alu elbow performance wise, but if it would really matter? ....questionable.

Edited by Piet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.