HP Tuners DIY Tuning Solution

[The Dude]

so HP tuners got flex enabled before Ecutek or cobb? That's shameful, lmao.

 

[aaronc7]

Well, it's not out to the masses yet.

I bought the "user defined parameters" which lets me add any tables not yet defined in the software / change anything in the calibration. And with a few other guys we figured it out. So basically I have just activated features / logic that's already in the ECU and working within the limits of that (for now).

I've been in talks with HPT engineer to hopefully get it out to the masses soon and improve the software in general. They are taking all feedback, just a matter of how it gets racked and stacked in their priority of stuff to do.

And to be clear, this isn't full fledged "performance" flex fuel. It won't add timing when will fill up with E85. That's definitely possible, but would require some work on HPT's end. I'm going to be pushing for it, for sure. Hopefully this sparks some continued interest.

 

[Hoon]

so HP tuners got flex enabled before Ecutek or cobb? That's shameful, lmao.

"Flex"...it's just a fueling adjustment which is already native in the ECU.

Actual flex would be adjusting timing also.

 

[The Dude]

"Flex"...it's just a fueling adjustment which is already native in the ECU.

Actual flex would be adjusting timing also.

so why haven't any US companies aside from UM figured it out? The euro crowd is all about it.

 

[aaronc7]

I think it simply comes down to their priorities. Takes x amount of man hours to dev it, how much benefit or extra $$ will that generate for them? What other projects on the horizon....etc.

I'm definitely not smart enough to be able to make changes to the application software/logic to make that happen. At a high level.... find an unused timing table or free space in calibration segment. Make that your ethanol timing adder table and have it blend/add that in based on E content. You could probably go way more into it and make it way more advanced complex (adjustable boost, torque, cam timing, whatever). Ecutek has a good general guide on how their FF implementations work. In the short term I would be cool with a simple "timing adder" type table. I have no idea how basic or advanced UM's version is.

Honestly Eurodyne is the best candidate for flex soon. You already have a low and high octane table. A sliding interpolation factor. It's just a matter of making that interpolation factor tied to E content vs a manually set slider position. That may or may not already be in the works / done.....

 

[aaronc7]

Here's that ecutek article.... not vehicle specific but I liked skimming thru it. Almost all of the fueling specific stuff is already built into the ECU

https://ecutek.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SUPPORT/pages/14123023/RaceROM+Flex+Fuel

 

[aaronc7]

But at the same time, I am surprised that some of these tuning outfits haven't released something like this--basic fueling "flex" only. I changed a total of 3 bytes in the calibration (and actually only 2 were required). Nothing cosmic about it.

 

[ChrisMk77]

"Flex"...it's just a fueling adjustment which is already native in the ECU.

Actual flex would be adjusting timing also.

But if it adjusts LTFT based on E% that is a great start.

 

[aaronc7]

The ECUs do a fine job correcting real time so it's never been a huge issue for mild blend setups. At a certain point though you could hit the LTFT limit though (I am not sure what that limit is).

Either way, I like the idea of correcting before trims/feedback. And it's really easy to do/ECU has tons of logic for this...so why not?

The ECU also has 'virtual' flex, based on lambda feedback / no ethanol sensor required. I've never tried it, but there's a whole lot in the documentation about it.

 

[ChrisMk77]

The ECUs do a fine job correcting real time so it's never been a huge issue for mild blend setups. At a certain point though you could hit the LTFT limit though (I am not sure what that limit is).

Either way, I like the idea of correcting before trims/feedback. And it's really easy to do/ECU has tons of logic for this...so why not?

The ECU also has 'virtual' flex, based on lambda feedback / no ethanol sensor required. I've never tried it, but there's a whole lot in the documentation about it.

I have fueling for full E85 but have LTFT "zeroed" to about E50 since I dont need more then E35 for my timing advance with Is20. If I run E85 my LTFT end up at over 20+ and fueling control is not optimal.

 

[razorlab]

I recently acquired a 2015 GTI and I have been using HPtuners to tune it.

Quick abbreviated background on me. I tuned my 2018 Alltrack with Eurodyne Maestro and in a previous life, I tuned thousands of Mitsubishi Evos from street to track/time attack use. I also dabbled in Ford Fiesta ST tuning as I owned a couple and tuned a bunch. My current personal Evo 10 makes 640whp on E85 (tuned by me) and is set up for track use.

So, no stranger to tuning. However, the MQB ECU's are a bit more sophisticated compared to Evos. I bit closer to the Fiesta ST.

Anyway... I'm having some issues with the GTI compared to when I tuned my Alltrack on Maestro.

Is this a good thread to ask questions?

Here is the latest log. I already think I might have too much timing but please take a look: https://datazap.me/u/razorlab/2015-...&solo=1-3-4-8-9-10-16-17&zoom=338-429&mark=50

 

[aaronc7]

I recently acquired a 2015 GTI and I have been using HPtuners to tune it.

Quick abbreviated background on me. I tuned my 2018 Alltrack with Eurodyne Maestro and in a previous life, I tuned thousands of Mitsubishi Evos from street to track/time attack use. I also dabbled in Ford Fiesta ST tuning as I owned a couple and tuned a bunch. My current personal Evo 10 makes 640whp on E85 (tuned by me) and is set up for track use.

So, no stranger to tuning. However, the MQB ECU's are a bit more sophisticated compared to Evos. I bit closer to the Fiesta ST.

Anyway... I'm having some issues with the GTI compared to when I tuned my Alltrack on Maestro.

Is this a good thread to ask questions?

Here is the latest log. I already think I might have too much timing but please take a look: https://datazap.me/u/razorlab/2015-...&solo=1-3-4-8-9-10-16-17&zoom=338-429&mark=50

A simos tuning wiki (and subsequent Slack room) was created and @Exley and I talk pretty much daily about this kind of stuff. I think I have or have almost cracked the nut on my Audi S3, working around the various torque limiters and such. Lots of good stuff and discovery/sharing of info going on. And ultimately a lot of this will end up on the wiki page.

Shoot me a PM and I can shoot you an invite if you're interested. I haven't posted too much on here or HPT forums because they are pretty inactive.

 

[Exley]

Here is the latest log. I already think I might have too much timing but please take a look: https://datazap.me/u/razorlab/2015-...&solo=1-3-4-8-9-10-16-17&zoom=338-429&mark=50

I started fighting knock with the stock timing maps as soon as I added boost and fuel. Based on my tuning so far I'd pull:
about 4 degrees starting from 800 cylinder airmass and 3500 rpm in Port flap low VVL 0 in 0 ex 0.
4 degrees from 1050 airmass and higher from 2500 to 3500 rpm in Port flap low VVL 1 in 0 ex 0
5 from the last two airmass rows in the 2500 and 3000 rpm columns of port flap high VVL 1 in 0 ex 0.

That should get you in the ballpark

 

[aaronc7]

I had quite a lot of knock when I ran a stock tune....but a richer lambda only. Kind of strange, but I experienced it and so have others. May or may not have been false knock or just abnormalish combustion that resulted in what the sensors thought was knock. But it looks like you're running pretty mild boost and unknown AFR/lambda, that might be a factor too?

 

[razorlab]

Awesome, thanks guys!

Here is my current tune revision if you are curious. https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3ik48xjqa9q93c/2015_GTI_Updates_12282020_v4.hpt?dl=0