24v VR6 tuning?

I have about fifty of all of them from early 12V to R36.

The BFH/BDE are great as they are so similar, the AUE (inlet only VVT) and FSI one's need a bit more work to build a file from scratch - all ME7/SIMOS6/MED9 very similar though.

 

Of course the calibration files changes from one spec of engine to another. That is simple common sense!
What you seem to miss is for certain families of ECUs, the electrical hardware of the module is the same, which allows cross flashing of certain calibrations.
So in the case of a BDE ECU, if one has a R32 install and an ECU is not available you can cross flash the CP or even CN calibration into a 'BG' module, which can be picked up for cheap.
Checksum problems tend to affect those who run $20 ebay cables. Not in my case.

There are many definitions floating about from a dodgy CD, on various chip tuner sites that I do read from time to time yes but do not post a lot on.
I have defined most of my kps over many hours, to suit the various software versions that I can encounter and that includes some of the later 066 VR5 20v units.
Having a licensed legit Winols suite, no need for dodgy ols...

However you are stuck on the calibration side of Alan's (G60Dub) overall project. Calibration is not the focus here.
R32 engines with twin independent VCT, tend to generate ~ 260-270bhp @ 6400 rpm and 260lbft from 3000rpm or so in stock form, on either a SEM or a remapped ME7.1.1. Baselines are about 240-250bhp@ 6200rpm and 240lbft @ 3100rpm. The biggest improvement on these comes down to throttle response.

For 300bhp, some trickery of the standard torque based variable inlet system is needed, as that will be a mismatch with aftermarket cams. Torque needs to grow from at 2500 rpm stomp, to 4000+ rpm and drop slowly for 300bhp at say 6600rpm.

 

I'm hoping this is due to poor 'recalibration'/generic remaps and a lack of understanding in how to recalibrate what is effectively, in industrial terms, an extremely advanced process control system.

If you look at the ABF - 150BHP as stock which is 496CC & 37.5BHP per cylinder. On Glenns 'famous' ABF with a little modification an apparent 195BHP was seen which is an increase to 48.75BHP or 30%. This was only turning 7500RPM and again could easily be considered a mild state of tune.

Taking the same consideration into the 3.2 - we have 531.5CC & 39.5BHP (247) or 41.6BHP (250) per cylinder so immediately there may be a difference in cylinder filling. However as said above ME7 is far more advanced than the earlier SIMOS and the head design of the R, VVT and switchable IM should surely push the R32 past the equivalent 292.5 BHP (48.75BHP per cylinder) in the R32.

If this is not down to engine management then surely the head, IM or something else is plainly the culprit.

If the data in the CNC heads page is anything to go by then apparently the stock R32 head flows more on the inlet than a modified ABF head does and the stock R32 exhaust ports only flow 4CFM less than the modified ABF head - so as stock the head could already be considered as very good. So this being said - where does the discrepancy lie if it's actually possible to do a basic comparison in this fashion? My bets are on insufficient understanding of restructuring relevant process control data in the ECU. With the VVT & switchable IM and 268 cams I'm hoping its possible to fatten up each of the torque curves and have them 'blended' with the IM to match the new VE and make a bigger improvement than could be had with a 'generic' flash.

At the end of the day when I it is finally remapped I'm not looking for the magic number for pub bragging rights but simply to have the best extracted from it via a proper custom recalibration. After all the sufferance Id be more than happy with that.

 

I already quoted real deltas from tuning R32 engines with or without ME7 as seen on the dyno.
The cylinder head and intake manifold, improves on the old 12v engines up to 98, but in the grand scheme of other 3.0 engines, the design is poor and the cylinder filling dies off post 6400rpm.

 

The RSI Beetle and 2.8 AUE engine, runs intake only cam movement, similar to a 20vT. Later 2.8/3.2 engines run independent cam movement on both cams with different cam specifications.
They were able to keep charge filling efficiency constant for longer, hence the higher bhp at 237 or 250bhp @ 6400rpm.

 

What's the static CR on the 2.8? I'm assuming this is also where they got a bit extra given the BFHs' 11.5:1 static CR Ratio?

The more I hear the more it seems a proper rework with custom IM, FI, a proper 3.6 or a TTRS engine is the way to go.

Still it needs mapped and whatever I'll still be happy if it bumps up the area under the existing torque curve a nice bit.

 

Sounds like a plan although I need to check my timing at some point in the interim as even though the car is very sprightly I cant get over 200g/s on my MAF readings in ME7 Logger!

 

Yup so the value is clearly b*llox.

 

Think it was 206 at the wheels with the Milltek manifolds, 100cell sports CATs n Ian's stock ECU. The fuel trims had just been reset by Dave so possibly would have made more.

Not been able to get much more than 210g/s since replacing the deCATs with the Sports CATs.

 

So what will happen if it is taken back to Wallace to see where the differences are?

 

That's not a bad shout for the New Year Eddie. Although I'll do a compression test, check the timing and fit new cam sensors first.

 

Sorry to dig up an old thread. Very interesting read on SW callibration. There's limited discussion on r32 NA developments online. Has there been much further development or appetite to break the 100hp/l mark?

couple of points I've noted over the past

Mk4/TT BHE engine has 11.25:1 static CR (piston 022107065L)
mk5/tt mk2 bdb/bub has 10.85:1 static CR (piston 022107065AA)

im of the opinion that increased CR may prove small gains.? Choices are Mahle Oem piston or JE 11.5:1 drop in or custom. Mahle no longer produce/sell the 11.25:1 pistons variant anywhere. Alternatively is there scope that deck the block/head for increase? - but wth limited info online for piston compression height and or valve clearance data it's a risk.

Tinterweb sources quote a revised inlet manifold design between BHE and BUB variants? I can't note any physical differences in shape/size or volume.

The oem manifold appears to be flow limited. Note the CSA of the primary runners as they cross under the " power plennum". Very small. Is there scope to increase this CSA? Can the volume of the power plennum and primary plennum be increased/revised as per the legacy ABF mod and techniques used in the VQ35 platform.?

for sh@ts and giggles, take a look at the Porsche Cayenne inlet manifold. I have one on my bench. These have noticeably larger primaries with less restriction under the power plennum. Runner lengths remain unchanged but evenly spread and better shaped. Shame the TB is on the opposite side. Worth a tinker with the bandsaw,some CF sleeves and a box of old velocity stacks perhaps.

I currently run UMs "cookie cutter" generic flash for stage 2/cams. Notable improvement over stock, but keen to note and invest in any further developments in the SW callibration. Happy to play guinea pig...