E39 540i Me7.2 DME Tuning shenanigans and findings

[zarboz]

I just double check it and there is different number for manual. So I'd flash the manual software. If it was inside the car then I would code it with NCS. If you'de like I can check the coding of the ecu on my car to see if there are values that should be coded to manual.

he should be able to use the same zusb number your dme uses if his car is same year

only things that changed were the LDP converted to DMTL converted to DMTLH over the years and that is an emissions system

not sure of that impact outside of USA

[Spirit Force]

he should be able to use the same zusb number your dme uses if his car is same year

only things that changed were the LDP converted to DMTL converted to DMTLH over the years and that is an emissions system

not sure of that impact outside of USA

My is automatic, so I'd use the manual ZB. There might be some difference between the manual and automatic. Since it's a project e36 I'd probably just use the best defined ZB to make it easier to tune.

[zarboz]

My is automatic, so I'd use the manual ZB. There might be some difference between the manual and automatic. Since it's a project e36 I'd probably just use the best defined ZB to make it easier to tune.

yah there is CWSTA which changes the starter interaction value based on manual and automatic cars but i havent found any other useful differences that i can form into a patch yet :\

[tmaxx445]

Anyone have any ideas what it would take to kill catalyst efficiency codes?

[purplecty]

Anyone have any ideas what it would take to kill catalyst efficiency codes?

A couple of these 90 degree anti foulers...

http://www.bigdaddiesgarage.com/angled-cel-fix.html

[zarboz]

Anyone have any ideas what it would take to kill catalyst efficiency codes?

CDHSH
CDHSV
CDSLA
CDSLH
CDSLV
CWDKAT
CLAKAT


Just 00 those out

All but CLAKAT are in project configuration

CLAKAT is in error Class > Exhuast

[tmaxx445]

CDHSH
CDHSV
CDSLA
CDSLH
CDSLV
CWDKAT
CLAKAT


Just 00 those out

All but CLAKAT are in project configuration

CLAKAT is in error Class > Exhuast

"CDSLA
CDSLH
CDSLV"

or

"CDLSA
CDLSH
CDLSV"


I didnt see the former at all

[tmaxx445]

Additionally "CLAKAT" was set to 0 in the stock program file, however "CLAKAT2" is was set to 36. Should that be zero'ed out also?

[zarboz]

Additionally "CLAKAT" was set to 0 in the stock program file, however "CLAKAT2" is was set to 36. Should that be zero'ed out also?

Yah CLA**** is the PID of the error code a scanner would catch

CWD is usually the codeword trigger to set the item

in MOST use cases you dont need to silence the PID of the error code because just telling the codeword to be off is enough

I was giving you everything possible to set to 00


long story short CLA hex numbers will correspond with a region of memory to throw an error for

meaning most of the CAT errors probably toggle error zone 36


so to silence the check engine light JUST IN CASE we 00 out the CLA items


"CDSLA >>>>> Codeword lambda probe aging diagnostics config byte
CDSLH >>>> Codeword probe diagnoses behind Kat in obd2 mode
CDSLV" >>>> codeword probe before CAT in obd2 mode



Those ones have the name in the description box instead of the title box they are all in system configuration hover your mouse over them to get the descriptions


Let me know if that gets you where you're trying to head with silencing the cat MIL error

[tmaxx445]

So after some experimenting today it looks like toggling "CWDKAT" from 01 to 00 is all than needs to be done to nuke the cat efficiency codes, nothing else. The readiness check reads as "Not Supported" with this tweak. I will update this thread in the coming days as I accumulate a few drive cycles with the change and report back.

[zarboz]

So after some experimenting today it looks like toggling "CWDKAT" from 01 to 00 is all than needs to be done to nuke the cat efficiency codes, nothing else. The readiness check reads as "Not Supported" with this tweak. I will update this thread in the coming days as I accumulate a few drive cycles with the change and report back.

Good deal I will make a note of this too in the xdf files

[tmaxx445]

Everything seems good to go with the catalyst efficiency tweak (CWKAT set to 00). It should be noted that all four of my 02s are still in place and functioning as well as the SAI hardware. I just wanted to shut up the occasional complaint I was getting with the high flow cats and this seems to have done the trick.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MotorMouth93]

The only issue I see here is that every car sold in the US since OBD2 started has catalytic converters fitted, and that screen right there tells everyone looking at it that you've, at minimum, messed with your DMEs emissions control systems and might inspire them to go searching further.

If your high flow cats are just throwing codes intermittently it might be better to just tweak the parameters the DME uses to determine what counts as "below efficiency" so you keep the emissions monitors on.

[tmaxx445]

The only issue I see here is that every car sold in the US since OBD2 started has catalytic converters fitted, and that screen right there tells everyone looking at it that you've, at minimum, messed with your ECUs emissions control systems and might inspire them to go searching further. That requires the guy doing the testing to care though, and most don't.

Aggred, it’s not ideal but it’s something I’m willing to roll the dice on given the circumstances. But you are absolutely right that anyone paying attention could catch that very easily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zarboz]

Untitled77.png

just an update to where I left things on romraider....

[zarboz]

Just 540 ecu that I try to understand and it should go to e36. Don't know if it's the same thing as with siemens ecu's that the ecu works just fine in manual car too, but you only get the EGS error codes, if the ecu coding/configuration is automatic.

the v8 has comfort start in the automatic that uses the EWS module to trigger the starter relay as where manual starter is triggered via the 12v hot from ignition closing.

So you can flip the bit for CWSTA which is the comfort start bit or you can flash the manual WinKFP to the DME

[zarboz]

It's kinda quiet here, everybody stopped tinkering for the winter? I've been doing some tinkering and now the start seems to fine (atleast to 32F that's the coldest I've fired her up yet). Now idle is a bit bad for a moment. Based on the funktionrahmen I'm going to test out adjusting KFFWL. KFFWL seems to be a bit off on in XDF's. In my XDF it seems was with wrong offset. Fixed that (hopefully) based on the 4.4 damos. Anyways anyone got any experience how much does it need adjusting for E85? On audi forums (I know different ecu), people are talking about 10-30%. I decided to try 20%.

From a fellow who has placed larger injectors in his 540 (we're prepping for forced induction)

When you place new injectors into your vehicle it is VERY important to alter the following items:
TUVB -> Correction based on voltage table Min Injection time
Then you use KRKTE to fine tune the flow of fuel
So First: Set min injector time, and injector correction based on voltage. (Usually this is on a datasheet included with injectors if not you can easily google this) Those values are to the nearest volt, and our cars have it in the ecu to 3 decimal places so I corrected the values for the voltage numbers in the 540
For example 0.4@12v would be 0.4/12v* 11.989 = injector correction on 540 Krkte needs to be roughly calculated based on % of increase/decrease of injector time, for example stock injector is 216cc at 3 bar, and green giants is 410cc at 3 bar.
So in this instance: 216/410 is .52... so krkte .52 Krkte-(Krkte0.52) = approx krkte.
After this clear adaptations, drive around highway for 20 mins, LTFT will start averaging out on + or -... go park the car and at idle turn all accessories off. Check the fuel trims, the long term fuel trim needs to be converted to a decimal. And multiplied by your current approximate KRKTE. LTFT * KRKTE = the amount to add or subtract from KRKTE to make it near 0 correction. Since we have the dead times figured out by someone else it makes things ezpz for us. Those are all viable choices. If you don’t do an approximate KRKTE and try starting with only the minimum injector time, and voltage corrections submitted, you WILL flood the engine like I did. Negative LTFT means injectors are injecting too much fuel, positive means ecu wants more fuel. I will be keeping mine at about LTFT -5% so when I’m at wot and the car goes lean the ecu has extra room to correct with more injection time since it only corrects so far.

[mexanik066]

I have an OLS file i can convert into a tunerpro file for you

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1p4...6iPUiCj2if2_nP

Here is the OLS converted to a XDF marked me52.xdf

and then there is an XDF I have that does open in the new tuner pro

It is still in german but its useful :"D

Could you help me with xdf file for me5.2 ?

[zarboz]

look at my github I already produced it and shared it with the fellow whom i was replying to

[jhelgesen]

Looking for options here.

I have a e36 with a m62tu44 and eaton m112. I WAS attempting to use a MAXXECU from Sweden, but in the process of tuning today it let the smoke out.

Thinking of going back to a stock wire harness and tune a me72 to work. How difficult would it be to program the ecu for this setup? Delete ews, tune for bigger injectors, etc? This is a street/track car, no drift boi stuff.

Thanks
John H

[zarboz]

Shoot me PM I would be glad to help point you in the right direction,

These are all easily accomplished on stock DME

Currently one of the dev members has his 540i running on 440cc injectors daily driving with 0% LTFT (long term fuel trim)

meaning the injectors are working as expected

Looking for options here.

I have a e36 with a m62tu44 and eaton m112. I WAS attempting to use a MAXXECU from Sweden, but in the process of tuning today it let the smoke out.

Thinking of going back to a stock wire harness and tune a me72 to work. How difficult would it be to program the ecu for this setup? Delete ews, tune for bigger injectors, etc? This is a street/track car, no drift boi stuff.

Thanks
John H

[Spirit Force]

From a fellow who has placed larger injectors in his 540 (we're prepping for forced induction)

When you place new injectors into your vehicle it is VERY important to alter the following items:
TUVB -> Correction based on voltage table Min Injection time
Then you use KRKTE to fine tune the flow of fuel
So First: Set min injector time, and injector correction based on voltage. (Usually this is on a datasheet included with injectors if not you can easily google this) Those values are to the nearest volt, and our cars have it in the ecu to 3 decimal places so I corrected the values for the voltage numbers in the 540
For example 0.4@12v would be 0.4/12v* 11.989 = injector correction on 540 Krkte needs to be roughly calculated based on % of increase/decrease of injector time, for example stock injector is 216cc at 3 bar, and green giants is 410cc at 3 bar.
So in this instance: 216/410 is .52... so krkte .52 Krkte-(Krkte0.52) = approx krkte.
After this clear adaptations, drive around highway for 20 mins, LTFT will start averaging out on + or -... go park the car and at idle turn all accessories off. Check the fuel trims, the long term fuel trim needs to be converted to a decimal. And multiplied by your current approximate KRKTE. LTFT * KRKTE = the amount to add or subtract from KRKTE to make it near 0 correction. Since we have the dead times figured out by someone else it makes things ezpz for us. Those are all viable choices. If you don’t do an approximate KRKTE and try starting with only the minimum injector time, and voltage corrections submitted, you WILL flood the engine like I did. Negative LTFT means injectors are injecting too much fuel, positive means ecu wants more fuel. I will be keeping mine at about LTFT -5% so when I’m at wot and the car goes lean the ecu has extra room to correct with more injection time since it only corrects so far.

The car is running fine, just needed some fuel added for after start for cold weather (ethanol in e85 won't vaporize properly during a real cold start). Only issue I've got is that sometimes when the engine is half warm and been sitting for some time it takes few secs to start. I'm sure it gets either too little or too much fuel. This is quite rare so haven't put much thought into it. If fires up each time so not a huge issue.

[Spirit Force]

Anyone know how to disable the catalyst heating? Catalyst heating retards the timing, which ain't good, specially when running E85 in cold conditions.

[zarboz]

Anyone know how to disable the catalyst heating? Catalyst heating retards the timing, which ain't good, specially when running E85 in cold conditions.

CDHSV I believe it is in project config and CDHSH
Codeword heater diagnosis behind cat


also under exhaust>sap

you can set FKHABMN and CWKHMD == 0

set the whole table of BTRKHTMS = 0
and then change CWKHZ == 0

[Spirit Force]

CDHSV I believe it is in project config and CDHSH
Codeword heater diagnosis behind cat


also under exhaust>sap

you can set FKHABMN and CWKHMD == 0

set the whole table of BTRKHTMS = 0
and then change CWKHZ == 0

Thanks, I'll test it when I get the time do some more testing. The coldest I've started without preheating was -15°C (5°F). Started right up and idled fine. Looking also to advance the ignition for startup/warmup. The KFZWWLNM is defined, but not sure is it correct. The entire table has value of -0.750 in each cell, which makes me wonder can it be right. FZWSTNM wasn't defined in the xdf. Based on the 4.4 damos floating around I defined FZWSTTM and KFZWWLTM (correctly I hope). I think I'll make few changes to those while testing disabling the cat heating.