I can't get it over 20 mph like this, and I think it has to do with the load vs rpm table.
The load signal is tapped off the electronic pedal, varies from .4 V at zero throttle to 2.1V at max.
I don't have a tach signal connected.
1. Will no tach signal prevent proper operation?
2. What's the right way to adjust scaling of the pedal signal?
3. What's a good way to approach the load table for a diesel? Pedal position directly controls fueling, and correlates pretty well to load independent of MAP. I turned down the load smoothing as a start.
I tried your msq on my bench, and have no issues getting over 20 mph, so the problem isn't the code directly.
Yes, it could, depending on your settings. However, make sure your are using 'MAP + Speed' for your load table (you are in your posted msq) rather than 'Tach + Load' (which won't work without a tach signal, obviously). Also make sure you have 'Do not enforce RPM checks' enabled (you do). I would also set the 'Error Behavior -> On Error' to 'Ignore Errors' at least for now. You will also want to set up the TPS Load table so that all the columns are the same. If this was mine I would make the table with the load values equal to the TPS values, like this:Will no tach signal prevent proper operation?
I suppose you could put in a 0 rpm bin for the first column (instead of 500 rpm).
There is more on this here:
This is covered here: http://www.msgpio.com/manuals/mshift/V5tune.html#olWhat's the right way to adjust scaling of the pedal signal?
The best way is to experiment, and find what works for you and your vehicle. TPS shouldn't be a problem at all, and it always takes some fiddling to get the table right (and there are usually some tuning 'blind alleys' that have to be dealt with. But more than anything it takes time and some careful thought. There is more detailed advice here: http://www.msgpio.com/manuals/mshift/tuning.htmlWhat's a good way to approach the load table for a diesel?
I don't have gauges yet so I read the tach off serial/CAN from the VW ECM - I was able to hold 3 speeds (2000, 3000, 3800), and saw that vss was consistently off by about 2.5. Change the 4WD correction factor to 1, and it works great. I probably should have thought that out sooner, but I was set in thinking I would use the 4WD factor to correct speedo scaling when in 4WD low. Which isn't necessary, but nice to have.
Before the 4WD factor fix
Here's my next round of questions:
4. If I build up VR3 as in the last paragraph on this page, will that work for reading a 0-2.5V tone?
5. Do you see any issues with the above scheme for VSS & Tach? The VW EDC15 is expecting a 0-5V signal where Hz= speed in km/hr. In the Jetta/Golf setup, the Instrument cluster would read the VSS, apply conditioning and scaling, then send to the ECM. I know the 0-5V signal works because I can do it bit banging an Arduino. I would have the Arduino read the speedo signal from the Mshift, but the ECM needs road speed to make all the OBDII features work.
6. Give above scheme, do you recommend building the PWM4 circuit per the instructions or doing anything different?
mcneil,4. If I build up VR3 as in the last paragraph on this page, will that work for reading a 0-2.5V tone?
That should work. Building it as a VR circuit should work too. So you could do it either way; if it was mine I would build the digital input as it's a simpler build without the closely spaced transistor leads.
I don't see any obvious issues at first glance. However, I am not sure what sort of output frequencies you will need, and the scaling will need to be appropriate. There is more here:5. Do you see any issues with the above scheme for VSS & Tach?
and a speedo output ratio calculator here:
The standard build should be fine for this usage.6. Give above scheme, do you recommend building the PWM4 circuit per the instructions or doing anything different?
Here is 5.104ti test code that multiplies the 2pt line pressure by 100 (it changes a "/10" to "*10" on one line of the 2pt calcs):
I have a bad cold right now, and between that and what I am taking for it, my head isn't all that clear (well, actually it rarely is, but it's especially impaired at the moment!). So I don't want to try anything too drastic in the code is this state. If you wanted to try this code and see if it helps, that would narrow the issue down a lot.
I misread your post. I just realized that it is the regular line pressures that are 100x too small, and the 2pt calcs are okay (assuming I am now correctly following what you have said). So don't use the code posted above.
Instead, try this if you like as it seems to work on my bench:
I think the code above might work for you, but I think it will mess up people that are using metric (Bar) pressure units. So this code should work for both (I think...):
It requires a new INI (for the change to 5.105 code signature, and also adjustments in the INI for the line pressure scaling):