Super stoked to try my car out that has mild slip issues on E40. What are you doing exactly to dial this in? I want to download it tomorrow but without a new DME flash is it even going to work? Ughh
xHP Flashtool: Official Beta Results Thread for 6HP21
- Thread starter doublespaces
- Start date
Super stoked to try my car out that has mild slip issues on E40. What are you doing exactly to dial this in? I want to download it tomorrow but without a new DME flash is it even going to work? Ughh
Definitely seems like it needs some more testing before people have a solid/clear answer. XHP is saying one thing, and other big name tuners are saying another. So its a fu*k story as of right now lol
the tcu doesn't limit torque anymore, for me, there is no more work to do in the tcu flash about this.
TCU torque limiter was inducing postshift timing flatline once in 5th, mainly.
From my tests, torque limit 4 interventions are induced by DME, so it's a DME flash issue.
But as RayBan said, there is no need to raise reported torque higher than what the the engine is actually building.
In fact, it's not even advised, or you'll get bad shifts behaviour.
If your load is around 150, boost is around 16-17 psi, reported torque is already at 600ft.lbs peak (815nm) with my tune, more than enough.
TCU torque limiter was inducing postshift timing flatline once in 5th, mainly.
From my tests, torque limit 4 interventions are induced by DME, so it's a DME flash issue.
But as RayBan said, there is no need to raise reported torque higher than what the the engine is actually building.
In fact, it's not even advised, or you'll get bad shifts behaviour.
If your load is around 150, boost is around 16-17 psi, reported torque is already at 600ft.lbs peak (815nm) with my tune, more than enough.
Thx @WedgePerformance for the Map.
But with this settings and raised Torque eff. divisor (fuel) and over 680 Nm reportet i also get Tq. Lim 4.
@trebila: It's clear why you're not getting Tq. Lim 4, because JB4 is doing the exact same thing as MHD is doing to see more than 22,x PSI boost. It's scaling the boost up. With 180 Load +- you are able to get more then 25 PSI.
If i'm raising the Tq. Output on a scaled MHD Map (25 Peak straight) to 900 Nm, i also get NO Limiter.
But yes, you are right. Normally you don't have to give more Tq. Output to the stock tables.
But the reason i did that, is because my gearbox is getting only 520 Nm of torque while my ECU is calculating over 640 Nm.
And then the limiter kicked in.
We would see that if some more people of the beta would have logged with testo.
But me and you are the only guys here posting logs. It's a little bit sad and for me the beta was kind of a fail. I don't know what RayBan is getting for information via PN. I thought we would all share our findings here.
No one here is testing this on a non scaled mhd map with raised tq output.
That's why no one is getting this limiter. Yes, its true, you don't need it to change.
But if xHP is saying they're able of 1000 Nm without limiter and i'm getting the limiter far underneath 1000 Nm, something is not working out.
And NO ONE has logs of 800 Nm+ Tq. output on a NON SCALED map.
BTW: I flashed stock TCU sw to test the limiter. Guess what. 5. Gear Tq. Lim 4 with pulling timing...
Tq. Lim 4 is NOT an ECU caused Limiter, it's from the gearbox. Safe call.
I'm not testing any further due to lack of response from others.
I'll keep my torque tables stock and i'm done.
But with this settings and raised Torque eff. divisor (fuel) and over 680 Nm reportet i also get Tq. Lim 4.
@trebila: It's clear why you're not getting Tq. Lim 4, because JB4 is doing the exact same thing as MHD is doing to see more than 22,x PSI boost. It's scaling the boost up. With 180 Load +- you are able to get more then 25 PSI.
If i'm raising the Tq. Output on a scaled MHD Map (25 Peak straight) to 900 Nm, i also get NO Limiter.
But yes, you are right. Normally you don't have to give more Tq. Output to the stock tables.
But the reason i did that, is because my gearbox is getting only 520 Nm of torque while my ECU is calculating over 640 Nm.
And then the limiter kicked in.
We would see that if some more people of the beta would have logged with testo.
But me and you are the only guys here posting logs. It's a little bit sad and for me the beta was kind of a fail. I don't know what RayBan is getting for information via PN. I thought we would all share our findings here.
No one here is testing this on a non scaled mhd map with raised tq output.
That's why no one is getting this limiter. Yes, its true, you don't need it to change.
But if xHP is saying they're able of 1000 Nm without limiter and i'm getting the limiter far underneath 1000 Nm, something is not working out.
And NO ONE has logs of 800 Nm+ Tq. output on a NON SCALED map.
BTW: I flashed stock TCU sw to test the limiter. Guess what. 5. Gear Tq. Lim 4 with pulling timing...
Tq. Lim 4 is NOT an ECU caused Limiter, it's from the gearbox. Safe call.
I'm not testing any further due to lack of response from others.
I'll keep my torque tables stock and i'm done.
Last edited:
I suppose that would depend on whether they've extended the TCU line pressure tables or rescaled them to reach the 1000nm ceiling in Stage 3.
If you know your actual NM is @ 500 and the ECU is reporting 600+, reduce your torque eff divisor (fuel) so it matches your actual. Torque limit 4 should go away.
I personally don't see any issues with running 640nm with Alpina, so maybe x-HP needs to clarify why you are getting a torque limit 4 as that is a transmission based limiter.
The reported Nm to the gearbox is @520 Nm.
But i don't think thats the real tq output. I believe more in the ecu calculated torque output @22 PSI (600 Nm+)
Btw: Here is a log with a scaled MHD Map and Tq. Output set to 700 Nm. No Tq. Lim. (xHP Stage 3 V1_1)
I'll raise the Tq. Output at midrange to 800 Nm. Shifts are very nice =)
@RayBan: Today i made a lot of testing regarding the downshift assist while braking in D mode. For my feeling it shifts down to fast at low braking input. The treshold should be set to more act. brake pressure. It's kind of weird when i'm taking the exit at the autobahn and the car instantly shifts 2 gears down with a little bit more brake pressure. Then when i release the brake it shifts instantly back.
But i don't think thats the real tq output. I believe more in the ecu calculated torque output @22 PSI (600 Nm+)
Btw: Here is a log with a scaled MHD Map and Tq. Output set to 700 Nm. No Tq. Lim. (xHP Stage 3 V1_1)
I'll raise the Tq. Output at midrange to 800 Nm. Shifts are very nice =)
@RayBan: Today i made a lot of testing regarding the downshift assist while braking in D mode. For my feeling it shifts down to fast at low braking input. The treshold should be set to more act. brake pressure. It's kind of weird when i'm taking the exit at the autobahn and the car instantly shifts 2 gears down with a little bit more brake pressure. Then when i release the brake it shifts instantly back.
Last edited:
Just to clarify, Torque Actual has nothing to do with the power your making. It's a calculated value based on Load To Torque tables which are RPM / Load / Torque Eff Divisor (Fuel).
I'm sure you're already aware of this, but just want everyone to know the ECU/TCU has no dynamometer that calculates torque actual.
With that said, you should be able to make that value anything you want. If you get a torque limit 4 then it is more than likely a TCU flash issue that is causing it. Hopefully x-HP can provide clarification.
Yep, you're right 
I already asked some of my mapping collegues to do some tests to clarify it's not my car that is responsible for that.
But for me it's clear that it's the tq lim from the tcu acting here. Because i get the exact same behaviour with stock tcu flash. Tq. Lim 4 pulling timing in 5th gear. With the alpina flash i didn't have any issues. But i left the l2t and tq eff divisor stock. I had no need to change them. I even now don't have any need to change them. xHP is running fine with stock tq output. I'm just testing the tq. lim.
But i think more informations will come soon when my collegues are going to test this.
I already asked some of my mapping collegues to do some tests to clarify it's not my car that is responsible for that.
But for me it's clear that it's the tq lim from the tcu acting here. Because i get the exact same behaviour with stock tcu flash. Tq. Lim 4 pulling timing in 5th gear. With the alpina flash i didn't have any issues. But i left the l2t and tq eff divisor stock. I had no need to change them. I even now don't have any need to change them. xHP is running fine with stock tq output. I'm just testing the tq. lim.
But i think more informations will come soon when my collegues are going to test this.
Last edited:
Yep, you're right
I already asked some of my mapping collegues to do some tests to clarify it's not my car that is responsible for that.
But for me it's clear that it's the tq lim from the tcu acting here. Because i get the exact same behaviour with stock tcu flash. Tq. Lim 4 pulling timing in 5th gear. With the alpina flash i didn't have any issues. But i left the l2t and tq eff divisor stock. I had no need to change them. I even now don't have any need to change them. xHP is running fine with stock tq output. I'm just testing the tq. lim.
But i think more informations will come soon when my collegues are going to test this.
you compare oranges to apples.
How can you say it's a TCU torque limiter, when switching with stock TCU flash doesn't change anything ?
I'd say it's a DME flash issue. that'd make more sense.
How can you say it's a TCU torque limiter when switching with alpina trans flash, AND editing torques tables in the DME flash fix the torque limiter issue ?
have you tried with your changes in the DME flash for Alpina, and the stage 3 xHP TCU tune ??
No, we can't raise the L2T as we want.
from my understanding, the DME has a torque reference (I suppose load based, as L2T table, but for target torque, not actual torque), and systematically compare target torque with internal virtual actual torque (uncorrected).
raising L2T too high induce torque limiter 4 intervention, because virtual actual torque (uncorrected) now exceed the target torque, ,but you can't see it in the logs as the torque limiter reduce timing, and lead to an final actual torque below the target torque.
so actual torque will always follow the target torque curve, as it's always a torque limiter corrected value.
you don't get it: to calculate the actual torque, the DME doesn't need to know the real boost, only the boost reported by the tmap sensor to the DME.
actual boost -> actual load -> actual torque
if the DME see only 20 psi whereas turbos actually boost at 30 psi, it doesn't matter, 20 psi -> load of 200 approx -> Torque of XXX nm according to L2T table and various reduction factors.
in your logs, actual load decrease to 150 up top because your turbos are not strong enough to reach boost targets (you target a load of 180 up top).
raising L2T values to report 900nm instead of 580nm with a load of 150 only will induce torque limiter 4 because internal uncorrected actual torque value exceed target torque at load 150, which shouldn't be far from 600nm (it's an example).
if you could reach 21 psi up top, on stock L2T tables, actual load would be closer from 210 instead of 150, and you'd report 800-900 nm without any torque limiter, because requested torque will raise too with load = 210.
reporting way higher actual torque than stock L2T is useless, except if you want a rough upshift.
"This is a already known "bug". xHP reads your TCU coding and then stores it at the end of the backup. But on TCU's that are not coded, it complains about the file beeing empty. If you retrieve your error codes, you will prolly see one "not coded" Error on the TCU. The quickfix is to code your TCU with NCS Expert, the longer fix is to wait a few days until we have the next app version out."
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpost.php?p=21495257&postcount=451
I really don't want to change torque eff divisor (fuel) and don't understand why I'd have to. It helps torque to be reported more accurately because AFR does directly affect torque output and this table is a result of real engine dyno testing of torque vs. AFR.
I guess that's what one of the torque offset tables in the DME are for - how far reported torque is allowed to differ from what it roughly expects before corrections etc. Any insight in to which table(s) you modified that made you stop getting a torque limiter?
I do think that people that run higher real boost than what the DME thinks should run higher values in the L2T tables to better reflect their higher real torque output as a result of the higher actual boost than what the DME thinks.
I was told that there is an issue when the communication with the CAS is messed up, so it won't let you proceed because of a problem related to the xenons being on.
