Need help doing vanos test with INPA

[Tomba]

Thanks Tomba. I appreciate you putting the test file together as that kind of stuff goes way over my head. Nice to have a simple point and click way to do multiple vanos tests. My test is attached below. I still don't really understand the dichtheit test. If, as heinzboehmer suggests, the okay doesn't refer to a pass or fail determination I'm wondering how do you make that determination. Using Tomba's tst file my test indicated, using google translate, that the unit drifted away prematurely for both the intake and exhaust test. Does that mean the vanos actually failed the leak test? When I did the individual dichtheit test it showed my intake had a 4 degree change from the setpoint to the actual value and the exhaust had a 1 degree difference. I guess ideally the setpoint and actual values would be the same but at what point does the difference become a problem and what would that problem be?

Those numbers are perfect. It reached the right end stops and your activation speed is also within specification.

I have added an educational pdf file for BMW VANOS systems to this post. Take a moment to read it as this might clear up your question. Especially if you look the at the hydraulic diagrams.
For instance, on page 46 you can see the hydraulic system of the S50B32 engine. OK not an S54 but hydraulic wise I don't expect much differences.
You can see that the piston to move the shaft has 2 diameter. A small area which is pressurized all the time and the big area that is controlled by 2 valves. Instead off routing the oil fluid from 1 to another side the choice is to release oil or add oil on the bigger side.
Since the "controlled" side is bigger more force will be applied against the other side.

I suspect that the "dichtheid" test sets the camshaft to 1 position and doesn't actuate the control solenoids for a certain amount of time. If you look at the hydraulic diagram no fluid should escape and the position should be maintained under ideal conditions. It might be possible that the seal(s) within the shaft/piston are not sealing perfectly causing oil to escape from one to another "chamber". Another option is that one of the solenoids is not perfectly closed. If you look at the solenoids in the S62 engine (E39 M5) these have filters around them. They tend to break by time and the debris of the filter can get stuck in the solenoid. This will continuously feed oil or release oil fluid. With the "dichtheid" test this can be checked.

For your test, did you do it with hot or cold oil? Cold oil can "seal" more as it is thicker. In your case you could opt to replace the sealing(s) around the shaft(s). I believe this is the easiest. If this doesn't solve the issue one or more solenoids might not seal properly. The S54 has a solenoids block. You can remove it and ultrasonic clean it while "activating" the solenoids with a magnet. I personally wouldn't care to much with the "dichtheid" test as long as the activation time is within <300ms. But if you want to test to pass you could do the things I mentioned.

Hope this clears things a bit up

[avusblue]

I just ran the test, can someone help me check the results, if it passes the standard or not?

[maupineda]

^^ those results are fine.

what I did not see are the leak test values. I don’t remember the name of the job, but in this forum there are posted the different jobs including the leak test

[avusblue]

^^ those results are fine.

what I did not see are the leak test values. I don’t remember the name of the job, but in this forum there are posted the different jobs including the leak test

I appreciate it, the car seemed to run great and I'm glad I don't have to mess with the timing again.

[BimmerFan85]

I know this thread is a little old, but would someone be able to give some feedback on these values? It seems my VANOS is a bit slow to adjust on both intake and exhaust. I just finished the entire seals, disk and rattle kit preventative maintenance a couple of days ago. I haven't driven the car yet, just testing in the garage.

Any insight is appreciated.

[Tomba]

It’s indeed slow. Try to drive it for a while and repeat the test.

[BimmerFan85]

Sounds good - from what I understand from the results, the cam timing values themselves are OK though, correct?

[BimmerFan85]

Went out for about a 5 mile drive and got up to about 6.5K RPMs on a few occasions. Took some readings and looks like I'm within spec. Whew!

I'll re-do the VANOS tests and post results after a long drive.

[Tomba]

Sounds good - from what I understand from the results, the cam timing values themselves are OK though, correct?

Correct👍

[tupawk]

Tomba Thank you for all the information and the test file in this thread. I ran the test on a new to me M3 and got the attached results. I think If I am interpreting things right that my timings seem to be ok. I am not sure how to interpret the EVAN/AVAN _ISTWERT and SOLLWERT numbers though. Do mine look ok to you? Thanks again for any help, its really appreciated!

[tupawk]

I read through the thread again and I think if I understand things correctly the desired readings are:

Inlet: 60 degrees.
Exhaust: 45 degrees

And the test requests a value much higher to see if it will go out of alignment? So in my case on the inlet side the test asked for 75 degrees but it only reached 59. Only 1 degree off from spec so it is ok. On the exhaust side it asked for 55 degrees and it reached 48. This is 3 degrees off from spec. Do you think that is still ok or something to investigate further?

Thanks!

Tomba Thank you for all the information and the test file in this thread. I ran the test on a new to me M3 and got the attached results. I think If I am interpreting things right that my timings seem to be ok. I am not sure how to interpret the EVAN/AVAN _ISTWERT and SOLLWERT numbers though. Do mine look ok to you? Thanks again for any help, its really appreciated!

[Tomba]

Looks perfect. It sets a higher / lowered desired setpoint to make sure it’s hitting the end stops. It is possible that it runs a bit over the spec, 0-45 -> 0-48 in yours.
59 degrees is fine.

[tupawk]

Looks perfect. It sets a higher / lowered desired setpoint to make sure it’s hitting the end stops. It is possible that it runs a bit over the spec, 0-45 -> 0-48 in yours.
59 degrees is fine.

Tomba thanks again for an awesome thread and help!

[sapote]

I read through the thread again and I think if I understand things correctly the desired readings are:

Inlet: 60 degrees.
Exhaust: 45 degrees

And the test requests a value much higher to see if it will go out of alignment? So in my case on the inlet side the test asked for 75 degrees but it only reached 59. Only 1 degree off from spec so it is ok. On the exhaust side it asked for 55 degrees and it reached 48. This is 3 degrees off from spec. Do you think that is still ok or something to investigate further?
Thanks!

In this test, the perfect "score" for Intake should be 0 (advanced) and 60 (retarded) , and Exhaust should be 0 (advanced) and 48 (retarded) , not 45.
For whatever the reason, the test wanted to move the EX cam through 48 deg and not 45 as in the "General VANOS" document.

As you can tell for a few test results posted by other people, that the command (desired) value is 55 and the actual value is 48 (reading from cam sensor and crank sensor).

Btw, I expect to see the actual value has more error at the retarded end and not the advanced end. Why? The retarded end is limited by the piston cover -- a hard wall -- while the advanced end has no hard wall, so why the DME did not nudge the piston to get to 60 (or 48) instead of stopping at 59? Maybe 59 is good enough (within the acceptable range) and DME software doesn't need to waste more time and energy to get it perfect. But so far I haven't seen an error at the retarded end (value 0) from a few test reports.

I also don't know why the desired value is -10 to get actual 0, or 55 instead of 48, or 75 instead of 60. This is a closed-loop control system (using cam sensors as feedback data), so why the it needs to command an overshoot desired target?

[maupineda]

Btw, I expect to see the actual value has more error at the retarded end and not the advanced end. Why? The retarded end is limited by the piston cover -- a hard wall -- while the advanced end has no hard wall, so why the DME did not nudge the piston to get to 60 (or 48) instead of stopping at 59? Maybe 59 is good enough (within the acceptable range) and DME software doesn't need to waste more time and energy to get it perfect. But so far I haven't seen an error at the retarded end (value 0) from a few test reports.

I also don't know why the desired value is -10 to get actual 0, or 55 instead of 48, or 75 instead of 60. This is a closed-loop control system (using cam sensors as feedback data), so why the it needs to command an overshoot desired target?

though there is not a wall on the inward motion of the spline, there is a hard stop, and that is the slot on the cam sprockets, that is the physical limit, and if the timing was off a bit 59 was as much as it could get.

about your question on the logic, is a very good one for the engineer who made the logic, though it makes perfect sense to me. Go past the limit and see where it gets to, it just works and takes no more/less time to the DME. Besides you will ser how off you are.