Need help doing vanos test with INPA

[Tomba]

The "dichtheid" / leak test performs OK on these and comes with more data. Still similar jobs being performed

[nextelbuddy]

No problem, glad I could help out.




Seems OK to me. All jobs were performed that are listed. 1. retard endstop 2. Advance endstop 3. Activation speeds & 4. leakage test for both sides (8 in total)




Intake is perfect, the position were 0-60°CR (0-60°CR necessary)
Exhasut same, 0-48°CR (0-45°CR necessary)
Intake speed very good 195-205ms (BMW says that anything below 500ms is good, I would rather take 250ms)
Exhasut speed 152-193ms. Exhaust has less degrees to travel (45 vs 60 on intake) I suspect its fast due to this. Numbers looking perfect.
Both intake and exhaust position are drifted. I am not sure how I would need to understand this. I wouldn't worry about it.
So no issues and good results.

thanks so much man.

just curious why my log appears to be smaller or missing information compared to this other persons in this post

https://nam3forum.com/forums/forum/special-interests/coding-tuning/34304-need-help-doing-vanos-test-with-inpa?p=38153#post38153

they seem to have more data? did they run the test differently or did i miss any of the logs somewhere?

[Tomba]

Thank you so much for the 1 click test solution using Tool32. Was very excited to be able to run a vanos test on my system as a base line before i do a vanos refresh.

No problem, glad I could help out.

One thing i'm confused on is why my log file appears to be shorter than some others that have multiple pages. i did a select all or ctrl A in the log area and grabbed the text but my log file i saved in TXT format doesnt have any other sections after:

apiJob("mss54ds0","STEUERN_AVANOS1_DICHTHEIT",""," ")

Seems OK to me. All jobs were performed that are listed. 1. retard endstop 2. Advance endstop 3. Activation speeds & 4. leakage test for both sides (8 in total)

can someone look at mine and let me know if the values are in spec? Or will i need to rerun the test to get more of the log file that i might be missing?

Intake is perfect, the position were 0-60°CR (0-60°CR necessary)
Exhasut same, 0-48°CR (0-45°CR necessary)
Intake speed very good 195-205ms (BMW says that anything below 500ms is good, I would rather take 250ms)
Exhasut speed 152-193ms. Exhaust has less degrees to travel (45 vs 60 on intake) I suspect its fast due to this. Numbers looking perfect.
Both intake and exhaust position are drifted. I am not sure how I would need to understand this. I wouldn't worry about it.
So no issues and good results.

[nextelbuddy]

Thank you so much for the 1 click test solution using Tool32. Was very excited to be able to run a vanos test on my system as a base line before i do a vanos refresh. One thing i'm confused on is why my log file appears to be shorter than some others that have multiple pages. i did a select all or ctrl A in the log area and grabbed the text but my log file i saved in TXT format doesnt have any other sections after:

apiJob("mss54ds0","STEUERN_AVANOS1_DICHTHEIT",""," ")

can someone look at mine and let me know if the values are in spec? Or will i need to rerun the test to get more of the log file that i might be missing?

[sapote]

I think you are just jumping to answer, read what I said. anti-clockwise motion is capped by the caps (pun intended), clockwise motion is limited by the slots in the sprockets. that's it. the cams will get anywhere between those hard points.

Sorry, but we're talking the timing value during engine running and not during a vanos timing set. The slots in the sprocket are only involved during timing setting and they are useless during dynamic timing change with engine running. As soon as the hub bolted were torqued down, the slots are out of the operation so why they are in the discussion of the advanced angles?

[maupineda]

Max retarded position is limited by the vanos front covers, and the max advanced position (piston moved rearward) has more margin beyond the operating advanced timing and so this end should have no problem of achieving desired angle = actual angle.

59 is the Intake actual retarded (limited by vanos cover) and not when the spline bottomed out on the cam sleeve or the cam shaft.

I think you are just jumping to answer, read what I said. anti-clockwise motion is capped by the caps (pun intended), clockwise motion is limited by the slots in the sprockets. that's it. the cams will get anywhere between those hard points.

[sapote]

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.

Max retarded position is limited by the vanos front covers, and the max advanced position (piston moved rearward) has more margin beyond the operating advanced timing and so this end should have no problem of achieving desired angle = actual angle.

59 is the Intake actual retarded (limited by vanos cover) and not when the spline bottomed out on the cam sleeve or the cam shaft.

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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]

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!

[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!

[Tomba]

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

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.