Rennlist

DME Parameters Setpoints

Add to repair workspace

New repair projectOpen repair workspace

Original source

6 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis

THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW

Discussion summary

YOUR RESEARCHDME Parameters Setpoints

Leading reported evidence

Run numbers be

Suggestion or failed attempt

No successful repair reported for this finding.

0
Reported fixes: 0
Unsuccessful attempts: 1
Discussions

Read evidence and context

Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.

Discussions that contain suggestions: 1

0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.

0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.

Suggestion · Original poster
What would be normal Rough Running numbers be.
Original post Read captured discussion
DME Parameters Setpoints

Read full discussion summary

Leading evidence: 'Run numbers be' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Run numbers be' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.

Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.

Read captured replies

1 matching discussions · 6 captured posts examined · 0 partial discussions

Compare 1 other evidence results

Run threshold = 8.89

Suggestion or failed attempt

No successful repair reported for this finding.

0
Reported fixes: 0
Unsuccessful attempts: 1
Discussions

Read evidence and context

Discussions that contain suggestions: 1

0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.

0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.

Suggestion · Original poster
Rough running threshold = 8.89
Original post Read captured discussion
DME Parameters Setpoints

Frequently discussed actions (2)

These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.

Run numbers be

No successful repair reported for this finding.

0
Reported fixes: 0
Unsuccessful attempts: 1
Discussions

Read evidence and context

Discussions that contain suggestions: 1

0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.

0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.

Suggestion · Original poster
What would be normal Rough Running numbers be.
Original post Read captured discussion
DME Parameters Setpoints

Run threshold = 8.89

No successful repair reported for this finding.

0
Reported fixes: 0
Unsuccessful attempts: 1
Discussions

Read evidence and context

Discussions that contain suggestions: 1

0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.

0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.

Suggestion · Original poster
Rough running threshold = 8.89
Original post Read captured discussion
DME Parameters Setpoints

Coverage and how to read this overview

Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.

6 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.

Rennlist: 1 discussions

0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.

0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.

Generation: 20261026T163944Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources

POST 1 / ORIGINAL POSTEROriginal post

The copy of the Workshop Manual I have, some of the DME diagnostic pages aren�t clear. Below are some of the parameters that seem to be out of spec, up to temp @ 680 RPM, can anyone help. Thank you in advance. 03/98 1999 996 manual coupe 34,000 miles Spec air mass = 14 kg/h Spec air adaptation = -1 kg/h Injection time = 2.3 ms FRA 1-3 = 0.95 FRA 4-6 = 0.93 TRA 1-3 = -0.18 TRS 4-6 = -0.14 Rough running threshold = 8.89 Rough running. ? = 0.81 Segment (A) = 0.5518 Segment (B) = 0.5519

POST 2Original post

All those numbers look pretty good. What do u think is out of spec?

POST 3 / ORIGINAL POSTEROriginal post

De Jeeper, thanks for the reply. I was worried about the readings compared to DME Setpoints sheet and what they may indicate: Spec air mass 17 +/-1.0 mine 14 Spec air adaption 3.0 +/-1.0 mine -1 Injection timing 3.0 +/-0.04 mine 2.3 What would be normal Rough Running numbers be. Would you possibly have a clear printout of DME Setpoints.

POST 4Original post

Well the goid news is tour fuel trims r good. I always though 14 was a good number for the mass air. U may want to research that outside of the durametric. not sure on the other 2 values or what they actually represent.

POST 5Original post

@OP here are slightly different numbers than you're quoting. For instance 17 +/-2.5 not +/-1

POST 6 / ORIGINAL POSTEROriginal post

@ Hardtailer, thank you very much.

This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.