TDStuart Tuning Adventure

[GregO]

Ford doesn’t call for anything special

Ford doesn’t call for anything special when using Ford OEM spec’ed components. You’ve changed several camshaft related parts with non OEM and the heads are shorter than stock from machining.
How much material did the head shop remove from the gasket surface attempting to make the heads flat again ?

Sponsored

 

[markmurfie]

Added it to both these logs. Forgot to add the actual MAP to the first so added it to the second. let me know if you need a longer log with MAP.

They look pretty close to me for these low airmass loads. I believe it's hitting the IPC pressure MAP max for the given load and limiting it. You might need to set that table to 32 inHg until we have a better idea of where the MAP max in the IPC should be. Just moving all the IPC stuff out of your way while you figure out where things are going to fall will help you from hitting these limits while trying to tune this combo.

The Independant Plausibility Check (IPC) is a system for checking that operating parameters are falling with in a plausible min and max limit. when out side that limit the ECU can step in and perform actions like shutting the throttle or going into limp home mode, ect.

comparing them directly

.

Compared using desired cylinder airmass values.

It might even just be the learned Barometric pressure being set to max/min of 30 that is creating this difference now.

 

[tdstuart]

Ford doesn’t call for anything special when using Ford OEM spec’ed components. You’ve changed several camshaft related parts with non OEM and the heads are shorter than stock from machining.
How much material did the head shop remove from the gasket surface attempting to make the heads flat again ?

I think they removed like 10 thou to get to 12:1 CR.

And again I’m just not sure how you physically degree these cams with vct. The cams fit into the phasers one way, the phasers are positioned an exact way by the timing chains. Not sure how you make any adjustment in that system.

Have you seen how the cams are installed?

 

[markmurfie]

Make these three tables appropriate values that will not limit MAP or TQ.


Example minimmum torque can be set to 50nm, maximum can be 800 nm, and MAP can all just be 64inHg.

 

[GregO]

And again I’m just not sure how you physically degree these cams with vct. The cams fit into the phasers one way, the phasers are positioned an exact way by the timing chains. Not sure how you make any adjustment in that system.

Have you seen how the cams are installed?

There have been talk of some gears not having the key way cut properly, doing this will catch it.

Hopefully you physically verified the aftermarket steel crank sprocket keyway is located exactly as the OEM powdered metal sprocket in relationship to the drive teeth.

You mentioned in a prior post you hurt the motor. So tell us, what’s hurt ?

 

[tdstuart]

Hopefully you physically verified the aftermarket steel crank sprocket keyway is located exactly as the OEM powdered metal sprocket in relationship to the drive teeth.

You mentioned in a prior post you hurt the motor. So tell us, what’s hurt ?

The new motor is the exact same setup as the old one. On the same tune from Lund. The new motor ran good and logs looked good, the only thing was at wot it was slower. Load was lower. 60-130 times were about a second slower.

Only thing I can think is the motor isn't happy for some reason since it was on the exact same tune and the same motor setup.

But again car drove fine and Lund said the logs looked good, car was just slower. So I don't think it will affect me tuning the car. Part of the reason for tuning it myself was to verify if there were no issues you could see in the logs.

 

[tdstuart]

Make these three tables appropriate values that will not limit MAP or TQ.


Example minimmum torque can be set to 50nm, maximum can be 800 nm, and MAP can all just be 64inHg.

Updated those and still feeling like the car is limiting. Maybe its an issue with the cam angles themselves? Going to try and switch to a different MP and see what happens.

Here are logs. The Test 6 has throttle angle included and doesnt look like the car is keeping the throttle blade closed or anything.

Edit: Attached the logs

 

[tdstuart]

Changed it from MP 5 to MP 20 and the car feels way better. I wonder if the cam angles for MP5 just arent good for making any power so the car just feels really slow even at moderate loads and rpm.

Log attached

 

[engineermike]

@tdstuart how well does the desired airflow match the maf?

 

[tdstuart]

@tdstuart how well does the desired airflow match the maf?

Some times its close sometimes its not close at all haha. For both the MP5 and MP20 testing

 

[engineermike]

Ok you’re going to go around in circles until you pick a mapped point and a methodology to work on. Your goal is to mod the sd model until the maf matches desired airflow. I don’t care if you follow my instructions or markmurfies, but you need to pick one and apply it to ONE mapped point at a time.

 

[markmurfie]

Updated those and still feeling like the car is limiting. Maybe its an issue with the cam angles themselves? Going to try and switch to a different MP and see what happens.

Here are logs. The Test 6 has throttle angle included and doesnt look like the car is keeping the throttle blade closed or anything.

Edit: Attached the logs

It has definietly made a difference raising the IPC out of the way.

I will get you what to modify SD coeffecients for MP 5 and MP 20 soon, it takes a bit more time to parse the data out per the RPM ranges you will need, these are just big picture to show MAP and TB MAP are following each other very well now, even with just the simple changes you made to the few spots in the SD.

This will not get your desired airmass and MAF closer to one another. That is going to need to be done in the driver demand tables and torque to load model tables(torque calculation in PCMtech). Its why I said start there, but I am fine with making your SD match what your TB is saying for MAP.

Test 5 MP% mostly, IMRC didnt open for MP 17. Test 6 looks similar, just less points. .0006-.0008 clyinder airmass is the biggest difference. If you go back to post #776,n where these coeffecients came from, that spot was to be expect to have the biggest difference.

MP20, much much closer even though its stock.

 

[tdstuart]

Ok you’re going to go around in circles until you pick a mapped point and a methodology to work on. Your goal is to mod the sd model until the maf matches desired airflow. I don’t care if you follow my instructions or markmurfies, but you need to pick one and apply it to ONE mapped point at a time.

I think you are confused about what I am saying. I am saying the car feels like it has no power on MP5. I don't see any reason in the logs so I am thinking it is simply because that cam angle just doesn't support making power. I changed to MP20 and the car felt like it had power again.

Im not saying MP20 is better with the SD model than MP5. I just think MP5 is not a good target cam angle for light-moderate acceleration. It would probably only be targeted for very light acceleration and holding low speeds.

MP5 is just hard to drive on since it makes no power so I would rather start with MP20 first.

 

[tdstuart]

It has definietly made a difference raising the IPC out of the way.

I will get you what to modify SD coeffecients for MP 5 and MP 20 soon, it takes a bit more time to parse the data out per the RPM ranges you will need, these are just big picture to show MAP and TB MAP are following each other very well now, even with just the simple changes you made to the few spots in the SD.

This will not get your desired airmass and MAF closer to one another. That is going to need to be done in the driver demand tables and torque to load model tables(torque calculation in PCMtech). Its why I said start there, but I am fine with making your SD match what your TB is saying for MAP.

Test 5 MP% mostly, IMRC didnt open for MP 17. Test 6 looks similar, just less points. .0006-.0008 clyinder airmass is the biggest difference. If you go back to post #776,n where these coeffecients came from, that spot was to be expect to have the biggest difference.


MP20, much much closer even though its stock.

Okay I think I would rather stick with MP20 for now as it is a lot easier to drive on, I think once I get MP20 dialed I can revisit MP5 and MP17. I should probably lock imrc to open while getting MP20 dialed.

What are my next steps for dataloging and updating the mentioned tables?

I will get you what to modify SD coeffecients for MP 5 and MP 20 soon

How hard is it for me to calculate myself?

 

[markmurfie]

Okay I think I would rather stick with MP20 for now as it is a lot easier to drive on, I think once I get MP20 dialed I can revisit MP5 and MP17. I should probably lock imrc to open while getting MP20 dialed.

What are my next steps for dataloging and updating the mentioned tables?


How hard is it for me to calculate myself?

A simple thing I can think of you can do in the SD for MP 5 is set the maximum load at WOT(auF33269) to something like 0.45-0.5 instead of the stock 1.0 . This would limit your desired airmass, desired load, and demand torque. You might get a better pedal feel with it when locked into MP5, but even going to WOT its just not going to have the VE to feel powerful. Those cam angles are just not good, you can see it in the curve toward even worst VE of the points to when MAP hits 30 inHg. Thats something you can try that is simple and might get your desired to align with your MAF pretty quickly. MP 3,4,5 be lowered togehter. MP 2 and 6 could be lowered, but not as much. Its the late IVC thats pushed way into the compression stroke that its not liking.

Its not hard to calculate. Just plot a bunch of points for cylinder airmass on an x axis, for a given manifold absolute pressure on a Y axis. Then regress a second order polynomial best fit line from those points and it gives you your quad, slope, and offset. Its the filtering out these points and getting enough for a good best fit line, that is time consuming. Making sure you are not mis aligning the points in the process. its done in excel or what ever software that can do regression that you are comfortable with.

Sponsored