Yet another mapped points question

Ahh I see now you meant that you were using premium gas. I understand now

I used to have a license for Cobb accesstuner for my old Focus ST. On that platform there was also 14 mapped points with a near identical control scheme. However cobb provided a 3D offset table for timing so you didn't need to manually adjust all of them. You could keep all 14 tables active, all snap lines stock and just add to this offset table. It worked extremely well. This was for timing only from what I remember.

I wish we had something of that nature, I never knew how it worked exactly but I'd hazard a guess that it just took the final calculated timing at any area and added to it. Or maybe it reconstructed the tables behind the scenes to keep their sauce secret.


I think I need to spend time with the software a bit more and try and decipher this a bit more. The current thing I'm trying to understand is the whole torque model at this point. I'm unsure if there is a need to mess with it on a stock vehicle.


Unfortunately at this point I've finished the Coyote cookbook and it has left me with even more questions lol

A lot of those custom features are a double-edged sword. Good for getting cars in and out the door quickly. But circumventing the factory Ford logic is a decision that should be taken seriously IMO. A lot of people make that decision without making the effort to consider *why* Ford uses more complex models.

In the event of making any drastic changes that are related to Mapped Points, the best strategy Ive found is to isolate the mapped point and cam angle and adjust accordingly. The bad news is that different strategies employ minor logic changes that will throw your assumptions out the window when you try them on a different car or year.

Totally agree, though it was nice for beginner tuners lol.

I wanna thank all of you for your help, I know none of you were obligated to answer any of my questions and it?s super helpful.

I?m brand new to tuning in general, and simultaneously learning how the mustangs control system works so I really appreciate how willing to share knowledge you all are!

Personally I don?t waste anytime trying to figure out how mapped points work.

For timing, I make them all the same for loads above .65
And
As long as vct mode is op when I?m getting into power, then mapped point cam timing doesn?t matter.
And
Fuel needs to be power enrich
So mapped point doesn?t matter to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plimmer

Personally I don?t waste anytime trying to figure out how mapped points work.

For timing, I make them all the same for loads above .65
And
As long as vct mode is op when I?m getting into power, then mapped point cam timing doesn?t matter.
And
Fuel needs to be power enrich
So mapped point doesn?t matter to me.

---

When you say you make them all the same, you mean you make all mapped points have the exact same value? What I ended up doing was adding the same value to all of them but letting the stock value dictate the final value based on the offset I applied. So if I wanted to increase .9 load at 5k rpm by 1 degree I added 1 degree to the tables above MP14 in that cell. For a really rough first pass it seems to have at least worked without introducing significant knock, but I do not believe it is optimal.

I'm pretty sure that making them all the same value is equivalent to having a single timing table for all cam angles for whatever loads/rpm cells were changed.

I’ve seen some mainstream-ish tuners tune all mapped points the same in boost. I see lots of pitfalls with this method though. Base case, it assumes that the cams are always where you want them to be. I’ve seen too many cases where the cam phasers lose control or the vct disabled at wot and the calibration is instantly wrong. Also, it hides all the effects of making cam angle changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engineermike

I’ve seen some mainstream-ish tuners tune all mapped points the same in boost. I see lots of pitfalls with this method though. Base case, it assumes that the cams are always where you want them to be. I’ve seen too many cases where the cam phasers lose control or the vct disabled at wot and the calibration is instantly wrong. Also, it hides all the effects of making cam angle changes.

---

Funny you talk like you are the best tuner out there yet you are just a "guy" from internet...good we don't care otherwise we might feel ofended.

This is the way often used in "high boost" applications, rather to keep everything in on MP to just stay safe. Same you do with VCT keeping angles
constant in power band. This is done to not risking "unwanted" movement in MP/VCT as this start to be a problem above 1000hp as VCT can't keep up.
You don't know that's OK - someday you might find out..

dang

If you didn’t feel offended then you wouldn’t have attacked me personally in response. Honestly that wasnt aimed at you because you aren’t a mainstream (or -ish) tuner. Sorry if you misunderstood that as an attack on you.

I try to stick to the facts and avoid personal attacks. If I posted something incorrect then let’s discuss like adults. Otherwise my points are accurate. I’ve personally seen on multiple occasions for multiple reasons the cams didn’t follow the commanded angle, even if those are static. If the calibration is incorrect for the actual cam angles, such as the case of using the same calibration for all mapped points at high loads, then you could find yourself with incorrect calculated airflow or too much spark timing.

Just a spot in the calibration that many probably overlook because the axis are not labeled/ set to 0. 15-17 mustangs had a lot less interference of VCT based on this compared to 18+.
Engine oil temperature can limit cam control especially at idle on a hot day or right after racing the car. I think its inffered of CHT like coolant temp, but have not been able to log anything specific to oil temperature.

The 15-17 non peformance packs just had oil pressure switches(yes/no). The 18+ have variable oil pressue with transducers. Not sure if that influenced the extra cam control limitation based on temperature.


2019
Attachment 130475

2015
Attachment 130476

All of this is not so important at WOT and 1000+HP applications.
What im talking about is more idle, light throttle cruise. Actually advanced areas of tuning that are difficult,but people have high sensitivity too and expectations for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

Just a spot in the calibration that many probably overlook because the axis are not labeled/ set to 0. 15-17 mustangs had a lot less interference of VCT based on this compared to 18+.
Engine oil temperature can limit cam control especially at idle on a hot day or right after racing the car. I think its inffered of CHT like coolant temp, but have not been able to log anything specific to oil temperature.

The 15-17 non peformance packs just had oil pressure switches(yes/no). The 18+ have variable oil pressue with transducers. Not sure if that influenced the extra cam control limitation based on temperature.


2019
Attachment 130475

2015
Attachment 130476

All of this is not so important at WOT and 1000+HP applications.
What im talking about is more idle, light throttle cruise. Actually advanced areas of tuning that are difficult,but people have high sensitivity too and expectations for.

---

The more I read, analyze, and log the stock tune, the more I realize that you and engineermike are 100% right, you need to individually tune each MP. Then let the ECM decide which one to use based on cam angles, RPM, and load. Which really kinda sucks because there are so many of them. My application is NA, so I suppose I could just ignore the first 14, but even then tuning the upper 14 MPs is still no easy task and will take a lot of pulls and incur a lot of risk if doing them on the street.

I daily drive my car, so i could probably do it incrimentally, just pick a few important points and do them all at once, then gradually add in more points as I'm able to tune them. Or fork over the $800 to rent a dyno for a day and just bang it out all at once.

Also, I've thought about this a bunch and its a real shame that we don't know more about the weighting algorithm, that feels to me like the missing piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engineermike

If you didn’t feel offended then you wouldn’t have attacked me personally in response. Honestly that wasnt aimed at you because you aren’t a mainstream (or -ish) tuner. Sorry if you misunderstood that as an attack on you.

I try to stick to the facts and avoid personal attacks. If I posted something incorrect then let’s discuss like adults. Otherwise my points are accurate. I’ve personally seen on multiple occasions for multiple reasons the cams didn’t follow the commanded angle, even if those are static. If the calibration is incorrect for the actual cam angles, such as the case of using the same calibration for all mapped points at high loads, then you could find yourself with incorrect calculated airflow or too much spark timing.

---

I feel offended, I might not be a "main stream tooner" in your country but a do a lot in my area so hold your horses.
I do around 5 tunes a week for customers around world including your "LA yard"...and what you do for a living to tell ME
or any other "main stream tooner" that we are wrong? You do what? bakery or roofing?

I'm not attacking you oh no no, I react after being offended by you and I assure you I'm very polite at the moment.

Cams will follow commanded angle, if not you have an issue that you cant fix with a tune. Fix your engine in this situation.

Cams might not follow commanded values if you are pushing a lot of HP like +1000 or sometimes even less. The culprit is
the pressure created in valvetrain that engine oil cant longer overcome. This is whay most would lock cams above that power level.
You have to adjust SD values of course this is the part of the proper toonig. You wont win a single bic boi race with those advice's.

Many calibrations for 700-800hp mark would keep Optimum Power in one spot just to have a peace of mind like Roush.

N/A could lose or gain 40hp with VCT, F/I not so much nor should you care. Sometimes its better to keep cams from too much overlap
and sacrifice 20hp for engine to be more knock resistant - at least this is what we do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeefour

I feel offended...

---

In post 27 you weren't offended, so what changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeefour

I might not be a "main stream tooner" in your country but a do a lot in my area so hold your horses.
I do around 5 tunes a week for customers around world including your "LA yard"...and what you do for a living to tell ME
or any other "main stream tooner" that we are wrong? You do what? bakery or roofing?

---

....and here are the personal attacks again. I've seen absolute crap being sold by people selling way more than 5/week, so bragging about volume doesn't get you any credibility. FWIW, by mainstream I'm talking about the likes of Livernois, Roush, Whipple, the next tier being more like VMP, Lund, PBD. You consider yourself selling the same volume as them?

Can we act like adults and stick to technical discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeefour

Cams will follow commanded angle, if not you have an issue that you cant fix with a tune. Fix your engine in this situation.

---

Oh yes, for sure if you can't get cams to follow desired then that needs to be addressed. That's not the issue. The issue is that at some point the cams stop following desired and then at some later date you learn that they stopped following desired, then you spend some time testing and addressing the problem. So basically, from the time that the cams stop following desired to the time you get the problem addressed, you still don't want the engine lean or too much timing. Calibrating each mapped point protects you in that timeframe. You can't always rely on everything going as planned or intended. These calibrations are intended to have layer upon layer of protection in the event that things go wrong. If you disable those, then youre exposing yourself to unnecessary risk. Calibrating all mapped points the same is definitely easier and saves time, but there is more risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeefour

Many calibrations for 700-800hp mark would keep Optimum Power in one spot just to have a peace of mind like Roush.

---

I must admit I don't have every Roush cal, but in the Gen2 and Gen3 Phase 2 cals they do not keep OP in one spot. Which version are you referring to that doesn't move them when in OP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeefour

N/A could lose or gain 40hp with VCT, F/I not so much nor should you care. Sometimes its better to keep cams from too much overlap and sacrifice 20hp for engine to be more knock resistant - at least this is what we do.

---

That's interesting; I've tested this extensively and found that I can consistently run more timing before knock when running more overlap. Ford and Roush seem to agree.

I've been able to cut down some of the work by roughly matrixing the mapped points into different driving conditions. For example, on my car there's a 99.9% chance I'll never use MP15 at idle. So I don't tune that area. Then you can focus on the ones that get blended frequently in Best Driveability and Fuel Economy.


In 4cyl world, we start to lose the exhaust cam around 650whp and 7000+ RPM. The valvetrain components definitely have an impact (ie. 85lb springs will do it more quickly). The oil pressure is irrelevant because it only has the responsibility/ability of retarding the exhaust cam. It's the phaser spring that returns the cam position to zero, and which can't overcome the various forces acting against the cam. That's why we see 0% duty cycle from the solenoid while the exhaust cam is moving on it's own (the PCM doesn't tolerate much of this before entering limp mode either). The intake cam doesn't do this because the phaser advances the cam in the same direction as the engine rotation. At 0% DC the cam is already mechanically locked against the backside of the phaser. You could technically run out of solenoid duty cycle if you were trying to advance the cam.

I'm not sure if this is the same in the coyote world. A lockout solves the VCT side until the cam gear itself slips. I've considered pinning both cams along with the crank woodruff key, and locking the exhaust phaser.

1000+whp Coyotes is pretty far off path for the OP, FWIW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobCat030

I've been able to cut down some of the work by roughly matrixing the mapped points into different driving conditions. For example, on my car there's a 99.9% chance I'll never use MP15 at idle. So I don't tune that area. Then you can focus on the ones that get blended frequently in Best Driveability and Fuel Economy.


In 4cyl world, we start to lose the exhaust cam around 650whp and 7000+ RPM. The valvetrain components definitely have an impact (ie. 85lb springs will do it more quickly). The oil pressure is irrelevant because it only has the responsibility/ability of retarding the exhaust cam. It's the phaser spring that returns the cam position to zero, and which can't overcome the various forces acting against the cam. That's why we see 0% duty cycle from the solenoid while the exhaust cam is moving on it's own (the PCM doesn't tolerate much of this before entering limp mode either). The intake cam doesn't do this because the phaser advances the cam in the same direction as the engine rotation. At 0% DC the cam is already mechanically locked against the backside of the phaser. You could technically run out of solenoid duty cycle if you were trying to advance the cam.

I'm not sure if this is the same in the coyote world. A lockout solves the VCT side until the cam gear itself slips. I've considered pinning both cams along with the crank woodruff key, and locking the exhaust phaser.

---

I've devised a system which appears to work at least a little bit

I've been analyzing my logs, which span across many different temperatures, tire configs, humilities, and barometric pressures. From what I've seen once I put my foot down all the way the cams follow the same path every time (within reason). The extension from this is that during the pull because the cam angles, and air load follow the same path pretty much every time, I'm left with 14 MP weights vs. RPM. I then pick the key frequencies indicated in each MP table (2500, 3000, 4000, 5000, and 7250) and sort the log so that I'm only looking at those points. I am left with an approximate weight that will be applied to each MP at the key RPM's when the cams are in the OP VCM mode.

So If I want to apply an additional 3 degrees at 4000 RPM I split that additional 3 degrees among the upper 14 MP's based on the measured weights that were recorded. Then I add each portion to the associated MP table at the respective timing and load.

I do this for all of the upper 14 MP's and all of the RPMs that I want to tune.

It does actually appear to work, but it needs a bit more refinement, the issue is that you sometimes need to change neighboring cells to ensure that you are defining an upward or downward slope as needed.


Basically this method is defining a cam-angle path within the MPs that when the cams follow, will result in additional timing being applied. The only downside is that if the cams do not follow the right path you will not see additional timing being added.

If that's not clear I will make some kind of better explanation tonight, I don't have access to my files at work sadly lol.

That's the right idea, but it has the drawback you mentioned. Many do it that way. Once you hit an unforseen condition the cam angle path changes slightly. Personally I would take that info and use it to lock the MP and generate steady state data in the load, RPM, baro, etc range you want. That way you cover some of the adjacent cells with certainty. I'm also super OCD about this kind of stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engineermike

In post 27 you weren't offended, so what changed?
....and here are the personal attacks again. I've seen absolute crap being sold by people selling way more than 5/week, so bragging about volume doesn't get you any credibility. FWIW, by mainstream I'm talking about the likes of Livernois, Roush, Whipple, the next tier being more like VMP, Lund, PBD. You consider yourself selling the same volume as them?

---

Not at all neither...US is a big Continent I live in a small country. I run a tuning shop amd we do a lot here...actually shop can makes +1200hp being the fastest steert US based car in EU...so..

..now where do you we see YOU in the bunch? Again you speak like a pro top fuel tuner...you criticized "mainstream tooners" (Livernois, Roush, Whipple, the next tier being more like VMP, Lund, PBD)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engineermike

That's interesting; I've tested this extensively and found that I can consistently run more timing before knock when running more overlap. Ford and Roush seem to agree.

---

You see where? You tested what your stock n/a car? You did what? You run a shop, tuning business or tuning school?
Nobody seems to know you yet you claim to have extensive research on the subject...

We can play this all day long. You claiming a lot yet nobody see you doing anything...like ever.

Actually if we talk about overlap boosted you should not use that much overlap. This has a negative scavenging effect at some point
and can cause knock too - believe or not. In coyote IVO plays the role, EVC not so much.Like 80/20 ratio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeefour

Not at all neither...US is a big Continent I live in a small country. I run a tuning shop amd we do a lot here...actually shop can makes +1200hp being the fastest steert US based car in EU...so..

---

That's great and all...but it doesn't make your technical points any more correct. My experience is that if you have to start bragging about this or that, then you lost the technical debate. I could go on about the max power I've calibrated...and what I've accomplished that the big tuners couldn't make work...but again, this doesn't make my technical points in this thread more correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeefour

..now where do you we see YOU in the bunch? Again you speak like a pro top fuel tuner...you criticized "mainstream tooners" (Livernois, Roush, Whipple, the next tier being more like VMP, Lund, PBD)...

---

I never claimed to be anywhere in that bunch. Once again, it doesn't further the technical point. You seem to shy away from the technical side of the discussion and focus on personal cut-downs. Can your technical argument stand on its own without cutting people down?

Let me give an example....murphie and I disagree vehemently on many points but if I were forced to choose a tuner then I would choose him. While he does not run a tuning business, brag about how many tunes hes sold, or brag about how much power he has made, he HAS shown that he technically understands the logic and does a better job of thoroughly, correctly, and safely calibrating than anyone shy of a Roush or Ford.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeefour

You see where? You tested what your stock n/a car? You did what? You run a shop, tuning business or tuning school?
Nobody seems to know you yet you claim to have extensive research on the subject...We can play this all day long. You claiming a lot yet nobody see you doing anything...like ever.

---

I didn't realize this was a popularity contest. I really don't think popularity is a substitute for technical validity, but that's just me. You want to know what research and testing I've done or who my mentors were, just ask. I'd be happy to share. I'm not in this for the money, so I share freely. Why do you think my car is stock NA? What else are you assuming that is incorrect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeefour

Actually if we talk about overlap boosted you should not use that much overlap. This has a negative scavenging effect at some point
and can cause knock too - believe or not. In coyote IVO plays the role, EVC not so much.Like 80/20 ratio.

---

Virtually every aftermarket Coyote tune I've seen plus the GT500 run a ton of overlap below 5000 rpm. Above 5000 rpm, most everyone tunes to about the same overlap except Roush. Roush seems to retain much more overlap up top than anyone else and they also seem to be able to run more timing and boost on 91 octane than anyone else. If you look at the GT500 and Roush Phase 2 borderline tables, they show clearly a higher knock threshold when running more overlap at typical WOT EVC. I've found this to be the case on my car as well after nearly a thousand logs. Basically, it's a balance between pumping losses and knock threshold since the airflow is governed by the supercharger size and speed, and inlet conditions. I've tested lots of cam timing combinations on the dyno, along with knock thresholds, and found the optimum cam timing combination for my setup, but this will vary with exhaust, GDI tuning, boost level, etc.

"So If I want to apply an additional 3 degrees at 4000 RPM I split that additional 3 degrees among the upper 14 MP's based on the measured weights that were recorded."

This is how I do it also. I pay attention to actual RPM through out the timing event. So if the 4000RPM cell shows -3 I'll follow the RPM from where the cell pops up till the timing changes or it moves to the 5000 cell.

Say -3 starts at 3500 RPM in 100% MP14 keeps -3 through 4500 and blends MP14, 21 and 25 I will use the RPM cells in those MP's.

There may be an easier way but this works for me. It really helped when I started logging MBT and Borderline spark.

I do have a question. If a cell pops up with something like .242 knock is that something I need to get rid of or is it OK to let it go. Scanner set to avg.