2012 GT throttle "overshoot" on tip-in phenomenon, Edelbrock supercharger

I'm having an irritating throttle "overshoot" during tip-in phenomenon that I can't seem to iron out. You can see the log (white trace is throttle body angle and red trace is throttle pedal position).

Attachment 105075

It causes a "lurching" back and forth during quick throttle applications. You can see it in the log:

Attachment 105074

Here is what the car has:

2012 GT
Manual trans
Edelbrock supercharger, "Stage 1"
Stock throttle body
Stock MAF
Long tube headers
no cats

The "easy" answer may be there's an issue with the torque model, but torque model changes don't seem to have an effect. I don't have the means to create my own torque model, so I've resorted to plugging in torque models (Edelbrock, Cobra Jet, Roush). Changing torque models doesn't seem to affect it (no better or worse with each).

A few targeted questions:

1) Is there something else I'm missing? Is there a way to "damp" the throttle body angle changes, perhaps?

2) Look at the Wheel Torque Error histogram. There are some pretty massive wheel torque errors. Is this normal?

3) Without a dyno at my disposal, is there a way to do some driving and logging to straighten this out?

I've attached my current tune file as well as the log file.

Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated.

--Wes

Attachment 105073
Attachment 105076

Nobody has any insight? Surely someone else has tackled this issue...

Under Speed Density, try setting Max Aircharge Load back to 1.00 and set MAP Max Delta above Baro Pressure to the maximum amount of boost pressure that you're planning and see if that makes a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witt

Under Speed Density, try setting Max Aircharge Load back to 1.00 and set MAP Max Delta above Baro Pressure to the maximum amount of boost pressure that you're planning and see if that makes a difference.

---

Noted with thanks. I'll give that a shot and report back!

In the mean time, I'm curious how changing what you suggested would affect throttle "overshoot" problem I'm experiencing. (Understanding the rationale will help me diagnose other issues in the future.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WesDuenkel

Noted with thanks. I'll give that a shot and report back!

In the mean time, I'm curious how changing what you suggested would affect throttle "overshoot" problem I'm experiencing. (Understanding the rationale will help me diagnose other issues in the future.)

---

It may not be overshooting but actually clipping desired airflow after what you call an overshoot and pulling the throttle back. Desired throttle and actual throttle match initially and then desired gets clipped by something. Every time I've seen either max map above baro or calc max map too low, it gives drivability issues. I think almost doubling the max aircharge load may be masking a portion of it.

If after the changes, it still overshoots but doesn't pull the throttle back as swiftly or gives less IPC Tq Errors, I would then dial back driver demand engine torque.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witt

It may not be overshooting but actually clipping desired airflow after what you call an overshoot and pulling the throttle back. Desired throttle and actual throttle match initially and then desired gets clipped by something. Every time I've seen either max map above baro or calc max map too low, it gives drivability issues. I think almost doubling the max aircharge load may be masking a portion of it.

If after the changes, it still overshoots but doesn't pull the throttle back as swiftly or gives less IPC Tq Errors, I would then dial back driver demand engine torque.

---

Noted with thanks. I'll try that and re-log.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witt

If after the changes, it still overshoots but doesn't pull the throttle back as swiftly or gives less IPC Tq Errors, I would then dial back driver demand engine torque.

---

Sadly, no real improvement. If anything, it seems to pull back harder. The first trace, it throttle ramps up, but then snaps closed:
Attachment 105140

In this log, you can see the throttle basically closes completely before picking back up:
Attachment 105142

This is nutty. Any other ideas?

Here are the logs files:
Attachment 105143
Attachment 105144

I scaled back my driver demand, but that didn't help. This has a stock throttle body, but I wonder if something is off with the throttle body model. (I tried a stock throttle body model, but that didn't help either). Here's my latest tune:
Attachment 105145

do the 2012 have a switch under the electronic throttle section called "anti-shuffle" if so turn that off and see what happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

do the 2012 have a switch under the electronic throttle section called "anti-shuffle" if so turn that off and see what happens.

---

No, but there is "Tip In Managment" under "Pedal."

Engaging or disengaging it doesn't help. I've tried it.

Same with Engine > Torque Management > General > Oscillation Switch. No change in the behavior.

Update: I changed 44373 "Pedal Pos to WOT Start", and that made a massive improvement...BUT, immediately ran into another problem. First set it to 50 and car quickly went into limp mode, got code "P061B Torque Calculation Performance." Tried setting it to 100, and it (predictably) took longer to trip the code, but did eventually. Set it to 200, and it never tripped a code, but the effect was not as good, as the "pedal following" strategy was further into the throttle.

My wheel torque error max is set to 75,000. I've been advised not to set it higher.

Is there a way to avoid code P061B while maintaining a lower "Pedal Pos to WOT Start" value than 200? Admittedly, this is a bandaid...but I'm running out of ideas.

is your tip in retard zerod out?

also in your log when you tip in does the car lean spike? whats your optimum power pedal set to in the power enrichment and the VCT settings. If its a stock throttle body change everything in the throttle section back to stock. except turn off the tip in management and keep the wot start around 200-250.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

is your tip in retard zerod out?

---

Yes, though I've tried it stock and zeroed out, and it doesn't seem to make any difference.

make sure torque modulation and tip in modulation / oscillation is enabled

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

also in your log when you tip in does the car lean spike?

---

A log is attached to the original post, but to answer your question directly: No, there isn't a lean spike. Lambda is steady.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

whats your optimum power pedal set to in the power enrichment

---

80. Stock is 90

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

and the VCT settings.

---

79. Stock is 89.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

If its a stock throttle body change everything in the throttle section back to stock. except turn off the tip in management and keep the wot start around 200-250.

---

For some reason, the Edelbrock tune made changes to the Effective Area table, but I've tried substituting stock values, with no improvement to the behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by decipha

make sure torque modulation and tip in modulation / oscillation is enabled

---

I've tried turning those on and off, and it didn't have any real effect either.

I suspect there is something wrong with the throttle body model, or when I squeeze the throttle, the supercharger bypass closes off, throwing things out of whack.

Look at this log. There are MASSIVE wheel torque errors. Look at the ETC Throttle Angle Error. There are double-digit throttle angle errors. Something is off...

Attachment 105294

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WesDuenkel

I've tried turning those on and off, and it didn't have any real effect either.

I suspect there is something wrong with the throttle body model, or when I squeeze the throttle, the supercharger bypass closes off, throwing things out of whack.

Look at this log. There are MASSIVE wheel torque errors. Look at the ETC Throttle Angle Error. There are double-digit throttle angle errors. Something is off...

Attachment 105294

---

Attachment 105295

Try this and report back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witt

Attachment 105295Try this and report back.

---

Many thanks. I see what you've done there. I'll give it a shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witt

Attachment 105295

Try this and report back.

---

Had a chance to try out that tune file, it's DIFFERENT. The initial overshoot is less, but as you can see, now the throttle oscillates over a longer period.
Attachment 105440

Here's the log file:
Attachment 105441

Any ideas on what to try next?

Attachment 105454

Try this, Your tune does need quite a bit of dialing in still. I changed your drivers demand and a lot of map settings, torque limits, map limits, and rescaled your tables to ressemble your load as well. Let me know how it acts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

Attachment 105454

Try this, Your tune does need quite a bit of dialing in still. I changed your drivers demand and a lot of map settings, torque limits, map limits, and rescaled your tables to ressemble your load as well. Let me know how it acts.

---

Making some progress. A few things:

1) The driver demand in your tune made the car almost underivable. Way to "responsive." Reverting to the driver demand in the attached tune below is much better.
2) Still had a lot of throttle oscillation, so I reverted to the Edelbrock torque model, and it's much better.
3) I'm still seeing "overshoot" in the data, but it's less perceptible by the seat of the pants. Moderate driving I can still feel the throttle move around, though, which is irritating.

So, making some progress, but still has some work to do to "settle down" the throttle "overshooting."

Here's a log with my latest tune:

Attachment 105526

Here is the log file:
Attachment 105524

Here is the tune file:
Attachment 105525

Yeah that was my bad I accidentally copied a 2013 gt500 driver demand table and I didn?t mean to. Sometimes the boost bypass on those are sensitive and that causes throttle oscillation as well because the torque rapidly increases. What Lund actually tells people to do is order some nitrous jets and put the jet in the vacuum line that connects to the boost bypass on the supercharger. That restricts the amount of vacuums the bypass will see and allows the transition to boost less aggressive causing throttle oscillation. The reason factory cars like roush don?t have that issue is their ecu strategy is different and the roush engineers and ford engineers specifically hard program something to deal with that issue into the computer. So unfortunately you can?t really do much about it besides minimize it. Like I said in pm. I can write you a more proper base file. The oscillation will most likely still be evident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WesDuenkel

Making some progress. A few things:



1) The driver demand in your tune made the car almost underivable. Way to "responsive." Reverting to the driver demand in the attached tune below is much better.
2) Still had a lot of throttle oscillation, so I reverted to the Edelbrock torque model, and it's much better.
3) I'm still seeing "overshoot" in the data, but it's less perceptible by the seat of the pants. Moderate driving I can still feel the throttle move around, though, which is irritating.

So, making some progress, but still has some work to do to "settle down" the throttle "overshooting."

Here's a log with my latest tune:

Attachment 105526

Here is the log file:
Attachment 105524

Here is the tune file:
Attachment 105525

---

It does look a lot better though in the log so I?m sure we can keep chugging away to get you squared up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

Yeah that was my bad I accidentally copied a 2013 gt500 driver demand table and I didn?t mean to. Sometimes the boost bypass on those are sensitive and that causes throttle oscillation as well because the torque rapidly increases. What Lund actually tells people to do is order some nitrous jets and put the jet in the vacuum line that connects to the boost bypass on the supercharger. That restricts the amount of vacuums the bypass will see and allows the transition to boost less aggressive causing throttle oscillation. The reason factory cars like roush don?t have that issue is their ecu strategy is different and the roush engineers and ford engineers specifically hard program something to deal with that issue into the computer. So unfortunately you can?t really do much about it besides minimize it. Like I said in pm. I can write you a more proper base file. The oscillation will most likely still be evident.

---

I think I mentioned pilling the bypass vacuum line back in 2018 for someone's SC surge, as its what Subaru did in their OEM boost controllers. The pill reduces the rate of change of the pressure on the diaphragm, reducing flutter rate in the wastegate. Essentially giving a larger gap between hysteresis(WG reclose) and target boost(WG open).

Appling this to a SC bypass it would be a larger difference between the low vacuum(Bypass closes) and hysteresis(higher vacuum bypass reopen). It opens the window of MAP pressures that the bypass is closed for, but the airflow is not significant enough to produce boost on the engine. Essentially giving you a low vaccum bypass, but having the benefit of remaining closed at lower airflows if the throttle try's to shut a little to reduce any increase in airflow from the bypass closing. You still may need to get your ETC vac/SD/VE lined up with BARO(stock SD and known good TB model usually work well) to stay off the "MAP delta above baro" values and make this work.

Then keep in mind there's a lot of bad, mismatched, out of spec throttle bodies and that can easily lead to blaming the calibration, and you will never fix it in the calibration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

I think I mentioned pilling the bypass vacuum line back in 2018 for someone's SC surge, as its what Subaru did in their OEM boost controllers. The pill reduces the rate of change of the pressure on the diaphragm, reducing flutter rate in the wastegate. Essentially giving a larger gap between hysteresis(WG reclose) and target boost(WG open).

Appling this to a SC bypass it would be a larger difference between the low vacuum(Bypass closes) and hysteresis(higher vacuum bypass reopen). It opens the window of MAP pressures that the bypass is closed for, but the airflow is not significant enough to produce boost on the engine. Essentially giving you a low vaccum bypass, but having the benefit of remaining closed at lower airflows if the throttle try's to shut a little to reduce any increase in airflow from the bypass closing. You still may need to get your ETC vac/SD/VE lined up with BARO(stock SD and known good TB model usually work well) to stay off the "MAP delta above baro" values and make this work.

Then keep in mind there's a lot of bad, mismatched, out of spec throttle bodies and that can easily lead to blaming the calibration, and you will never fix it in the calibration.

---

exactly, as I mentioned to him the he does need to dial in his tune more. I corrected some of the most obvious map issues I the calibration. But I very much agree with you. With everything dialed in the oscillation will be almost non existent. And if it still is then pilling it should work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WesDuenkel

Making some progress. A few things:

1) The driver demand in your tune made the car almost underivable. Way to "responsive." Reverting to the driver demand in the attached tune below is much better.
2) Still had a lot of throttle oscillation, so I reverted to the Edelbrock torque model, and it's much better.
3) I'm still seeing "overshoot" in the data, but it's less perceptible by the seat of the pants. Moderate driving I can still feel the throttle move around, though, which is irritating.

So, making some progress, but still has some work to do to "settle down" the throttle "overshooting."

Here's a log with my latest tune:

Attachment 105526

Here is the log file:
Attachment 105524

Here is the tune file:
Attachment 105525

---

Attachment 105553
here's a base file I got bored and built you one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

there's a lot of bad, mismatched, out of spec throttle bodies and that can easily lead to blaming the calibration, and you will never fix it in the calibration.

---

The Edelbrock supercharger uses the factory GT throttle body, so I assume the throttle body ETC calibration shouldn't be a factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

I think I mentioned pilling the bypass vacuum line back in 2018 for someone's SC surge,

---

It's worth a try as a last resort for the reasons you mentioned. However, I'm dubious if that's the ultimate source of the issue as the the throttle trace in my data logs are *exactly* what the car feels like it's doing: overshooting, reeling it back in, than undershooting on tip-out. When the throttle acts smoothly, torque delivery is smooth.

I would think if the supercharger bypass was the culprit, I'd feel things that weren't reflected in the throttle traces, which I don't. Does that make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

Attachment 105553
here's a base file I got bored and built you one

---

Sorry for the delay. Finally got some time today to run some testing. A couple things regarding the tune you attached (2012_EB2.3_LTH_91-93_basefile)...

1) I assume the intake cam phasing limit table should have -65 degrees, NOT +65 degrees in there?

2) I see you left [ECM] 44351 - MAP Max Delta above BP vs. RPM zeroed out. Should this have a boost curve in it (in inches of Hg?), or is all zeros still OK for a boosted car?

3) Max Aircharge Load is 1.00. Should it be higher, like 1.90?

4) I see that you have Pressure Density Scale "disabled." Why, and what does that do? I haven't seen anyone else change that.

5) Regardless, here is a log with that tune (aside from changing #1 as I assumed it was a type-o):
Attachment 105684


In the mean time, I did a little more tweaking using a mashup of things from the Edelbrock tune and Coyote Cookbook, etc. It runs pretty well, save for a few things

1) Here is that tune file:
Attachment 105686

2) Here is the log file:
Attachment 105685

3) I still seem to be having an overshoot on tip-in/undershoot on tip-out situation which also directly corresponds to some very large torque errors.
Attachment 105687Attachment 105688

We're making progress, but the root of the problem still seems to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WesDuenkel

Sorry for the delay. Finally got some time today to run some testing. A couple things regarding the tune you attached (2012_EB2.3_LTH_91-93_basefile)...

1) I assume the intake cam phasing limit table should have -65 degrees, NOT +65 degrees in there?

2) I see you left [ECM] 44351 - MAP Max Delta above BP vs. RPM zeroed out. Should this have a boost curve in it (in inches of Hg?), or is all zeros still OK for a boosted car?

3) Max Aircharge Load is 1.00. Should it be higher, like 1.90?

4) I see that you have Pressure Density Scale "disabled." Why, and what does that do? I haven't seen anyone else change that.

5) Regardless, here is a log with that tune (aside from changing #1 as I assumed it was a type-o):
Attachment 105684


In the mean time, I did a little more tweaking using a mashup of things from the Edelbrock tune and Coyote Cookbook, etc. It runs pretty well, save for a few things

1) Here is that tune file:
Attachment 105686

2) Here is the log file:
Attachment 105685

3) I still seem to be having an overshoot on tip-in/undershoot on tip-out situation which also directly corresponds to some very large torque errors.
Attachment 105687Attachment 105688

We're making progress, but the root of the problem still seems to exist.

---

Answer to 1: the -65 values in the ECM 38167: max phasing limit RPM intake cam is actually correct. The intake values are negative and the exhaust values are positive.

Answer to 2: I left that stock because that?s something that needs to be logged and entered. Aka log your map versus rpm with the scanner if possible(definitely a question for more experienced) . It helps to know the boost curve. I personally have left it stock on the centrifugal car I tuned, but I?m not as experienced as murfie. I have looked at a super cobra jet file( one with a 2.9 whipple) and their values are all 30 inHG from 1000 rpm to 6500 rpm. stock. As well their speed density. A better practice is to dial in SD as murfie said.

Answer to 3: It?s not necessary to change this at least in my experience, I know the coyote cookbook says to but a lot of manufacturers tunes leave it at 1(probably not the best practice but works).

Answer to 4: I believe that?s a limiter and the only reason you?re turning it off is so the throttle doesn?t try to shut until you get the surge figured out then you turn it back on.

After all this I believe it?s going to be dialing in your torque tables because I noticed that edelbrock leaves them stock. So you?ll want follow how to do it in the coyote cookbook since you have it. The wording is a little tricky but it makes sense once you do it. Turn off all your mapped points and only use your OP table in the torque table. Set up a histogram in the scanner with your X and Y axis and for the values use indicated engine torque. Then use those values to input into your OP torque model table, rinse, wash repeat. It?s a tedious process but it?s probably the best you can do. You can use the same process for throttle angle error as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WesDuenkel

Sorry for the delay. Finally got some time today to run some testing. A couple things regarding the tune you attached (2012_EB2.3_LTH_91-93_basefile)...

1) I assume the intake cam phasing limit table should have -65 degrees, NOT +65 degrees in there?

2) I see you left [ECM] 44351 - MAP Max Delta above BP vs. RPM zeroed out. Should this have a boost curve in it (in inches of Hg?), or is all zeros still OK for a boosted car?

3) Max Aircharge Load is 1.00. Should it be higher, like 1.90?

4) I see that you have Pressure Density Scale "disabled." Why, and what does that do? I haven't seen anyone else change that.

5) Regardless, here is a log with that tune (aside from changing #1 as I assumed it was a type-o):
Attachment 105684


In the mean time, I did a little more tweaking using a mashup of things from the Edelbrock tune and Coyote Cookbook, etc. It runs pretty well, save for a few things

1) Here is that tune file:
Attachment 105686

2) Here is the log file:
Attachment 105685

3) I still seem to be having an overshoot on tip-in/undershoot on tip-out situation which also directly corresponds to some very large torque errors.
Attachment 105687Attachment 105688

We're making progress, but the root of the problem still seems to exist.

---

Also if you could post a log file if you driving that would be the best instead of just a screen shot, I learned my lesson with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

Also if you could post a log file if you driving that would be the best instead of just a screen shot, I learned my lesson with that.

---

Log files are attached to that post. Do they not show up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

Answer to 1: the -65 values in the ECM 38167: max phasing limit RPM intake cam is actually correct. The intake values are negative and the exhaust values are positive.

---

Noted. That's what I figured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

Answer to 2: I left that stock because that?s something that needs to be logged and entered. Aka log your map versus rpm with the scanner if possible(definitely a question for more experienced) . It helps to know the boost curve. I personally have left it stock on the centrifugal car I tuned, but I?m not as experienced as murfie. I have looked at a super cobra jet file( one with a 2.9 whipple) and their values are all 30 inHG from 1000 rpm to 6500 rpm. stock. As well their speed density. A better practice is to dial in SD as murfie said.

---

Noted. I have a dyno run from 3,000-7,000 RPM where we logged boost. Used that as a basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

Answer to 3: It?s not necessary to change this at least in my experience, I know the coyote cookbook says to but a lot of manufacturers tunes leave it at 1(probably not the best practice but works).

---

Edelbrock changed it to 1.90

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

Answer to 4: I believe that?s a limiter and the only reason you?re turning it off is so the throttle doesn?t try to shut until you get the surge figured out then you turn it back on.

---

OK, I'll try that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

After all this I believe it?s going to be dialing in your torque tables because I noticed that edelbrock leaves them stock. So you?ll want follow how to do it in the coyote cookbook since you have it. The wording is a little tricky but it makes sense once you do it. Turn off all your mapped points and only use your OP table in the torque table. Set up a histogram in the scanner with your X and Y axis and for the values use indicated engine torque. Then use those values to input into your OP torque model table, rinse, wash repeat. It?s a tedious process but it?s probably the best you can do. You can use the same process for throttle angle error as well.

---

The problem is I don't have my personal dyno. ;) I'll see if I can figure that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WesDuenkel

Log files are attached to that post. Do they not show up?

---

Yessir they did I say them right after I posted that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WesDuenkel

Noted. That's what I figured.



Noted. I have a dyno run from 3,000-7,000 RPM where we logged boost. Used that as a basis.



Edelbrock changed it to 1.90



OK, I'll try that out.



The problem is I don't have my personal dyno. ;) I'll see if I can figure that out.

---

You can do it on the street because the torque in your tune is crank torque, so your scanner will be very close. Even if you were to use a dyno you would have to multiple the numbers by your parasitic loss.

Your SD is calculating MAP too low for the airflow the MAF is reporting. Put your TB model back to stock. Put your MAF curve back to stock.

No promises this will fix it, but it could.
Copy these quad, slope and offset values in the attached spreadsheet into MP9, MP10, and MP OP. Its ok for them to all be the same. Also in there is values for IPC table for the pressure monitors ECM 44343. Torque model> monitors >IPC> pressure monitors.

Attachment 105699

If you can remove (SAE) channels and replace them with non SAE channel option that will collect more data. Remove channels that are redundant.
Add scheduled torque and engine brake torque. If you can find it trans throttle position ADC as well. Take another log.

What injectors are these?

What the SD changes do, it makes your Load translate to a more stable MAP. Therfore a more stable ETC vacuum, and path through the TB model.
Attachment 105702

This is why I don't rely on HPT SD calculator, and recalculate my own coefficients.

This is stock MP9.

Attachment 105703

This is just raising the calc. map max.

Attachment 105704

This is me recalculating the coefficients in excel.

Attachment 105705

I think anytime the calculated MAP max is increased all the MPs need to be recalculated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronson

You can do it on the street because the torque in your tune is crank torque, so your scanner will be very close. Even if you were to use a dyno you would have to multiple the numbers by your parasitic loss.

---

This is the last row of torque values in a stock DD table from a manual car compared to a stock dyno graph(showing what you are saying). There's about a consistent 45ftlb difference across the RPM range. Driver demand is calculated to the wheel. The automatics operate fully on how much torque they have coming into them and how much they are out putting to meet the drivers request.

Attachment 105701

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

This is the last row of torque values in a stock DD table from a manual car compared to a stock dyno graph(showing what you are saying). There's about a consistent 45ftlb difference across the RPM range. Driver demand is calculated to the wheel. The automatics operate fully on how much torque they have coming into them and how much they are out putting to meet the drivers request.

Attachment 105701

---

Is that just for the driver demand or torque tables as well? And do you think using the scanner for indicated torque then say multiplying by .15 for parasitic loss would be accurate enough? Or is a dyno the only true way to dial DD and torque model in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

Your SD is calculating MAP too low for the airflow the MAF is reporting. Put your TB model back to stock. Put your MAF curve back to stock.

---

Done. However, the Edelbrock tune only tweaked the factory MAF values down low. Throttle body model was only slightly modified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

Copy these quad, slope and offset values in the attached spreadsheet into MP9, MP10, and MP OP. Its ok for them to all be the same. Also in there is values for IPC table for the pressure monitors ECM 44343. Torque model> monitors >IPC> pressure monitors.

---

Done. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

If you can remove (SAE) channels and replace them with non SAE channel option that will collect more data. Remove channels that are redundant. Add scheduled torque and engine brake torque. If you can find it trans throttle position ADC as well. Take another log.

---

Good point regarding SAE channels. I noticed they were very "slow."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

What injectors are these?

---

Ford M-9593-LU47. I checked the Edelbrock tune and verified the values are entered as Ford recommends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

What the SD changes do, it makes your Load translate to a more stable MAP. Therfore a more stable ETC vacuum, and path through the TB model.

---

Understood...mostly. This is all new to me, as this is the first car I'm learning to tune. STEEP learning curve!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

This is why I don't rely on HPT SD calculator, and recalculate my own coefficients.

---

And this is why I GREATLY appreciate the help provided here. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

I think anytime the calculated MAP max is increased all the MPs need to be recalculated.

---

Noted. Are you implying I should change something else in SD besides changing MP 9, 10, and OP as suggested? (Just don't want to miss something).

As a side note: changing the MAP Max parameters under SD > General resulted in a weird behavior: After a heavy load event, the throttle would "stick" closed at light throttle. But after a while (say, 10-15 seconds, or a gear change) it would "time out" and the ETC would return to normal. I have a log of it, but didn't post it as I have bigger fish to fry. I suspect it's related to the Pressure Monitor > MAP Maximum IPC.

Regardless, I'll make these changes and report back. I can't thank you all enough for your invaluable help.

I also have two questions regarding driver demand and throttle position: apparently pedal position is in AD counts, with a max of 1023

1) If WOT start is 501, and WOT end is 542, is it correct that WOT mode starts at 49% throttle and the driver demand table is completely ignored at > 53% throttle?

2) If that's the case, bottom row of the DD table is for 53% throttle. If the bottom row of the driver demand table reflects dyno torque at 100% throttle, isn't the DD table grossly overestimating available torque (since 542 corresponds to only 53% throttle)?