Help with ignition advance on a 2018 EcoBoost 2.7L

Just started diving in to HP Tuners EcoBoost and I'm confused by the various timing tables. The vehicle has larger turbochargers, and I'm as a starting point I'm looking to reshape the timing profile down around 2 degrees at peak torque and 4 degrees at peak horsepower.

I was expected to find a high and low octane table and a few additive factors. Instead I'm greeted by what appear to be 28 (?) low resolution advance tables. Borderline 0-27 + "optimum power", and MBT 0-27 + "optimum power". It appears not all tables are used as some of them have "15" entered across the board.

I guess to make a long story short is there a document that describes how these sets of tables work? In searching I gathered I can log to determine what "point" the vehicle is in at any given time but as I need to tune it for all conditions so I presume I'll have to tweak each table? I sure hope not!

Thanks,
T

it runs baseline timing and advances it up to MBT table values unless it knocks or hits a limiter.

these are way more sophisticated than GM computers. I recommend "guiding" the ECM to boost/torque/spark targets rather than "preprogramming" it in more like a GM computer.
there really isn't a lot of adjustments needed to improve performance on these things if you hit the right areas, mainly boost control through desired torque.

Thanks Higgs. Any insight in to how the modes work? e.g. when is it in what mode? What's really annoying me is there are so many timing target tables, they seem really redundant.

With the larger turbos obviously oxygen density is higher for a given load, especially at higher loads, so I wanted to be a little proactive on the ignition mapping.

Unrelated question, but since you're here. Which table/setting is used to govern "throttle closure for boost over target"? Basically, how aggressively the throttle is used to regulate load to target when load goes over target. I prefer to lean a little heavier on the wastegate PID and less on the throttle, for regulating boost to target, when possible.

Hi Terry,
I haven’t A lot of time to reply as just heading out to work, but if you set up a log to record the HDFX points you will discover which table is in use at any point. These tables are cam position tables, so for example, table 5 may be the table used when camshaft is at 40 degrees. Table 6 may not be 5 or 7 either, it may be 0, they don’t always run in a perfect sequence.

So as an example, a WOT dyno run from 2krpm on a Focus runs something like, 10, 9 8,7,6,5,2,1 from memory.

You want to be recording the various sources as well, such as spark source, torque source etc to determine the current limit for throttle, boost, spark etc. For example, if you hit “fuel flow limit” the ECU has determined that your current air flow and commanded AFR is not possible with current fuel pressure and injection window so will drop load to an airflow that is possible. There are ten general use limiters you may come across at any point and once you learn what these are you will start to draw a picture of where in the strategy the ECU is working at any given time. A spark source of “Borderline” for example is self explanatory.

There isn’t really a table that controls the way the throttle takes control, it just needs to be programmed properly so that it has no reason to do so.

That's right, I agree. Look at your Variable cam tab to see what cam positions are associated with corresponding mapped points. the spark tables are set up per cam position, then.

I prefer letting throttle open and close to hit a torque target rather than the wastegate to only control boost level. Because these are torque based controllers, you demand a torque value and as long as you don't exceed torque/boost/spark limiters in the tune, you will find it does what you want. if you do hit limiters you can raise them, just enough and just in the needed areas to allow you to hit your target.

spark/fuel/air/boost/throttle/etc are so integrated you can't really look at one by itself. you enlarge or reduce the whole pie and let the ECM do the slicing.

Roger that guys, thanks! Cam timing relationship to point was the missing link. Time to get dirty!

Your welcome,
The Ford HDFX system takes some swallowing after using any other system.
Crazy complexity, but worth trying to understand as its likely the future and has always been Fords future.

Ref your other question about throttle position, the main other thing to note about the system is its air path logic is a little unusual.

If you follow through the tables in this order: (Top of my head)
Pedal request in Nm > Max Engine Nm Limits > IPC NM limits > Gear Limits in Nm > That will give you the lowest torque request in NM which it uses for its load calculation.

From there its:
Load needed to make that Nm > Airflow needed to make that Load > MAP needed to make that airflow > WG position (May be determined via Mass fraction) > TIP needed to allow MAP > That gives you wastegate and Throttle position.

That path will ideally lead to full throttle at all times.
However, the ECU will actively regulate MAP via throttle to the max TIP allowed so the aim is to tune the requests and the WG tables so that you request slightly more MAP than you can actually achieve.

There are tons of tables to mess with and you will do well over 200 table changes to achieve your aim.

The octane tables you mentioned and are historically used to are referred to as LSPI tables in this ECU, and the ECU uses them to blend the load to suit any fuel based on knock feedback, so do a little reading on those and log your OAR PID.
(Octane adjust ratio) which will help you determine which table is in use.

BEWARE of just ramping the LSPI tables up and out of the way like many tuners do. (Set it to 5.0 and forget about it)
Thats a little like placing an order for new pistons with some Ecoboost drivers... I dont know so much about the 2.7, but the smaller EcoBooms DO suffer from LSPI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evolution Stu

Your welcome,
The Ford HDFX system takes some swallowing after using any other system.
Crazy complexity, but worth trying to understand as its likely the future and has always been Fords future.

Ref your other question about throttle position, the main other thing to note about the system is its air path logic is a little unusual.

If you follow through the tables in this order: (Top of my head)
Pedal request in Nm > Max Engine Nm Limits > IPC NM limits > Gear Limits in Nm > That will give you the lowest torque request in NM which it uses for its load calculation.

From there its:
Load needed to make that Nm > Airflow needed to make that Load > MAP needed to make that airflow > WG position (May be determined via Mass fraction) > TIP needed to allow MAP > That gives you wastegate and Throttle position.

That path will ideally lead to full throttle at all times.
However, the ECU will actively regulate MAP via throttle to the max TIP allowed so the aim is to tune the requests and the WG tables so that you request slightly more MAP than you can actually achieve.

There are tons of tables to mess with and you will do well over 200 table changes to achieve your aim.

The octane tables you mentioned and are historically used to are referred to as LSPI tables in this ECU, and the ECU uses them to blend the load to suit any fuel based on knock feedback, so do a little reading on those and log your OAR PID.
(Octane adjust ratio) which will help you determine which table is in use.

BEWARE of just ramping the LSPI tables up and out of the way like many tuners do. (Set it to 5.0 and forget about it)
Thats a little like placing an order for new pistons with some Ecoboost drivers... I dont know so much about the 2.7, but the smaller EcoBooms DO suffer from LSPI.

---

If I may qualify these two comments?

With a turbocharger you can often achieve more MAP than is safe/needed/ok/good for you, this is where throttle closure comes into play. I can tell/allow ecoboost motor to make enough boost/heat to superheat the intake charge or with bigger turbos we can simply overboost the engine and break it that way. So the point is the limit yourself with respect to your hardware limits.

LSPI definitely needs to stay conservative below 1500-2000 RPMs, after that I have not found any issue raising them up.....but then I guess above that it wouldn't really be "low speed" pre ignition anymore....

I agree it was probably worth validating the first comment.
On topics and groups like this I don’t get involved in trying to teach the dynamics of tuning and just have to assume that someone this deep into a PCM knows the physical and thermodynamic limitations of tuning, especially when they state they have fitted a pair of bigger turbos and that they know they need to reduce timing.

But you are right, of course I meant you need to tune the system so that your ACTUAL final load is slightly less than the REQUESTED load so that the ECU will not try and take over via throttle closure.

Ref LSPI, the Ford engineers tend to agree that LSPI is no longer an issue after around 2500rpm.
These motors are capable of a LOT of extra torque down there and I regularly dyno them with tunes on commanding way too much (IMO) and when you look deeper, the tuner has often raised the low rpm limits globally.

Also, setting them all high will also remove the ECU’s capability of running different load with different octane ratings.

I see it every week... too many “tuners” just removing limits instead of “tuning” them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evolution Stu

I agree it was probably worth validating the first comment.
On topics and groups like this I don’t get involved in trying to teach the dynamics of tuning and just have to assume that someone this deep into a PCM knows the physical and thermodynamic limitations of tuning, especially when they state they have fitted a pair of bigger turbos and that they know they need to reduce timing.

But you are right, of course I meant you need to tune the system so that your ACTUAL final load is slightly less than the REQUESTED load so that the ECU will not try and take over via throttle closure.

Ref LSPI, the Ford engineers tend to agree that LSPI is no longer an issue after around 2500rpm.
These motors are capable of a LOT of extra torque down there and I regularly dyno them with tunes on commanding way too much (IMO) and when you look deeper, the tuner has often raised the low rpm limits globally.

Also, setting them all high will also remove the ECU’s capability of running different load with different octane ratings.

I see it every week... too many “tuners” just removing limits instead of “tuning” them.

---

agreed.

The basic concept was to dampen the throttle in response to "torque management" (boost vs. boost set point) and rely more heavily on the wastegate PID control for boost vs boost set point. I'm sure it's in there somewhere, everything else is.

This mystery table would be called something like "min throttle in response to over load" and then have an X of over load percentage or absolute values, 10% over target, 20% over target, etc. A Y of engine speed. And the data points would be % of throttle position. As boost goes further over target the table would allow a greater range of throttle closure. And that is what I want to dampen, forcing the system to use more of the wastegate control/PID, instead, for boost regulation.

Morning Terry,
This isnt something I have had to try on Ecoboost because obviously there is no reason to if the targets are correct and the absolute fastest and safest way to control an overboost is by throttle. Wastegate is as you know, much slower.

But I understand your reasoning as once you get to bigger turbines the whole calibration becomes a lot harder to manipulate, and the mass fraction method of targeting boost control via heat energy is another curveball to overcome since the control model that was amazing is now bloody wrong due to our meddling.

The COBB system allows us a few nice features to dial it in faster, such as WG duty adders we can swop between on the cruise control buttons, and gear dependant adders too. That speeds the whole process up I must admit.

A well known tuner over here turns off torque modelling altogether and starts from scratch with the cal, reverting it to a full VE map, but they are never as refined as the torque controlled system. Drives like a 90s car, but still nice to be fair, although all the quite cool stuff that customers WILL notice go missing, like hill start assist etc are now dead when torque control is totally disabled.

There are some seriously good Ecoboost tuners on this forum, so hopefully someone will come along with a solution for you, but I’m afraid I don’t know of one. That said, you have got me interested enough in that line of control to try and look in the A2L later and see if there is something that might be worth asking Eric to expose for us to make this a possibility, as I would assume there must be a response logic control table for such conditions as you say.

Will try and dig dig into it later, assuming my day shift doesn’t extend into a night shift as usual... lol

Sounds good, thanks. I'll update the thread if I find anything myself.

I wonder if this table is related to what I want to change on the throttle behavior in over boost?

Attachment 87191

Sorry Terry, didnt get even close to looking at an A2L. 3am finish on a rally car saw to that! :banghead:

I dont recall ever seeing those in my 4pot definitions, they look very much like what is needed! I Hope you get chance to drop some feedback on here. If they arent in our definitions, Id like them added. :drivin:

Might well be ive never noticed them! :doh:

Did it help mate? Or not tested yet?

Must admit that I am Surprised nobody else has chimed In yet.
We don’t see many of these in the U.K.

I have another annoying timing issue I need help with... Timing is oscillating between two disjointed values, like 5 degrees and 3 degrees during runs. It's working between borderline points 5 and 6. It should be smoothly transitioning between the two timing values I presume? Instead ignition advance is bouncing around. Can't exactly what's going on though.

Attachment 87408