15+ F150 incorrect Engine Indicated Torque Reference

Interested to see if anyone else has run into this. I already have Eric Brooks looking to see if there's anything possibly not mapped that could help with this issue, but figured I would crowd-source it here as well. The issue is as the title says. Essentially there seems to be a cap on the calculated torque reference, which seems to be around 550 ft/lbs. I'm attaching four logs, and a layout config that makes it a little easier to view. The four logs are the same truck, same tune. 2017 F150 5.0 with an On3 twin kit on E85. You should notice that the Indicated Torque never increases much with nearly double the boost (7 psi vs 13.5 psi). The airflow model is accurate as you can see calculated load is very close to MAP kPa, but there seems to be a cap on the amount of torque that is allowed to be reported by the PCM. Obviously this is not ideal, since engine torque is a direct input into the transmission logic. I've been working around this by re-scaling the torque axis of the transmission tables, but that is really just a band-aid fix. Torque tables and inverse torque tables are accurate, and drivability is great. I can increase the indicated torque value by "rapping" the torque and inverse tables where they max out, but that then causes drivability issues off-boost. So, that's obviously not a fix. The real issue "seems" to be that there is a cap or limiter in the control logic that is not allowing the higher cells of the torque and inverse tables to be accessed. regardless what values are put into them.

I can't, unfortunately, share the tune as it contains work that is not mine, but the logs show the issue. I've tried everything I can possibly think of at this point, so I'm really more interested in seeing if anyone else has run into something similar. I should also note that when tuning from a Whipple or Roush calibration, this limit does not exist and I've seen Indicated Torque values as high as 850 ft/lbs on some high boost Whipple trucks. However, comparing to a Whipple file does not lend anything different that raises a red flag on the issue. I have even copied over values directly from Whipple tunes to see if it makes a difference, and it does not. So, I'm open to any info anyone wants to share.

Are you still using the stock TIP sensor? Looks to me like it would cap at 1.2 requested load. This is about 515ftlb ETC torque and 555ftlb indicated torque. Similar to what your logs show.
I didn't know the F150's had TIP sensors, thought it was Baro./ calc baro. and MAP. They also have Delta above baro, kinda seems redundant and prone to conflict.

I had similar issue before but with a GT350 - nothing was cut but you just could not make any more indicated torque.

It was in those tables but they are not present in F150 tunes:

Attachment 94557

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

Are you still using the stock TIP sensor? Looks to me like it would cap at 1.2 requested load. This is about 515ftlb ETC torque and 555ftlb indicated torque. Similar to what your logs show.
I didn't know the F150's had TIP sensors, thought it was Baro./ calc baro. and MAP. They also have Delta above baro, kinda seems redundant and prone to conflict.

---

5.0 F150's do not have TIP sensors. 15-18 only have MAP, and 2019 have MAP and Baro.

Max MAP Delta above BP is also not cal'd in 5.0 trucks. Populating that table will cause the throttle to oscillate pretty violently as you transition from vacuum to boost. Full WOT, it's fine, but drivability is terrible as there's essentially no part throttle boost without throttle modulation. This is even after calibrating the airflow model and torque tables correctly. Strange though, because all Whipple and Roush cals have this function populated. So it can be made to work, there's likely just another piece of the puzzle we're not seeing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeefour

I had similar issue before but with a GT350 - nothing was cut but you just could not make any more indicated torque.

It was in those tables but they are not present in F150 tunes:

Attachment 94557

---

I've never seen those tables in any F150 calibration, only in Mustang cals. It might not exist. I'll send Eric an email to see if he can check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzTuning

Max MAP Delta above BP is also not cal'd in 5.0 trucks. Populating that table will cause the throttle to oscillate pretty violently as you transition from vacuum to boost. Full WOT, it's fine, but drivability is terrible as there's essentially no part throttle boost without throttle modulation. This is even after calibrating the airflow model and torque tables correctly. Strange though, because all Whipple and Roush cals have this function populated. So it can be made to work, there's likely just another piece of the puzzle we're not seeing.

---

Max MAP Delta above BP...

This is one strange parameter. It should solve the tip-in torque problems but it does not. Setting it to the values like Roush makes the car acting strange to say the least - as noted.
Even tho you copy everything 1:1 from Roush tunes to your non Roush OS(same hardware) its still acting strange on boost transition or on decel. There must something missing in tunes that HPT is not aware of.

V6 550's have these values set "on minus", negative. I tried to change to something stupid but it has no effect whatsoever. It gets even better...

The file for one I was looking at did have characterization tables for a TIP sensor. And if it was a 5 volt sensor it wasn't going to go much higher than 1 bar. This lead me to wonder if it did have one, as ECO trucks would need one at least as high of bar, as the map sensor.

Attachment 94682

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

The file for one I was looking at did have characterization tables for a TIP sensor. And if it was a 5 volt sensor it wasn't going to go much higher than 1 bar. This lead me to wonder if it did have one, as ECO trucks would need one at least as high of bar, as the map sensor.

Attachment 94682

---

Those values are the MAP sensor. It's mis-labeled in VCM Suite as TIP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeefour

Max MAP Delta above BP...

---

My 2014 Gt500 stock tune has this parameter, I can't see that it does anything.
Table #44351

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MRRPMBRP

My 2014 Gt500 stock tune has this parameter, I can't see that it does anything.
Table #44351

---

S550 GT it alters TB in some manner - mostly on decel and vacuum to boost transitions. Hangs and oscillates a bit.

In S550 V6 it has negative values stock and does absolutely nothing with or without boost.

MAP delta above barometric pressure - whatever this means since there's no baro sensor.

Its not mislabeled on the Eco boost trucks. Both are defined.

Attachment 94716

If you know this is mislabeled, like you have added a higher bar sensor and used it to modify the characteristics to the new sensor, you should send this stuff into support. They fix it very quickly and it helps out anyone else who has one of these trucks. Heck they may even find connections that should be made, but were missed in the backend between their UI template and the ECU's OS.

Even with no Baro sensor it still starts at the default baro and calculates it from airflow into the engine and corrections needing to be done to the lambda. Baro is where all air models start. I even have told a few people to limit how much this can be learned to keep it from correcting your calibration mistakes. Atleast until they have things more inline with where they should be.

GT500's have max map delta above baro, because they have SIP sensors, but not MAP sensors. The throttle body model works by knowing baro will be more than SIP, so air is going to flow that way. It is still useful for the ECU to know how much higher MAP can be than Baro, even if its not for air flow reasons. Keep in mind it is a MAX, you only should notice it when you hit it. If you are noticing it any other time, you have something calibrated wrong.

On how much this can be learned - I believe you mean this. It can range form 150 to 400%. Reducing it helps with oscillations as mentioned but it's only a band aid.
Attachment 94717

I have a 4 bar sensor permanently hooked in my S550 - hell I have like 10 additional sensors as its a development car: 2x EGT, MAP, fuel pressure sensor etc. I even have TIP...
Logging and comparing SD model to MAP it's like within 3%, not sure it can ever be better. It's a turbo car so you can't really tune the part where the turbo spools up and transits to boost.
I even have a very sophisticated boost controller that offers a parameters like OEM, boost by gear, by TPS, by RPM, by VSP, EGT cut, open loop, closed loop, PID...everything.
Assuming MAX delta above BP is basically speaking the boost you are actually making then this just does not work as advertised. At least I was not able to tune in the way that does not irritate the driver.

Some tuners like Whipple, Roush would change the default baro to higher or lower value. Any idea why?

Attachment 94718

No I was talking about the barometric learning max and min. .44 bar would only be average at an elevation of 17000-18000 ft. It drops about 1inHg(.034 bar) per 1000 ft elevation. Things like temperature or even storm systems can effect it, very similar to DA. For the most part real baro. is very consistent and static day to day, the ecu learns it very slow and it should reset with a flash.

I'm not sure why they change default baro. Maybe to line the pressure up where they want, so it works with the operation point of the bypass better. You don't want the bypass to ever be more of a restriction than the throttle body.

Turbo cars are all about tuning where they spool. The eco boost don't even fully rely on the waste gate to control boost. That becomes harder with out a TIP sensor. This is where the torque request comes in from the pedal to limit the airflow with the throttle. Not just allowing the airflow get out of control when the driver is only demanding 40% throttle, or so they think. Lining up driver demand and what the engine does, but also limiting what the engine can do with ETC torque at lower pedal positions. It's a balancing act for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

GT500's have max map delta above baro, because they have SIP sensors, but not MAP sensors. The throttle body model works by knowing baro will be more than SIP, so air is going to flow that way. It is still useful for the ECU to know how much higher MAP can be than Baro, even if its not for air flow reasons. Keep in mind it is a MAX, you only should notice it when you hit it. If you are noticing it any other time, you have something calibrated wrong.

---

Maybe we're off topic, but we may find something here.

I bought my GT500 used, the SIP sensor was just laying on the manifold, so it's just reading atmospheric at all times. I am not sure why this was done, but I still have it like that. Should I put it back in the inlet stream where it's supposed to be? I do have a super lean spike down low, taking off, super annoying, not sure it's related though, just need to figure it out for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murfie

Turbo cars are all about tuning where they spool. The eco boost don't even fully rely on the waste gate to control boost. That becomes harder with out a TIP sensor. This is where the torque request comes in from the pedal to limit the airflow with the throttle. Not just allowing the airflow get out of control when the driver is only demanding 40% throttle, or so they think. Lining up driver demand and what the engine does, but also limiting what the engine can do with ETC torque at lower pedal positions. It's a balancing act for sure.

---

I have those turbo tunes done like 95% drives like stock but once in a while I have that "detonation tip in limit" in torque source at WOT - mostly while launching from a dig.
Setting Tip-in logic to 0 in Airflow and disabling spark/torque reduction ratios does not eliminate this completely neither Max MAP delta table as some would suggest - it's restricting TB.
Kinda the situation when ECU waits for LOAD to raise but it wont raise high enough without spooling the turbo first. Inferred MAP is within 5% with actual MAP from boost controller.

Torque model is OK, the problem is you will not make much LOAD down low before turbo spools up so torque request from model is low even if you command "torque-million" Nm from DD(tried that).
This creates the disagreement between ETC and BRAKE torque and TIP IN logic kicks in - even tho it's disabled...not sure if this can be reduced to min without real MAP sensor in manifold.
Any ideas?

If you have a good turbo kit matched to some small turbos very well and it spools very quick, it almost is like another tip in event as far as the ECU see from the load. You could/ should actually treat it like that to change spark and fuel fast enough in open loop. Closed loop is when time is a luxury.

If you don't want it to hit the tip in on spool, but still want it to work on large pedal or throttle inputs, you can modify the axis values to reflect that. This is just a pic with an example, you would have to find which tables are the cause and all the tables related to tip in. You'll notice when you change the axis, HPT connects certain tables together to make this quicker and easier.

Attachment 94745

I have big Hiroshima hairdryers but with ceramic bearings and they spools quite fast - was thinking the same, turbo is too big can't spool fast enough.
But no, I tried with smaller turbos and with lower A/R and swapped hot sides with lower A/R - I have like 20 turbochargers on the shelf.

I was digging in 3.5 EB tunes for answers as this is the closest you can get to OEM V8 with turbos - lot of answers there.
For example EB tunes are using 100% airmass for tip-in which is nowhere else to be found - typically 15-30%:

Attachment 94746

Will try to play with those table - thx for the tip. Spark source does not seems to be affected, TB is closing but you never know with those tunes. Below EB vs GT:

Attachment 94747Attachment 94748

Did anyone figure out anything on this?