What would cause this discrepancy
Funny Lambda.hpl
Swiper STG0 File.hpt
What would cause this discrepancy
Funny Lambda.hpl
Swiper STG0 File.hpt
Care to clarify a bit
Seems pretty normal to me.
Edit:
Is it that commanded lambda sweeps from 0.76 to 0.87?
If so, I'm not 100% sure, but short term fuel trim tracks that as well, so maybe just closed loop fuel adjustment doing it's thing to keep lambda actual in it's place? (0.82)
Last edited by Seishuku; 11-10-2022 at 10:58 PM.
Combustion Stability Limit
Torque Reduction < Driver Demand
Result: Fuel Source in Torque Reduction Mode.
Example: (335ft-lb driver demand) - (torque reduction) = 286 ft-lb
Last edited by SiriusC1024; 11-10-2022 at 07:17 PM.
Looks like you adjusted wastegate desired canister pressure for no reason other than linear looks better.
Are you sure you don't want help? Your car is making less power than stock.
I had though of that but it just seems strange that the commanded would swing around like that with the table set at a flat .82. I hate having to try and hit a wildly moving target like that hahaha.Originally Posted by Seishuku
So the commanded lambda is being used to decrease delivered torque...well if my car is making less power than stock, why would it need to reduce tq? What table would be requesting a reduction or is it something I have asked it to do inadvertently?
I realize this and no it isn't just because linier looks better. I am experimenting with tables to understand there relation ship to the rest of the tune. I have gone up and down in power out put to better understand the tuning process. You should see what it looks like now haha. Thank you for offering help though. I could use your understanding and interpretations of these tables though. I plan to make a post describing all my findings at some point.
As far as your limit, read up on popcorning and increasing torque IPC's. Normally I'd say disable the combustion stability limit, but your canister pressure settings are wrong. I wonder if it'd cause damage without that limiter in place.
Keep in mind that you don't want to increase your PR past the efficiency of your compressor map. Recently on another thread someone had a trick about tapering off boost at higher rpm's actually making more power. Forget the exact details.
As far as help I can offer I'm more interested in enabling optimum power mode, vct schedules, driver demand tables, and torque limits. I prefer to work within Ford's established parameters. I'll leave the boost increase to you. Bring it in gradually.
I plan to. When you say that the canister pressures are wrong, how do you know this for a fact? I know it is supposed to have a relationship to wastegate duty cycle but as far as I can tell this table doesn't really do anything that I can track. The wastage duty cycle table can be tracked but not with 100% accuracy. What I put in here doesn't always dictate what is on the recorded data. I am far from fully grasping the concept and its the inconsistency that is slowing me down as I have no working theories to apply. Disabling combustion stability limit hasn't crossed my mind. The LSPI tables are working for me so far. Do you see a benefit using the driver demand table vs the LSPI?
The one your talking about I think was a 2.0 fiesta maybe. Seemed he found more power by limiting boost pressure to 19lbs and increasing timing. I have found more power at 19 than 23 also. That i believe has a lot to do with the wildly increased air charge temp. Once I have an intercooler upgrade that will be worth revisiting.
Subscribed....and not wanting to sidetrack this at all but
"you don't want to increase your PR past the efficiency of your compressor map."
Where can we get compressor maps for the Gen1 3.5 in the Expedition and F150s?
You don't really need the compressor maps unless you're sizing a new turbo. In this case you can tell you're outside the efficiency range by the jump in air temp coming from the compressor.
"In this case you can tell you're outside the efficiency range by the jump in air temp coming from the compressor." Thank you.
On my 2015 Explorer Sport, I ran aggressive PR numbers similar to the map in metroplex's guide. The temps coming out of the little turbos above 16.5 psi were too much. I backed it down to 15.5 psi and left it there since 2017 with no problems.
I'm just getting more of these EBs now and have more chance to experiment on my 2016 Expedition so I really want to learn and do my best on them.
Boy this thread went no where. To try and get things back on track, I believe Seishuku is correct. The commanded Lambda swings from what is dictated in the tune to the percentage difference indicated by the short term trims. This keeps actual lambda following what is in the tune file. For example: .80 is what is on the wot lambda table in the tune. Commanded lambda starts there. Then the short term trims start adjusting 4% positive. .80-4%=.768 or there abouts. Same in reverse. Start at .80 then the short terms need -4% so .80+4%=.832 or there abouts. Ford is so funny. Got me for a bit on that one.
I think you are referencing Reducing boost pressure demand at high rpms, and increasing timing advance in that range to reduce cylinder pressure.
Reply With Quote