2019 Mustang GT Knock Retard

[Ethan5.019]

I need help. The car is on the same file but these 2 logs are doing completely opposite things during WOT. I do have a question about per cylinder knock monitoring vs Global knock monitoring to the affect that I need to know which method is adding spark when it sees a positive KR # and which is subtracting when it sees a positive KR #.

I'm posting my tune file below with both logs. Please someone help me figure this out. 2019 Mustang GT 10R with longtubes, catless and AWE touring exhaust.

2019 Ford Mustang GT FFVBurble.1.6.1.hpt

WOT 1.6.1.hpl

24-02-21 14-56-58.hpl

[engineermike]

In the WOT 1.6.1 log you rolled into and only stayed at wot for about 1 second. You got a little knock advance.

In the 24-02 log you hammered it hard and stayed in it for 6 seconds. You got knock retard.

It's not super surprising that it acted this way.

As a side note, your log data density is pretty bad. You're logging too many channels and the data rate is too slow. If you want to nail down the timing better, you'll want to get rid of delete a bunch of channels and speed up the data rate on the timing channels.

As far as per cylinder goes, you can log knock retard on a per cylinder basis, but with how your tune is set up they will all return the same number above 5080 rpm. It only acts as per-cyl below 5080.

[Ethan5.019]

In the WOT 1.6.1 log you rolled into and only stayed at wot for about 1 second. You got a little knock advance.

In the 24-02 log you hammered it hard and stayed in it for 6 seconds. You got knock retard.

It's not super surprising that it acted this way.

As a side note, your log data density is pretty bad. You're logging too many channels and the data rate is too slow. If you want to nail down the timing better, you'll want to get rid of delete a bunch of channels and speed up the data rate on the timing channels.

As far as per cylinder goes, you can log knock retard on a per cylinder basis, but with how your tune is set up they will all return the same number above 5080 rpm. It only acts as per-cyl below 5080.

So when I'm seeing Negative -KR it's correct to know the ECU is infact adding degrees of timing and that is a positive thing. Obviously during my longer pull seeing that Positive +KR it's the ECU detecting knock and removing degrees of timing which is a Negative thing.

[engineermike]

Correct

[Ethan5.019]

Correct

So next on the WOT pull 24-02, is there an area I can focus on to get rid of the KR at WOT? It's got the correct lambda from my WOT fuel table and both banks are reading correctly. I'm just stuck.

[Pistol_91]

Decrease timing in that mapped point at that load and RPM..

[engineermike]

What is your goal?

[Ethan5.019]

What is your goal?

I was trying to get the car dialed in for FFV but seeing that it's having some many issues I will go back with a dedicated 93 and separate E85 tune. My goal was to learn to tune my car as I install modifications. It's my hobby and I enjoy learning about platform.

[engineermike]

Ok why do you say you’re having “so many issues”? Knock response is pretty normal. I like to calibrate mine to not have any knock but most na fords, even stock, experience knock at wot. I can explain how to tune for no knock but most don’t bother doing it this way.

[Ethan5.019]

Ok why do you say you?re having ?so many issues?? Knock response is pretty normal. I like to calibrate mine to not have any knock but most na fords, even stock, experience knock at wot. I can explain how to tune for no knock but most don?t bother doing it this way.

I guess I was under the impression that a good tune would have 0 KR and with 93 it would run a little more than 21* of timing. I'm still learning and I've spent money and time into some actual tuning classes but I know there's more than what I've seen in those.

[engineermike]

I guess I was under the impression that a good tune would have 0 KR and with 93 it would run a little more than 21* of timing. I'm still learning and I've spent money and time into some actual tuning classes but I know there's more than what I've seen in those.

Probably need to learn the basics before trying a flex tune. What fuel are you running anyway? It's showing 30% ethanol. You're adding 10 deg timing at 50%, meaning that you're adding 5 deg timing already. Based on WOT fuel trims I suspect you're running E10 93, which means you're trying to add 5 deg timing on top of what Ford was running when the stock tune even runs into knock on 93.

You have to get your fuel trims nailed down before even considering trying a flex tune. It should learn 10% ethanol on gasoline, not 30%. And your borderline timing modifier for flex is way too much. How did you arrive at adding 20 deg? And how did you arrive at populating all the MBT tables with 33 deg?

And besides, HPT is lacking a few very important parameters to make factory flex work...namely fuel line volumes. It will mature too soon after a fillup and will be inaccurate when switching fuels if you don't correct the fuel line volumes.

And where are you getting 21 deg from? Your data rate is so bad it is hard to tell what's going on with the timing but in both the logs posted above it's hitting a minimum of 24 which about as good as it gets on a Gen3 on 93.

We can talk timing logic if you want but you really need to understand how it works before drawing the conclusion that it's bad, good, or otherwise interpretting the data.

[Ethan5.019]

Probably need to learn the basics before trying a flex tune. What fuel are you running anyway? It's showing 30% ethanol. You're adding 10 deg timing at 50%, meaning that you're adding 5 deg timing already. Based on WOT fuel trims I suspect you're running E10 93, which means you're trying to add 5 deg timing on top of what Ford was running when the stock tune even runs into knock on 93.

You have to get your fuel trims nailed down before even considering trying a flex tune. It should learn 10% ethanol on gasoline, not 30%. And your borderline timing modifier for flex is way too much. How did you arrive at adding 20 deg? And how did you arrive at populating all the MBT tables with 33 deg?

And besides, HPT is lacking a few very important parameters to make factory flex work...namely fuel line volumes. It will mature too soon after a fillup and will be inaccurate when switching fuels if you don't correct the fuel line volumes.

And where are you getting 21 deg from? Your data rate is so bad it is hard to tell what's going on with the timing but in both the logs posted above it's hitting a minimum of 24 which about as good as it gets on a Gen3 on 93.

We can talk timing logic if you want but you really need to understand how it works before drawing the conclusion that it's bad, good, or otherwise interpretting the data.

So I took the car down to the VMP Openhouse over the weekend and "thought" I had all the FFV tables and such populated in order to put some E85 in the tank and dyno the car. I was obviously mistaken and the car was getting an insufficient fuel limit. It was closing the throttle and having some KR events during WOT. I went back and found a few things I missed and finally got the car to read alcohol content and corrected the tables under the Fuel Pressure tab. At this point I was at maybe 3/8s of a tank of e85 and I filled up with 93 since E isn't as popular in South Georgia.

The car then started reading less alcohol % since it was mixed now and then I started seeing these KR events as I've been testing. On straight 93oct the car reads 9.8% alcohol.

I'm also open to any references and learning courses and material. I have the Tuning Schools Coyote course online and all the books for it. I felt it was the bare minimum to get into tuning but without many recommendations thats what I decided was a starting point.

[Ethan5.019]

Probably need to learn the basics before trying a flex tune. What fuel are you running anyway? It's showing 30% ethanol. You're adding 10 deg timing at 50%, meaning that you're adding 5 deg timing already. Based on WOT fuel trims I suspect you're running E10 93, which means you're trying to add 5 deg timing on top of what Ford was running when the stock tune even runs into knock on 93.

You have to get your fuel trims nailed down before even considering trying a flex tune. It should learn 10% ethanol on gasoline, not 30%. And your borderline timing modifier for flex is way too much. How did you arrive at adding 20 deg? And how did you arrive at populating all the MBT tables with 33 deg?

And besides, HPT is lacking a few very important parameters to make factory flex work...namely fuel line volumes. It will mature too soon after a fillup and will be inaccurate when switching fuels if you don't correct the fuel line volumes.

And where are you getting 21 deg from? Your data rate is so bad it is hard to tell what's going on with the timing but in both the logs posted above it's hitting a minimum of 24 which about as good as it gets on a Gen3 on 93.

We can talk timing logic if you want but you really need to understand how it works before drawing the conclusion that it's bad, good, or otherwise interpretting the data.

I've made a few changes to the file I posted. I adjusted a few of my spark tables and lowered the borderline timing modifer for flex.

2019 Ford Mustang GT FFVBurble.1.6.3.hpt

[engineermike]

I still think your MBT tables are still messed up and 11 is still quite a lot to add for flex timing. Is your octane adjust working?

Need a good log.

[Ethan5.019]

I still think your MBT tables are still messed up and 11 is still quite a lot to add for flex timing. Is your octane adjust working?

Need a good log.

I just got this log from that file. It looks like a good clean pull. The KR is gone and it looks like I'm actually getting some advance since the car is happy.

WOT 1.6.3.hpl

[engineermike]

The log looks better. It's not how I would do it, but the end result is ok-ish. The data rate on the timing advance PID could be faster and you don't need to log all the mapped point weights (they're slowing down the rate). Might consider raising shift points and rev limiters some.

[Pistol_91]

MBT Tables definitely weird.

[Ethan5.019]

The log looks better. It's not how I would do it, but the end result is ok-ish. The data rate on the timing advance PID could be faster and you don't need to log all the mapped point weights (they're slowing down the rate). Might consider raising shift points and rev limiters some.

I'm going to remove the lower MPs since they don't really do anything for WOT. I know they are for the IMRC function. I was shifting with the paddles on this run but I do have Select shift WOT shifts at 7500 i believe I'll check. Also I'm open to references and learning materials that I can go study.

[Ethan5.019]

MBT Tables definitely weird.

I fixed em. They should be good now and enough out of the way for my spark advance to work plus a couple of degrees.

2019 Ford Mustang GT FFVBurble.1.6.4.hpt

[engineermike]

You put the MBT tables back stock. That's a step in the right direction. However, I just noticed that you are adding 8 deg of MBT with flex logic, which boggles my mind. So originally you had plugged in 33 deg for all your MBT tables and then were attempting to add another 8 on top of that with ethanol, putting MBT at 41 deg. Why are you trying to run MBT so high? And MBT wouldn't be that strongly related to ethanol content anyway. This isn't the right way to do it even it MBT was that high.