Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 149

Thread: SHO / EcoBoost HPT Tuning Guides

  1. #21
    wish someone would do this for the 3.5 ecoboost f150...

  2. #22
    FYI, even at 22lbs in the midrange and 20psi up top it's still not out of fuel when the pump is setup well at 0.82 lambda. However, in 100 degree ambient temps the charge temp is really high 160s-170s by the end of a run.
    Last edited by mechanicboy; 08-16-2016 at 10:30 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Tuner metroplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,077
    The 2015 EB 3.5 settings should be the same if not similar. The 2015 and newer seems to be slightly different though.

    Mechanicboy: I noticed that as well. At 18 psi, my fuel pressure looks stock at 0.85 lambda. But I think the GT15 turbos really run out of efficiency above 18 psi, hence why you see the charge temps spike up. It's just creating heat at that point possibly. Are you seeing much increase in massflow at 20-22 psi? What about knock retard?

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by metroplex View Post
    Mechanicboy: I noticed that as well. At 18 psi, my fuel pressure looks stock at 0.85 lambda. But I think the GT15 turbos really run out of efficiency above 18 psi, hence why you see the charge temps spike up. It's just creating heat at that point possibly. Are you seeing much increase in massflow at 20-22 psi? What about knock retard?
    I haven't ran a tune that runs 18 or 19 lbs across the board to compare, I could try that if I get a chance. When the temps are that high I'm seeing significant knock retard into the negative timing.

  5. #25
    Senior Tuner metroplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,077
    I updated V1.1 with some changes to the transmission settings. I've done testing when the weather was hot (ambient in the mid 90s) and it seemed like the trans fluid temp was at the very least 10F cooler with the faster TCC lockups, and as much as 30F cooler. I also threw in a short blurb on speedometer calibration in case anyone was interested.

  6. #26
    Senior Tuner metroplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,077
    I decided to do a full datalog to see how the car is running. Ambient was only 78F, so it wasn't as hot as the 90F+ days we had. But I had run through several tanks of 93 octane fuel. It looks like at up to 18.2 psi, there's zero knock retard.

    One of the things I've noticed is that in 1st and 2nd gears, my max boost levels will be lower than my limit of 18.1 psi. It is only in 3rd gear WOT when I'll notice the MAP boost being limited to my setting.

    That said, I was pushing over 49 lb/min of air mass flow in 2nd gear at 6000 RPM with 16.6 psi of boost. That equates to roughly 460+ hp. Bone stock, my SHO was only pushing about 38-39 lb/min (about 365-370 hp). I will say that between a 17 psi tune and the 18 psi tune, the air mass flow will differ by about 2-3 lb/min, so there may be room to work with seeing how there's zero KR at 18 psi with 93 octane. Fuel pressure is also 2300+ psi at 18 psi.

    After changing the PTU and RDU oil, the car accelerates a lot better.

  7. #27
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    magnolia tx
    Posts
    21
    had a question see if one of u guys have experience this or might have a answer for me ok I am working on 11 f150 3.5 and when I adjust the max vs turbo airflow and min vs turbo air flow the truck dosnt crank lts like there no power and once I put them back to stock it turns on

  8. #28
    Senior Tuner metroplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,077
    Did you touch the values at 0?

  9. #29
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    magnolia tx
    Posts
    21
    I was looking at the file and on mine had 2 of them and I did move one

  10. #30
    Senior Tuner metroplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,077
    I was told that if you set the MIN values too far apart from the MAX values, it can cause errors. What I ended up doing was use relatively stock MIN values, and then tweaked the values near WOT for the MAX and kept it relatively conservative. I was also told that these tables use relative values, so if you put down 17 psi, that translates to 17 psi and not 2.6 psi (taking into account atmospheric pressure). For air mass flow under 20 lb/min, I just used stock values because you're not going to be pushing a lot of boost below this flow rate.

    Through trial and error, I found that the Max Desired Pressure scalar (the one circled in green) is far more important. This value is absolute, so 32.50 psi here translates to about 18.1-18.2 psi. On my SHO, 1st and 2nd gear WOT through 6000 RPM results in a max boost of about 16-17 psi (no matter what I really did with the MAX tables) while 3rd gear WOT boost is limited to the scalar value. My SHO boost is pretty much flat limited to 18.2 psi throughout 3rd gear. During the initial trial and error phase, I'd set this scalar very high (like 40+ psi) trying to eliminate limiters but that was the wrong way to go. If you set the scalar for a lower boost value, the boost in 1st and 2nd gear will drop in about the same amount. I don't understand why the boost is lower in 1st and 2nd gear, but the air mass flow is high enough even with the lower boost to signify about a 100 hp increase in power.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  11. #31
    Senior Tuner metroplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,077
    I did more testing today, and it flows over 50#/min with the same tune. I went back to the stock fuel pressure settings (2100 psi max) and there weren't any issues. It looks like the fueling is sufficient for even over 19-20 psi but I'm not seeing a whole lot more air mass flow at higher boost levels with the stock turbos. Air charge temperature isn't bad either at 18-19 psi, holding at under 140F. Over 19-20 psi is when I start to see higher charge temps (above 160F) but again air mass flow isn't much higher.

  12. #32
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18
    You guys need to be looking at your timing and short term fuel trims at wot..... If the short term trims are pulling fuel at wot that means your airflow is actually less than what the airflow reported is... The airflow is estimated based on the speed density calculations and doesn't take into account turbos that are way outside their maps and killing the VE. Also if you don't run enough timing for your given load, you will cook the cats in short order....

  13. #33
    Senior Tuner metroplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,077
    The SHO factory tune is the only one I've seen that actually has quite a bit of timing at WOT - like 8* to 13*, whereas other EcoBoost setups (F-150, Mustang, etc...) are running near 0* or retarded timing at WOT.

  14. #34
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by metroplex View Post
    The SHO factory tune is the only one I've seen that actually has quite a bit of timing at WOT - like 8* to 13*, whereas other EcoBoost setups (F-150, Mustang, etc...) are running near 0* or retarded timing at WOT.
    Not at stock power levels.... You are missing something I promise . Look at the log I posted a while back. There are all kinds of safeties in the tunes when the power level is above stock....

  15. #35

  16. #36
    Senior Tuner metroplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by mattr66 View Post
    Not at stock power levels.... You are missing something I promise . Look at the log I posted a while back. There are all kinds of safeties in the tunes when the power level is above stock....
    I was actually talking about the stock tunes. But I looked at your log below, interesting. You're running up to 18 psi at the manifold, but all kinds of limiters are popping up. Is this a 2015-up F-150 3.5L EB?

    You're running a bit more timing advance (peak of 14.5*). I just kept the stock spark settings, and I'm averaging 10-11* of timing advance above 3000 RPM at WOT. STFT looks about the same as yours? Roughly -3% above 3k RPM.

  17. #37
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by metroplex View Post
    I was actually talking about the stock tunes. But I looked at your log below, interesting. You're running up to 18 psi at the manifold, but all kinds of limiters are popping up. Is this a 2015-up F-150 3.5L EB?

    You're running a bit more timing advance (peak of 14.5*). I just kept the stock spark settings, and I'm averaging 10-11* of timing advance above 3000 RPM at WOT. STFT looks about the same as yours? Roughly -3% above 3k RPM.
    That is a 16 F150, a little different logic than the SHO. All kinds of limiters? You mean the popcorn and the out of fuel limit up top? I'm running .8 lambda at the very top so i'm calling for a bit more fuel and it is out of injector pulsewidth. Popcorn limiter is of no issue. The twin cam phaser 3.5 has more inherent VE at the same rpm because it can change overlap on the fly unlike the single cam phasers in the transverse application. Also the 15-16 trucks have better turbos than the transverse, so at the same boost, they will make more power as well.

  18. #38
    Senior Tuner metroplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,077
    Yes, I noticed your air mass was a bit higher at 6k, about 51 and change. I was only able to see 50.99 with mine - and I do understand it is inferred air mass flow because we are speed density.
    As for limiters, I meant the TQ Red < Driver Demand and Combustion Stability. I had to find ways to remove those limiters for mine to produce the right amount of boost. Otherwise the throttle plate wouldn't fully open when it is supposed to open, or torque would be limited one way or another.

    The SHO in stock trim runs a lot richer at WOT Lambda (0.73 to 0.78) which will cause insufficient fuel errors to pop up with any boost levels above stock. I'm running 0.85 which is leaner, and the fuel pressure looks great even with the stock HPFP settings (2100 psi max). My injector pulsewidth is about 6 ms max at 6k+ RPM. I'm not sure if it is out of duty cycle at that point.

    Does the 15-16 still use K03s for turbos?

    There's not much more room to add spark advance at ~18 psi for the SHO, at least on my setup. With 93 octane, it is on the threshold of knock retard with 10-11* advance. I'd love to see the 15-16 F-150 tuned file just to see how the logic works.

  19. #39
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by metroplex View Post
    Yes, I noticed your air mass was a bit higher at 6k, about 51 and change. I was only able to see 50.99 with mine - and I do understand it is inferred air mass flow because we are speed density.
    As for limiters, I meant the TQ Red < Driver Demand and Combustion Stability. I had to find ways to remove those limiters for mine to produce the right amount of boost. Otherwise the throttle plate wouldn't fully open when it is supposed to open, or torque would be limited one way or another.

    The SHO in stock trim runs a lot richer at WOT Lambda (0.73 to 0.78) which will cause insufficient fuel errors to pop up with any boost levels above stock. I'm running 0.85 which is leaner, and the fuel pressure looks great even with the stock HPFP settings (2100 psi max). My injector pulsewidth is about 6 ms max at 6k+ RPM. I'm not sure if it is out of duty cycle at that point.

    Does the 15-16 still use K03s for turbos?

    There's not much more room to add spark advance at ~18 psi for the SHO, at least on my setup. With 93 octane, it is on the threshold of knock retard with 10-11* advance. I'd love to see the 15-16 F-150 tuned file just to see how the logic works.
    The 15-16 trucks have billet wheels from the factory. I don't know if they are employing extended tips or not, but they definitely flow more air.

    If you are running 10 degrees of advance at 18 PSI you are pretty close to optimum, but are you skewing the factory torque tables to get there?

  20. #40
    Senior Tuner metroplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,077
    I didn't touch the torque/inverse torque tables at all, nor did I touch the spark tables. I was told the torque tables are really used as reference values. Upon closer examination, it makes sense because the air loads for the higher torque values correspond to what I am seeing. I did experiment with tweaking the torque tables (without having access to the torque limiters and other limiters) early on but it didn't do much with minor changes, and radical changes caused the failure mode (not fun on the road).

    What was your stock boost levels? I thought I saw the F-150s at around 14 psi. The SHO in stock trim was about 10-11 psi. I did experiment between 15-18 psi, and 19-20 psi. I didn't see any significant increases in air flow above 18 psi and the manifold charge temp values would rise rapidly above 140F (I was seeing about 160+F with ambient at around 80F), so the GT1549s were probably way out of efficiency. I haven't found any rule of thumbs for the SHO/transverse setups, but was initially told the SHO would run out of fuel above 18 psi if kept there too long.