2014 Coyote Torque and Inverse Tables effect on Throttle angle (SURGE)

[rcmikey]

What I do know and can confirm (think I am correct) is how driver demand tells the pcm what torque I am requesting at a given pedal angle vs RPM. The inverse table lets the pcm know what load the engine should be at for that given torque demand. The throttle opens and the indicated torque is derived from the torque table for the actual load the maf calculates. My question or dilemma is understanding where the limits are that cause the throttle to close partially the open again causing the part throttle surge when boost comes in. In my case as the throttle pedal is slowly depressed while cruising in lets say fourth gear at 65mph, the vehicle begins to surge. Reviewing many data logs I can see that when the boost comes in and the load rapidly increases, the driver demand is basically steady but because there is a rapidly increasing difference between desired and indicated torque the throttle tries to compensate and creates the dreaded surge. Not that noticeable with lower boost applications but now that I am running a 15% overdrive with a 2.875 pulley on a 2.3 whipple its becomes rather violent. Following the standard way of calculating inverse torque and torque table calculations has no effect correcting the surge. Basic ford racing numbers in both tables. I have begun setting the inverse torque table to reflect the actual load as the boost comes in. Of course load rapidly increases right as the boost comes in and makes the inverse table a little steep in the 2500 to 3000 rpm range. Then correcting the torque table with the standard formula gives some odd results. The table looks normal until you calculate where the boost comes in. The torque numbers will begin to decrease from that point down the table. I am trying to find the answer to what actually causes the throttle to start to close. Mainly how the plausibility check between the tables work and at what point are those limits exceeded that allow the surge instead of just adjusting the throttle to maintain proper throttle angle to develop the desired torque(Load). Are the load numbers compared alone or are the torque numbers also included in the calculation that makes up the plausibility check. I can however eliminate any surge by simply lowering the driver demand table. The only issue with that is when boost comes at half throttle you better hold on. Not safe. I sure could use some direction.

[Eric@HPTuners]

Have you logged the throttle angle error? If the Effective Area and Predicted Throttle Angle tables are off, you will also get surging.

[rcmikey]

I have logged them and also made corrections to them. I do see results but the surge is always where the boost comes in as the torque/load numbers get further apart. It is always at the exact same throttle blade angle. By changing the effective and predicted tables all I end up doing is letting the throttle open not as far for a given pedal angle. Therefor I only move where the surge starts in respect to pedal angle. I am a bit confused on the interaction of the tables. I am certain (hopeful) I could solve my issue with some trusted direction. Open for ideas?

[The Notch]

i am having the exact same issues with a 15+ controller in a whippled old school bronco and am unsure what direction to go

[rshoe09]

i am having the exact same issues with a 15+ controller in a whippled old school bronco and am unsure what direction to go

disable CLIP/ADD tq and see if it goes away. if it does you have tq table issues

[rcmikey]

disable CLIP/ADD tq and see if it goes away. if it does you have tq table issues

Don't believe the 14's have that. Original question is how these tables interact to operate throttle.

[rcmikey]

Surge is gone. The torque tables are very sensitive and small torque number changes will give very noticeable results. It was completely possible to eliminate the surge by only working on torque and inverse tables. Using custom math and custom charts made quick work of straightening out the surge. HP software proved itself again. Smooth power curve. Safe to drive again.

[Jn2]

Surge is gone. The torque tables are very sensitive and small torque number changes will give very noticeable results. It was completely possible to eliminate the surge by only working on torque and inverse tables. Using custom math and custom charts made quick work of straightening out the surge. HP software proved itself again. Smooth power curve. Safe to drive again.

Care to share? I was running into a ton of issues tunning my TB and trying to set up a histogram in a way I could use to adjust my angles was a bt much for me, I ended up being able to log IPC torque error, but the values that came out were massive, some of them were saying my error was 1,000#trq

[rcmikey]

I will post what worked for me tomorrow. Found I was over thinking it. Making it harder than it was.

[rcmikey]

What has worked for me may not be the so called correct method according to the pros but here it goes. Vehicle is a 2.3L Whipple 14 GT manual car with 15% overdrive ATI damper driving a 2.875 upper pulley. Throttle body is a twin 65mm, JLT CAI, long tubes, ID 1000's, and stock fuel pump with boost pump. Car was initially tuned by a professional before the overdrive and small upper pulley. Car made good power with no surge. Could not leave alone and there is no such thing as enough boost. This is where the surge started. During aggressive driving the vehicle would begin to surge with moderate acceleration. I went down the ETC throttle error rabbit hole to discover I could decrease the error but not to my liking. After much too much time comparing data logs and research I found it best to use the published predicted and effective throttle info available for the given throttle body and leave well enough alone. I came to understand two things cause the plausibility check to close the throttle. One is the throttle body data and the other are the torque tables. I figured since the throttle body data is the only known data I would leave it alone and concentrate on the torque tables. My error values were also in the 500 to 1000 ft/lb range during the surge. I first disabled all mapped points other than the OP torque tables. I also used a driver demand table that was very close to stock. I could lower the torque values across the rpm range starting at fifth row down to keep the throttle closed longer until the WOT start point and that would eliminate the surge but that just softened the pedal feel and made the transition into boost too aggressive. I changed the driver demand table back to almost stock except for the last two rows to reflect the estimated torque the supercharger would make. My driver demand table is a copy of a Ford Racing file for the canned 2.3L Whipple setup, nothing special. I then made sure I did not deviate from the plan that I would adjust only one of the factors that has anything to do with effecting torque control. The only tables I adjusted at this point were the torque and inverse torque tables for OP. I did the math to ensure the inverse table is populated correctly and went for a drive. I began logging driver demand torque against indicated torque and made a histogram to reflect throttle position vs rpm that plotted driver demand and another histogram that used the same x and y axis but plotted indicated torque. I used user defined math to simply show the error between the two plotted results. I noticed as soon as the error between the two reached 50 ft/lbs the throttle would began to close than open again and close again not being able to keep up with the power the car was making as boost came in. Using the data from the histogram I could easily identify what area of the torque table needed to be raised or lowered. Once the torque table was corrected I went back and did the math again to make sure the inverse table was correct, loaded the tune and logged again. Within two attempts all my torque errors were no greater that 25 ft/lbs. Surge was completely gone. I am certain if I would have continued down the effective and predicted throttle area road I could have achieved similar results. I found it to be more effective if I left the knowns alone and concentrated on the variables (torque). Why complicate it. The changes to the torque table were very small. When I changed the applicable torque table cell ten ft/lbs I would see an almost 40 ft/lb change in the error correction. I then logged the ETC throttle error and the results were all hovering around zero. Amazing? And I didn't ever touch effective or predicted throttle tables. Hope this helps. Don't forget to activate the other mapped points and populate their torque and inverse table cells with your new found data.

[Eric@HPTuners]

What has worked for me may not be the so called correct method according to the pros but here it goes. Vehicle is a 2.3L Whipple 14 GT manual car with 15% overdrive ATI damper driving a 2.875 upper pulley. Throttle body is a twin 65mm, JLT CAI, long tubes, ID 1000's, and stock fuel pump with boost pump. Car was initially tuned by a professional before the overdrive and small upper pulley. Car made good power with no surge. Could not leave alone and there is no such thing as enough boost. This is where the surge started. During aggressive driving the vehicle would begin to surge with moderate acceleration. I went down the ETC throttle error rabbit hole to discover I could decrease the error but not to my liking. After much too much time comparing data logs and research I found it best to use the published predicted and effective throttle info available for the given throttle body and leave well enough alone. I came to understand two things cause the plausibility check to close the throttle. One is the throttle body data and the other are the torque tables. I figured since the throttle body data is the only known data I would leave it alone and concentrate on the torque tables. My error values were also in the 500 to 1000 ft/lb range during the surge. I first disabled all mapped points other than the OP torque tables. I also used a driver demand table that was very close to stock. I could lower the torque values across the rpm range starting at fifth row down to keep the throttle closed longer until the WOT start point and that would eliminate the surge but that just softened the pedal feel and made the transition into boost too aggressive. I changed the driver demand table back to almost stock except for the last two rows to reflect the estimated torque the supercharger would make. My driver demand table is a copy of a Ford Racing file for the canned 2.3L Whipple setup, nothing special. I then made sure I did not deviate from the plan that I would adjust only one of the factors that has anything to do with effecting torque control. The only tables I adjusted at this point were the torque and inverse torque tables for OP. I did the math to ensure the inverse table is populated correctly and went for a drive. I began logging driver demand torque against indicated torque and made a histogram to reflect throttle position vs rpm that plotted driver demand and another histogram that used the same x and y axis but plotted indicated torque. I used user defined math to simply show the error between the two plotted results. I noticed as soon as the error between the two reached 50 ft/lbs the throttle would began to close than open again and close again not being able to keep up with the power the car was making as boost came in. Using the data from the histogram I could easily identify what area of the torque table needed to be raised or lowered. Once the torque table was corrected I went back and did the math again to make sure the inverse table was correct, loaded the tune and logged again. Within two attempts all my torque errors were no greater that 25 ft/lbs. Surge was completely gone. I am certain if I would have continued down the effective and predicted throttle area road I could have achieved similar results. I found it to be more effective if I left the knowns alone and concentrated on the variables (torque). Why complicate it. The changes to the torque table were very small. When I changed the applicable torque table cell ten ft/lbs I would see an almost 40 ft/lb change in the error correction. I then logged the ETC throttle error and the results were all hovering around zero. Amazing? And I didn't ever touch effective or predicted throttle tables. Hope this helps. Don't forget to activate the other mapped points and populate their torque and inverse table cells with your new found data.

You did it correctly. Great job!

[txcharlie]

What has worked for me may not be the so called correct method according to the pros but here it goes. Vehicle is a 2.3L Whipple 14 GT manual car with 15% overdrive ATI damper driving a 2.875 upper pulley. Throttle body is a twin 65mm, JLT CAI, long tubes, ID 1000's, and stock fuel pump with boost pump. Car was initially tuned by a professional before the overdrive and small upper pulley. Car made good power with no surge. Could not leave alone and there is no such thing as enough boost. This is where the surge started. During aggressive driving the vehicle would begin to surge with moderate acceleration. I went down the ETC throttle error rabbit hole to discover I could decrease the error but not to my liking. After much too much time comparing data logs and research I found it best to use the published predicted and effective throttle info available for the given throttle body and leave well enough alone. I came to understand two things cause the plausibility check to close the throttle. One is the throttle body data and the other are the torque tables. I figured since the throttle body data is the only known data I would leave it alone and concentrate on the torque tables. My error values were also in the 500 to 1000 ft/lb range during the surge. I first disabled all mapped points other than the OP torque tables. I also used a driver demand table that was very close to stock. I could lower the torque values across the rpm range starting at fifth row down to keep the throttle closed longer until the WOT start point and that would eliminate the surge but that just softened the pedal feel and made the transition into boost too aggressive. I changed the driver demand table back to almost stock except for the last two rows to reflect the estimated torque the supercharger would make. My driver demand table is a copy of a Ford Racing file for the canned 2.3L Whipple setup, nothing special. I then made sure I did not deviate from the plan that I would adjust only one of the factors that has anything to do with effecting torque control. The only tables I adjusted at this point were the torque and inverse torque tables for OP. I did the math to ensure the inverse table is populated correctly and went for a drive. I began logging driver demand torque against indicated torque and made a histogram to reflect throttle position vs rpm that plotted driver demand and another histogram that used the same x and y axis but plotted indicated torque. I used user defined math to simply show the error between the two plotted results. I noticed as soon as the error between the two reached 50 ft/lbs the throttle would began to close than open again and close again not being able to keep up with the power the car was making as boost came in. Using the data from the histogram I could easily identify what area of the torque table needed to be raised or lowered. Once the torque table was corrected I went back and did the math again to make sure the inverse table was correct, loaded the tune and logged again. Within two attempts all my torque errors were no greater that 25 ft/lbs. Surge was completely gone. I am certain if I would have continued down the effective and predicted throttle area road I could have achieved similar results. I found it to be more effective if I left the knowns alone and concentrated on the variables (torque). Why complicate it. The changes to the torque table were very small. When I changed the applicable torque table cell ten ft/lbs I would see an almost 40 ft/lb change in the error correction. I then logged the ETC throttle error and the results were all hovering around zero. Amazing? And I didn't ever touch effective or predicted throttle tables. Hope this helps. Don't forget to activate the other mapped points and populate their torque and inverse table cells with your new found data.

Great job!! This info will help numerous people solve a very common issue with Roush/Whipple boosted coyotes.

[The Notch]

What has worked for me may not be the so called correct method according to the pros but here it goes. Vehicle is a 2.3L Whipple 14 GT manual car with 15% overdrive ATI damper driving a 2.875 upper pulley. Throttle body is a twin 65mm, JLT CAI, long tubes, ID 1000's, and stock fuel pump with boost pump. Car was initially tuned by a professional before the overdrive and small upper pulley. Car made good power with no surge. Could not leave alone and there is no such thing as enough boost. This is where the surge started. During aggressive driving the vehicle would begin to surge with moderate acceleration. I went down the ETC throttle error rabbit hole to discover I could decrease the error but not to my liking. After much too much time comparing data logs and research I found it best to use the published predicted and effective throttle info available for the given throttle body and leave well enough alone. I came to understand two things cause the plausibility check to close the throttle. One is the throttle body data and the other are the torque tables. I figured since the throttle body data is the only known data I would leave it alone and concentrate on the torque tables. My error values were also in the 500 to 1000 ft/lb range during the surge. I first disabled all mapped points other than the OP torque tables. I also used a driver demand table that was very close to stock. I could lower the torque values across the rpm range starting at fifth row down to keep the throttle closed longer until the WOT start point and that would eliminate the surge but that just softened the pedal feel and made the transition into boost too aggressive. I changed the driver demand table back to almost stock except for the last two rows to reflect the estimated torque the supercharger would make. My driver demand table is a copy of a Ford Racing file for the canned 2.3L Whipple setup, nothing special. I then made sure I did not deviate from the plan that I would adjust only one of the factors that has anything to do with effecting torque control. The only tables I adjusted at this point were the torque and inverse torque tables for OP. I did the math to ensure the inverse table is populated correctly and went for a drive. I began logging driver demand torque against indicated torque and made a histogram to reflect throttle position vs rpm that plotted driver demand and another histogram that used the same x and y axis but plotted indicated torque. I used user defined math to simply show the error between the two plotted results. I noticed as soon as the error between the two reached 50 ft/lbs the throttle would began to close than open again and close again not being able to keep up with the power the car was making as boost came in. Using the data from the histogram I could easily identify what area of the torque table needed to be raised or lowered. Once the torque table was corrected I went back and did the math again to make sure the inverse table was correct, loaded the tune and logged again. Within two attempts all my torque errors were no greater that 25 ft/lbs. Surge was completely gone. I am certain if I would have continued down the effective and predicted throttle area road I could have achieved similar results. I found it to be more effective if I left the knowns alone and concentrated on the variables (torque). Why complicate it. The changes to the torque table were very small. When I changed the applicable torque table cell ten ft/lbs I would see an almost 40 ft/lb change in the error correction. I then logged the ETC throttle error and the results were all hovering around zero. Amazing? And I didn't ever touch effective or predicted throttle tables. Hope this helps. Don't forget to activate the other mapped points and populate their torque and inverse table cells with your new found data.

This is very Helpful, THANK YOU! you mind possibly sharing those histograms you used

[tbrtuning]

Doing one mapped point at a time is probably the best way but you can also use filters in the scanner to do most of this from one log. I do things like MP3 > 75 and just change the MP3 to different mapped points.

[15PSI]

I think it would be beneficial to many on the forum if you could post up your histograms. BTW - Nice explanation.

[Justinjor]

Fantastic thread. Thanks for sharing OP. Working on a 2014 2.3L Whipple 6R80 car right now and its giving me fits.

[Justinjor]

I think it would be beneficial to many on the forum if you could post up your histograms. BTW - Nice explanation.

Agree

[tbrtuning]

Not every strategy has the PID for Driver Demand Torque by the way.

[small tuner]

great job

[Jn2]

Not every strategy has the PID for Driver Demand Torque by the way.

Yeah, seems mine is missing it too and it's a 13'