I feel your pain. I may also try and find the stock strategy for this car.
I have tried everything. Working on getting 3.7 beta to mess wth rail temp and any other thing I think might be messing with this car.
I feel your pain. I may also try and find the stock strategy for this car.
I have tried everything. Working on getting 3.7 beta to mess wth rail temp and any other thing I think might be messing with this car.
If my Twin 67 values I posted earlier did not work for you, I would suggest trying them again with the 3 Bar ID characterization table. Again, another shot in the dark.
Originally Posted by Thatwhite5.0
2012 Mustang GT with S/C
4Runner with S/C
Turbo/NOS Hayabusa - 320RWHP
Posting my update, not sure if it's a break through or not because ocassionally my STFT will be good until the next time I start it. It seems like some sort of progress.
15psi, I still want to try out your injector an throttle body calibration.
I managed to get my STFT to cooperate a little bit with me some-how. I started over on my tune multiple times. Used Beta version to try out some extra parameters. Got a better (not a 50% spread). I unplugged the batter and held the positive and negative together. Just to try anything else out. I?ll post a log, not sure exacty how good you?d consider the datalog, but from what I?m used to, it?s much better? at the beginning. The STFT spread further and further apart. It?s also pretty rapid. I?ll post the tune also if anyone has any ideas.
Another thing, Bank 2 STFT is going crazy in this log, but I have a video recorded of my log I sent to my mechanic to show him my fuel trims and they were spot on, reading exactly alike.
My fuel rail burns to the touch. Honestly never tried touching a fuel rail 10 minutes after the car was off, is fuel rail temp pretty normal?
The following log was after changing the MAF curve with histogram results. Feel free to tell me anything about the two. On my last post, I found out I've been taught wrong on spark.
Could try and put all ones for every cylinder under fuel imbalance monitor. That made a difference on my car to get the banks in closer agreement.
Also your intake manifold volume is incorrect.
Conflicting sides on adjusting intake manifold volume making a difference, especially at my previous fuel trims. I'll do both of those. I'll log before I change those. The trims can be the opposite of today, tomorrow. Is my throttle body model good? Could it be causing the fluctuations?
Heres the part of the log that fuel trims are good. Look at your effective area and where it is in your TB model. compared to the settings you have in the tune for idle air flow.
Good TB angle.PNG
Now look at the part where fuel trims are bad. Effective area is lower than the TB model contains. Hopefully the settings I suggest will open up your TB and let some air in. Bank 1 will always steal the air from bank 2 with the way the manifold is designed and the air flow changing direction due to firing order.
Bad TB angle.PNG
Murfie,
You may be able to answer this.
Why would the throttle body model be different between Canadian and US cars if they use the same throttle body? I compared both files and they are different.
Have you guys ruled out any mechanical fuel issues, like a bad fuel pump, leaky lines inside the tank, etc? I used to have a bad factory pump in a car I tuned, the pump would randomly bypass pressure at lower pulsewidths when the line pressure was the highest (least utilized fuel therefore highest pressure). I also once had a bad oring on the built in regulator of the fuel pump canister. Would randomly blow off pressure.
Both were discovered by plumbing in a fuel pressure gauge at the rails
As you can see the model is exactly the same. The angle values in the axis are different which makes the effective area different. The editor sees different values, not the overall picture. US just has better resolution in the lower angles. Canadian sacrifices for better overall resolution. Makes no difference other than when you are trying to dial in certain throttle angles. The US will be easier to make drive better at normal driving throttle angles. Probably an emissions or fuel economy thing.
Canadian TB.PNG
US TB.PNG
Last edited by murfie; 08-05-2017 at 04:27 AM.
I haven?t ruled out every mechanical issue. Have not dropped the tank. I?d list what I?ve ruled out but it?s a big list. But I?m still not saying it?s 100% a tune problem. If anything mechanical were to be wrong, I?d guess I have something wrong with a valve.
Did the car with the bad fuel pump react the same as mine?
I?m still working on my throttle body. I got some results, but I?m still working on it. Have not tried throttle body because a lot of people get success with existing models.
Was working on that for quite some time last night. I have some more to do because I?m still getting one side lean/rich then the other side lean/rich. The averages are looking better, but the min values are still going rich. Is this normal? ID1000?s on an NA car?
Last edited by Thatwhite5.0; 08-06-2017 at 08:30 AM.
Why would this be happening after an injector install? Stock injectors work fine.
'm having to open my throttle body up to add more air. I know other people have installed ID1000's on their NA car with no problems.
What do you think would happen if I went with a higher octane mixture to equal 98 octane? That was the plan when my NA build is finished. The octane was not fully decided but it will be around 100 octane. I just don't get this right now.
Fuel Source (CL) Stoich
Equivalence Ratio Commanded (SAE) 1.021 λ
WB EQ Ratio Bank 1 1.00 λ
WB EQ Ratio Bank 2 0.98 λ
Fuel System #1 Status (SAE) CL - Normal
Short Term Fuel Trim Bank 1 -3.1 %
Short Term Fuel Trim Bank 2 -10.9 %
VCT Schedule Mode Best Fuel Economy
Fuel Source (OL) Power Demand Enrich
Equivalence Ratio Commanded (SAE) 0.830 λ
WB EQ Ratio Bank 1 0.84 λ
WB EQ Ratio Bank 2 0.72 λ
Fuel System #1 Status (SAE) OL - Fault
Short Term Fuel Trim Bank 1 0.0 %
Short Term Fuel Trim Bank 2 0.0 %
VCT Schedule Mode Optimum Power
Fuel Source (OL) Inj Cut
Equivalence Ratio Commanded (SAE) 0.947 λ
WB EQ Ratio Bank 1 2.00 λ
WB EQ Ratio Bank 2 2.00 λ
Fuel System #1 Status (SAE) OL - Accel/Decel
Short Term Fuel Trim Bank 1 0.0 %
Short Term Fuel Trim Bank 2 0.0 %
VCT Schedule Mode Optimal Stability
Try putting the values in the idle RPM area in your MP 0 and see if you get an improvement.
MP 0 torque-load.PNG
Also, I am not sure if this has been mentioned.
But the data injector dynamics sent me also had a "notes" page attached. Mentions putting all 1's in the rail temp offset/slope modifier table. Might be something worth trying.
Last edited by Blueprint; 08-07-2017 at 05:49 PM.
Just adding this. I also tried a brand new OEM MAF, and another set of brand new wideband 02s same issue. Injectors, fuel pumps, regulator, all brand new maybe 50 miles.
Also Murfie I tried what you mentioned. Nothing changed.
Last edited by Blueprint; 08-07-2017 at 05:49 PM.
Why is it a stock coyote file (left hand side tables) have 1's in the opposite table that ID tells you to put 1's in?
Possibly a mistake? or is this correct?
I don't believe that is a mistake that's how I have mine set up and it helped with the fuel swings I had at idle
ID data is correct as long as you have stock fuel rails and system.
So from measuring the amount of air going in to the engine the ECU comes up with an appropriate amount of fuel to match it. What it then needs to figure out is how long the injectors need to open to give this amount of fuel.
fuel in Lb / flow rate + offset= injector pulse time.
Mx +b= y
M would be your fuel mass.
x would be your high or low slope depending on fuel mass being under or over break point, don't forget its multiplier.
b would be your offset. The injector takes time to open and close this covers that "lag".
Y would be your pulse width.
Rail temp doesn't effect the speed the injector opens and closes, but increasing the injector offset can just add fuel mass to all pulse widths. When temps are higher fuel density will be lower for equal pressures. This just compensates for that directly.
Another way is to multiply the slope. This is modifying the rates. As temps get higher the actual flow rate will be less as fuel will be less dense. decreasing the flow rates will increase the pulse width to compensate proportional to the fuel flow rate. Low flow rates will be less effected then higher flow rates. ID choose this as it allows you to compensate for temps at low rates, but stay closer to minimum pulse width and still compensate for the higher flow rates. OEM injectors fuel much less so direct compensation is not a problem.
You can mess with injector data all you want, if you are hitting your true physical minimum injector pulse width and are still too rich there's nothing you can do to make it leaner, then you need smaller injectors or more air in the cylinders at idle. Less fuel pressure in the rails can work too.
Last edited by murfie; 08-08-2017 at 02:26 AM.
Here is the thing that makes zero sense to me. For many reasons.
This entire setup was in car #1. It was unbolted from the shocks. K member and trans everything was transferred over. Nothing unbolted moved over to #2 and hooked back up that's it!
I also have a log from car #1 from March of this year. Everything was perfect car ran great made great power same pulsewidth and throttle angle and lb/min airflow at idle. Nothing weird.
That same tune is now in car #2 and doing weird stuff. Only things changed were new OEM widebands and it's a different PCM.
I had one of the top tuners in Coyotes look through the tune. He could not find anything out of the ordinary which would explain this issue.
This tune is also on car #3 with exactly the same mods. Perfectly fine ZERO issues.
Nothing I've done has seemed to aide this issue. I have even gone over the entire car. Top to bottom. We even went as far as buying a brand new engine harness and MAF sensor.
Only thing I can think of is the strategy and PCM are not getting along and or along one of the updates something became corrupt in the file.
Based on the above you need to consider mechanical or electrical gremlins. I've had cars come in with pinched ground wires, chaffed 02 wires, you name it. Since it seems isolated to the widebands, have you logged your mA output of your sensors? You may be dropping grounds on the o2 sensors somehow.
Reply With Quote