Download the newest beta and its the same.
After switch the windows standards from comma to decimal. Now it works! If I take some changes, it show me the adjustments how it should.
HP Tuners need to solve this bug.
@GHuggins thank you for this note.
If I will set all sd tables excact, do I need to log the exhaust MAP? Do I need to buy a exhaust pressure sensor?
Latest beta has been fixed to work on the 2011-2014 vehicles.
Eric Brooks
HP Tuners, LLC
Anyone have luck using this calculator on 15+ Ecoboost vehicles? Every time I calculate coefficients I'm getting some crazy numbers automatically popping up where I've already made changes...
AAHHHHH!!!!!!
On the eco boost the "max calc map" is right around the same as the maximum the MAP sensor can read. The values from Ford should be fine unless you are at that high of a boost level and have replaced the MAP sensor with a more capable one. I think at that point you will exceed the max limit in HPT software and can have unpredictable results.
The value it would be calculating would be the intake LBm or it would just be used for a compare to make sure the sensor is working correctly. LBm is directly related to engine load and RPM, so the maximum load tables would need to be raised appropriately would be the only change in SD section to make sure it's not limited.
Fueling error is more likely caused from incorrect pressure delivered by the fuel pump. DI is very sensitive as pressures are extremely high.
Has this calculator been added to the daily updated 3.6 yet? or still need to wait for the beta email? I need to get this EB Explorer back to the owner and would really like to take advantage of this refinement if possible.
WOW! Already got the beta (3.7.1054). Thanks William! Looking forward to the results.
If I understand correctly. The effect on the measured air/fuel when blowthrough occurs should be easily measured from what I see. 2014 Coyote with 2.3 Whipple. I have always wondered why my factory wideband verses my AEM wide band would not match at WOT. The AEM will read leaner by 7% when compared to the factory during WOT only. At normal cruise they both would be dead on. Am I correct in my thinking that under boost there must be some degree of blowthrough causing the non corrected AEM wide band to read leaner than the factory sensors? The onboard sensors would show a corrected air/fuel that had be corrected for blowthrough. In my mind this would explain why the dyno wide band always read leaner than onboard at WOT also. I invite your thoughts to help me understand if this is what I am experiencing or am I way off in left field.
Really good work, I've been playing with values from previous logs where I had a remote MAP sensor fitted and can see how good this is, i'm looking forward to hours of logging in our supercharged 2015. I see that in some instances the data might need a little tweak to fit within the confines of the quad formula but the issue only seems to arise in areas that would be unable to be hit anyway. I also have noticed the leaner than commanded mixture and it makes sense that blowthrough is occurring, I had played with blowthrough slope but without the calculations behind it was more guesswork.
Well done guys,
Will this also become available for Australian Ford?
Last edited by 4wheelinls1; 01-08-2018 at 03:55 PM.
So I had a couple of hours to play but have run out of time on this car. I just played in Mapped point 0 0,0 cams. Using an external MAP sensor through MVP1 I did some recalculating of load as I understand it. I did notice some improvement to calculated MAP however is was still drifting as the pressure rose, possibly the limitation of the formula? I also introduced some blowthrough but that only seemed to worsen the problem. I did have all sorts of issues with Air mass throttle correction closing the blade and stalling the car, I gather I need to look back to my torque/inverse tables, Its quite odd the car seemed to go miles backwards in throttle surge to the point that it would force a throttle shut down. By turning off all the desired air mass the throttle was stable and did not shut down. I'm thinking that turning off the desired air mass may be important prior to logging so it's not chasing its tail then to re-enable it once the torque/inverse tables are corrected. I have another car tomorrow but again will be pushed for time so will probably leave the old tune as it was as that works. One step forward two steps back.
There are a number of logs attached that show the throttle closing and throttle corrections as well as the error in absolute vs Calculated MAP.
Cheers
Reviving an older but important thread, I will be logging MAP on my 2014 GT500 and using the calculator to calculate the SD tables.
My question is, does anyone know what tables the calculator will populate, once calculated? All my SD tables are still stock, it's running fairly good at the moment, but could be better. This car has some kinda big cams in it, and is geared pretty high in first, so taking off is still a PITA. I'm thinking (hoping) this part of tuning will further dial it in, for better drivibility.
It populates quadratic term, offset, and slope as well as blowthrough slope if the option is enabled.
Ok, thanks!
I have my MAP sensor hooked up, Bosch 3 BAR, but I can't figure out how to configure the input. I have it hooked up correctly, as I can simply pick an AEM 3 bar sensor and it works, but it's not correct. I have a request into HPTuners, hopefully they'll get this figured out for me.
I'm gonna log inHg/RPM/MAP to use the calculator. Should be real easy to get it straight by logging the same thing as the calculator uses, then copying & paste the values into the calculator. Anyone see why this won't work?
Finally figured out the formula for my MAP sensor, I think, seems correct, best I can tell. I logged rpm/MAP (measured with an actual MAP sensor) then let the graph populate with load. Used the SD calculator, & flashed the tune to it. Logged as I drove it, it wanted more fuel around 2000-3000 too. Seemed to help drivability down low rpm a lot, but not sure it will even take off smooth as stock, as high geared as it is, and these big cams.
Now if I could just get my throttle to go to WOT, I'd be set pretty good with this GT500 tune!
I finally dug into the SD calculator and have had decent results.
My first goal was to get Calc MAP to match my actual boost curve in OP. This was my approach:
-With a column of data for my actual MAP at each RPM interval, I would find the appropriate RPM column and MAP row in the SD calculator.
-Generally my actual MAP falls in between rows. So, I used a simple online interpolator to find the load value (from the SD calc table) that matches my actual MAP, at that RPM.
-I took my logged Absolute Load value at that RPM and divided by the interpolated table load to find a correction factor.
-That correction factor was multiplied against the whole RPM column.
-Process repeated for each RPM column.
It is still somewhat iterative, in my experience. Here are my results after a couple rounds of re-tuning this way:
Calc MAP Tuning2.png
Last edited by CCS86; 05-05-2018 at 09:51 AM.
My question is: where do you go from here?
How can you accurately tune the other MPs? Outside of OP and maybe MP0, they are generally blended. If you try to isolate them by disabling the other MPs, you will end up in a certain MP when you normally wouldn't be and where conditions don't match.
There may be a more 'correct' way to do this, but my method is weighting the correction factor the same as the mapped point. For instance if your load correction is lets say 0.2 and you are using mapped points 3 and 4, with 3 being 40% and 4 being 60% i would multiply that .2 * .4 and .2 * .6, then apply the weighted correction into each mapped point. Generally I do a flat cut off somewhere around 20% where I stop weighting (ie: if its 82% and 18% I'd do the entire correction to the mapped point at 82%).
Theoretically this method has inaccuracy in it, after all your entire error could be coming from mapped point 3 while mapped point 4 is dead on... but that's going to be pretty uncommon because in that case mapped point 3 would have to be off by a larger margin. This isn't necessarily a hard and fast rule, and you can play around with the numbers as you see fit. For instance if your values are always dead on until mapped point 3 is activated you could do the same weighted correction, but only apply it to mapped point 3 assuming the entire error is in that mapped point. If you wanted to attempt a 'one shot' fix then you'd have to multiply your correction factor by the inverse so that when it is only weighted 40% it applies the appropriate correction, but doing such a drastic change could cause you to overshoot and chase around a bouncing number.
Hopefully this helps some and good luck getting it nailed down, thanks for posting your progress so far for others to learn off of.
Correctly calibrating Each mapped point would require you to keep the cams locked at defined angles. Then go through all tables and calibrate them. This gives you a point with defined maps aka a mapped point. Once all mapped points are calibrated then the ecu will blend between them and generally the conditions will match as thats what mapping things out does for you. There's no way to get around that it's time consuming. The more MPs you have calibrated the better cam control you get. You can simplify and only use a few mapped points. You can also do what was mentioned above and filter data by mapped point weight and try to work with what was already mapped.
This SS doesnt calculate the coefficients for you like my least squares regression SS does, but playing with the failed TPS values and different mapped points gives you a good 3D visual of MAP VS RPM/load.
Quadratic TPS failed 3D MAP.xlsx
To get a best fit least squares regression you want a plot(not a graph) of data points with a dependant variables(MAP) and independent variables(Lbm/Load). One of these is going to be limited to an axis, usually the dependant variable. The other variable should not be limited in the amount of points it has. This happens when you try to graph it out and not plot it out. The scanner only shows you the average load value for the cell so it is limiting the number of independent variable points to one in the regression calculator.
Imagine taking groups of the points in this picture and replacing them with one average point. The best fit line would be different and any predictions made from it wouldn't yield the least amount of error.
800px-Linear_least_squares2.png