while we're on the topic of that driver demand table, are you able to log the engine tq in order to figure out where it would be on that particular table? Would be much easier to figure out what value to enter rather than guessing. Gt500s have values in the 800s
Last edited by Bill@HPTuners; 12-06-2017 at 07:23 PM.
It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be done in two weeks...
A wise man once said "google it"
I'm starting to hate this car more and more by the hour. So as I previously stated throttle angle source indicated Tq reduction<driver demand ok fine so I raise the upper end of the driver demand table, go back out and test, same shit happens. Scheduled tq was reading 479ftlb so I go ahead and raise the driver demand table again to a max of 633ftlb so theres virtually no chance it'll go over the max value in the last row and take it out to test and again, same shit happens schedule tq max only hit 525 but its still reporting tq reduction<driver demand. Mind you this is with no BAP & Supercharger belt has been removed so no supercharger in the system.
It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be done in two weeks...
A wise man once said "google it"
Originally Posted by Bill@HPTuners
I'm seeing trans truncation under torque source. I'd try raising ECM40069 trans tcc torque truncation to 5000ft lbs its at 410-450ftlbs currently.
Also I noticed it's still in fuel economy mode during the wot run. I'd lower the Load for the optimal power pedal setting since you're at .81 load (which seems low) and its set to .89
Last edited by bbrooks98; 12-06-2017 at 11:24 PM.
you have two "driver demand torque values" you can log. One demanded torque and two ETC torque. They nearly mirror each other as they both come from the DD table, the difference being one is an open loop value and the other is a closed loop value. You log a third torque Engine brake torque to get what the ECU sees the engine is actually making. You don't want your DD table to be far off what the engine brake torque is. Your WOT pedal start and end determine what feedback state the ECU is using.
Scheduled and indicated torque(nearly identical) are derived from a much less dynamic enviroment of values, they are therotical values that can be used in the TQ model to translate to a desired load value.
One of the variables used to come up with Engine brake torque is the engines actual load.
So driver demand tells the ECU to raise or lower the engine brake torque and desired load value. In turn this should raise or lower the indicated/scheduled torque and actual engine load.
When you see TQ reduction< driver demand, That is saying your desired load from your torque model is less than driver demand is telling the engine to make and therefore being limited to what the model is indicating for desired load. You either need to lower your DD values to less than the TQ model or modify TQ model to indicate increased load values for torque values. When modifying the TQ model you need to watch out for load and Torque limit tables in both engine and transmission as they are set not much higher than the TQ model itself.
https://www.google.com/patents/US5479898
It is entirely possible to increase desired load with out even modifying the DD table. In my opinion this is not following the rule of trying to represent reality in the tune for the best results.
Last edited by murfie; 12-07-2017 at 02:36 PM.
Thank you, I'll give it a shot
It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be done in two weeks...
A wise man once said "google it"
Sometime , flash the stock tune with a batt charger , unplug the battery 30min and flash a new tune with just the basic , inj , maf , spark .
I had to do this to eliminate some weird bug .
I am not sure that the IPC max is your issue. Take a look at my values, they are lower than yours. Car drives great and has great power. This is with 12-13 PSI on a TVS Gen II, BAP and ID1000s.
IPC Max.png
2012 Mustang GT with S/C
4Runner with S/C
Turbo/NOS Hayabusa - 320RWHP
The guys at procharger got me pointed back in the right direction, they had a race IC file they were able to send me which worked out very well thus far, need injectors to support the HP but all is well now
It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be done in two weeks...
A wise man once said "google it"
Can you read the Procharger cal out with HPT? If you can, I would be interested to see it.
2012 Mustang GT with S/C
4Runner with S/C
Turbo/NOS Hayabusa - 320RWHP
Sorry, their calibrator is a friend of mind so I'd prefer not to share. With that said Their off the shelf cals are pretty basic ie maf, pe, spark and a few other misc changes, not major and nothing that seems out of place.
It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be done in two weeks...
A wise man once said "google it"
No Problem. I fully understand.
2012 Mustang GT with S/C
4Runner with S/C
Turbo/NOS Hayabusa - 320RWHP
You have your CylAir WOT & Max Mult maxed out, but have CylAir anticipation enabled, I thought some said on boosted cars that made them lean WOT?
Factory Stock 97 SS M6 13.51 @ 104.3 mph
Stock Longblock LS1 w/ 233/238 P.S.I. Cam
10.81 @ 126.9 Full interior, six speed on 275 radials, a decade ago
'99 TA trunk mounted 76mm 6 Liter
9.0s in '09 @ 153 MPH
Turbo 5.3 Volvo 740 Wagon
32psi and still winding out 5th on the highway somewhere
I think with max load set to 1.0 it stops anticipation above 1.0 load in boost. I've always kept it on
Looking at your Chart vs Time of your attached "injector duty cycle all over the place" log file I note at 1min 26sec your Manifold Absolute Pressure max's out at 108 kPa despite throttle opening wider with actual boost and actual cylinder airmass continuing to increase. The ECU just can't calculate the Cylinder Airmass due to the incorrect MAP data so it does the next best thing which is to adjust STFT's.
As you apply more throttle the ECU continues receiving erronous low MAP data (apparently limited by a 1 Bar or faulty MAP sensor) and hence the ECU starts compensating by adjusting the STFT's all the way up to about +45% whilst still not attaining the commanded Lamda of 0.8 and always playing catch-up till you back-off the accelerator. Proper PE is never achieved/activated despite 100% throttle.
Install a suitable or working MAP sensor and I believe you will be well on your way to fixing your fueling issues.
lol, US late model fords use inferred map, they don't use an actual map sensor. In any event I got my issues worked out with the help of the guys at procharger and some properly sized injectors(went to id1050x).
It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be done in two weeks...
A wise man once said "google it"
so your saying that your 5.0 on a procharger has no real MAP sensor...? i can see how this is ok with NA but, how do you know your exact boost levels? like i have a buddy with a 15' 5.0 running a P1 system, he uses an N-Gauge and the "OEM sensors" to read boost. so that number is a calculated guess? have not done many ford tunes, just trying to understand
John
mine doesn't use a MAP sensor either.
The ECU MAP is inferred on US models. Accurate manifold pressure values (boost/vac gauge) are physically tapped from the intake manifold.
2012 Mustang GT with S/C
4Runner with S/C
Turbo/NOS Hayabusa - 320RWHP
procharger provides you with a 3 way manifold vacuum splitter so you can hook a gauge to it as well as the bypass valve & one other vacuum reference. So I can accurately see my boost level. I've also been fiddling with a table 44352 to see if I can get an accurate reading out of the map pid as well.
It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be done in two weeks...
A wise man once said "google it"
Bill - Have you had any luck with the MAP Pid? I log my boost through my Aeroforce Interceptor gauges, but am always interested in alternatives.
2012 Mustang GT with S/C
4Runner with S/C
Turbo/NOS Hayabusa - 320RWHP
Reply With Quote