The + - and A buttons, there's a C button also, that shows cell count.
Here's the minimum as well. It all indicates too much air or not enough fuel, I'm more leaning towards fuel.
fuel trims DC filter minimum.PNG
The + - and A buttons, there's a C button also, that shows cell count.
Here's the minimum as well. It all indicates too much air or not enough fuel, I'm more leaning towards fuel.
fuel trims DC filter minimum.PNG
ah,thanks!
Does that mean a vac leak looks less likely now because fuel trims are being made somewhat linearly from lo load to high load? I think I could hear a vac leak big enough to affect fueling at higher loads but I don't know.
I'm out of town this weekend but I'll still do a check for vac leaks first and then bump down the inferred rail pressure and log it.
I see two tables - a lo inferred and inferred, is the lo inferred the curve for pump at lo speed and the other one for pump at hi speed?
2019 C7 Stingray M7 - long tube headers, 6.30/6.22 226/238 cam, supporting stuff, DOD and VVT delete.
Stock everything else
I've gone through many tune variations trying to learn and the IPC is a common, to varying degrees, with them all. I looked back through this thread and want to log the DD graph you gave me.
I tried to set it up but it only logs the top row for pedal position, can you look at what I've got and steer me?
DD screens.JPG
2019 C7 Stingray M7 - long tube headers, 6.30/6.22 226/238 cam, supporting stuff, DOD and VVT delete.
Stock everything else
When the parameter used in a math is unavailable, it shows red like in your screen shot. That's why you are only getting the top row.
Either derive pedal count from percentage (I made a thread about how to do that), or add the correct channel to your next log.
GAPRIDER,
can you help me with the setup of the DDfix.xml thanks
2019 C7 Stingray M7 - long tube headers, 6.30/6.22 226/238 cam, supporting stuff, DOD and VVT delete.
Stock everything else
My other question, does anyone have good graph for using wb eq bank 1 + wb eq bank 2 / wb eq commanded i am not sure i got the math correct... i like using the hp scanner over livelink gen 2 seems faster less lag time.. Hope someone can guide me with the math/ parameter setup..
Still no luck on this after many tunes. Dashpot, torque decel, much playing with torque and load tables (both ways + and -).
Even got a new MAF.
The problem persists so I've got a stock tune in it with adjustments for longtubes and off road x-pipe to rule out any shenanigans caused by dashpot tune.
What is consistent is very much IPC around 3000RPM and 0.5-0.7 load and MUCH WORSE WHEN THE CAR IS COLD.
I looked at the MAF pinout thinking something with temperature compensation wasn't happening but there's only four wires +,-,MAF sgn, and IAT,
I logged IAF and it's steady and believable, all sensor values look smooth to me.
Because the issue is persistent, and the response is much more temperature related and not nearly as responsive to torque table changes I'm hoping one of you guru's knows something I'm missing.
I attached the current tune and log but I have many, many more which show about the same.
Thanks for taking a look.
2019 C7 Stingray M7 - long tube headers, 6.30/6.22 226/238 cam, supporting stuff, DOD and VVT delete.
Stock everything else
Thanks CCS! I?ll try it out in the morning
I was glad to try someone else's tune, thanks so much CCS, I didn't notice a lot when comparing to all the other logs I have but wanted to show this against stock log
stockTQ.JPGCCS-TQ-MP6MP7.JPG
Still, I don't have control of this which is:
- IPC errors which cause throttle corrections (closing surges)
- centered around 3000RPM, 0.5-0.8 load
- I always get more MAF than desired
- worse when ECT less than 185
- worse in 1st gear, nearly always non existent in 4th
I've tried:
- TQ tables adj plus and minus in parts and the whole tables, a few mapped points and all mapped points
- I tried adjusting TQ tables alone and with complimentary InvTQ tables calculated and calculated various ways
- InvTq, same thing as torque tables.
- new MAF, KAM reset, short term fuel trims don't look bad
- throttle tables
- reduced engine inertia torque (because the IPC is worse in lower gears, gains RPMs quicker, trying to reduce any additional throttle request to account for inertia)
- Speed density, plus and minus on engine displacement (I believe this is the base for all speed density calculations), adjusted slope parameters for the 3250RPM row because it sticks out in relation to the RPM rows above and below it. Did this for MP3-8 I believe.
- Toggled different combos of Oscillation switch, Torque Intervention Switch, Tip management.
I don't know what other area of the tune I can try, I can make the problem a little worse maybe but I haven't been able to make it better
Somehow, I need the car to expect the amount of MAF it is getting (DesMAF close to ActMAF) . It doesn't even have a power adder, just longtubes.
2019 C7 Stingray M7 - long tube headers, 6.30/6.22 226/238 cam, supporting stuff, DOD and VVT delete.
Stock everything else
Yeah, you have something funny going on, to be running that close to a stock tune and stock engine, but have such serious TQ errors.
I wonder if something is getting flaky with your TPS or TB drive.
You could pop off the intake tube and with the engine off / key on, video the throttle blades while you linearly roll onto and off of the pedal. Make sure the motion is smooth and matches your inputs and logged angle values.
Thanks for the sanity check. I did watch the throttle the other day while my wife cycled the pedal and it looked smooth and ?normal?. I will try TPS next even though it seems smooth but the car only has so many sensors
SOLVED - thank God, all who helped and HP Tuners.
I will post an explanation of what I've learned later but for now just to let everyone who helped on this know that it's fixed.
So grateful for HP Tuners speed density calculator, what a great tool.
Recapping, I was plagued with bad IPC errors centered around 0.5 - 0.8 load and 3000RPM, worse while car was still not up to temp. MAF > DesMAF
I adjusted tq / invtq tables all sorts of ways to no avail.
The fix - I started adjusting speed density map and the car responded in a way that made sense.
Simplified, I increased the map in the troublesome area and the IPC went away.
I'll show more detail later.
2019 C7 Stingray M7 - long tube headers, 6.30/6.22 226/238 cam, supporting stuff, DOD and VVT delete.
Stock everything else
That's awesome man.
I think that there is no one answer for why IPC errors occur. Possibilities include (but not limited to):
Inverse values being off
Relationship between TQ and inverse wrong
ETC table errors
(as you found) Bad SD data
Mechanical issues, especially with TB or MAF
Where exactly is this speed density map?
I have a speed density calculator, but no actual map.
I had an airbag replacement today, had to drive my 2010 GT500 for over an hour, all stock, so I decided to log it to see errors & such, a good bit of ipc errors on this one, so they may be normal to some extent.
I learned a lot through this and wanted to share. Sorry if this explanation has been posted elsewhere.
Speed density is a numerical model that depicts the cylinder filling characteristics for the engine through the range of RPMs and intake pressures (MAP).
Since these engines have 14 cam positions, it's like 14 different engines as far as that model goes - an SD map for each cam position.
All based on standard temperature, variations in temp are compensated for.
This much MAP relates to that much cyl mass for the RPM you're at. Or, this RPM, MAF and mapped point mean this much inferred MAP
Speed density used to be expressed as a linear equation and gave you a straight line, this is for each RPM.
SD for a given RPM - linear calculation.JPG
These cars express speed density using a quadratic equation. It's better because those equations define a curve which closer matches what's real in the engine. The polarity of the quadratic term defines the up or down shape of the curve, you see both in the tune. I've read somewhere that the computer can ignore the quadratic term at times and rely on the linear equation.
SD for a given RPM - quadratic calculation.JPG
The offset, slope and quadratic parameters are this map for each mapped point.
When you set all those curved lines for each RPM in a table you get a 3D map.
This for one mapped point. Notice the ridges and valleys, that shows that the cylinders fill differently depending on the RPM. If this were a fixed cam engine it would be that one map.
Since these cars have 14 cam positions, you will have 14 maps and they look different for each mapped point.
SD map for one mapped point lines for each RPM.JPG
In HP Tuners software, you can see this for every mapped point.
SD-MP6-calculator numbers view.JPG
Click on the 3D map view and you see the map
SD-MP6-calculator map view.JPG
I maximize the view to see it better.
Select the mapped point you want to adjust, use the numbers view and change your numbers.
Go back to the 3D map view, smooth, extrapolate etc how you want.
Click the airflow coefficients button and it calculates all the new parameters for that mapped point.
In my situation, I worked on MP5-8 first. I noticed there was a trough at the 3250 RPM range in the maps.
First I smoothed the trough between about 2250 and 4500 RPM and logged again, IPC went way down. Yay
Then I increased the 3000RPM row by 5% and smoothed again. IPC great but getting these IPC spikes in the lower RPMs now.
I made similar but smaller changes to all mapped points and IPC is great, no more surging, just great to drive.
I logged IPC in a histogram set on max, not average which always was near zero.
SD-MP6-stock.JPGSD-MP6-mod.JPG
These are MP6 - left is stock, right is modded. If you can see the ridges in the stock map and smoothed in the modded map.
My thought is that especially in the 3000RPM midload situation, the stock exhaust didn't do as good a job at evacuating the cylinders as neighboring RPMs, hince less fresh air charge entering the cylinders.
I have headers, no cats and 3" exhaust on the car, I was getting more MAF than the ECU expected, the SD model changes showed the ECU the engine would flow more now at that target range.
Errbody happy.
I think the whole torque control thing goes like this: (simplified, no nannies that I don't understand involved)
pedal -> torque(DD table) -> load(torque to load table) -> load & RPM [speed density model] -> requested airflow -> [throttle tables] -> X amount of throttle opening.
If actual MAF is greater than desired MAF correction takes place.
I believe the reason I had to change the speed density model to fix mine is that the model was now wrong because of better exhaust evacuation of the cyls (more fresh air)
If I'd added a supercharger instead, I believe the speed density model would not have needed changing because a blower doesn't affect how much air enters the engine for a given MAP [speed density model]
Different cams, heads would.
I'm just a guy with this one Mustang, not a tuner, so take it for that.
2019 C7 Stingray M7 - long tube headers, 6.30/6.22 226/238 cam, supporting stuff, DOD and VVT delete.
Stock everything else
do we have to chane the SD map AND change torque inverse too ?
or only SD map ?