Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: 2015 with Roush not going into enrichment at wot

  1. #1
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Posts
    335

    2015 with Roush not going into enrichment at wot

    Trying to tune a 2015 Mustang with Roush blower and the car will not go05 09 19-6-sock tune cot off.hpt the enrichment commanded at wot? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    GO RAIDERS!!!!!!!!!!

    02 C5 Z06
    8.8@160

  2. #2
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    23
    Got a log of it happening? It could possibly be a limiter requesting torque reduction via fuel cut

  3. #3
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Posts
    335
    here is a pull up to 4700, then i shut it down. I was asking for .8pull 7 stock tune cot off.hpl
    GO RAIDERS!!!!!!!!!!

    02 C5 Z06
    8.8@160

  4. #4
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    23
    Yeah I can see in your log where its not commanding any kind of enrichment until 4k rpm. You have some PIDs missing that would help diagnose whats going on. Logging Torque source, driver demand limit source, etc... will show us whats going on. Attached is a PID list I use with my MPVI2, dont know how well it will work with the MPVI1

    PIDs I'm talking about:
    Driver demand.jpg

    My Gen2 Coyote PID list:
    Gen 2 Coyote.Channels.xml

    EDIT: Just realized that PID list does not have EQ commanded, WB EQ or Fuel source so add these to your log
    EQ pids.jpg
    Last edited by D_Met; 05-12-2019 at 05:32 PM.

  5. #5
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by D_Met View Post
    Yeah I can see in your log where its not commanding any kind of enrichment until 4k rpm. You have some PIDs missing that would help diagnose whats going on. Logging Torque source, driver demand limit source, etc... will show us whats going on. Attached is a PID list I use with my MPVI2, dont know how well it will work with the MPVI1

    PIDs I'm talking about:
    Driver demand.jpg

    My Gen2 Coyote PID list:
    Gen 2 Coyote.Channels.xml

    EDIT: Just realized that PID list does not have EQ commanded, WB EQ or Fuel source so add these to your log
    EQ pids.jpg

    Thank You so much, I will add those and put it back on the dyno tomorrow and report back.
    GO RAIDERS!!!!!!!!!!

    02 C5 Z06
    8.8@160

  6. #6
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by vortech View Post
    Thank You so much, I will add those and put it back on the dyno tomorrow and report back.
    Here is the log with the added pids.pull 8 stock tune cot off.hpl
    GO RAIDERS!!!!!!!!!!

    02 C5 Z06
    8.8@160

  7. #7
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    23
    Looks like your STFTs are throwing off the commanded lambda. My understanding is commanded lambda moves based on fuel trims to bring measured lambda (Lambda Sensed) closer to your set enrichment value (0.8 in your case). Its a little confusing because it would seem its trying to hit a moving target, but putting it on a chart helps visualize it. Interesting that you can also see catalyst protection still functioning even though its "disabled" in your tune.

    fueling issues.jpg

    Also noticed you have a fault p0036 B1S2 o2 heater circuit, that *could* have an effect on your B1S1 reading (on a much longer time scale than in this pull) due to FAOSC ([ECM] 1165 - Fore/Aft Oxygen Sensor Control) being enabled.

    I would recommend reworking your speed density and/or your MAF transfer to help get you lambda readings more in-line with expectations.

  8. #8
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    2,101
    I would suggest redoing your period axis of your MAF. Not having the resolution between 126u and 107u, and relying on interpolation to determine airmass is going to be hard to get the curve to fit the fuel trim data collected.

    What you have now:

    Resolution gap.PNG

    What I would suggest:

    Resolution gap fixed.PNG

  9. #9
    Hey murfie

    besides experience, what data points would you observe, or what behavior would suggest when you would want to change the resolution. Is there a process for identifying the best way to do this on a particular car?

  10. #10
    Senior Tuner veeefour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,711
    You want to cover the range your car is making.

  11. #11
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    2,101
    The best way I can describe it is axis values should be evenly spaced over the range you will use. If you saw an RPM axis that went 500,900, 1750, 2000, 4000, 4250, 5750, 7000. And not 500,1000,2000,3000,4000,5000,6000,7000 you would probably change it. The spacing doesn't need to be perfectly even, but any large jumps should be avoided unless you know the values will follow close to the interpolation line.

    In these logs, a chart comparing period and STFT, between 126u and 107u you see multiple changes to STFT. When you graph the MAF transfer, the cells average all these changes into the nearest cell. Large gaps mean large averages of error.

  12. #12
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Posts
    335
    So I made the changes to MAF period but now it seems the car is going a lot richer than the power enrichment commanded. 05 15 19.hpl
    GO RAIDERS!!!!!!!!!!

    02 C5 Z06
    8.8@160

  13. #13
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    2,101
    I exported the visable range of that log that has the WOT part. I do this so I can use the view entire in the graph. This allows you to look at the + and - views not just the average.

    Max error

    Max ft%.PNG

    Min error

    Min ft%.PNG

    You can see 156.8 you need to remove 5.5%
    at 146 you are going to need to remove 7%
    at 137 you will need to remove anywhere from 4.7-7.8% 6.25% is in the middle of that
    at 125 you will need to remove anywhere from 4.7% to adding .8%, this is getting close, but 2.25% could be removed to get it right where it needs to be.

    Above this which wasn't hit in the log is where I suggested the resolution changes to your transfer.

    If you look at the average values of this exported log, you get very close to what the max and min values say. The more these agree, it validates the changes the transfer needs.

    AVG ft%.PNG

    This is just the part of the transfer WOT touches. You will need to go over the entire transfer. It sounds tedious and like it will take many logs, but a lot can be taken out of one log and applied to correct the transfer. If you say what MAF housing you have, at least the size of it, i'm sure some one will share a transfer that is much closer to what you need.