Mapped Points, OP, Timing, VCT...

[lee82]

Lee, turn on your misfire counter and see if what you're feeling is misfires.

That's really what it feels like, some sort of misfire. But I'm not getting any error codes or MIL light either... I'll try it through.

[lee82]

I've always looked at it that way, though I don't know gen 2 cam specs. I think they have the same spec but more lift. They're just timed different.
Gen 1 ivo angles -50, -30, 0
Gen 2 ivo angles -20, 0, 30




Running 14+ begins with a big difference. Mapped point 0 is almost irrelevant in the s550s. Mapped point 1 is your idle mapped point with ivo 20 Evc 0. Using MP 15 for idle with ivo 30 Evc 0. With the torque tables set high and timing much more advanced.
Distance # 2 is where the issues you speak of happen when running 14+ with incorrectly assigned fuel economy MP.
MP 2 ivo 30 Evc 0.
MP 16 ivo 40 Evc 20
The cam angles for 16 would be distance 4 using stock tables.. Just one example of the distances getting ahead of where they should be. These angles would be too retarded for the load, rpm and driving conditions they would be in.

Ahhhhhh I see what you are saying now by getting ahead. I'll try making some tweaks this week.

Consider this solution?.you could very easily use the fuel economy index array to change the commanded points from 3-4-5-6-7 to 12, and from 8-9 to 23. The max retard at cruise would then be 25/25 rather than 40/50, and MP23 would bring it closer to OP to ease the transition.

The only tricky part is that 12 IIRC is an imrc-closed mapped point for which there is no imrc-open equivalent. The solution would be to average all the torque, spark, and SD tables for MP 16 and 20 and use those values for 12. This would be very close to accurate since 12 falls right between 16 and 20. Another solution could be to disable mp12 but command it anyway, which would force the PCM to average the data itself but it will let a dozen of them weigh in.

I've screwed up before had the PCM averaging a ton of MP's and I didn't know why it was happening. Now I get it lol. Regarding MP12, in what way do you mean it's in between 16 & 20? The cam phasing is drastically different. -20 intake for MP12 vs +40 & +20 for 16 & 20.

[engineermike]

On the Gen 3, mp12 is 25/25. What’s 25/25 on Gen 2?

[Thatwhite5.0]

That's really what it feels like, some sort of misfire. But I'm not getting any error codes or MIL light either... I'll try it through.

Well the reason I mentioned adding the misfire counter, I was tuning a FBO 16 with Ported Gen 3 mani locked open. I tried running it like you said you were doing. I ran MP 14-25 and adjusted the Mapped Points distances. I didn't touch the torque/inverse tables or spark tables, I didn't do anything other than assign their place in Fuel Economy and change the Distances Tables.
You are both right about too much retard. At IVO 30, EVC 0. There were no misfires at all. The misfires occurred mainly when IVO and EVC are both retarded near 40*, giving a rapid increase on the misfire counter. It would increase around 10 to 20 misses a second. When running the main fuel economy cruising angles of IVO 30+, EVC 40+, the car was sputtering and continuously misfiring. In 4 minutes of logging with these angles, almost 400 misfires were counted.
Stock tables running 14-23 +25
misfire1.PNG

So I changed a few of the MP cam angles to test what you are saying and to see how it effects the misfires. I noticed EVC retard caused majority of the misfires so I used less retard from the exhaust.
Angle adjustements in 15-18 and 20. Mapped points 19, 22, 23, 24 are disabled.
adjustment2.PNG
adjustment.PNG


Huge difference with less retard on this car. I've never had a car misfire like it was. There were still misfires being counted but it doesn't compare to before. Drivability was much better, fuel trims were much better from the drop in misfires. That kind of proves what you guys are saying. I always adjust timing, torque and inverse tables to run the "stock" fuel economy angles using 14+.

Mike, I can run how you're saying with MP 23. Gen 2 and gen 3 have the same angles for 23, 25/25

I can run 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25, maybe 19. You be the engineers and I'll test it. This car is getting new coils and spark plugs today or tomorrow and the misfire will be gone so the results will too.

[lee82]

Well the reason I mentioned adding the misfire counter, I was tuning a FBO 16 with Ported Gen 3 mani locked open. I tried running it like you said you were doing. I ran MP 14-25 and adjusted the Mapped Points distances. I didn't touch the torque/inverse tables or spark tables, I didn't do anything other than assign their place in Fuel Economy and change the Distances Tables.
You are both right about too much retard. At IVO 30, EVC 0. There were no misfires at all. The misfires occurred mainly when IVO and EVC are both retarded near 40*, giving a rapid increase on the misfire counter. It would increase around 10 to 20 misses a second. When running the main fuel economy cruising angles of IVO 30+, EVC 40+, the car was sputtering and continuously misfiring. In 4 minutes of logging with these angles, almost 400 misfires were counted.
Stock tables running 14-23 +25

Edit: I'm comparing the 0+ spark tables with the 14+ spark tables, and I see that they are in fact more aggressive, especially in lower loads. Is running too much timing an issue if there isn't any knock? How do you go about modifying them?

[lee82]

Well the reason I mentioned adding the misfire counter, I was tuning a FBO 16 with Ported Gen 3 mani locked open. I tried running it like you said you were doing. I ran MP 14-25 and adjusted the Mapped Points distances. I didn't touch the torque/inverse tables or spark tables, I didn't do anything other than assign their place in Fuel Economy and change the Distances Tables.
You are both right about too much retard. At IVO 30, EVC 0. There were no misfires at all. The misfires occurred mainly when IVO and EVC are both retarded near 40*, giving a rapid increase on the misfire counter. It would increase around 10 to 20 misses a second. When running the main fuel economy cruising angles of IVO 30+, EVC 40+, the car was sputtering and continuously misfiring. In 4 minutes of logging with these angles, almost 400 misfires were counted.
Stock tables running 14-23 +25
misfire1.PNG

So I changed a few of the MP cam angles to test what you are saying and to see how it effects the misfires. I noticed EVC retard caused majority of the misfires so I used less retard from the exhaust.
Angle adjustements in 15-18 and 20. Mapped points 19, 22, 23, 24 are disabled.
adjustment2.PNG
adjustment.PNG


Huge difference with less retard on this car. I've never had a car misfire like it was. There were still misfires being counted but it doesn't compare to before. Drivability was much better, fuel trims were much better from the drop in misfires. That kind of proves what you guys are saying. I always adjust timing, torque and inverse tables to run the "stock" fuel economy angles using 14+.

Mike, I can run how you're saying with MP 23. Gen 2 and gen 3 have the same angles for 23, 25/25

I can run 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25, maybe 19. You be the engineers and I'll test it. This car is getting new coils and spark plugs today or tomorrow and the misfire will be gone so the results will too.

Alight, I've had some time to look at this now. The stock fuel economy & drivability distance tables are set up 1-10, which are mapped points 1-7, 20, 21, & 14 on the fuel economy mapped points table. 14 is set up to blend with 21/22 at WOT being in position 10 (upper rpm / load range fuel econ & drivability distance tables). If you change the fuel economy mapped points table to what you show, using only 1-8, are you "rescaling" the distance tables from 1-10 to 1-8? what about changes to spark tables?

[lee82]

I tried a bunch of things today, none of it really worked out. What seems to run the most consistent and smoothest is running purely mapped point 14 for idle & part throttle, and it still seems like changing the intake cam angle to -5 to -10 makes it even better (though it idles lopey).

1. MP's 14-22,25 with the less advanced spark timing from the 0+ tables, and cam retard max at 20/25. - Couldn't figure out what mapped point it wanted to idle in, jumped around different mapped points, engine seemed to be missing.
2. MP's 14-22,25 with the stock 14+ spark timing, and cam retard max at 20/25 - Same problem as above, but engine seemed to sputter less.
3. MP's 14&15 only for idle & part load, with standard timing and and MP 15 cam timing at 20/0 instead of 30/0. Engine idled in MP 14, and drove pretty well, but don't know why it's idling in 14. I actually noticed in the log that timing was being added by the knock sensor now, where running just 14 for idle & part load it did not. Why, i don't know.

I'm also making sure that I'm not getting "ahead" with the cam angles & timing when doing all of this... And I also just read a thread where a guy mentioned that Lund only uses 2 mapped points for idle & part throttle with IMRC's deleted. My guess? 14 & 15 with some changes.

Edit: I ran a 1/4 mile on the dragy and picked up around 4 mph with the 2018 intake & 25-26 degrees of spark advance vs running the stock 2015 intake and stock tune, so it looks like I'm getting a good bit more power.

[engineermike]

I have to apologize for my earlier mix-up. Hurricane Ida passed right over us and it's been a mess lately and I was going off of notes and pics saved to my phone. I finally got into my tuning laptop and reviewed the Gen 2 calibration and need to correct my prior statements.

I referred you to MP12, which was incorrect. If I were taking a shot at this cal, I would change the FE index array (38223) from 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-20 to 0-1-2-23-23-23-23-23-22. You shouldn't have to do anything with the torque, spark, or SD tables for this to work right, assuming Ford had them calibrated right. This would use 25/25 for all light throttle cruising situations, rather than 40/50, 40/35, and so on. It will keep it "closer to home", so to speak.

If you want improved power and are using higher octane, you could pretty easily add 2-5 deg to the borderline tables. In order to really get it right, you'd have to isolate it to single mapped points, log it, and adjust based on knock response, which is what I did. It's very time consuming but you know you got it right when you're done. I always run 93 octane and it runs at MBT until about .8 load after doing the above.

The cylinder pressure limit can be raised pretty safely. I'm supercharged and raised the cylinder pressure limit up to where it's about 3 deg over where my timing tops out.

[lee82]

I have to apologize for my earlier mix-up. Hurricane Ida passed right over us and it's been a mess lately and I was going off of notes and pics saved to my phone. I finally got into my tuning laptop and reviewed the Gen 2 calibration and need to correct my prior statements.

I referred you to MP12, which was incorrect. If I were taking a shot at this cal, I would change the FE index array (38223) from 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-20 to 0-1-2-23-23-23-23-23-22. You shouldn't have to do anything with the torque, spark, or SD tables for this to work right, assuming Ford had them calibrated right. This would use 25/25 for all light throttle cruising situations, rather than 40/50, 40/35, and so on. It will keep it "closer to home", so to speak.

If you want improved power and are using higher octane, you could pretty easily add 2-5 deg to the borderline tables. In order to really get it right, you'd have to isolate it to single mapped points, log it, and adjust based on knock response, which is what I did. It's very time consuming but you know you got it right when you're done. I always run 93 octane and it runs at MBT until about .8 load after doing the above.

The cylinder pressure limit can be raised pretty safely. I'm supercharged and raised the cylinder pressure limit up to where it's about 3 deg over where my timing tops out.

I actually spent Saturday afternoon doing what you are talking about. I first worked on making it idle properly with one mapped point, which turns out 15/0 seemed perfect and it needed only around 15 degrees spark at idle (I don't know how I ever thought -5 intake was actually working well). Then I used 20/20 cruising and part throttle acceleration with spark advance from table 14 but reduced about 10-15% in the low-mid load areas. For WOT I changed the cylinder pressure max to allow for a bit more timing, and adjusted 21 & 22 borderline spark tables all the way to 28 degrees before I saw any knock, and it wasn't much, but I backed it down to 26 total advance at 4500+ rpm just so I didn't have any issues.

I'll try to get the 0-1-2-23-etc solution implemented and see how that works as well. Thanks!

[onefastt]

I have a Holley intake with locked out IMRCs. Ended up using the new gt500 cam angles and distance tables to get mine right. Had to adjust timing tables also. After changing cam angles the speed density had to be logged with an external sensor to get the SD tables correct. If you are changing cam angles Than your speed density tables are incorrect. I am using MPS 1-12.

[Bill88stang]

Would any of you that have successfully done the imrc delete and the car drive correct post some examples? Seems there is several ways to set up for the delete using the imrc tab and arrange the distance tables and so on to make it drive good this has been a struggle for me for about 2 years unfortunately and can’t seem to make it work without some sort of undesirable affects to make it drive . If anyone could pm or just post some examples that would be greatly appreciated

[engineermike]

It’s definitely not as intuitive as it first appears. The only way I could make it work is by transplanting all the data from the imrc-open tables into the lower imrc-closed mapped points. Other ways that seemed would work resulted in oddities such as knock advance being disabled. Unfortunately you can’t just flip the switches in the imrc tab.

[Bill88stang]

Yeah ive definately seen its not easy as just flipping switches i wish there was a easy way for it, never been able to get one to drive 100% but i guess i got lucky i didnt have the issue of no knock advance.