ign corrections stock map [log]

[TeeLew]

The Blue run was after a full warm-up and you can see it break up about 5k rpm. The green was a second pull and it starts losing by about 3800 rpm. The red was the last pull after an extended cooling down period. It maintained spark, but you can see at about 5300 rpm something start to pull power and at about 5900 rpm it starts throwing fuel at it. By 6300 rpm, we're at 8.9:1 AFR.

I don't find this to be acceptable tuning. Ryan Martin is so much better at even this 'simple' stuff that it's embarrassing for Ford. I'm sure all the engine cal guys fight over tuning the GT500 engine or whatever and this is low on the totem pole, but the fact is that by just tuning what they already produce, Ford can make the Eco a lot better car. I'm not convinced they *want* to. If you tune it correctly, the low-buck car gets a little *too* good. Once it fits in its performance box, they don't need to blur the lines between it and the higher models. It's a shame, because I bet bad tuning from the factory causes many of the problems we hear about with Eco's. If everyone's Eco drove like mine, there'd be a lot few GT's on the road. Not because it's faster than a GT; it's not. But, you can get real bloody close to the same performance for a lot less money with nothing more than an intercooler and tuning. That *could* be done at the factory for a grand total of about $10 per car.

Sponsored

 

[TeeLew]

These are some of the reasons I always advocate for cooler engine temps and colder plug ranges.

 

[K4fxd]

The tune is calling for .74 lambda from 5000 up, which on E10 is 10.4 still rich but is close to what big name tuners run WOT.

CAT protection is set at .68 lambda so close to what you are seeing.

Ryan Martin?

 

[TeeLew]

It's just not what 'big name tuners' are running. I've looked at more data traces than I care to admit and I've never come across any engine that was even moderately competitive among its peers at those values. I don't expect it to be running N/A ratios, but this is absurd.

Ryan Martin is PD tuning, the guy who maps the most poweful Eco's on the planet. I'm not going to parade his data for the world to see, but he is not running these AFR values.

Let's make the argument that this *is* Cat protection. You still don't have to pump raw fuel through the engine causing misfires and poor overall performance. Just roll back the bloody throttle blades. You can keep the Cat at whatever temp is acceptable without these hack methods. This is like something you'd do just the get the engine running and then you go back later to make it right, but they never did.

 

[TeeLew]

If you have access to the map, then what does it do with ignition timing when it's dumping fuel? I bet it rolls back timing to reduce power. So now you've got a bunch of raw fuel in the exhaust tract and you've retarded ignition timing to pull back power, so you're burning a lot more fuel in the exhaust rather than the combustion chamber. What does that do to EGT's? They go through the roof. What does that do to Cat temps? Ditto.

They've likely created a self-perpetuating problem one way or another. This is just one possible scenario.

 

[K4fxd]

I agree with you it is absurd. N/A fueling is stupid rich under cat protect too. I just looked for an answer to the fueling being so rich and it is CAT protection.

Looking at the lambda spark modifier it is supposed to add 5 degrees at .75 and richer.

 

[Coyote Chase]

Even this type of nonsense suggests sh!tty engineering. The tuner controls the throttle. If they can't tune the engine to run under certain conditions, then change the conditions so it actually can operate. There is NO condition where an 8.9:1 air/fuel ratio is favorable in a gasoline engine, but that's what the stock HPP does on a dyno at WOT. There is no acceptable justification for this, it's just sh!t work by the engineering department. We don't need to sugar coat it.

I wonder if it is in cat protection?

I'll have to look at a few eco boost tunes.

It definitely blows my mind... I was thinking the data logs where on OTS Cobb tunes, which made me wonder if the car had a pre-existing problem...?
I've had really good success, running pre-April, 2022 Cobb OTS tunes.

 

[Coyote Chase]

It's just not what 'big name tuners' are running. I've looked at more data traces than I care to admit and I've never come across any engine that was even moderately competitive among its peers at those values. I don't expect it to be running N/A ratios, but this is absurd.

Ryan Martin is PD tuning, the guy who maps the most poweful Eco's on the planet. I'm not going to parade his data for the world to see, but he is not running these AFR values.

Let's make the argument that this *is* Cat protection. You still don't have to pump raw fuel through the engine causing misfires and poor overall performance. Just roll back the bloody throttle blades. You can keep the Cat at whatever temp is acceptable without these hack methods. This is like something you'd do just the get the engine running and then you go back later to make it right, but they never did.

Ryan Martin?? Until MOTEC came on board, nothing he tuned could break the long standing NMRA 1/4 mile record for the Ecoboost Mustang.
And now that Cobb has restricted thier Accessports and Accesstuners , to comply with EPA/CARB regulations, it's going to be difficult, to put a street legal Ecoboost Mustang into the 11s (using post April, 2022 Hardware/Software).

 

[TeeLew]

Ryan Martin?? Until MOTEC came on board, nothing he tuned could break the long standing NMRA 1/4 mile record for the Ecoboost Mustang.
And now that Cobb has restricted thier Accessports and Accesstuners , to comply with EPA/CARB regulations, it's going to be difficult, to put a street legal Ecoboost Mustang into the 11s (using post April, 2022 Hardware/Software).

Is the Motec bit meant to be a criticism? Ya, it wasn't until he could really control fuel and spark accurately that he could help produce a 1000 HP EcoBoost engine. I think he would agree to be guilty as charged. A lot of the other parts it takes to really go fast aren't street legal either, so I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Coyote Chase]

Martin* is nothing more than a "Johnny come lately". Jessie and his family have put their lives into that car, and if you know the history of the EMS' shop car, it was originally tuned by Tune+, then by Jessie himself. Once the Ringley family made a name for themselves and their business, Ryan came banging on the door and apparently, made them a deal, they couldn't pass up (PD is listed as a sponsor). A good tune is important, but I'm choosing to recognize the family and friends, who put thier blood sweat and tears into the world's quickest/fastest Ecoboost Mustang!

*As for Martin, PD and Cobb, they have indeed, built some excellent tunes in the past. All my (early) 93 octane tunes were killer! I was able to run (1/4 mile ET) mid+ 12s, using Cobb's OTS stage 3 tune, (and mixed fuel), and 12.40s, using Ryan's custom tune. It's the E85 tunes, and the E85/NX2 tune that were disappointing!

**Jessie is a good guy, I just don't understand why he didn't tell me about the restrictions, Cobb had to put on his professional tuner, due to EPA and CARB!??

 

[TeeLew]

Do we have an axe to grind?

 

[TeeLew]

Well, I've worked with Ryan for years and he does a great job. I've got an engine that Jessie is building and I think he also does a great job. I'm very comfortable working with both of them.

 

[Grimreaper]

That looks like text book cot in the dyno log. Fords ecus have zero issues controlling fuel and a host of other variables. It's the tuners and software we all use that are limited. Hence the gains typical of a motec for tc and other inaccessible areas of a tune. 0.68 is rich but serves a purpose besides keeping that 10hp on the table.

Timing is usually added when in cot to make up for the loss from afr alone. Timing that would not usually be possible given the octane ford originally tuned for. Its when a tuner recreates the timing tables to hit numbers they want that this benefit can be lost.

Consider how many models run EcoBoost vs coyote/predator/voodoo combined. I doubt they shortchanged a single line of code on this platform. And they certainly wouldn't waste fuel unnecessarily either. The fleet mpg hit would be huge.

 

[TeeLew]

Citations, please. I'm not a "because I said so" type guy.

 

[Grimreaper]

It is "cited". That has been first hand experience learning fords tuning. Just like anybody from Cobb,hptuners, sct etc. None left Ford with fords gui and bin files to write their own tunes. Ford has never given out a manual. They started at a finished product and reversed engineered. All started with basic understanding of what the ecu is doing but learned the how and why through trial and error, patents and ICE understanding.

The patents are free to dig through on Google. The patent citations paint a very interesting picture of technology advancement and engine control over the decades across many brands too.

You can download hptuners and review the tune files free. The tables that impact what's been discussed so far are populated for most OS on most engines. (Actually all that I've ever bothered to check). From there its pretty straight forward to see what Ford intended under certain conditions.

Sponsored