Thank you Sir. I use very sweet pump 94. For race days I use MS109.
The The port injection was kept because without it they have a big problem with carbon buildup so it’s used to keep the intake runner clean.
Having PI with DI is definitely better for reducing carbon buildup, but it’s not used in any of their ecoboost engines. I assume it’s to allow easier FI integration with larger port injectors. I could be wrong.
@Meatball I got curious and looked it up. The stock gen3 octane learning takes place between 1500 and 4000 rpm and between .4 and .8 load.
Interesting. I’m not positive Whipple’s baseline is super accurate, but When on straight (Cali) 91 with “Octane Adjust” off, I’d see positive KR. Controlled, but positive. OA on and I’d be in negative KR. So if I understand you correctly, it seems the baseline timing is closeish to the knock threshold on that gas under those conditions. The OA on seems to apply the less aggressive timing even with “Torque reduction” activated and at -25% (=, in part, the throttle never fully opening). The difference in wot timing with OA on vs off seems to be about 3 degrees.
I’m assuming yours is a gen2? I don’t know how close the gen2 borderline tables are to accurate, but the gen3 tables were off by as much as 10 deg in some places.
Mine’s a gen2.
The following is complete supposition on my part, so take it for what it’s worth. I believe you are correct that professional calibration engineers build the base calibration file for Roush and Whipple. I don’t think the same person did both, as they are completely different in how they are structured. However, the Roush cal has a lot of similarities to the Predator cal so I believe the same person worked on both, or at least guided both. Now, understand that Ford uses a computer simulation to establish the initial borderline knock, MBT, torque, speed density, and other tables at all the possible mapped points. Ford then puts engines on a bank of dyno’s and runs them through a matrix of operating conditions to adjust and correct all of these tables. This is likely an automated process. This is where Roush and Whipple just can not economically justify the cost of fine tuning these tables.
I agree with you regarding compression ratio; remember when the 1993 LT1 came out at 10.25/1 and we all thought it was the end of forced induction? I’m not sure I would say it’s trickier, as the concept is still the same. The sensing and controls have advanced light-years since then so we have a lot more data to work with and can change timing as a function of coolant temp, air temp, load, cam timing, etc...which makes it safer. The factory wide-bands, 2-4 knock sensors, and fast processor speeds help as well.
Makes sense. Explains why Ford can release an awesomely powerful car like the 2020 GT500 and not go bankrupt under warranty claims, and why Roush uses a very conservative tune for their warrantied setup.
What I was referring to was actually more about how the mapped points are structured. They both have a limited number of mapped points and only command cam timing on a mapped point or a snap line. They even follow the same pattern at part throttle. Again, pure supposition on my part, so take it as such.
I’m tuning on 93 and have logged every tank since I started. I might eventually try to get the oar to work as an added layer of safety.
Those are great numbers for 91. HaveJust wanted to share some dyno data. I have a Whipple Gen 4 Stage 2, 3.75 pulley, BBK headers w/ racing midpipe, MBRP exhaust. I made 702 whp with Whipple tune with headers. Made 740whp after dynotune. Very happy with the Whipple.
