PCMtec

[Grimreaper]

I asked about adding tables that don't exist and was told it is possible to custom write them. So I think your PWM can be written

That's promising!

Sponsored

 

[Rolls]

@Rolls access to the abs module possible to adjust traction control?

Technically we have the ability to read and write the ABS module however we have not reverse engineered the ROM. Being a safety critical device it's not something we would risk messing with. It also likely has fairly robust checksum routines to protect against corruption (modifying any scalars would appear as corruption unless the checksums were identified and fixed).

However the traction control action when it receives the wheel slip information from the ABS module is highly configurable in the PCM. I will do a brief write up on our forums. The main item I would start with is the spark authority under the torque requestor for traction control. This is the fastest way to reduce torque and you could lower the threshold to allow it to hit min spark clip during a traction control event instead of using the throttle. On an NA car this would be sufficient and I believe they already do a fairly good job.

What are the main complaints with the stock traction control and what would you like to improve? This will help me with what I write.

 

[shogun32]

The point is the capabilities of the pcmtec logger and the math behind how the knock determination works

I absolutely applaud you and k4's efforts to fix Ford Stupid(tm).

Has anyone tried adding 400 grams or so to the free end of the exhaust header and how that changes the fake knock?

 

[shogun32]

What are the main complaints with the stock traction control and what would you like to improve?

Track mode should burn thru rear pads. One should be able to keep some if the nannies without being forced to pull the damn fuse or resort to the 5 second hold down option which disables almost everything.

Gm has 5 different levels of track mode. Surely the only mode from Ford can be made more useful.

 

[Rolls]

@engineermike Now you're just bragging...

I'm itching to play. How far can we take "custom"? Native pwm fuel control with external sensor added? I've got a few things beyond flex I'm more interested in.

We haven't attempted to remap IO yet however its obviously possible with what roush do with changing the IMRC to a MAP input.

Most likely only certain IO can be used for PWM unless we "bit bang" a very slow software PWM via a digital output.

We can write to an output every 10ms (potentially more often, I haven't looked if there are any faster routines) giving us a pulsewidth steps of 10m. Eg if we had a 33hz solenoid (typical Mac port output for boost control) you'd be able to do steps of 0 (off) , 33% (on for 10ms, off for 20ms), 66% (on for 20ms, off for 10ms) and 100% (always on).

If 33hz is suitable for a pump controller then we could do this as well. If lower Hz is suitable then you'd get more steps/resolution.

 

[Grimreaper]

Technically we have the ability to read and write the ABS module however we have not reverse engineered the ROM. Being a safety critical device it's not something we would risk messing with. It also likely has fairly robust checksum routines to protect against corruption (modifying any scalars would appear as corruption unless the checksums were identified and fixed).

However the traction control action when it receives the wheel slip information from the ABS module is highly configurable in the PCM. I will do a brief write up on our forums. The main item I would start with is the spark authority under the torque requestor for traction control. This is the fastest way to reduce torque and you could lower the threshold to allow it to hit min spark clip during a traction control event instead of using the throttle. On an NA car this would be sufficient and I believe they already do a fairly good job.

What are the main complaints with the stock traction control and what would you like to improve? This will help me with what I write.

Good to know on the abs module. Thank you for sharing. Even better if there are tables already available. Guessing there are pids we can log too?

Belive mainly Its the wheel slip/ slip ratio allowed that doesn't seem to be adjustable or I haven't got to in the pcmtec files yet. From there its the ramp rate and how aggressive its trying to remove tq and if we can adjust how the onset of slip is handled etc.

Typically once it gets the signal to pull tq, it over corrects cuts power in half etc. Boosted exaggerates this.

How its reducing power is good too. I have a hunch you guys can point out connections between the tables we would otherwise be confirming with trial and error or missing all together.

End goal is finessing like can be done on motec/ standalone. Tailoring it for setups outside fords factory design.

 

[Grimreaper]

We haven't attempted to remap IO yet however its obviously possible with what roush do with changing the IMRC to a MAP input.

Most likely only certain IO can be used for PWM unless we "bit bang" a very slow software PWM via a digital output.

We can write to an output every 10ms (potentially more often, I haven't looked if there are any faster routines) giving us a pulsewidth steps of 10m. Eg if we had a 33hz solenoid (typical Mac port output for boost control) you'd be able to do steps of 0 (off) , 33% (on for 10ms, off for 20ms), 66% (on for 20ms, off for 10ms) and 100% (always on).

If 33hz is suitable for a pump controller then we could do this as well. If lower Hz is suitable then you'd get more steps/resolution.

For fuel pump control we should be in luck on the gen2. Its already pwm controlled but limited to hi/lo/off by the tune. The gt350 uses the 1791 but employs variable pump control and fuel pressure sensor feedback. Same/similar as gen3 and gt500. Tables are different on gen2 though. Would need created or copied from gt350 along with pids to log, sensor transfer function, inject offset mapping etc.. I'm cherry picking parts of code like we do parts. Feel free to rein it in if there are limits.

Ideally the fuel psi input pin is unmapped/free in the coyote and can be made active. Otherwise duplicating similar to the flex setup input is still a huge win. I'll see if i can track down the connector pinout between the two ecus. Pinmapping at the processor/board level might be enough though.

 

[Rolls]

For fuel pump control we should be in luck on the gen2. Its already pwm controlled but limited to hi/lo/off by the tune. The gt350 uses the 1791 but employs variable pump control and fuel pressure sensor feedback. Same/similar as gen3 and gt500. Tables are different on gen2 though. Would need created or copied from gt350 along with pids to log, sensor transfer function, inject offset mapping etc.. I'm cherry picking parts of code like we do parts. Feel free to rein it in if there are limits.

Ideally the fuel psi input pin is unmapped/free in the coyote and can be made active. Otherwise duplicating similar to the flex setup input is still a huge win. I'll see if i can track down the connector pinout between the two ecus. Pinmapping at the processor/board level might be enough though.

KPM Here in Australia already make a fuel system that piggybacks off the factory PWM system

https://www.kpmfuelsystems.com.au/2...pwm-fuel-controller-pre-release-announcement/



I believe Dave is doing a tour of the US later this year (will be at PRI) and the systems will be distributed in the US. They utilise the factory fuel tank hat, 1000-2000hp capable with 1,2,3 pumps and full PWM control and a separate programmable module that you can configure to do what you are talking about.

Very neat bit of gear. Send them an email and I'm sure they can let you know if its available in the US yet or not.

 

[Rolls]

I know that. But it ain't here, and who knows if it'll ever be released to the average Joe Schmoe. I doubt it will.

We have given over 30 DIY users access. Contact us via support.

 

[Aussie-up-north]

O2 sensor tests are needed for epa compliance in the USA. If they have been already turned off in your tune it will let you turn them back on, but not the reverse.

EPA has the ability to shut down anyone basically over night and we have no intention of letting 6 years of development be shut down due to something like that.

You can make 1000hp and pass emissions, it is just more difficult. Do it right and everyone will stay in this game a lot longer.

What about address / country validation.. many other country’s that get tuned out of the USA don’t have the EPA on our backs.
or even when turning them off a massive warning pop up and a simple EULA that had to be agreed that this is not a USA vin or located car? Have it shoot a quite datafile back to you server to keep on file.

 

[Rolls]

What about address / country validation.. many other country’s that get tuned out of the USA don’t have the EPA on our backs.
or even when turning them off a massive warning pop up and a simple EULA that had to be agreed that this is not a USA vin or located car? Have it shoot a quite datafile back to you server to keep on file.

A very good suggestion and we are looking at things like this. If we do we would need to do some kind of training similar to sct/hpt which is attached to it. We don't want to jeapordise the companies future. Playing by the rules is the only way forward.

You just have to look at the trouble Cobb are having and the settlement derive made to see how quickly they can shut a company down.

The reality is you can meet emission and make 1kwhp, we encourage everyone to go down this path. It really is not that much more expensive and buying the equipment to test emissions is not out of the realms of any reasonably sized workshop.

 

[Decible]

KPM Here in Australia already make a fuel system that piggybacks off the factory PWM system

https://www.kpmfuelsystems.com.au/2...pwm-fuel-controller-pre-release-announcement/



I believe Dave is doing a tour of the US later this year (will be at PRI) and the systems will be distributed in the US. They utilise the factory fuel tank hat, 1000-2000hp capable with 1,2,3 pumps and full PWM control and a separate programmable module that you can configure to do what you are talking about.

Very neat bit of gear. Send them an email and I'm sure they can let you know if its available in the US yet or not.

@engineermike This is a very similar fuel system that you and I talked about a few months ago. Pretty much plug and play no cut.

 

[Rolls]

@engineermike This is a very similar fuel system that you and I talked about a few months ago. Pretty much plug and play no cut.

Send them an email and say Roland from PCMTEC referrred you. Dave/Callum will be able to give you pricing and an ETA on US market availability. It's a very nice bit of kit, not cheap but fully plug and play, configurable and great support.

 

[Aussie-up-north]

A very good suggestion and we are looking at things like this. If we do we would need to do some kind of training similar to sct/hpt which is attached to it. We don't want to jeapordise the companies future. Playing by the rules is the only way forward.

You just have to look at the trouble Cobb are having and the settlement derive made to see how quickly they can shut a company down.

The reality is you can meet emission and make 1kwhp, we encourage everyone to go down this path. It really is not that much more expensive and buying the equipment to test emissions is not out of the realms of any reasonably sized workshop.

You are correct, but there are some of us outside of the states that have track only mustangs that run the stock ECUs because of the limited aftermarket options for 6R80s.

there are some custom cars that are not in a post emissions mustangs running full electrics from newer mustangs where Cats, rear O2s and some other EPA things are not even considered to be installed. There is a 32 ford close by me that is running everything stock computer wise from a 2015 GT. The exhaust it straight from the header and down behind the front tire with single 02 in each.

another option would be to pin lockout the feature.
customers to pay a $50 or $100 fee to get the unlock code and for them to turn it off themselves or via the tuner company with a release form that the car is not intended to be driven on any public roads where the USA EPA governances the emissions of a car.
the use of this feature is only to be used in extreme custom off road applications outside of the USA. With that fee it would only be for the serious person.

i fully get where you are coming from also 100% but there will have to be a way to shut down their rear 02s and cat deletes ect.

 

[bankyf]

Send them an email and say Roland from PCMTEC referrred you. Dave/Callum will be able to give you pricing and an ETA on US market availability. It's a very nice bit of kit, not cheap but fully plug and play, configurable and great support.

I sent them an email a few weeks ago. They have no pricing or ETA available at this time for the full fuel system.

Sponsored