TDStuart Tuning Adventure

[markmurfie]

My guess is theres something the ECU is not liking about the the throttle body model airflow. possibly reporting blade position error. Its open, but the position is saying it isnt kind of thing...

Calculating from the reported MAF value I see the proper load, and it follows airload right up till you loose DD and it should solely be on the TB model for airflow correlation. They dont agree after that point. You also see PW osscilating between the two reported airflows.

This is the same for all three logs you just posted.

Sponsored

 

[tdstuart]

My guess is theres something the ECU is not liking about the the throttle body model airflow. possibly reporting blade position error. Its open, but the position is saying it isnt kind of thing...

Calculating from the reported MAF value I see the proper load, and it follows airload right up till you loose DD and it should solely be on the TB model for airflow correlation. They dont agree. you also see PW osscilating between the two reported airflows.

This is the same for all three logs you just posted.

Which logs?

 

[markmurfie]

Which logs?

 

[markmurfie]

Adjusting pedal position WOT start and end up so it never uses only the TB model and always uses DD could be a tuning "work around" for this.

 

[tdstuart]

Adjusting pedal position WOT start and end up so it never uses only the TB model and always uses DD could be a tuning "work around" for this.

TB failure wouldn't surprise me. I was having issues earlier this winter with the tb getting stuck, throwing codes, and the car going into a limp mode. The issue disappeared so I didn't replace the tb.

What you are going off of is a little over my head. What data do you need to see the same issue? Ill try to log the lund tune and now that I can log with pcmtec I have way more parameters that I can log.

If its in the Lund tune than its probably something physical, if its not in the Lund tune then its probably something tune related.

 

[tdstuart]

Thanks, you said which ones I just didn't read

 

[markmurfie]

TB failure wouldn't surprise me. I was having issues earlier this winter with the tb getting stuck, throwing codes, and the car going into a limp mode. The issue disappeared so I didn't replace the tb.

What you are going off of is a little over my head. What data do you need to see the same issue? Ill try to log the lund tune and now that I can log with pcmtec I have way more parameters that I can log.

If its in the Lund tune than its probably something physical, if its not in the Lund tune then its probably something tune related.

I dont see the issue in the LUND test log. Load and calculating load from MAF follow each other nearly perfectly in that log.

Its a default setting on NA fords, so with out seeing the parameter in the LUND tune I wouldnt be able to see how they have it in any log. Raising WOT pedal start and end is something ecoboosted vehicles do, so its possible Lund just treats cams the same, only they know.

 

[tdstuart]

I dont see the issue in the LUND test log. Load and calculating load from MAF follow each other nearly perfectly in that log.

Its a default setting on NA fords, so with out seeing the parameter in the LUND tune I wouldnt be able to see how they have it in any log. Raising WOT pedal start and end is something ecoboosted vehicles do, so its possible Lund just treats cams the same, only they know.

@engineermike @K4fxd Any input?

Any thoughts on what I should try? The maf calculated lb/min numbers the logs are showing looks right to me. I know you mentioned the bandaid but as far as airflow and fueing its just a cai with different injectors. So I feel like something just needs to be tweaked there.

 

[tdstuart]

Tried some other roush lu47 injector data I found on the hptuner forums.

Didn't notice much change here is the log

 

[tdstuart]

Tried some other roush lu47 injector data I found on the hptuner forums.

Didn't notice much change here is the log

I figured out how to do those maf to load calculations you were showing and that roush tune is also off.

Not sure whats going on. Engine displacement technically is a tiny bit different but Im sure it won't make any noticeable difference.

Im wondering if this calculation can help me dial in cam timing as it seems a lot more sensitive than the air load produced by the car, but thats just speculation on my part. In the roush tune I see it peak and then dip around 6k rpm.

 

[GregO]

I dont see the issue in the LUND test log. Load and calculating load from MAF follow each other nearly perfectly in that log.

@tdstuart
What CAI system was installed for the Lund log Mark is referencing, JLT or PMAS fender well ?

 

[engineermike]

..., the ford data where I multiplied the things I outlined above, and the ford data unchanged.

...ford data multiplied.

Let me know what you guys think. I would have figured that me changing the injector data so much would have shown big differences.

Note that the ford data multiplied also changes what the car thinks the injector duty cycle is.

You're doing this wrong. You need to understand how the injector data works and is used.

Do you know what your fuel pressure is?

 

[engineermike]

My guess is theres something the ECU is not liking about the the throttle body model airflow. possibly reporting blade position error. Its open, but the position is saying it isnt kind of thing...

Calculating from the reported MAF value I see the proper load, and it follows airload right up till you loose DD and it should solely be on the TB model for airflow correlation. They dont agree after that point.

I see what you're saying about the load matching MAF/rpm*4/.0017 at part throttle but off quite a bit a WOT. The TB is stock and if it deviates from commanded it will throw a code very very quickly and shut things down. Since airflow through the TB is a function of the TB model (should be fine) and calculated MAP, and we know the SD model is inaccurate due to the 2018 IM and Stage 3 cams, is it possible that the SD model is causing this WOT discrepancy?

 

[engineermike]

Fuel pressure is inffered, rail temperature is inffered.... it doesn't make that big of a difference having it or not.

I'm seeing the stock Gen2 rail temp offset modifier is up to 20%, which seems rather high to me.

Also seeing as the FP in the 15-17 is basically low flow or full on to control impending vaporization theres not much for the ECU to do.

So the injector flow calculation is a function of inferred rail pressure, which is just looked up based on fuel pump state (low vs high speed) and flow rate. But if you change the size of the pump, add a bap, or even exceed the flow max on the table then it makes the injector data appear inaccurate because the fuel pressure isn't what its predicted to be.

 

[K4fxd]

I would raise the WOT start stop point and see if this band-aids the problem.
Do you have a larger pump and or a BAP? I would check Fuel pressure, need to see it while under WOT. I'd check this even with stock pump.

If on the stock pump I'd re-install the stock injectors, then I'd fix the MAF if needed. Again I don't trust the LU47 specs. But you can just change the MAF curve to make things look good.

Like Gregg asked, what CAI was Lund using?

Sponsored