TDStuart Tuning Adventure

[markmurfie]

Ok, but where does it get this torque value from? How does it come up with it?

It should be noted that the indicated torque is a combination of brake torque and friction/loss torque. Only from the indicated torque values, the torque ratios can be applied. Torque ratios are the ECUs control over the engine. indicated torque values are lookup values in the engine torque tables. Indicated Engine Torque at VCT Mapped Point X with Stoich AFR, MBT Spark, and STD conditions.

To get to engine brake torque, you have to apply the torque ratios for the actual spark and lambda values, then apply all the loss values. this estimated torque is what the driver demand torque correlates with for the drivers input control of the engine. The more accurate this model is made the better control the driver will feel they have over the engine.

Idle targets a desired RPM and a desired MAF using a feedforward airmass to throttle angle table and a PID feedback loop for RPM error. Indicated torque values come from the desired load in new cars and spark torque ratio determine spark control. The most it compensates for is AC clutch and alternator load which can mostly be handled by torque/ spark control. In older cars there was a base idle airflow table. There was also idle spark tables.
It just so happens indicated torque is always offset by what it takes to idle above engine brake torque and ETC/ DD torque. Which at idle with no pedal input, those two should be targeting 0.

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

I noticed some lag in the phasers on the Lund tune logs

What oil are you using? FRPP specs 5w-50 specifically for cam control. In AZ in the summer heat wouldn't be an issue. I'd use 5-50 anyway.

 

[tdstuart]

What oil are you using? FRPP specs 5w-50 specifically for cam control. In AZ in the summer heat wouldn't be an issue. I'd use 5-50 anyway.

I was probably running 5w50 on those logs. Got tired of amsoil prices so started running 5w40

 

[engineermike]

@markmurfie it really sounds like we’re saying the same thing, minus a couple of details.

One really great thing about pcmtec is that it has thousands of parameters available for logging. The results from internal calculations are even loggable. For instance, at one time you created math parameters for vcmscanner so you can log 10r80 clutch slip. Well apparently ford logic calculates that as well (no surprise) and you can log those in PCMtec. All that to say you can log idle torque reserve, pumping and friction loss torque, etc. I did a quick log and found that I was correct, that pumping loss + friction loss + torque reserve = scheduled torque, which is then converted to load (with other corrections you mentioned) then to desired airflow. Then on the feedback loop side, logged mbt - spark timing = spark delta, which can be converted to a torque ratio using the TR S-curve and lo and behold, scheduled torque / (scheduled torque + torque reserve) = spark TR. it all adds up and works out about right.

The part I haven’t fully understood is why the feedback loop for spark timing speed control is all calculated as a function of torque errors rather than rpm errors. I’m guessing this has to do with the torque vs rpm curve being non-linear so just correcting based on rpm error might lead to unpredictable non-linear response.

 

[Pistol_91]

It only varies like a degree or so. But especially at wot the cams can move several degrees. It’s why I think my cam phasers might have issues as I noticed some lag in the phasers on the Lund tune logs

That's why you log phaser angle and actual angle. At WOT it uses the OP table for cam angles and stock values are all over the place that's why it moves through multiple mapped points and blends so much. The fact of the matter is they don't move however they want or "several degrees" without being told to do so. If you're seeing 5 degrees or something like that different than what's commanded then use a thinner oil or maybe see if the phasers are having issues. Idk why anybody would ever use 5w50 but that's just my opinion. It's hot here in Florida too, but I've always ran 5w30 with zero issues. N/A and boosted

 

[markmurfie]

@markmurfie it really sounds like we’re saying the same thing, minus a couple of details.

One really great thing about pcmtec is that it has thousands of parameters available for logging. The results from internal calculations are even loggable. For instance, at one time you created math parameters for vcmscanner so you can log 10r80 clutch slip. Well apparently ford logic calculates that as well (no surprise) and you can log those in PCMtec. All that to say you can log idle torque reserve, pumping and friction loss torque, etc. I did a quick log and found that I was correct, that pumping loss + friction loss + torque reserve = scheduled torque, which is then converted to load (with other corrections you mentioned) then to desired airflow. Then on the feedback loop side, logged mbt - spark timing = spark delta, which can be converted to a torque ratio using the TR S-curve and lo and behold, scheduled torque / (scheduled torque + torque reserve) = spark TR. it all adds up and works out about right.

The part I haven’t fully understood is why the feedback loop for spark timing speed control is all calculated as a function of torque errors rather than rpm errors. I’m guessing this has to do with the torque vs rpm curve being non-linear so just correcting based on rpm error might lead to unpredictable non-linear response.

But you are doing it backwards. All that stuff it tracked and taken out of scheduled/ indicated torque to produce an engine brake torque. This more accurate estimated torque is not the torque used at idle. The more predictable and stable scheduled/ indicated torque is used for idle control.

 

[K4fxd]

Idk why anybody would ever use 5w50 but that's just my opinion.

Ford recommends 5-50 for phaser control. The stock phasers have very loose tolerances. 5-30 is fine for most but he has aftermarket cams with more lift and duration which is harder for the phasers to control.

 

[markmurfie]

Ford recommends 5-50 for phaser control. The stock phasers have very loose tolerances. 5-30 is fine for most but he has aftermarket cams with more lift and duration which is harder for the phasers to control.

I only see forum talk of this, and one youtuber whos car dealership put 5w50 in for "the tick"

Where is Ford recommending this?

 

[K4fxd]

FRPP and owners manual.

 

[markmurfie]

FRPP and owners manual.

Direct from fords reccomendations
https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.com/resources/quickreferencecharts

In 2021 the reccomendation switched from 5w20 to 5w30.
in 2024 its 9.5 quarts not 10.

No 5.0 is reccomended 5w50. only HO Ecoboost motors and 5.2 engines in cars that will probably see track time.

The phasers duty cycle is controlled with PID feedback loop. To hold the cams in position its near 60% DC, not 0 and not 100. How would increasing oil weight effect this control in a positive way?

 

[Pistol_91]

How would increasing oil weight effect this control in a positive way?

Exactly my thoughts about it murf. The phasers are one of the highest points on the engine that receive oil to work properly. Making the oil heavier makes it more difficult for the oil to flow and reach them. Let me thicken my blood up for better brain function. Makes no sense but to each their own

 

[K4fxd]

The phasers are loose tolerance, have you taken one apart?

The Boss 302 recommends 5-50 and ford has stated it is mostly for phaser control.

NMRA put out a bulletin saying 5-50 is legal to use and also stated it is for cam control.

Thats good enough for me.

 

[bankyf]

EDIT: I posted a page from the manual, but I was on the wrong page. It looks like @markmurfie is correct. I'm pretty sure it was in some of the the GEN 2 "Track PacK" owners manuals, and it is definitely a recommendation from Whipple, but it is absent from the newer manuals.

I did find this for the 2013. Perhaps Ford backed off of this recommendation.

 

[engineermike]

So to conclude, Ford recommends 5W50 in the Gen1 Track Pack 5.0, the Gen 3 Aluminator 5.0, and for use with the FRPP Gen 3 5.0 Supercharger.

 

[engineermike]

But you are doing it backwards. All that stuff it tracked and taken out of scheduled/ indicated torque to produce an engine brake torque. This more accurate estimated torque is not the torque used at idle. The more predictable and stable scheduled/ indicated torque is used for idle control.

I really think we're talking about the same thing....whether it's setting brake torque = 0, or setting pumping losses + friction + reserve = scheduled torque, both yield the same result since brake torque = scheduled torque - friction - pumping losses - reserve. I also logged brake torque during my test and, as expected, it hovers around 0 ftlb.

What I posed was that it IS using scheduled torque for idle control, but where it obtains the actual value from is the pumping losses + friction + reserve.

Sponsored