TDStuart Tuning Adventure

[tdstuart]

No, base is mbt, where it makes the most power and is most efficient. Most coyotes run base timing at light load and borderline at heavy load where it becomes knock limited..

I put the mapped points and sd back to stock and I can see like 100 actual torque with 300 desired until it switches to borderline where the torque jumps way up.

I think this is what I feel when driving as I feel “no power” and then the car will decide to give me more power randomly or if I press the throttle harder and it’s like an instant switch.

With mapped point locked it never switches to borderline and always gives me the no power feeling

Sponsored

 

[engineermike]

The spark source is an effect, not the cause.

 

[tdstuart]

The spark source is an effect, not the cause.

So you are saying if I fix the SD the spark should fix?

 

[markmurfie]

Locked to MP5/MP17

Car feels like it is always at 10% throttle even at 50%. Doesn't "give me more power" until i floor it enough to switch to OP.

Is there something else I need to change?

Log attached

Bummer you took out 'MAP estimate (TP model)' from this log. I bet it would be pegged at just under what it thinks the barometric is. Des load is way higher than air laod at these MPs. I thought maybe you could regress coeffecients out of des load airmass as the x axis, but I think this is going to push the MAP in the wrong direction for the throttle body model. I like keeping the airmass the same and just changing the MAP value it produces. You have two good spots for getting something for MP and MP17 around the 1500 to 2000 RPM range, just missing the one PID.
MP 4 is probabaly another one thats pretty bad.

IDK if any of this is right, it doesnt feel right as what you will be doing is telling the ECU the engines VE is way way down, just to satisfy the TB model. May fix drivability and the way the logs look, but its not going to fix the engines VE being way down.

You correct your torque model so desired laod matches what the MAF says.
You correct your SD so that what the MAF says what the MAP should be agrees with the throttle body thinks it should be. theres multiple things to correct, none of them look like you will end in a good spot.

 

[tdstuart]

IDK if any of this is right, it doesnt feel right as what you will be doing is telling the ECU the engines VE is way way down, just to satisfy the TB model. May fix drivability and the way the logs look, but its not going to fix the engines VE being way down.

You correct your torque model so desired laod matches what the MAF says.
You correct your SD so that what the MAF says what the MAP should be agrees with the throttle body thinks it should be. theres multiple things to correct, none of them look like you will end in a good spot.

What are your thoughts then? I'm not against getting a map sensor hooked up. I just feel like maybe there is something we are missing.

I know something is wrong with the motor but Lund didn't tune around it. Their first tune was basically spot on, and when the motor changed the car ran fine on the same tune it was just down on power and the load numbers at wot reflected that.

If it wasn't for the Lund tune running fine I would be way more accepting that it could be a mechanical issue causing problems with tuning the car.

 

[markmurfie]

What are your thoughts then? I'm not against getting a map sensor hooked up. I just feel like maybe there is something we are missing.

I know something is wrong with the motor but Lund didn't tune around it. Their first tune was basically spot on, and when the motor changed the car ran fine on the same tune it was just down on power and the load numbers at wot reflected that.

If it wasn't for the Lund tune running fine I would be way more accepting that it could be a mechanical issue causing problems with tuning the car.

Don't just try changing the slope values arbitrarily.

Plot your airmass values from air load against the estimated MAP( TB model) values and regress all three coefficients offset, slope, and quadratic for RPM ranges of a mapped point. Put those in so the calculated MAP and estimated MAP closer agree and see how that effects the throttle body control. You should be able to at least get the calculated barometric to function correctly again.

Get me logs and ill get you the coefficients. I've already post a few very general plots that you can try and just throw in to MP 3, 4, 5 and MP 16, 17 for RPMs 1325-2650 and see if it works any better.

 

[markmurfie]

Specifically for those MP and RPMs

Quad: -26,500,000
Slope: 60,700
Offset: -3.46 (make it 0 or +3.46, it doesn't do much)

And yes its a really messed up change, the HPT calculator may display it in a more intuitive way than Fords direct relationship, but it is coming directly from data you logged.

 

[markmurfie]

PCMtech Just showing MP 3's coefficients. The layout spreads them apart for the MPs.

 

[Pistol_91]

Specifically for those MP and RPMs

Quad: -26,500,000
Slope: 60,700
Offset: -3.46 (make it 0 or +3.46, it doesn't do much)

And yes its a really messed up change, the HPT calculator may display it in a more intuitive way than Fords direct relationship, but it is coming directly from data you logged.

That is way way off lol. It's weird loads are so low compared to stock desired values. Would be easier to tune with HPT with the calculator imo

 

[GregO]

You can't really "degree" them. They fit into the phasers only one way and you line up the timing chains with the marks and thats it.

Unless I skipped a tooth or my timing procedure is off (which from my research would be very noticeable and the car would detect), you can't really mess it up.

I’m not referring to a skipped tooth. I’m talking about the process of verifying the cam is +/- 1° of where the cam manufacturer wants it at TDC.
ie; If it’s off by 5° and the ECU is commanding 20° that 5° would actually be either 15° or 25° depending if the cam is on the + or - side of the spec. The aftermarket cams need to have their home position mechanically verified. Or you rent dyno time and hunt around for the best cam power settings, old school step and hold method.

 

[tdstuart]

Bummer you took out 'MAP estimate (TP model)' from this log.

Added it to both these logs. Forgot to add the actual MAP to the first so added it to the second. let me know if you need a longer log with MAP.

 

[tdstuart]

I’m not referring to a skipped tooth. I’m talking about the process of verifying the cam is +/- 1° of where the cam manufacturer wants it at TDC.
ie; If it’s off by 5° and the ECU is commanding 20° that 5° would actually be either 15° or 25° depending if the cam is on the + or - side of the spec. The aftermarket cams need to have their home position mechanically verified. Or you rent dyno time and hunt around for the best cam power settings, old school step and hold method.

Why just aftermarket and not oem?

They both use the exact same method of installing the cams and getting them in the right position. I don't know how you would verify the exact position, have you looked at the cam install procedure for the coyotes? I can post screenshots if you need.

Or you rent dyno time and hunt around for the best cam power settings, old school step and hold method.

I think this is the best method for dialing in any cams that use the vct system.

 

[K4fxd]

Why just aftermarket and not oem?

OEM cams need to be checked also. You use centerline at park position.

 

[tdstuart]

OEM cams need to be checked also. You use centerline at park position.

Not sure how you degree the cams with the vct system maybe I’m missing something.

Ford doesn’t call for anything special.

 

[K4fxd]

Because they get moved around so much it is not as critical on this engine. If doing a rebuild one should check installed position, Park position for VVT.

There have been talk of some gears not having the key way cut properly, doing this will catch it.

Sponsored