It looks like I have id1050x-48b
Which look different than the other 48mm option with 14mm o rings. (id105x-48-14)
I'm calling in to see if there is a difference
It looks like I have id1050x-48b
Which look different than the other 48mm option with 14mm o rings. (id105x-48-14)
I'm calling in to see if there is a difference
No difference, they look completely different though. The 48b are designed to fit better in some applications.
Well of course calling a company and saying "should I use anything but the published plug n play data" they are going to disagree with it. They work from a "best practice" stand point to avoid any unknowns and provide the best support.Originally Posted by HextallS550
When you can take the published data meant to cover a variety of different vehicles with different rail pressures and modify it so that it fits your application better its only going to make your ECU more accurate. Just don't expect anyone to support it. Only reason I shared is because some people may not realize this possible slight improvement that ford had already done with the factory injector data. I thought by my underline I was making it clear I did not think the injector data from ID was the issue. Others have posted similar findings using ID1000's, but only a few. Cant remember what if any solution was found for the rich trims at idle. Many more have zero issues with them including myself.
Increase the resolution around the values the ECU is going to be seeing from the sensor. The interpolation just gets closer to the actual curve.
Increase of resolution.png
Last edited by murfie; 08-28-2018 at 11:00 PM.
Fuel injector flow rates are set too high on the whipple tune for the injectors used and they baked the error into the maf. Use the correct data from ID and correct the MAF.
The solution is to reduce the injector pulse width at idle.
That's not a solution, since there isn't a way to achieve this. You can alter pulse width in many different ways: MAF curve, injector slope, injector offsets, injector breakpoint, modifiers to slope/offset/breakpoint, etc. There is no way to change pulse width "at idle".
Right now I am leaning towards:
One last check of all things mechanical / bypass etc.
Use the published data first - then fix the MAF values and get the air charge / load stuff right and hope they didn't hack up anything else in the cal (Looks like they borrowed too much from the 5.0 and just took a shit on injector data to compensate)
this also explains why I know 20 plus people happy with the Whipple cal on their 5.0, but zero that kept it on their 350.
I do appreciate the PM's and input. I was really expecting a smoother process on my first go at this.
A 5.0 and 5.2 cal with 72lb injectors standard do not even share the same values for the injectors. Min PW and some of the modifiers are different.
Yeah having inferred rail pressure and inferred MAP makes the injector data for the 5.0 A little unreliable. So caring to make it more accurate is not that important.
Once you throw a rail pressure sensor in the mix, the ecu is monitoring the fluctuations and getting the data the ecu has for the injectors to mean a little more for those changes is helpful to the way it controls fuel injected. I suspect this is what whipple was doing with the modifiers.
I feel like instead of sitting down and coming up with a proper calibration they just grabbed the 5.0 cal and "made it work".
This should be fun. I have the next tune I will load ready to go so Hopefully I can log idle and low load histograms tonight.
That's all hacking. Not calibrating. If the MAF curve on supermans car wasn't from the GT he'd see much better FT's.
what pulley in stock for the GT kit?
3.750
You can run a 3.625 if you are on 93.
Thinking more about your issue and given the limits that we have with HPT on these Ford cals I would say a targeted correction factor of the MAF transfer function would work if you keep it to the mapped area used for idle... However, I looked into this further and it appears that the transfer function for the MAF is indeed correct. Ford Performance is using the stock GT350 transfer function and TB data on the GT Power pack 2 and 3 and most likely on the new Bullitt.
Murfie looking at your spreadsheet, i understand all the math with the high, low, and breakpoint. I dont understand why on the psi offset multiplier table the new multiplier is so much different even when you put in the same data that ID has in the PSI AXIS. I would think this would be the only table that you would use the multipliers calculated from the coefficients. Can you explain what im missing?
No you are right, just get a new multiplier from the coefficients.
ID1050X renormalized to 65PSI.xlsx
Last edited by murfie; 09-08-2018 at 01:14 PM.
What did you use to come up with the coeffecients?
When I back the original numbers into it the new multipliers are off and should be the same (or closer then they are)
Edit: I figured it out
Last edited by LastPlace; 02-03-2019 at 02:44 AM.
Did a ton of reading on Polynomial Regression Data and realized that the plot becomes more accurate with more data points
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial_regression
https://arachnoid.com/polysolve/
Reply With Quote