Interested to see if anyone else has run into this. I already have Eric Brooks looking to see if there's anything possibly not mapped that could help with this issue, but figured I would crowd-source it here as well. The issue is as the title says. Essentially there seems to be a cap on the calculated torque reference, which seems to be around 550 ft/lbs. I'm attaching four logs, and a layout config that makes it a little easier to view. The four logs are the same truck, same tune. 2017 F150 5.0 with an On3 twin kit on E85. You should notice that the Indicated Torque never increases much with nearly double the boost (7 psi vs 13.5 psi). The airflow model is accurate as you can see calculated load is very close to MAP kPa, but there seems to be a cap on the amount of torque that is allowed to be reported by the PCM. Obviously this is not ideal, since engine torque is a direct input into the transmission logic. I've been working around this by re-scaling the torque axis of the transmission tables, but that is really just a band-aid fix. Torque tables and inverse torque tables are accurate, and drivability is great. I can increase the indicated torque value by "rapping" the torque and inverse tables where they max out, but that then causes drivability issues off-boost. So, that's obviously not a fix. The real issue "seems" to be that there is a cap or limiter in the control logic that is not allowing the higher cells of the torque and inverse tables to be accessed. regardless what values are put into them.
I can't, unfortunately, share the tune as it contains work that is not mine, but the logs show the issue. I've tried everything I can possibly think of at this point, so I'm really more interested in seeing if anyone else has run into something similar. I should also note that when tuning from a Whipple or Roush calibration, this limit does not exist and I've seen Indicated Torque values as high as 850 ft/lbs on some high boost Whipple trucks. However, comparing to a Whipple file does not lend anything different that raises a red flag on the issue. I have even copied over values directly from Whipple tunes to see if it makes a difference, and it does not. So, I'm open to any info anyone wants to share.