turbo FMEM, keep having this gremlin pop up. is there a hard limit that cant be adjusted or moved out of the way that will trigger this?
turbo FMEM, keep having this gremlin pop up. is there a hard limit that cant be adjusted or moved out of the way that will trigger this?
Try raising some of the airflow limits in Torque Management -> Turbocharger, as well as the compressor surge line table.
see thats what it thought too. or maybe im still not looking at it right. this tune doesnt work out but take a look anyway because this is one a few that ive tried out hat have the same problem. this data log and tune are close but not exact but hopefully it will demonstrate whats going on. btw i believe i have the boost control finally figured out but i need to stop hitting limiters to get what i would call clean testing. testing more tomorrow
doesnt work either.hpt
one of a few.hpl
Surge line table is only used in bypass valve control. It won't limit you with Turbo FMEM.Originally Posted by metroplex
Bugasu: Side question: How would you limit TIP boost spikes during shifts?
Reubone: You had an overboost condition causing the FMEM to kick in. I'd look at the max boost you want and use the Max Pressure scalar (yours is set to 49 psi) as a safety measure while you tweak the other parts of the tune. So if you want to limit to 25 psi, set it to about 39-40 psi. That might work.
I had an overboost happen once on my Cobalt SS Turbo at the middle of the dragstrip, needless to say it was embarrasing chugging down the 1/4 mile line at a meager 80 mph when I was doing 110+ mph a few times earlier in the day.
Last edited by metroplex; 02-02-2017 at 02:28 PM.
I know the feeling. It's not good when you client is real happy then real sad in a span of about 2 seconds. Lucky for me he's a friend and knows we're pushing the limits somewhat.
Anyhow I understand that an over boost is what caused it but which table in specific is used or was overshot. I thought I had my barriers pushed far enough out for this not to happen.
Except I had a theory. The turbo airflow table. I did move it up from stock but maybe not high enough as the requested airflow was higher than this by almost 100 lb/min. The channels did record fast enough for me to see if actual airflow exceeded this table but I wonder if requested airflow is enough.
Bugasu that's good to know as well
im starting to think that there are still some things we do not yet have access too. no matter how i try to disable over boost/turbo fmem and exhaust temp protection/control, they still tend to pop up. what do yall think
also even with my driver demand set around 500 what keeps limiting my etc torque requests?
Can you post a latest log and tune file? Sometimes small limiters/tables are missed. But I too suspect the 2015-up have some tables that need to be unlocked.
limiters still there.hpt
exhaust temp.hpl
i sure hope its something i missed. if you will notice i believe this one has overboost enabled with the thresholds turned way up. im controlling max boost with the desired tip max pressure table and that controls the boost fine but i wonder what my consequences are. etc torque request is always low. timing is always really low. i reorted to this to control the boost because with this moved up i was getting 26lbs and that is not ideal.....yet
looks like your exhaust temp inverse (50534 flange temp inverse otherwise) is still set to a 2.4 load limit. i found that raising that to 4 across the board fixes the issue (even if it's not wise... still gonna try to back it down a bit later after testing). previous efforts to raise it more conservatively (as it seems you have, up to a reasonable cushion above expected max load) didn't seem to work... only 'all 4s' seemed to have any effect. after clearing that up i ran into a couple more of the previously discussed limiters, which were again raised (i've been conservative with raising them, intentionally bumping them again as i go).
eventually, you'll need to modify the torque tables to get the calculations to command more than 2.4 load. i have done this, and have been able to generate any desired load without any issues (aside from the limiters that pop up and need tending to). if you'd like i can go into more detail, but this thread is what gave it away for me, too.. so i imagine it's already here.
tuning here on a 2017 focus rs, for reference.
Last edited by jamesm; 02-21-2017 at 02:01 PM.
Its not the load limit that worries me. its that i cant lower the amount of boost that gets commanded with anything other than the max tip pressure limit. as soon as actual meets desired is when you throttle closes so im going to fiddle with the waste gate tables to limit the boost there instead. FMEM and those types of things are no longer a problem. and the tune has been running for a few weeks now nice and stable with a happy customer at 22.5lbs, but its closing the throttle still and i dont like that. i know if i can keep my requests high and the boost low to start with i can keep the throttle open so that what im after now. The ETC torque requests is what is killing the throttle angle and i know it has something to do with tq model. im sure manipulating some tq model tables can get things in order but im going to try this first.
Limit your boost by adjusting driver demand.
Eastern and Central Europe American Muscle and Harley-Davidson tuning
www.hd-customs.pl
http://www.facebook.com/hdcustomspl
fwiw i've tried going down both roads as far as throttle tuning is concerned... first using the predicted angle tables and what not as described by thetuningschool's course (wg ff to control boost.. all that associated). after struggling with part-throttle drivability issues i decided to let the system work more as it did stock.. keeping TIP just above MAP and letting the throttle regulate airflow as intended. the purpose of this originally was to allow me to avoid having to do all the hacking associated with keeping the throttle open when it doesn't want to be, and thus not have any drivability issues introduced in the first place. it's worked as expected in that regard, and the car drives as stock at all but high loads. wastegate adjustments aren't required and the tables are now all stock.. as it just does what it's meaning to do.
one happy side effect that i didn't really expect was that pretty much everything about the tune... from spool/transient response to boost stability, smoothness of the torque output etc is greatly enhanced. the entire thing just feels like a 'jacked up stock RS' as opposed to something that's got a few wrinkles, so to speak. the strategy here is essentially just using the demanded torque to drive commanded load, then let the throttle and wastegate determine how to make it, just as described above. just raise limiters as you go until you're seeing nothing but 'driver demand' in source. throttle source will often be torque control.. but that's the point i suppose.
eventually i'll move all the targets down to just below peaks. i believe this should make for some good, consistent power regardless of conditions... at least that's what ford was probably thinking
Last edited by jamesm; 02-22-2017 at 02:43 PM.
That was my experience as well from the beginning, I just let the ECU handle the WG and throttle controls to limit boost. The WG/predictive throttle angle route seems to me like chasing your tail.
This was my conclusion as well. My F150 drives better this way. I noticed that it has a nice flat torque curve in the mid range (when the throttle is keeping load at my set limit) but still feels like it pulls to red line at WOT as the throttle opens wide and the wastegates start closing as they struggle to keep up with air load targets out of their reach. By then it's time to shift and the cycle repeats like that through each gear.fwiw i've tried going down both roads as far as throttle tuning is concerned... first using the predicted angle tables and what not as described by thetuningschool's course (wg ff to control boost.. all that associated). after struggling with part-throttle drivability issues i decided to let the system work more as it did stock.. keeping TIP just above MAP and letting the throttle regulate airflow as intended. the purpose of this originally was to allow me to avoid having to do all the hacking associated with keeping the throttle open when it doesn't want to be, and thus not have any drivability issues introduced in the first place. it's worked as expected in that regard, and the car drives as stock at all but high loads. wastegate adjustments aren't required and the tables are now all stock.. as it just does what it's meaning to do.
one happy side effect that i didn't really expect was that pretty much everything about the tune... from spool/transient response to boost stability, smoothness of the torque output etc is greatly enhanced. the entire thing just feels like a 'jacked up stock RS' as opposed to something that's got a few wrinkles, so to speak. the strategy here is essentially just using the demanded torque to drive commanded load, then let the throttle and wastegate determine how to make it, just as described above. just raise limiters as you go until you're seeing nothing but 'driver demand' in source. throttle source will often be torque control.. but that's the point i suppose.
eventually i'll move all the targets down to just below peaks. i believe this should make for some good, consistent power regardless of conditions... at least that's what ford was probably thinking
With the throttle control out of the way it likes to spike and then the power feels all down hill from there. Just not as linear as seen in many "all out" dyno charts.
I just checked out the Ford GT strategy thanks to Eric. Interesting stuff. Can't wait to see how the port and DI blend.
We use port/di blending on the FT86s to great effect. Stock cars make around 170whp, and we're able to make 300+whp boosted (on E85!) on the stock fuel system.
On the Subarus you basically have 3 maps that cover port ratios (the percentage of total injected volume comprised of port injection) for different operating temperature ranges. So, you can basically use injectors as big as you want without any of the traditional idle/low speed issues (as they're not even being used until heavy loads come in). it's not uncommon to see 1000+cc injectors on cars making in the 300-400whp range. The common pattern is to essentially max out the DI then just feed in ports as necessary to keep up with demand.
One thing to be aware of when tuning those dual fuel system cars is that during the calibration process (MAF, injector scaling etc) it is important to isolate the source of apparent error. The upside is that when tuning a car with simultaneously altered MAF and injectors (which is extremely common on the 86s... turbo upgrades) you can use the DI as a 'calibration standard'.. an unchanged hardware component to scale other things against. i typically turn off port, scale the MAF against the known-good (unchanged) DI, then enable port-only fueling and scale the injectors against the now-known-good MAF.
So yeah.. i'm a huge fan. it's basically everything you love about DI with none of the downsides.. factory aux fuel with proper controls
this doesn't work in this car, or i have the wrong combination of limiters moved. for the most part it is ignoring the driver demand table as far as i can see
I went round and round a while back with that tuning strategy as well and i too have come away with the same experience. it has been far better to allow the computer to make the changes rather than try to "fool" or "trick" the ecu. and like i say the car runs great. smooth power after a strong spool up and steady to redline. something in my head says to me that a turbo blowing hard against a 1/4 shut throttle plate seems like a lot of wasted energy. and the thought that its better to "control manifold pressure by closing the throttle" instead of bleeding exhaust pressure via wastegate, doesnt set well. maybe its because i am used to tuning boost controllers i dunno but i cant rest until i try it over and over at least a million more times i guessfwiw i've tried going down both roads as far as throttle tuning is concerned... first using the predicted angle tables and what not as described by thetuningschool's course (wg ff to control boost.. all that associated). after struggling with part-throttle drivability issues i decided to let the system work more as it did stock.. keeping TIP just above MAP and letting the throttle regulate airflow as intended. the purpose of this originally was to allow me to avoid having to do all the hacking associated with keeping the throttle open when it doesn't want to be, and thus not have any drivability issues introduced in the first place. it's worked as expected in that regard, and the car drives as stock at all but high loads. wastegate adjustments aren't required and the tables are now all stock.. as it just does what it's meaning to do.
one happy side effect that i didn't really expect was that pretty much everything about the tune... from spool/transient response to boost stability, smoothness of the torque output etc is greatly enhanced. the entire thing just feels like a 'jacked up stock RS' as opposed to something that's got a few wrinkles, so to speak. the strategy here is essentially just using the demanded torque to drive commanded load, then let the throttle and wastegate determine how to make it, just as described above. just raise limiters as you go until you're seeing nothing but 'driver demand' in source. throttle source will often be torque control.. but that's the point i suppose.
eventually i'll move all the targets down to just below peaks. i believe this should make for some good, consistent power regardless of conditions... at least that's what ford was probably thinking
So those of you that have taken the tuning schools course and went back to more like the stock way of doing things, are you using the WG Dyno mode tab or not?
Reply With Quote