[MrsJones]

JuiceSC, Yesterday was an interesting day and I was able to gather some data, not only what you requested but some other that you may find interesting also.

To this point I have run your tunes as received. I have some ideas to incorporate some of my tune with yours to offer for opinion but this will be delayed for about a week. We'll see. Until then.. onward.

I would like to know how the car responds under the following scenario: Highway cruise, holding speed in 5th gear cruise. (fully warmed up of course) Go WOT for a few seconds, something like 2000 to 2300 rpm "pull", passing without downshifting.

The following pic provides the info I think you was looking for. What I found interesting is the unstable air flow at the lower rpm's which I believe is due to reversion because of the cam. I could be wrong, just my opinion. I left SPARK highlighted which started at 20 deg, on the left. Also, I carried it out to 2400 rpm.

T9_2k_2.4k.jpg (62.54 KiB) Viewed 83030 times

I had cause to make a 50 mile drive yesterday and my course took me south to destination, north back home. The next two pics exibit 75 mph in both directions. The drive south was into a 15 mph wind and back north was, of course, with the wind. Notice the ISCDTY activity. I believe the ISCDTY is maxed out heading into that wind. What do you think? Either way, perhaps this will supply you the info you was looking for. I suppose I should add that this was with use of the cruise control and our highway speeds are a normal 75 mph... or get run over. I left the ISCDTY highlighted in the pics below. Oh, one other thing, I left SPARK in the chart for reference with numbers on the left.

T9_75intowind.jpg (79.46 KiB) Viewed 83030 times

T9_75withwind.jpg (79.66 KiB) Viewed 83030 times

The following is just for comparison at 70 on the cruise.

T9_70withwind.jpg (83.55 KiB) Viewed 83030 times

Starting tomorrow my car will be down for some paint work and likely won't have it back before Sunday. Just getting some new parts painted and some touch up.

Thanks,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

Looking good overall.
ISC duty cycle will be high while at part throttle, you are seeing dashpot in action there. The eec is prepared for when you shut the throttle. Perfectly normal. ISC duty cyle only really matters at idle, if you have a high or low idle, or stalling. That last tune 9 was only idle adjustment. Need an idle log to see what it did, if anything.

On the WOT stab, it is just a tic on the rich side, but not by much. (.84 commanded, .82 measured) My math says that's 12 to 1 AFR at WOT. How did it behave on the WOT stab? As for that ripple on the MAF, not a concern if the car responds as it should. Timing matches the WOT spark vs RPM function, all good.
Cruise looks good.

I gotta head out to the Home depot, need to replace a basement window. lol
I will take a closer look at this latest data. Just a few minor changes coming based on what I see. I have a couple of small settings in mind to try to see if you like, or even can notice any difference.

Tuning from here on, give me some subjective feedback besides logs, on how the car is behaving, where you feel you need to make tweaks. Changes from here on are going to be small, so small, you may not even see any changes in the logs. Only the 'butt-o-meter'.

Just to confirm, base timing set at 10* with spout pulled, correct?

[MrsJones]

I knew I forgot something! Here's a warm start from yesterday for T9. So you know, it started at 160 deg.

Daspot... I knew this but never correlated it with ISCDTY while at a cruise, at least not thinking it would be that high.

The WOT hit was alright. I really didn't notice anything unusual or detrimental. Changing top row of 1307 will lean it out some but that's for another day.

I parked the cursor just past OL for reference. LAMBSE and AFR don't agree even with KAMRF's help. Take a look.

T9_warmstart.jpg (70.19 KiB) Viewed 83092 times

Larry

[JuiceSC]

That swing in KAMRF just from a small TB airflow change.

Give the idle set screw 1/4 to 1/2 turn IN (increase) with Key OFF.
Clear KAMs, and than log a hot idle with #9 again when you get a chance. This should bring ISC duty cycle down into the 30s at a hot idle and bring KAMRF back closer to 1.

As you can see, idle is very sensitive to small changes. We are dealing with about 1 lb/min air flow to keep her idling. ISC max flow is about 2 lb/min. May end up going back to idle settings in #8, as that was spot on. (got somewhat lucky with #8 it seems lol)

Ps: If that was my car, I would leave WOT fueling where it is now, no change. 12 is safe, and makes good power. But if you want to change WOT afr, it is now as simple as changing the top right 4 cells in FN1307. You really need to put the car on a dyno to see what the engine likes for fuel and spark for max power. Can't do that remotely from logs. If you just want to get rid of that 2% fueling difference between lambse and AFR, FN1307 is NOT the place to make an adjustment. And you will never feel that 2% driving the car.
I can get it a little closer, and will make that adjustment in the next revision. ;)

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC,

I have my car returned and can continue the tuning process.

While it was in the paint shop, I made some changes to T9. I incorporated some of the idle air adjustments which I had in MY last tune to see how it responded with your MAF adjustments. I need to load it for trial. I'll let you know how that turns out, if for no other reason than reference.

I'm pretty occupied right now so I'll get back in the next day or so.

[JuiceSC]

No worries. Any change you make now, should be very obvious now (good or bad) both in the log and car's behavior.

Post the changes to #9 with the log so I see what you did and how it affected the log.

I would still like to see #9 with the idle stop turned up no more than 1/2 turn.

[MrsJones]

I would still like to see #9 with the idle stop turned up no more than 1/2 turn.

This pic represents a 6 min warm start with idle screw adjusted 1/2 turn clockwise. You will notice that TP is now at 1.01 volts. I can adjust it down if desired. I cleared KAMRF prior to starting the log AND cleared again just past halfway, which is just to the right of the curser. ISCDTY is left highlighted.

ISCDTY responded as you said and at the curser you will note the 28.149 duty cycle. As the engine warmed up, towards the end of the log, DSDRPM went up presumably due to the rise in heat. Of course, the ISCDTY raised the RPM. The log started at 178 deg, ended at 188 deg.

T9_ISCtest.jpg (98.23 KiB) Viewed 82887 times

BYW, this is Tune9, unmolested, as provided.

I'll work at getting a log of MY adjustments and a copy of the tune for your review.

Thanks,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

As you can see with #8 and #9, small change (.03 lb/min to TB airflow) makes a very noticeable change in the idle logs. ISC duty cycle responded to the idle stop screw change as expected. Without the change to the idle stop with #9, KAMRF was correcting for the idle air/fuel error. That's why it is somewhat difficult to get idle right on these. I can't take all the cred, got a bit lucky with yours.

I recommend lowering the closed throttle TPS volts if you decide to keep #9 as your 'base tune. Closer to 0.9v. (Eec will work just fine even as low as 0.6v.)

There is one more log I would like you to do, if possible. From an overnight cold start, start driving as soon as it exits high idle. With the eec in open loop, log AFR, 5th gear, 60-ish mph. Before ECT reaches 150*F (NOT closed loop, my bad), you can stop logging. I want to see how close open loop fueling is. Based on what I see on mine, you have about a 5 minute window to get this log after a cold start.

And it is time to work on startup! What startup concerns do you have that need attention? Let me know before I post up #10 changes.

[MrsJones]

I think I can get that done. I'll adjust the sensor before doing any further logging.

One question before I perform this log, do you want KAMRF cleared prior to startup?

Also, I noticed that DSDRPM is shooting for 832 and I would prefer an idle at 848 simply for the charging system and coolant flow. Plus, that cam seems to like it there, it's more happy. I tried to make it idle at 800 but it just wasn't a good place. I'll collect this log, as is, and await the changes.

If you will, start thinking about the "just off idle" herky jerky that occurs in all gears. It's not as noticeable in 1st but I attribute that to the gearing. I takes place anywhere between 1-1.5k and if I don't step on the pedal it will continue. It's like a bad idle search issue. I've read, somewhere, that it could be attributed to both timing AND fuel. That's all I know about it! And, as a point to pass along, I HAVE NOT made any changes to timing throughout my tuning experiences in your tunes or my own. For all I know, it could be attributed to some dashpot settings..... I'm rambling. I know... one thing at a time.....

I won't likely get this done today as I'm covered with some DOMESTIC duties. Living alone puts ALL the chores on yourself. Some I do out of self defense!

Anyway, I'll wait for an answer first.

Thanks,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

You don't need to clear KAMRF now that the tune is 'in the ballpark'. Actually, letting KAMRF build over several drive cycles is a good thing.
Actually, the cold drive log will be in closed loop, (my bad) but I want to see what it is doing before reaching 150*F coolant temp.

Can you catch the jerkiness in a log? I actually have a small change in mind for throttle response.
I will put idle back to 848, I only lowered it to get some info. And as you can see, actual control is in roughly 25 rpm 'steps'.
Your idle concern and off idle jerkiness is likely going to be the same issue. Letting KAMRF build up over time will help figuring it out.

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC, Late yesterday evening I went ahead and adjusted the TPS to .77v, or so. I started the engine and let it heat up to see the results with ISCDTY and as it heated it dropped as low as .28 @ 194 deg. However, during the logging this morning I haven't seen it that low, somewhere in the .30 range. Regardless, the ISCDTY is down from previous logs.

I present this pic from this morning and tried to fill your request as best I could. I wasn't able to keep the 60 mph up long enough, due to traffic, to get to 150 deg but hope it's enough to fill your request. My combo typically crosses into CL about 103 sec into the start. MY goal was to get some OL and CL fueling at 60 for reference. As soon as the WB became active I left the driveway. Nice timing as that's when TKDTM times out. LAMBSE is highlighted and the cursor is to the far right near the edge.

The second pic is from the same log and captured the lugging/jerking action in third gear as I made a turn to get away from traffic. There is what appears as two areas of this activity but it's really all the same. At a point, I clutched it and pedaled it in an attempt to clear out the intake, etc. However, it returned immediately. I turned off some of the graph lines but left the numbers for those on the left. I included SPARK which is the top line. TPS is highlighted and the cursor is located in the only area where I was able to keep it steady, otherwise the car bounced me around enough to make it very difficult to hold steady. I also realized that the logged TPS voltage, during this time, is lower than what RATCH was before last evening. I don't think it's relevant, more just an observation. This problem has existed quite a while.

T9_Cold.jpg (104.69 KiB) Viewed 82751 times

T9_Stumble.jpg (97.39 KiB) Viewed 82751 times

Thanks for your help,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

Ok, here is the updated #10. Small but multiple changes.

Injector_test10.zip

(24.32 KiB) Downloaded 853 times

ISC duty cycle is fine near 30% for idle. This was the result of opening up the throttle stop. I think this is perfect.

Idle settings back to 848. I put in the cobra (X3Z strategy) part throttle break point, this gave me a crisper off idle throttle response. I added a little fuel down low. Updated injector breakpoint, injector low slope, and injector timing. I can't find the article I read on injector timing (and I think the author was cgrey8), but it confirmed what I found experimenting with mine. A tweaked version of the A9P (automatic trans) calibration.

Clear KAMs for this one as fueling changes were made, and tell me what you think. Does #10 drive better or worse than tune #9?

As for logging, Do the two basic logs, Hot idle, and highway cruise holding speed. And log any driveability issues you have if possible.

That jerkiness is going to be a tough nut to crack from logs. I really wish I could be in the car when its acting up.


Time for a few adult beverages. Just got done doing axle seals and parking brake shoes on the daily, and I feel it! Have an appt for state inspection on Wed.

[MrsJones]

Got it! This should be really interesting. I'll get back to you as soon as possible. I'm a little crowded myself.

The question came to mind, would some dashpot info help? I DO log it. Let me know.

Thanks again,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

As long as the engine returns to idle ok coming to a stop, no need to log dashpot.
Now, if you have excessive high idle, or undershooting idle speed as you come to a stop, than we can look at dashpot settings. Not worth messing with that until fueling is near perfect. Not quite there yet based on the jerkiness. So let me know if that improves with #10.

While we are talking about logging, I wish I could move the cursor myself! lol. Post the actual log file from now on, along with the screen shot. Wonder if I can view them with a trial/demo version of EA? Just thinking out loud here. Keep logging the same way for now.

Edit: Installed EA.

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC, Trying T10 today and have 4 pics plus the log that these pics came from.

General notes: I had noticed quite a bit of noise on the TP log line so I tried to correct it by re-adjusting the sensor up to .89v from .79v. My thought was that there was a bad spot in the variable path. Not a big change but the noise didn't go away. I really don't see it causing any issues, just don't like it! The jerking issue was hardly noticeable while repeating the exact same conditions that caused it before, same corner, same gear. I paid attention later for signs in other gears but didn't have the hard jerking as before, still some, just not alarming and having me looking for the clutch or gas pedal.

I also logged a cold start, separately and cleared KAMRF prior to start. This pic is from that log. Noteables here, it seemed a bit rich and took about 5 minutes to switch to CL. Usually, it switches in the ~100 sec range. I noticed the HEGO'S weren't switching, hanging out near the 1.0 on the Dash1 view. The cursor is at the far right.

T10_ColdStart.jpg (101.95 KiB) Viewed 82593 times

Warm start performed quite well with all the timers and such. I cleared KAMRF prior to start.

T10_WarmStart.jpg (76.72 KiB) Viewed 82593 times

I logged some 50 and 60 mph cruising in this one. What caught my attention, more curious, was between these two speeds the TP only changed .07 volts while ISCDTY increased from ~68% to ~76%. It appears that ISC carries most of the weight there. Good to know.

T10_5060cruise.jpg (92.33 KiB) Viewed 82593 times

The following shows the idle after backing into the drive. You will note the ISCDTY is in the mid 25% range. This is lower than we've seen it. Notice a slight fuel adjustment when ECT climbed to 190, just left of the cursor. Personally, those lines are looking smoother than noted in prior tunes.

T10_DriveIdle.jpg (83.05 KiB) Viewed 82593 times

As requested, here's the log file from warm start through parking in the drive. I hope you can get some use from it with EA, at least a XL file to review. Good luck.

JuiceSCtune10 2024_Mar_10_10-47-36.7z

(1.33 MiB) Downloaded 970 times

[JuiceSC]

Looks like the engine likes it richer near idle. Not surprising having the cam you have, with 'fair idle' per the cam description lol. Fueling 'error' is now to the rich side of stoic, compared to prior logs.(there will always be some fueling error) Not sure how to address this just yet, I don't want to resort to forcing open loop at idle. Interesting it took longer to enter closed loop, noted. Cant say why as I did not make changes to any timers.

I want you to try something.
Please change NOMAFR back to stock 14.64 on #10, and go for a drive. No access to this scaler in TunerPro (what I tune with).
Tell me if you can feel ANY difference with only just this change. Yes, I realize you set this correctly for e10. But this scalar is not even in the GUFX.doc, and I would like to see if it makes any difference visible in the logs or felt by the 'butt dyno'. Grab a fully warmed up idle and cruise logs with cleared KAMs. Curious if this has any measurable effect. Your findings will help me decide what to try to tune next.

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC,

Looks like the engine likes it richer near idle.

Are you sure here? Seems KAMRF is pulling fuel or am I enterpeting KAMRF incorrectly?

I will change the fuel parameter back to Gasoline for the next log. Point of interest, in my strat it's labeled Z_AFR. Maybe that's why you can't find it. I'll gather this log later today.

It occured to me that you might like to know/see what you're working on. So here's a current pic.

MrsJones2024.jpg (153.21 KiB) Viewed 82538 times

Thanks again,

Larry

EDIT: This morning I changed the value for NUMPR (OL Fuel Startup Netural Multiplier) from .9141 to .9375, a 2.5% shift to lean it out some within that timed event for cold start. I suppose it has some effect with the warm start also but I forgot to look. It seemed to like this change while cold. Just trying stuff and it was the only change I made to T10. I will put it back when I change the Z_AFR for the comparison you are looking for.

[JuiceSC]

Nice notch you got there!
My ride:

front.jpg (370.13 KiB) Viewed 82509 times

I like it, you are looking at changes and what they do.
Fueling changes from #9 to #10 I added fuel, and KAMRF is now less than 1 at idle. So I am pretty sure, lol Cruise fueling from what I can see is perfect. No more change to MAF above 1.6v, and high slope needed. And yes, this can get confusing! I do encourage trying stuff on your own.

NOMAFR, is not defined in TunerPro xdf. (I can see it in Caledit, even change it in Caledit, but Caledit file format is not .bin.) My thinking is, we did not even have e10 back in the early 90's. Just looking to test this scalar, see if there is any difference. WOT is already set safe for e10.

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC, Here's the logs for T10. I changed the fuel to Gasoline from E10 and it's the only change. I can tell ya', it didn't like it! Seemed sluggish and had difficulty returning to idle. I have looked the log over and can not find a location where it actually hit the desired idle RPM of 848. When I let off to shift down, for making a corner or whatever, I would find the engine at a higher than expected RPM. It was difficult to get a good highway cruise as you can probably tell. Seemed like ISCDTY was all over the place, but maybe that's just me.

First pic is a warm start with KAMRF cleared. It did switch to OL at about 60 sec.

T10_v2WARM.jpg (82.81 KiB) Viewed 82446 times

Here's the cruise log. It's a continuation of the warm start above. I left the cursor near the far right indicating the lowest ISCDTY logged.

T10_v2Cruse.jpg (113.93 KiB) Viewed 82446 times

I think we both learned something here. From what I can tell, LAMBSE and AFR are fairly close but the engine didn't respond as one would suspect it would. I'm at a loss here! If I can provide further info regarding this log, please ask.

Larry

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC,

On a happier note, I will provide these to help make you feel better. I know it did me!

First is some logging at highway speeds. I had to make a run for a doctor visit and decided to not waste the opportunity. This is T10 set for E10 and using the cruise control. While the idle is a work in progress, this inspired me! At 75 mph, it really made me look to see if the TPS was actually moving, very smooth. 75 mph is to the left half of the pic. I then slowed to 70 and there seemed to be a small amount of speed correction that I could feel. Anyway, see what you think. Certainly a move in the right direction. ISCDTY is highlighted and you will note the additional activity at 70.

T10_75_70ISC.jpg (98.64 KiB) Viewed 82446 times

I like this one! Next is a WOT pull, in 5th, from 70 to 98 mph. What inspired me is how smooth it is. I parked the cursor at the PW peak. Notice all the numbers, to the left, at basickly, the peak of the pull. PW, INJDC, LAMBSE and AFR seem to be near perfect, at least to me. And LOADX is WAY down from where this thread started. This is the best I have seen since I started this project.

T10_70to98WOT.jpg (74.3 KiB) Viewed 82446 times

Thanks again,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

Good stuff for sure. Some tuners would call it 'done', but I see a little more room for improvement. Once you post the hot idle log, #11 should be near perfect as far as fueling accuracy is concerned.

Whats funny about that NOMAFR scalar is, Ford sets it to 14.64 in as late as a 2013 model year 5.0 Coyote. And e10 is pretty much all you could get in 2013. wth ford?

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC, here is the hot idle you asked for.
i
This was after a run to the store, backed into the drive and sat to collect this data. There is ~3 minutes worth. The idle started with ECT at 188 and, as you can see, it got warmer from there. Near the end, DSDRPM started to rise and increased ISCDTY. I presume this was due to the increase of ECT. The cursor is located just before the rise.

Speaking of ECT, there is an event happening after a cold start, or somewhat cold, at the moment ECT climbs to 170 deg. DSDRPM adds 80 rpm and it works itself back down from there. I have noticed this event several times but haven't put any time towards trying to figure out what's going on. I suspect something in the adaptive learning area. Thought you might have a more immediate clue.

This is T10 with my modification to NUMPR which times out at 38 seconds anyway. It's also set for E10. Otherwise, it is as provided.

T10_HotIdle.jpg (74.67 KiB) Viewed 82347 times

The only thought I have about the E10 vs Gasoline AFR might be to keep it lean for economy or EPA, or both. I agree, It is strange that Ford continued to tune as such when everyone knows E10 is the standard.... now. I think we just did THAT TEST... recently!

Thanks again, and if you need something else, just ask.

Larry

[JuiceSC]

Looks like NOMAFR does work.
I have enough info to complete the next revision.

You now have to decide if you are going to run it with NOMAFR set to e10 or 14.64. Can the 'butt dyno' feel any difference with just that one change? This setting has no impact on WOT fueling, it may affect idle quality, part throttle, and throttle response. You might not feel any difference at all.
Let me know which you prefer to keep to move forward.

[MrsJones]

As I mentioned above in my Tuesday post, the 14.64 tune felt really sluggish and holding a steady cruise was almost impossible. The newest posts have been with the E10 version of the tune.

If I need to make a choice, I'd have to choose the E10 version just from the previous tests.

I can do the math and see that when I'm at just a steady cruise, LAMBSE and AFR don't match. Of course KAMRF corrections have to be brought into the equation and, at that point, it seems LAMBSE and AFR become pretty close.

I suspect that it could be tuned either way and "feel" the same. We've made good progress working in the E10 direction, I see no reason to change course.

Thanks again,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

I figured you would stay w/e10.
Clear KAMs for this one.

Injector_test11.zip

(24.33 KiB) Downloaded 922 times

Minor tweaks only. Let me know if #11 is better, same, or worse than #10, and how. (should be same or better I think, but you never know!) Most of the changes target idle, and low throttle operation. If better, put some miles on it, let it build KAMs. Think about where you feel changes are still needed.

Post logs as you wish.

[MrsJones]

Thanks again. I'll give it try over the next couple of days. The weather is not good here so I'll wait it out.

Otherwise, yesterday evening I decided to put forth some effort on my own to find a cure for the jerking that happens just off idle, which we discussed. My test road was pretty well vacated so low speed in 4th was good for testing. The offending action happened mostly 1100-1400 rpm and roughly 20-23 mph. I added airflow and took away airflow during this group of tests. Neither action seemed to really make a difference. However, I did notice that throttle position was barely off idle and that around 1.2v the jerking would go away. Without going into much detail with a bunch of more detail, this brought another question to mind.

At what point does the ECU realize that it ACTUALLY is in part throttle and respond accordingly? I've read some things about this including RATCH involvement, ect. I just seems, with the 3.55 gears the engine doesn't have to work very hard so an off idle TP of .99v is normal but that is only ~.10v above current idle setting. Things just don't seem to work together in this low voltage range. I know, the air flow increases some as I reach the .99v but with the throttle body only opening such a small amount and the TP voltage being so low, could the ECU still think it's in idle mode?

While typing the above, it dawned on me that I did a couple of logs with the TPS at 1.01v after you requested me to crank the idle stop in some to bring ISCDTY down some more. I'll have to back through these posts to find my response regarding the jerking at low speeds. Somewhere in the strat there is an adjustment for max TPS, or maybe that is really just related to RATCH. Point is, perhaps the cure for this jerking around issue could lie in THAT area. Other people have had this issue with changes of camshafts so I wonder what their solution was. Think I'm rambling now...

At any rate, my plan NOW is to make an adjustment to the TPS sensor and see what happens. Worst case, I'll have to put it back. Need to go back and read about RATCH again.

Thanks,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

Rambling is good at times, helps to work through the problem.

Don't over-complicate working on the TPS. There are only 3 modes of throttle, closed, part, and WOT. EEC should switch to part throttle when it sees DELTA rise in tps. (I put this back closer to stock) Logging throttle status is more important that TP volts. TPS min and max volts are used for self test only. Lowering THBPS and THBP2 lets the EEC enter WOT sooner. Ford sets these both the same. I think these are fine at stock values for a naturally aspirated setup.

I still think it is a fueling error that's causing the jerkiness. I think #11 will be less jerky. Only one way to find out! From your feed back, your car liked it when I added a little fuel, so I added a little more down low in #11.

[MrsJones]

JuiceSC,

BTW, were you able to work with EA to view the log I sent? Haven't heard you mention it. Let me know if I should provide the actual logs forward.

Thanks,

Larry

[JuiceSC]

Yes and yes. I could only view it in plain text, but it is better than working from screen shots.

Definitely log another jerky 'event'. I have a feeling that its going to take a bit of experimenting to crack that nut. lol

I would like to confirm that:
1, base timing is at 10* with spout pulled.
2, idle vacuum, you said it was 16"? This seems a bit high to me for your cam specs. A stock 5.0 HO idled at about 14" (going from memory here, lol) My 'computer friendly' E303 cam idles at 12" @800 rpms.

[JuiceSC]

Just had a thought.
Try lowering HLCTM to half a second. See if it has any effect on the bucking.