[TurboE]

Using the EEC editor I have opened up the LA3.bin and .def files. From what I understand the fuel injector pulse width is calculated from the EEC. After browsing the "fuel_table_base" I have noticed what I believe to be the narrow band O2 setpoint values, load (0-85%)vs. RPM (1000-6500) from what I can tell, is this correct? I am assuming these values are used in closed loop, are they also used in open loop? If not how is the fuel controlled in open loop. If I would like to increase fuel or decrease fuel in open or closed loop what is the correct way to do this. If I simply change to larger fuel injectors and change the "fuel_injector_slope" to that value will that compensate for the fuel needed. (34.99 for 35lbs/hr injector currently/stock) I am interested in purchasing the Quarterhorse, but want to understand my game plan before tuning/purchasing.

As for a background I have an 88 tbird turbo coupe 5 speed with a larger T3/T4 turbo and manaul boost valve, ported E6 manifold, 3" exhaust, AFPR, 255 LPH HP pump, etc. I plan on using either a 8UA or a LA3/LA2 EEC. I am currently running the 8UA, and think I may get to my fuel limitations and would like to understand my options. Thanks in advance any and all help would be great.

[TurboE]

Any thoughts guys? Should I be looking somewhere else? Have done searching, just at a point where there's a lot of information and some human interface to steer me in the right direction would be helpful. Thanks.

[EDS50]

Wait for Decipha to chime in. He is the turbo coupe resident doctor. I know he has been super slammed with work but he will chime in.

[TurboE]

Thanks for the feedback, just wanted to make sure I was in the right spot, looks like a lot of mustangs or V8's. Not that I'm not interested in that as well but.. one project at a time! Ha. Also from what I could tell when I looked at a A9L.bin it looked quite a bit different (or more tables at least).

[svojohn]

I suggest you download and use Binary Editor. The definition files for the 2.3 turbo are more up to date. Looking at your screen capture, EEC Editor has the LOAD scaling incorrect.

[svojohn]

the "fuel_table_base" I have noticed what I believe to be the narrow band O2 setpoint values, load (0-85%)vs. RPM (1000-6500) from what I can tell, is this correct? I am assuming these values are used in closed loop, are they also used in open loop?

The table is only used during open loop fuel control (no o2 correction). The values are multipliers.

[decipha]

closed loop is only a lambda of 1 thus no table exist for it since its based entirely off of hego feeback

I'M THINKING those values in that table need to be divided by stoich to get to its AFR

so you can crack open the def and go to that tables equation, put something in there like

14.64/x

output is going to be AFR

[TurboE]

Thanks guys that helped alot. I can't explain if the wrong def or the def I download is wrong but I thought the load scale looked odd also. Thanks. However I did open the Binary Editor and used the def files that I got when it tried to update the software and the LA3.bin I downloaded and it seems alot more decriptive. I looked at the Open loop fuel table, and also the A/F ratio table. Also Decipha thanks for clarification to show/calculate the A/F ratios as well. Initially the EEC Editor seemed like a good option to tune with the quarterhorse. Are most of you guys using the Binary Editor instead? Using the quarterhorse or a non-realtime changing chip instead?

If I were to install larger injectors would the following changes be correct? I assume you modify the "All scalars" table for injector size change to the new lb/hr value. (old/current = 34.99lb/hr) Then the EEC calcuates the new pulse width based on the injector change. At this point the engine will run the same way it did previously just with shorter pulse widths on the injectors equalling the same amount of fuel delivery. Then if I modify the "Fuel - Base Open Loop Fuel" or "Fuel - Base Open Loop Fuel (Air/Fuel ratio)" table after noticing where the engine is lean and then modify the table add more fuel in the lean areas of the rpm curve. Is this correct and sound like a good plan? Or am I missing something?

Also, I have a WB O2 sensor (0-5v) to a gauge. Do you guys use a gauge or somehow retransmit the signal to datalog, etc? Should I be able to tune using the gauge strictly?

Thanks in advance!

[tremec77]

Also, I have a WB O2 sensor (0-5v) to a gauge. Do you guys use a gauge or somehow retransmit the signal to datalog, etc? Should I be able to tune using the gauge strictly?

Thanks in advance!

You can run a Data Q or you can run through the EGR wiring. I personally run mine through the EGR wiring because I do not use my EGR anymore. Tuning it by just the gauge is not going to be very useful. Too many variables.

[svojohn]

If I were to install larger injectors would the following changes be correct? I assume you modify the "All scalars" table for injector size change to the new lb/hr value. (old/current = 34.99lb/hr) Then the EEC calcuates the new pulse width based on the injector change. At this point the engine will run the same way it did previously just with shorter pulse widths on the injectors equalling the same amount of fuel delivery.

Yes that works until you reach the maximum of 55lb. Than you'll need to make other adjustments for using larger than 55lb injectors. Either way you'll need to make adjustments to the function "Fuel - Cranking Pulsewidth vs. ECT" when using larger than stock injectors.

Then if I modify the "Fuel - Base Open Loop Fuel" or "Fuel - Base Open Loop Fuel (Air/Fuel ratio)" table after noticing where the engine is lean and then modify the table add more fuel in the lean areas of the rpm curve. Is this correct and sound like a good plan? Or am I missing something?

The values used in this table are pulse width multipliers and should not be viewed for being accurate air/fuel ratios. There's other pulse width multipliers found in the code that will affect the end results.

I suggest you adjust your fuel at the function "Air - VAF Transfer" for dialing in the air/fuel ratio. This can be very tricky to do if you're still using the stock VAF sensor because the VAF sensor is usually pegged by peak torque. Thus the reason for all the pulse width multipliers by engine speed. The tricky part is adjusting the function "Air - Airmass Clip vs. RPM" and upping the values in the "Air - VAF Transfer" so the end result looks as if the VAF sensor was never pegged.

[svojohn]

You can run a Data Q or you can run through the EGR wiring. I personally run mine through the EGR wiring because I do not use my EGR anymore.

This might work well with the A9L ecu's but it will not work with the 2.3 turbo ecu's.

[TurboE]

Ok thanks, that has clarified somethings.. but sorry for being so ingnorant but..

Airmas clip vs RPM (WOT)

RPM lbs/min
16383.75 31.99
3000.00 31.99
2000.00 31.99
1500.00 31.99
1000.00 31.99
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00

Air - VAF Transfer (lbs/min)

VOLTS lbs/min
5.12 25.62
4.61 25.62
4.30 19.01
-
-
-
etc..
.26 .37
0 0

Any example of how your would modify for more airflow, and how would you measure this, simply by it running lean due to running more than 25.62lbs/min (as a computer max but not a true airflow max?)? I think that did confuse me some but I'd rather at least understand that I don't have a complete understanding first and then learn it. Thanks agian! You guys have help enormously just with these replies.

[svojohn]

Let's look at it like this. On every 2.3l turbo engine that I've tuned, the VAM was fully opened before or during peak torque. This happened even on the mildest combos. The VAM voltage is around 4.5v when fully opened and at this voltage the VAF Transfer is around 25 lbs/min of airflow which is equivalent to about 250 crank horsepower. When the engine consumes less than 25 lbs/min during peak torque the engine will be rich and if the engine consumes more than 25 lbs/min during peak torque the engine will be lean. Usually what happens when using the VAM is the engine is too rich during peak torque and too lean during peak power.

Now look above at the airmass clip vs. RPM that you posted. The clip is 32 lbs/min @ 3000 RPM which is higher than the 25 lbs/min the VAF Transfer peaks at. As you can see the airmass clip is doing nothing. Now let's change the values to something like this:

RPM lbs/min
16383.75 31.99
6500.00 31.99
2000.00 6.91
1500.00 4.55
1000.00 2.90
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00

Air - VAF Transfer (lbs/min)

VOLTS lbs/min
5.12 31.99
4.61 31.99
4.30 19.01

For example: Lets say the engine produces peak torque at 4000 RPM and the VAM is pegged during peak torque. The new values above will clip the airmass to 18 lbs/min @ 4000 RPM even though the VAM is pegged at 4.5v or 31 lbs/min in the transfer. By 6000 RPM the clip will allow 29 lbs/min of airflow. I'm sure at this point you can understand how the airmass clip can be very beneficial when tuning a pegged VAM.

To dial in the airmass clip you'll need to data log engine speed, VAM voltage and air/fuel ratio. Other code changes will need to be done if your engine is consuming more than 32 lbs/min of airflow.

[TurboE]

svojohn thanks, I understand your example and just messed with the values to look at the curve. I really don't understand what the Airmass Clip vs. RPM (WOT) table is? Is it if the VAM is maxed out or unplugged it uses this table to "guess" the incoming air flow? Or what i just mentioned when your at WOT only? Is this using a similar modification of an untuned EEC and a modified spring setting in the VAM? I believe I am having the problem you mentioned, but honestly think its happening so quick its hard to see? The car feels like a dog below 3500 rpm, and then pours on stronger.. I am only running 15-18psi at this piont just to not lean it out, i havent tried boosting more yet because of wanting to see where its at. Maybe its just very rich (besides a bigger turbo and lag) at lower rpm and then as you said leaning out as flow/rpm increases.

[decipha]

why not just swap to a guf ecu, its about as easy as running 4 wires

you won't be disappointed

[svojohn]

why not just swap to a guf ecu, its about as easy as running 4 wires

you won't be disappointed

Have you tried it or know of anyone that's using it?

The disadvantages of switching to a GUF ecu:
1: No knock control
2: No boost control
3: Uses high impedance injectors (the 2.3l turbo ecu uses low impedance injectors)
4: Only 1 timing table (the 2.3l turbo ecu has 2 separate timing tables which can be controlled by an external switch)
5: Still uses a mass air meter

[svojohn]

I really don't understand what the Airmass Clip vs. RPM (WOT) table is?

This function clips (limits) the airmass to the values entered into it. The clip values are only used if the total airmass values are higher than the clip. This function only operates during wide open throttle.

Is it if the VAM is maxed out or unplugged it uses this table to "guess" the incoming air flow?

No.

Is this using a similar modification of an untuned EEC and a modified spring setting in the VAM?

No.

[cgrey8]

Well what is it for?

[TurboE]

Not sure what a guf eec is?

So essentially in the stock tune the Airmass clip is very rarely (if ever) used, because anything 3000 rpm or over is set to 31.99 which cannot happen due to the highest value in the Air -VAF Transfer table being 25.62lbs/min @ 4.61V AND 5.12V. This being said you can manipulate the Airmass clip table to use the clip table values alost all the time (if you know you are maxing out the VAM) by in your example replacing 3000 rpm with 6000 rpm. Is this correct.

If that is true, I am assuming that the injector pulse width is baised on intake airflow (or in this case the table value of the presumed airflow?) so by modifying the the airmass clip you are in turn also modifying the pulse width for the given rpm presumed airflow, and the AFR. In this case as long as you dont overflow the limit you mentioned 31.99 which for simplicity I am not going to ask why thats the limit... but you really dont care if the VAM is being overflowed or when in the RPM range it happens? Hope I didn't veer off too much... If that is true does the calculation still account for temperature/barometer/density changes? So if you tune on a nice dry/cool day it will still work on a humid/hot day?

Am I following you?

[cgrey8]

Not sure what a guf eec is?...

GUF was short for GUFx which is also short for GUF1/GUFA/GUFB trio. These are the strategy EECs that came on 89-93 Mustang 5.0Ls.

[svojohn]

So essentially in the stock tune the Airmass clip is very rarely (if ever) used, because anything 3000 rpm or over is set to 31.99 which cannot happen due to the highest value in the Air -VAF Transfer table being 25.62lbs/min @ 4.61V AND 5.12V. This being said you can manipulate the Airmass clip table to use the clip table values alost all the time (if you know you are maxing out the VAM) by in your example replacing 3000 rpm with 6000 rpm. Is this correct.

Yes but you also need to raise the values in the VAF Transfer.

If that is true, I am assuming that the injector pulse width is baised on intake airflow (or in this case the table value of the presumed airflow?) so by modifying the the airmass clip you are in turn also modifying the pulse width for the given rpm presumed airflow, and the AFR.

Yes you can dial in the AFR by adjusting the clip. The main reason for using the clip is to lean the fuel when you already have a pegged VAM and you're too rich. The clip will also allow the airmass to climb with engine speed. Airmass will decrease after peak torque on a pegged VAM thus the reason these engines lean out on the top end. Using the clip to increase airmass with engine speed allows you to dial in the air/fuel to a safer level.

In this case as long as you dont overflow the limit you mentioned 31.99 which for simplicity I am not going to ask why thats the limit... but you really dont care if the VAM is being overflowed or when in the RPM range it happens?

That's correct. For the 32 lb limit: There's code in the EEC that will shut off the fuel when the airmass reaches 31.99 lbs/min. This code can be bypassed.

If that is true does the calculation still account for temperature/barometer/density changes? So if you tune on a nice dry/cool day it will still work on a humid/hot day?

There's been huge debate over this on TurboFord.org. I believe it's not possible for the airmass to be correct day to day when the VAM is already pegged.

Here's how the EEC calculates airmass: Airflow in lbs/min = (VAM multiplier * VAF transfer in CFM * Air Volume multiplier * Mass Air multiplier) The VAM multiplier can be found at the function "Air - Airmass Transfer". This function uses the BAP and VAT reading to determine the VAM multiplier value. This value is stored during each startup and WOT event. The Air Volume multiplier can be found in the Scalars. The stock value is 0.3187 and this doesn't change value unless you change it. The Mass Air multiplier can be found in the Scalars. The stock value is 1.00 and also does not change value unless you change it.

[TurboE]

At this point I have to say thank you to anyone that responded, especially svojohn. You have all helped immensely. I feel like I have a pretty rough understanding of a few things, and before this post I was in the dark as far as this engine and tuning an eec. I understand the fundamentals of engines but I feel like I know more "old school" tuning and carberators because I started working on small engines when i was 9 years old. Little tricks that really only apply to WOT only small engines or race engines, not street driven engines/senarios and using an EEC.

I've put alot of time and money into the engine and turbo, etc. as I'm sure everyone here has. After reading many senarios other people have I felt I could tune this engine with some FP increases and work it out from there. The more I research its seems pretty necessary to tune this engine using the EEC and sounds like ill be leaving alot of power on the table if I don't.

I know I've been asking alot but there seems to be so much information and so many methods to achieve this. I would like a fast but daily driver worthy (not breakdown on the way to work) tune. I know moates.net has the quarterhorse. I could then buy the Binary Editor to tune. Is this a good plan? svojohn what do you use, and how do you datalog? I assume your datalogging and capturing the AFR while running? How is that done using the quarterhorse, or other, etc. I guess it can be wired into the EGR for V8 EEC's but not the 2.3L turbo? Sorry for all the questions but I would like a concrete understanding on what I need going in and how to achieve a successful tune. Also any recommendations on a typical tune test. Like 3rd gear pull etc? Or limit boost to 5psi/10psi etc. until the AFR curve is good at the low end (not as rich) and verify its not leaning out too much at the top end. Then if/when it does lean out at higher boosts/rpm decide how big of an injector to use. Then totally retune from there? Thanks again.

Not to get in the middle of an already existing argument but in my simplistic view to this point it looks like the calculation you mentioned accounts for the BAP/VAT sensor readings and using the "Air - Airmass Transfer" I assume the different sensor reading changes the multiplier and therefore accounts for temp/humidity?

[cgrey8]

Assuming your EEC is supported by BE, there's very few people, if any, that will talk you out of the BE/EA/QH combo. Throw an Innovate LC-1 WB in the mix and you'll have more info and capability at your fingertips than many professional tuners have for EEC-IVs.

But just so I'm not repeating myself, read this:
Things to know BEFORE buying a TwEECer or Quarterhorse

[TurboE]

OK thanks, and also just to mention I have the following WB O2 sensor which is 0-5V signal (don't know the specifics needed)

http://prosportgauges.com/wideband-air- ... o-kit.aspx

I will look at the link you attached thanks.

[svojohn]

svojohn what do you use, and how do you datalog?

I use the Quarterhorse and Binary Editor.

I assume your datalogging and capturing the AFR while running? How is that done using the quarterhorse, or other, etc. I guess it can be wired into the EGR for V8 EEC's but not the 2.3L turbo?

I use the LM-1 from Innovative Motorsports. The LM-1 connects to the serial port on my laptop. Binary Editor is able to recognize the LM-1 and includes the afr into the data log.

Also any recommendations on a typical tune test. Like 3rd gear pull etc? Or limit boost to 5psi/10psi etc. until the AFR curve is good at the low end (not as rich) and verify its not leaning out too much at the top end. Then if/when it does lean out at higher boosts/rpm decide how big of an injector to use. Then totally retune from there? Thanks again.

I can write a book on this but time is limited right now. What's your goal with this combo? Are you trying to make more than 300 hp?

Not to get in the middle of an already existing argument but in my simplistic view to this point it looks like the calculation you mentioned accounts for the BAP/VAT sensor readings and using the "Air - Airmass Transfer" I assume the different sensor reading changes the multiplier and therefore accounts for temp/humidity?

Just keep in mind the VAM is going to be pegged during WOT and a maxed out sensor cannot account for anything. The clip method of tuning does not account for changing airmass.

The first thing I always do on any high hp 2.3l turbo engine is throw the VAM in the garbage.

[decipha]

The disadvantages of switching to a GUF ecu:
1: No knock control
2: No boost control
3: Uses high impedance injectors (the 2.3l turbo ecu uses low impedance injectors)
4: Only 1 timing table (the 2.3l turbo ecu has 2 separate timing tables which can be controlled by an external switch)
5: Still uses a mass air meter

1> ford knock sensors are junk any who
2> boost control as in solenoid to wastegate? if so, there is an output that could be used
3> high z injectors are easier to find usually
4> why would you need more than just 1 timing table?
5> mass air is the wave of the future

[svojohn]

1> ford knock sensors are junk any who
2> boost control as in solenoid to wastegate? if so, there is an output that could be used
3> high z injectors are easier to find usually
4> why would you need more than just 1 timing table?
5> mass air is the wave of the future

1> The one found on the 2.3l turbo engine seems to work well from my experience with it.
2> Yes it's a solenoid and it's controlled by the EEC via pulse width. There's multiple tables and functions for control.
3> But we already have the low's installed.
4> The SVO and Tbird had a switch on the console for regular and premium fuel. Two different timing tables via switch.
5> Have you tuned a turbocharged engine using mass air?

[cgrey8]

I think the Ford knock sensors are junk on Windsor engines and other pushrod engines with noisy valvetrains.

Although on an OHC engine like the 2.3L, I expect the knock sensor would be a useful and reliable input.

As for turbocharging with MAF, what are the issues? I ask because I honestly don't know. But I've been very curious about turbos just because of the efficiency potential of them.

[decipha]

1> thats reassuring the ones found on the supercoupes suck
2> fan output can open she up based off load and rpm
3> mis-spell lows and you get slow
4> that's awesome
5> I've tuned a few, I'd say somewhere around 68 or 69 of them
lately, i've been getting about 15 or so boosted cars for every 1 n/a car

[TurboE]

I use the LM-1 from Innovative Motorsports. The LM-1 connects to the serial port on my laptop. Binary Editor is able to recognize the LM-1 and includes the afr into the data log.

Off hand, do you know if this is a 0-5 volt signal being sent to the laptop serial port, and would work with the WB O2 tranmitter box signal I have? I would assume if the LM-1 is 0-5v as well it should work? I guess I can try to look into this by contacting innovative I assume they supplied you with the serial cable interface required? Maybe at worst I could make up a serial cable with the appropriate pinout.

I was talking to a friend that used the LC-1 for tuining with his haltec. He mentioned that in the LM-1 software he was able to modify the scaling for the 0-5v. He said the default was the following:
0v = 7.35 AFR
5v = 22.39 AFR
(attached pic)

I assume if that is the case I would need to modify the Binary Editor to log based on the new prosport WB 02 scaling
0v = 10 AFR
5V = 20 AFR
Is there a way to do this in the BE/datalogging software?

I can write a book on this but time is limited right now. What's your goal with this combo? Are you trying to make more than 300 hp?.

I'm sure you can! I understand that.. I am trying to not wast your or anyone elses time. I would like to make at least 300hp, honestly at this point I think i would be happy with that. I would like to boost maybe around 20-22psi if possible it seems others are able to, however if it seems like other "major" modifications are needed then I might settle for someting mild now until I really understand/get a feeling for tuning the car. If I feel like I am in a "safe zone" I would probably be more inclined to want to tinker and tune for more power as I feel comfortable. Unfortunately I am busy as well and other priorities are waying over my want to make this car as fast as possible.

The first thing I always do on any high hp 2.3l turbo engine is throw the VAM in the garbage.

Ha, ok... How hard/involved is switching to something else, do you use a MAF. Does anyone use a MAP sensor? Are these sensors using the same 0-5v scale or is there some manipulation electrically that needs to be done. Or can you swap/wire up the new sensor and just change the VAF Transfer to the limits of the new sensor for example:

5v = 40lbs/min (exampe dont the know the new measureable max)
2.5v = 20lbs/min (don't know if this scale would actually be linear?)
0v = 0lbs/min

Thanks!