Milanski

Good question - seem not have asked one. But it should have been: Does VE Correction table 16632 get inverted and then used in the air map calculation. i.e. make the system leaner? Slope = 1/auf16632 * (auf0061 + auf0064) Slope = 1/VECorrection * (Slope of MAP per air charge + CAM adjust slope). In my case having a V8 with no VCT its 1/VECorrection * Slope of MAP per aircharge. Is this correct.

for the BF is the VE Correction table 16632 uses inverse numbers i.e: slope = 1 / auF16454 fg/ auF16632 bf tuning correction (rpm, load) * (auF0059 fg / auF0061 bf slope of map (n, cam_angle) + auF2928 fg/auF0064 bf slope overlap adder (rpm,overlap_angle) ) from a previous Post by Roland. Slope = 1/auf16632 * (auf0061 + auf0064)

definitely don't want to run Open Loop. Just curious as to the logic, makes good sense.

Wow a bit more smarts. Even though I want it to be 1 the PCM will try to do as you say - richen and oscillate to keep cats efficient.

I am scratching my head (bald head!). I have notice whilst in IDLE DRIVE (not sure if it does it IDLE PARK - will check this tomorrow) I see commanded lambda pushed out to 0.9 and then the fuel trims follow. The PCM hold 0.9Lambda quite well at the idle. ECT = 94Deg Fuel Base Table is "1" Fuel Cold Base Table is 0.85 Use Fuel Base above 71Deg so it should be 1. I just picked this up this arvo and have gone through days of logs to find the same. Would anyone in the forum please point me in the right direction please.

There are plenty of examples where cars run on ONE O2 sensor - i.e. my toyota has one and seems to go just fine. I do agree with ROI and getting 12 years out of my sensors is pretty damn good. Also having worked with hazardous areas for a decade, no matter what code is put into a ECU - it will still be an approximation - you need to calibrate the sensors at regular intervals. This being said, its a good point - time to replace my O2 sensors.

Ford spend so much time and money to work out if a $100 part is ageing? Better of spending that money making something else work better. Just put it down to a replace at 100k in warranty book. Better still put in a wideband!

Ha, I think we are on the same page. Here is my sheet I've been using. Still a awork in progress to get the y-axis to cc/s Injector Slopes2.xlsx

Hi Roland, I did two days of scanning on the car. (PS. had to use VCM Scanner, PCMTEC logger needs a bit of work - for another subject) I removed the downstream (after cat) O2 sensor and installed a AFR gauge. Disabled the logic in the PCM. I then started looking at the injector data and plotted some stuff in excel. Roland was correct in saying the High Slope and Low Slope are linked and any change to the low slope will impact fueling when using high slope. Here was my starting LTFT. At idle, cruise way too much fuel being pulled out. I started by increasing the low slope curve - which makes the system leaner. And found immediate results. However, around the mid section 1800-2200 rpm the car ran very lean. This made good sense from looking at the excel charts. So I pulled back the high Slop to correct - with some good success. However I am not too concerned with high load just yet. What I have found was under light acceleration the pinging actually got worse, than I had originally. AFR lean about 15.5. No matter what I did with the low and high slope this region was a bit of problem. Then I noticed the commanded injection pulsewidth was very close to the breakpoint. Hence this region needed to be richer. The only option I had was to move the offset as the higher RPM in closed loop cruise was perfect. In the end my settings went from: to The voltage offset was adjusted by 105% to get: So after about 1/2 hour of driving i have ended up with a LTFT histogram like this: STFT (ignoring the reds as it went to open loop at a few fangs. There is not enough counts but its a good start. It shows I have gone from super rich to mild lean at idles. This also shows my pressure regulator is doing its job with a walbro 460 up behind it (including an oversized return orifice at the pump - a must do). I am happy with the mid cruise areas for now. I have plotted some graphs in excel to tune in these settings. The car feels very snappy at the slightest touch of acceleration. I am working on the lean mixtures around 1800-2200 and boost pressure about zero (101kPA) just as the supercharger gets load on, seems to get lean for a couple of seconds until the ECU catches up. This i guess is where the accelerator pumps come in! As for the accelerator pump shots: Went from gain 0.1 to 0.05 as it slugged down at throttle impulse. Again - minor improvement to my lean issue around mid section vac-to-boost area. The transient seems to work but for a very short time. It still takes 2-3 seconds for the ecu to play catch up and richen the injectors. I got some data from a 5.4L Cobra S/C file from HP Tuners and had a look at their base fuel lambda table - interesting they run lower lambda much further down . My lambda table is: The Mustang GT500 (same engine but different compression ratios) is like this At 30-40% throttle and 1500-2000 rpm they target 0.95 lambda. So I will be trialling this after work today.

Excellent - works

Found it "FAOSC" filter.

Thanks Daryl. Can the function be turned off and where? I have a wideband in the downstream for tuning.

I have enabled the accelerator pump action "tipin" as outline above 0.1s, 0.1 gain. Will see how the car drives. I have lots of issues with transient at the tipin point between vac and boost from the supercharger. Will keep you all posted.

Is the downstream sensor (after cat convertor) used in fueling control? I have installed a AFR meter to mine and engine seems to run smooth still, so I am not sure what they actually do in the ECU. 5.4L V8 HADCH or HADCG.

very funny. I went back to first principles. like you was testing my year 9/10 math. You are spot on with the curves. Im tyding up the template in excel and will post up shortly. I have also used to check injector Dynamics data against their won curves - some interesting findings.

correction y = h * (x - (b * (1/l-1/h)+o)) or my equation which yields the same result y = h(x- b/l - o) + b

Hi Puffwagon, top stuff. Need time to digest.

Wow Roland, Never cease to amaze. I had very similar charts in excel plotted. I started with this fine tuning because ive had 4 tuning shops have a go. Some quite reputable. They run the car on the dyno up a few times for WOT and make a few tweaks on the closed loop VE corrections and tables. Pay the 1000$ and off you go. Then when you drive it WOT is great, but cruise is at -20% fuel trim. Tipin (transient) pings to death. The days of spending time looking at RPM/load/map histograms seem to be gone and its get in and make a quick buck by coping from one car to another. Then I look at the injector data provided by ID for a 1050x and its worlds apart with what is in the car. I'm not saying its wrong, but to be 70% different rings alarm bells. So I'm getting into the tuning myself to see what I can (or cannot do). Shortly I will have a scope for injector timing using a picoscope, an AFR Wideband (by PLX) reading back into HP Tuners Scanner, and will do some road testing/tuning to hone in the speed density properly. I like you're addendum to your previous post. Certainly clears it up.

Thanks Puffwagon, appreciate the info thus far. I have plotted both curves and breakpoint into excel to see the outcome.

Thank you Puffwagon, now I am a little stumped. Roland has identified in the PCM program that the system uses the HIGH SLOPE + LOW SLOPE + VoltageOFFSET to determine pulsewidth requirements. This being the case any change to low slope will affect the high slope. Im now a little confused. Puffwagon - are you 100% sure about your comment. I am OK with either as I will find out very shortly when I do some experiments.

Thank you for confirmation.

Reducing the delay would be very helpful if anyone knows.

oooh where is the goto point for this setup?

Roland: from previous two posts: "Cruise being ok but idle being too rich suggests your low slope is off."  Makes sense to increase low slope to lean out the mixture? Can you confirm. My reasoning would be that for a given lb/s say its 1 lb/s and the requested charge is 1lb, then the pcm would request 1 sec. If the mixture is too rich, then the pulse was too long. Hence the slope needs to increase so the effective pulse time is shortened. Will try this in the morn.

Hi Roland, Just picking up this thread again. In your first post : UPSHIFT ZF00567 Shift pressure 12 Pressure applied to 1st gear clutch to disengage 1st gear on upshift ZF00603 Shift pressure tables 12 Pressure applied to 2nd gear clutch to engage 2nd gear on upshift ZF00567 suggests that a slight pressure is applied to gear 1 whilst more pressure is applied to gear 2 (ZF00603). I have noticed ZF00567 has values about 30-40% of ZF00603. This I assume is to aid in a smooth transfer from one clutch to another. Is this how you read it? milan