Chris is in rare form.
I swear I laughed so hard I had to wipe my eyes.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
I swear I laughed so hard I had to wipe my eyes.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
For those interested, send me a PM, I feel that’s more appropriate. Of course, if I do start doing these, it will likely be a remote tune unless you are local to me.
I got it for R&D and a small project with RTR. I did E85 testing (full E85), and it could not overcome the fuel pressure dip down low. It was pretty severe. I would say that maybe a 50% blend would have been in a safer range, but needing 30-35% more fuel, with that much boost on E85 just didn’t work out.Well I have a lot of reading to do. However, I noticed you were running the XDI35 before doing the turbos....why? What benefit did you get out of it, if anything? I have been wanting to test this or someone test it on a stock turbos as I still see pressure dip down low on just pump gas. People have claimed this is ok bc the fuel pressure gets to be safe at higher rpm. I disagree. So maybe you're the one @Boostking to finall lay this to rest. Will the xdi35 help at down low, high load loss of pressure at the rail?
Of course they do. They also go back and delete long post quotes to keep threads clean. Think about the goats! What would the goats do?Do goats poop?
you rock brett!! thanks for doing this, its been a pleasure working with you
Thank you both for the kind words. I'm happy I was able to contribute this to the EcoBoost community. And thank you again for the support and everything you do in the aftermarket for us.Beautiful! Phenomenal!! Outstanding!!!
Shall I continue?
Your attention to detail and devotion to providing the brass tacks on the performance of turbos is insanely clear and concise with no questions left on the table.
You are a treasure to this community!
Ok seriously, I'm done now.
Y-axis is pedal in AD counts. Basically a 0-5v pedal map converted to add counts. 204.6 x Volts = Counts.Awesome write up!
What are the units on the y axis of the driver demand table?
No problem. Excited for your new set up!Awesome write up Brett!
Very glad that having some fun with my truck helped you out in addition to helping me out!
This is seriously a fantastic amount and quality info. Thanks for sharing!
Ok i see the fueal rail pressure in green. This is EXACTLY what i am talking about and what I monitor. It dips down on my end about like 17psi, but comes back up in upper rpms Some tuners have told people this is safe, i dont believe so. To confirm, this is on pump gas or e85? If pump gas, what do you think max boost is on stock pump and on the 35% to not see a dip? Would the 60% correct this?I got it for R&D and a small project with RTR. I did E85 testing (full E85), and it could not overcome the fuel pressure dip down low. It was pretty severe. I would say that maybe a 50% blend would have been in a safer range, but needing 30-35% more fuel, with that much boost on E85 just didn’t work out.
The fuel pressure dip is less severe, maybe around 250-300 psi when hitting 22 psi on the hit. You can see this in the logs screen shot above. The datalog “Boostking Custom Tune -Run 2.csv”. Second screen shot shows the bottom panel with Fuel Pressure in Green. !
Thanks a bunch for posting this! I am local to Full-Race & have these turbo's on my 1966 F250 with a 2015 3.5 Eco. I have been hearing numbers in the 480 RWHP range is that with E-85?Thanks everyone. It was a lot of work but I really wanted to get some good data out there. I hope everyone can benefit from this.
As for future plans, at the moment nothing is stirring. I would like to upgraded to an 18 next year. I think this truck will stay this way till then, it's pretty much perfect for me.
All of the testing above was done on pump 93 (Shell V Power). The E85 testing looked like this with the +35% and 22 psi.Ok i see the fueal rail pressure in green. This is EXACTLY what i am talking about and what I monitor. It dips down on my end about like 17psi, but comes back up in upper rpms Some tuners have told people this is safe, i dont believe so. To confirm, this is on pump gas or e85? If pump gas, what do you think max boost is on stock pump and on the 35% to not see a dip? Would the 60% correct this?
The only way to correct this then is to limit the TB down low to prevent the dip?
Sorry if some of this has been answered, I will read entire post before any more comments.
I cant take all the credit for the VCT changes at WOT. I learned from an extremely smart individual who was the lead calibrator here for a few years. He has moved on to another shop and does some amazing things. I learned a lot from him, and one of those was the importance of working the VCT to optimize airflow and turbo characteristics. It's just something I do on every calibration now unless there are no gains to be found.First off, thanks!
I’ve always been a DIY’er and hopefully the knowledge you just dropped encourages others to get into tuning their own Ecoboost.
Looking at the tunes from various other entities, SCT is the only company that I've seen actually make changes to the Optimum Power intake and exhaust VCT tables. Do we have you to thank for that?
Seriously looking forward to your E30 results! As flat as your HPFP curve looked I’m guessing there will be some large gains to be made above 4200rpm’s.
No problem! As for numbers, you must keep in mind that there are many different dynos, and different ways to display data, different conditions. Some folks may use STD corrections. Some folks might cheat and put a heat gun on the dyno stack to make it correct differently. Point is, 450 in the middle of summer, might be 470 in winter.Thanks a bunch for posting this! I am local to Full-Race & have these turbo's on my 1966 F250 with a 2015 3.5 Eco. I have been hearing numbers in the 480 RWHP range is that with E-85?
My '66 Should be Max 3800 lb when done so should be a fun ride. I was for sure hoping for a bit more than 450 @ tire but that may have to do to compete with the NA Engine in my other '66 Truck. Its going to be quite the competition. Again, Great REad!
So then it's safe to it is impossible to avoid the dip at the lower rpm and you just have to back off the boost etc till above 3k or whatever. This is probably smarter anyways for less stress.All of the testing above was done on pump 93 (Shell V Power). The E85 testing looked like this with the +35% and 22 psi.
View attachment 151194
When it comes to dips in fuel pressure, I dont really sweat when its only 2-300 psi, as long as I can see that the injector pulsewidth can take up the slack and keep the lambda in check. The problem is that we end up with a longer spray, less homogeneous mixture with more possibility of cylinder wash. It also makes the injectors work harder. Of course this all can lead to bad things.
As for what is safe etc, it depends on the data and how bad it is. Blown-F150 had some dips down low, and his boost was already being handled pretty well on the hit to avoid spikes, but the stock pump could not keep up down low. We were able to bring it back a little by leaning out the desired fueling at lower RPM's, which did help.
It's not so much what max "boost" is on stock pump, but more the max airflow. I've been meaning to calculate the airflow limits of the pumps for the 3.5 at different lambda's, but have not had time to do so. Maybe soon.
I cant say if the 60% will be better down low, as I havent worked with it. I'd rather look at data on someone's vehicle who has it.
There are several ways to limit boost down low. The factory logic employs the throttle body in conjunction with other controls. I decided to use that to my advantage (not re-invent the wheel), and work the PID controllers for the wastegate to control the boost as it comes on. Worked out great.
I think it would be safe to say that with stock turbos, on the stock HPFP, about 18 psi on the hit is around where you start to see a dip early in the power band. These turbos being so small (and the OEM+ Full-Race Turbos), they spool so well that it's really important to think about the air mass being delivered vs the pumping ability. The camshaft cannot actuate the stock HPFP fast enough to drive the pressure up when the air mass rises so quickly. Especially when running such a rich mixture.So then it's safe to it is impossible to avoid the dip at the lower rpm and you just have to back off the boost etc till above 3k or whatever. This is probably smarter anyways for less stress.
If that is the case, what is the purpose of the 35% pump if it is not helping any fueling in the rpm band? The stock pump should be able to handle 20psi on pump gas backing off down low(your blown-f150 example) too or am i wrong here?
Thank for all the advice and the write up.
I dont really know an answer to that. I suppose as with most factory engines, anything can be improved. So I cant say that new heads (higher flow) would not help. I just dont know the cost/benefit for them, nor have I heard much about people doing ported/higher flowing heads. Just like camshafts, there really isnt much out there for this platform. That either means the aftermarket just hasnt found a reason to invest in that market, or they did and couldnt really make anything worth selling (better product).So question: Will new heads buy you much with these turbos? It doesnt seem like there are any volumetric efficiency losses as you increase in RPM on the custom OEM+ turbo tune. You run pretty much the same boost from start to finish and the Air flow trends in a pretty straight line right to the end of the pull. I would have thought if the heads were restrictive they airflow would crap out up top while boost stayed the same.
My jeep does this. The MAP is at 2400 mbar from 2000-4000 rpm but the MAF readings flatline the last 800 rpm and things get really smokey.