F150 Ecoboost Forum banner

21 - 40 of 283 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,697 Posts
Chris is in rare form.

I swear I laughed so hard I had to wipe my eyes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
4,074 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
815 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
Did you really just quote the longest post on the entire forum?

:p LMAO. I was thinking the same thing. Hopefully he will edit and delete the quote. Probably on TapTalk.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,194 Posts
:)

Best part about upgrading to a 2018 is more power from a stock truck...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Boostking How much are you charging to tune one of these and will it be remote email tune?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,460 Posts
Awesome write up!

What are the units on the y axis of the driver demand table?

I tune my liberty CRD and it kinda works the same way but it is much more to the point. There is a Driver demand table ----> a torque to injection quantity table(torque vs rpm and fuel quantity per injection) -----> IQ to boost table. There there are all the limiters and injection duration/timing maps but I dont screw with that. I also dont have to squabble with all this airflow nonsense. Add more fuel, add more air till it stops rolling coal lol.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
512 Posts
Great contribution to the forum @Boostking. You are an asset and clearly meticulous with your craft. This is what the ecoboost community was missing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
815 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
@Boostking How much are you charging to tune one of these and will it be remote email tune?
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.

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?
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.

I will likely try E30 on these OEM+ turbos to see how it does. Also some dyno testing when cooler weather arrives later this year. It was hot when all this was done.

Do goats poop?
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?

you rock brett!! thanks for doing this, its been a pleasure working with you
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.

-Collin
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.

Awesome write up!

What are the units on the y axis of the driver demand table?
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 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!
No problem. Excited for your new set up!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
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. !
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
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.
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!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
815 Posts
Discussion Starter #37 (Edited)
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.
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.

2018-08-10 07_52_30-LiveLink3.jpg

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.

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.
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.

The truth is, I may not ever get to the E30 testing. Maybe if I'm feeling the itch and have time. Problem is, I dont know how much more power these stock Gen 1 3.5's can handle, and I'm not in the position to find out at the moment. I got her up to 450 on the dyno, drove that a day or two on the street, and then backed it down to around 420 for daily driving. I'd love to push more but like I said, cant afford to see it let go at this time. Building a new house is taking up all the funds.

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!
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.

I just took my 448 gragh, and for ****s and giggles set it to STD correction with no smoothing. Now it reads 457.6 whp and 520 wtq.

My truck might have taken even more spark as well, the knock sensor was still adding at WOT and I could have leaned out the mixture a tad. Could be that 20whp right there.

I could let the boost spike to 20 at around 5250 and maybe make another 10-20 too. Many ways to make the "number". I wanted something that was powerful yet safe enough to thrash on. No "kill" tune.

Also wheels/tires, driveline etc can cause variances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,460 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
815 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
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 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.

I've always had it in the back of my head that many of the "tuned" engine failures stemmed from too much low end torque, which is a product of boost (airflow) down low from not controlling the boost. It makes for a very nice "torque number", however in reality, the engine is not moving quickly enough, so you are working the rods/pistons/bearings/crank very hard with high levels of stress. The fuel injectors have plenty of pulsewidth, so they just spray longer, and my thoughts are this washes the rings and eventually can cause damage there, or oil dilution to the point of lower protection against failure.

When we are WOT, generally we are between 4500-6500 RPM's, and this is where you want your airflow/power etc. That low end torque feels great in traffic off the light, but once you are moving, that part is over. I dont think its worth the stress on a daily driver, maybe a track machine though. I'd rather have a little less low end torque, and blow by you on the top end with pure horsepower.

Long story short, a stock turbo stock HPFP system should probably only come in at max of around 18 psi in low RPM's. Then you can push them harder as the engine revs, and thus camshafts can maintain pressure in the HPFP. The stock "lift pump" has no problem supplying the fuel, but the HPFP has a problem maintaining pressure with low revs.

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.
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).

That question may be better for an engine builder interested in EcoBoost, that has a flow bench and can provide hard data. My gut tells me that better flowing heads could help, but as you stated, with this power level it doesn't look as though I'm at the point where they would be beneficial. The data kinda tells the story as you said. I'm sure that would be completely different on a build like RBrown has.
 
21 - 40 of 283 Posts
Top