Strictly economy tune

jcain

New member
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
2,017
Reaction score
0
2012, h&s non vgt turbo, dual fuelers, 3.73 gears, 20s w/35s, 8600lbs


Anyone gone down this path? With my new drive being about 130miles roundtrip each day I figured I'd try my hand at it.

So far I've tried turning off pilot injection at my cruising speeds.

Turning the timing up in the cells appropriate to my cruising speed

Turning the IPW down a hair.

Not seeing much of a change yet

Anyone else?
 

torque beast

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
375
Reaction score
1
I have been playing with it and my best increase was by increasing ipw by3-5% (can't remember) and bumped timing. Got better mileage but regened a little more depending on driving style but you won't have that issue. What kind of boost do you see cruising?
 

jcain

New member
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
2,017
Reaction score
0
I'll try going the other way with ipw.

At 74mph I'm roughly 1830rpm, 3-4psi and 650-670egt, 514ipw and 16-18k rail.

I'm getting roughly 19.5mpg
 

SpartanDieselTech

New member
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
524
Reaction score
0
Try adding rail pressure alone.

What you'll find, is that an increase in rail pressure will serve to decrease pulse width and increase timing simultaneously. With this, fuel enters the cylinder at a higher pressure, meaning less duration (pulse width) to achieve the same mass fuel rate. It also means that, since the duration is shorter, the end of injection comes sooner, while the start of injection stays the same. Fuel atomizes better, while not actually altering the start of injection leaves more on the table to work with with further alteration.
 

torque beast

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
375
Reaction score
1
I'll try going the other way with ipw.

At 74mph I'm roughly 1830rpm, 3-4psi and 650-670egt, 514ipw and 16-18k rail.

I'm getting roughly 19.5mpg


That's pretty good really. Best I saw was 22.2 but I am running 3:31 around 60mph is the best. I have the same boost as you at 55-60. I am around 8-9 psi at 75. I will try what Matt suggested and lower pw and increase rail pressure


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

torque beast

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
375
Reaction score
1
I added the pressure today in the cruise area and then blended it in. Ran good and helped mileage a bit but my regens went up so I will try to shorten the pw. Anybody know what the offset would be? If you shorten pw by x then you need to increase rail pressure by y to get the same fuel
 

SpartanDieselTech

New member
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
524
Reaction score
0
I added the pressure today in the cruise area and then blended it in. Ran good and helped mileage a bit but my regens went up so I will try to shorten the pw. Anybody know what the offset would be? If you shorten pw by x then you need to increase rail pressure by y to get the same fuel

You'll want to leave the pulsewidth table stock. Since the injection pressure serves as an axis normalizer for the pulsewidth table, it will correct itself. Try returning your pulsewidth completely back to stock, and leave the injection pressure changes.

What do you have your smoke limitation/lambda tables set at? (both static and dynamic)
 

torque beast

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
375
Reaction score
1
You'll want to leave the pulsewidth table stock. Since the injection pressure serves as an axis normalizer for the pulsewidth table, it will correct itself. Try returning your pulsewidth completely back to stock, and leave the injection pressure changes.

What do you have your smoke limitation/lambda tables set at? (both static and dynamic)


Everything set to stock on pulse width except for at the top. I have a pic of my table in the other thread. I have not messed with the lambda at all. I'll see if I have it on my phone

556c0b554d48d49fab5561da2611a0ab.jpg
 

SpartanDieselTech

New member
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
524
Reaction score
0
Everything set to stock on pulse width except for at the top. I have a pic of my table in the other thread. I have not messed with the lambda at all

I'd return the top of it to stock also, and do any fuel additions you want for extra power through the main fueling tables.

Changing the pulsewidth table at all is something best avoided with *** on, even at WOT. Maintaining proper lambda is important, and if the pulsewidth/duration tables are modified, the air/fuel ratios will be incorrect.

As for the shorter regen interval during normal cruise (I'm assuming you haven't been flat-footing it if doing fuel economy testing), have you made any other changes in the file? Airflow, manifold pressure, etc?
 

SpartanDieselTech

New member
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
524
Reaction score
0
Just saw your picture. Certainly return your whole pulsewidth table to stock. FYI, that's actually the "bottom" of the table that's been modified, since it is at low mass fuel and injection pressure. "Bottom" being in the sense that it should be flipped around.
 

torque beast

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
375
Reaction score
1
I'd return the top of it to stock also, and do any fuel additions you want for extra power through the main fueling tables.



Changing the pulsewidth table at all is something best avoided with *** on, even at WOT. Maintaining proper lambda is important, and if the pulsewidth/duration tables are modified, the air/fuel ratios will be incorrect.



As for the shorter regen interval during normal cruise (I'm assuming you haven't been flat-footing it if doing fuel economy testing), have you made any other changes in the file? Airflow, manifold pressure, etc?

You are right no other changes

Just saw your picture. Certainly return your whole pulsewidth table to stock. FYI, that's actually the "bottom" of the table that's been modified, since it is at low mass fuel and injection pressure. "Bottom" being in the sense that it should be flipped around.


Ok, I will double check my files. The pic was from the one I am using and on the low end where I circled and mid range I have not changed any pulse width. The only reason I circled that was wondering why those were set lower. Wasn't smooth. I only changed the far right at WOT I am only commanding 1150. Maybe I have the wrong stock file so I will check that.
 

torque beast

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
375
Reaction score
1
Acc map was changed, acc to torque was changed but torque to fuel is same as stock, duration was changed. Normal lambda was changed. Here is stock
0a022d18f5cf78459b3f2ec30fa62d51.jpg


Here it is changed

85b8edf9f9744faf1089fdfb26ea29b0.jpg
 

CoreyMS

New member
Joined
May 5, 2014
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
I actually think the stock setting is changed in some areas, namely at the top of the pressure range. Looking elsewhere, shows even more fuel stock. Lambda looks correct in the stock file.

There's several things in the stock file that match up with an early '11 build, that were changed in later builds. But that duration table, matches in some areas and not in others compared to other software.
 

lincolnlocker

Well-known member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
27,824
Reaction score
134
Location
Central Michigan
I'd return the top of it to stock also, and do any fuel additions you want for extra power through the main fueling tables.

Changing the pulsewidth table at all is something best avoided with *** on, even at WOT. Maintaining proper lambda is important, and if the pulsewidth/duration tables are modified, the air/fuel ratios will be incorrect.

As for the shorter regen interval during normal cruise (I'm assuming you haven't been flat-footing it if doing fuel economy testing), have you made any other changes in the file? Airflow, manifold pressure, etc?
props for helping out sir! i haven't seen any tuners actually help others self tune!!!

live life full throttle
 

SpartanDieselTech

New member
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
524
Reaction score
0
Acc map was changed, acc to torque was changed but torque to fuel is same as stock, duration was changed. Normal lambda was changed. Here is stock
0a022d18f5cf78459b3f2ec30fa62d51.jpg


Here it is changed

85b8edf9f9744faf1089fdfb26ea29b0.jpg

Your excessive regens are coming from the changes in lambda. You should try returning it to stock.

Even though 1.01 should be perfect stoich, it isn't. Ford has the lambda tables lean at cruise to introduce excess oxygen into the aftertreament system. This excess oxygen helps keep the system in a constant state of mild passive regeneration, making intervals between regen longer. It also helps de-NOx the SCR media.

Think of it this way - regeneration is burning off excess soot. In order to burn something, you need extra oxygen. At 1.01 air/fuel, there is none, so passive regeneration ceases to happen.

Return all the injection duration and lambda back to stock. If you want an increase in fueling, use the torque-to-fuel quantity conversion table. At any points you change, change the desired MAP turbo controls and turbo feed forwards to a matching percentage increase. Then, play around with injection pressure.

Once you have that where you want it, make minor increases in timing. Don't get crazy, too much will drink DEF like a fish, and more past that will throw errors for NOx thresholds high/SCR system performance.
 
Last edited:

SpartanDieselTech

New member
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
524
Reaction score
0
I'll also add-

Note that there are two types of lambda tables, dynamic and normal. Dynamic is richer, because it's used under fast load changes - more fuel, quicker response. The existence of two tables, and underlying controls telling when each table is used allows for fuel to richen for load response, then lean back out under load to keep the a *** cleaner. That functionality is important to maintain.
 

torque beast

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
375
Reaction score
1
I actually think the stock setting is changed in some areas, namely at the top of the pressure range. Looking elsewhere, shows even more fuel stock. Lambda looks correct in the stock file.

There's several things in the stock file that match up with an early '11 build, that were changed in later builds. But that duration table, matches in some areas and not in others compared to other software.

Could be mine is an early 12. Do you have a copy of the updated duration?

props for helping out sir! i haven't seen any tuners actually help others self tune!!!


live life full throttle

I agree. Speaks volumes about about the kind of person he his. Not everyone wants to mess with tuning but sure is nice for those of us who like playing with their trucks.

Your excessive regens are coming from the changes in lambda. You should try returning it to stock.

Even though 1.01 should be perfect stoich, it isn't. Ford has the lambda tables lean at cruise to introduce excess oxygen into the aftertreament system. This excess oxygen helps keep the system in a constant state of mild passive regeneration, making intervals between regen longer. It also helps de-NOx the SCR media.

Think of it this way - regeneration is burning off excess soot. In order to burn something, you need extra oxygen. At 1.01 air/fuel, there is none, so passive regeneration ceases to happen.

Return all the injection duration and lambda back to stock. If you want an increase in fueling, use the torque-to-fuel quantity conversion table. At any points you change, change the desired MAP turbo controls and turbo feed forwards to a matching percentage increase. Then, play around with injection pressure.

Once you have that where you want it, make minor increases in timing. Don't get crazy, too much will drink DEF like a fish, and more past that will throw errors for NOx thresholds high/SCR system performance.


Makes sense, I will change it back to stock

I'll also add-



Note that there are two types of lambda tables, dynamic and normal. Dynamic is richer, because it's used under fast load changes - more fuel, quicker response. The existence of two tables, and underlying controls telling when each table is used allows for fuel to richen for load response, then lean back out under load to keep the a *** cleaner. That functionality is important to maintain.


Dynamic is still stock but I will change the normal back to stock.
 

torque beast

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
375
Reaction score
1
Made changes and runs smoother and overall better manners. Question about torque to fuel. Does it do any good to set torque higher than 958 in the acc to torque table since the highest it goes in the torque fuel table is 958?
5dcdfb5a65bed62588704f9d493e6842.jpg
 

Latest posts

Members online

Top