I want to put that ecoboost V6 in my Mustang. REALLY BAD.
I want to put that ecoboost V6 in my Mustang. REALLY BAD.
Zomby woof wrote:alfadriver wrote: How many times does it have to be explaind before you are convinced that I not only GET IT, but I also do it. The factory tunes are NOT generic. Can they be made better? Depends. Some things you can do and get things better without harming other aspects of the calibration. Generally, power is not one of them, since it's very much used in advertising. The premium thing is a perfect example of it, especially in the EcoBoost, since it has a knock sensor and retards spark when it sees lower octane fuel. not only can manufacturers do that, they DO that. OEM's spend 2 years tuning the car, and you think you can do better, without risking something, in just a few min. ok...The factory tunes are very much generic to their particular applications. The tune in your X car is the same as the tune in my X car, although we use it for very different things, under very different circumstances. There is no way the manufacturer can tune them to be ideal for everybody, so they're ideal for nobody. In the case of my truck, it has 2 knock sensors, and also has 2 completely different timing maps. Do I think I can do better, when I know my application better than some engineer in an office? With my 30 years of engine building and wrenching experience, Absolutely, 100%. Since you say you have all that experience doing it, do you admit that some tunes are just not very good, and can be improved on? Or are you saying that they're all perfect? I don't believe for a second that they are any different than any other part on the car. Pick a part, any part, and I bet it can be improved on.
Man, I'm so glad that people decide to read.
I am saying that factory tunes are set to meet all of the requirements. And that when YOU change something, the odds are high that you no longer meet A requirement. Do you 100% know what you are altering? Vs. the engineer at GM? I seriously doubt that.
Perfect is relative. As is improvement.
If you think that you don't need your catalysts to last 120k miles (for a 2011 release), then your version of perfect isn't the same as mine. And you can make more X, probably. If you don't care that the turbo spins faster than 200k rpm, and are not worried that it could break, or how that effects how the car drives, since you will run on the edge of the turbo map for surge, then you can do whatever you want.
Javelin wrote:alfadriver wrote: Anti Tampering- http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1997/October/Day-27/a28368.htmI think you didn't actually READ the document you're linking to, and I quote: "Purpose. The purpose of this document is to clarify and revise the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ``tampering'' enforcement policy for motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines originally designed to operate on gasoline or diesel fuel and subsequently modified to operate exclusively or in conjunction with compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquified petroleum gas (LPG or propane), hereinafter referred to as ``alternative fuels''. " What exactly does a tune that's BETTER than yours have to do with alternative fuels conversions?
that was linked to me from a person at the EPA, so no, I didn't read it. But does this help- http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/1997standards/documents/bumpDown/Memphis_TN/13TNVehicleTampering.pdf ?
In reply to alfadriver:
And here's a list of 1990 Clean Air Act amendments- one of which is a tightening of tampering, which includes backyard mechanics (page 2, 5th paragraph)
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/11-vehs.pdf
Will you be charged? Probably not. but you can, as can buisnesses.
In reply to alfadriver:
I've not perused the links yet, and I don't really have a horse in this race.
I am curious though, are the restrictions you're mentioning applicable to competition cars? If not, all a company has to do is to sell tuners/hacked ecus/what have you for off-road use only, right? They don't control what the customer ultimately does.
If I may weigh in....
It seems to me that folks are thinking that Eric is saying there's no way an aftermarket tune can be better than a factory tune. That's not what I'm getting from him. I think he's saying that a factory tune has to meet a very broad set of legal and warranty requirements. But it is set up to optimize things like power, torque, and fuel economy within those requirements. So if you want to change something AND stay within the envelope of those requirements, you probably won't be able to improve much, since the OEMs spend so much time and effort optimizing the tunes.
However, if you are willing to disregard things like warranty and emissions or run higher octane gas, etc (as many people are), you can tweak the tune to create more power, better fuel economy, or other things that most enthusiast drivers would consider to be improvements. But you will most certainly increase your risk of experiencing some kind of failure, being in violation of the law, and not being able to get warranty coverage.
My opinion is that hey, it's your vehicle, if you want to take that chance, go ahead. Certainly I've done it many times, and will again. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences and don't blame the OEM if something fails after you modified it.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to Javelin: Yea, that covers 99% of all the crap tunes... not.
Oh so sorry Mr. Engineer. Let me spend all of my valuable time proving you wrong by linking every single CARB-legal tuner on the planet because you can't possibly be wrong. 
Oh hey, look, CARB has a list. Have a fun few hours reading it:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermkt/devices/aftermktdevice.php
Yep. Not very many tuners or programmers there. Must be a LOT of companies doing illegal stuff.
Man, I'm so glad that people decide to read.
Don't think that I don't understand exactly what you are saying. I do.
So answer this question for me, with something far less ambiguous than "Perfect is relative. As is improvement".
Is it possible to improve on the factory tune, for a particular application, and still meet all of your previously mentioned criteria, or is this completely impossible?
Yes or no is fine.
I am so glad we have government that can, or supposedly can, tell us what we can do to our own cars, I.e., property. Alfadriver, you seriously are for that?
Land of the free, indeed.
What previously mentioned criteria? Maybe it's because I speak engineer myself, but I'll say it again:
I love that people will often claim "no detriment to longevity or emissions" without data to support it. How many people run durability tests with their aftermarket tune? How many people run before and after exhaust analysis at all (any?) running conditions?
Changing the tune will reflect a different compromise than the manufacturer was willing to make, based on longevity, reputation, emissions etc.
Put another way: the whining on the SRT forums about oil pump durability, transmission problems etc was huge, but everyone was trying to manipulate the tune to make 300whp on the stock turbo. Surprise, there was a price to pay.
Zomby woof wrote:Man, I'm so glad that people decide to read.Don't think that I don't understand exactly what you are saying. I do. So answer this question for me, with something far less ambiguous than "Perfect is relative. As is improvement". Is it possible to improve on the factory tune, for a particular application, and still meet all of your previously mentioned criteria, or is this completely impossible? Yes or no is fine.
i can speak a bit to what parameters COBB was changing, at least on the 1gen Mazdaspeed3, not that its a huge secret. what i'm sure is assumed is that they went and cranked up the boost map and that was it, but that was not so. they found that there are several different tables that required adjusting in order to effect change. while the easy stuff like boost is a couple tables, the actual boost target table which affects the actual output of some of the other tables like wastegate duty cycle, then boost compensation A/B 1-2 gear, boost comp 3rd gear, boost comp 4th gear, boost comp 5-6th gear, max_boost, boost comp for barometric pressure, boost comp for RPM A/B, and then of course the boost limits where the ecu starts to close down the throttle and/or cut off fuel if it sees boost over limit for more than 2 seconds.
then of course you need to adjust the two sets of wastegate duty cycle tables in order to actually get the ecu to open the wastegate and command the boost level you want, but that can also be commanded higher than the table is set if there is a boost target set elsewhere that is not being met, in which case it will increase WG duty cycle to get the boost/load it is commanded in other tables. then tables to compensate WG duty cycle based on rpm and outside temp
then there are throttle curves for each gear, and on and on and on.
actually, here's a list of all the tables from the COBB website for their accessTUNER race software, there are a ton: http://www.cobbtuning.com/info/?ID=4641
so yes, if you 'hack' into the ecu and just change the boost target table, it will increase your boost for a bit, except its not set up in the wastegate tables yet to command more boost, so you won't get the extra boost right away until the ecu recognizes that, then you start hitting fuel cut boost limit, and it tones down the change you just made. all of the different tables interweave so its not as simple as it once was, but is still possible to get there.
RE: the "uncrackable" ecu - remember that a few short years ago the Nissan GTR ecu was considered "uncrackable" but COBB managed to do that and bring the first aftermarket tuning solution to market for that car. here's the list of tables for that car, far less complicated than the MS3 actually http://www.cobbtuning.com/info/?ID=4633
Funny, on my turbo cars when I wanted to adjust the boost I turned a little knob. 
So exactly how did a test drive in a truck turn into this mess?.
Javelin wrote: Funny, on my turbo cars when I wanted to adjust the boost I turned a little knob.
yeah when the ms3 first came out people put manual boost controllers on them, and they got more boost, then fuel cut, then stock boost again.
the interesting thing about the mazda system was that it was always learning, instead of banging up against the limits over and over again with a set tune. if the tune was off to where it made it hit boost cut, it would back off the wastegate so it didn't hit cut.
i did a track day when i was running stage 2+ (cobb intake, tune, and 3" downpipe) where in each of the four sessions the weather had changed. firs it was cool/cloudy, then warmer and sunny, back to cooler/cloudy again and then the last session was warm and sunny again. it ran full bore through the first session without a hiccup, then in the second session the warmer temps bumped the boost up a bit and it bumped boost cut on the front straight, then the ecu backed things down and it didn't hit it again the rest of the session rather than me having to pedal it the rest of the session, and then go back and adjust the tune between sessions so i wouldn't be bouncing off of boost cut, the computer's built in logic handled that automatically (although a lot of people's solution to the occasional boost cut is to set the limit to 23.3 psi, which iirc was just inside the operating range of the oem MAP sensor, these were end-users tunes, not COBB's, btw).
alfadriver wrote: Honestly, I don't put a "GM diesel tech" above the engineers who calibrated it. They did it for very specific reasons- nobody leaves power on the table if it's really free.
reason numero uno: towing. Everybody knows that the diesels will make insane torque and often even improve mpgs with a tuner. why did the factory not put that tune on? Let's watch said diesel tech's pyrometer as he hauls 16,000 lbs trailer up out of the valley. Betcha he turns a knob and selects a less insane tune real quick
Interesting note about the Mazdaspeed Miata - the intake system is restrictive enough to defeat someone armed with just a boost controller. In fact, the stock electronic boost controller basically stops doing anything at 5000 rpm, because the intake restriction chokes the car back. Open up that intake and you're going to see a BIG boost spike unless you remove that stock controller.
And Mazda was also smart enough to put a fuel cut in place for when the injectors run out of duty cycle, so if you're armed with a boost controller AND a new intake you can't run the engine past the car's ability to deliver fuel. Nicely done, and it's probably saved a few engines.
There are some weird quirks in the driveability that I'm convinced are purely there for emissions, though. The switch from closed to open loop when going into boost is delayed just a bit, and a more responsive intake/exhaust exaggerates it. So now you have to deal with that. Even a fairly simple car like the MSM has a lot more inter-related programming than you'd expect, and for reasons that hotrodders can only guess at.
Yeah, so, anyway. About those EcoBoost F-150's. Thanks for sharing the review. I'm a hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool GM guy. But those motors are really impressive. Makes ya wonder why they used such a teeny motor to try it out. If a 3.5 can make 420 ft-lbs, what could a 6.2 do?
Oh, sorry guys, am I off topic now???
doc_speeder wrote: Yeah, so, anyway. About those EcoBoost F-150's. Thanks for sharing the review. I'm a hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool GM guy. But those motors are really impressive. Makes ya wonder why they used such a teeny motor to try it out. If a 3.5 can make 420 ft-lbs, what could a 6.2 do? Oh, sorry guys, am I off topic now???
I was think 5.0 or 5.8, maybe a 7.4
No 5.7, 6.2, or 7.3
In reply to FlightService:
Isn't the coyote in the raptor a 6.2?
Strizzo wrote: In reply to FlightService: Isn't the coyote in the raptor a 6.2?
The Coyote is 5.0.
The 6.2 is a Boss.
Tom_Spangler wrote: If I may weigh in.... It seems to me that folks are thinking that Eric is saying there's no way an aftermarket tune can be better than a factory tune. That's not what I'm getting from him. I think he's saying that a factory tune has to meet a very broad set of legal and warranty requirements. But it is set up to optimize things like power, torque, and fuel economy within those requirements. So if you want to change something AND stay within the envelope of those requirements, you probably won't be able to improve much, since the OEMs spend so much time and effort optimizing the tunes. However, if you are willing to disregard things like warranty and emissions or run higher octane gas, etc (as many people are), you can tweak the tune to create more power, better fuel economy, or other things that most enthusiast drivers would consider to be improvements. But you will most certainly increase your risk of experiencing some kind of failure, being in violation of the law, and not being able to get warranty coverage. My opinion is that hey, it's your vehicle, if you want to take that chance, go ahead. Certainly I've done it many times, and will again. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences and don't blame the OEM if something fails after you modified it.
+1. Eric -- thanks for the valuable insight into the engineering side of the equation. I love your contributions to the board.
Rob
Have a 2011 F150 with the Ecoboost and love it. Take the MPG claims with a grain of salt - it's very dependent on the rear axle ratio. Anyone saying they get 24mpg on the highway either drives 55 or has the 3.15 rear end and can't tow 11,300. But, there was a cross country test where Pickuptrucks.com got something like ~35MPG for the trip doing all that hypermiling crap.... I have the 3.73 with the max tow package, I can get 21-22 on the highway at 71 mph with summer gas. Around the city (Boston) I get 14 - 16. Average since new is 16.2 including towing. MPG is very, very sensitive to how conservatively you drive... Get into boost at all and mileage goes down fast.
Towing, mileage suffers fast. There are tests towing an ~8000lb enclosed where they got 8-10 MPG. Towing my open trailer with my ~2600lb M3 I get 12.5 - 14.5 depending on the road and how I drive.
All said and done, I love the truck. I have the 4 door, long bed, with a cap. Tremendously comfortable and I can fit pretty much everything I own in the back...
Strizzo wrote: In reply to FlightService: Isn't the coyote in the raptor a 6.2?
shut up
You'll need to log in to post.
