Quadzilla Adrenaline V2 Testing

[Carbur8tr]

@Me78569 what are you seeing for fuel mileage and at what stretch?

 

[Me78569]

55 mph = 25+ mpg

60 mph = 23 mpg

65 mph = 21 mpg

70 mph = 20 mpg

 

Fuel stretch is set to 1750 on my DD tune, but wiretap start is at 8 psi so I am rarely using wiretap when at cruise or putting around town.

[Mopar1973Man]

8 hours ago, Carbur8tr said:

@Me78569 what are you seeing for fuel mileage and at what stretch?

 

 

 

 

1400 microseconds... But I'm only running 6* of total timing. Wire tap isn't even used in my set up because my boost is below the trip point and I only give 5% pre wire tap signal. This is mostly CANBus and timing...

 

65 MPH giving me roughly 25-27 MPG

 

80 MPH still able to hold close to 22-23 MPG.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Mopar1973Man

[Me78569]

@Mopar1973Man

Remember that only cruise timing is taking effect when you are at cruise. The 6* timing for the base map is turned into 0* when the truck senses you are at cruise.

 

 

Also there is a new flash in the thread I pinned at the top of the section.  It might actually help bump city  / slow speed mileage some.  It is the V2.1 flash.  If you get bored you can run it, but the base timing works a little differently so we might have to chat about it. 

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Me78569

[xxTJRocksxx]

15 hours ago, Me78569 said:

23 mpg at 70 mph.....haha no amount of code is going to make it get better than that hahaha.

 

 

 

Yeah, and coolant was between 175-180* the whole time. this was with A/C on too btw. I am going to run test tune 2 for a few days and see what overall mileage I get out of it.

[Mopar1973Man]

Too cold... Need to get above 190 for better MPG..

Edited November 29, 2016 by Mopar1973Man

[Carbur8tr]

Well foot in the mouth today.  The app crashed on me several times on the drive to and from work and around town.  I wonder if Spencer is about to make some changes to the app.

@Me78569 loving V2.1 timing response seems to be spot on when hammering on the throttle.  Definitely feels to have given the mid range a bit more pep.  

[Me78569]

@Carbur8tr 

 

Are you getting any upper end surging?   Tyler is, and we think it might be too much timing to soon.  I have a possible fix for it, but I am not able to get any surging.  

 

 

Whats your tune for timing?  

 

 

[Carbur8tr]

I ran both of these today without surging.  Only issue today was with the app itself.  Temps here were in the 70s-80s.

 

How cold is it where Tyler lives?

 

	Middle	Mild
Number of PL	6	6
Timing Limit	8	9
Timing Scaling	100	100
Low PSI Timing Reduct	2	0
Timing Reduct Scaling	100	100
Cruise Timing Adv	3	3
Fuel Stretch	1800	1700
TPS Pump Maximum	100	100
TPS Pump Minimum	20	25
-	10	10
Pump Low Boost Scale PSI	8	8
Boost Scaling	40	40
RPM Limit	3700	3700
Power Reduction	60	60

So I've been playing a good bit with low boost timing reduction and I've found that from what I can tell the truck likes the higher timing down low, or at least that what it seems to feel like and looks like.  Still need to record it but seems to respond better when I don't use timing reduction.

[Me78569]

So you are getting a max of 23* timing with it set to 8* and 24* with it set at 9*.   

 

It has been colder as of late.   

 

As for the timing reduction, It might just be that our trucks are not timed aggressively down low to start.  I dunno the theory says less timing = better for turbo spool..... haha stupid theory.

[Mopar1973Man]

I've been dipping into the +10-20*F in the early morning hours.

[xxTJRocksxx]

So I have a science question, Since we can manually adjust the % of canbus fuel for a given boost, and that % is based off of the base tune / ECU Tune, then we should be able to identify the exact stock ECU target fuel message for each scale? I ask this because say stock injector A (I don't know their specs) Flows 640CC's per event but injector B flows 800cc's per event.

 

Theoretically, if both injectors are parallel in their flow charts then subtracting X% of fuel for B at any given scale would Make its fuel flow mirror Injector A.

 

Obviously the stock injectors do not have a linear flow map, and neither will the aftermarket injectors, so therefore adding and subtracting % along the boost scale will not be uniform like most of our tunes.

 

I understand that the goal is not to mirror the stock injector delivery, but bosch and cummins engineers obviously put time into figuring out how much fuel and when, so I am starting to wonder what the stock fuel curve looks like and not by %, but by fuel message.

 

The reason I bring this up, is running this new tune I am seeing spots where I am over fueling, but also under fuelling later in the map.

 

Also @Me78569 how does the V2.1 timing work, and should I test it?

 

P.S. Does the Quad scale % base its adjustment off of stock fueling at 100% throttle? if so then the maximum would be 4095 Usec, which makes figuring out the flow rates easier.

 

I know you guys are not experts on the tuning, but If you know anything please interject. I am trying to master this so I can contribute to the success of this and your help has been greatly appreciated.  

[TFaoro]

8 minutes ago, xxTJRocksxx said:

So I have a science question, Since we can manually adjust the % of canbus fuel for a given boost, and that % is based off of the base tune / ECU Tune, then we should be able to identify the exact stock ECU target fuel message for each scale? I ask this because say stock injector A (I don't know their specs) Flows 640CC's per event but injector B flows 800cc's per event.

Stock can-bus message can be done very easily using level 1. Set it to a %, data log it, and do the math to get the original message. 

 

I'm not sure if someone in here knows how to interpret the fuel message related to how much the injector will actually flow. I've yet to see any equations relating injector flow rate, can-bus message, and actual fuel delivered. 

8 minutes ago, xxTJRocksxx said:

 

Theoretically, if both injectors are parallel in their flow charts then subtracting X% of fuel for B at any given scale would Make its fuel flow mirror Injector A.

 

Obviously the stock injectors do not have a linear flow map, and neither will the aftermarket injectors, so therefore adding and subtracting % along the boost scale will not be uniform like most of our tunes.

 

I understand that the goal is not to mirror the stock injector delivery, but bosch and cummins engineers obviously put time into figuring out how much fuel and when, so I am starting to wonder what the stock fuel curve looks like and not by %, but by fuel message.

I would assume the "engineers" actually based everything off emissions. Make as much power as possible while passing emissions with flying colors. Of course they probably had some parameters in there to keep transmissions from breaking and longevity but I'm guessing mosed of it was based off of emissions.

 

8 minutes ago, xxTJRocksxx said:

 

The reason I bring this up, is running this new tune I am seeing spots where I am over fueling, but also under fuelling later in the map.

The other problem we have with trying to make an equation is different injector makers can have different curves for flow. DAP and Ducky may be way different for the same size and count hole injectors. Best advice I can give there is add fuel until you have a very slight haze at WOT for each boost parameter. From there you can fine-tune for drivability, smoke control, and egts. 

 

8 minutes ago, xxTJRocksxx said:

 

Also @Me78569 how does the V2.1 timing work, and should I test it?

 

It works well, and you should play with it. Bumps the timing in the mid range up and makes the truck more peppy. Play with it and see what you think. 

8 minutes ago, xxTJRocksxx said:

 

P.S. Does the Quad scale % base its adjustment off of stock fueling at 100% throttle? if so then the maximum would be 4095 Usec, which makes figuring out the flow rates easier.

Quad bases the scale % based on what the ECM is sending to the injection pump. So at 800rpm and 100% throttle the ecm may command 1500, but at 800 rpm and 50% throttle it may command 750. Whatever the ECM spits out is what the quad references. 

 

I don't think 4095 is a microsecond pulse width either.... have to talk to @Me78569 for that. 

 

8 minutes ago, xxTJRocksxx said:

 

I know you guys are not experts on the tuning, but If you know anything please interject. I am trying to master this so I can contribute to the success of this and your help has been greatly appreciated.  

 

[Me78569]

4095 is just the fueling message made up of 2 bytes.   That is why canbus tuners are limited to ~65 hp over stock or more accurately ~13% increase over stock fueling( 4095 / 3600 = %13).   it is not related to pulse.  The PSG on the vp44 tranlates that into a pulse lenght, how I have no idea.  

 

If you want to know what the stock fueling looks like just data log on lvl 0.

 

timing on the v2.1 works based upon a 15* base timing figure so if you set your timing limit to 0* in the tune you will only get 15* max timing, set it at  5* timing limit you get 20* max timing 10* timing limit gets you 25* max timing.  However the way the curve is calc'd is different than before.  it is taking you desired max - OEM timing to find how much timing to add based upon a map.  The V2 tuning just added x% of the user limit + OEM timing.  What this mean is you get a much more linear increase in timing from idle to WOT within the * specified in the tune.   Before the Quad, and others, just max out timing faster than stock.

 

 

as Tyler said the Quad intercepts the fueling message from the ECM then looks at boost and uses the custom tune variable for that tune to adjust the oem fueling message.  in theory if you were to say that your injectors flow approx %25 more fuel than stock then settings your entire tune to %75 would amke the same power as stock.  While we know that this isn't exactly true it is likely semi close.  However none of us want a stock powered truck so we ramp up fueling.  the % is purely a way to limit fueling down low while keeping the OEM curve and extending power higher in the revs.

 

For timing it is based upon multiple maps and different conditions and some fancy math.

 

for wiretap is is based on a map also, but the entire map is moved up and down related to boost based upn the user pump low limit psi setting.  

[xxTJRocksxx]

2 hours ago, Me78569 said:

4095 is just the fueling message made up of 2 bytes.   That is why canbus tuners are limited to ~65 hp over stock or more accurately ~13% increase over stock fueling( 4095 / 3600 = %13).   it is not related to pulse.  The PSG on the vp44 tranlates that into a pulse lenght, how I have no idea.  

 

If you want to know what the stock fueling looks like just data log on lvl 0.

 

timing on the v2.1 works based upon a 15* base timing figure so if you set your timing limit to 0* in the tune you will only get 15* max timing, set it at  5* timing limit you get 20* max timing 10* timing limit gets you 25* max timing.  However the way the curve is calc'd is different than before.  it is taking you desired max - OEM timing to find how much timing to add based upon a map.  The V2 tuning just added x% of the user limit + OEM timing.  What this mean is you get a much more linear increase in timing from idle to WOT within the * specified in the tune.   Before the Quad, and others, just max out timing faster than stock.

 

 

as Tyler said the Quad intercepts the fueling message from the ECM then looks at boost and uses the custom tune variable for that tune to adjust the oem fueling message.  in theory if you were to say that your injectors flow approx %25 more fuel than stock then settings your entire tune to %75 would amke the same power as stock.  While we know that this isn't exactly true it is likely semi close.  However none of us want a stock powered truck so we ramp up fueling.  the % is purely a way to limit fueling down low while keeping the OEM curve and extending power higher in the revs.

 

For timing it is based upon multiple maps and different conditions and some fancy math.

 

for wiretap is is based on a map also, but the entire map is moved up and down related to boost based upn the user pump low limit psi setting.  

So that all makes sense, and like I said I am not trying to run a stock map with my injectors, I am just trying to apply some math and science to the "Trial and error" way we have been tuning. I like your description of the new timing "bump" I need to update the quad tonight and try it out.

3 hours ago, TFaoro said:

Stock can-bus message can be done very easily using level 1. Set it to a %, data log it, and do the math to get the original message. 

 

I'm not sure if someone in here knows how to interpret the fuel message related to how much the injector will actually flow. I've yet to see any equations relating injector flow rate, can-bus message, and actual fuel delivered. 

I would assume the "engineers" actually based everything off emissions. Make as much power as possible while passing emissions with flying colors. Of course they probably had some parameters in there to keep transmissions from breaking and longevity but I'm guessing mosed of it was based off of emissions.

 

The other problem we have with trying to make an equation is different injector makers can have different curves for flow. DAP and Ducky may be way different for the same size and count hole injectors. Best advice I can give there is add fuel until you have a very slight haze at WOT for each boost parameter. From there you can fine-tune for drivability, smoke control, and egts. 

 

 

It works well, and you should play with it. Bumps the timing in the mid range up and makes the truck more peppy. Play with it and see what you think. 

Quad bases the scale % based on what the ECM is sending to the injection pump. So at 800rpm and 100% throttle the ecm may command 1500, but at 800 rpm and 50% throttle it may command 750. Whatever the ECM spits out is what the quad references. 

 

I don't think 4095 is a microsecond pulse width either.... have to talk to @Me78569 for that. 

 

 

I agree, and the different flow maps for injectors is not great, but I haven't been able to locate a flow chart for the OEM injectors, so as far as precision base tuning, Its just "trial and error", which is fine, but the absence of smoke doesn't necessarily = a good burn, so I am just investing a little time and effort to see if we can produce reusable data that will help everyone learn this tuning. I am seeing some interesting data from the quad on the MPG tune that I'm hammering out, which has peaked my curiosity into the science.

 

I wish we could use A/F ratio as a tuning measurement, because a 5.9ISB @ 30PSI boost is inhaling 17L of air every revolution.

 

I'm going to try V2.1, and see how I like the timing. I'm getting decent mileage with my tune, and the timing was very stable today.

 

Thanks Guys

[Me78569]

I agree smoke free doesn't mean efficient, what I have found through trial and error is tuning until you see smoke then dialing it back a notch is working well for me

[xxTJRocksxx]

Just Dropping a V2.1 Log here, This is a new tool I am working on, it allows multiple scales and charts, but will always print on a letter size paper.

 

I am liking the new timing curves, have to get used to tuning with it. City mileage has definitely gotten a bump. I averaged 18 mpg sitting in traffic on my way home yesterday, but over 20 on my way home today in traffic.

 

please also see the attached tunes that I am running, if any of you guys want to bump the overall starting % and try the curve let me know, I can plot your tune and send it back to you. I am going to test the three on the chart over the next few days.

Quad Tune Calculator 11.22.16.xlsx

@Me78569 Regarding the V2.1 how does the new 15* base affect the scaling. For example, I am testing a tune that runs 15*max@53%, does that mean my max achieved timing in the tune will be 23*? that should give me some room to increase the timing for that scale then

[Me78569]

Scaling works off of the timing limit variable.  The 15* based is just a starting point for the timing max , not a low point for timing however.      If you set your timing limit to 0* your timing will ramp up from ~11* to 15*.  

 

 

So yes if you do 15* timing with 53% scaling you would get timing that ramps up fast, but maxes out at 23*.  

 

@Carbur8tr  Did you ever run my "stupid" tune haha?  

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Me78569

[Me78569]

Alright,  

 

 

Anyone that is wanting to install the V2 tuning, I have made the process a lot easier.  you can find the new directions here

 

 

[Carbur8tr]

@Me78569 yes and it was well.... Stupid hahaha 

 

Needless to say it fuels fairly hard and will only be used for special occasions. 

 

I was hoping to get some more video today but it's looking like it's going to rain all day so probably not going to end up happening.  I'm probably going to bump the timing just a little to max out timing in the top end.  I was trying to stay a little conservative in those tunes because the first time I drove it the ramping almost scared me and I couldn't figure out how to stretch the scaling or make it so it wouldn't ramp so quickly. Never experienced any surging but watching how quickly it would push timing up was crazy.

 

Any suggestions on making it so that it ramps just a little bit slower and later in the RPM range but maxes out?  I'll be honest, I don't fully understand how it's ramping right now.

I was thinking something like this:

 

Number of PL	6
Timing Limit	15
Timing Scaling	73
Low PSI Timing Reduct	2
Timing Reduct Scaling	100
Cruise Timing Adv	3
Fuel Stretch	1800
TPS Pump Maximum	100
TPS Pump Minimum	20
-	10
Pump Low Boost Scale PSI	8
Boost Scaling	40
RPM Limit	3700
Power Reduction	60

 

Also again on the timing reduction.  I wanted to get some videos on that of before and after, with and without timing reduction just to show the low end smoke.  I might be crazy but I think the more timing I pull down low the more smoke I get in the mid to low range which should make sense on some fronts considering the engine doesn't have the same amount of time to com-bust the fuel in the cylinder.  Just a rough thought at the moment though and I don't have any data to back up that claim yet.