PCMTec Development Blog

[rolls]

Once we get the falcon stuff nailed the most likely follow on will be 4wds etc as a lot of them don't have any tuning solutions, will need to gauge demand first and see how everything goes. Luke personally I would just find a turbo ecu, less mucking around.

If you read up Darryl has found the exhaust cam control and we have someone testing it out. If i get some spare time I might even try it out on my car.

[headsex]

This is so good to hear! I was starting to think you might have pushed this project to the side.
Remember to keep my name down for a BETA tester if needed.
I'll put my money down for the finished version the day its ready.
I was about to buy a HP Tuner on the weekend, but to hear that your software will have live tracing is fantastic. Im so excited!

HPTuner's logging can allow you to log data onto a table as if it was a live trace. Infact, using it on a Jeep, I was able to scale the VE table very quickly by using the O2 data logged, and overlaying it with the actual VE Table.

In the meantime, I'm planning on a rear mount GT42 turbo upgrade later this year so I'm wondering if I can configure a NA ecu to work with a turbo.
Looking at the BA wiring diagram, it seems that the C plug on the ECU has 3 wires, 2 for the map sensor, 1 for the wastegate solenoid.
Is there a later turbo ECU I could look for that does this just on 2 ECU plugs? (To keep it simple)
Or is it possible to re-scale the MAP sensor on a NA ecu and do the boost control manually?

the NA ecu can run a turbo no problems. However, it will not be able to do boost control. You cannot use a later model (bf/fg) ecu with 2 plugs as the inputs/outputs have been reallocated to different pins, and they cannot control the BA automatic.

And given your application, you would change the map sensor to a turbo one (loom adaptor required as they are different plugs). And one setting changed in the PCM so it understands its a turbo map sensor, not a NA map sensor.

I just had a look at the factory BA manual and it shows 2 separate wires for control of the VCT Phasers. In the description of VCT it also says that the pcm controls the camshafts separately. So, it seems the hardware is there to do it, maybe its in the software?
I have a few HP tuner files here for ba,bf,fg. It looks like the BF, FG has an extra table to control the max overlap (BA doesnt) but still only has one table to control the camshaft degrees? I'm assuming that its only controlling the intake cam then?

Correct, they are individually wired, so they can be individually controlled to match desired cam angle vs actual in a pid loop. Both cams in the BA move.

[ejukated]

Any chance of looking at reading the Ford Territory TDV6 ECU and 6R80 TCM? The ECU is similar to what's used on the Jaguar and Land Rover applications that use the same engine but the seed/key routine appears to be different so the tradititional tools can't unlock it.

I tried using the HPT to read said territory as it's the SID204 from memory & no dice & powers that be say there not likely to look into it.

But thats a VERY similar path I'm looking at for the Ford Ranger/Mazda BT50, for the SID201 & SID204 there is a tool by ECU 24 that can supposedly read/write over the OBDII without any mods to the controller like all other softwares guys say HAVE to be done.

HPT wont even support the TCU for the 6R80 which they already support for older ford trucks as those applications have it integrated into the PCM.

Have not heard of "ECU24", the SID204 in the Ford Territory appears to use a different seed/key algo to the others. There are people tuning them via OBD but not sure what software they are using.

[DarrylC]

Correct, they are individually wired, so they can be individually controlled to match desired cam angle vs actual in a pid loop. Both cams in the BA move.

I have not had time to look at the BA in this regard. I could look at this and see if they can be controlled by the software but only after we get a Beta release. The way I have written the mapping of the calibrations it will just pop up. Ford implied that individual control was something they put in the BF but the hardware was already there so this tallies with what is being said. Like gear based boost control it may be back "stichable" into earlier releases but headsex will know more about BA/BF capabilities.

[MeZmeriZe]

Correct, they are individually wired, so they can be individually controlled to match desired cam angle vs actual in a pid loop. Both cams in the BA move.

I have not had time to look at the BA in this regard. I could look at this and see if they can be controlled by the software but only after we get a Beta release. The way I have written the mapping of the calibrations it will just pop up. Ford implied that individual control was something they put in the BF but the hardware was already there so this tallies with what is being said. Like gear based boost control it may be back "stichable" into earlier releases but headsex will know more about BA/BF capabilities.

yes. my understanding was that the BA was originally planned to have dual fully independent VCT, but the BA PCM wasn't really up to the task (there was an interview with ford on autospeed talking about it) .. hence the upgraded PCM for the BF. IT's the main reason I have upgraded most of the looms in my car to BF.. and why I have BF PCM's all over the place here.. When I put my new engine in down the track I'm swapping the dash and engine bay looms and from there my cars electrical system is basically BF fairmont ghia with the only part of the BA loom being used is the C plug. (with the pins changed to match the BF PCM of course.)

Just found it..

The new DOHC Ford 4.0 six incorporates dual VCT where the inlet and exhaust cam is phased in tandem - why aren't they adjusted individually to allow changing of valve overlap?

"It's actually technology limited. We'd have to up the capacity of the engine management module - which is already very powerful - and we'd then have to invest a lot of mapping time. All the software that you require to throw the cams independently at any point in time triples or quadruples the mapping task - even as it is, it's a horrendous task.

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.ht ... Two&A=1904

[rolls]

He actually makes a great point and will be a tuning issue if we can independently change the overlap.

Normally you'd need even more speed density maps to achieve a true airflow model if you can change the angle of both cams, eg like the coyote which has far more speed density maps.

Looking at the maps we found they do tune both cams independently in the BF, however it is very limited, eg the only do it above load 1.0 and before the turbo comes fully on song. They handle the fact this screws up the SD maps by adding a fudge factor for the SD maps. See these screenshots

SD slope map (there is also a corresponding zero) which is per cam angle. Now the issue is if you start dynamically changing the overlap as well, this screws up your airflow model.

The dynamic overlap map is very very limited in what it does. Basically from load 1.0 and above at 600 rpm it increases the overlap by 24 degrees. It goes back to 0 at 4000 rpm and all other loads.

Now to fudge the SD maps so the model still "works" they added two other maps which effectively fudges the SD value.

A degrees vs rpm map.
A load vs rpm map.

These two allow the exhaust cam to work. In the coyote I believe they have gone down a better but more complicated model with 10 SD maps which are all interpolated between each other to calculate the SD.

Anyway so I think if we start messing with the overlap allowed these maps will also need tweaking. We have them all mapped but will definitely need some testing by a competent tuner to discover how they should best be tuned.

[headsex]

Correct, they are individually wired, so they can be individually controlled to match desired cam angle vs actual in a pid loop. Both cams in the BA move.

I have not had time to look at the BA in this regard. I could look at this and see if they can be controlled by the software but only after we get a Beta release. The way I have written the mapping of the calibrations it will just pop up. Ford implied that individual control was something they put in the BF but the hardware was already there so this tallies with what is being said. Like gear based boost control it may be back "stichable" into earlier releases but headsex will know more about BA/BF capabilities.

yes. my understanding was that the BA was originally planned to have dual fully independent VCT, but the BA PCM wasn't really up to the task (there was an interview with ford on autospeed talking about it) .. hence the upgraded PCM for the BF. IT's the main reason I have upgraded most of the looms in my car to BF.. and why I have BF PCM's all over the place here.. When I put my new engine in down the track I'm swapping the dash and engine bay looms and from there my cars electrical system is basically BF fairmont ghia with the only part of the BA loom being used is the C plug. (with the pins changed to match the BF PCM of course.)

Just found it..

The new DOHC Ford 4.0 six incorporates dual VCT where the inlet and exhaust cam is phased in tandem - why aren't they adjusted individually to allow changing of valve overlap?

"It's actually technology limited. We'd have to up the capacity of the engine management module - which is already very powerful - and we'd then have to invest a lot of mapping time. All the software that you require to throw the cams independently at any point in time triples or quadruples the mapping task - even as it is, it's a horrendous task.

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.ht ... Two&A=1904

The BA does have independent CAM control, in the sense that, each solenoid controls each cam separately in a pid loop based on desired angle. It however is the SAME desired angle for both cams together.

I believe more of the problem is the last part of the statement "and we'd then have to invest a lot of mapping time. All the software that you require to throw the cams independently at any point in time triples or quadruples the mapping task - even as it is, it's a horrendous task."

Further more, there is proof that there is a hardware limitation given that rapid packet is not compiled into the blackoak code. In saying that, USA Blackoaks did!

[rolls]

Further more, there is proof that there is a hardware limitation given that rapid packet is not compiled into the blackoak code. In saying that, USA Blackoaks did!

What is rapid packet, for datalogging? Implying the CPU is slower?

I read thats why they went to the spanish oak, less ROM but more power.

Have you ever investigated playing around with the overlap yourself?

[headsex]

Rapid packet vs single requests. For data logging yes.

I tune the cams all the time because they are not setup for performance in mind.

[rolls]

Where are the best gains to be had?