Calibration Integrity of the 2010–2012 EcoBoost SHO HPTuners

Hahahahahaha mystery solved. I was in VCM Editor basic view. I needed to be in Advanced View. So I exposed a missing definition in basic view but it’s in advanced view. Well, learned 2 things. We are exposing definitions properly and accurately and now we are in advanced view, which in hindsight what a crazy option hey, do you want to be able to see only some stuff yeah that’s a good idea. How about we just only look at some of the stuff and give us Control to some of it.
That’s ok. On track now

Sent this to Ryan with my revision: I may have conceded you too soon. I found and exposed an inverse torque load clip and it was exactly what was active holding the car back in my last test. I then learned that it’s already exposed and I was always in BASIC view. ‍ but I’m exposing definitions perfectly.

I see you set it to 3.0 load. Maybe previously wondering why the car was holding back? I think it’s an excellent safety limiter so I ramped mine up to 2.0 load around 3,750 rpm then it’s all 2.1. In case it wants to overshoot it’ll get clipped. To me that’s perfect.

My Driver demand max 500 request is going to make about 1.8 load bc it should end up about 560-580 on IT and 1.8 range on inverse. Your explanation was too simplified there’s no log or file that supports a max driver demand request cutely landing on IT and inverse load.

I also completed my training for advanced parameters and have reset the dead system DTC’s in the new file DMJKB52. As well as disabled my annoying TPMS light in Forscan.

I’ll be testing what my Driver Demand can really do on the next test. Again my OSS is smoothed to give my cautious foot near max and as I press it more it’ll just be the max and never exceed my max with my earlier multiplier. So we will see if you were accurate. Does my 500 DD land at 1.6 load or 1.8? Only one way to find out

So tuning this car is to accurately command load. Boost is merely a byproduct. It’ll command boost all on its own to satisfy the torque request if its pressure limits are reasonable and calculated just above targets, it’ll use it. My math puts this car at 1.7-1.9 load all day. Just does it do it at 18 or 20+psi? This way I’m learning to command load and calculate the boost the car will need. So it’s always a load target first, boost target second. Boost target is what I build my spark strategy around for the fuel I’m using. The silent inverse torque clip set intentionally just above my load target ensures the car always has a safety fence.

It’s an incredibly satisfying loop. Tune, log and detail and take pics.

Car is ready. Clean, tuned, plenty of 93 in the fuel cell. After work it’s test time

Kevlar Rev2 Summary

The pull itself was actually a major success once the data was separated from the 3–4 confusion.

The car reached the 2.10 desired-load clip repeatedly, with actual load peaking at 2.141 in 4th. Corrected boost peaked around 24 psi, although it was closer to 22.4 psi at peak airflow. Turbo airflow reached 61.23 lb/min, basically right against the 62 lb/min Turbo FMEM limit. Engine Brake Torque peaked at 551 lb-ft in 4th. EMP stayed exceptionally good, peaking around 21 psi and remaining near or below boost. Spark ramped cleanly to the 16° ceiling with no positive knock.

The important shift-scheduling mistake was realizing that the 6200-rpm value was telling the transmission when to begin the shift, not where I wanted the completed shift to occur. With the engine accelerating that quickly, starting the 3–4 at 6200 left almost no room before the 6600-rpm engine-speed authority became active.

At the 3–4, the PCM encountered both Engine Speed Limit and Turbo FMEM intervention. The TCM appeared to lose confidence in the handoff and commanded 3–4–3–4 before finally staying in 4th. This was not a normal clutch flare, and the converter was intentionally released during that section. The actual completed 3–4 did not show a conventional RPM flare.

Once it finally established 4th, the car was excellent. Load, airflow, boost and torque were all strong and stable. I lifted before it could perform a true WOT 4–5, so WOT 4–5 was not validated, but the later 4–5 under reduced load was smooth and showed no issue.

The next file now commands the WOT shifts at 5850 rpm with the goal of having the physical shift complete around 6200. I also lowered Desired TIP Max from 75.33 to 72 inHg absolute, which should bring the practical boost target down to about 21 psi. The Turbo FMEM airflow limits were raised conservatively from 60/62 to 68/70 lb/min, and I added only a small amount of low-airflow WGDC for spool. The 500 DD request, 2.10 inverse-load clip and 16° spark ceiling remain.

The torque-request discussion is still unresolved. The 500-lb-ft Driver Demand table was clearly the upstream source, but the processed ETC/brake request reached roughly 655–670 lb-ft and Scheduled Torque reached roughly 740 lb-ft before being converted into the 2.10 desired-load request.

Ryan’s position appears to be that because a 500 DD entry resulted in approximately 655 lb-ft of processed request, entering 655 DD would effectively be the same. I still do not see that supported anywhere in the data. The log consistently trends in the intuitive direction: more upstream request produces more downstream request until another limiter clips it. Raising the original DD source should not somehow neutralize the processing that increased the 500 request unless another modifier is simultaneously changed.

Later in clean 4th gear, when the active torque source returned to Driver Demand, the channels were much more coherent: roughly 516–530 lb-ft ETC/brake request, 598–610 lb-ft Scheduled Torque, 2.02–2.05 load and approximately 500–530 lb-ft Engine Brake Torque. That section strongly supports 500 DD already being enough to create approximately 2.0 load and 500-plus brake torque. I am not raising the maximum request simply because the controller processes it into a higher internal torque domain.

One of the biggest discoveries was that TIP Max is effectively the practical boost-control ceiling on this setup. The electronic bypass valves are disabled because the car uses mechanical TiAL BOVs, so the PCM cannot open the factory eBOVs to trim compressor pressure during a pull. The mechanical BOVs remain closed under boost and are not WOT boost regulators.

That leaves Desired TIP, wastegate duty and throttle as the PCM’s main pressure-control tools. The old Max Pressure value was 75.33 inHg absolute, and the log showed Desired TIP repeatedly hitting exactly 75.33. At the logged barometric pressure, that represented approximately 22.6 psi desired boost, and actual boost overshot to approximately 24 psi.

So the PCM was not accidentally wandering into that boost, it was using every bit of pressure the calibration permitted. Max Pressure has now been lowered to 72 inHg absolute, approximately 21 psi gauge at the same atmospheric pressure. Wastegate control will attempt to achieve that TIP target, while the 2.10 load clip remains the airmass ceiling and throttle remains available for intervention.

In simple terms:

Torque request → desired load → desired TIP → TIP Max ceiling → WGDC controls the turbos

With no electronic bypass-valve authority, lowering TIP Max is the cleanest direct way to reduce the boost the PCM is permitted to pursue.

The remaining concern is hydraulic. After the pull, mild acceleration was okay, but adding more load caused a shudder. When I got home, Reverse would engage and move the car a few feet, then lose holding capacity while backing up my steep driveway. I repeated that three or four times. Cycling the ignition immediately restored Reverse as though nothing had happened.

That now points toward one of two things:

1)The fluid level is marginal. This transmission has historically hesitated on the WOT 1–2 when filled only to the normal full mark, and adding one extra pint fixed it. I did not perform that intentional overfill this time.
2)The valve body/main-control and solenoid assembly is losing hydraulic stability when hot or heavily demanded.

The plan is to warm it normally, verify the fluid level correctly, add the known extra pint and retest. If TCC shudder, pressure loss or weak Reverse returns, the test is over and the valve body, solenoid assembly and TRS will be replaced.

Kevlar Rev3 is ready.

Kevlar Rev3 update:

Tonight’s pull was the cleanest yet. The new 72-inHg TIP ceiling worked exactly as intended, holding Desired TIP to roughly 21 psi while actual boost peaked around 22.1 psi. The car carried 2.0-plus load, peaked at 2.149 actual load and approximately 543 lb-ft Engine Brake Torque, with no positive knock, no Turbo FMEM and no Engine Speed Limit intervention.

The added transmission fluid also looks extremely promising. After ending up slightly over one additional quart, Reverse worked before the pull and still worked afterward on the same key cycle. That is the strongest evidence yet that the previous TCC shudder and weak Reverse may have been caused by insufficient fluid volume rather than a failed valve body or solenoid assembly.

I did manually command the 3–4 while beginning to lift, so that was not a valid full-torque shift test. However, it still proved the new engine calibration stayed stable without the previous 3–4–3–4 confusion.

I lowered every WOT shift-start value another 50 rpm:
These values tell the transmission when to begin shifting, not where the completed shift occurs. With the expected 300–500 rpm carry during clutch application, 5,800 should place the actual completed shifts close to the 6,200-rpm target while maintaining plenty of distance from the 6,600-rpm engine-speed limit.

We also added a small deceleration crackle experiment:
-Closed-throttle DFCO delay: 0.15 second
-Warm decel spark cap:
-2,500 rpm: 10°
-3,000 rpm: 5°
-4,000 rpm: 0°

It worked far more effectively than expected. A loaded pull followed by a complete lift produced a rapid string of pops rather than one isolated crack. I left the spark the same but reduced closed-throttle delay to 0.05 and will retest. That should slow it down a bit. I want to try to get it to be OEM+ just a crackle here and there more than normal.

Tomorrow’s test will be the real validation:
-Full automatic 3–4 at WOT
-Actual completed shift RPM
-Sustained 4th-gear load and airflow
-TCC holding after the shift
-Reverse operation after another full heat cycle
-Confirmation that the added fluid solved the hydraulic instability

For the first time it’s looking real coherent

Funny if it was just low trans fluid. Honestly that’s best case scenario. Once hot gets finicky. Sure. We’ll see.

Today isn’t a fishing trip it’s validation. Does the TCM shift around 6200rpm? Does the TCM maintain hydraulic pressure once hot? Does load hold at 2.1? Does the TCC recover and hold? Does Reverse work at max temp?

If the answer is Yes, then this may be the first genuinely dialed in 93 octane tune and run pretty damn hard. Would be worthy of a full pull I’d say. And see if it can be dialed in further depending on the datalog.