HPTuners Theory

Kill

New member
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
215
If anyone else has been having problems with their numbers not adding up between their tunes and their logs, this may be of some help. I have been messing with this for a while and haven't been able to test every table, but from what I have found all of the tables labeled "Adder" in the editor for early 04 trucks are actually either minimum or maximum value limiters to the corresponding base table. I have mostly messed around with the rail pressure tables so I will use those as an example.

It had been bugging me that my rail pressure values in my logs never seemed to match my base table except for basically wide open throttle. So I started messing with the ECTxIAT adder table. I attempted to disable it by setting the coefficients to zero. The result was a truck that would start hard and barely ran. Not what you would expect to happen with the current labels. So since zero didn't do what I wanted, I went and tried the max coefficient found in the table, which was 5. Voila, rail pressure from my logs now matched my base table perfectly. But why? To try and figure out how this was all working , I put the coefficient table back to stock and zeroed out the adder table. Had the same result as when I zeroed out the coefficient table. I'll skip some in between steps here as I tried flattening out the adder table with a few different values, but the coefficient table was skipping around making my data inconsistent.

It was about this time that I formed a theory, so I set the coefficient table to one and and started playing with the adder table again. I set the entire adder table to three and the truck would barely run with rail pressure only staying between 29-31 MPa, so I upped it to 4 and tried again. Truck started fine, idled normal but rail pressure on a drive only varied between 37-39 MPa. Next test was to set the adder table to 10 and try again, the result was rail pressure that would follow the base map up to a max value of 98 MPa. Setting the table to 20 allowed rail pressure to follow the base table almost perfectly everywhere once again. Now you probably noticed a pattern here, values of 3, 4, and 10 in the adder table with a coefficient of one equaled a limit of approximately 30 MPa, 40 MPa, and 100 MPa. Which means 20 would equal 200 MPa and be higher than any value on the base map removing all limiting. So if this table really is in MPa, another digit needs to be tacked on to everything in the software.

All of this led me to the conclusion that the adder tables for rail pressure were a maximum limiting table, so I started applying this to other tables in the editor. However, if you look at the coefficient modifiers for most of the other tables in the tune they are set to 0 in the normal operating temp range. This leads to the conclusion that these are minimum value limiting tables and not maximum value limiting. I believe the only other max limiting table besides the ones for rail pressure is the ECTxIAT Pilot Timing table.

I have been following this theory, and so far it seems to hold water for my truck. The only times I haven't been able to get the truck to do what I want it to is when I hit misfire minimum timing, which affects the main timing and there also seems to be something else that affects the maximum pilot timing allowed as well. Keep in mind this is all on an early 04 truck, I haven't had the chance to test it on anything else. I'm looking forward to seeing if all of this correlates to what other people have been seeing.
 
I don't have hp tuners but with efi live the pilot coolant temp adjust table act as a limiter for timing and qty even though it says it is suppose to add. Sounds really similar to what your seeing.

Sent from my XT1055 using Tapatalk
 
If anyone else has been having problems with their numbers not adding up between their tunes and their logs, this may be of some help. I have been messing with this for a while and haven't been able to test every table, but from what I have found all of the tables labeled "Adder" in the editor for early 04 trucks are actually either minimum or maximum value limiters to the corresponding base table. I have mostly messed around with the rail pressure tables so I will use those as an example.

It had been bugging me that my rail pressure values in my logs never seemed to match my base table except for basically wide open throttle. So I started messing with the ECTxIAT adder table. I attempted to disable it by setting the coefficients to zero. The result was a truck that would start hard and barely ran. Not what you would expect to happen with the current labels. So since zero didn't do what I wanted, I went and tried the max coefficient found in the table, which was 5. Voila, rail pressure from my logs now matched my base table perfectly. But why? To try and figure out how this was all working , I put the coefficient table back to stock and zeroed out the adder table. Had the same result as when I zeroed out the coefficient table. I'll skip some in between steps here as I tried flattening out the adder table with a few different values, but the coefficient table was skipping around making my data inconsistent.

It was about this time that I formed a theory, so I set the coefficient table to one and and started playing with the adder table again. I set the entire adder table to three and the truck would barely run with rail pressure only staying between 29-31 MPa, so I upped it to 4 and tried again. Truck started fine, idled normal but rail pressure on a drive only varied between 37-39 MPa. Next test was to set the adder table to 10 and try again, the result was rail pressure that would follow the base map up to a max value of 98 MPa. Setting the table to 20 allowed rail pressure to follow the base table almost perfectly everywhere once again. Now you probably noticed a pattern here, values of 3, 4, and 10 in the adder table with a coefficient of one equaled a limit of approximately 30 MPa, 40 MPa, and 100 MPa. Which means 20 would equal 200 MPa and be higher than any value on the base map removing all limiting. So if this table really is in MPa, another digit needs to be tacked on to everything in the software.

All of this led me to the conclusion that the adder tables for rail pressure were a maximum limiting table, so I started applying this to other tables in the editor. However, if you look at the coefficient modifiers for most of the other tables in the tune they are set to 0 in the normal operating temp range. This leads to the conclusion that these are minimum value limiting tables and not maximum value limiting. I believe the only other max limiting table besides the ones for rail pressure is the ECTxIAT Pilot Timing table.

I have been following this theory, and so far it seems to hold water for my truck. The only times I haven't been able to get the truck to do what I want it to is when I hit misfire minimum timing, which affects the main timing and there also seems to be something else that affects the maximum pilot timing allowed as well. Keep in mind this is all on an early 04 truck, I haven't had the chance to test it on anything else. I'm looking forward to seeing if all of this correlates to what other people have been seeing.

I believe you're onto something in regards to the timing tables for the 2003-2004 trucks. BUT..................

2004.5+ trucks have the IAT coefficient table zeroed out in the stock tunes. Something for you to think about there. ;)

Also on 2004.5+ trucks the ECT coefficient and adder tables don't seem to have any effect on main timing. At 100*F ECT and 30*F IAT my truck runs off of the main timing tables.

As far as rail pressure goes in regards to the 2003-2004 trucks, the ECT x IAT coefficient and adder tables don't appear to have any effect on the rail pressure. At least not with the ECT at 193*F.

A driving log with the ECT at or below 100*F or even 140*F to compare the log to the tables would be the only way to tell.

Screen shots from the tune and logs posted in the other thread from yesterday:

attachment.php


attachment.php


My 2004.5 reacts exactly the same when it comes to ECT and RP. At 150*F ECT and 30*F IAT or 100*F ECT and 30*F IAT, my truck runs on the main RP tables with no influence from the ECT coefficient and or adder tables.
 
Last edited:
2004.5+ trucks have the IAT coefficient table zeroed out in the stock tunes. Something for you to think about there. ;)

The IAT coefficient table zeroed out wouldn't apply any limiting to the main timing table so that doesn't contradict anything.

My 2004.5 reacts exactly the same when it comes to ECT and RP. At 150*F ECT and 30*F IAT or 100*F ECT and 30*F IAT, my truck runs on the main RP tables with no influence from the ECT coefficient and or adder tables.

I have been looking through a stock 05 tune and I think the tables may work the same as I theorized, it is just that they are set up to be way less intrusive than the earlier trucks. For example at 150* ECT and 30* IAT your RP coefficient would be 5.1 which wouldn't limit anything. At 100* ECT and 30* IAT the coefficient would be 2.1 and that still wouldn't apply any limiting besides possibly between 1400-1600rpms and around 30mm3 commanded.

For everybody else, I also started a thread over on HP Tuners forum, but I thought there may be more tuners lurking here on compd than over there.

http://www.hptuners.com/forum/showthread.php?55789-Early-04-Adder-Tables
 
The IAT coefficient table zeroed out wouldn't apply any limiting to the main timing table so that doesn't contradict anything.

I have been looking through a stock 05 tune and I think the tables may work the same as I theorized, it is just that they are set up to be way less intrusive than the earlier trucks. For example at 150* ECT and 30* IAT your RP coefficient would be 5.1 which wouldn't limit anything. At 100* ECT and 30* IAT the coefficient would be 2.1 and that still wouldn't apply any limiting besides possibly between 1400-1600rpms and around 30mm3 commanded.

For everybody else, I also started a thread over on HP Tuners forum, but I thought there may be more tuners lurking here on compd than over there.

http://www.hptuners.com/forum/showthread.php?55789-Early-04-Adder-Tables

I didn't say it contradicted anything.

You have been providing excellent info.
 
Have you figured out why main goes into misfire timing and goes to like 10*?
 
Have you figured out why main goes into misfire timing and goes to like 10*?

Unfortunately no, everything I have done to pinpoint what affects it has come up blank. A stock tune will still hit it a little, a no pilot tune will hit it, increasing pilot timing has no effect, and decreasing pilot timing has no effect. The mm3/rpm range where the misfire minimum timing hits always stays constant however, which leads me to believe it must be referencing some table we don't have access to.

I attached a picture I made by copying the max main timing from a log and pasting it over into the editor and comparing it to the desired main timing so you can see the range it hits the worst. This was with a tune with matching base and low altitude tables and all the baro, ect, and iat tables disabled, so the only thing affecting it was the misfire minimum timing.
 

Attachments

  • Misfire.jpg
    Misfire.jpg
    78.3 KB · Views: 0
The one I'm working with seems to be much worse than that, it's basically at 10-12* of main timing from 1200-3200rpm with mm3 from 10-80 ish. Basically makes it undrivable. I've messed with everything that even thinks about timing with no effect on it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I have ever seen it go higher than 10 deg, or have it affect anything above 55mm3 so there goes my hidden table idea i guess. The actual misfire timing values are higher than whats in my picture, those values are just the difference between actual and commanded. I had to end up dropping rail pressure so I could run more timing and sort of tune around it. Right now for me it's either no smoke and timing rattle or a little smoke but it runs a lot smoother.
 
I was reading out of curiosity. This may sound foolish, but could the values be caused by an egt calculation? That sounds counter intuitive, but with little or no knowledge on the matter, it sounds like a torque or egt limiting factor.
(yes, egt can be calculated without a probe)

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk
 
I was reading out of curiosity. This may sound foolish, but could the values be caused by an egt calculation? That sounds counter intuitive, but with little or no knowledge on the matter, it sounds like a torque or egt limiting factor.
(yes, egt can be calculated without a probe)

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

PV=nRT or more to the point T= PV/nRT. Interesting concept...

Paul
 
Back
Top