jeff711981
-
Posts
147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Everything posted by jeff711981
-
2014 2.0l Ecoboost sounds like a diesle engine.
jeff711981 replied to Ownix's topic in Ford Fusion EcoBoost
That's NOT normal, especially when warm. Take it to the dealership. If they say it's normal, ask them to extend the powertrain warranty to at least 100k miles. There's no reason any modern engine should sound like that. Only an old engine with a flat tappet cam badly in need of a lash adjustment should sound like that when warm. -
See actual fuel mileage according to Fuelly in my signature. 2013 1.6L
-
In some of my datalogs there is, though (I believe the full datalog I posted this afternoon shows a degree for a few data points). There's a degree here and there. What I don't know is whether THOSE are flukes or if it's a fluke that it's normally zero. Tapping on the engine block with a ratchet should get a reaction out of the knock sensor, though, so that'll be my definitive test to see whether this PID is useless or actually logging data from the knock sensor.
-
I actually just got a response from the guy who's going to be supplying my custom tune eventually and you're right. He says the default PID for the knock sensor is not accurate/not logging the correct data. I plan to test this, however, and tap on the engine block while it's running to see if it shows up in the log. If it doesn't, then it's definitely not the correct data... if it does, then I'd say his statement is based on a lack of data, since he hasn't even begun the tuning process on mine (still waiting for SCT to get their stuff together, apparently).
-
Lemme tell you how I'm reading that datalog... At about 3366 I really start to tip into the throttle and I'm full throttle by 3367.5 Air/fuel (lambse bank1) goes rich right at that same time, so it's dumping in more fuel in response to my right foot. (based on 14.7:1 stoich for gasoline, that equates to about 11.5:1 air/fuel ratio with lambse at .8) At the same time, spark advance actually spikes 10 degrees retarded just before 3368 and almost immediately comes back to 6 degrees advanced as engine RPM increases and eventually gets to 13.5 degrees advanced before it shifts gears and RPM drops. The entire time, the knock sensor output is zero. Meaning timing is not being advanced, nor retarded based on the knock sensor's output. That datalog is with 87 octane. One thing to keep in mind is that due to the denser charge in the combustion chamber with a high compression, forced induction engine, the air/fuel mixture burns faster, so not as much timing advance is needed in order for the flame front to move fast enough at high engine speed to completely burn the fuel, without burning too quickly as I described in one of my previous posts.
-
When I log, I typically log my entire drive to/from work, not multiple WOT runs one after the other. Here's an uphill WOT run from about 25mph to 75mph. http://www.filedropper.com/datalog1towork20psiwot
-
I can show you a WOT log from mine, if you like...
-
It's really not that complicated. If timing isn't being retarded due to the knock sensor's output, the limits of the fuel's resistance to detonation are not being pushed. Period. End of story. There is absolutely no other way (that I know of) for the computer to know that the fuel can't handle more heat/pressure before self-igniting. You're welcome to explain why that statement is wrong and I'll gladly accept the correction. Agreed. And if knock never happens, the ECU is not advancing timing to the limit of what the fuel can handle, and increasing the octane rating of the fuel will do absolutely nothing to increase performance nor fuel economy, and MAY actually hurt performance or economy because higher octane fuel burns slower than lower octane fuel. The speed of the flame front as it moves through the combustion chamber actually matters. Too slow and the piston starts moving down before all the air fuel is finished burning and compression drastically reduces and you end up with an incomplete burn. Too fast and the flame front moves across the entire combustion chamber before the piston reaches TDC and you've wasted energy working against the piston.
-
This is what it looks like when the ECU is responding to the knock sensor output. Positive numbers indicate timing is being retarded by that many degrees. Negative numbers mean timing is being advanced by that many degrees. A flat line means timing is not being retarded, nor advanced. What that tells me is that the computer is not testing the limits of the fuel to get the most power nor the most efficiency. And in turn, switching to a higher grade fuel likely won't result in any performance benefit, and switching to a lower grade fuel likely won't result in any performance degradation as some other factor is what's limiting the amount of timing advance that is being used and it likely won't matter if you put 86 octane bargain gas or 110 octane racing fuel in - economy and performance will not change.
-
Correct. But if the engine NEVER knocks, that means it's NEVER pushing the limits of what the fuel can handle.
-
How would it know if the fuel changed if it doesn't continually advance timing until knock occurs? The method you stated works fine assuming the octane of the fuel will only ever decrease. But what if I've been running 87 for months and switch to 93? If it doesn't keep advancing timing until knock occurs, how would it ever know I put 93 in it?
-
Its resistance to detonation allows a leaner air/fuel mixture at cruising conditions as well as more optimum combustion at higher engine speeds where there is less time (due to the higher engine speed) for the fuel to burn before the piston finishes the compression stroke and begins the exhaust stroke.
-
I don't think we're supposed to talk about this anymore, but I'm curious... how does the software "actively search for higher octane fuel?" Are you saying there's a sensor somewhere in the fuel system that can detect the fuel's resistance to self-ignition, other than the knock sensor, of course, but that's not "in" the fuel system.
-
Is this not a discussion forum? Can we not discuss the benefits of different octane levels here? The original post was a question about whether 93 octane provided a real life performance improvement over 87. All I'm doing is attempting to answer that with actual data. If others can't keep it together and want to tell people with differing views to STFU, that's not my fault, nor my problem and I think we'd all appreciate it if a moderator dealt with them specifically and allowed actual valid discussions to proceed. However, if this type of discussion is not valued here, just say the word, or lock the thread and I'll move along to a site which doesn't discourage its members from having differing opinions and providing evidence to support their opinions.
-
Give me an email address. I'll send you a 5 MB zip file with the most recent datalog I've collected. Has about an hours worth of data in it and there's only one instance of timing being retarded by 1 degree for a fraction of a second. You can download SCT's software here if you don't want to graph the CSV yourself... I'll even collect a brand new one tonight. http://sctflash.com/software/LiveLink_Gen-II.exe Nevermind the email address - here ya go... for anyone to look at... http://www.filedropper.com/datalog10
-
Well, it appears we can argue semantics all day. If 3% is huge to anyone here, I suggest they look up the definition of the word, as they've clearly misunderstood what it really means. And again - if someone believes I'm way off base and 93 octane really does make a big difference in the area under the torque curve even if the increase in peak is only 3%, I'll say the same thing I said in my first reply - show me the data.
-
No, I'm not;
-
My point is that the gains by switching to 93 octane likely cannot be described as "huge" with the stock tune as it may not even be advancing timing to the point at which detonation would occur even with 87 octane. As I said before... I won't say any of you are wrong, just that the "butt dyno" is unscientific and any real change felt while driving would absolutely be measurable and visible in data logs, which is what I'd prefer to see before spending an extra 15% on fuel as opposed to the perception of people who "know" that they just put "high performance gas" in their car.
-
I understand you're being facetious, but neither Ford nor any manufacturer will publish facts for each individual vehicle they produce under every possible operating condition. What they do do, is produce vehicles with a computer program generic enough that the engine will run properly under most operating conditions the vehicle will encounter throughout its life.
-
Both. I don't have them in front of me, but there are several timing related items logged, one of which is how many degrees timing is being retarded due to the output of the knock sensor. See here: http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/2011-2014-mustang-talk/416697-sct-datalog-knock-sensor-pid.html
-
What should happen and what does happen are sometimes different. There are other factors that determine how far advanced the computer will set the timing. If those factors don't allow the timing to be advanced to the point at which detonation would begin to happen it won't matter what a Ford employee says or what common sense tells you.
-
I guess the only way to know for sure would be to look at a datalog. Speculation only gets ya so far.
-
The fact that mine is never retarding timing because of the knock sensor tells me it's not advancing timing enough to take advantage of higher octane fuel. This is also one of the reasons a custom tune is so effective on these engines. A custom (performance) tune will advance timing more aggressively and only pull back when it detects preignition. Maybe the 2.0L engine's programming is different, but I doubt it.
-
So far I've only seen opinions based on ones' "butt dyno" which is susceptible to the placebo effect. (correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from Ford's published spec, nobody here has any hard numbers from dyno pulls, etc. to support the benefits of 93 over regular) I'm not saying everyone who says their car runs better on premium is wrong. But I will say that a 3% increase in peak power is not "huge" by any stretch of the imagination, if you even see that in the real world. It's also important to keep in mind what the octane rating actually means - the fuel's resistance to preignition. It has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of energy present in the fuel or the quality of the fuel. I could go into a whole lot of detail that most people here probably won't read, but suffice it to say, it's reasonable to assume that using premium fuel in our 10.5:1 compression, turbocharged engines would result in better performance. However, I can tell you that in the ~8 hours of datalogs I've pulled from my car with my SCT Tuner and running 87 octane, I have never once seen the computer retard timing due to the knock sensor. I'm hoping that is fixed with the custom tune I'm having done... if it ever gets finished... it's apparently taking a really long time since SCT didn't have my strategy in their database yet.
-
Like I said, I understand why Ford does it that way, but I would rather it lock up sooner and raise boost sooner, even if it means more fuel consumption... maybe even just in sport mode to make the engine feel more connected to the wheels. Maybe I'll see if my guy can change shift points and TCC lockup differently in sport mode vs. drive. *EDIT* Turbo lag is basically a non-issue with this engine in my experience anyway... when I go full throttle, boost comes up immediately (accelerator pedal position is dark blue, boost is light blue and intake manifold pressure is orange):