Tuning the Ford Ranger 2.3 Ecoboost

[Psykostevo]

POST #4

Rather than use a Driver Demanded Torque setup that is varied by gear like the Focus RS uses, the Ranger uses a different strategy that is based on modifying the Driver Demanded Torque value based on the Pedal % and the corresponding Output Shaft Speed of the transmission. This is a multiplier that is factored on top of the Driver Demanded Torque table to offset that value either positively or negatively.

The Ranger's table is not as cut and dry as the one in the manual transmission equipped Focus RS. The Ranger has the disadvantage of having a sort of convoluted calculation seeing as how different speeds across different gears can be equal to the exact same Output Shaft Speed. The OSS is not always equal to a specific RPM in a specific gear like you would get with the Gear-based torque tables in the Focus RS.

One way you could eliminate the confusion of this table would be to set all of the values to 1.00 in the Ranger table so that you would command only what was in your Driver Demand table. I would only recommend doing this if you are struggling with inconsistencies in boost targets between gears, and are trying to make sense of the Driver Demanded Torque relative to your RPM only without the added factor of the transmission's Output Shaft Speed coming into play.

What we can infer from reading the Ranger's stock PEDAL MAP RATIO table is that at lower driveshaft speeds the amount of torque commanded from the ECU is reduced by as much as 25%. This is no doubt a way of reducing drivetrain stress during launches, but it can also be a source of hesitation off the line if you are trying to floor it from a stop or from slow speeds. Additionally the multiplication factor in the bottom right part of the MAP would be adding to demanded torque at higher speeds, and could be a source of unintended overboosting (followed by subsequent part throttle closures).

FOCUS RS GEAR BASED TABLES:

FORD RANGER OUTPUT SHAFT SPEED FACTOR TABLE:

Sponsored

 

[Doc]

POST #3

Within the tune there are multiple Maps for determining Demanded Throttle position versus Pedal position. You may experience the difference in feel between the Drive mode and Sport modes in the way that the Accelerator Pedal feels and how the engine responds. There are other pedal tables in there for Sand, Snow, Towing, etc that can all be customized to your liking.

RANGER DRIVE PEDAL MAP VERUS SPORT PEDAL MAP:

You can see that it takes less pedal % after 19.2% pedal travel to get the ECU to open the throttle beyond that. The DRIVE mode is perfectly linear, with a 1:1 ratio of input to demand, whereas the SPORT mode begins to incrementally increase the demanded percentage with the higher pedal percentage input. This is akin to the type of increased signal output that you can get from Pedal Commanders or those other plug and play pedal "tuners". Changing these numbers up or down will not change the potential output of the engine, but they will just change the % of commanded torque requested in the Driver Demand table relative to your foot position to the floor. You can think of changing these tables, or using a pedal commander as just adjusting the sensitivity up or down for different throttle control.

Good info...but I won’t change a thing.....phenomenal tune by Torrie !
Regards

 

[Psykostevo]

POST #5

The stock Fuel Rail Pressure (created by the High Pressure Fuel Pump) has an intentional taper at higher load and higher RPM. This is fine due to the stock Driver Demand Torque table having a similar taper in commanded power output too. But if you plan to add more power at higher RPMs you should consider increasing the values in the bottom right of the table to something that maintains the peak Fuel Rail Pressure.

By increasing the duty cycle of pump at higher loads and higher RPMs will likely increase the wear and tear on the High Pressure Fuel Pump over the long run, but it is a necessary evil if you want to make power up top. The stock pump is definitely capable of maintaining the 3625psi of Fuel Rail Pressure well above 5,000 RPMs.

By increasing the Fuel Rail Pressure you can effectively reduce the relative Injector Duty Cycle at that RPM, which allows you to deliver more Fuel Mass in the short period of time that we have for an Injector Window with the Direct Injection system.

Stock Ranger Fuel Rail Pressure table:

 

[Psykostevo]

POST #6

Other types of Fuel Tables that you can modify in order to squeeze more fuel delivery out of the stock fuel pump and stock fuel injectors are the following:

MAX INJ ANGLE: This is the Maximum Degrees of Crank Rotation that the Injector can spray. Increase this value at your own risk, but doing so can allow for more fuel mass delivered between start of injection and the spark event. This is essentially the INJECTOR WINDOW.

MAX DUTY CYCLE: I commonly leave this alone, but some people swear by increasing this to 1.100 or essentially 110% Duty Cycle.

MAX DC VS ECT: This table is set to 0.95 across the board, so this is holding back 5% of the injectors maximum fuel flow. When looking for extra flow, keep in mind that you can easily increase this number up to 1.00 if you need the additional flow, even without adjusting any of the other Injector Angle settings. This may be your Go-To table first before messing with changing your Injector Window as this just changes your effective Flow Rate Maximum.

SOI MINIMUM: This is the Minimum Crank Degrees that the Start of Injection can begin. If you lower this value you can increase your available injector window as well, but again you do so at your own risk.

Generally if you are on stock turbo, with just gasoline as your fuel you should not have a need to adjust these values. The need arises to modify these when you run a fuel that is high in Ethanol Content at high airflow levels, or strictly when you are running a bigger turbo that flows enough air to demand higher levels of fuel than you can deliver at your desired Fuel Rail Pressure. If you feel that you may be demanding a lot of fuel, be sure to keep an eye on Fuel Rail Pressure, as a sudden drop in that can create massive spikes in Injector Duty Cycle and create a Lean event.

 

[Lunchbox88]

Cool insight! So what do you think your strategy is going to be for your truck? Start messing with the driver demanded torque table to reduce the torque limits?

 

[Psykostevo]

Cool insight! So what do you think your strategy is going to be for your truck? Start messing with the driver demanded torque table to reduce the torque limits?

I’m already way ahead of this on my truck at the moment. I figured I would pass down some Information for others to gain an understanding. Even if they don’t tune themselves, maybe they just might want to know some of these things.

Tuning Torque-Based ECUs are a lot more involved than how tuning was in the late 90’s and early 2000’s when you could just adjust your AFR and throw some timing at it and call it a day. These complex calculations require a lot more mathematics.

For my truck, I have raised the limiters (which I will cover in later posts) so that I can hit higher torque and boost targets without triggering a condition in the ECU that would call for Throttle Closure. I also have the Driver Demand Torque table where I feel comfortable on 91 Octane. I hit a pretty solid 23psi on the current setup.

The next adventure will be to introduce Ethanol fuels. Here in Arizona we don’t have the good E85, so we tend to just get E55 at the pump. I don’t plan to add any more boost with it, but it should accommodate the addition of more Timing Advance, which will help produce more top end Horsepower.

This new/bigger turbo is great on the Ranger, and a definite step up from the one that comes on the Mustangs. But even with all the airflow it’s capable of, it still becomes a bottleneck above 5,500 rpm when commanding high airloads. It delivers a good amount of air, but once it hits its airload limit, the Airmass remains rather constant while the RPMs increase so naturally we get a drop in power.

Im sure I’ll stay on the stock turbo forever on this truck, but I think some supporting mods may be in order too. Namely a Catless downpipe, since I feel that the extra exhaust temps I am producing at WOT will cause premature failure of the stock catalytic converter.

 

[Lunchbox88]

I’m already way ahead of this on my truck at the moment. I figured I would pass down some Information for others to gain an understanding. Even if they don’t tune themselves, maybe they just might want to know some of these things.

Tuning Torque-Based ECUs are a lot more involved than how tuning was in the late 90’s and early 2000’s when you could just adjust your AFR and throw some timing at it and call it a day. These complex calculations require a lot more mathematics.

For my truck, I have raised the limiters (which I will cover in later posts) so that I can hit higher torque and boost targets without triggering a condition in the ECU that would call for Throttle Closure. I also have the Driver Demand Torque table where I feel comfortable on 91 Octane. I hit a pretty solid 23psi on the current setup.

The next adventure will be to introduce Ethanol fuels. Here in Arizona we don’t have the good E85, so we tend to just get E55 at the pump. I don’t plan to add any more boost with it, but it should accommodate the addition of more Timing Advance, which will help produce more top end Horsepower.

This new/bigger turbo is great on the Ranger, and a definite step up from the one that comes on the Mustangs. But even with all the airflow it’s capable of, it still becomes a bottleneck above 5,500 rpm when commanding high airloads. It delivers a good amount of air, but once it hits its airload limit, the Airmass remains rather constant while the RPMs increase so naturally we get a drop in power.

Im sure I’ll stay on the stock turbo forever on this truck, but I think some supporting mods may be in order too. Namely a Catless downpipe, since I feel that the extra exhaust temps I am producing at WOT will cause premature failure of the stock catalytic converter.

Awesome keep us posted! Would love to see the comparison with what you have changed. This stuff is super interesting to me, so ill be watching this thread for updates.

 

[djrobb]

Really great info, thanks for sharing. I have the tune from Unleashed but it's really interesting to see these tables and what's behind it. Really appreciate you sharing your insights and knowledge.

 

[Andy]

I’m already way ahead of this on my truck at the moment. I figured I would pass down some Information for others to gain an understanding. Even if they don’t tune themselves, maybe they just might want to know some of these things.

Tuning Torque-Based ECUs are a lot more involved than how tuning was in the late 90’s and early 2000’s when you could just adjust your AFR and throw some timing at it and call it a day. These complex calculations require a lot more mathematics.

For my truck, I have raised the limiters (which I will cover in later posts) so that I can hit higher torque and boost targets without triggering a condition in the ECU that would call for Throttle Closure. I also have the Driver Demand Torque table where I feel comfortable on 91 Octane. I hit a pretty solid 23psi on the current setup.

The next adventure will be to introduce Ethanol fuels. Here in Arizona we don’t have the good E85, so we tend to just get E55 at the pump. I don’t plan to add any more boost with it, but it should accommodate the addition of more Timing Advance, which will help produce more top end Horsepower.

This new/bigger turbo is great on the Ranger, and a definite step up from the one that comes on the Mustangs. But even with all the airflow it’s capable of, it still becomes a bottleneck above 5,500 rpm when commanding high airloads. It delivers a good amount of air, but once it hits its airload limit, the Airmass remains rather constant while the RPMs increase so naturally we get a drop in power.

Im sure I’ll stay on the stock turbo forever on this truck, but I think some supporting mods may be in order too. Namely a Catless downpipe, since I feel that the extra exhaust temps I am producing at WOT will cause premature failure of the stock catalytic converter.

Keep us updated on your ethanol ventures. I am running an e50 tune right now and would be curious as to how it’s performing at 7000+ft elevation. I can always send you datalogs if you are curious.

 

[Psykostevo]

Keep us updated on your ethanol ventures. I am running an e50 tune right now and would be curious as to how it’s performing at 7000+ft elevation. I can always send you datalogs if you are curious.

What software are you using for capturing the log files?

 

[Andy]

What software are you using for capturing the log files?

I use NGauge bu I can log with live link for sct as well.

 

[Psykostevo]

I use NGauge bu I can log with live link for sct as well.

I would assume the nGauge would log in .hpl files that I could open in VCM Scanner

 

[Andy]

I would assume the nGauge would log in .hpl files that I could open in VCM Scanner

Yeah that would work best then. Any particular PID’s you want to see?

 

[Psykostevo]

Yeah that would work best then. Any particular PID’s you want to see?

I have a channel setup with the pids I use in VCMScanner. Does the nGauge let you use channels like that? Rather than have to list the massive amount of ones I log.

 

[Indy650]

thank you for sharing this information it's rare to find someone who is this knowledgeable and also willing to share their research.

Sponsored