tuning question
05-14-2022, (Subject: tuning question ) 
Post: #10
RE: tuning question
(05-14-2022 )ptlogan77 Wrote:  I agree on the gearing... I'd prefer 3.73's all day long, but my previous trucke burned to the ground 3 weeks before last year's crab season started up north so I was in a pickle and bought the best of what was available in short notice.

I have ordered an Inline 6 adapter, that will be here on Monday,.

Which programs do I need to install?

I have Windows10 and TeamViewer. Pretty much a Clean hard drive other than that.

you will obviously need the Calterm software to copy the program out of it.,, and Insite (version 8.5+ for an X15 engine) for troubleshooting it.

I don't do remote engine programming or teamviewer for that matter. I encourage people to learn to copy the program into/out of their equipment for themselves. It is typically quite easy to do for someone who knows how to operate a computer to any medium degree. This, so that they have a backup of whatever was done to it.. and they don't end up at the mercy of these tuning clowns every time there is an issue or the ecm needs replacing. - ANY custom programming in a truck that someone has to make their living with.. that truck owner should absolutely have a copy of it for backup purposes.. and so that they can review it to ensure it is not harmful.. I would hope that would be the very least someone would want whenever having anything like that done to their $40,000 commercial engine.


User's Signature: ->: What I post is just my own thoughts and Opinions! --- I AM Full Of S__T!.
replyreply
 Thanks given by: ptlogan77
05-14-2022, (Subject: tuning question ) 
Post: #11
RE: tuning question
I'll get the programs and learn to copy as you've said... Makes more sense to cover my own asset. I will e-mail you a copy when I get all the installs and the adapter.

Thank You.
replyreply
05-15-2022, (Subject: tuning question ) 
Post: #12
RE: tuning question
Hey Ptlogan77-

Where did you order your Inline 6 adapter from? I was thinking of doing the same thing and get away from these mechanics that make it worse with their BS file swapping. I believe they do it on purpose to make the problem worse and have you coming back to empty your wallet in these crazy times for maximum profit for them....Thanks!

Cdxman
replyreply
05-16-2022, (Subject: tuning question ) 
Post: #13
RE: tuning question
Adapter https://www.ebay.com/itm/254353420216?mk...media=COPY this kit works best in case you run into a truck that has lost a terminating resistor as the three pin weather pack connection has a terminating resistor built in so it can be used to test other things on the truck until the trucks terminating resistor is fixed. Just remember that when working on truck with a lost terminating resistor the extension for the three-pin weather pack connection is what has the terminating resistor it's not in the first section of the connection that can be used everything is good


User's Signature: 2010 Lonestar - CM871 - 13sp - 3.70s, 2016 T680 - cm2350 - 13sp - 3.36s - skateboarder
replyreply
05-16-2022, (Subject: tuning question ) 
Post: #14
RE: tuning question
The Adapter that Lonestar suggested is what I got...Got it throug Amazon with one day shipping! already used it, works great.
replyreply
05-17-2022, (Subject: tuning question ) 
Post: #15
RE: tuning question
(05-14-2022 )ptlogan77 Wrote:  I'll get the programs and learn to copy as you've said... Makes more sense to cover my own asset. I will e-mail you a copy when I get all the installs and the adapter.

Thank You.

Well, I was sent the program for your truck a bit ago. Here is what I see in a nut-shell...

It looks like someone tried to copy an older version of the 'MM' program. Most of it looks ok except for a few issues that were done incorrectly. These problems are...

* Someone jacked with the mass flow tables in a very bad way. It looks like they wanted this thing to over-boost the engine, maybe because they did not know that the X15 engine can only take about 30~ish psi or so when deleted?.. it is anyone's guess why someone would do this. - This is significantly harmful to the engine the same that I described in my earlier post on this thread.

* The injection timing is slightly too far advanced, just enough that it will cause some harm with fuel impingement and accelerated valve seat wear. The injection timing looks like its made/copied possibly from a deleted CM2250 or some other enigne, not an X15. - It is not as bad as I have seen most people do, but it is in the danger zone. Whoever made this program was really pushing their luck with a 600HP/2050 X15 engine, and that is not good. I can only guess that someone tried to do this to maybe fool it into some better fuel mileage?.. but this will not be the case. Only eventual harm in the form of accelerated valve seat wear and fuel impingement issues as a result to someone setting it like this. - This could also be why some people have valve seat problems.. and would have issue with the factory head, then try to fix it with some aftergarbage head with after-garbage valve seat mods that don't last for s$it?. - I got a better idea... make the program correctly and this would not be an issue!.

* The turbo is not set very well vs the truck. It is set to under-spool at idle, and will cause it have a high chance to to bleed oil due to a vacuum at the intake. It is also set a bit high on the upper end for a 389pete. The settings are more like someone would see in a mid-tier prostar or cascadia.. and not a big square-nose truck.

* Some of the shutdowns are still able to trigger for the aftertreatment system. These settings include DPF over-temp, SCR over-temp, and a couple others. Looks like someone missed some of these settings somewhere along the way.

* The engine is set to run too rich in the lower torque/fuelling ranges.. and set to lead in the higher HP.torque ranges. =- It looks like they tried to use the same flat-line value for the fuel air mix across the entire engines operating range of rpm and power. - This dulls its power curve and makes for some strange acceleration, etc. Why someone would do this is beyond me... it looks like someone guessing, perhaps lazy, or someone in a hurry made this table.

* the fuel torque conversion table is running in a dertated state. This means the engine will not make the power being requested of it. The way it is set, it is only likely to make about 510-515HP or so on a dyno if tested.

* Speaking of power/trq ... The power/torque was also screwed with. It is set to only actually make 580HP/2050 trq... and NOT the advertised 605HP like the program is supposed to. The power also falls off sharply after 1700RPM .. kinda counter-producting if ya ask me.. some factory programs are like that .. so if anything with the power that should have been fixed, it should have been that, instead trying to make more on the bottom end where it is hardest on the engine.

Also, like some kind of complete jack-arsse! (sorry, but I gotta call that one out for what it is) ... Someone set the engine to try to add/make 2050 torque all the way down to 900 RPM. This is VERY VERY HARD on the engine and can make it beat the liners out of it eventually. Especially if the truck operations include a lot of stop-and-go.

With the wrong HP/torque settings, This also means that the engines actual power/trq does not match what is shown when connecting with the Insite and other software. it will have lower power and some torturing bottom end torque. .. Just some lazy-man or incompetence to leave it like that if you ask me.


* The ash load fr the DPF was never cleared out, it was sitting on 82% clogged up, and the engine was in a constant state of wanting a regen, although those systems were disabled. Not a big deal, as it was kept from performing the regen, but it shows someone missed some settings somewhere.

* A portion of the turbo inlet temp sensor diag. was also messed with. This is not good practice, as the engine needs the feedback for this sensor to determine turbo heat absorption and other things.

* Some of the aux. emissions systems were also still active. This can screw with injection timing, fuel air mix, etc., lowering engine efficiency. Looks like someone simply missed setting them/switching some of them off properly.

* The engine brake and other related settings have NOT been jacked with particularly. That is good ... so it makes me wonder why you are getting so much boost (you said 38 psi) while on engine brake. maybe the screwed up turbo flow tables?.. It is anyone's guess without some testing.

==================

It was a valiant attempt at a de-mandate towards getting things done right, but some mistakes were obviously made. It is not like 90% of all the other programs that I usually review... however, it is still not quite right. and

I have my suspicions towards who made this program ... but still, the question is who it was?. If it was someone from my forum here, or someone that I know, .. well, they have a thing or 2 to still learn. They need to correct what they are doing so that they do not tear someone's truck up. Someone needs to let them know tat they need to fix a few things before someone pays the price with a failed engine for these kind of mistakes.


User's Signature: ->: What I post is just my own thoughts and Opinions! --- I AM Full Of S__T!.
replyreply
 Thanks given by: ptlogan77
05-17-2022, (Subject: tuning question ) 
Post: #16
RE: tuning question
(05-17-2022 )Rawze Wrote:  * The engine is set to run too rich in the lower torque/fuelling ranges.. and set to lead in the higher HP.torque ranges. =- It looks like they tried to use the same flat-line value for the fuel air mix across the entire engines operating range of rpm and power. - This dulls its power curve and makes for some strange acceleration, etc. Why someone would do this is beyond me... it looks like someone guessing, perhaps lazy, or someone in a hurry made this table.
Hey Rawze, I’ve been running my OFC table in a similar fashion as you described above with good results. It would look to someone like a rudimentary attempt with no thought to the outcome but I just stole the idea from an old N-14 cal. rich down low in the cranking region with a 1.5 throughout the rest of the table. Acceleration is strong with just a puff of smoke on upshifts.
(05-17-2022 )Rawze Wrote:  * the fuel torque conversion table is running in a dertated state. This means the engine will not make the power being requested of it. The way it is set, it is only likely to make about 510-515HP

And also how do we monitor or determine if the torque/fuel tables need attention? If I remember correctly when I did anything with these tables it just made the engine wanna “run-on” when ya got out of the throttle.


User's Signature: That’s pronounced, /ˈs(k)izəm/
replyreply
05-17-2022, (Subject: tuning question ) 
Post: #17
RE: tuning question
(05-17-2022 )schISM Wrote:  ...
Hey Rawze, I’ve been running my OFC table in a similar fashion as you described above with good results. It would look to someone like a rudimentary attempt with no thought to the outcome but I just stole the idea from an old N-14 cal. rich down low in the cranking region with a 1.5 throughout the rest of the table. Acceleration is strong with just a puff of smoke on upshifts.
...
...

And also how do we monitor or determine if the torque/fuel tables need attention? If I remember correctly when I did anything with these tables it just made the engine wanna “run-on” when ya got out of the throttle.

last I checked.. that X15 WAS NOT AN N14~!!!.. They are not the same engine. They have completely different compression ratios, completely different injection processes, etc.etc.etc.. and do not have any of the same settings needed to operate them.

- Just because you get away with some things does not mean they are optimal. .. and YES.. by flattening out those settings, it heavily effects acceleration and its power curve by doing things like that. ... and btw, NO... it was not set like you described.. it was a bit worse. The entire table was set to a fixed value of 1.11 across the entire thing. Not terrible... or harmful. but certainly not quite right.

FYI: 1.5 is quite a bit on the aggressive side in lower fuelling /rpm ranges. It will cause some acceleration fuel mileage losses .. and can contribute towards shortening liner life on higher torque engines due to the extra aggression. On the bottom end, it is just like someone adding more bottom end torque.

1.5 however is not a bad place to be at all on the upper end where it is actually needed to help protect the engine from excessive internal temps on hard acceleration. -- It is all dependant on injection timing, expected boost, etc.. as well though. -- Hence, if you made it a bit more gentle on the bottom end, like say, 0.93~ish maybe slight higher if desired, and lead it up to that 1.5, which is still overall more aggressive than factory, because without EGr gas, it needs to be raised a bit (or better yet, done with a proper calculator to follow the factory curve) to keep the engine safe and the internal friction down a bit, then the performance would still be there without the added risk on the bottom end, or dulled curve. . Factory settings are a bit to lean to help reduce as much soot as possible into that DPF canister. That is a given, but they are not terrible, so correcting them is recommended.. but when they are flattened out like that, efficiency losses start to take hold. Remember... the engine is being used across the entire working range so who knows from one day to the next at what part of that table it will be operating in.. and for how long at a time. - Setting it to a fixed value may not always be harmful to the engine on its own, .. but dulling it like that is also not optimal for the guy who has to pay the fuel bill at the end of the day.

. And yes, too lean makes the truck feel weak, or too aggressive makes it smoke.haze, etc.. and waste fuel for any given rpm/torque requested where it was set too high, or can cause it to flat out smoke like mad because someone was too zealous. Non-egr, full PCCI or hcci/pcci designed ISX engines, the oxygen fuel control is in range of 0.93 to roughly about 1.6. - Anything higher is going to make it haze, smoke, and waste fuel possibly black smoke, and anything much less and it is going to be too lean, cause the engine to get "lazy" waiting for the turbo to catch up with itself all the time. and in a nut shell, making it too aggressive on the bottom end can also make it hard on the liners/cylinders just like adding bottom end torque. and making it too lean on the top end can be downright harmful. Just some things to think about.

I know this chart does not match the ISX.. it is for a different style of engine ... but a person can see the differences between a 'CDI' engine like the N14 was... a 'CDI/PCCI' engine, like the CM570, Cm870, etc... and attempted 'PCCI/HCCI' hybrid engine designs like that of the CM2350's and X15, etc.' ..

ref: http://rawze.com/forums/showthread.php?t...8#pid15548

Obviously the chart does not match the ISX at all, and what they need, but the overall view shows how vast the differences are between the different styles of combustion processes that has changed over the years.


torque fuel..
- Without a dyno./. no one should be messing with the torque fuel tables... That is how the engine actually determines how to make proper amounts of power. Also, in certain engine modes, and even in certain engine programs ... those tables are derated down to 85% of normal right from the factory. this becomes a problem if someone is trying to make 600HP. They must be corrected or the power will not match. The thing will feel a bit weak, etc .. and the person who made the program will usually start doing stupid s$it to try to make up for it like edit garbage they should not be editing. I see it all the time. - In the program I reviewed above, no one did the stupid s$it.. they just left it in the derated state... so I mentioned it as such.

- I have a proper calculator for torque fuel tables. They are nothing to play around with by guessing. It has taken me many years to get that calculator accurate for various model engines.. and YES.. it takes a lot of dyno testing/feedback, working with people, etc. to get right. That is why I made a calculator for things like this, so that its not a bunch of guess-work.
The things that were harmful in the program i mentioned above are ... the over-boosting, the charge flow table being jacked up to much higher numb ers, and the injection timing set slightly out of bounds. Combine it all and I see valves eating their way up into the head and/or eventual liner failure due to excessive fuel impingement buildup.
here is what it will look like after a few years of running the way it is set...
ref: http://rawze.com/forums/showthread.php?t...7#pid32957


User's Signature: ->: What I post is just my own thoughts and Opinions! --- I AM Full Of S__T!.
replyreply
 Thanks given by: schISM , ptlogan77
05-17-2022, (Subject: tuning question ) 
Post: #18
RE: tuning question
BTW: The program that was sent to me overall is not hacked into oblivion like most that I see. It can be fixed by repairing the turbo flow and positioning tables, fixing the power/torque that was added at the bottom end, oxygen fuel tables corrected, other typical settings, etc. vs having to start over. It simply has some mistakes in it that can be corrected and the overall 'MM' portion of it updated to version '2021f'.

The 600hp is ok to stay if that is what someone wanted, however, I would suggest dropping the torque down to about 1920ft.lbs or so to improve engine longevity without giving up too much... and if someone wanted to really save fuel and lower its long term operating costs ... then maybe cutting it back to 525/1780 or something to make it a million mile+ engine again.

another FYI:
It has now been seen time and again that the difference in 2050 trq vs 1850 trq is about 2.5 more years of operating time for most trucks with ISX's in them and a cost savings average of about $19,600 over the lifetime. This simply by reducing engine torque from 2050 to 1850 and doing nothing else to it.


User's Signature: ->: What I post is just my own thoughts and Opinions! --- I AM Full Of S__T!.
replyreply
 Thanks given by: ptlogan77




NOTE: Rawze.com is not affiliated, nor endorses any of the google ads that are displayed on this website.
  
  
Theme by MyBB Addict
Contact Us | Rawze.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication