Tag Archives: Tuning

Cadillac ATS-V Boost Solenoid B & WGDC Waste Gate Duty Cycle

Posted on by
Reply

Today let’s examine the turbocharger base DC (duty cycle)

The table above shows the base duty cycle used in closed loop boost control for the Cadillac ATS-V. Keep in mind that notionally for a waste gate, 0% is fully open, and 100% is fully closed. Left axis is desire pressure ratio, which is total manifold pressure over barometric pressure. So if the baro is 14.5 inHg for example, a desired pressure ratio of 1.2 would equate to  [(14.5 * 1.2)-14.5] = 2.9 psi, desired pressure ratio of 2 would be 14.5 psi, and desired ratio of 3 would be 29 psi.

The table above then can be read this way in PSI:

This will vary with Barometer reading; I used 14.5 here as an example to help me relate what the system is doing.

We are interested at WOT, when the system is building boost from 3600 RPM to 6250 RPM.

Here is a chart of what the Boost Solenoid B is reporting in that period on one run of my ATS-V:

The gray line at the top is the boost solenoid info. It is reading on the right axis, as %. So it appears to show 50% at 4800 RPM, rising to 60% around 5800 RPM, and then falling to 50% around 6200 RPM. The rapid fall after 6100 RPM may be part of the gear shift logic near that point, I am unsure.

The boost pressure goes from 15.7 psi to 18.4 psi across this run range & gear. So if the boost is a result of the desired boost, then the desired pressure range is operating in the 2 to 2.2 rows. The base DC from the table in that range is this part of the table:

so at 4797 RPM and 16.4 psi it would be commanding around (look down the 4750 PRM column to between 14.5 and 17.4, so around 2/3 of the way between 14.5 and 17.4 so 2/3 of 4% plus 42.84) for a ~45.5% duty cycle; the observed “Boost solenoid B” value is 45.9%.

At 6000 RPM and 18.4 psi boost it would be commanding around a 60% duty cycle. The observed is 60%.

There is a nice article on this topic — waste gate DC versus boost and system design here.

My conclusion is that because we are operating at less than full waste gate DC we are ripe for adding more boost to the system by commanding higher waste gate DC.

I am a bit unsettled about the overall strategy the OEM tune follows. Let’s look at 1.8 pressure ratio. The WGDC goes from 100% at low RPM (spool up fast!) then falls to 34% at 3600 RPM, and then rises to 42% at 6250 RPM. I am unsure why there is a dip in the middle, possibly to bring boost on more smoothly once the turbo is up to speed? Similar curve at 2 pressure ratio, but there is not the same dip in the curve at 2.2 or 3, where the commanded WGDC steadily rises from ~40 to ~60.

So what is the ideal turbocharger base DC? If we raise this focus range from pressure ratio of 1.8 to 3 by 5% we would go from 40-60 up to 42-63%; 10% would be 44-66%. A different approach would be to set the table to a flat 60% across the range; remember in the larger context of the whole row we are basically curving from 100% at low RPM down to 42-60% at high RPM depending on the row. Another thought is to stay close to the OEM but to remove the divot in the 1.8 row, smoothing this row, then raising each row from 1.8 to 3.

Here is a table where the high RPM WGDC is set to 50-60% and then is smoothed from 1900 RPM to 6200 RPM.

This would impact when boost is above 8.7 PSI or so up to max boost, should spool faster, and ensure that the desired boost level is hit. The caution would be that this may produce too much boost too soon, exceeding the desired boost and causing the throttle to close. It needs some testing to see what works well within the torque management scheme.

Where in a current tune actual boost is below desire boost it would make sense to increase the WGDC base DC in that area.

Graphing HP Tuner Data

Posted on by
Reply

Although the HP Tuners scanner does a terrific job of showing both numeric and graphic data, it is helpful to compare results from different scans outside the tool.

The scanner allows export of the scan data in .csv, or comma delimited text format. This data file can then be imported to Microsoft Excel, and graphed. In this case, I exported from two different scan files, then added each as a worksheet within a single Excel workbook, added a calculated field, then graphed the two data sets together as x/y scatter graphs. It is helpful to use the ‘export visual’ option within HP Tuners to limit the data exported to the single WOT run in each case, or close to it.

HP Tuners did not export the calculated horsepower. I added a column to the data calculating HP = Torque x 5252 / RPM.

The chart above shows (blue and green) my current tune 3c2 scan for a single WOT run versus the stock tune on a different day single WOT run. This type comparison is inexact due to differences in variables (day, weather conditions, road used) but is helpful as a way to measure overall impact and to look for problem areas.

The data is uncorrected, and unsmoothed. Often dyno results will be corrected to STD or to SAE 1349, which help to match weather conditions. Smoothing also helps eliminate single peak max values. In this case the weather conditions were similar, and we are looking for trend comparison not peak comparison, but would be possible to make the same corrections and smoothing on the data within the data table prior to graphing.

The Blue torque after line compares to the red torque before line, and the green hp after line compares to the orange hp before line.

As expected, what I conclude is that the current tune is better across the board as compared with the stock tune

ATS-V LF4 HPTuners Tune 3c2

Posted on by
Reply

Current Scan snapshot:

Prior scan snap shot at same rpm/speed showing throttle closing then:

First test for my ATS-V LF4 with tune 3c2. My intent is to change the least number of parameters in order to allow the engine to make as much power as it can. My goal is a stable 18 psi tune with no KR and no throttle closing.

Current conditions were 68F, 12 mph wind, 92% humidity, 29.81 in Hg pressure. SAE correction factor 0.9923039631981221, so 467 hp equates to 463 SAE 1349 HP.

There was some Knock Retard (KR) at cylinder pressures 1.16-1.32 during full throttle operation. I used a table to analyze where I was getting KR by RPM and pressure, then reduced the spark commanded in this region by 1 point in the effected areas. A rule of thumb is reduce the spark 1/2 of the KR observed. In my case this appears to have reduced the KR but not totally, so I will need more attention here.

Torque Management – General – max engine torque limit – I multiplied the 0% and 20% alcohol rows by 1.2, for a 20% increase.

Torque Management – General – TCS max torque set from 445 lb ft to 550 lb ft.

Torque Management – Driver demand – tables A and C I multiplied the bottom row by 1.1, then the bottom 2 rows by 1.1, then the bottom 3 rows by 1.1. This applied a stacking increase the the bottom 3 rows.

Torque Management – S/C Boost control – max limit I added 2 psi across from the left up through manifold temp 158, leaving higher temps unchanged. This added 2 psi to ceiling when the manifold temperatures are in check.

Good news: Holding throttle. the first image shows throttle is matching the pedal input. Also, boost (math) around 18.x psi total; here, 17.8 psi versus 14.9 psi prior, so 2.9 psi increase.

To do list: Still some KR to clean up with reduced spark. I also still see hints of desired falling in ranges I am unsure why it is not holding stable, so more study needed.

I am making progress toward my goals; I see 18.4 psi of boost, and no throttle closing. More tuning needed for KR.