When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
That's from 45 to 80 mph like you asked. Aspect ratio went from 1:2 to 2:1.
Baro has me the most concerned because I am reading that it is integral with the PCM.
EOT reading may be a setting that I have wrong?
EBP should be jagged but EOT should be smooth? I'm getting confused. Remember I don't even have FORScan 101 completed yet.
Now all I need is some help getting this straightened out so we can see what's really going on with my truck.
No worries
I was guessing at the 45-80mph range. It isn't a hard range. We try to find interesting sections of data. As you do more of this, you'll start to recognize what is interesting. When @Tugly comes in, he'll have better tips.
EBP looked jagged. it should be smooth and change with engine load, rpms, and other circumstances.
Having these values be jagged can indicate a bad connection on the sensor or something else, but warrants looking at or into.
I wouldn't be too concerned over BARO yet. As I mentioned, I am now suddenly having an issue, too. It may be a PID in TP or multiple PIDs trying to poll the same data or something.
BARO looks to be a bout 12.3, looking at the low MAP. Since Arizona is the home state, I'm guessing high desert... Winslow or the like. Given that number, he attained 16 PSI boost and he had a 13-second run up to 80 MPH... very respectable on a stock truck.
The sampling rate of FORScan looks to be out-pacing the the PCM's data rate, that might explain the data "holes" that leave spikes/valleys on the graph. I would first suggest lightening the load on the PCM to see if that helps - a few fewer PIDs in one hit. Also... make sure FORScan is set to J1850 PWM, and know that we are not OBDII compliant.
That HPOP looks like it's getting the job done... no symptoms of leaky injector O-rings here.
I really dislike the FORScan graphing... it's way to messy, poor background, and no controls to clean it up. At least with AE, it was easy to make a graph one could digest.
I did the KOEO test to get readings on the the following:
BARO--Barometric--MAP--Manifold Absolute--and EBP--Exhaust BackPressures: All three should indicate atmospheric pressure (14.7psi at sea level) and read within 0.5 psi of each other.
When I was looking at it I saw the BARO was basically flat lined and receiving zero input. The MAP and EBP were only .1 different in reading.
EXPACAMPER reworked my file and posted his graphs from the data but I am not sure where he got a BOOST reading since my PID selection didn't have that as a choice?
So if I reduce the number of PIDs in my graph what should I group together for analysis purposes?
How do I set FORScan to J1850? The only "J" number I see is J2534.
There was nothing wrong with your choice of PIDs, but I'm thinking a test to find out what's going on between FORScan and your PCM.
Removing the non-volatile PIDs like EOT and TFT can help. You know when you hit the throttle, so the Mass Fuel Desired isn't a lot of help to keep in there. Since BARO is a dud, you might as well yank that... and use the PSI calculation for your altitude to determine boost. I wouldn't duplicate anything, like ICP volts and ICP PSI. They are the same information with different outputs... but the PCM is polled twice to get that same answer.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.
