Lunati VooDoo #21270700 Camshafts

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
I ran thru the 2013 OBDII Summary on both the UEGO & rear O2 sensors independent checks & outside of any circuit checks (including the O2 sensor heaters) most of the rest show in the min test entry requirements a min fuel level input of =>15% for the test to start running so this may have a bearing on your O2 sensors completing as well as on a few of them it says that the check test will run continuously until it completes.
The fuel level input scenario w\ your PCM may be the key to it all.
 

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
I ran thru the 2013 OBDII Summary on both the UEGO & rear O2 sensors independent checks & outside of any circuit checks (including the O2 sensor heaters) most of the rest show in the min test entry requirements a min fuel level input of =>15% for the test to start running so this may have a bearing on your O2 sensors completing as well as on a few of them it says that the check test will run continuously until it completes.
The fuel level input scenario w\ your PCM may be the key to it all.
My plan is to read the fuel level PID to confirm value. Will have to wait till after work. I have 2 1/2 years of working left before I can retire. lol

And fuel level is 0% as reported by:SCT Livelink, Torque, and Forscan. 0<15%.
I tried something in the tune, only time will tell. One drive cycle complete, 4 more to go before I get a result.
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
My plan is to read the fuel level PID to confirm value. Will have to wait till after work. I have 2 1/2 years of working left before I can retire. lol

And fuel level is 0% as reported by:SCT Livelink, Torque, and Forscan. 0<15%.
I tried something in the tune, only time will tell. One drive cycle complete, 4 more to go before I get a result.
I was thinking bout this wondering if the FLI could be hard set in the tune.....had checked thru HPTuners Editor software but couldn't find any setting in it so I deduced that w\ SCT software you're using (access to binary code) you could find a way to "trick" this input in the PCM to say, 50%.
I would also consider to build a resistor setup (if the tune coding doesn't work) to mimic the FLI switch in 2013 OEM fuel pump (to ensure the electrical specs match up to the OEM Coyote's PCM) then wire it into the corresponding PCM connections to then set this in PCM on a permanent basis.....

Thinking out loud....................

Hope this helps.
 

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
I was thinking bout this wondering if the FLI could be hard set in the tune.....had checked thru HPTuners Editor software but couldn't find any setting in it so I deduced that w\ SCT software you're using (access to binary code) you could find a way to "trick" this input in the PCM to say, 50%.
I would also consider to build a resistor setup (if the tune coding doesn't work) to mimic the FLI switch in 2013 OEM fuel pump (to ensure the electrical specs match up to the OEM Coyote's PCM) then wire it into the corresponding PCM connections to then set this in PCM on a permanent basis.....

Thinking out loud....................

Hope this helps.

Fuel level signal on the 11&up comes over the can from the cluster. Resistor wont work.
In the 07, fuel level comes from the SJB over the can.
The 07 cluster does not communicate with the coyote pcm, it can only receive broadcast data from the coyote pcm (speedo, tach, temp, CEL, etc) Doesnt leave many options on this frankenstein. lol
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Fuel level signal on the 11&up comes over the can from the cluster. Resistor wont work.
In the 07, fuel level comes from the SJB over the can.
The 07 cluster does not communicate with the coyote pcm, it can only receive broadcast data from the coyote pcm (speedo, tach, temp, CEL, etc) Doesnt leave many options on this frankenstein. lol
Just got done checking up on this looking at the wiring diagrams in the FWM for both MY's & noted what you've posted so I stand corrected on the resistor idea.

Yes you do have a Frankenstein going there!
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Intake Manifold CFD Modeling for Power - Plenum and Inlet Radius Design - YouTube

Hey Dino,

Thought this was interesting.......may give a window into why the OEM IM design is the way it is & contributes to the better TQ thru the longer intake runners by locating the plenum below the intake runner openings to increase the runner velocity pressure delta within them vs the FPIM design at low RPM's AND kinda, sorta gives some window into the AFR issue across cylinders to degrade OBDII cat monitoring w\ the EVAP port design in FPIM vs the OEM IM as well at low speed, low RPM operation.

I can't help it........I geek out when I'm watching these types of videos.....the mad scientist in me comes out! Like watching Schoolhouse Rock when I was a young'un............

:Big Laugh:
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
IMG_0340.JPG
This is what a C-note can get you just for the name..............................not even a full set!
Now it's about to go down.............................
 

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
Are those labeled 'one time use'? Thats some bs IMO. I reuse those anyway. (I know, you didnt have them, so cant reuse.)
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Are those labeled 'one time use'? Thats some bs IMO. I reuse those anyway. (I know, you didnt have them, so cant reuse.)
Naw they can be reused so I'm good......don't plan on losing or stripping any of em out either. At full list price they're $75.96 + tax for a 4-pack so yeah this is not cool price-wise but I wanted the OEM bolts so had to suck it up & dish..........
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
It's DONE!
All went well as expected. Reset KAM before startup to allow PCM to relearn it all. Looking at the live data STFT\LTFT trimming the O2 sensor feedback is much more stable & consistent now & the idle LTFT's closed up 2.2% so she's rebalancing just nicely.....STFT switching is very consistent & stable now w\ this OEM IM vs the FPIM. LTFT's trimmed out & essentially locked down w\ no fluctuation while EVAP was cycling. CMBT's were slowly climbing upwards during idle indicating that the cats were heating up\operating well.

Took her out on the initial drive cycle of mostly stop & go low speed, low RPM driving to allow O2 sensors, O2 heaters & cat CE monitors to run then hit a little bit of higher speed operation (50-60 MPH open rd) to allow the PCM to do some more trimming then back to stop & go driving on the way home (37.2 mi of driving). Parked car & hooked up scan tool....IM Readiness completed all but 1 (Evap) so all good. Gonna plan to take her out to NAPI International Speedway tomorrow to run the Misfire Monitor 60-40 DFCO Relearn training & complete the EVAP monitor then put her on a little freeway action to trim her out some more. Car is running very well & noted during the drive home that the acceleration has gotten a little more crisp so it's gonna be interesting to see how she does on the dyno.......coming very soon.

This is how she looks under the bonnet now.................
IMG_0342.JPG

Also here is a shot of the EVAP port in the FPIM.........
EVAP Port Opening FPIM.JPG
That upper (lower PCV port for that matter, too) is pointing directly into #1 & #2 intake runners w\ #5 & #6 intake runners just on the opposite side....this is what was causing the STFT\LTFT to bounce\fluctuate irregular when EVAP cycled & that fluctuation can throw off a cat CE check....especially if using a cat that doesn't have that cerium brick in it up front to control the O2 flow into the substrates & is why I pulled it off & went back to the OEM IM.

Stay tuned.................
 

MrBhp

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Posts
1,250
Reaction score
1,032
Very tidy indeed.
I think you're going to enjoy the new found midrange torque. You'll lose a bit of performance above 5000rpm but probably too little to notice. The dyno will tell the tale.

The timeslip will tell the tale.
 

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
Wish my monitors would complete that quick. One monitor incomete is a PASS around these parts.
 

Dino Dino Bambino

I have a red car
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Posts
3,880
Reaction score
1,751
Location
Cyprus
The timeslip will tell the tale.

I'd say the 1/4 mile trap speed is likely to slightly lower due to the loss of torque at 5000+rpm, but the ET is likely be virtually unchanged as the improved launch and short time (provided traction isn't the limiting factor) will offset the slight loss of acceleration at the top end of the strip.
The increased torque at lower rpm will really be felt in a rolling start from low rpm in the higher gears, and it'll also improve highway cruise gas mileage.
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Wish my monitors would complete that quick. One monitor incomete is a PASS around these parts.
This is the main reason why I provided the link to the Ford OBDII Summary for 2013 MY & I would highly recommend, when you get the time, to really go thru it & study every topic within to see what each specific part of the OBDII system uses\needs to operate. Then you will easily figure out what to watch for, how to plan a driving route that will assist the specific monitors to run & complete very quick & then just how to actually drive the car to make it all come together.

Yes it is some dry reading (remember a Ford engineer put this together targeting their dealer techs) but if 1 really wants to know the in's & out's of a Ford PCM's OBDII operations, these docs are the 1's to have on hand or access to them.

This is what I did once I discovered where to find them. The Ford drive cycle procedure is a condensation of these OBDII Summaries but it doesn't cover the specific aspects of each OBDII monitor w\o which being known, can cause you to unknowingly abort a monitor(s) simply by the way you may be driving the car, prolonging the process.

My dad the 35yr auto tech told me this growing up: "Learn every aspect of how something works 1st so then you can manipulate it in any way to your benefit because until this is done 1st you will be making educated guesses which in the end is still guessing."

I took those words of wisdom to heart & I apply them to everything I do to this day.........
:beer:
 

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
This is the main reason why I provided the link to the Ford OBDII Summary for 2013 MY & I would highly recommend, when you get the time, to really go thru it & study every topic within to see what each specific part of the OBDII system uses\needs to operate. Then you will easily figure out what to watch for, how to plan a driving route that will assist the specific monitors to run & complete very quick & then just how to actually drive the car to make it all come together.

Yes it is some dry reading (remember a Ford engineer put this together targeting their dealer techs) but if 1 really wants to know the in's & out's of a Ford PCM's OBDII operations, these docs are the 1's to have on hand or access to them.

This is what I did once I discovered where to find them. The Ford drive cycle procedure is a condensation of these OBDII Summaries but it doesn't cover the specific aspects of each OBDII monitor w\o which being known, can cause you to unknowingly abort a monitor(s) simply by the way you may be driving the car, prolonging the process.

My dad the 35yr auto tech told me this growing up: "Learn every aspect of how something works 1st so then you can manipulate it in any way to your benefit because until this is done 1st you will be making educated guesses which in the end is still guessing."

I took those words of wisdom to heart & I apply them to everything I do to this day.........
:beer:
The one thing they left out for 2013 MY is the need to complete 5 warmup cycles before the monitors even consider running. lol
EGR and Componenets are the only 2 that run (and must complete. EGR completes within 5 miles of driving. And stopping and idling for 60-90 seconds completes the components monitor. This needs to happen 4 times with a full cooldown in between. Following the drive cycles will not do anything until the 5th drive cycle.
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Just to give a summary on how the O2 sensor feedback has improved since IM swap................

I used my scan tool to reset the KAM (this clears out all IM Readiness monitor\Mode 6 data but not the PCM learned data....need a hard reset for that) before initial startup @ 4-8-21 so at full hot idle the LTFT's were as follows: B1 @ -7.8%, B2 @ -3.9% (as last set from EVAP purge cycling thru the EVAP port\plenum design in the FPIM). By the time I got back home after initial drive time to set the IM Readiness monitors the hot idle LTFT's had readjusted as follows: B1 @ -5.6%, B2 @ -3.1%......a 2.2% correction on B1 & a .8% correction on B2. This is occurring from the EVAP port\plenum design in the OEM IM more evenly spreading the EVAP purged fuel vapors\unmetered air thruout the intake plenum\runners.
Next day (4-9-21) as I had said I took the car out to my MM 60-40 DFCO Relearn training area to do so. Got this done but I haven't got the EVAP done yet (I filled up the tank so the FLI is >85% but once the FLI drops below 85% the EVAP monitor will run\set very fast off the high fuel level in tank). I also put her on US 550 for a few miles at 70+ mph to allow some more fuel trimming to take place (including some spirited acceleration to complete a "merge" into traffic). Got back home after putting a little over 56 mi on & checked the hot idle LTFT's again before I shut her down as follows: B1 @ -3.9%, B2 @ -3.1%....another 1.7% correction on B1 & 0% correction on B2 so now the B1\B2 LTFT's have readjusted within .8% of each other showing a much better balanced O2 sensor feedback pattern w\ the EVAP purge cycling patterns staying pretty much the same for this time of year since replacing the faulty EVAP canister\lines assembly last year (getting more fuel vapors w\ less unmetered air now so better purging of the canister....CPV opening as much as 56% to achieve full canister purge at the moment....).

Haven't started the car yet today (watching TV & paying bills) so I took the time to post this info. Individual cylinder A\F ratios across both banks should be much closer to each other from the better EVAP purge mixing within the OEM IM so should be more consistent, better regulated free O2 flow control into catalysts....which is the result I want for cats so now to find out where the HP\TQ curve shifts have occurred.

Sent text to my tuner to inform on when the next available dyno session slot is available so's I can get her in.

PS (4-11-21)--Took car out today for some more PCM trimming & to see if all the improved O2 sensor feedback would bring about the hoped for effects on Cat CE. While warming the car up I checked the current CE ratios for reference as follows: B1 cat @ .217, B2 cat @ .223. Drove the car approx 22 mi, mostly stop & go driving intentionally using 5th gear to lug the engine to make PCM calculate as high a load% at low RPM's (1,000-1,500 range) to force the exhaust to get as dirty as it would get to really test this. Mixed in a little hiway time as well to allow some more PCM trimming. Got back home & hooked up scan tool to pull up Catalyst Monitors in Mode 6 & this is what I found: B1 @ .215, B2 @ .219 (lower CE ratio result mean cat efficiency has improved) so the reinstall of the OEM IM to correct the EVAP issue to clean up the O2 sensor feedback fidelity is showing to pay some dividends so this is looking very promising (thru all my cat testing last year w\ the FPIM manifold installed I never saw the cat CE ratios respond in a positive direction this quick....after initial pass they slowly kept degrading over several days operation until the B2 cat settled at .617 which was over the calc'd OBDII CE threshold of .578 for B2 cat but is well under the EPA threshold of .75......result of EMWA threshold correction based off of O2 sensor feedback of initial measured free O2% in exhaust to calc the cerium brick deterioration rate to then make new CE threshold target....except these Kooks Hi Flow Race cats don't have any cerium in them so the PCM is calc the max deterioration rate which is false as these cats are not designed to operate under an OBDII monitor so aren't OBDII-compliant. This is why hi flow race cats have a hard time passing an OBDII Cat CE monitor).

FYI........................
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
FYI,

Got w\ my tuner this evening...........found out they're in the process of moving to a larger shop in a better area of town so was told to check back w\ him in 2 weeks to give em time to finish moving so around 4-26 timeframe. My guess is around the 1st of May....

While there I finally got my T-shirt he kept forgetting to order for me in times past...........:Big Laugh:
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Some more data for your consideration concerning the O2 sensor feedback fidelity I was seeing w\ the FPIM.....
O2 Sensor Feedeback FPIM.JPG
This is a FORSCan datalog of my Stang dated 12-9-20 at full hot idle.....graph #3 @ B1 STFT, #4 @ B1 LTFT, #5 @ B2 STFT, #6 @ B2 LTFT. Note the pattern....PCM is also performing EVAP purge cycle during this section of graph (have this recorded on dashboard as well but in Oscilloscope Mode FORSCan can only graph the 1st 12 PIDS of the dashboard)...see how the LTFT's are fluctuating, this is due to the EVAP purge (canister vapors & unmetered air) coming into the FPIM thru it's EVAP port design & not being evenly distributed thruout the plenum so the PCM is having a harder time deciphering when the EVAP canister is empty (the time line in graph is set to locate the highest % PCM has commanded the EVAP CPV to open to achieve a full canister purge)...the CPV valve is at 76.86% open w\ fuel tank pressure at -3.012" H2O so there is a fair amount of unmetered air along w\ excessive fuel vapors being drawn into the intake manifold thru the EVAP canister so the PCM is constantly having to update the LTFT's based on the STFT's constantly trying to keep up w\ the erratic distribution of the excessive canister fuel vapors\unmetered air thruout the intake runners. This is definately harder on catalysts to handle this excess....

Now compare the datalog above w\ this 1 I recorded dated 4-14-21 at full hot idle w\ OEM IM installed.....
O2 Sensor Feedback OEM IM.JPG
Note the pattern of the STFT's\LTFT's in this one......PCM is also performing EVAP purge cycle here as well............see any difference?
You will note that the STFT cycling pattern has smoothed out very noticeably & the LTFT's have stopped fluctuating....essentially have locked down & are flat w\ EVAP purge CPV valve being opened a max of 56.7% w\ fuel tank pressure @ -1.311" H2O to achieve the same canister purging. This is essentially 1\2 the vacuum rate pulled on the EVAP system to achieve the same process point....all from just changing out the FPIM to take advantage of the EVAP porting design of the OEM IM...the only item that was changed. Now that the O2 sensor feedback fidelity is clearly shown to be improved to the PCM so it can do a better job of EVAP purge control as well as free exhaust O2% calc's for cat CE checks & since the LTFT's have reset back to prior fueling pattern once some driving time has allowed the PCM to relearn (drove the car approx 80 mi today, mostly freeway mileage @ 55-100 MPH speeds but some in town stop\go as well....checked live data & noted the LTFT's pretty much holding this pattern at hot idle now) it would appear that the intake runner length differences between the 2 manifolds isn't a contributor to this (no effect at idle but also perceive little to no effect at 2,500-3,000 RPM) so I've a hunch that my tuner may be making some minor fueling\MAF scaling tweaks in CL as well as fueling tweaks in WOT (OL) along w\ some others this coming dyno session......but nothing major.

But as it is right now she gets to 100 MPH from 60 MPH in 5th gear very damn fast w\ a lot of APP travel left....I don't think the TB is even making it to 25% open TBA (based off the amount of APP travel I input from 60 MPH...I didn't floor the pedal either) so if this OEM IM is making a difference it is definately in this area of the curve along w\ the Lunati cam's profile.

Posted for the info....................

PS---Ford knew this beforehand.....question is why they didn't design the EVAP port in the FPIM the same as OEM?
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Update (warning long posting):

Still waiting on tuner (On3 Dyno & Performance) to get caught up w\ all previous scheduled work after moving into new shop last month to get me a dyno session setup..... Visited them last week to get a tour of the new digs & tuner showed me his work schedule while there so a slot will be coming open fairly soon (they haven't moved their dyno in yet as they're scheduling to build an extension onto the existing new shop that will be dedicated to only performance-oriented work so dyno work is still having to be done at the old shop).

In the meantime................

Since swapping the IM's out, all was going well until I started noticing an intermittent misfire showing up every now & then about a week after IM swap out....mostly during cold starts but would clear up once engine warmed up so didn't think about it much since was planning to dyno the car (thinking that fueling\MAF scaling may need to be tweaked to match the OEM IM w\ CMDP's as this was tweaked during last dyno session on 4-2-20 w\ the FRPP IM installed). But after thinking about this some more I got out my Foxwell NT301 scan tool & recorded B1S1\B2S1 O2 sensor voltages to see how they're heating up\operating when PCM transitions from OL to CL on the next cold start.....found that both B1S1\B2S1 O2 sensors were VERY slow coming off 0mv so both bank's STFT's were driving very high + numbers (as high as +60% at times) so PCM was loading the fuel to her until the O2 sensors finally responded & voltage drove past 800mv & both bank's STFT's started driving - numbers so PCM started pulling fuel back until the STFT's started switching as they're supposed to (LTFT's had kicked in by then). So during cold starts my engine was getting excessively over fueled for a short period of time (I had the Ford MotorCraft F85F-9G4444-BD O2 sensors installed from 9-24-20 as noted in my post #112, I never thought about checking the O2 sensor voltage for warm up\start up operation from OL to CL...had assumed that all was OK since no DTC's showed up) until the PCM caught up.
So from seeing this result I quickly got the car up in the air & pulled these Ford O2 sensors & reinstalled my NTK setup (22060\22500) then tested these in the same manner....found these suckers heated up very quick during a cold start & voltages were already responding to exhaust before the PCM transitioned from OL to CL so STFT's were immediately following the PCM's cold start fuel enrichment (both bank's STFT's were immediately showing - numbers so PCM was pulling fuel right off the bat in CL until the STFT's started switching from LTFT's kicking in so engine wasn't getting excessively over fueled anymore off cold starts) as it should have. Went back afterwards & looked back over some of my old FORScan datalogs of engine cold starts prior 9-24-20 then post 9-24-20 & realized that the slow O2 sensor warmup pattern started as soon as I had swapped out the O2 sensors back then (pulled NTK's, installed Ford's) so this has been going on for some time since 9-24-20..........
All was fine after swap out back to the NTK's....no more misfiring noted during cold starts.....until last Thursday when I started noticing an intermittent misfire again, this time when under a load between 1500-1800 RPM's then clear out. By Saturday this was getting much worse so today I got out my tools & tore her down to pull the plugs & this is what I found:
Spark Plug Changeout B1 Plugs.JPG Spark Plug Changeout B2 Plugs.JPG
These are the MC HFSC-24FP OEM plugs I installed new last year in Feb.........these suckers were being cooked alright! Was highly surprised that the engine was still running w\ plugs in this condition! From inspection this plug damage had to have been happening over an extended time frame so the IM swap done last month didn't have anything to do w\ this BUT the FRPP IM's EVAP port routing may have been an accomplice but not the main player. I believe that the slow O2 sensor warmup\slow O2 sensor response of the Ford F85F-9G444-BD O2 sensors during cold starts was the main player in this plug damage as I can't see\find anything else causing this amount of excessive overheat in the cylinders to burn the plugs this bad & where the FRPP IM's EVAP port placement had some influence: the picture on the left are B1 plugs, picture on the right are B2 plugs. Note that B1 plugs got far more damage to them vs B2 plugs. Now refer back to post #139's 1st picture of the full hot idle graph of my car w\ the FRPP IM installed B1 STFT, B1 LTFT, B2 STFT, B2 LTFT graph lines (3 thru 6 lines from top) then what I typed concerning the EVAP purge operation....this plug damage clearly was influenced by this issue w\ the FRPP IM's EVAP port design as well (causing extra fuel enrichening thru EVAP along w\ excess unmetered air to drive the overheat even more). Noted the cat temps were getting as high as 1400*F on some cold starts thru the datalogs (once I put the logs back to the dashboard setting so that I could see the cat temp PID data) so the engine CC's were indeed hot during this sequence. ECT's were very normal (196-199) thruout so the Mishimoto HP radiator & GT500 cooling fan was doing it's job removing the extra heat out the engine cylinder heads so no sign of any engine overheating thru the ECT thus no sign of engine knock\pinging (but damage looks to show that some detonation may have been present) & engine shows no signs of any physical internal cylinder damage.

Looks like I got away again in the nick of time from another potential catastrophic situation.....

Pulled out my used set of Champions 9406 Iridium plugs (installed these in 8-19 after experiencing misfires then pulled these due to misfires in 11-19....found out later the issue was bad dielectric grease used, not the plugs), cleaned them up good, checked them over, regapped them back to .040" & put them in. Used some WD-40 in the COP boots when I reinstalled them. Got all back together & fired her up......engine running very smooth & no misfires now. Test drove the car after getting all picked up & all is well....engine pickup is immediate & smooth w\ no misfiring at all now.
Sent my tuner a text w\ pictures of these plugs to inform him of findings so that he knows about this when we get on the dyno..........

Gonna plan on whipping out the laptop to run another cold start datalog w\ FORScan to capture operation w\ good plugs installed. Have ordered a new set of MC HFSC-24FP plugs thru Amazon to have on hand.

Heck of a deal! The stuff we gotta work thru just to have a little mo powa!
If all checks out in the tune during the dyno session I maybe picking up some Brisk XOR12YS plugs (supposed to be 1 step colder than OEM) to provide some insurance against this happening again in the future.
 
Last edited:

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top