Lunati VooDoo #21270700 Camshafts

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Hey GlassTop09, may I ask? What made you choose the HP Tuners setup over SCT’s system? I still haven’t pulled the trigger on tuning but I know I need too.
TBH Midlife Crises, I went w\ HPTuners stuff due to the fact that my current tuner who was doing my tuning lately before now, used HPTuners stuff. I did this so that I would have the same software that he had so that I could see the exact same layouts, GUI, etc to essentially be on the same page.

I, like a lot of others have as well, started out w\ a SCT X4 tuner bought thru the AM Bama Tunes for Life offer.......but when I looked at the HPTuners VCM Suite vs the SCT LiveLink Suite (which I know now that this wasn't SCT's tuning software), I liked how the HPTuners VCM software was put together (it really is an excellent platform for a beginner to use to break into tuning......) & the software was free & contains a host of actual real stock tune files\log files as samples for a beginner to use to familiarize w\ it's use & to a degree, the PCM strategy, due to a description of what each setting or map does within the strategy is provided within the GUI......w\o buying anything.

IMHO, an excellent marketing move by HPTuners.

I've been preparing for this move over the last 2 1\2 yrs studying this stuff on my own (also visiting the HPTuners forums as well reading thru the Ford tuning sections......even though actually doing it wasn't the goal.....I just like to learn\know everything to know about my Stang since this vehicle reps IMHO the 1st gen of true American designed computer controlled engine operation at the public domain.....me being a 20+yr computer geek w\ a little computer programming in my background made it easier).

The day my tuner gave me a copy of my car's tune file for me to look at thru this software was the day I began to see some stuff in my tune file that I couldn't accept & I knew I was on borrowed time and I wasn't gonna allow myself to get boxed in, so I bought the MPVI2+ interface & the credits since I'm already well versed in its use & lifetime access to EPA's 2005-2010 Ford Mod Motor HPTuners training to fill in any blanks to give myself the option to fix my own stuff going forward.
 

GlassTop09

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

Took car out to get initial drive cycle done after last tune update flashed Saturday morning & datalogged to ensure all the new TB predicted throttle angle & effective area table data matched up to current tuning & no high IPC TQ errors were occurring (performed several very high & fast throttle blips while parked to see if PCM showed any high IPC TQ errors from calcs being too far out of line.......recorded none higher than 75 & throttle desired angle\throttle angle PIDs were mirroring each other in VCM Scanner datalogs so ETC is validated tracking very, very well w\ excellent accuracy).

1st thing off the bat, if any of my fellow 62mm TB users are still running your 62mm TB's off the stock Ford 55mm TB's predictive throttle angle\effective area data tables in tune, you NEED to get this updated ASAP cause you really don't know what you're missing out on......correcting this data to better match your 62mm TB's predictive throttle angle\effective area does wonders for throttle tip-in response\engine acceleration when this is more accurately reflected in the tune.....this really wakes up the APP's low end DD TQ request to PCM ETC's PTA\EA TPS% to MAF air load TQ modeling (more accurate & correct) so engine responds RIGHT NOW w\ some authority (also helps to use the correct fuel stoich AFR for the fuel you got in the tank as well for CL operations). This was a very welcome surprise.....throttle is a lot more touchy due to vastly improved ETC response & I LIKE IT!

PS edit--After reading over my own posting here in this section, I realized my use of the word "touchy" to explain the newfound throttle response w\ my 62mm TB may give some the wrong implications of a surging throttle response........should have typed "input-responsive" meaning throttle response is still very smooth but has no nannies in the way to filter the TQ response so if, say APP movement from 0 A\D counts to 42 A\D counts is read in the DD TQ map & idle RPM's is 750, at the 42 A\D pedal row position & 750 RPM column position in the DD map it calls for say, 125 ft-lbs TQ, then the ETC will command the TB, based on the TQ modeling derived from current MAF, fuel, VCT, spark & ETC TB modeling to output engine TQ to match the DD value & do it right now so engine TQ will come on until the engine TQ output model matches the APP DD TQ map....thus the head jerking response most of us just love.....the larger the TB predictive response\effective area is, the more aggressive this response gets.

That is what I meant by the word "touchy".........and I'm sorry to say, you can't get this kind of response from a 55mm TB due to the TB predictive throttle angle\effective area modeling that matches it & most 62mm TB's are being hamstrung by the tuners that failed to\didn't correct this TB modeling map data to better rep a 62mm TB's predictive throttle angle\effective area in the tune file.....I know this as fact now (been on both sides of this).

Got home & got out my trusty Foxwell NT301 to check OBDII IM Readiness & for the 1st time since I've had this car, she completed all 7 monitors on the 1st run after hard KAM reset from Sat tune reflash within the same 37 mi circuit test route & the most surprising thing I saw was the Catalyst CE Ratio results since making all these tune corrections I've posted about.......found B1 Cat CE Ratio @ .048, B2 Cat CE Ratio @ .068! I was expecting to see numbers relative to what I've gotten used to seeing (such as in post #191), which are damn good numbers, but not this. Gotta make a few more drive cycles to see if this fleshes out as valid. CMBT's were read @ 1,015*F but I know this is not reflective of the true running operating temps (sat parked & idling too long so exhaust was cooling cat substrates down before Mode 6 data was pulled). These results mark a fairly sizeable improvement in CL emissions w\o sacrificing performance.....on a mostly non-OEM equipped\tuned 4.6L NA engine.

PS--These numbers rep a 33% improvement on B1 & a 45% improvement on B2 in engine emissions output for reference........

If these newer cat CE ratio numbers hold up, the data will validate all the tune setting changes I've made to improve low speed, low RPM CL operations will also improve emissions output (increased engine efficiency increases both HP\TQ & improves emissions) as surmised, which is for the most part, just not going into tune files & defeating the PCM CL strategy settings Ford already engineered into the PCM strategy while retuning for more HP\TQ since CL & OL operations aren't mutually inclusive of each other in these SO PCM's (but they can exist in harmony WITH each other if set up properly).

This is looking very good so far.

Pending..........
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

Now concerning the importance of having the fuel stoich AFR set in tune to rep the actual fuel being used, I've used this EQ Ratio Lambda formula (actual F\A / stoich F\A.....which the PCM uses to correct to Lambda) to demonstrate why.

Using the OEM 14.64\1 fuel stoich AFR converted to a fuel index ratio number the PCM can use in it's calcs, we come up w\ .0683 (divide fuel by air) to rep E0 fuel. Now if you're running E10 fuel in engine & this E10 fuel stoich AFR (14.13\1 @ .0708) isn't used in tune, this is what you have going on (.0683 in tune to calc .0708 in engine or is 3.67% off.....3.67% more O2 in E10 than E0 so any fuel calcs, TQ modeling calcs based off MAF modeling will be off thus not accounted for in HP\TQ but NB O2 sensors will pick up this unaccounted for 3.67% O2 in exhaust & make a +3.67% correction in fueling calcs on top of any extra O2% picked up above this to the fuel stoich AFR of .0683 or E0 used in PCM calcs to "correct" the fuel modeling.

Can you now see the issue being created by not correcting the fuel stoich AFR in the tune to match the actual fuel being used? What most will see from the erroneous NB O2 sensor STFT+LTFT fueling correction is an engine being corrected for a lean condition but in reality is creating a more rich running condition due to the mis-matched fuel stoich AFR in tune file not matching the fuel stoich AFR of the actual fuel being burned in engine while operating in CL.
This is what I meant in prior posting by some chasing vacuum leaks that doesn't really exist.....this is why. This is destroying engine MPG for nothing gained.......at the minimum.

This also hurts CL engine drivability AND degrades emissions output (cats can't use up all this O2% so it hits the rear O2 sensors causing excessive P0420\P0430 DTC's for absolutely no issue w\ the cats themselves). Now add in EVAP into this mix (more unmetered E10 fuel vapors that contain embedded O2 along w\ drawing more unmetered outside air in to evacuate the canister vapors & I hope to show you why a LOT of LTH\catted midpipe setups fail IM Readiness w\ these cars......but it ain't the LTH's\catted midpipe's fault in the majority of cases.......the hi flow race cats substrates are much smaller in total treating sq in area than an OEM cat to gain freer exhaust flow thru them, thus the free O2% sent into them MUST be monitored\controlled thru the PCM.....thus this fuel stoich AFR MUST be correct in tune to the fuel being used in engine in order for these hi flow race cats to have a fighting chance to pass emissions.

This is what some tuners are leaving you with (I saw this 1st hand w\ my own car so I know its happening to others as well)..........and cars that still are using the OEM tune files are being put into this situation simply from not getting the fuel stoich AFR corrected in tune to match the currently used E10 pump gas that some are telling you is Ok to run in these cars......this mismatch even hurts stock tune cars the same way.

Posted for informational purposes.
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

Been raining all day & the sun just popped out. I remembered that I hadn't played around w\ Forscan in a while so I went & pulled the car's OBDII Mode 6 IM Readiness & Self-Check data from the initial Sunday drive cycle off my last tune revision loaded Saturday for my records. Here it is:
 

Attachments

  • obdiimode6data32922.txt
    7.2 KB · Views: 4

GlassTop09

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

I didn't realize this until I saw a HPTuners video yesterday demonstrating that you can use VCM Scanner software to build a "dyno graph" in it to calc HP using the engine RPM's & engine actual TQ output channels in a user-defined maths graph inputting the HP equation [(RPM x TQ)\5252*DL%] then putting it in the same chart layout group that the TQ channel is displayed in so both will track along w\ each other at the same time.

This will be good to use when doing driving hi load datalogging (including WOT) to give an indication of the ballpark max HP\TQ engine output w\o actually being on a dyno. Done right, you will see the actual 5252 line intersection cross then can find peak HP & TQ output using the chart mouse line. This data will have the advantage of incorporating all actual environmental effects & car body air drag coeff at the time of use into the actual numbers as at a real drag strip, outside of lane\track prep.

So, I won't need a dyno to do my OL tuning as long as I can find a long enough stretch of straight, smooth, level & highly remote roadway at the NAPI International Speedway facilities (will have to work out the times when the facilities are optimum for use).

Good to know......................
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

Here is the ODBII Mode 6 IM Readiness & Self Check data from today's drive cycle (52.3 mi of mostly in town driving in 4th\5th gear as much as I could between 30-45 MPH to intentionally lug engine to force load up to make the exhaust as "dirty" as I could & as much as my car's 3.89\26" effective net gear drive ratio would allow). Please make note of B1\B2 Cat CE Ratio results..........

The amount of low speed, low RPM TQ output engine is now putting out is just wonderful & is as smooth as a baby's bottom.

The sad thing is that in reality, I haven't done anything here w\ my car's tuning as all the base tuning is still my prior tuner's doing.......I haven't touched 1 shred of it......the mistakes he made was not doing the necessary overall tune file diagnostics\refinement to get everything out of his own work, ensure that all basics were accounted for (proper fuel stoich AFR for fuel used, proper table & map layout\prep\use, balancing the CL\OL boundaries to match the intended usage, maximizing the full capabilities of my FR 62mm TB, etc) due to a singular focus on extracting max HP\TQ out of my setup instead of a well-rounded holistic approach ).......in the end he left a LOT of refinement on the table that I should've never been able to get (not to mention the money I've spent for the knowledge to do the tuning) in such a short time on my own w\o touching the base tuning.

So, this isn't a victory lap for GlassTop09.....only a relief that finally my car is performing the way it should be doing across the board, based on the tuning that was done to optimize the engine components used & operate efficiently to easily pass emissions if needed.
 

Attachments

  • obdiimode6data33022.txt
    7.2 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

After getting all lined out tune wise w\ my car I then ran a test to see how much a fuel stoich AFR tweak will change the catalyst CE ratio calcs running off the same cats. Since, when looking for the fuel stoich AFR numbers for E10 fuel, I ran across 2 different numbers given (14.08, 14.13) so I used these for my little test as follows, using the exact same drive cycle route to bake in as much of the same environmental\elevation\grade changes, etc, as I could...................

Last Cat CE ratio results for E10 (14.13.........numbers derived off EPA's spread sheet for fuel stoich AFR w\ 10% ethanol content):
B1 @ .090
B2 @ .090

I then changed this in tune to 14.08 (all else the same including the fuel in tank........only change made in tune file) then ran drive cycle to complete IM Readiness then read Mode 6 using my Foxwell NT301 scan tool:
Cat CE ratio results for E10 (14.08)
B1 @ .238
B2 @ .297

Results show the cats have degraded in efficiency........that were showing to be very high efficiency prior.

I then changed this in tune back to the same 14.13 (again all else the same including the fuel in tank) then ran drive cycle to complete IM Readiness then read Mode 6 using same scan tool:
Cat CE ratio results for E10 (14.13)
B1 @ .043
B2 @ .031

Notice that the cat CE ratio results went back to the same area\region of catalyst efficiency when using the fuel stoich AFR of E10 (14.13) but cat efficiency went south when using fuel stoich AFR of E10 (14.08). This result shows that 1 of these fuel stoich AFR's isn't rep true E10 fuel which the PCM read fine, calc'd fine, NB O2 sensors picked up Ok but in the STFT+LTFT correction caused the PCM to calc more free O2 into exhaust that was too much for the amount of free HC & CO in exhaust to treat........either thru the fueling corrections to PCM MAF calcs or thru the EVAP purging since PCM is using the STFT's to determine EVAP canister emptying or thru the PCM calcs to determine the amount of free O2% to send into the cats off the STFT switching readouts to treat the HC & CO in exhaust.......enough that the front cat substrates couldn't use it all up thus a larger % of free O2 got thru cat substrates causing the rear O2 sensors to increase switching rate relative to front O2 sensor switching rates so PCM calc'd cat CE ratio results higher or cat is degraded in efficiency.......but they aren't degraded in any way (as evidenced by the reset of fuel stoich AFR back to 14.13.......all returned back to the same region\area of high cat efficiency that they started from).

This is from making just a .05 AFR change in the fuel stoich AFR used in tune only w\ the same E10\91 oct fuel in tank across all testing.

Back checked the 14.08 E10 fuel stoich AFR & it's ethanol content is 10.8% or closer to 11% ethanol instead of actual 10% ethanol (14.13) based off the EPA Excel spreadsheet calculations for this (Jeffery Evans @ EPA built this Excel spreadsheet to be able to calc a fuel stoich AFR of unleaded fuel based on % ethanol content found in it).

Found looking thru other tune files that in 2010, Ford started using the E10 14.08 AFR in the '10 GT500 & from 2011 on in all engines as std fuel stoich AFR but our lowly 05-10 V6's & V8's (includes 07-09 5.4L SC'd GT500) were left w\ the 14.64 E0 (really 1% ethanol) fuel stoich AFR in tune w\ no TSB's to get it corrected in tune for the current E10 std fuel.

My 4.6L V8 as currently equipped\tuned, loves the E10 fuel stoich AFR of 14.13, not E10 14.08 AFR as far as emissions is concerned........w\o any loss of any base tuned performance in OL or CL.

Just a sample of what could be done if a 5-gas exhaust analyzer was used to tune modded engine's CL operations for emissions compliance while still maintaining hi OL power tuning w\ these SO PCM's on an engine being used for dual purpose street\strip\track usage.........

I found all this very neat info to know\use going forward.

Posted for informational purposes.
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Here is some stuff I found that really closed the issue for me concerning the fuel stoich AFR use in SO PCM calcs, NB O2 sensor usage & the relationship as to what is really going on when a WB O2 sensor is used in OL instead of the NB O2 sensors in CL to calibrate MAF\LWFM tables to then see that as long as a WB O2 sensor was used to calibrate the MAF\LWFM tables, the MAF\LWFM tables are calibrated to true reference airmass, regardless of what fuel stoich AFR is being displayed on the WB controller's display (this is only for a tuner that can't understand fueling in true Lambda lingo but can understand the same true Lambda when it is referenced to a particular fuel stoich AFR that a tuner does understand.....then used w\ the EQ Ratio formula which will reference the known fuel stoich AFR back to true Lambda lingo.....why the EQ Ratio formula is referenced as the English version of Lambda).......note all O2 sensors, whether NB or WB design, use reference air (O2% in air......the ideal 79% N2\21% O2 air reference composition model) to then use to detect the amount of exhaust O2 that differs from the reference air.........just as a MAF sensor uses a hot wire to detect the amount of same reference air that flows across it to rep the total amount of air that is flowing thru the MAF meter housing......thus a true air front end to true air back end measurement methodology so all that was needed is to correct the fuel stoich AFR in tune file to the actual fuel being burned in engine for the entire model to become corrected to true reference air......thus Lambda.

True Lambda 1.0 Stoich for all O2 Sensor Designs.JPG

Equivalence Ratio based off Lambda 1.0 Stoich.JPG

O2 Sensor Voltage Tracking for Lambda and EQ Ratio.JPG

NB vs WB O2 Sensor Analog  Voltage Track for Rich Lean.JPG

PS edit--From this I can now understand how 1 could make the mistake of leaving the fuel stoich AFR in the tune @ 14.64 (but using E10 @ 14.13) due to the WB O2 sensor controller display set to show 14.64 as "Lambda"...........but WB O2 sensors are calibrated to reference air w\o any fuel in the equation.

Forgot to mention this.

Posted for informational purposes.
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

Here is a snippet off HP Academy's forums of head tuner Andre Simon validating all what I just learned\said in the last sentence of this posting he made concerning the topic "Calculate Fuel Stoich Ratio":
Andre Simon HP Academy Tuning Quote.JPG

From my experiences, he is spot on. During training episodes, Jeffery Evans @ Evans Performance Academy stresses this very forcefully to always set the fuel stoich AFR in tune to match the actual fuel stoich AFR of the fuel the engine is going to burn to correct the PCM calcs & prefers to use a WB O2 sensor & do all calibrating\tuning in OL before switching into CL to then do any further checks to fueling to ensure all is correct to get away from the potential errors that can come from using the NB O2 sensors in CL to calibrate the MAF\LWFM tables.....especially if the mistake is made of not setting the fuel stoich AFR in tune to match the actual fuel stoich AFR of the actual fuel being burned in engine (you're baking in fueling errors into the airmass modeling from mismatched fuel stoich AFR's). The current use of ethanol in unleaded gas in various % of blending makes this an issue for tune accuracy.......especially when emissions is the concern (just demonstrated this earlier w\ my car's engine), but this can also affect engine power output as well.

Where I was fortunate w\ my scenario is that my last tuner actually did use a WB in OL to calibrate\tune\check all in OL (no NB O2 sensor use) 1st so all was actually done to true Lambda SR regardless of what the WB controller display showed (was showing fuel stoich AFR of 14.64 matching the 14.64 fuel stoich AFR set in tune file....I saw it myself during last tuning session.....even though I'm actually using E10\91 oct fuel in car......didn't register at that time but after going thru all the data I posted in prior posting the light bulb came on very bright) which in CL operations will be off (using NB O2 sensors which follow the EQ Ratio Lambda formula which needs the fuel stoich AFR in tune to match the actual fuel stoich AFR in gas tank for any STFT+LTFT corrections\adjustments to be valid or accurate & match any tuning done off the WB O2 sensor in OL). So, all I had to do in tune to fix this is simply change the fuel stoich AFR in tune file to match the actual fuel in tank so now all PCM calcs for anything in PCM strategy is correct in all tuning across the board (CL & OL)......as long as the fuel injector data in tune file is good & accurate & not "scrubbed" (what most tuners do to fix this fuel stoich AFR mismatch depending on severity of differences.....they alter the injector hi\lo slope values to "match this up" instead of just inputting the correct fuel stoich AFR for the fuel). I have my injector's data sheet in hand & I checked this data in my tune file against it to see if it had been "scrubbed".......saw it was all clean (unaltered from data sheet) thus the easy fix.
Otherwise, I would've had to retune engine from scratch to clean the tune up.

This is an example of what I mean by tune refinement...........that prior tuner should have done as this is Tuning 101 type stuff, not advanced type stuff.
 

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
Ok, I have to ask: What happens when you get fuel that has a little less or more alcohol %?
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Ok, I have to ask: What happens when you get fuel that has a little less or more alcohol %?
Refer to my post #207............

The inverse of what I posted there also is valid........you change the ethanol content % of the unleaded fuel in tank from what the fuel stoich AFR set in tune to match, the fuel's actual stoich AFR has now changed from the tune's specific fuel stoich AFR setting thus different thus the same type effects in either direction from O2 sensor feedback data......based on the amount of ethanol content % change in fuel that the PCM can never really completely correct for unless the PCM has flex fuel strategy coded into it to make the changes sensed from fuel composition changes (changes the fuel's heating value or BTU) as well as oct rating changes (knock resistance).

Why do you think the smart E85 guys are always testing the ethanol content % of the pump E85 for the real ethanol content % in it when their engines are tuned for a specific ethanol content % range of E85 fuel? Especially if they don't have flex fuel strategy active in the tune? Because of the specific fuel stoich AFR setting used in the PCM's tune file to rep E85 fuel..........which all other PCM calcs\tuning is based off of cause that reps the ethanol content % of the fuel that was in the gas tank when the engine was initially tuned.....or it should have.

Same math applies to emissions output as applies to engine HP\TQ output (all follows same engine combustion efficiency principles.....).

The real question is.......how much tolerance do the cats you have installed can handle the swings off varying ethanol content % in pump gas (because this is gonna be a reality) before crossing the cat CE ratio threshold settings & setting off P0420\P0430 DTC's. In my case, I have a fair amount of overhead in my cats sizing (as also demonstrated in post #207 as either CE ratio results shown were passing results) thus isn't as much an issue for me as maybe for others.........depending on specific components capabilities\liabilities installed and\or their intended use in the grand scheme of things........

Now understand more why the Ford engineers designed OEM cats as large as they did........& now understand better why hi flow race cats can have such a hard time passing emissions.... This doesn't make the tuning mismatches\inefficiencies any more "correct" regardless of whether intentionally or accidentally created....only masks\covers them better in 1 scenario or the inverse, exposes them more in another scenario.

Best I can do to answer your valid (and also somewhat rhetorical at the same time) question.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Also, in the interest of "science", I have bought an OEM MC replacement CPV to test it against this O'Reilly's aftermarket Standard brand CPV that I bought some 3 1\2 yrs ago (my local Ford dealer doesn't keep these in inventory thus have to order & I couldn't wait on it at the time) to replace the tested leaking original OEM MC CPV to see if the port control design is different between the 2 thus will have an effect on the EVAP purging flow thus corrected LTFT's (but mainly to replace it w\ Ford OEM part just because......).
Finally......after 2 months on backorder, my FMC #7U5Z-9C915-F EVAP CPV had come in, so I picked it up this afternoon & installed it. Let engine idle while monitoring EVAP live data......this new CPV is working just fine (as the O'Reiley's Standard equivalent did) & from looking at the data, this new CPV seems to be allowing the engine to pull total vacuum on EVAP canister\gas tank w\ less PWM control % output to CPV & happens over a much longer time frame thus looks to be allowing PCM to control\meter EVAP flow into IM better than the aftermarket unit w\ much less STFT +% rise off baseline switching pattern (this is why I wanted to run this test to see if the OEM FMC unit provided better EVAP flow control) so LTFT's should stabilize much better (no swinging\movement off EVAP CPV cycling operation once system is stabilized) to facilitate cat operations (emissions) while also providing better STFT+LTFT correction control accuracy (asking a lot out of NB O2 sensors).
FTP is still topping out below -1.5 in\H2O at full purge (highest observed was -1.311 in\H2O but avg is -1.235 in\H2O) but PCM PWM % is now topping out at 50%-52% max (was reaching 57%-62% at times prior changeout) to obtain EVAP canister emptying.

Now the question.......does all this really mean anything in the grand scheme of things automotive? To most folks who just want the car to work & drive w\o any CEL lights lit up\flashing......means nothing but some money wasted changing out a perfectly good part for another 1. But to those who understand that these modern vehicles are an integrated operational platform where even a small change in 1 part's operation can affect the whole ecosystem function in either a net positive or net negative (kinda like stacking dominoes), this kind of data\testing will make more sense, especially concerning maintaining emissions compliance where small changes can have very noticeable effects & can mean the difference between passing or failing certification tests & if you aren't on top of this can cost you a LOT of money (will greatly depend on the automotive tech's knowledge\skill to diagnose the system well to eliminate the shotgun effect most do when diagnosing emissions issues as this is 1 area where the money spent can get way out of hand very quick.....add a modded engine in this mix & this ratchets up in magnitude).

AAT is starting to increase now so I'll be monitoring all this to see where it all shakes out.
 

GlassTop09

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

Have gotten hold of a copy of an unmolested OEM '08 Bullitt tune file off HPTuners repository so I've been going thru it looking to see if there was any of its stock Ford tuned maps I could use to enhance my current tune file. Saw the Spark\Advance\Base\Cold Load Adder map (to speed up catalyst warmup during cold starts by adding to max spark advance limit using load% & RPM's) & Spark\Advance\Base\Emissions Reduction Adder map (uses driver demand APP throttle position % & catalyst operating temp to determine the amount of additional spark advance to apply) had been touched in current tune file (remembered prior tuner resetting this in tune file after a cold start datalog during morning of 12-27-19 showing excessive spark reduction from found plug misfires that I later found caused from bad dielectric grease that I had used at the time.....), so I copied both of these from the Bullitt tune into my current tune file to correct this back to stock (also the same in the '09 OEM GT tune file) to help better maintain my MF #5461336 cats. While I was at it I also reset all RPM, throttle & MPH speed limiters to match the OEM Bullitt settings cause I just wanted to (Bullitt's throttle limiter @ 6,500 RPM's, spark & fuel limiters @ 6,625 RPM's & VSS speed limiter of 151 MPH instead of leaving all set at the tuner set max RPM limits of the OEM valve springs @ 6,800 RPM's & VSS @ 255 MPH....disables this, to give a little room to help protect stressing out a valve spring\retainer during WOT hits.....car will hardly ever be hitting this anyway so more than enough for my usage).

Also remembered Jeffery Evans @ EPA during training videos on tuning Fuel\Oxygen Sensors\Transport Delay map (determines time from when the injector starts injecting fuel until the O2 sensor senses\applies a fueling correction based off each cylinder) for LTH's to add 20% correction (works for the majority of LTH's....multi map data x 1.2) but no more than 30% correction in worst-scenario cases to the base stock TD map data to correct so engine can efficiently operate. Checked my current TD map & saw that the correction exceeded the 20% mark (I have Kooks 1 5\8" LTH's installed which are a mid-length design so the current TD settings were excessive.....some even exceeded the 30% correction range. I don't think my prior tuner did this--think this is a BAMA mistake--but prior tuner left it as found), so I copied the Bullitt stock TD data into my tune file then applied the EPA recommended 20% correction. While in there I also spent some time going thru the Torque Management\Driver Demand\Desired Torque\Normal mapping in tune applying essentially smoothing to clean it up some more (this mapping is used in both CL Normal Mode & OL DD\WOT Mode). Left all else as same, saved as a new map & wrote her in. Performed startup thru full hot idle datalogging to let PCM relearn all (idle w\ no load, idle w\ HVAC on, idle w\ HVAC & headlights on bright) & all looked good so then took car on initial drive cycle (used same 37 mi drive cycle path as all others I've posted about....except this time was done during dusk\dark instead of during late-morning\early-afternoon so IAT region was different & got gas from a different station--Speedway--due to pumps being out of commission at the COPC--ConocoPhillips--station I usually filled up at so E% may be off a little. Have bought an E% fuel test kit to check this going forward).

Did all this yesterday evening.

Car drove fine thruout......after completing the DFCO 60-40 MM Monitor training I stabbed her from a 20-100 roll to test the DD mapping......helped the mid-range\top end TQ power transitions as engine TQ progression thru this area improved a little (I cleaned up several dips in the DD map data plotting that I found that I figured was influencing the actual engine ETC TQ modeling output) so getting there.......

Checked results when I got home as follows:
IM Readiness all passed except EVAP (FL >85% so EVAP test disabled).
B1 cat CE ratio @ .172
B2 cat CE ratio @ .156
CMBT @ 1,272*F
(this is the area where the cats normally ran prior my starting self-tuning)
Gotta make a few more drive cycles to see where this all finally shakes out.

What I did find was a marked improvement in EVAP purge cycle control (total EVAP canister\fuel tank purge vacuum dropped from -1.235 in\H2O avg prior to an impressive -0.985 in\H2O avg in the same PCM EVAP_% target avg window).......this has got to be due to the new O2 sensor TD 20% corrected mapping speeding up this process (improved timing) so cleaner front O2 sensor voltage response to engine injector spray thru exhaust pulse so STFT's are much cleaner so is easier for PCM to detect changes in STFT baseline patterns. This is ensuring that even less outside unmetered air enters IM during EVAP purge so STFT+LTFT are mostly being offset from unmetered E10\91 oct fuel vapors. This showed up in the STFT+LTFT correction off EVAP purge being cut by 2\3 (was in B1\B2 3.5% avg range as tested in post #193) to around B1\B2 1.15% avg range now so overall STFT+LTFT correction thru the engine is showing a more accurate rep of the front-end fueling off 14.13 calc'd E10 fuel stoich AFR loaded in tune which will also have an effect on the cats CE ratio results as well.

Gonna put more driving time on this particular tune revision # to see how it all fleshes out......feels better but there is a void in the current tune's DD TQ request map between APP 0 A\D counts-92 A\D counts area (stock DD map settings) & 117 A\D counts-545 A\D counts area (prior modified DD map settings) from 750 RPM's on out that progressively gets worse (causes engine hesitation\slight drop off then surges once the void is crossed when doing any rolling throttle hits w\ engine RPM's above 750) that I need to do some research on as to how to go about fixing the low end DD TQ request (daily driver) to better align w\ the high end DD TQ request (power) to increase daily driver TQ output requests w\o creating any weird TQ request issues in between that negatively impacts the engine TQ modeling.

Picture below...........
Prior Tuner DD TQ Request map graph.png

Getting there......................
 

GlassTop09

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

After last posting I went back to "school" to learn how the TQ Management\DD TQ Request mapping (maps the driver controls thru the APP) relates to the TQ Model\TQ Calculation\Engine TQ & Inverse mapping (the mapping the PCM uses to calc the engine TQ output off MAF airload calcs then commands the ETC control to apply desired MAF airload calc'd from TB TPS angle% to meet the APP DD TQ request w\ these 3V's using the Spanish Oaks PCM strategies. Now I know why the void exists in the APP DD TQ request mapping so this is normal (APP DD TQ request mapping axis runs counter to the PCM Engine TQ & Inverse load% mapping so the APP DD TQ mapping doesn't override the PCM Engine TQ\Inverse TQ load% mapping......when APP DD TQ request has APP A\D counts held constant the request TQ trends down (less TQ request) vs engine TQ\Inverse load% mapping trends up (more TQ output) so when the APP DD TQ request crosses lower than matching PCM engine TQ\Inverse load% output, the PCM then knows to stop acknowledging the APP DD TQ request & only adjust PCM engine TQ\Inverse load% output to maintain the APP DD TQ request crosspoint until the APP A\D counts change to change the APP DD TQ request to PCM TQ modeling\TQ Mangement.

Some tuners (my prior tuner & previous BAMA tuners as well did this) will leave the APP DD TQ request mapping between 16 A\D counts to 92 A\D counts (APP 2% to 9% range) alone (so stays stock) as this part of the DD mapping can be very tedious\time consuming to tune\line up correctly to get any extra low RPM TQ response improvement (small in the grand scheme of things but aids in initial TQ increase response resolution if done right) w\o throwing the relationship out of whack causing control issues (IPC Wheel TQ errors) but will tune the APP DD 117 A\D counts to 545 A\D counts mapping (APP 11% thru 53%....53% corresponds to WOT--matches the ETC\Pedal\Pedal Pos to WOT End setting of 545 A\D counts.....when PCM will have already transitioned from CL Normal to OL DD\WOT operation....why some tuners lower the ETC\Pedal\Pedal Pos to WOT Start setting down very low....in the 150-250 A\D counts range....APP 15% to 24% from the stock setting of 460 A\D counts--APP 45%--to tell PCM to start CL to OL transition early off APP counts that exceed the WOT Start setting) to closely parallel w\ the PCM engine TQ\Inverse load% mapping so engine TQ output won't drop due to a mapping cross point but matches w\ the APP DD TQ request so PCM will be trying to maintain mid\high range TQ load% output as high as the spark, VCT, MAF airload% & fueling can get it w\o knock & NB O2 sensor operation skewing the fueling (disabled in OL) to increase\maintain RPM's under high load (flatten out the TQ curve) to drive HP output up (what you saw in the DD map picture I posted in prior post). This is why I was feeling the momentary TQ rate off APP DD TQ request change soften then come on like a surge when the APP was at a certain A\D count point in pedal travel. You can still cause ETC control issues (IPC Wheel TQ errors) if you're not careful here as you'd be cutting a fine line between being a hero & causing ETC runaway (why some tuners won't touch any of the TQ management maps, ETC TB PTA\EA mapping or PCM engine TQ\Inverse load% mapping, especially if engine is still NA, cause most folks install engine components that don't require all this mapping to be touched for the engine to run Ok.....most cams that folks install are of the "full VCT-compatible", "NSR" or "full drop in" variety which means that they are ground\designed to run Ok on the stock tune but not optimized so only some spark, VCT or fueling adjustments are made along w\ massaging this APP DD TQ request mapping to get the HP\TQ increase most get....or they'll make adjustments to the TQ modeling, TQ management, APP DD TQ request mapping as well as ETC TB tuning then raise the IPC Wheel TQ Error max setting from the stock 25,000 to a high enough setting so the PCM won't go into Limp Mode off excessive high IPC Wheel TQ error generation (this is where a ETC runaway can occur from shoddy tuning of the TQ tables\ETC control causing potential loss of control of the car.....is also what I found done in my car's tune & is part of why I decided to start doing tuning on my own car myself going forward so I know what's what at any\all times w\ my car's tuning).

You have to make several parts of the tune file to work in order, at somewhat precise timing during transition from CL Normal to OL DD\WOT seamlessly w\o causing lean spikes, high IPC Wheel TQ errors, etc from poor timing during PCM transition (getting into OL from CL too early or too late)......like a conductor leading an orchestra of several separate instruments to play a song in unison w\o missing a beat or note.

When FI is involved, you have no choice but to work all of this.......is just 1 of the items that can make\break a 3V SO tuner's reputation (takes a lot of patience, knowledge & willingness to put the time & effort in to getting all this TQ tuning\ETC TB tuning optimized & correct in tune so PCM operates happy w\o high IPC Wheel TQ Error generation but get all there is to get & do it safely to boot whether in NA or FI config.......most OEM Ford SO PCM strategies outside of the 07-10 GT500's & any boutique operators like Roush & Saleen, were never written w\ FI operation in mind....only NA but can still be screwed up fairly easily).

Since learning all this I have been spending several late nights going thru several OEM tune files (OEM 2005 GT 300\320 auto trans, OEM 2008 Bullitt 315\325 manual trans, OEM 2009 GT 300\320 manual trans, OEM 2010 GT 319\329 manual trans & OEM 2010 GT500 540\510 manual trans) looking at all TQ tuning mapping to then compare to my existing tune file's TQ mapping to then make changes to DD TQ request mapping in APP 16 A\D to 92 A\D counts area as well as applying some smoothing in the APP 117 A\D thru 545 A\D counts area to remove some out of place TQ output requests to clean up the TQ transitions across the map.

Here is a sample of this:
GlassTop09 DD TQ Request map graph.JPG

So far, this is the TQ ft-lb change results when compared to the DD TQ request map in earlier posting:
DD TQ Request map differences from Prior Tuner to GlassTop09.JPG

Here is the OEM Engine Indicated TQ Output off load% map for comparison:
Stock Engine TQ vs RPM vs Load% map.JPG

Actual testing results coming soon.
 
Last edited:

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
Someone is getting hooked......
I speak from experience. Just sayin'. lol
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Someone is getting hooked......
I speak from experience. Just sayin'. lol
You'd be right!
Hella fun & satisfying tuning your own stuff!
Especially getting all the performance I can get out of her AND maintaining emissions compliance at the same time.............finding this isn't as hard to pull off as some may think (the work is in having to do the Mode 6 Cat CE Ratio tracking after a tune revision to see any changes caused from tuning), but it would be faster to do using a 5-gas analyzer in conjunction w\ a WB O2 sensor while on a dyno......

The real fun will start once I get my Pro Link cable\firmware upgrade for my MPVI2+ & my Zeitronics ZT-4 Dual WB O2 Sensor controller kit installed & wired up......................

:beer:
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

Loaded all that rescaled DD TQ Request mapping in tune revision #13 (post #214) then wrote it into PCM Sunday afternoon & made a test drive after running driveway datalogging to ensure all was operating well enough to take out. Test drive went successful & engine picked up a good amount of low RPM TQ response off idle (noted that the ft-lb reading in the 740 RPM idle speed column at APP 16 A\D counts of DD TQ map is what the PCM will use to set idle TQ target w\ APP at 0 A\D counts for engine adaptive idle speed control to hold the desired idle speed target.....in my case this was now @ 22.76 ft-lbs--before was @ 11.06 ft-lbs), but this TQ setting was taxing the EAISC to its limits trying to keep the engine at 740 RPM's w\ that much desired TQ commanded (PCM using commanded spark to maintain TQ & idle speed as VCT already had cams at full advance).....had to remove foot completely off the APP when decel to allow PCM to maintain idle control (any slight movement of APP caused engine RPM's to increase due to DD TQ request off APP count increase causing a "cruise control effect" around idle) otherwise the rest showed a marked improvement in low speed TQ response in addition to what I had already gained thru ETC TB PTA\EA mapping correction to better match my FR 62mm TB. All other checks came out good. Felt really good everywhere else except for the tight idle control issue so I went in & readjusted the DD TQ request mapping again this morning, cutting the TQ request @ 740 RPM's from 22.76 ft-lbs to 17.76 ft-lbs (only 5 ft-lb TQ reduction) then resloped the APP 16, 42, 65 & 92 A\D count row TQ numbers down slightly steeper between 740 RPM to 3500 RPM columns to move the crosspoints slightly to the left (also trims a little off the TQ ft-lb settings in these cell areas as well) to provide better control of DD TQ request mapping to Indicated Engine TQ vs RPM vs load% mapping thus ETC TQ modeling to control TB then saved new revision #14 & wrote it in PCM this morning.

This is a sample of why tuning this section of the DD TQ request mapping takes some attention to detail & some patience to optimize it properly, especially in the area between APP 16 to 92 count rows, & properly blend it into the rest of the mapping or you can cause some issues (why most just leave it stock & concentrate on the APP 117 to 545 count rows......).

Startup & datalogging went fine......idle speed control now fully regained w\ commanded idle TQ @ 17.76 ft-lbs @ 740 RPM's......no idle hang detected off throttle blips....all decel operation returned to normal operation as before & engine idle stabilized smooth as glass as it had been before so I think I got it all handled but I couldn't do an actual drive cycle to test it today due to having to wait on electricians to bring a wall plate to finish covering old load center box so CoF inspectors can do final inspection of new load center upgrade install to house Friday (1 of the main 100A CB's in old load center went bad on B bus bar causing A bus bar hots to reverse thru neutrals into B bus bar thru all wiring\equipment plugged into B bus bar breaker circuits causing instability & blowing out several 3-pronged electrical components....all happened soon after we got back home from 23-day vacation.....load center was OEM equipment when house was built in 1948 thus lost grandfather clause......old load center\CB's were discontinued a LONG time ago & CoF had to disconnect power to service any of it so it had to go) in which they never showed up after informing me of this happening today (assumed that wall plate wasn't ready yet) so hopefully will be able to do the drive cycle sometime tomorrow.

After all this fleshes out, I think it'll be all done for now. Got my Fit-Test Fuel Test kit in so I'll be going to several stations getting some E10\91oct fuel to test it for E% to then get an actual avg E content % in my area to then potentially update the fuel stoich AFR in tune accordingly for accuracy.....depending on the results.
 

GlassTop09

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

Made the initial drive cycle today on the last tune revision #14 w\ the changes mentioned in post #217 to the APP 16 thru 92 count section of the Torque Management\Driver Demand TQ map only (all else is same as last tune revision #13). Drive cycle went very good......happy to report that all has returned to normal behavior except for the improved low RPM initial TQ response......no more "idle cruise control effect" but this 17.76 ft-lbs of idle TQ is very nice when taking off using nothing but the engine idle TQ output (no APP application), car just rolls off w\ no effort & hardly any idle RPM dip now due to having the 6.75 extra ft-lbs of commanded TQ available (was @ 11.06 ft-lbs at 740 RPM's prior & engine would roll off pretty well then) for ETC to apply. Car feels very good on any accel conditions, very responsive & easily controllable but not harsh......follows APP movement very precisely w\ no lag so I'm gonna call this reworked Torque Management\DD TQ Request map done in my tune.

Once again, the Mode 6 PCM Self-Check data confirms the rest of the tune settings changes made outside of the base engine tuning as valid:
IM Readiness showed all 7 monitors (including EVAP) completed on the 1st drive cycle driving the same 37mi test route in same manner (complete w\ the DFSO 60-40 MM training done to fully enable all MM data entry into Mode 6 PCM Component Self-Check).

All O2 sensor data good-the revised 20% O2 sensor Transport Delay mapping did wonders here as the 2 banks were drawing on top of each other in VCM Scanner datalogging......MUCH improved O2 sensor signal timing.

Catalyst CE Ratio (emissions) results were outstanding once again: B1 @ .062, B2 @ .086 w\ CMBT @ 1,316*F thru MF #5461336 3-way aftermarket cats........had remembered that prior tuner had made changes in 2 spark advance base maps that PCM uses to heat up cats during cold starts & to maintain cat operating temps based on DD APP% during a cold start datalog on 12-27-19--engine running rough--I found later the issue was misfires caused from using bad dielectric grease in COP boots but these 2 maps were never reset back to stock so I reset them back to stock '08 Bullitt\'09 GT settings in revision #11. Now all cats emissions control mapping in tune file is verified operational & at OEM Ford tuned stock settings along w\ corrected CL fuel stoich AFR @ 14.13 for E10\91 oct fuel along w\ more accurate front NB O2 sensor operation from revised O2 sensor TD mapping, resetting ETC WOT Pedal Pos Start setting from 250 A\D counts (24%) to 358 A\D counts (35%) to stop PCM from transitioning from CL into OL too early disabling NB O2 sensor fuel correction feedback before OL fueling is enabled & reenabling MAF Adaption is paying off.......on an OEM long block 4.6L w\ FR Bullitt 85mm CAI, FR 62mm TB, OEM Ford '08 IM w\ CMDP's (no CMCV's), Lunati VooDoo #21270700 aftermarket cams w\ VCT load% control mapping set to limit VCT cam retard to +20* max instead of the OEM +60* max range in tune (cams are fully VCT-compliant but intentionally not allowing PCM to retard them past +20* to maintain higher avg cyl pressures to enhance TQ output across the board), Kooks 1 5\8" LTH's\Kooks X-Pipe w\ MF #5461336 CARB-cert aftermarket 3-way universal cats (match '09 GT VEI EFN #9FMXV05.4VEK CARB EO#D-193-140) installed, Pypes Super Bomb Mid Muffler catback exhaust & modified tune so is not a stock OEM configuration that can easily pass emissions legally in all 50 States, just not visually in some States based on outdated, inaccurate STATE requirements (which is totally ridiculous).

At this time I've gone thru tune file & have cleaned up\optimized everything that I could w\o touching any of the base engine tuning done prior (have verified\reset all else to be either period correct, fully\properly operational OEM Ford tuned data or optimal Ford tuned mapping data from other stock Ford tune files that would match up to the current tune's Ford ETC control settings to enhance current non-OEM engine component operation or reenabled & optimized ancillary OEM CL settings found either disabled or unoptimized as learned thru Evans Performance Academy's 05-10 Ford Mod Motors HPTuners training videos & other sources w\o touching MAF, fueling, VCT, spark advance\retard, knock or base Ford tuned engine, ETC TQ modeling mapping in any way as base tuning was done very well overall, just lacking badly in tune refinement......then ensuring all of it operates seamlessly & in harmony w\ each other) so outside of getting E content% fuel sampling data of the 91oct unleaded fuel in my area to know the avg E% of the fuel to then see how it compares to the calc'd fuel stoich AFR of 14.13 for E10\91oct fuel I'm currently using in tune file, it's a fully fleshed out\vetted product fully tuned to my satisfaction now.

Again, in hindsight, I should've started tuning my ride myself much, much earlier................

Final rear axle gear swap project is next.......this time using the better designed Ford 8.8" 11 pinion\43 ring full-hunting 3.91 ratio gear set from Motive Gear to fix gear whine issue from Richmond EXCEL Ford 8.8" 9 pinion\35 ring non-hunting 3.89 ratio gear set.........also this time being done by myself as well.
 

GlassTop09

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

After settling into the thought of me being essentially done refining my tune file, my attention turned to the fuel injector reference setting (this sets the injector timing's EOIT--end of injector timing--modeling point to the cam's intake IVO timing point) in my tune file since I've installed Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams in place of the stock OEM cams. Using the advertised duration-based cam timing points (better match to the cam's 0* timing that VCT uses to determine any cam timing degree change from crank timing) of the stock cams (IVO @ 15* BTDC off camshaft 0*) I find that the 345* crank setting used for injector reference fits (injectors will fire into the back of the intake valves while still closed but right at the point of opening) to promote fuel atomization\swirl into CC off hot intake valves) thus any VCT retard angles from 0* the PCM will use to offset the injector crank angle reference of 345* to maintain this injection to IVO pattern thruout the RPM range.

None of this was covered in the 05-10 Ford Mod Motors HPTuners training videos.........

When I ran my Lunati's thru this same check, I found that for these cams to be realigned to fit the stock injector timing modeling, the injector reference IVO crank angle needs to be set @ 330* in tune (Lunati's IVO @ 30* BTDC off same camshaft 0*), but I find this to be set in my tune file at 349.5* crank angle (4.5* later than stock but also puts the injectors to be firing into already open intake valves--19.5* past the 330* IVO point--instead of firing into the back of closed intake valves at the point of opening as the stock cams were modeled).
This got me to thinking as to what effect on engine performance this is causing.....especially low end TQ, as from all the research I had done suggests that this has the largest effect on low end TQ output & emissions but hardly any effect on mid\high RPM HP\TQ output due to high engine RPM's.

So, I reached out to Jeffery Evans @ Evans Performance Academy to give me some insight into this. Got reply back from Jeffery explaining the traditional reasoning why OEM's (GM, Ford, etc) typically time the injector EOIT to the cam IVO when using port fuel injection (which in general he validated my reasoning of fuel atomization\mixing as to why Ford timed the injector pulses to the cam IVO point) & that is the general pattern to follow but he also stated that the OEM's use other criteria as well (ECT, CC temps, IAT, etc) in determining the final cam IVO crank reference for injector EOIT so to be aware of this to not think this is a set in stone kind of model. But I also noticed in the injector section of the tune file there is a map that references injector timing vs ECT but the map is zeroed out which disables it (also found to be the same in all bone stock tune files as well so HPTuners doesn't provide any access to any of the Ford back end control (opposed to GM HPTuners which gives a lot of access to all this stuff thru GM PCM's) outside of the injector reference IVO crank angle setting & absolutely no mention of any of this in the Ford specific sections of HPTuners forums until 2016 MY when HPTuners provided access to Ford's OVI (open valve injection) algorithm in the later Ford PCM's......which doesn't do us SO PCM folks any good.

So I'm tempted to reset this in my tune file to match up my Lunati's IVO point to the injector's EOIT point mimicing the stock cams modeling to see what comes out of it. I've also looked at some other folks SO tune files that installed aftermarket cams & haven't found any that made corrections from the stock injector reference IVO crank angle setting so all are firing injectors into already open intake valves (all aftermarket 3V camshafts have GI cam advance greater than stock thus cam IVO points are ahead of the stock cams so this is a common issue in the 3V tuning world).

Maybe there's a good reason for not correcting the injector reference IVO modeling to match the OEM modeling purpose w\ these 3V's but I can't find ANY Ford tuner that has given any info on why not to correct this to match. My car runs good w\ these Lunati VooDoo cams having the intake valves already open when the injectors start injecting fuel into CC's, the cat CE ratio results are looking fantastic & I don't get any raw fuel smell from exhaust due to excess fuel scavenged thru CC into exhaust during OL, so it appears that there isn't any operational issues from it but I'll always be curious as to the effects of low end TQ gain\loss unless I test it.........Ford had a reason why.

I even looked at an OEM tune file from a 2007 Ford Sport Track truck (4.6L 3V iron block w\ VCT) that has this injector EOIT reference IVO crank angle setting set @ 360* or TDC or cam IVO @ 0* (don't have any info on cam profile used) so not all 4.6L 3V engines were set up the same even though all used port fuel injection w\ CMCV's & VCT for EGR as well.

Interesting issue & discussion but in the meantime, I'll leave all this as set until I get my Pro Link & WB controller installed as there doesn't appear to be any issues from an operational standpoint from the injectors injecting fuel into CC's thru open intake valves........

PS edit--Forgot to post this picture of an engine to crankshaft cam timing wheel that helped me in figuring this stuff out...........

Cam Timing Wheel.JPG
 
Last edited:

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
What is the actual lift at the valves when the injectors fire? Cam durations are referenced at 0.050 lift, thats why I asked that.

I played around with injector timing on my fox, ended up putting it back to stock. Ecam, blower 302, X303.
 

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top