Lunati VooDoo #21270700 Camshafts

[GlassTop09]

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.

Ford provided cam data that I have of the OEM 4.6L Mustang production cams was given in advertised duration numbers, so I used my Lunati's cam card data converted to advertised duration numbers to get apples to apples numbers. Since VCT uses camshaft 0* as a reference is my hunch that Ford used advertised (.006" lift std) numbers. The actual valve lift lengths between .006" to .050" isn't very much at all (essentially takes the cam lobe initial ramp rate design out of the equation for comparison purposes between different manuf's cams) so I personally don't put too much weight in .050" lift making a big difference concerning injector EOIT to IVO timing vs .006" lift, but that's just me. This I do know, the advertised numbers match up exactly w\ the given stock injector reference IVO crank angle setting so that's all I can say.

The big question I have is why so many aftermarket cams IVO's aren't referenced to match up w\ the Ford modeling for the stock cams so the injector EOIT lines up w\ the closed intake valves at point of opening to maintain the reasoning why Ford (and other manuf's) do this......you'd think fuel atomization off hot intake valves\mixing from swirl created by the initial rush of air entry from valve lift off the seat is a good enough reason to do the realignment, but from my research so far it appears that very few folks who tune Fords may actually do this w\ aftermarket camshafts. I'd like to know the reasoning as to why not.........does it have to do w\ most removing CMCV's (so swirl isn't that important anymore)? Is it due to FI usage so most just leave this setting stock out of habit? Is it due to the myth of intake air under vacuum being drawn out thru exhaust scavenging at low RPM's when exhaust is essentially at\slightly above atmospheric pressure (where EGR is usually applied w\ VCT)? Or is this just something that is done out of expediency? I don't know & it seems that a lot of Ford tuners either don't or won't have\provide any concrete data\reasoning as to why not to realign the injector reference IVO crank angle of an aftermarket cam to the injector EOIT point to match the Ford modeling intention......even Jeffery Evans didn't give any insight in my thread as to why not either, just explained what the OEM's traditional reasoning for setting this up in this way (which includes Ford as well).

By this reasoning it also raises another question as to why this setting was readjusted 4.5* later than stock in my tune file (makes some sense IMHO if the stock cams were still installed as being a fine adjustment. Hell, I don't even know if my prior tuner did this as I had a BAMA "race 91 oct" tune file in the PCM when I initially took it to him, but I DID have the stock cams in the engine at that time so there's that) but there's a good enough reasoning for that until the Lunati's went in.

I'll keep looking for an answer as I know this has to have been addressed by somebody at some point in time.

 

[GlassTop09]

FYI...................

I think I've found my answer this morning while searching the 'Net when I found this chart:

This chart is rep of the amount of cam angle rotation difference between an advertised dur valve lift height timing point to reach a .050" dur valve lift height timing point (to convert into crank angle rotation simply multi result by 2).

This shows that the amount of crank angle rotation to hit .050" dur valve lift height point from .006" adv dur valve lift height point is 24.12* to move .044" total valve lift height travel (the distance equivalent of an OEM 4.6L NA engine's spark plug gap).

So, when I extrapolate from this it becomes clearer why most tuners leave the injector reference IVO crank angle setting at stock setting of 345*when installing aftermarket cams in these 4.6L 3V's.......the actual change is very small thus is considered minor so no tangible reason to actually reset this from stock.........unless you just want this setting to be technically correct to match up the new cam's IVO crank angle to the background set Ford injector's EOIT point in tune file thus matches the Ford intended dynamics as set w\ the stock cam's IVO crank angle.

So, expediency (viewed as waste of time) is the generally correct answer.

 

[GlassTop09]

FYI.......................

After posting the prior post & thinking bout this some more, the tuning bug bit me so hard I had to give in & test this out....................

Damn this is just too addicting..............

Made the injector reference IVO crank angle change to 330* to match my Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams adv dur IVO timing point of 30* BTDC so the injector EOIT point lines up w\ it (fuel spray now hits the back of fully closed intake valves right at the point of opening, just like the stock cams did using the 345* crank angle). So now we'll find out if I can see something change in engine idle thru VCM Scanner datalogging. While in here, I went into the DD TQ Request map, highlighted all data in APP rows 16 thru 92 & dropped TQ by 1 ft-lb just to reduce requested TQ slightly in this area of the map for a more\less safety cushion, saved as tune revision #15 & wrote it into the PCM.

Started car afterwards.....all fired up as before w\ no noticeable differences so engine ran good thru warmup into full hot idle w\ all looking just as before........except the TQ modeling.

1st, I typed that I reduced all TQ numbers in APP rows 16 thru 92 by 1 ft-lb TQ, so now the idle TQ is 16.76 ft-lbs requested @ 740 RPM's w\ APP @ 0 A\D counts instead of 17.76 ft-lbs prior. All showed the same numbers as before (desired TQ & ETC TQ request lined up bouncing between 16-18 ft-lbs).......except the Engine Brake TQ output numbers (actual engine brake TQ output to maintain desired idle RPM's), they actually increased from being around 0 to -2 ft-lbs (also learned today that this PCM is using the common right-handed model for TQ expression thus follows engine RPM rotation so any -TQ numbers are from CW rotation as noted from front of engine) to -12 to -14 ft-lbs thus engine is showing to have actually increased TQ output to better match the desired\ETC idle TQ request! All else holding the same as before, engine is running smooth as glass & sounding real good. Made several sharp throttle accels to test the tracking, the IPC TQ Errors under accel all were 0 errors w\ decels only showing any IPC TQ Errors, but only as high as 200 thruout so this result is fantastic to see! Idle IPC TQ Errors were maintaining in the 0 to -60 range (from load changes thru accessories loading) so this is the best I've seen from the TQ modeling to date.

All this was w\ HVAC off & no headlights on. When I turned HVAC on, the EBTQO increased from -12\-14 ft-lbs to -17\-18 ft-lbs to hold the 740 idle RPM's (matching the desired\ETC TQ request numbers). When I turned on bright headlights w\ HVAC on the EBTQO increased again from -17\-18 ft-lbs to -20\-21 ft-lbs to hold the 740 idle RPM's (Engine Indicated TQ mapping\ETC modeling kicked in based on necessary MAF air load% & upped engine TQ output over DD TQ request to maintain the desired idle speed due to the increased accessory loading from alternator in addition w\ HVAC). Shut headlights\HVAC off......EBTQO returned right back to the -12\-14 ft-lbs readings range it started from.

So, from looking at the datalogging results it demonstrates that Ford engineers knew exactly what they were doing once again by setting the injector EOIT point to line up to the injector reference IVO crank degree angle of a camshaft's intake adv dur IVO point (does show to increase engine low speed TQ output from improving fuel atomization\swirl or mixing by injecting fuel spray against the back of the closed intake valves right at the point of opening) & we SHOULD reset the injector reference IVO crank degree angle setting in tune of any cam's adv dur IVO's crank degree angle to match the injector EOIT point to maintain this modeling.

An extra 10-12 ft-lbs of TQ for TQ Management to have on tap to apply as needed is nothing to be dismissive about & we should take advantage of it.

I definately know I am!

PS edit--Just got done w\ initial drive cycle off this tune revision & once again, all IM Readiness monitors completed driving the same 37 mi drive cycle route I've been using for a couple of years, this particular 1 was done about the same time frame as the 1 I did after tune revision #13 (late evening going into dusk\dark but still on the same tank of Speedway\COPC mix of E10\91 oct fuel). All went as expected......found from this DC that the DFSO 60-40 MM training completes better\cleaner using 4th gear instead of 5th (all Mode 6 MM cyl last counts results come within 3-4 counts of each other). The cat CE ratio results came back in the same region as they did during DC off TR #13 (B1 @ .141, B2 @ .184, CMBT @ 1,276*F......also same region before my tuning started).....would be temped to think that this is IAT related (pattern established) but due to the 10-12 ft-lbs of low RPM TQ improvement verified from resetting the injector reference IVO crank angle setting as documented above I don't care at this point as the cat CE ratio results are still damn good numbers that'll easily pass emissions & this much TQ improvement I ain't gonna give it up so IMHO a win-win. Saw another improvement in the B1\B2 STFT+LTFT balancing......B1 LTFT @ +0.8%, B2 LTFT @ +3.9% w\ both banks STFT's switching around 450mV avg for a 3.1% avg diff bank to bank now instead of the usual 5.5% avg diff so getting improvements all around off this tune correction.

Now........I think I'm really done for now (outside of testing for avg E content % of area E10\91 oct unleaded fuel) as at this time nothing jumps out at me anymore as being odd\off\out of place in tune file.............

 

[GlassTop09]

In hindsight, I think IMHO the major reasoning why HPTuners made the decision to not provide any access to the Ford injection control algorithms in these SO PCM's (outside of what they have done) probably had a LOT to do w\ the advent of VCT usage (this was new at the time, HPTuners being at the time mostly GM based & they were just starting to provide access to the SO Ford OS's for tuning) so they only provided access to the part of all this in the Ford SO OS's that they knew was similar methodology used across all platforms & wouldn't cause a lot of complication for tuners to have to figure out all the background coding logic Ford engineers put in to get all this to operate properly w\ VCT operation.......thus the KISS model.

Don't know this for a fact but it seems logical\makes sense to me.

 

[GlassTop09]

Here is a snippet of Jeffery Evans response to my question concerning the injection reference IVO crank angle setting in SO PCM tune file & it's use off the forums in his tuning web site:

To date, I have yet to find another SO PCM tune file from another owner\tuner that has aftermarket cams installed where this injector reference IVO crank angle setting was changed from the stock setting of 345* which I have verified matches the Ford published stock Mustang 3V production cam's adv dur cam IVO timing point of 15* BTDC, so I KNOW the aftermarket cam's same adv dur IVO timing points don't match the 345* crank angle setting in tune file thus have thrown off the Ford background injection EOIT modeling in the SO PCM strategy.

From my testing results, this issue of not correcting this injector reference IVO crank angle setting to align the Ford background injection modeling EOIT point to a cam's adv dur IVO timing crank angle appears to be a good valid reason as to why it seems that low end TQ loss is always noted to occur between stock cams vs any aftermarket cams (losing the fuel atomization\swirl advantages from it along w\ any other background injection timing optimization based off this IVO crank angle alignment being correct).

YMMV......................

PS edit--In post #217 I had typed that Ford started using OVI in 2016 MY Stang engines.......found out that this OVI control was 1st made available in 2011 w\ the advent of the Coyote engine platform\Copperhead PCM strategies using Tri-VCT so I stand corrected.

 

[GlassTop09]

Mustang cam tuning for power and drivability (hptuners.com)

I finally found this thread on HPTuners Ford tuning forum that the OP tuner, back in 2012, verified in the Ford SO PCM that Ford does use adv dur cam timing data @ .006" lift height to set the injector reference IVO crank angle setting\VCT operations along w\ the Ford derived setup of injection timing to line up the injection EOIT point to the cam's adv dur IVO crank angle (360*-cam IVO BTDC) to spray all fuel onto the back of the intake valves just before\right at the point of opening is the optimum method w\ aftermarket cams as well as stock cams (verified w\ a 5-gas analyzer to prove that doing this would not affect the cyl AFR even though the exhaust valve is still open when intake valves open--valve overlap between EOES\BOIS--due to the potential reasoning of losing some fuel into exhaust causing fuel waste\low MPG) so engine has best idle, best MPG & also best low RPM TQ output w\ aftermarket cams (this OP tuner didn't say this in the above thread but I saw the low speed TQ output increase during VCM Scanner datalogging after I made the injector reference IVO crank angle change to match the cam adv dur IVO point of my Lunati VooDoo cams).

Also noted the OP tuner also made changes in other areas of SO tune files to improve drivability of aftermarket cams that I made note of..........some of them I have recently made (idle, DD APP 16 thru 92 rows), some of them my prior tuner had already made (main VCT load% mapping optimized @ +20* max cam degree retard along w\ spark tables setup to match) to improve part throttle TQ output even more thus drivability.

So, all this data out there & folks are still making this injection timing tuning mistake when installing aftermarket camshafts in these 3V's............10 yrs later.

 

[Forty61]

So when are you gonna start tuning other peoples cars? Lol. It’s all too in depth for me but damn if I’m not impressed by the level of detail.

 

[crjackson]

This is waayy over my head, and my abilities. I was considering getting an HP Tuners Kit, but I now know not to waste my money. I could NEVER comprehend all the intricacies needed.

GlassTop09, I’m thoroughly impressed. I wish you were Coyote tuning instead.

 

[GlassTop09]

So when are you gonna start tuning other peoples cars? Lol. It’s all too in depth for me but damn if I’m not impressed by the level of detail.

I've learned that some hobbies (this is what tuning is to me as I'm retired now thus have paid my dues to the world of paid labor) become less fun\no fun when they're used to make money off of, so this was never my intention concerning tuning, so I won't be doing that....sorry.

As far as the level of detail, that is just a part of ole GlassTop09's background.......spent too many years working in the petroleum industry doing too many jobs\tasks that require a high level of detail in critical thought & process, engineering level mathematical\science application & testing\validation techniques to do these jobs\tasks well so its more or less a natural habit to me when I take on a task\job\project........the devil is always in the details, so to say..............

 

[GlassTop09]

This is waayy over my head, and my abilities. I was considering getting an HP Tuners Kit, but I now know not to waste my money. I could NEVER comprehend all the intricacies needed.

GlassTop09, I’m thoroughly impressed. I wish you were Coyote tuning instead.

That might be a while coming crjackson2134, as I've no intention at the moment to buy\swap a Coyote into my ride in the foreseeable future to learn to tune it as I'm having too much fun w\ my lowly 4.6L 3V.

But I've also learned to never say never.........

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

Mustang cam tuning for power and drivability (hptuners.com)

I finally found this thread on HPTuners Ford tuning forum that the OP tuner, back in 2012, verified in the Ford SO PCM that Ford does use adv dur cam timing data @ .006" lift height to set the injector reference IVO crank angle setting\VCT operations along w\ the Ford derived setup of injection timing to line up the injection EOIT point to the cam's adv dur IVO crank angle (360*-cam IVO BTDC) to spray all fuel onto the back of the intake valves just before\right at the point of opening is the optimum method w\ aftermarket cams as well as stock cams (verified w\ a 5-gas analyzer to prove that doing this would not affect the cyl AFR even though the exhaust valve is still open when intake valves open--valve overlap between EOES\BOIS--due to the potential reasoning of losing some fuel into exhaust causing fuel waste\low MPG) so engine has best idle, best MPG & also best low RPM TQ output w\ aftermarket cams (this OP tuner didn't say this in the above thread but I saw the low speed TQ output increase during VCM Scanner datalogging after I made the injector reference IVO crank angle change to match the cam adv dur IVO point of my Lunati VooDoo cams).

Also noted the OP tuner also made changes in other areas of SO tune files to improve drivability of aftermarket cams that I made note of..........some of them I have recently made (idle, DD APP 16 thru 92 rows), some of them my prior tuner had already made (main VCT load% mapping optimized @ +20* max cam degree retard along w\ spark tables setup to match) to improve part throttle TQ output even more thus drivability.

So, all this data out there & folks are still making this injection timing tuning mistake when installing aftermarket camshafts in these 3V's............10 yrs later.

Lito is a master at tuning the 3V and getting cammed engines running sweetly. What you mentioned above may be his secret.

This is waayy over my head, and my abilities. I was considering getting an HP Tuners Kit, but I now know not to waste my money. I could NEVER comprehend all the intricacies needed.

GlassTop09, I’m thoroughly impressed. I wish you were Coyote tuning instead.

Way over my head too, and I'm also impressed with Dale's work. As for tuning Coyotes you have Jon Lund at Lund Racing on the West Coast, JDM Engineering on the East Coast, and Brenspeed in between.

That might be a while coming crjackson2134, as I've no intention at the moment to buy\swap a Coyote into my ride in the foreseeable future to learn to tune it as I'm having too much fun w\ my lowly 4.6L 3V.

But I've also learned to never say never.........

With over 350rwhp, why would you want to do a Coyote swap? I'm 30rwhp behind you (I prefer a lower rpm torque bias so sticking to stock cams) and even I wouldn't contemplate it since my engine runs great, gets decent fuel economy, has only 96k miles, and doesn't consume any oil during 5000 mile oil change intervals (full synthetic).
Like you, I wouldn't say never to a Coyote swap but if I was yearning for more power, I'd just add forced induction.

 

[GlassTop09]

With over 350rwhp, why would you want to do a Coyote swap? I'm 30rwhp behind you (I prefer a lower rpm torque bias so sticking to stock cams) and even I wouldn't contemplate it since my engine runs great, gets decent fuel economy, has only 96k miles, and doesn't consume any oil during 5000 mile oil change intervals (full synthetic).
Like you, I wouldn't say never to a Coyote swap but if I was yearning for more power, I'd just add forced induction.

Hey Dino!
Exactly my thoughts also......my engine just turned over 159,000 mi & has all the rest of the same attributes you've described for your engine (I run 5W-30 full synthetic, mainly due to the higher mileage on her & am gonna be looking into the advent of switching to 5W-40 full synthetic in the future) & especially from finding\fixing all the ancillary tuning mistakes I've found that enhances CL efficiency\TQ application (where we all live within when driving on the street) this just solidifies my reasoning to stick w\ my lowly 4.6L 3V in NA config even more.
From what I've seen\learned since starting tuning my own car, the only reason why I'd swap to a Coyote over my 4.6L 3V IS the advent of FI.......managing FI operations is just much easier done\ better managed using Copperhead & up PCM's as all the base necessary components are provided up front (WB O2 sensors, full CL operation & easier to add a MAP\SIP sensor for boost control) so all can be easily managed from the tune thus is centralized..... but for me to do that, I need a better reason than driving around on the street......so unless I get into some type of competitive racing I just don't see the need for FI in my world thus don't see the need for a Coyote when a well setup & tuned 4.6L 3V NA can provide all the HP\TQ I want to enjoy on the street (cruiser duty\canyon carving), especially when properly geared to make full use of the HP\TQ output across as much of the powerband as possible (I just love this 3.90\26" dia effective gearing, matched w\ the TR 3650's gear ratio spread, matched to my engine's current TQ band output......very nimble, quick & responsive down low thruout part throttle operation but still is tall enough to easily hit the factory rated top end speed of 140 MPH for this chassis at WOT @ 6,500 RPM redline in a fairly short period of time......I liken my car compared to a BMW M3 Sport w\ 400-600 lbs more weight).

This is why I pulled all the BMR rear suspension components off & went to all upgraded later MY OEM SVT suspension components\Roush 3rd Link UCA & regeared the rear axle....... I've also found that the OEM 2-piece driveshaft is MUCH smoother in operation than my 1-piece aluminum drive shaft was & gives much smoother clutch engagement\control when paired w\ the Roush 3rd Link UCA.......which is ideal for street\canyon carving driving IMHO.

To date, I've only read\noted of 3 tuners who've mentioned setting this injector ref IVO crank angle setting to line up w\ a cam's adv dur IVO timing\crank angle point as Ford has already modeled to be optimum.......the OP in the HPTuners thread I attached, another tuner on HPTuners forums who mentioned this to another tuner who was trying to figure out why his HP\TQ output was lower than expected w\ Hot Rod cams installed & Jeffery Evans @ EPA. On the HPTuners forums in other threads, I've read where several well respected, advanced tuners on the HPTuners forums just glossed over this trying to assist other tuners who were struggling to get expected HP\TQ out of cars that had Hot Rod cams installed (saw in their tune files that they posted for review that this injector ref IVO setting was still set at stock 345* crank angle when HR cams adv dur IVO is 49* BTDC or 311* crank angle)...... not once did any of them touch on this injector ref IVO crank angle alignment issue which has already been codified by Ford as necessary to match up to all of Ford's background injection control modeling in conjunction w\ VCT operations which is referencing off the injectors firing into the back of closed intake valves at the point of opening for these 3V's (news flash....Coyotes use this very same injector ref IVO crank angle setting methodology (std is 350* w\ stock cams) as well thus is a carryover from the 3V......has to be in conjunction w\ the use of VCT as Coyotes use Tri-VCT. I've seen it 1st hand in a Copperhead tune file along w\ OVI control.....mimics DI by allowing port injection to inject fuel spray thru open intake valves directly into CC under hi load operation (set to use 380* to 420* injection EOIT crank angle based off engine RPM & load%, which is a ref off EVC during the intake stroke so PCM will spray fuel thru fully opened intake valves into CC like DI would to better cool chambers so higher spark advance can be used along w\ the higher 11.0\1 CR to increase HP\TQ output w\o detonation thus is a batch spray method.....part fueling against back of closed intake valves for atomization\swirl then rest thru open intake valves for CC cooling).

Notice what I typed about Coyotes using OVI........now read thru the thread I posted where the OP tuner said how the injectors will fire thru open valves at high RPM's (roughly about 60% of the injection time) vs low RPM's when the injector ref IVO crank angle setting matches the cam's adv dur IVO timing point w\ these 3V's....... kinda gives me an indication of Ford already figuring some of this stuff out prior Coyote & using it in the background injector modeling in the SO PCM especially w\ the later MY & special marks (Bullitt, Shelby GT & GT-H)......we just don't have access to it thru HPTuners.

They got it from somewhere.................

 

[GlassTop09]

PS edit--Just got done w\ initial drive cycle off this tune revision & once again, all IM Readiness monitors completed driving the same 37 mi drive cycle route I've been using for a couple of years, this particular 1 was done about the same time frame as the 1 I did after tune revision #13 (late evening going into dusk\dark but still on the same tank of Speedway\COPC mix of E10\91 oct fuel). All went as expected......found from this DC that the DFSO 60-40 MM training completes better\cleaner using 4th gear instead of 5th (all Mode 6 MM cyl last counts results come within 3-4 counts of each other). The cat CE ratio results came back in the same region as they did during DC off TR #13 (B1 @ .141, B2 @ .184, CMBT @ 1,276*F......also same region before my tuning started).....would be temped to think that this is IAT related (pattern established) but due to the 10-12 ft-lbs of low RPM TQ improvement verified from resetting the injector reference IVO crank angle setting as documented above I don't care at this point as the cat CE ratio results are still damn good numbers that'll easily pass emissions & this much TQ improvement I ain't gonna give it up so IMHO a win-win. Saw another improvement in the B1\B2 STFT+LTFT balancing......B1 LTFT @ +0.8%, B2 LTFT @ +3.9% w\ both banks STFT's switching around 450mV avg for a 3.1% avg diff bank to bank now instead of the usual 5.5% avg diff so getting improvements all around off this tune correction.

FYI..............
Ran a drive cycle today that included some freeway driving at higher speeds thus DC was in excess of 60 mi. Car ran good & strong thruout....... engine tone was very smooth & very quiet inside cab (absolutely no droning) at speed (outside of the gear whine from the bad set of 3.89 gears installed) & was very responsive off idle & thruout low RPM part throttle operation, so all is good.

Got out my trusty Foxwell NT301 & checked her out afterwards. As usual, IM Readiness reported all green w\ all 7 monitors passed. Have made 7 DC's to date @ 126 mi on current revision. Mode 6 Cat CE ratios came back as follows:
B1 @ .141, B2 @ .184, CMBT @ 1,306*F....... outside of cat operating temps the rest repeated exactly as the initial DC of this revision #15 but in midday AAT temps instead of during late dusk dark so this is saying to me that the cats are indeed getting worked a little harder due to the injection ref IVO crank angle setting of 330* lining up my Lunati cam's adv dur IVO timing to injection modeling's EOIT point upping TQ output & not due to AAT changes. Noted B1\B2 STFT+LTFT balances have gotten better......B1 LTFT @ +0.8%, B2 LTFT @ +2.3% for 1.5% difference vs 3.1% during initial DC......in 7 DC's the diff is essentially cut in half. This has EVAP purge cycling included as well in the STFT+LTFT correction.

So, for example, anyone who thinks the MAF Adaption setting enabled doesn't do anything useful in the tune (which has a lot to do w\ this bank-to-bank balancing correction), your argument is against the Ford engineers who designed, developed, tested & implemented all this & not me & I'll put my money on the Ford engineers....... along w\ a lot of the other ancillary stuff I found either disabled, defeated or not utilized as intended by Ford engineers..........

Please note before I made this injector ref IVO crank angle setting change, the setting was @ 349.5* which had the intake valves coming off the seat some 19.5* earlier before injector spray commenced so thru slightly open valves..... but the cat CE ratios were coming in lower around B1 @ .062, B2 @ .086--engine putting out less TQ but was better emissions-wise thus cleaner, so maybe another variable of Ford using OVI (later going hybrid port\DI injection w\ Gen III) has to do w\ emissions as well as power.....?

I might try setting the injector ref IVO crank angle setting at 335* & see what happens whenever I get around to finding enough knit-knack stuff in tune file to warrant another revision (I have realized a few items since last flash that aren't hurting anything engine-wise right now but could be changed just to know it has been done for peace of mind.....have already made the revision file #16 but am in no hurry to write it in until I have fully thought thru\fleshed it all for final cleanup).

In the meantime, I'm gonna continue tracking this revision to see where it all ends up.

 

[Juice]

7 monitors? Supposed to have 8.

 

[GlassTop09]

7 monitors? Supposed to have 8.

IM Readiness lists 10 system tests (called readiness monitors) total in my PCM.
Continuous Monitors:
Misfire (necessary)
Fuel System (necessary)
Comprehensive Component (necessary)

Non-Continuous Monitors:
Catalyst (necessary)
Heated Catalyst (not necessary......this is pertaining to the old 4-cat systems that used a light off catalyst to heat up the main catalyst. This function is now PCM managed\controlled during cold starts thus not necessary for monitoring.......also why only 2 cats are necessary now)
EVAP System (necessary)
EGR System (not necessary.......this is now PCM managed\controlled thru VCT thus not necessary for monitoring)
O2 Sensors (necessary)
O2 Sensor Heaters (necessary)
Secondary Air System (not necessary.......this function is now PCM managed\controlled thus not necessary for monitoring)

Of these 10 system tests, only 7 of them are monitored for I\M Readiness status, thus only 7 for my '09 GT (a Fed OBDII vehicle built to be sold in New Mexico which is under the Fed Basic I\M Readiness statutes--low level ozone\no CO--in which Bernalillo Co is the only county in the state that meets all the Fed requirements to implement an I\M Readiness program--vehicle emissions checks).

I always see that I\M Readiness states that there are 11 total system tests for gas ignition vehicles but I have yet to find any listing\documentation that shows all 11.......only the 10 that I've typed here (that my PCM also shows to have).

So if you have access to what the 11th IM Readiness system test is that I can't find, please share.

Otherwise, my car has the 7 active\legal IM Readiness monitors its supposed to have.

 

[Juice]

All 3 of my obd2 fords have 8 monitors enabled by Ford.
Misfire
Fuel sustem
Components
Evap
Catalyst
O2
O2heater
Egr

There are 4 others that are not used.

 

[GlassTop09]

FYI...........

Drove car on test run today after MGW ST shifter w\ extended handle install & initial DC off flash of tune revision #16 (made changes to speedo N\V Base setting back to 50.043 from the stock 42.355 as I saw the speedo was off approx 5 MPH vs only 2 MPH off using the 50.043 setting in prior revisions that calc'd\matched my 3.89\26" effective ratio, reset the OL fuel base cold map back to stock.....remembered prior tuner also made changes here as well from the same 12-27-19 datalog that was due to bad dielectric grease, reset the Dynamic Airflow setting back to stock 10.90L.....this setting has global effect on accel transient fueling, was testing the Bullitt's 9.81L setting over the last 4 tune revisions but couldn't determine if this was doing anything w\o doing a driving datalog & I'm not set up yet to do these w\o issue of contacting my MPVI2+ interface w\ clutch leg while plugged into OBDII port & since car was tuned w\ this set at stock I just put it back to be done w\ it & last I fixed a potential issue concerning the LWFM tables.....when I copied the IMRC open map data into the IMRC closed map--CMCV's removed--, I missed the fact that in the IMRC open map, the 0 Throttle Angle % row only had 0's entered across the entire row--this won't allow car to idle with failed MAF--so I copied this row data from prior tuner's original tune's IMRC closed map into my current tune's IMRC open map then copied corrected IMRC open map data into my current tune's IMRC closed map to correct this so car will idle now on failed MAF w\ foot off APP--PCM hasn't used the LWFM tables to date as MAF is operating perfectly fine so no need......rest was not touched so same as last #15 tune revision).

Car drove fine, ran fine, shifted very fine.....notchiness essentially gone. Drove the exact same 37mi DC route in the exact same routines as all the rest. Checked all out w\ my Foxwell NT301 scan tool as follows:
Once again, IM Readiness completed all 7 monitors as has been the case on the last 2 initial DC's after tune reflash (FLI was in the 50%-65% range both times so making a mental note of this for future) & DFSO 60-40 MM training completed flawlessly when using 4th gear instead of 5th & took a lot less open roadway to complete to boot so making a mental note of this as well. All O2 sensor tests checked out good....noted w\ both B1S2\B2S2 O2 sensors, LTR transition times were noticeably slower but still passing w\ RTL transition times much faster (haven't quite figured out what's happening yet to cause these sensors to do this......could be just the PCM rear O2 sensor testing functions that the O2 sensors are reacting to thru the cats) but overall all is fine.

Checked cat CE ratios & this is what I got on this initial DC......B1 @ .082, B2 @ .070 w\ CMBT @ 1,295*F. This looks to have returned back to prior pattern even w\ the injection ref IVO crank angle setting changed to 330* from 349.5* (moved into prior .141, .184 CE ratio range since initial IVO setting change made 2 revisions earlier & showed to stay in this range over several DC's off both tune revisions....OP tuner in HPTuners posting noted that when injector EOIT was set to line up w\ cam adv dur IVO CA, the AFR tended to be on the rich side @ 13.2\1....using 14.7\1 as stoich, not Lambda), so I haven't a clue as to what has changed for cats to regain efficiency, but PCM did something......... The only setting change I made that may have had anything to immediately contribute would have to be the Dynamic Airflow setting (influences accel transient fueling during CL operations.......so maybe PCM was enrichening too much during accel transient fueling using the Bullitt's 9.81L setting....?) getting set back to stock, but wouldn't know this for sure w\o a driving datalog. Gonna be watching this over time to see if all stays in this area of efficiency. STFT+LTFT correction is +- 3.1% at the moment......I expect this to close up over time w\ MAF Adaption working as it showed to do prior.

Anyway, I sure ain't gonna complain about it!

 

[GlassTop09]

FYI............(long posting)

Ok folks, I've ran back thru all my DC CE ratio recordings records, the tune revision change logs & synched all data to the time\date to determine what tune changes I made that had the most logical effect on cat CE ratio results since the original tune changes (changed fuel stoich AFR @ 14.13 to match E10\91oct fuel w\ existing DA @ 10.90L & IVO CA @ 349.5* in tune @ 4-2-22) that initially put the cat CE ratios in this highly efficient .0xx range.

What I found is that when I made the change in tune on 5-3-22 (changed DA from 10.90L to 9.81L w\ existing IVO CA @ 349.5*) the cat CE ratio did spike up initially off initial DC (B1 @ .172, B2 @ .156) but by 5-10-22 after making changes in DD APP 16-92 rows to enhance low RPM TQ usage & running initial DC off this tune revision, the cat CE ratios returned to this normal .0xx range (B1 @ .062, B2 @ .086) & subsequent checks showed that they retained in this region (some fluctuation but never crossed higher than .090 for either cat).

Until 5-14-22......this is when I made the change to injector ref IVO crank angle setting from 349.5* to 330* (to line up Ford injection EOIT modeling to reference off Lunati VooDoo's cam adv dur IVO timing point of 30* BTDC same as stock cam adv dur IVO timing point of 15* BTDC so injectors will fire fuel into back of closed intake valves at point of opening to restore Ford's injection EOIT modeling integrity) w\ DA still set @ 9.81L.......cat CE ratios spiked up into the prior range that they normally ran before I started tuning (the CE ratio spike noted after 5-3-22 reps this range as well) @ B1 @ .141, B2 @ .184. All subsequent cat CE ratio checks afterwards showed result fluctuations but never moved far.... B1 @ .016 max to B2 @ .054 max w\ 5-22-22 DC check (7 DC's made since initial) verifying all this w\ no changes made in tune from 5-14-22 (cat CE ratios were exact copies of the 5-14-22 results 8 days later) so PCM showed to have stabilized off all setting changes made since 5-14-22.

Now on 5-24-22 is when I wrote in last tune revision that the only setting change made that could have any effect on emissions was indeed the DA (dynamic airflow) setting (PCM uses this setting to calc inferred MAP airmass changes using transient fuel gain maps off manifold pressure--piggybacked from FRP sensor in background--vs RPM during both accel & decel transition periods) to determine amount of extra fuel to inject\cut from predictive SD airmass map calcs on initial sudden APP\TPS angle changes so engine can accel\decel properly & not go excessively lean\rich until the MAF can catch up (1 of the weaknesses of a MAF airmass system vs a MAP airmass system.....MAF is more accurate but is too slow to react to sudden APP\TPS angle changes in real time than MAP...... 1 of the reasons why\how Ford uses their version of SD along w\ the MAF sensor). A larger DA volume setting at a MAP pressure reps a slower airmass velocity thus a smaller fuel adjustment is needed to maintain the calc'd base fueling based off the fuel stoich AFR in tune that reps EQ Ratio Lambda vs a smaller DA volume setting at the same manifold pressure reps a faster airmass velocity thus a larger fuel adjustment is needed to maintain the same calc'd base fueling off the fuel stoich AFR in tune that reps EQ Ratio Lambda (now you can also see even more reason why this fuel stoich AFR setting in tune needs to match the actual fuel used in engine.....STFT+LTFT correction ain't being applied during this action so the up-front fuel calcs have to be accurate for transients to be accurate & work properly..... now guess what other setting helps in this scenario? MAF Adaption....speeds up MAF transition response by correcting the MAF transition errors using same predictive SD airmass calcs then saves in KAM until it catches up, so the PCM can rely on the MAF more after MAF transition corrections are in KAM when transient fueling is called on during accel\decel while in CL\OL......).

When I changed this DA setting from 9.81L back to 10.90L, this changed the transient fueling rates just enough (reduced) to realign the total fueling change that was caused from the injector ref IVO crank angle setting change from 349.5* to 330* w\ the transient fueling rates from the 9.81L DA setting thru same front end MAF\SD airmass calcs (that spiked the cat CE ratios up), back down to a level that matched the total fueling used that maintained the cat CE ratios in the prior .0xx range using the same front end MAF\SD airmass calcs (no changes to any settings in tune or externally that are MAF-related) from the same injection ref IVO crank angle setting @ 330* w\ the now reduced accel\decel transient fueling rates from the 10.90L DA setting (ironically, this 10.90L DA setting along w\ all the transient tables is verified original Ford stock OEM tuning, so this has got me thinking if the 9.81 DA setting I used from the '08 Bullitt stock tune file I got off HPTuners repository is really stock......Bullitt 4.6L engines used the same OEM IM--my car included--as all the rest thus the base Ford modeled 10.90L DA setting used in the tune).

Very interesting to see how much stuff actually corrects itself when you realign as much of the stock Ford tuning to Ford's own modeling within the PCM strategy as you can..........

So, the only thing now left to determine is how much will the upcoming KAM stored STFT+LTFT correction (includes EVAP purging), MAF Adaption correction, O2 sensor TD correction, etc affect the baseline cat CE ratio results going forward (all is erased when a revision is written into PCM, so the initial results are from "raw" input data). This is why I baseline then track the Mode 6 Self-Check data over several DCs to record "graphing pattern" to determine final hi\low cat actual operating range vs the CE ratio thresholds (the settings that determine if cats have degraded enough to fail I\M Readiness thus emissions when the actual CE ratio results exceeds them & can also give you a sense of how good\bad the cats--as well as your CL tuning--are\is operating judging by the spread the actual cat CE ratio results are from the threshold numbers when using a known good set of catalysts & known operating condition of all the engine components used) once all the PCM KAM corrections are mostly made & used as the cats will be reacting to changes made thru the tune.

If I hadn't tracked & kept records of the PCM Mode 6 cat CE ratio results over time to go w\ all the tune revision changes I've made, following a set methodology of processing the data\testing results & a good understanding of how this SO PCM is using these settings & processing its data..... there'd be no way I could have hoped to determine all this from just blindly looking at a set of numbers.

There has to be a way to set this up in HPTuners VCM Scanner (or should be set up) to track the cats CE ratio calcs in real time in PCM while datalogging so a tuner can use the data to maintain emissions compliance while CL tuning so a 5-gas analyzer wouldn't be required......at least for checking HC & CO oxidation. NOx reduction is harder to detect w\o a 5-gas analyzer BUT knowing the amount of total free O2 reduction in exhaust from cat oxidation substrate is a window into NOx reduction as this is greatest in a cat when there is no free O2 left in exhaust to interfere w\ the separating of O2 molecules from N2 molecules thru cat reduction substrate.......the final exhaust O2% is measured by the rear O2 sensors.

Gonna look into it..................

 

[GlassTop09]

FYI (all using the exact same 37 mi DC route in exact same sequencing to maintain as much repeatability in engine loading as can be done so would reflect in recorded cat CE ratio results & used same Foxwell NT301 scan tool to read out PCM Mode 6 Self-Check data) ...............

5-24-22 Baseline (changed DA from 9.81 back to OEM 10.90.... only change made after 5-14-22 tune changes that affects engine operations..... transient fueling during accels\decels, rest same from 5-14-22)
B1 @ .082
B2 @ .070
CMBT @ 1,295*F

5-27-22 (after 5 recorded drive cycles.....no changes to tune)
B1 @ .141
B2 @ .121
CMBT @ 1,293*F
After PCM has filled in KAM data over time (fuel correction, MAF correction, O2 sensor TD timing adjustments, etc).

5-28-22 Baseline (changed Spark\Advance\Base\Cold\Cold Load Adder & Emissions Reduction Adder map to '09 OEM settings...... these 2 maps control cat warmup during cold start..... PCM uses Cold Load Adder map when car is not being driven while still cold, Emissions Reduction Adder map when car is being driven while still cold--uses APP\Throt Pos% to detect along w\ cat inferred operating temps--once Max Spark Cold Start ECT vs ERT map counts off after initial startup--these 2 maps work together when the APP\Throt Pos% is 0%. Had the 2 maps from '08 OEM Bullitt loaded prior...... rest same)
B1 @ .086
B2 @ .109
CMBT @ 1,230*F (temp off..... stopped at store before going home so cats cooled)
So, this looks like an established repeat pattern.

5-29-22 (after 2 recorded drive cycles....no changes to tune)
B1 @ .121
B2 @ .133
CMBT @ 1,249*F
Verified repeatable pattern using OEM tuned spark cold start cat maps after PCM KAM data fills in.

5-31-22 Baseline (changed Spark\Advance\Base\Cold\Emissions Reduction Adder map from '09 OEM to prior tuner's modified 12-27-19 map settings for test. Cold Load Adder map settings in prior tuner's tune was same as '09 OEM so left it as is....... rest same)
B1 @ .215
B2 @ .164
CMBT @ 1,293*F
Looks like this Emissions Reduction Adder mapping changed the cat's operations.......baseline pattern has changed.

6-1-22 (after 3 recorded drive cycles..... no changes to tune)
B1 @ .129
B2 @ .113
CMBT @ 1,219*F
Looks like PCM KAM data fill in corrected cat operations back to similar operating area\region afterwards.

6-2-22 Baseline (changed Spark\Retard\Knock Retard\Knock Mode from Global to Per Cyl so PCM will not apply global timing retard to all cyls off any detected knock from 1 cyl..... only retards timing to the cyl(s) that actually records any knock. Did this off Jeffery Evans recommendation as he has verified this does work w\ some SO PCM's OS's....mine happens to be 1 that it does. Shouldn't affect anything else tune wise .....rest same)
B1 @ .211
B2 @ .195
CMBT @ 1,305*F
Got a pattern repeat here......Emissions Reduction map has increased spark adder timing added to it from prior tuner that appears to degrade cat CE ratios when PCM is using "raw" (no PCM KAM corrections used) airmass & fueling calcs during initial DC after tune flash, so I'll be putting the '09 OEM Emissions Reduction Adder map settings back in tune to fix this.

Didn't make any other DC's as this is all I needed to see (got tied up trying to figure out how PCM uses these 2 cat cold start maps.......couldn't find NO info on the HPTuners forums on this for 05-10 SO PCM's but there is a LOT of data on all this for 2011-up vehicles due to Ford changing the way this is used in Copperhead & up PCM's......kinda makes this a little suspect in my mind as to why) & also pulled my old fuel rails off today to replace them w\ a good used unmodified OEM set I picked up cheap to get rid of the rubber injection hose I had to use when I replaced the FRPP IM w\ current OEM IM last year.

While doing this I swapped the fuel injectors across banks to see if the STFT+LTFT pattern follows them.........can report that STFT+LTFT did not change pattern at all so this is verification of prior noted engine VE B1 @ 47%, B2 @ 53% distribution off firing order.
1 thing I did see change was fuel pressure stabilization read on my Foxwell NT301 scan tool from the "new" OEM fuel rails (reused same FRP sensor off old rails)......fuel pressure wasn't fluctuating around very much at all compared to the rails I had on w\ the rubber injection crossover hose so whatever the crossover fuel line material is made of that Ford used to connect the 2 rail halves together is some very solid stuff (FRP sensor was picking up the fuel rail pressure fluctuations from the rubber injection hose expanding\contracting off injector operations & FPDM DC'ing fuel pump as well as the underhood temps).

Will make a couple of DC's to see how the cat CE ratios fare before I go in tune & replace the modded Emissions Reduction Adder map w\ the '09 OEM version that proves to manage\maintain best overall CL catalyst efficiency w\o sacrificing power.

 

[GlassTop09]

At this time, I believe I have gone as far as I can go w\ my current tune using its base tuning (MAF, SD, LWFM, base fueling, VCT, spark, knock, engine TQ management) as is so here's a recap of all the high points I have changed in my car's tune since I started doing the tuning myself:

1. MAF Adaption enabled..... this does a lot more good than what some will tell you, best used in conjunction w\ improving CL operations\overall engine efficiency. Helps PCM to correct any fueling errors from noted MAF airmass calc errors on the fly due to several various factors......yes these do occur & occur more frequently than perceived. MAF sensors are very accurate but not perfect........Ford engineers knew this. Pure race car mentalities overlook these benefits......thus defeat this by disabling MAF Adaption in tune for absolutely no real gains power wise during OL w\ these SO PCM's. In fact, the often quoted issue of random LTFT application to fueling during OL as a reason to disable MAF Adaption is actually caused by leaving this very setting disabled in tune (MAF is still used to calc load% while in OL so PCM can get confused from any noted MAF errors thus can preemptively fail MAF then overrides\injects LTFT fueling correction off LWFM airmass\fuel correction to OL fuel map data during OL......not good.....due to "broke code". Tested\saw this 1st hand myself).

2. Fuel Stoich AFR set in tune to match the stoich AFR of actual fuel used......this fixes more than some will tell you, best use in conjunction w\ improving CL HP\TQ & overall engine efficiency which affects emissions (no fuel maps to "scrub" fueling corrections into as in OL.....PCM uses EQ Ratio Lambda exclusively during CL thus the fuel stoich AFR setting in tune to calc up front fueling off calc'd MAF airmass, but does use O2 sensor feedback to try to correct any fueling errors) but also can correct fueling in OL as all OL fuel maps use Lambda to set fueling from MAF\SD\LWFM airmass load% calcs\corrections so PCM uses same EQ Ratio Lambda formula which NEEDS the actual fuel stoich AFR of the fuel being used set in tune to properly meter fueling to airmass load% calcs UP FRONT.....no O2 sensor correction feedback loop during OL operations so this is more critical to get right in tune nowadays since US fuel stds have changed from E0 to E10 since these cars were built\sold. I've come to think too many folks sit on the NB\WB O2 sensors to "correct" stuff instead of setting things right up front where it counts the most\does the most good.

3. ETC TB PTA\EA mapping for >55mm TB's...... this is a must fix item in order for ETC TB control to properly work right & get all the performance that a larger TB can provide (ETC control calcs air load% using the TB PTA\EA mapping & TPS angle% for TQ modeling calcs then PCM compares to actual MAF air load% off same TB TPS angle%.....if this is off PCM records excessive IPC Wheel TQ Errors & resets TB TPS angle to readjust MAF air load% to match the ETC calc'd air load%......why 62mm TB's tend to act like the 55mm TB it replaced thus folks say they don't do anything......not true). To rework these maps is not that easy to do.....takes some time to set the maps up right so they don't set off excessive IPC Wheel TQ Errors causing Limp Mode executions so most just use the OEM 55mm TB's PTA\EA mapping then set the IPC Wheel TQ Error setting higher than stock setting of 25,000 (some disable the IPC ROM altogether in tune) to prevent the PCM from going into Limp Mode shutting the TB closed.....which can be dangerous on the street (or even on the track racing) if a malfunction occurs as this safety will be defeated thus can have a potential engine runaway situation from PCM loss of DBW TB control (too many threads in HPTuners forums of folks back in the day telling\showing others to do this w\ 62mm TB's & can show too many tune file examples where this has been done). Next time you see\hear a Mustang crash meme.......remember what I typed here......may have something to do w\ it. I took the easy path by using Ford tuned PTA\EA mapping for their 60mm GT500 TB & used it in my tune to control my FR 62mm TB since Ford also used the same ETC control settings across all Mod Motor ETC control so its plug & play & corrects the ETC TB TQ modeling so you get ALL the benefits of the larger TB's tip-in response & acceleration response w\o issue of excess IPC Wheel TQ Error creation...... Why some tuners haven't figured this out yet is beyond me........I'm still wet behind the ears still.....

4. Balancing tune settings for seamless CL to OL transitions according to usage......this is usually set up to put PCM into OL (Power Enrichment) far too early for a dual purpose use IMHO thus ruining fuel MPG, emissions by unintentionally (or intentionally depending on reasoning) defeating CL operations. If purely race car then more power to you but is far too aggressive for street operations (where CL operations shine & emissions is managed thru PCM, thus takes more finesse to get adequate CL HP\TQ output, response & emissions handled before entering\exiting OL Power Enrichment seamlessly so IMHO gets overlooked too often when tuning for peak HP\TQ). A quirk of SO PCM's that needs some attention put into it to get right for the intended use especially if street use is in the mix & especially if in an area where emissions tests are required.

5. O2 sensor TD (transport delay) map set properly for LTH's......this 1 I found off hand as I just made this change off Jeffery Evans tip of adding a 20% correction across a stock TD map to correct for most LTH applications. I have always noted that B1S1's switching voltage pattern graphs wasn't very smooth (ragged w\ sawtooth pattern) compared to B2S1 so thought it was due to the sensor itself.......until I made this change & wrote it in.......had immediate B1S1 sensor switching improvement so now both B1S1\B2S1 O2 sensors switch clean & in unison 98% of the time so I know this improved all operations that use CL STFT+LTFT feedback (engine fuel control, EVAP operation & emissions control.....yes these SO PCM's manage cat operations during CL using STFT switching\O2% data off signal amplitude to feed enough O2 into cats thru exhaust to treat the calc'd HC & CO in exhaust from combustion off STFT data then monitored by reading rear O2 sensor switching response\frequency post cat....why no secondary air pumps as well as light off catalysts & EGR valves are needed anymore w\ gas ICE's.....also another reason why the fuel stoich AFR tune setting needs to match the fuel's stoich AFR being used in engine AND EVAP operations need to be monitored\maintained\controlled.....emissions. All this is very easy to mess up while tuning if not attentive of all this while making changes.......

6. Injector Reference IVO crank angle setting.......this 1 was an eye opener & perhaps the most important find I've made. With this SO PCM, this must be realigned in tune when installing aftermarket camshafts so the Ford injector EOIT point matches the cam's adv dur IVO timing in crank angle degrees so the injector modeling can do what Ford tuned it to do in conjunction w\ VCT operations (now this makes sense as to why Ford used CMCV's w\ this 3V & claims these improve low speed TQ output......but the real TQ improvement comes from referencing injector EOIT to cam IVO timing point......the CMCV's just added extra swirl\tumble & makes sense why Ford supplied adv cam timing point info of both OEM & Hot Rod cams for calibration purposes). Amazing to me now as to how many still miss this today w\ these 3V's..........

These 6 items are IMHO the majors outside of any base tuning, the other stuff is ancillary so stock settings are usually good enough for most (example: DD TQ Request map, ETC idle control is good enough in stock trim...but can affect some driving aspects positively & fit more to personal tastes when adjusted--especially w\ manual trans; cat emissions warmup controls under Spark Advance, etc...OEM is usually good enough) but for the ones who want to squeeze all the juice out, no matter how small, you'd be well served to buy your tuning setup of choice & start doing this yourself as most tuners make their money by volume so don't want to spend a lot of time tweaking stuff that, in their eyes, waste profit time & most customers don't want to pay for this extra time if it isn't making more peak HP\TQ (lot of this tuning can improve area under the curve or available HP\TQ but this don't make peak numbers on a WOT sheet) & let's face it......3V's are a dying art as Coyotes are\have been the hot tuning ticket for profit for several years.

As long as engine is in NA config, I find the tuning is fairly straight forward w\ the VCT\spark\knock tuning being the most involved to get right (where a dyno makes this easier, faster & safer to do---note I didn't say better). Jeffery Evans @ Evans Performance Academy's 05-10 Ford Mod Motor HPTuners training materials\videos made this MUCH easier..... I love the way he put his materials together.....you can actually follow along making changes to your tune while listening\watching his training videos & do it at your own speed\pace & his access costs were the best I've found out there.

The real tuning test w\ these SO PCM's IMHO is FI applications as most of the SO Ford PCM production strategies weren't written w\ this in mind so you will have to do a lot of map rescaling & reengineering to account for some aspects of FI operation using NB O2 sensors that can't meter A\F ratios so can be a challenge to tune well\maintain w\o some secondary monitoring equipment on hand (to also maintain).

This is why if I ever decide to go FI (competitive racing is the only reason for me to go there....I just don't see it happening at this time at my age but the future, who knows......), it will be w\ a Coyote engine using Copperhead & up PCM's as FI management is just far easier\safer to manage (the work is learning the complexities of the Ford strategies..... which I don't see as too difficult, just got to get w\ the right trainers\teachers & course materials. Jeffery has just recently released his HPTuners Ford Coyote 11-14 Copperhead tuning series materials for access purchase.......).

This experience w\ tuning my 4.6L 3V myself has cemented this for me so I'll be rocking my FBO\cammed 4.6L 3V in NA config in my '09 Glass Roof Edition in touring form & cruise the hiways\run canyon carving & hit a car show or 2 in style......ain't about being the fastest\best for me to enjoy my Stang.

Ok I'm done, going to bed..............................