Lunati VooDoo #21270700 Camshafts

[Juice]

Have you checked your CE ratios after a flash, but before firing the engine? I have completed multiple DCs and Forscan gives me NA for CE ratio, like the test is disabled, and it is not.

 

[GlassTop09]

Have you checked your CE ratios after a flash, but before firing the engine? I have completed multiple DCs and Forscan gives me NA for CE ratio, like the test is disabled, and it is not.

No I haven't done that........I may do this w\ Forscan after a reflash the next time I flash in a tune revision to see (Both VCM Editor\Scanner & Forscan are loaded on my laptop....just have to swap OBDII interfaces to access Forscan), but since any tune reflash erases all KAM it wouldn't surprise me (Mode 6 Component Self-Check data--includes catalyst CE ratio results--is stored in KAM.....) that its not there after a reflash.

Will post what I find......

 

[Midlife Crises]

Hey GlassTop09. Is this basically what you have found for your air cleaner install. Not shown is the molded plastic part that is in the core support. It seals the left side of the radiator and provides a connection for the short inlet duct.

 

[GlassTop09]

Hey GlassTop09. Is this basically what you have found for your air cleaner install. Not shown is the molded plastic part that is in the core support. It seals the left side of the radiator and provides a connection for the short inlet duct.

View attachment 83082

Yes Midlife Crises, I have all those parts in hand except the sound tube (wasn't looking for that). I'll get w\ my local Ford dealership to see about that molded plastic part's availability as well as the reservoir engine mounting bracket......... This area on left side of core support by radiator of my '09 is open so just may accept this part. Already got a random VIN# off a '10 GT in hand.

Good to see that K&N does make a panel filter for it.........

PS--I looked again at your picture of the inlet duct......you wouldn't be referring to the plastic part that snaps onto the end of it? If so, the inlet duct I have has this part still attached to it (I noticed that this part isn't on yours in picture). The end of the duct is formed to fit the contours of the left side of the radiator.

Thanks for the info!

 

[Midlife Crises]

Yes, you are correct. The plastic part snaps onto the shot duct and “form fits” the space along side the radiator. It goes in from the front and uses a push pin to hold it in place. The duct snaps in from the rear. Sounds like you have all the parts. Have fun.

 

[GlassTop09]

Have you checked your CE ratios after a flash, but before firing the engine? I have completed multiple DCs and Forscan gives me NA for CE ratio, like the test is disabled, and it is not.

Just remembered something I ran across messing w\ my car's tune files concerning I\M Readiness.....
With the latest vers HPTuners VCM Editor 4.10.7 software & w\ the SO PCM, if the PCM strategies are from a '08-'10 PCM for 4.6L engine, you can now access the actual CE ratio threshold settings thru the Editor & change them (05-07 strategies won't allow this thru the tune file but 08-10 strategies will). This should also be available thru all 2011 & up PCM's as well.

I tested mine for the range it will allow so I inputed the '09 OBDII Summary typical CE ratio threshold given of 75% reduction or .750 in 1 of my earlier tune revisions & wrote it in. Found out that this .750 setting locked all I\M Readiness monitors up (always was at P1000 DTC regardless of how many DC's I ran) in PCM so it never allowed a monitor to run. I noted that the highest threshold number I saw in any 08-10 OEM tune files was .660 so I inputted this number for both banks, wrote it in then reran initial DC & all I\M Readiness monitors ran as usual so it appears that in SO PCM strategies that allow this, the max threshold number that the Ford coding will allow is .660 (shows up in my Foxwell scan tool as .656). So it appears that Ford tightened up the min cat efficiency % from the early 05-07 MY's.............

Just passing this along for the info......the GUI description gives the min-max range as 0.0-2.0 (this reps the current EPA gms\mi emissions scaling for NMOG & CO which I think is being used w\ all 2011 & up Ford coding) so I was surprised that this was read out in my tune file\SO PCM's strategy.

FYI.

 

[Juice]

Im still chasing why those 3, o2, o2 heater, and cat mons just dont complete. With my latest stock varient, the first 5 completed the quickest to date. Viewing CE ratio data w/Forscan shows "not ready".

 

[Juice]

Don't worry about my request on the CE ratios. I have confirmed that certain tune changes do infact prevent those 3 monitors from completing. Now I just have to figure out which changes.

 

[GlassTop09]

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

Revisited the TB PTA\EA mapping relation to ETC TQ modeling based on ETC calc'd air load% per TPS angle% vs actual MAF airload% off same TPS angle %............I may have stumbled upon something that may demonstrate more importance of a larger TB concerning the use of it's correct PTA\EA mapping data in ETC control, not only w\ throttle tip-in & acceleration response but also top end HP\TQ from the calc'd air load% difference @ 82% TPS angle (WOT) between ETC calc'd air load % vs actual MAF airload% for TQ modeling.

I looked again at the PTA\EA mapping given for an '09 OEM 55mm TB in sq\in area in tune file (4.2 sq in).....this doesn't equate (comes out as essentially only 57% of the full sq in area of a twin 55mm TB--I calc'd this total sq in area to be 7.33 sq in) so if my math is right, this is a potential cutting of the calc'd TQ output potential at WOT thru the ETC TB modeling based on TB sq in area given to calc air load% @ 82% TPS angle for max TQ application @ .90\.10 load or WOT. To back check my calcs, I pulled the same given sq in area for the OEM '10 GT500 FR 60mm TB (8.76 sq in) PTA\EA mapping data then ran same calcs using same equation & came up w\ 8.74 sq in (FR 62mm TB is 9.35 sq in or is .61 sq in larger.....by contrast the 4.2 sq in given for 55mm TB is 4.56 sq in smaller than 60mm TB or 4.79 sq in smaller than 62mm TB) so my equation I used jives thus shows the given sq in area in tune ETC TB PTA\EA mapping for a twin 55mm TB is not correct thus is under calc'ing ETC TB airload% vs MAF airload% for TPS of 82% or WOT for TQ output so PCM falls back on ETC TB airload% calc for TQ instead of actual MAF airload% at same TPS angle%. Ford has to have done this intentionally to cut engine output to maintain around 80% VE (even though the MAF calibration max airflow vs voltage table of 39.809 lbs\min @ 5.0v is just over 100% ideal VE of 4.6L engine's displacement @ sea level or 14.7 psi atmos).

So a WOT datalog of ETC TB airload% calc vs MAF airload% calc should prove this out either way....... If MAF airload% is not rep of at least 36.28 lbs\min but is around 29.09 lbs\min (between 4.38v-4.42v MAF sensor output) @ WOT then it proves Ford undercut this 3V's potential thru the ETC thus even a 55mm TB may need to be remapped in tune to get full ETC TB airload% calcs thus full WOT HP\TQ out of these 4.6L's (this 4.2 sq in area mapping used w\ a 62mm TB creates an even larger IPC Wheel TQ error problem which might have PCM closing TB angle% even more to "correct" MAF thus throws WOT airload off--chokes airflow thru engine--to read same as choked off 55mm TB from same PTA\EA mapping data used in ETC TQ modeling..............).

Lets hope I'm wrong on this but my math ain't wrong & PCM uses this math in ETC TB airload% modeling to run its TQ calcs...........SO PCM calcs all as a measure of TQ output in load% vs RPM's..........

I've also witnessed several sq in area numbers given (from 4.2 to 4.9 to 5.1) for the same 55mm TB in several different MY & marks of Ford 05-10 V8 Mod Motors SO PCM tune files (4.6L\5.4L) used in Mustangs.......hhhhhmmmm......

Interesting.........................now do y'all understand why I do the math myself to back check\verify what I see to either be proved true or false & if found true\false to find out why................doubt this would be the result of an engineering mistake by Ford engineers if proved true, but very easily be a result of Ford corporate management decisions made based on several mitigating factors at the time of manufacturing........performance output not being 1 of them.

Just thought I'd put this out here for consideration sake............

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

I looked again at the PTA\EA mapping given for an '09 OEM 55mm TB in sq\in area in tune file (4.2 sq in).....this doesn't equate (comes out as essentially only 57% of the full sq in area of a twin 55mm TB--I calc'd this total sq in area to be 7.33 sq in) so if my math is right, this is a potential cutting of the calc'd TQ output potential at WOT thru the ETC TB modeling based on TB sq in area given to calc air load% @ 82% TPS angle for max TQ application @ .90\.10 load or WOT.

You forgot to take into account the TB c/s bore area taken up by the throttle shaft. Since the shaft is 10mm thick, the c/s area of the stock twin 55mn TB is actually 5.66 sq. In.
Assuming the stock GT500 twin 60mm TB has the same 10mm thick throttle shaft, the c/s area of that TB is 6.91 sq. In.

 

[GlassTop09]

You forgot to take into account the TB c/s bore area taken up by the throttle shaft. Since the shaft is 10mm thick, the c/s area of the stock twin 55mn TB is actually 5.66 sq. In.
Assuming the stock GT500 twin 60mm TB has the same 10mm thick throttle shaft, the c/s area of that TB is 6.91 sq. In.

Yes, that would be true but that isn't reflected either in the actual TB PTA\EA sq in mapping used in the tune files, thus PCM is still under calc'ing TQ modeling based off ETC TB sq in area per TPS angle% airload% calcs for a 55mm TB even w\ your numbers..........which is the whole point of what I'm getting at. It's even worse if a 62mm TB is installed w\ this already under sized PTA\EA mapping used in ETC TB TQ modeling......main reason why tuners set the IPC Wheel TQ error max settings higher than the stock 25,000 as these errors rep the difference between the ETC TB TQ airload% at a given TB TPS angle% vs the actual MAF airload% calc'd from same TB TPS angle%......results have to closely match between the 2 for the PCM to call it valid or it reasons that the MAF airload% is off thus calls on LWFM tables to correct MAF airload% based on ETC TB TPS angle% TQ modeling thus the 62mm TB acts like the "55mm TB" thruout it's full operational range......which is wrong & cannot be made up for unless the TB PTA\EA mapping is corrected in tune file to "fit" the TB used. The only 2 areas in the tune to generate these IPC TQ errors is either MAF calibration errors or TQ modeling errors & the easy area for TQ modeling errors is the ETC TB TQ modeling (most stay away from touching the engine side of TQ modeling if at all possible unless going FI thus the ETC TB side is usually the culprit). Yes you can do only so much w\ the TM DD TQ Request map to "make up" for this tuning mismatch or screw around messing w\ the Indicated Engine TQ mapping to "make up" for this tuning mismatch w\o making the situation worse......the real fix is to remap the ETC TB PTA\EA map data to correctly match the TB's actual sq in ID area being used to correct the ETC TB TQ modeling......which isn't a quick & easy endeavor to go about doing........why most don't do it at the price of accurate TQ modeling to achieve accurate HP\TQ output based off a dyno sheet......which w\o looking under the hood you also wouldn't know.........only accept what someone said it did.

Appears Ford used different PTA\EA TB sq in area mappings for the same 55mm TB to arrive at a predetermined HP\TQ output based on different criteria for the same engine's usage.......in a way not intended to be easily found\discovered by my estimation.

How many folks would do what I just did going thru several tune files across different MY's checking for this kind of stuff? Or just accept it as fact because it was Ford's doing & they always do things on the up & up so I trust them no matter what? Do you do that w\ a dyno sheet? Or do you do the back checking to see if the sheet's data jives w\ known math to ensure the dyno operator didn't fudge something?

Wouldn't know this unless you have access to look under the hood of the various PCM strategies used across MY's.........thus assumption tends to set in.

FYI.......the 5.1 sq in TB area I typed came from a verified 2007 GT500's OEM tune file.........which ain't nowhere close to the 8.76 sq in given for a 60mm TB.......verified from a 2010 GT500's OEM tune file or the 6.91 sq in from shaft correction of the same 60mm TB (both use the exact same 5.4L 4V SC'd 32V V8 engine) or the Ford given sq in area for a 55mm TB, so how do you square this difference when the PCM's coding thus math is cut & dried (there's no settings present for any correction factor to be used & I've verified that thruout all 05-10 SO PCM strategies, Ford used the exact same base ETC parameter settings whether it is a 4.0L, 4.6L or 5.4L engine.....only the TB PTA\EA mapping data is different thus is the determining factor in this ETC TB TQ modeling outcomes......also makes this data transferrable across any of these tune files as long as the base ETC parameters are left stock (this I can definately see Ford engineers doing) & the PTA\EA map data is Ford tuned w\ these ETC stock parameters in place........why I was able to use the 8.76 sq in TB PTA\EA mapping for the '10 GT500's 60mm TB directly in my '09 GT PCM strategy's tune file w\ my FR 62mm TB w\o any further setting changes thus copy\paste which corrected the ETC TB TQ modeling airload% calcs to match up to the actual MAF airload% calcs off the same TB TPS angle% w\o IPC Wheel TQ error generation (.61 sq in area diff is within margin of error) thus gain the performance benefits from my 62mm TB that can't be gotten otherwise. Also allowed me to reset the IPC Wheel TQ error max setting back to the stock '09 OEM setting of 25,000 (same for all other OEM MY SO PCM strategies for IPC Wheel TQ max errors) w\o coming nowhere even close to this threshold......datalogging showed this error generation at <200 errors max. Was a lot more before doing this...........explains why this IPC Wheel TQ error max setting was set at 500,000 in my tune file instead of 25,000......which I would've never known unless I got access to an actual copy of my tune file to look at & had access to HPTuners VCM Editor software to use........ Don't know if prior tuner or BAMA tuners actually did this since I had a BAMA tune file loaded prior last tuner, but the fact that prior tuner didn't fix this when it was well known that I had a 62mm TB installed prior tuning it thus paid for the service doesn't excuse 1 of the responsibility to tune it properly........unless he didn't know any better himself......which I've seen a lot of evidence of this being reality from other supposedly well known, advanced tuners on HPTuners forums who I'd think knew better, based on reading the postings knowing what I know now.........

Now I'm wondering if this same issue will cause WOT HP\TQ to be off due to the same mismatch in ETC TQ airload% modeling.........the math says it's possible. I've also found other reasons in my tune file as to why I said this concerning WOT that don't include this finding just to let you know.............

Why I cross checked the Ford data given for the '10 GT500 60mm TB w\o shaft size correction to verify my calcs which didn't take the shaft into consideration........got too good a match so proves something is up w\ all this.........I still don't believe this is a Ford engineering mistake either............got to be serving some non-engineering purpose(s)........marketing strategies for sales purposes would be a quick 1st thought among others IMHO........

Not an issue........as long as you KNOW about it & DO the necessary tuning to properly correct it all...........otherwise this is a piss poor way to treat a customer who spent the money to buy 1 of these 62mm TB's & pay for tuning only for a tuner to not tune it correctly then bad mouth it's performance & berate a customer for wanting to use 1........I find a LOT of deceit & unscrupulous practice in this........another reason why I jumped off the sidelines.....too much of this is going on under most folks noses........easier to do\pull off when customers are kept in the dark......thus potentially manipulated in order to achieve someone else's agendas.

Sorry for the soap box but this kind of stuff really pisses me off.......whether it's from a tuner or FoMoCo.

 

[GlassTop09]

Yes, that would be true but that isn't reflected either in the actual TB PTA\EA sq in mapping used in the tune files, thus PCM is still under calc'ing TQ modeling based off ETC TB sq in area per TPS angle% airload% calcs for a 55mm TB even w\ your numbers..........which is the whole point of what I'm getting at. It's even worse if a 62mm TB is installed w\ this already under sized PTA\EA mapping used in ETC TB TQ modeling......main reason why tuners set the IPC Wheel TQ error max settings higher than the stock 25,000 as these errors rep the difference between the ETC TB TQ airload% at a given TB TPS angle% vs the actual MAF airload% calc'd from same TB TPS angle%......results have to closely match between the 2 for the PCM to call it valid or it reasons that the MAF airload% is off thus calls on LWFM tables to correct MAF airload% based on ETC TB TPS angle% TQ modeling thus the 62mm TB acts like the "55mm TB" thruout it's full operational range......which is wrong & cannot be made up for unless the TB PTA\EA mapping is corrected in tune file to "fit" the TB used. The only 2 areas in the tune to generate these IPC TQ errors is either MAF calibration errors or TQ modeling errors & the easy area for TQ modeling errors is the ETC TB TQ modeling (most stay away from touching the engine side of TQ modeling if at all possible unless going FI thus the ETC TB side is usually the culprit). Yes you can do only so much w\ the TM DD TQ Request map to "make up" for this tuning mismatch or screw around messing w\ the Indicated Engine TQ mapping to "make up" for this tuning mismatch w\o making the situation worse......the real fix is to remap the ETC TB PTA\EA map data to correctly match the TB's actual sq in ID area being used to correct the ETC TB TQ modeling......which isn't a quick & easy endeavor to go about doing........why most don't do it at the price of accurate TQ modeling to achieve accurate HP\TQ output based off a dyno sheet......which w\o looking under the hood you also wouldn't know.........only accept what someone said it did.

Appears Ford used different PTA\EA TB sq in area mappings for the same 55mm TB to arrive at a predetermined HP\TQ output based on different criteria for the same engine's usage.......in a way not intended to be easily found\discovered by my estimation.

How many folks would do what I just did going thru several tune files across different MY's checking for this kind of stuff? Or just accept it as fact because it was Ford's doing & they always do things on the up & up so I trust them no matter what? Do you do that w\ a dyno sheet? Or do you do the back checking to see if the sheet's data jives w\ known math to ensure the dyno operator didn't fudge something?

Wouldn't know this unless you have access to look under the hood of the various PCM strategies used across MY's.........thus assumption tends to set in.

FYI.......the 5.1 sq in TB area I typed came from a verified 2007 GT500's OEM tune file.........which ain't nowhere close to the 8.76 sq in given for a 60mm TB.......verified from a 2010 GT500's OEM tune file or the 6.91 sq in from shaft correction of the same 60mm TB (both use the exact same 5.4L 4V SC'd 32V V8 engine) or the Ford given sq in area for a 55mm TB, so how do you square this difference when the PCM's coding thus math is cut & dried (there's no settings present for any correction factor to be used & I've verified that thruout all 05-10 SO PCM strategies, Ford used the exact same base ETC parameter settings whether it is a 4.0L, 4.6L or 5.4L engine.....only the TB PTA\EA mapping data is different thus is the determining factor in this ETC TB TQ modeling outcomes......also makes this data transferrable across any of these tune files as long as the base ETC parameters are left stock (this I can definately see Ford engineers doing) & the PTA\EA map data is Ford tuned w\ these ETC stock parameters in place........why I was able to use the 8.76 sq in TB PTA\EA mapping for the '10 GT500's 60mm TB directly in my '09 GT PCM strategy's tune file w\ my FR 62mm TB w\o any further setting changes thus copy\paste which corrected the ETC TB TQ modeling airload% calcs to match up to the actual MAF airload% calcs off the same TB TPS angle% w\o IPC Wheel TQ error generation (.61 sq in area diff is within margin of error) thus gain the performance benefits from my 62mm TB that can't be gotten otherwise. Also allowed me to reset the IPC Wheel TQ error max setting back to the stock '09 OEM setting of 25,000 (same for all other OEM MY SO PCM strategies for IPC Wheel TQ max errors) w\o coming nowhere even close to this threshold......datalogging showed this error generation at <200 errors max. Was a lot more before doing this...........explains why this IPC Wheel TQ error max setting was set at 500,000 in my tune file instead of 25,000......which I would've never known unless I got access to an actual copy of my tune file to look at & had access to HPTuners VCM Editor software to use........ Don't know if prior tuner or BAMA tuners actually did this since I had a BAMA tune file loaded prior last tuner, but the fact that prior tuner didn't fix this when it was well known that I had a 62mm TB installed prior tuning it thus paid for the service doesn't excuse 1 of the responsibility to tune it properly........unless he didn't know any better himself......which I've seen a lot of evidence of this being reality from other supposedly well known, advanced tuners on HPTuners forums who I'd think knew better, based on reading the postings knowing what I know now.........

Now I'm wondering if this same issue will cause WOT HP\TQ to be off due to the same mismatch in ETC TQ airload% modeling.........the math says it's possible. I've also found other reasons in my tune file as to why I said this concerning WOT that don't include this finding just to let you know.............

Why I cross checked the Ford data given for the '10 GT500 60mm TB w\o shaft size correction to verify my calcs which didn't take the shaft into consideration........got too good a match so proves something is up w\ all this.........I still don't believe this is a Ford engineering mistake either............got to be serving some non-engineering purpose(s)........marketing strategies for sales purposes would be a quick 1st thought among others IMHO........

Not an issue........as long as you KNOW about it & DO the necessary tuning to properly correct it all...........otherwise this is a piss poor way to treat a customer who spent the money to buy 1 of these 62mm TB's & pay for tuning only for a tuner to not tune it correctly then bad mouth it's performance & berate a customer for wanting to use 1........I find a LOT of deceit & unscrupulous practice in this........another reason why I jumped off the sidelines.....too much of this is going on under most folks noses........easier to do\pull off when customers are kept in the dark......thus potentially manipulated in order to achieve someone else's agendas.

Sorry for the soap box but this kind of stuff really pisses me off.......whether it's from a tuner or FoMoCo.

Finally figured out tuner's extra mistake in this area of my tune file along w\ this TB PTA\EA mapping mismatch between a 55mm TB vs a 62mm TB.........they (BAMA tuner & prior tuner) also failed to recalibrate the LWFM tables (I verified they were still stock using Editor's compare feature, so were still calibrated to the stock MAF transfer calibration.....this part I kept missing until now) when the MAF tables were recalibrated to the larger 83mm MAF ID section of the Bullitt CAI (proper tuning procedure is to recalibrate the LWFM tables after recalibrating the MAF tables so the 2 tables match each other so if PCM does fail the MAF the LWFM tables should give the same airmass calcs as the MAF would). So in my case, since the ETC TB PTA\EA mapping was still for a 55mm TB AND the LWFM tables were still calibrated for the stock MAF, the PCM was always falling back on the LWFM tables due to actual MAF airload% calcs being way off w\ the 62mm TB which will always agree w\ the ETC 55mm TB PTA\EA map TQ modeling when the PCM failed the MAF & used the uncorrected LWFM tables to correct "false" MAF airmass calcs so the 62mm TB would indeed act like the 55mm TB was still installed! So the TB PTA\EA mapping I used from the '10 GT500's 60mm TB did correct the ETC TB PTA\EA map TQ modeling enough for the PCM to stay w\ the actual MAF airmass calcs off same TB TPS angle% (which is derived from the Bullitt's 83mm MAF calibration which will always be higher than the LWFM tables as currently calibrated thus a higher TQ output will be used thus engine will output more TQ.....as long as the PCM stays w\ the MAF calcs).

Looks like I'll be using the STFT+LTFT & current MAF calibration to correct the false LWFM tables in my tune file to fix this part...........

Hhhmmmm........sleep does do wonders for the mind! LOL!

 

[Juice]

Thats one deep rabbit hole you are into. lol

 

[GlassTop09]

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

I think I've found another missing piece w\ my tune file.

Revisited my prior tuner's copy of my car's tune file & looked at the LWFM IMRC open\close tables again (had noted that he didn't copy the IMRC open map data into the IMRC closed map in earlier posting thus I fixed this in tune file) with the understanding that the proper tuning procedure to correct all IMRC-related control maps when IMRC is disabled (CMCV's removed) is to copy IMRC open map data into IMRC closed map so PCM will see same data if it references IMRC closed map by mistake (PCM supposed to reference all IMRC open maps by default in SO PCM strategy when IMRC Master switch\IMRC Position switch in tune file is set to disable IMRC control in PCM strategy) then in DTC's shut down all IMRC control DTC's (P151A, P2004-P2020 DTC's set to No Error Reported) so no false IMRC DTC MIL's. Also, proper tuning procedure when calibrating MAF tables is to also calibrate LWFM tables off freshly calibrated MAF tables so both will agree w\ each other since PCM uses LWFM tables as a predictive checksum to MAF airmass load% calcs.

Got a hunch that prior tuner just may have checked\calibrated the LWFM IMRC closed table data against\off MAF table calibration instead but forgot to copy this LWFM IMRC closed map's data into the LWFM IMRC open map (which is backwards from what is usually taught by Jeffery Evans @ EPA....but would have served the same purpose regardless...if it had been done) so on this whim I copied all the LWFM IMRC closed map data from original tune into both LWFM IMRC open\close maps in my current tune copy, saved changes & wrote it in.

Started up w\ VCM Scanner datalogging PCM & the very 1st thing I saw from my CL STFT+LTFT graph was it showing all 0's in all cell hits across MAF volts scale in graph (this graph is set up to track CL avg NB O2 sensor correction from both banks against reported MAF sensor voltage thus corresponding MAF airmass..... 0% means MAF calibration\fueling is dead on EQ Ratio Lambda 1.0 which is validating 14.13 fuel stoich AFR setting matching actual E10\91oct fuel in tank) instead of being +-1%-2% across most of the MAF volts scale cells prior this tune revision. Blipped throttle several times to see how PCM would track EQ Ratio Lambda......STFT+LTFT graph stayed on 0% outside of a couple of cells where PCM applied transient gain fueling using DA 10.90L setting during accel & they read -1% (showing the transient fuel enrichening) then returned to 0% afterwards (corrected back to EQ Ratio Lambda 1.0 once transient fueling was completed). I monitored this for approx 30 mins watching to see if tracking would change pattern.....pattern held solid so it looks like my hunch was correct judging by the graphing results. Saved log data for reference then took car on initial DC over same 37mi route....car drove very well & ran very smooth\responsive thruout.

Pulled I\M Readiness data once parked & engine shut off.........all monitors completed except EVAP (FLI was right at 85% so EVAP monitor didn't run on this trip). Mode 6 Cat CE ratios as follows: B1 @ .121, B2 @ .129, CMBT @ 1,240*F. Started up & checked live data & this is what I saw for CL STFT+LTFT correction w\ both banks STFT's switching at full hot idle after 37mi DC completed: B1 LTFT @ -1.6%, B2 LTFT @ +.08%....... this backs up the VCM Scanner STFT+LTFT graph showing CL MAF airmass calcs being essentially spot on EQ Ratio Lambda 1.0 thus validates the LWFM IMRC closed map data I copied back in matches current MAF calibration table thus is legit. Observed this for approx 20 mins........the readings never moved so EVAP purge cycling is also accounted for in the numbers & verified stable. Graphed both B1S1\B2S1 voltage switching.......getting very clean & consistent graphing patterns off both front O2 sensors.

We'll see how all this holds up once PCM has filled out KAM corrections after several more DC's are done but its looking pretty good at the moment.

Rabbit holes slowly getting filled in............

PS edit (6-12-22)--Took car out to pick up a takeout food order & put some mileage on her (approx 47 mi) in the process & here are the results:
I\M Readiness all completed now (EVAP was left from initial 6-11-22 DC).
Cat CE Ratio results:
B1 @ .121
B2 @ .125
CMBT @ 1,268*F (noted cat running temps have dropped overall even though AAT high's are in the low 90's.......maybe indicative of combustion efficiency improvements).
Full hot idle STFT+LTFT correction (STFT's switching around 450mV):
B1 LTFT @ -2.3%
B2 LTFT @ +.08%

Looking to be very stable in operation throughout since LWFM IMRC map table resolution in tune file.

Yep, the devil is in the details............

 

[GlassTop09]

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

I've uncovered another little tidbit in these SO PCM tune files that can cause some lost TQ if it isn't understood very well & this is the VCT IMRC Open\Close maps under Spark\Advance\Borderline Knock Corrections\MBT Spark Corrections\VCT.
These maps are a spark multi adder to spark settings in BKT & MBT maps based on the amount of VCT cam degree retard called for based on load% vs RPM's (this is by design to counter loss of static compression caused by VCT retarding IVC by advancing BKT ignition timing to increase dynamic compression to regain any lost static compression so net engine cyl pressure can be increased\decreased or remain constant so PCM has full control over actual, usable total engine cyl pressure on the fly. This allows PCM to use the cam's EVO timing point during power stroke to determine base engine TQ then adjust the IVC dynamic compression side using extra ignition timing advance to gain overall final net engine TQ output based off the engine's displacement). The PCM is using the VCT cam position from 0* to reference all this. Example:

At .30% load & 2,500 RPM's VCT load% mapping calls for 20* retard. PCM knows the cam EVO will be retarded 20* (this will gain more cyl pressure application time to crank throw rotation across the throw's max usable length up to & past 90* thus max leverage & allow following cyl to begin to exert force onto it's crank throw during it's power stroke before leading cyl's EVO bleeds off cyl pressure) but also will retard IVC the same amount thus will cut static cyl press by some amount (say 1.5 psi\degree so at 20* retard static compression drops some 30 psi). This spark adder will apply a multi to the BKT spark for this operating range (say BKT @ 27* & this VCT IMRC Spark map calls for a multi of .23 at .30% & 2,500 RPM's so the PCM will add an additional 4.6* of ignition timing advance--20* retard x .23--to the BKT 27* for final of 31.6* to use dynamic compression to regain lost static cyl pressure due to retarding the cam IVC point for a final net TQ gain or holding of TQ constant.....as long as the MBT spark map will allow for it to occur (this MBT spark map is also corrected by same VCT IMRC Open\Close Spark Adder map setup so is making allowance for this to occur thus as long as the knock sensors like it, it is applying it) so the PCM can control engine to either maintain net cyl pressure thus TQ output OR increase net cyl pressure thus increase net TQ output OR lose net cyl pressure thus TQ output across the engine's RPM range or powerband.....depending on the tuning done here.

The loss of TQ can occur here if a tuner decides to zero out these tables to make tuning BKT\MBT tables easier (which some tuners recommend to do.........). This action can cause a fairly sizeable loss of available TQ across the entire engine powerband if a tuner isn't aware of how these VCT spark maps actually work. Ford engineers show that they know what is dynamically going on when the cams are retarded in these 3V's thus have set up a counter to maintain\gain net TQ output during VCT operations.

If using FI, then it will make more sense to zero these VCT IMRC Spark Adder tables out to retain full control of all spark application, but if NA, it is a big mistake to zero these tables out. If IMRC is removed then just copy the VCT IMRC Open table's data (more aggressive) into the VCT IMRC Closed table so PCM will use the same data (likewise for the MBT VCT IMRC Spark Adder tables).

In order to optimize any aftermarket cams using VCT w\ these 3V's, these VCT IMRC Open\Close Spark Adder maps can be readjusted to fully optimize the aftermarket cams net TQ production but the OEM settings will still give good, tangible results so can be left alone if desired (this is what my prior tuner did). It is a mistake to zero these tables out unless you intend to go thru each cell & fully optimize the BKT AND MBT mapping for each cell instead of allowing the PCM to manage this as it needs to.

So in my case, this is another area where my prior tuner got it right & only zeroed out the last 2 rows in maps (.80\.90 WOT) to prevent engine from knock so hand tuned the BKT\MBT tables to optimize spark in these 2 rows to run engine right up to the limit before knock (the MBT table limit) but left all OEM settings in the rest of the maps so PCM can optimize net TQ output itself across the rest of the maps.

I tested this by intentionally zeroing out these VCT IMRC Open\Close Spark Adder maps then loading tune files & ran engine........the results were very obvious.....engine wasn't as spry\punchy during CL operations so I know this will happen if these maps are zeroed out. Copied all data back in as before to return all back to prior setup.

So in closing, don't get too hung up on cam IVC timing alone in VCT operations concerning TQ output w\ these 3V's......focus on the EVO point 1st then look at the cam IVC + VCT IMRC Spark adder multis in tune file to counterbalance dynamic cyl compression pressures for engine net TQ output. This is 1 of the areas w\ this SO PCM's tuning is best done on a dyno for speed, ease & most important....control for accuracy. This makes a load-bearing hub dyno the hot ticket...........no issue concerning tire traction\deflection to roller so engine can be easily held at any constant engine RPM to then tune all column cells out across the full engine load% range to fully flesh out a map.

 

[GlassTop09]

Finally figured out tuner's extra mistake in this area of my tune file along w\ this TB PTA\EA mapping mismatch between a 55mm TB vs a 62mm TB.........they (BAMA tuner & prior tuner) also failed to recalibrate the LWFM tables (I verified they were still stock using Editor's compare feature, so were still calibrated to the stock MAF transfer calibration.....this part I kept missing until now) when the MAF tables were recalibrated to the larger 83mm MAF ID section of the Bullitt CAI (proper tuning procedure is to recalibrate the LWFM tables after recalibrating the MAF tables so the 2 tables match each other so if PCM does fail the MAF the LWFM tables should give the same airmass calcs as the MAF would). So in my case, since the ETC TB PTA\EA mapping was still for a 55mm TB AND the LWFM tables were still calibrated for the stock MAF, the PCM was always falling back on the LWFM tables due to actual MAF airload% calcs being way off w\ the 62mm TB which will always agree w\ the ETC 55mm TB PTA\EA map TQ modeling when the PCM failed the MAF & used the uncorrected LWFM tables to correct "false" MAF airmass calcs so the 62mm TB would indeed act like the 55mm TB was still installed! So the TB PTA\EA mapping I used from the '10 GT500's 60mm TB did correct the ETC TB PTA\EA map TQ modeling enough for the PCM to stay w\ the actual MAF airmass calcs off same TB TPS angle% (which is derived from the Bullitt's 83mm MAF calibration which will always be higher than the LWFM tables as currently calibrated thus a higher TQ output will be used thus engine will output more TQ.....as long as the PCM stays w\ the MAF calcs).

Looks like I'll be using the STFT+LTFT & current MAF calibration to correct the false LWFM tables in my tune file to fix this part...........

Hhhmmmm........sleep does do wonders for the mind! LOL!

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

Did some more digging & learned that the ETC control actually uses SD to calc TB airload% for TQ calcs.......this discovery makes it more important for tuners to remap the TB PTA\EA maps to fit the sq in area of the TB the ETC is controlling.......AND to redo the SD maps whenever a MAF table\LWFM maps are recalibrated so that their airmass data matches the newly recalibrated MAF tables\LWFM maps so the ETC airload% calcs closely matches the MAF airload% calcs. PCM is doing some behind-the-curtain calcs to arrive at the running baro & the running MAP in inHg (my hunch is that Ford has figured out some method of extrapolating this MAP data from the FRP sensor's running fuel pressure.....which is calc'd from using the actual engine's MAP, referenced from KOEO then extrapolated during engine operations) then Ford filled out the SD VCT IMRC Open\Close MAP at Zero Airmass maps (values are in estimated inHg) & the SD VCT IMRC Open\Close MAP per Airmass maps (these are estimated manifold airmass values based off all behind-the-curtain calcs) along w\ the other SD settings that it uses along w\ the TB PTA\EA mapping (uses estimated MAP in inHg) to arrive at a TQ airload% calc based on TB TPS angle% then compares this calc to the MAF airload% calc based on the same TB TPS angle% to see if both agree.....

Most tuners don't mess w\ any of these SD settings\maps (especially if NA) as pretty much all of this is Ford derived data thus is OEM but sometimes the VCT IMRC Open\Close MAP per Airmass maps will have to be redone due to MAF airmass calc's being too far apart (especially when FI is involved)......assuming MAF table calibration is good......to rectify any IPC Wheel TQ errors generated. Since this is essentially OEM data that was "calibrated" to fit the OEM ETC TB "calibrated" PTA\EA map data of the OEM 55mm TB's twin bore ID sq in area (which I still believe Ford intentionally under calc'd this on purpose so even a 55mm TB is underperforming), it is going to align itself w\ this data thus operate accordingly unless either the SD mapping data or the ETC TB PTA\EA mapping data or both is changed to align w\ the MAF or LWFM airload% calcs so the TQ modeling comes into agreement thus will use the MAF\LWFM airload% calcs in final TQ modeling instead of ETC TB TQ airload% calcs & not kick out high IPC Wheel TQ errors.

All the SD settings\maps in my tune file was still all OEM stock values as well as the LWFM Closed\Open maps data......only the MAF tables were recalibrated. Since the MAF recalibration was to an OEM Ford Bullitt 83mm CAI, the MAF calibration was found good (I back checked it using the stock '08 Bullitt tune file's MAF tables which used the exact same CAI.......tables were identical). This then made all OEM LWFM & OEM SD data good (back checked same data used in '08 stock Bullitt tune file) so the only data needed to be changed was the ETC TB PTA\EA mapping, since I had the FR 62mm TB installed, to correct the TQ modeling (also due to this I also discovered that the SO PCM is actually referencing to the IMRC Closed maps whenever an IMRC fault occurs\IMRC switches are set to disabled instead of to the IMRC Open maps as I was told, as the OEM LWFM IMRC Closed map data is calibrated off MAF calibration, not the LWFM IMRC Open map data--why the TPA% 0 row in LWFM Open map is all 0's......this map was not intended to be used during daily driving scenarios, so I fixed all this by copying the LWFM Closed map data from prior tuner's tune file into both LWFM IMRC Closed\Open maps in my tune file to fix the mismatch I caused by copying the LWFM Open map data--even after me fixing the TPA% 0 row data--into both LWFM Closed\Open maps upon finding these 2 maps not being of the same data......this then fixed the mismatch issue between the MAF tables\LWFM map data & SD data thus fixed all MAF\SD airmass calc issues). Now once the TB PTA\EA map data was changed using the FR 60mm TB's PTA\EA map's scaling & data, this corrected the ETC TB TQ airload% modeling off SD data to match the MAF\LWFM calc'd airload% modeling off same TB TPS angle% so PCM is now happy & is putting out correct engine TQ output based off the new TB PTA\EA sq in mapping........... All this also fixed all CL airmass operations as well (why I saw the STFT+LTFT correction in my tune file realign--within +- 2.3% now--& essentially line up w\ the MAF calibration\fueling from EQ Ratio Lambda 1.0 once the LWFM tables were fixed so the predictive MAF airmass calcs from LWFM map agreed w\ MAF table calcs........which makes what I typed on Pg 11, post #209 a true statement) so if STFT+LTFT correction is greater than +-3.1% max, something is starting to get out of balance.....if greater than +-5.0% something is really throwing it out & IMHO should start hunting for the culprit(s) starting w\ all mechanical components before even thinking about looking at a non-OEM tune to make sure that no mechanical component design\operation\failures are causing the excessive STFT+LTFT correction (tune files don't wear out......if tune file is fully OEM, the issue is all mechanical caused). The old acceptable +-10% STFT+LTFT correction boundry rule is IMHO outdated.

So, what I learned is this...........if staying NA & IMRC is disabled in tune AND using an OEM Ford MAF curve (whether the stock OEM airbox, the OEM FR Bullitt\Shelby GT CAI or the OEM Shelby GT-H CAI), set all airmass IMRC maps up using the OEM IMRC Closed map data copied into the IMRC Open map (LWFM & SD) to keep all aligned to the OEM Ford MAF curve. If using an aftermarket CAI thus a non-OEM MAF curve and\or going FI & IMRC is disabled in tune, THEN you can use the IMRC Open airmass maps to load corrected LWFM data and\or SD MAP per Airmass data off the non-OEM MAF curve in then copy all corrected data into the IMRC Closed map, just make sure that BOTH Open\Closed maps have the same data so PCM will not get confused & use it properly.

As far as the VCT\Spark IMRC Open\Closed maps go when IMRC is disabled, always copy the IMRC Open map data into the IMRC Closed map as the VCT\Spark IMRC Open maps will have the more aggressive thus power making data in them, then make any changes in the Open map then copy changes into the Closed map to maintain consistency.

From looking at all in my tune file as of this time, I find nothing else outside of the base tuning that needs to be tweaked so I have finished all tune refinement & from all datalogging I've done since making all these changes I see no reason to touch any of the base tuning as all lines up perfectly in CL w\ EQ Ratio Lambda 1.0 now & all OL tuning is untouched thus is unchanged so it is now a fully fleshed & done deal.

The only thing left to do is to put her on a dyno to see where it all shakes out at now......especially since the ETC TB PTA\EA map changes\DD TQ Request map changes have reshaped the TQ modeling output "curves" thus should have a say in where the peak HP\TQ ends up (mainly the ETC TB PTA\EA mapping as this will carry over into OL TQ load% operations) & influence the shape of the overall TQ curve. In hindsight I wish I'd had done all this before swapping out the rear axle gears from the 3.73's to 3.90's to make all more apples-to-apples comparison for conversation sake but oh well..................

This I do know.......the butt dyno can definately feel a big difference in CL engine acceleration\TQ output since the rear gears were already swapped well before my tune tweaking started thus were "accounted for".
Car is a pure blast to drive now! Now on to address the gear whining..............

FWIW

 

[GlassTop09]

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

After 9 drive cycles performed & 196 total miles driven since final tune revision was loaded into PCM, here are the settled cat CE Ratio emissions numbers:

Today (put 100 mi of freeway driving at 70-85 MPH):
B1 CE Ratio @ .168.....idle LTFT @ -1.6%
B2 CE Ratio @ .145.....idle LTFT @ +1.6%
CMBT @ 1,253*F

9 drive cycle avg since 6-15-22 final revision using E10 fuel stoich AFR @ 14.13 in tune w\ actual E10\91 oct fuel in engine:
B1 avg CE Ratio @ .167.....idle LTFT @ -2.3%
B2 avg CE Ratio @ .149.....idle LTFT @ +0.5%
CMBT @ 1,253*F
B1\B2 combined CE Ratio avg @ .158

These results are just slightly worse than the avg's I recorded back on Pg 10, posts 191, 193 prior my tuning refinements running the same K&N E-1997 Bullitt air filter w\ dust sock using E0 fuel stoich AFR @ 14.64 in tune w\ actual E10\91oct fuel in engine:
B1 avg CE Ratio @ .147.....idle LTFT @ +3.9%
B2 avg CE Ratio @ .151.....idle LTFT @ +10.2%
CMBT @ 1,241*F
B1\B2 combined CE Ratio avg @ .149

These results show the extra A\F poundage the newly refined tune is putting out which should translate into more CL HP\TQ output from more accurate thus responsive ETC TB TQ modeling, correct fuel stoich AFR for fuel used, proper injector ref IVO crank angle timing to aftermarket cams IVO timing, corrected O2 sensor TD timing map & correct LWFM & SD airmass maps setup\usage to match the MAF tables.......as well as how far off the usage of a fuel stoich AFR in tune that doesn't represent the actual fuel used (both sets of data is from tuning running actual E10\91oct unleaded fuel thru engine) can look like (a potential vacuum leak that doesn't really exist......the extra excess O2% the O2 sensors were picking up in exhaust is the unaccounted for imbedded O2% in the ethanol content that was missed in front end PCM airmass\fueling calcs due to the wrong fuel stoich AFR being used in the PCM's EQ Ratio Lambda 1.0 formula for the actual fuel being burned. By correcting the fuel stoich AFR in tune, this extra imbedded O2% plus ethanol's BTU\octane is being accounted for in PCM front end airmass load%\fueling calcs now--the O2 sensor STFT+LTFT KAM correction differences prove this--thus should put out more HP\TQ in CL & in reality, OL PE as well since the OL base fuel map uses Lambda settings which is based off the PCM's EQ Ratio Lambda 1.0 formula.......which uses the fuel stoich AFR setting in tune. This should now allow a little more spark advance to be applied during OL PE--as long as the BKT\MBT spark tables & knock sensors as currently set up in tune will allow--due to the imbedded O2% & BTU\octane adjustment from the fuel's extra ethanol content being accounted for now in airmass load% calcs thru the 14.13 fuel stoich AFR--fuel is fattened up approx 3.6% more overall now using the same OL base fuel map Lambda settings in tune file--this wasn't being accounted for when EQ Ratio Lambda 1.0 was using the 14.64 fuel stoich AFR. Remember w\ SO PCM's during OL, no O2 sensor STFT+LTFT KAM correction is being applied to make up for this as opposed to CL.......thus the importance of setting this fuel stoich AFR in tune file to match\line up to the actual fuel's stoich AFR being burned).

So what a dyno should be able to prove here is the difference that the corrected ETC TB TQ modeling SD airmass load% calcs derived from the in\sq difference between the OEM 55mm TB's 4.2 in\sq PTA\EA mapping vs the OEM 60mm TB's 8.76 in\sq PTA\EA mapping @ same 82% WOT TPA at same estimated MAP inHg thru the same FR 62mm TB, corrected IMRC LWFM & SD airmass map data to align actual MAF load% calcs to the ETC TB SD airmass TQ load% calcs off same TB TPA% & MAP inHg, the fueling correction derived from the 14.13 fuel stoich AFR tune correction in PCM EQ Ratio Lambda 1.0 formula in CL operations & OL base Lambda fuel map\base cold start Lambda fuel map as well within the same potentially increased TB airmass load% TQ calcs mentioned prior & the fuel injector ref IVO crank angle timing setting correction that realigned the Ford SO PCM fuel injection modeling to the Lunati cam's adv dur IVO timing point should result in the engine increasing peak HP\TQ output to some degree as well as improved available HP\TQ under the curve (this is more likely to happen IMHO) over what it did prior if all the math does actually line up. The 2 physical components that can have an influence in all this up front are the K&N E-1997 Bullitt air filter (this filter wasn't installed during the last dyno session........used the FR OEM Bullitt air filter that's discontinued now) & the MF #5461336 CARB-cert cats (they were installed after the last dyno session.....used Kooks Hi Flow Race cats during last dyno session) thus noted as well as the current BKT\MBT spark tables becoming a potential cap (max BKT of 27* + knock max advance of 4* = 31* max total spark advance timing @ WOT in tune file w\ max MBT at 33* which is what TM will use to calc max TQ load% output.....which is the same prior tuner's mapping that was used during last dyno session) due to the E10\91oct fuel's extra ethanol imbedded O2% & BTU\octane being accounted for now in the PCM up-front WOT airmass load%\fueling calcs during OL allowing potentially more spark advance to be used w\o knock than is currently allotted for in BKT + knock advance maps as well as in the MBT maps) as well as the OEM Ford Bullitt 83mm CAI itself (at some airmass velocity value will start to become a restriction......when\if this is reached is the question......the MAF table calibration says it shouldn't become a restriction as it equals the 100% ideal 50.62 lbs\min calc'd VE output of this 4.6L NA engine's OEM displacement @ 6,250 RPM's @ SL at the 5v MAF sensor's upper limit.....upper MAF voltage fail limit in tune file is set @ stock 980 A\D counts or 4.9v so around the 47 lbs\min airmass range ) but at the elevation here in the 4 Corners area it could happen.......highly doubt it (believe engine ECT will cut it as well as the Lunati cams airflow limits well before any MAF limitations occur), but it "could" if all else aligns.

Plan to find all this out after I get the rear end gear whining rectified & new Motive 3.91 ratio full hunting gear set broken in.

Until then..........gonna be enjoying her as from around 2,000 RPM's on, the already good low RPM engine TQ just keeps coming on so 5th gear w\ these 3.90's & 26" dia Conti Extreme Contact DWS06 255\40\18 front 295\35\18 rear tires on OEM Ford 07-09 SVT 18" x 9.5" wheels don't hold this thing back in the slightest & these Ford OEM 08-09 Bullitt front\rear springs on Koni Orange STR T dampeners thru all Ford OEM 07-14 SVT\Track Pack front\rear suspension rides so smooth but solid\agile so is my cruising dream setup (I didn't want to park it today.......felt soo good).

Posted for informational purposes.........FWIW.

 

[GlassTop09]

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

Here is a copy of an automotive engineering study concerning automotive throttle bodies & how they're used within a SD model that I found very interesting. Helped give me a lot of clarity concerning how Ford is using it's version of SD in the SO PCM's thru the TB's to arrive at airmass calcs to then compare to MAF calcs.

Enjoy!

 

[Juice]

You have it too easy w/SO pcm. This thread had me looking more closely at the Copperhead.

I finally figured out last night why my first tunes worked OK when flashed and gradually deteriorated over time. Idle issue developed after a few tanks, power seemed to have dropped a little. And MPGs would definitely noticably get worse over time. OAR combined with a "max power" tune was the culprit. But, that's another story....

 

[GlassTop09]

You have it too easy w/SO pcm. This thread had me looking more closely at the Copperhead.

I finally figured out last night why my first tunes worked OK when flashed and gradually deteriorated over time. Idle issue developed after a few tanks, power seemed to have dropped a little. And MPGs would definitely noticably get worse over time. OAR combined with a "max power" tune was the culprit. But, that's another story....

Yeah, I'd say that's true concerning SO PCM's once you become very familiar w\ it's strategies inner workings........in NA config.
Where the real tuning test w\ SO PCM's is tuning for FI from scratch since none of the SO PCM OEM strategies were written to accommodate FI in any shape, form or fashion thus have to be rescaled\reconfigured to "simulate" MAP scaling, baro scaling above atmospheric pressures to account for the lack of a MAP sensor to then control fueling mostly thru OL using SD along w\ MAF w\o the benefit of O2 sensor STFT+LTFT KAM correction then in CL using NB O2 sensors that can't give indication of close enough lean\rich % off EQ Ratio Lambda 1.0 to even attempt to tune it or monitor it w\o an external WB........I'll pass on all that.
More power to those who are running\about to be running FI 4.6L 3V's..............I choose to stay NA & if anything may go w\ a budget level 4.6L 3V-based stroker instead in my Glass Top for extra cruising HP\TQ.

I've been looking more closely at Copperhead tune files recently since finishing up w\ my car's tuning (that is until I get a suitable OBDII extension cable\OBDII theft prevention relocation kit to move the OBDII socket to the passenger side to clear the driver side to facilitate driving datalogging w\o interference w\ the MPVI2+ interface while plugged in) & I have to say they're a LOT more nuanced than SO strategies, no doubt about that.