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.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.
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.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
Just remembered something I ran across messing w\ my car's tune files concerning I\M Readiness.....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.
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.
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.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.
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).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.
FYI..................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!
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.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....