Lunati VooDoo #21270700 Camshafts

Update:

We put her on the dyno today & got her all tuned up w\ these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams installed (only item that was changed on the engine that will matter....replaced OEM Ford production cams & also replaced OEM valve covers w\ FR Black Wrinkle Etched valve covers--bling).

1st thing to put into context, the new On3 Performance speed shop uses a Mustang dyno instead of a DynoJet dyno that Optimum Force (the shop where my tuner was contracted thru during the initial tuning work) uses so we aren't gonna be looking at apples to apples comparison w\ the prior dyno sheet I posted earlier. Both dyno sheet's results were corrected @ SAE. The best we're gonna do here is use some math to get a better comparison as my tuner said that the difference between the 2 dyno types typically falls between 8%-10% depending upon equipment condition\setup\calibration being relatively on par as long as the correct weight of the vehicle is loaded properly w\ them. Was told that a Mustang dyno will usually induce a heavier load on the drive wheels vs a DynoJet w\ all else being equal thus why they usually show lower numbers. The main thing thru all of this is how does the car drive\feel\perform after tuning vs before.....the drag strip\road course is usually the better place to determine this as they are timed events that can reveal the general total improvement\regression of the parts installed/work done.

But there is data to be gained from looking at the dyno sheet showing "area under the curve" performance.....

Now that that's out of the way, here she is...……………………….


At peak final numbers were 317.02 HP/299.23 TQ (vs 317.90 HP/295.47 TQ baseline) w\ the Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams on On3's Mustang dyno. This correlates to DynoJet correction of final On3 Mustang dyno peak numbers of same FBO's running Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams to compare to OF DynoJet peak numbers using math of same FBO's running OEM cams at 8% @ 342.38 HP/ 323.17 TQ or at 10% @ 348.72 HP/ 329.15 TQ so the net final peak comparison at 8% @ +11.78 HP/-2.73 TQ, at 10% @ +18.12 HP/+3.25 TQ vs the OF dyno sheet results. As you can see, the On3 dyno sheet doesn't show the final peak HP/TQ RPM markers to compare to the OF dyno sheet's peak HP/TQ RPM markers where peak numbers were reached (forgot to ask my tuner for this info at the time but can get it later) to determine the shift in the curve higher or lower. Now looking at the On3 sheet at 2500 RPM (low end of graph) we have final peak numbers of 139 HP/285 TQ (vs 125 HP/245 TQ baseline....measured 5/8" between HP/TQ markers which gives 9-1/16" "scaling marks" so matched up w\ graph) w\ Lunati VooDoo's. Using the same math to correlate to the OF DynoJet sheet at the same 2500 RPM mark w\ OEM cams (final @ 130 HP/270 TQ) the On3 Mustang sheet to DynoJet correction finals at 8% @ 150.12 HP/307.8 TQ, at 10% @ 152.9 HP/313.5 TQ so the net final comparison at 8% @ +20.12 HP/+37.8 TQ, at 10% @ +22.9 HP/+43.5 TQ @ same 2500 RPM. So assuming all is theretically apples to apples, the Lunati VooDoo's are giving a larger performance gain at lower RPM's than at upper RPM's vs OEM's.....for HP the gains are across the entire curve at both 8% & 10% corrections but for TQ the gains are larger at lower RPM's for both 8% & 10% corrections but at 8% peak TQ correction we lose 2.73 lb\ft vs 10% peak TQ correction we gain 3.25 lb/ft.

Now notice the dip in HP & TQ right off the 2500 RPM mark on the On3 dyno sheet then it levels into the steady rise from there. This happened from the ECU doing what I posted about in post #19 as I am still running cats so the ECU is still using the 2 post cat O2 sensors....my tuner has this recorded as well (I'll see if I can get a copy of the data logging that shows it). He had fixed this as best he could under the circumstances by resetting the VCT cam retard setting limits to get the most HP/TQ down low but still not screw up the cats so I'll have to live w\ that unless I remove the cats & turn off the rear O2 sensors. Good thing is when driving the car I never really noticed it thru these 3.73 gears/26" tires so a moot point.

The other things we noted is that around 3500-3800 RPM there is some outside harmonics going on that is causing some false knock so ECU pulls some spark timing momentarily then it goes away after that. I think I know what's going on (got exhaust piping\clamp most likely hitting unibody due to vibrations from exhaust frequency within this RPM range....I noticed 1 clamp is actually touching gas tank guard but may also be 1 of the cats hitting underside from me having exhaust supports installed on mid pipe at trans crossmember....all is very close to unibody, may be hitting due to exhaust piping moving from expansion) so I'm gonna pick up some 5/8" flat washers to use as spacers to gain some more clearance & rotate the 1 clamp to clear the gas tank guard...should fix this. Also around 5700 RPM the engine starts to run out of air (injectors DC around 78%-80% so FP is keeping up so fuel delivery isn't the issue) but not enough to cause the HP/TQ to nose dive so HP is still slowly gaining but at a slower rate. My tuner thinks that this is due to the limits of my FR Bullit 85mm CAI, not due to the Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams. He says from what he's seeing these Lunati VooDoo cams (thus my engine) got more gains to give up on top, but since these are a mild cam grind to begin with & this would only be important to go after if racing was the goal (which would be better served here w\ a more aggressive cam profile along w\ a SC install anyway & racing is FAR down on my list of priorities w\ this Glass Top Stang due to it's rarity) I'm gonna call her good at this point.

Had the hot idle set RPM lowered from 790 to 750 (I had raised idle RPM back when engine was all stock on OEM 87oct Ford tune w\ 3.55 gears due to struggles on TO w\ A/C on & just left it as set until now). This brought out the exhaust cadence more (not a chopping lope but a rolling rumble) that I was hearing after I installed these Lunati's along w\ an even deeper exhaust note thru my Pypes Super Bomb Mid-Muffler catback system w\ them 14" x 4" resonators....sounding sooo good to me now (wife told me that she heard me backing into driveway from the back bedroom of our house thru closed door......neighbors ain't gonna like me driving in\out at night). The rumble is fairly smooth but no resemblance to the sound from the OEM cams, probably due to the slightly larger valve overlap in the Lunati's. With the increased low end torque gains from the Lunati's vs the OEM's the car drives even better than before even at the lower 750 RPM idle w\ the A/C on to boot....just walks off in 1st w\o any throttle input & the power comes on very smooth but QUICK once throttle input is applied so she is a little more touchy than prior on throttle management at low RPM but this I LIKE.

Was starting to rain so I parked the car for the rest of the day. Plan to take her on a ECU relearn drive in the AM if weather permits.

So all in all I'm happy w\ these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cam's performance vs the stock OEM cams....should make cruising a very pleasant & fun experience!

It's a shame you couldn't use the same dyno as previously but what stands out is how much flatter the torque curve has become with the Lunati Voodoo cams. While peak TQ is virtually unchanged, the TQ output has increased on both sides of the peak. HP is also still climbing beyond 6000rpm.
These cams are advertised as having an operating range of 800-6500rpm and they certainly deliver on that. Perhaps you should try the JLT series 3 110mm CAI. That'll deliver more air and you could see a further boost in the mid-range and top end.
I have to say overall I'm impressed with those cams and they seem to compliment the FRPP intake manifold very nicely.

Dino Dino Bambino said:

It's a shame you couldn't use the same dyno as previously but what stands out is how much flatter the torque curve has become with the Lunati Voodoo cams. While peak TQ is virtually unchanged, the TQ output has increased on both sides of the peak. HP is also still climbing beyond 6000rpm.
These cams are advertised as having an operating range of 800-6500rpm and they certainly deliver on that. Perhaps you should try the JLT series 3 110mm CAI. That'll deliver more air and you could see a further boost in the mid-range and top end.
I have to say overall I'm impressed with those cams and they seem to compliment the FRPP intake manifold very nicely.

Click to expand...

Yeah would've been better do this on the same DynoJet dyno but I thought it wiser to stick w\ the same tuner than stay w\ the other shop.....besides I still got the same deal by going w\ the tuner....only costs me $250.00 + tax for the tune upgrade w\ unlimited # of pulls (initial tune cost $500.00 + tax unlimited # of pulls). Only took him 3 drivablilty tweak runs & 2 WOT pulls to get there after making changes in the tune calibration to match up w\ the Lunati cam card data so the ECU can manage engine operations more efficiently.

I might do that if I run across a used 1 at a steal of a price....this is the CAI that my tuner tried to talk me into getting the 1st time he tuned my car but I had already bought the Ford Bullit CAI prior & he didn't fail to mention it to me again when finished w\ this session...………..

Update:

My tuner finally got back to me w\ the peak HP/TQ RPM markers for the new dyno sheet...……. she hit peak HP numbers at rev limiter @ 6750 RPM's (obvious due to graph.... vs prior peak HP @ 5800 RPM's), she hit peak TQ at 4871 RPM's.....471 RPM's higher than when she did on the prior graph (prior peak TQ @ 4400 RPM's). Now this part of the data IS relevant due to the same rear tires (read 295/35/18 @ 26" dia here) & same rear gear ratio (3.73) being used on both dyno rollers applying the same leverage coeff to the rollers & both sheets show no evidence of tire slippage on the rollers so the results here show that the new peak HP\TQ markers carried higher up the curve vs prior.....verifies that these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams are indeed a more powerful, more efficient cam than OEM cams across the board & that there is more HP/TQ left on the table to gain from these cams in NA form. Just would need to open up the induction (CAI > 85mm) some more to let her breath.....

So if a good used JLT Series 3 110mm CAI assembly is out there somewhere for a good price I might be tempted.....

All in all a good problem to have!

Yup, and you'd need to revise the tune and do another dyno run for the larger JLT. On a Dynojet you should get 350+rwhp.

Just to give a real world update on the amount of low end torque these Lunati Voodoo #21270700 cams are producing, I performed a test using my E-brake to see if my NA 4.6L V8 would move the car w\ E-brake fully pulled at idle w\o any throttle input from me....a real world test of an engine's low end idle torque output as the E-brake will set the disc pads only so far (spring won't allow the caliper ratchets to be over stressed so the tension to the disc pads--thus braking force--will be essentially the same across subsequent tests).

I had performed this test before w\ same mods running the OEM cams & she would move the car thru the set E-brake in 1st & reverse gear at idle but would die when trying this in 2nd. Engine idle speed was set @ 790 RPM's at the time & I'm running an Exedy HP Chrome Moly Racing Flywheel/Exedy Mach 500 Stage 3 Grooved Clutch kit that is SFI certified (have the certification tags for both) & is rated for max 522 lb\ft torque so she doesn't waste time grabbing when let out...…..

When I did this w\ same mods running the Lunati cams after getting the car tuned on the dyno she moved the car thru the set E-brake in reverse & 1st gear as before, but found that she'll now move it in 2nd & 3rd gear as well! She'll die when trying this in 4th gear......she's doing all this w\ the idle speed set @ 750 RPM's to boot. Now that's what I call low end torque!

Man I have to say, this car is now even more of a blast to drive...very easy to take off from a standstill w\ AC on due to all the new found low end torque & accelerates VERY, VERY WELL...especially love the feeling when I stab her after the 1-2 shift!

These Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams are indeed a good choice for anyone who wants increased HP\TQ pretty much across the entire powerband over the OEM cams w\ a good, deeper sounding idle (not lopey) from their 4.6L/5.4L 3V engine.

I definitely do not regret buying these cams at all!

The Lunati Voodoo 21270700 and the CompCams NSR 127200 cams are so similar in spec that you'd also expect them to perform similarly. I think the gain in low rev torque is largely down to the custom tune that allows more advanced cam timing.

0.050" opening duration: Lunati 225/237, CompCams 222/235
Valve lift: 0.45"/0.45" for both cams
LSA: Lunati 116, CompCams 115.5
ICA: Lunati 102, CompCams 101

If you really want to find out if you've gained low rev torque, do timed WOT pulls from 40mph in 5th gear. This is where any gain will be most noticeable.

Update:

Finally got under her today to check the exhaust system for clearance & indeed found 1 exhaust clamp (bolt side of exhaust clamp) on 1 of my Pypes M80 mufflers had been making contact w\ the gas tank shield....rotated it to clear the shield. All rest of exhaust checked out for clearance so no need to install spacers under mid pipe hangers....this should solve the detected false knock occurring around the 3500-3800 rpm area during drivability/WOT pulls at the last dyno session so she "should" make more HP/TQ in this area now due to ECU not pulling spark timing away (engine was happy showing no knock detected below & above this RPM zone of the pulls....only set off the knock sensors momentarily within this zone on each pull so tuner knew/suspected something else was triggering the knock sensors outside of actual engine detonation & exhaust harmonics is the #1 suspect as it is physically mounted to the engine heads thus can transfer harmonics to the knock sensors mounted on the heads causing a false signal to be sent to ECU.....).

Also noted today that when the A\C is turned on the load from the A/C compressor actually smooths out the idle cadence to a steady rolling rumble, when the A/C compressor is turned off the engine exhibits a slight "lope like" but fairly smooth rumbling idle cadence.....distinct enough to be clearly heard to let anyone know that it ain't an OEM cam idle sound cadence.

FYI...……………………………..
Also realized that w\ the hood up & car stationary during dyno pulls this is defeating 1 of the FR 85mm Bullit CAI's design strengths....true ram air effect when hood is closed sealing on the CAI's open filter shroud & car is in motion (cooler air will then enter thru opening from behind the Lft headlight assembly & thru grille area behind Lft fog light in front of the core support due to the low pressure area created at front of CAI shroud on top of core support (open area between core support & hood for air entry to CAI's cone filter...faster you go the more air is rammed into this area to feed the engine due to increased deltaP)). Ford used this very CAI on their 08-09 FR500C race cars (saw 1 FR500C car w\ this same CAI installed while the hood was raised during a YouTube video) & loss of this effect will show up w\ this FR 85mm Bullit CAI during a dyno session w\ the hood raised. Won't make up the flow difference you can get thru a JLT Series 3 110mm CAI w\ hood closed but it should make up the amount of air loss detected during the dyno pulls w/ the hood closed & car in motion to create the ram effect, not to mention the much cooler air charge entering the engine (here is 1 more area where having the FRPPIM will give an advantage vs the OEM intake manifold due to location of the open air plenum within the manifold. The FRPPIM open air plenum is located in the upper top section of manifold above the runners whereas the open air plenum of the OEM manifold is located below the runners in the valley between the cylinder heads making the OEM manifold more prone to heat soak inducing higher IAT's vs the FRPPIM (but is an advantage when emissions are concerned) that you won't see w\o an IAT sensor mounted in the manifolds. If you look at a new replacement OEM intake manifold you will note that they now have a thermal blanket attached to cover the bottom of the plenum to help prevent this (the originals didn't have this thermal blanket installed).

I have provided a picture of these manifolds sitting side by side showing this difference below.

In the end though a cooler air charge will win out making HP/TQ only IF the necessary air volume difference can't be made up from increased air volume flow due to lower deltaP from a larger CAI filter, MAF section & tube even if the air temp thru it is higher...……...but every little bit helps so I'm gonna make use of it all that I can within reason......

Getting all cleaned up so the ECU can optimize the HP/TQ output (thus efficiency) that can be squeezed from these Lunati VooDoo cams in my 4.6L V8.

Update:

Just got her off the rollers today at the same dyno before (On3 Dyno & Performance's Mustang dyno) w\ the same tuner looking her over & essentially got the same results as last time so the phantom false knock is still there, this time around 4,000 RPM's so the exhaust clamp hitting the gas tank shield on B1 wasn't the culprit (had also found later on prior to this session that B2 exhaust had come loose in the X-pipe clamp but the clamp bolts were tight & has rotated--allowed the M80 muffler to come into contact w\ gas tank shield. Loosened clamp & slid it forward onto X-pipe approx. 3\8" farther than it was originally & retightened after repositioning the exhaust to clear the M80 muffler then rechecked after heating the exhaust up...all good. Have bought 2 new Ford OEM exhaust clamps to replace the old ones next time I'm under the car.). From this the conclusion is that this issue is a product of some type of harmonics--from what we don't know but it is there but is also so small that it clears up very quickly (spark timing is pulled about 1.5* then is immediately put right back) & never is seen again rest of the way to redline so I'm not gonna worry about this going forward (tuner showed me the actual plot--is happening & gone so quick only on a WOT pull).
I had some other issues w\ ignition crop up prior to this session (can read about them in this thread:
https://www.s197forum.com/threads/engine-misfire-after-hot-rod-cam-install.136525/page-2) but they obviously weren't happening during the initial dyno session after these Lunati VooDoo cams were installed as the 2 dyno results pretty much mirrored each other. The only difference is during this session my tuner carried the engine a little higher on the top end RPM's but the engine was still gaining HP even then w\ these Lunati cams so it's all good. So we chalked this up to me just being lucky to have a couple of spark plug's resistors fail causing misfires...………..

Was interesting though...…………….

I did let my tuner know of some cold start stumbling conditions occurring due to the fuel being very rich (noted hot idle LTFT's at B1 @ -7.0%, B2 @ -3.7% w\ STFT's switching (at stoich) on both banks & showed him the plugs that I had pulled that showed the evidence--light\medium brown color on tip porcelains) so he looked at this, saw what I was seeing (they had changed to pull even more fuel out at idle) & made a couple of small fuel adjustments in the idle & mid range fuel mapping tables which brought the hot idle LTFT's back towards 0% (B1 @ -0.8%, B2 @ +2.3%). We'll see how all this fares once I start car thru a full cold start cycle but my tuner told me to expect this to change again due to PCM seeing conditions change. It didn't take long either as I hooked up my scan tool to get a baseline of all readings after session & actually witnessed the PCM making a change to B2's LTFT % while idling in my driveway (saw B2 STFT started calling for more fuel then LTFT reset at a higher +% number than prior to drive the STFT back to switching w\ B1 holding steady....for now) so I know that I'll need to drive the car around for a few drive cycles along w\ a couple of tanks of fuel run thru her for the PCM to stabilize these numbers as we're starting to come into the start of fall here where I live (already having temp swings of 40*F now). I'll also throw a can of Seafoam in the tank as well to run thru the injectors again but after this session I won't worry bout this either as long as all stays below the +-10% threshold.

Here is the new sheet provided below. Now the next time I hopefully will have a dyno sheet of my car w\ these Lunati VooDoo cams off a DynoJet dyno for actual comparison to this last Mustang sheet AND my earlier sheet off a DynoJet dyno w\ the OEM cams installed.



Oh, I forgot to mention this for anyone curious. My tuner did tell me that this is the 1st 3V that he has tuned that loves spark timing as my engine had advanced as much as 36* of spark timing during the WOT hit w\o any hint of knock outside of the known phantom instance running 91 oct pump gas. He told me that the most he's seen on other 3V's running 91 oct was around the 28*-31* range before knock started showing up. He thinks that these Lunati cam's lobe profile may have something to do w\ this as these are the 1st set of Lunati cams he's worked with.

Nice dyno curves.
Do you have a dyno sheet with just the second 322/298 run?

Dino Dino Bambino said:

Nice dyno curves.
Do you have a dyno sheet with just the second 322/298 run?

Click to expand...

I never remember to ask my tuner for this when I'm there (prolly due to me yapping bout everything else) so I hit him up on this today & he got back to me later on to inform me that he had somehow accidentally deleted the final run (the 322\298 one) but he still had all the prior runs saved so he sent me the 1 WOT run prior to the final 322/298 run which for peak numbers are only 1.5 HP\1.5 TQ different but the curve is similar.

I gotta start remembering to get all this stuff when I'm there...…..

Note the hitch in the TQ curve where the upward slope stops then shows to flatten out then start slowly dropping from there. I don't know why this sheet doesn't have the RPM's scaled out across the bottom as the others have but that spot is occurring at the 3500-3800 RPM mark (where tuner would see the "false knock" show up then disappear). This is what I was afraid would somehow cause the TQ curve to flatten out as it appears as if the PCM has "locked" or "capped" something timing related....whether spark timing, cam timing or both & was why I was checking my exhaust closely to ensure that it wasn't causing this. I've always thought that this was very odd for a typical TQ curve to flatten out so early & frankly so abrupt thus potentially costing some peak HP/TQ. My tuner thinks that this is the result of some type of engine "harmonics" being picked up by the knock sensors that is causing the PCM to stop\cut spark timing at this point but can see no evidence of knock past this point all the way to redline. I know I've gone thru my exhaust piping clearance very thoroughly & have rectified the 2 issues that I found (the exhaust clamp at rear of M80 muffler hitting shield on B1 & the B2 catback side coming loose in X-pipe clamp & rotating to allow the M80 muffler to hit the shield) so I know the exhaust is clear during this session. This is also the same area where my tuner has set in the WOT cam timing table (3750 RPM's) for the PCM to start retarding the cam timing off base timing so some of this "could" be related to that....my tuner doesn't think so but it could be depending on the amount of initial cam degree timing retard off base timing stalling the rise in TQ curve then flatten out the TQ curve as the PCM retards the cam timing more linear as RPM's increase towards redline....now I'm wondering if this could be due to a slightly sticking\over reacting VCT solenoid to initial PCM command dithering signal...(this is where an oscilliscope would come in handy to check all sensors\solenoids for signal integrity\synchronization to PCM)...or is PCM starting the WOT cam retard timing too early in the curve....?
Whatever it is that is causing this, IMHO I highly doubt it is all tune related after having a look at the logs myself but I could be wrong. The repeatability of this issue in the same approximate RPM range has all the markings of something electrical\mechanical but whatever it is the issue isn't bad enough to signal to the PCM that it is a problem (flag a DTC)….yet. This only is apparent during a WOT pull. I know that ignition coils & spark plugs have been eliminated from this as these parts failings were ID'd thru using the PCM misfire monitors & FT data, have been replaced & verified as fixed thru the PCM misfire monitors & FT data along w\ changeout of the "new" Ford OEM O2 sensors (actually are Bosch 15717 O2 sensors) w\ NTK 22060\22500 O2 sensors prior to this session but the resulting curve overlay from this session over the last session's curve shows that they weren't an issue during the prior dyno session either so it's something else that's the cause.
It definitely isn't the Lunati VooDoo cams & this is where a dyno run on a different dyno could give some insight into this. I'll eventually get around to resolving this one way or another.

I don't think there's anything wrong at all Dale. The HP & TQ curves look absolutely fine, and the double hump torque peak is typical of 3Vs with aftermarket performance cams.

What's up with the number scale on the bottom of that graph? Obviously the torque/hp crossover numbers are at ~5250 RPM, so why is the number at that point 15?

Dino Dino Bambino said:

I don't think there's anything wrong at all Dale. The HP & TQ curves look absolutely fine, and the double hump torque peak is typical of 3Vs with aftermarket performance cams.

Click to expand...

You may very well be right, Dino.

I generally do approach these things from a somewhat technical standpoint of verifying what I'm seeing according to a pretty rigid process using some critical analysis to either confirm or deny the data so that I can know from a fact based process w\ data to back it all up.... This is just the way I go about doing this. That TQ curve pattern is a result of more than just 1 variable but is more akin to a few specific variables either reacting in concert w\ each other (in which then I would call it as a normal sequence), or in conflict w\ 1 or a few other variables in which if the 1 conflicting variable can be identified & resolved this would change the curve pattern thus the result. I went back & looked at the DynoJet TQ curve of my car w\ same FBO's w\ OEM cams & at the same RPM area you can see a slight dip in the TQ curve as well but the curve regained upward movement again shortly thereafter. Now when compared to this TQ curve using all same FBO's but Lunati cams the TQ curve is moving upwards as the DynoJet 1 but when the same RPM area is reached this current TQ curve is more sharply interrupted & it doesn't regain upward motion but is held essentially flat from here until it starts slowly sloping downward. Yes the cam grinds between the 2 are somewhat different but the cams themselves isn't the only variable here. With the OEM cams the WOT cam timing tables were left at OEM settings (0* from 500 until 3750 RPM's then at 2.5* retard by 4500 then at 3.5* retard by 5000 then at 9* retard by 5750 on to redline) but w\ these Lunati cams my tuner reset the WOT cam timing tables as follows: 2* retard from 500 until 3750 (thus Lunati's at 12* actual advance vs OEM's at 5.25* advance along w\ the longer intake duration & higher dynamic compression which explains the better low end TQ output w\ the Lunati's vs the OEM's as captured on the initial session dyno sheet) then we start retarding the cam timing so by the 5750 RPM mark the Lunati's will be retarded 12* so a 10* total retard between the 2 markers which will put the Lunati's at 2* advanced vs the OEM's at 3.75* retard at the same marker then at 6500 mark the Lunati's will be retarded 15* until redline which puts them at 1* actual retard along w\ longer intake duration & higher dynamic compression vs the OEM's at actual 3.75* retard which explains the Lunati's showing better than the OEM's at mid range thruout top end to redline....but the question is how is the PCM going about doing this between the 3500-4000 range? What are the step markers, if any, programmed in for the PCM to follow in between the 2 known programmed markers? Or is the PCM left to "figure out" where to retard cam timing based on other operating conditions until the 5750 PCM command mark? The OEM's are retarded very little from base timing between the 3750-5750 range (3.5* total retard from 0* so actual is at 1.75* advanced) whereas these Lunati's are retarded much more (12* total retard from 0* so actual is at 2* advanced) which can have a very noticeable effect on the TQ curve but still at the end maintain an overall TQ advantage due to a slight cam timing advantage along w\ the longer intake duration which will promote better airflow into the cylinder & higher dynamic compression rates w\ the Lunati's vs the OEM's.....but it doesn't explain what\why we're seeing at the 3500-4000 area of the curve. How are the VCT solenoid's ability to react to varying PCM PWM dithering control signals within this wide control range? Are they smooth & precise? Or are they somewhat slow & not so coordinated but not bad enough to trip the synch offset threshold but can affect the actual TQ curve w\ engine under load? What about the 2 cam position sensors input signal integrity? What about the crank position sensor input signal integrity? What about the fueling system operational integrity within this area? Maybe not erroring enough (if erroring at all) to set off PCM DTC's but enough to affect the TQ curve shape in this area w\ the current WOT cam retard settings w\ these Lunati cams under load...……...
I got this WOT stepping settings data for both cams from my tuner....FYI I also have the Ford OEM WOT cam timing settings data which backed up the given OEM data. Now if this is where the false knock occurred I can see the PCM pulling some spark timing to compensate for it but if this "knock" disappears as fast as it shows it did, then the PCM should've put the pulled spark timing back just as fast as no further knock is detected, no reason to hold spark timing at least below where it was & no reason for the PCM not to advance it further (PCM will continue to advance spark timing until it senses an actual knock detection from the knock sensor inputs...this is how the PCM learns it's spark timing limits unless a physical cap is applied in the tune to stop it) which should've shown at minimum a recovery back to the original Lunati cams TQ curve plot line prior occurrence or a continuance up the TQ curve plot line the same as shown on the DynoJet OEM cams TQ curve plot line in the same RPM zone....but that isn't what is happening....there is something else now going on that is telling the PCM to not do that here & WOT cam timing retard stepping values\rates is 1 viable variable here that can create the result we're seeing & the known Lunati WOT cam timing settings data shows this to be possible until the PCM stepping rate method\control integrity between 2* cam retard marker @ 3750 to 12* cam retard marker @ 5750 are verified to either be the issue or not....IMHO not merely assumed to be.
These Spanish Oaks controlled PCM's used w\ these 3V's are not in the same league as the new Copperhead controlled PCM's used w\ the Coyote....the Copperhead has improved logic to actually figure this type of stuff out on it's own between markers (thus why fewer folks still like to tune 3V's or older) whereas the Spanish Oaks needs some "guidance" along the way as it's logic isn't as sophisticated so I would think that there needs to be at least another stepping marker or 2 in between (just as is w\ the OEM cams) to help the PCM to better "fill in" or control in between to create a smoother WOT cam retard stepping curve between the 2 given markers which will show up on the TQ graph curve. My tuner didn't give this detail in the info given to me (I have it still on my phone) so until this is filled in to remove this info void in my mind there is some doubt in my mind to then accept the TQ curve results in this area of the curve as "optimized".

And so I will continue to work thru this until I reach some definitive data to either understand, confirm or deny the seen results. Others may see\do differently......more power to them. I also place no blame or fault towards my tuner as the overall results clearly show bona fide improvement across the entire curve, more pronounced at the low end & top end than at mid range, for this engine as currently equipped over the OEM cams.

This is how I process what I see on these curve plots w\ what known info I have as to the cam specs, tune settings, various system operations & how they function vs how well they work in harmony, etc. Yeah for street duty all this isn't nearly as important as the overwhelmingly VAST MAJORITY of the operating time will be under PCM CL operation in which none of this WOT performance settings data will be used so is a moot issue in that regard, but for drag strip purposes (or even honing around on the street) this WOT settings data's integrity is PARAMOUNT to optimum performance thus should be scrutinized to ensure that I'm getting all there really is to get......and do it w\o pointing fingers at anyone so in effect I'm trying to be a help here, not a hindrance.

But in the end when all of this is hashed thru to my satisfaction, you may very well be right & I would be cool w\ it as well.

Kind of why I'm trying to stay away from the other shop (Optimun Force) w\ the DynoJet dyno as my tuner used to work for them but has had a falling out w\ them so he has moved on, but I know how this type of "business" can escalate due to bad feelings mixed in w\ competition for business & I don't need the hassles as well so am looking for another shop that has a DynoJet dyno that will give me some decent dyno runs w\o touching the tune for a reasonable price to get comparable data to use to troubleshoot as well as to compare overall results...…..

4.6L-3V RECOMMENDED WOT CAM TIMING (deg retard)

RPM STOCK FRPP Hot Rod Lunati Voodoo Stage 1
500 0 7 2
750 0 7 2
1000 0 7 2
1500 0 7 2
2250 0 7 2
3000 0 7 2
3750 0 12 2
4500 2.5 15 ?
5000 3.5 20 ?
5750 9 20 12
6500 9 20 15

LSA (deg) 114.75 110 116
ICA (deg) full advance 109 91 102
ICA (deg) WOT base retard 109 98 104
Dynamic CR WOT base retard 8.48 8.23 8.32

Now to just add a DOB blower!

Dino Dino Bambino said:

4.6L-3V RECOMMENDED WOT CAM TIMING (deg retard)

RPM STOCK FRPP Hot Rod Lunati Voodoo Stage 1
500 0 7 2
750 0 7 2
1000 0 7 2
1500 0 7 2
2250 0 7 2
3000 0 7 2
3750 0 12 2
4500 2.5 15 ?
5000 3.5 20 ?
5750 9 20 12
6500 9 20 15

LSA (deg) 114.75 110 116
ICA (deg) full advance 109 91 102
ICA (deg) WOT base retard 109 98 104
Dynamic CR WOT base retard 8.48 8.23 8.32

Click to expand...

FYI I came up w\ the same results as well for dynamic CR when actual base cam IVC timing is corrected to reflect WOT cam retard base settings for each cam set & altitude where I live (5280') so we're in agreement there (stock IVC @ 53* ABDC +0, FRPP HR IVC @ 51* ABDC +7, Lunati IVC @ 54* ABDC +2).

You've shown here what I've been thinking concerning the WOT cam retard timing settings w\ these Lunati cams in the mid range area of the curve. 1st, due to these cams having 14* of advanced cam timing ground in (FYI, stock cams @ 5.75* GI advance, FRPP HotRod cams @ 19* GI advance) the 2* retard at WOT base = 12* actual advance. This matches up w\ the HR cams w\ 7* retard at WOT base = 12* actual advance. From this data I would deduce that Ford has determined that these 3V's are maxed out at 12* total cam advance timing under WOT engine loads at low RPM's & are safe up to around the 3000 mark. After this point the engine is most likely to start exhibiting some knock tendencies w\ spark timing near\above 30* (I now believe after verifying my exhaust system clearance prior this session that the "false knock" we saw isn't exactly false as too high of cam advance timing at a certain RPM can create pre-ignition or knock just as well as too much spark timing because both will increase operating cylinder temps under similar engine loads) so IMHO the cam timing needs to start being retarded from 3000 instead of waiting until 3750 w\ these Lunati's, just as Ford has done w\ the HR's due to the elevated cam advance timing GI to the cams (IOW's I think we're being a little too aggressive w\ the cam timing higher up into the RPM range, causing the PCM to pull some spark timing but also retard cam timing to lower cylinder temps to save the engine from this knock but the PCM doesn't know where to go as there's nothing set up to tell it how much so it retards until the knock stops then wherever the cam retard timing landed when the PCM stopped detecting knock is where the PCM will "hold" the cam timing as long as no more knock is detected. The PCM can add the spark timing back but as long as the cam timing isn't returned the engine's TQ output won't return back to the prior TQ curve plot line but hold where it currently is as long as the other variables can maintain it so the TQ has essentially "flattened out" until the engine reaches the 5750 mark which tells the PCM to return the cams to 12* retard as there's no more knock detected. The issue is, where are the cams really at prior to this mark? They could have been moved to 12* retard before the 3750 mark to stop the knock, or 15*, or 20*, or more. This is where we probably should redo the WOT cam timing retard settings to start retarding the cam timings after 3000 (where the current TQ curve shows no knock issues) at a slower but progressive rate towards the 12* retard target @ 5750 (example: 6* @ 3750, 8 @ 4500, 10 @ 5000) to head off any such potential so the PCM can maintain spark timing at the higher degrees w\o knock thruout mid range to better manage the overall TQ curve better thru the mid range which IMHO should show a better looking mid range TQ thus HP curve w\ a potentially higher peak number than what we have currently. How high? Don't know & won't until it's applied. How low? Don't know until it's applied. So in the meantime I will verify all the other variables that I can to have that data in hand & out of the way to then get w\ my tuner to look at going into the tune & verify that this is already done in the WOT tables or if not then make these setting changes to the WOT tables to then test to see if the TQ curve responds as I'm thinking it will based on what Ford has already established as far as stepping goes....the rest is up to us to dial the numbers in w\ these Lunati's specs as there is no other data out there to assist.
But before I do that I would like to run her on another dyno to see if the TQ\HP curve shapes remain similar as they should since according to my understanding all FBO's, equipment & tune settings @ WOT will be the same. So as long as I'm using the same fuel & outside air\air temp\blower fan output is similar the TQ\HP curve shapes should repeat similar. If the TQ\HP curve shapes change dramatically w\o changing anything else then this will point to some potential anomaly w\ On3's dyno calculating the numbers thus the plots. This is what most folks point to concerning Mustang dyno results vs DynoJet dyno results I believe (or in reality even between 2 MD's\DJ's). To me, the TQ\HP curve shape across the full RPM spectrum is more important than the actual numbers & gives more operational insight into what to expect performance wise.

We shall see...…………….……………...

eighty6gt said:

Now to just add a DOB blower!

Click to expand...

You have no idea how many times I have looked at the DOB GT450 full kit going for 1\2 of what a comparable Edelbrock E-Force full kit price wise to deliver the same 450rwhp\450rwtq output & wanting to hit the "buy" button but keep pulling back.

I'm holding strong right now but will get increasingly harder to resist as while I was having my car rerun on the dyno I asked my tuner (who also is the head manager at this shop) about the possibility of them doing a SC install + tuning. He quoted me their install labor price of $85\hr if I buy the kit so at roughly 14 hrs install @ $1,190 + $500 tuning + $4,895 DOB GT450 SC full kit = $6,585 + tax out the door or the option of me doing the SC install then taking it to them to tune it = $5,395 + tax out the door is VERY tempting indeed...…….. Only issue for me to do the install is adequate space to do it at my house....the only area that I could do it is under the carport & Mrs. GlassTop09 won't like her Lincoln MKS left out in the sun\rain at all for approx. 3-4 days. Been there, done that...………………..

Looking at Ford Performance's recommended WOT cam timing tables I think like you said, you need 12 deg overall cam advance from idle to 3000rpm. At 3750rpm the FP Hot Rods are at 7 deg overall advance whereas your Lunati's are still at 12, which could be causing knock that triggers the ECU to retard the ignition timing. At 4500rpm and 5000rpm, the Hot Rods are at 4 degrees cam advance and 1 degree cam retard respectively.
You tuner will need to look at the 3750-5000rpm WOT datalogs and if the ECU is indeed detecting knock in that range, he'll need to increase the cam retard until the ECU no longer has to retard the ignition timing. This might just flatten the small dip in the torque curve at that upper mid-range.