Lunati VooDoo #21270700 Camshafts

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Yes I do have a printout of it but I didn't initially post it due to my tuner making a mistake & putting it w\ the final dyno run on 12-27-19 instead of w\ the 10-8-19 dyno run which would've given a false gain comparison & created some confusion (the 12-27-19 dyno run is when we made corrections to tune to fix the false misfire data...raised the misfire monitor min enable ECT setting from the OEM 20*F to 80*F to allow the crankshaft to warm up some more to smooth out the firing pulses to the CKP sensor before enabling the misfire monitor & reset the spark timing retard scale for COT protection to help w\ the CKP pulses...later resolved by removal of bad dielectric grease from COP boots\springs & installation of new MC plugs to stop the actual misfires noted on cold starts which drove the COT protection....saw all on tuner's datalog during a cold start & in which we saw the lost HP\TQ on low end.... -6.98 HP\-16.00 TQ @ 324.50 HP\292.15 TQ vs the 10-8-19 final run @ 331.48 HP\308.15 TQ due to sluggish VCT response below 4500 RPM's....which was later found to be from a broken cam follower on 1 intake valve on #7 cyl & some metal trash from oil filter changeouts lodged in lower screen of the B2 VCT solenoid). I didn't get a copy of this 12-27-19 dyno run at that time & had asked my tuner to print 1 out for me but he put the final 4-2-20 run w\ this 12-27-19 run by mistake which inflates the total HP\TQ gains higher than what they really are so I decided not to post it.

The 4-2-20 printout I posted has the actual 10-8-19 final run curve compared w\ the 4-2-20 run curve shown on it (the 348.96 HP\321.43 TQ) that was run just before the final 4-2-20 run (352.95 HP\321.98 TQ) was made which is a more accurate comparison as these 2 4-2-20 run HP\TQ curves are virtually identical curves & overlay each other pretty well except for the slight peak TQ gain & at the top end where the slightly higher TQ curve hangs in for another 100 RPM's or so to allow the peak HP curve to move up the slope the extra 3.99 HP before the PCM pulled spark timing due to the excessive ECT from the extra loading from pushing her to redline after a 20 min cooldown (tuner had let up on the prior run before redline for the same reason as this was the 1st time he saw this happen) for a more accurate total +21.47 HP/+13.83 TQ peak to peak gain vs the 10-8-19 final run of 331.48 HP\308.15 TQ instead of the false +28.46 HP\+29.83 TQ peak to peak gains on the other printout against the 12-27-19 final run. The 10-8-19 final run was the best we ever saw w\ the Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams using the same FBO's until this 4-2-20 session....the better mid\top end HP\TQ gains were mostly due to improved airflow thru the Ford Performance 62mm TB's better porting work vs the BBK #1763 62mm TB which also has a lot to do w\ the ECT rise on the top end that caused the PCM to start pulling spark timing at the top on both runs as we never saw this happen on any prior WOT runs before these last 2 runs during this 4-2-20 session so I know that she is now as fully optimized as she's gonna get w\ these cams w\o FI (which I'm definitely not gonna do now w\ this engine since all the issues I've went thru earlier + the high mileage). These results also show that this Ford Performance Bullitt 85mm CAI will flow better than thought prior as well...even w\ a cone filter dust sock installed AND w\o ram air effect (the entire intake tract is now composed of all Ford Performance components & is now also fully verified to be leak free from all the vacuum leak repairs from all the smoke testing done so all intake airflow is coming thru the MAF sensor section now.....which may also be more of a contributing factor now as well that I didn't think about before as PCM will better calculate WOT load% & up spark timing on a higher lbs\sec MAF readout) so w\ the addition of the FP 62mm TB the FP Intake Manifold's upper end airflow capabilities can be exploited even more which says a LOT of the Lunati's cam lobe design profile used w\ this VooDoo #21270700 camshaft set to move air when paired up w\ the Kooks 1 5\8" LT headers, Kooks Catted Mid Pipe & Pypes Super Bomb Mid Muffler catback exhaust system's ability to scavenge\exhaust it....thru OEM non-ported cylinder heads....but sounds almost like OEM cams are still installed at idle...…almost.

Just for reference, this is Lunati's base VooDoo cam profile design for the Ford 4.6L\5.4L 3V Modular engines. They have 11 more to choose from.....

So yeah I'm a happy camper & am fully satisfied w\ where all is at now engine wise. I have to say also that she looks damn good to me when I raise the bonnet now.....
IMG_0198.JPG

PS--Here is the other 4-2-20 dyno sheet that has the final numbers on it:
IMG_0211.JPG
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
FYI.....
After the tuning session & subsequent drive cycle performed done to get all squared back up & fully operational (OBDII IM Readiness code green) I got out my trusty Foxwell NT301 scan tool to check up on all (was bored so I did this to pass the time) & I found that we had a pending DTC code situation in the PCM (code yellow).....checked the pending codes & found 2 of them...P0139 (B1S2 O2 Sensor Circuit Slow to Respond) & P0159 (B2S2 O2 Sensor Circuit Slow to Respond). These are saying that both rear O2 sensors (the post cat sensors) are not responding to O2 sample content changes fast enough (for reference both of these sensors are mounted in BDG 90* CEL Eliminators & have been in these for almost 2 yrs to rectify the P0420\P0430 Cat Efficiency DTC codes I was getting when I was running the Bama tunes at that time prior any dyno tuning by my current tuner) so I looked at the Mode 6 Component Self Check Test results for all O2 sensors to see where the failures were occurring.
The test results showed that both O2 sensors were failed due to the lean-to-rich switch rate being BELOW the min allowed tolerance but the rich-to-lean switch rates were right at\just above the min allowed tolerance as well. This data is conclusively showing that since the repair work\retune the O2 sampling content% flowing into the BDG's has changed (O2 content output is more static than it was prior) which is a sign that the Kooks cats have improved operations now (much less HC pass thru substrate...) but also is a sign that these BDG eliminators are gonna become an issue now causing essentially false rear O2 sensor DTC's so I had to remove them.
At this time I also remembered the initial data that I had gathered back then (was using the "new" Ford OEM replacement O2 sensors which are BOSCH #15717 O2 sensors....a dedicated pre-cat O2 sensor design that is also shown by Ford to be used for dedicated post-cat O2 sensor usage) may have been skewed by the O2 sensors I had installed (the original S197 O2 sensor design for Ford at manufacture called for a dedicated front O2 sensor\dedicated rear O2 sensor setup)...which means that the O2 sensor elements use a different sized shield over them. This shield also determines the amount of exhaust sample content allowed around the element as shown in this picture of the NTK's I have currently installed:
IMG_0084.JPG The front sensor is the lower one, the rear sensor is the upper one. So even if the rest of the O2 sensors are identical they will not react the same...the rear sensor is actually less sensitive than the front sensor to O2 exhaust content so if 2 of the same design were used as both front\rear O2 sensors this would throw off the PCM in determining cat efficiency (the coding inside the PCM) in the 1st place. The front sensor's amplitude performance is just as important as well as the rear sensor's rich-to-lean & lean-to-rich performance in determining cat efficiency as the coding used in the PCM is predicated on this type of O2 sensor's design performance input to properly do it's thing w\ fueling but also cat efficiency calc's.

So I ordered a couple of the 96-04 Mustang Cobra MIL Harnesses (which are set up to work w\ the very same NTK 22060\22500 O2 sensors that were used in 05-10 S197's as these were also the very same O2 sensors used w\ the 96-04 4.6L Modulars) then got under car & pulled the BDG 90* CEL Eliminators, put the NTK 22500's back in the exhaust piping then before I plugged the Cobra MIL's in I ran tests w\ the NTK's themselves & noted thru watching the voltage readouts the cat's operation had indeed gotten better. I could see the cats actually light off once they got hot enough (the rear O2 sensor's voltage switching rate narrowed up & stayed between .785\.675 once RPM's were raised to 2,500 & cat temps exceeded 950*F then essentially stayed in this range w\ the occasional drop to .120\.130 while back at idle. Cat efficiency is tested by PCM between 1,300-2,500 RPM's which is normal driving range & why you raise the RPM's into this range to check the O2 sensor voltage response & the switching ratio between the front & rear O2 sensors) so it appears that none of these CEL eliminators are needed anymore but I then installed them anyway to see what they will do to the rear O2 sensor's voltage signal. After doing this then restarting the car & running the same tests the voltage signal change that I could see was that they reduced the amount of signal rise (at same speed they crested at .587\.465 & took longer to drop back down to the same .125\.130 at idle so in essence a shorter peak rise w\ a longer time to drop so a lower, slower sine wave oscillation pattern) which the PCM readily accepted this pattern as good (came out to the exact same front\rear cat switch ratio as w\ the BDG's eliminators but w\ more lean-to-rich & rich-to-lean rear O2 sensor movement which put them in the .34\.28 for B1S2-min was .07, .31\.22 for B2S2-min was .12 for B1 cat @ .191, B2 cat @ .238 which is passing OBDII for the O2 sensors AND the cat's efficiency) so the PCM actually stopped monitoring the cats at that time (the cat STFT & efficiency% is removed from the live data only leaving the O2 sensor voltages to monitor) as it determined that they are operating just fine....which in actuality they really were. So I cleaned up the install, put her back on the ground & drove the car about 18 mi thru stop & go traffic to see if all stayed clean. Got no MIL so I parked her for the rest of the day.
I then retested for this the next day from a full cold start to see if any thing showed to change. Monitored thru to full hot & performed the exact same test procedure as done prior…..and got the exact same behavioral results from the PCM as described above!

So this is now also resolved......and all is almost back to stock configuration!
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
That looks exactly as I would have predicted the outcome to be.
Well that's where she ended up at so you got it on point.

Man you could tell just from the exhaust note sounds & the dyno roller sounds on both of those last WOT hits that she was putting out some more oomph! When my tuner waved me to come see I knew it had to be a good curve but I really wasn't expecting to see the peak numbers we got off this Mustang dyno that he showed me on both of those hits......

So since I'm gonna keep her NA on this current engine, from running some more numbers it looks like to optimize this current HP\TQ curve w\ current wheels\tires installed a rear gear change from 3.73 to 4.10 is IMHO a better fit for all around performance (had went w\ 3.73's prior due to a future potential FI install plan) so will be looking at doing this down the road & gonna do the work myself this time (gonna go w\ a solid spacer shim setup instead of a crush sleeve which will make this a much easier install to do w\ axle still under the car off jack stands....I like the JEGS setup which uses 2 solid outer rings w\ a shim pack in the middle for adjustment & is available thru Amazon). These 3.73's aren't bad themselves, though.

After this ain't much major left to do to finish her up (refresh both bucket seats for the interior then get her repainted\ceramic coated) then ride her out in style afterwards.
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
FYI.....
After the tuning session & subsequent drive cycle performed done to get all squared back up & fully operational (OBDII IM Readiness code green) I got out my trusty Foxwell NT301 scan tool to check up on all (was bored so I did this to pass the time) & I found that we had a pending DTC code situation in the PCM (code yellow).....checked the pending codes & found 2 of them...P0139 (B1S2 O2 Sensor Circuit Slow to Respond) & P0159 (B2S2 O2 Sensor Circuit Slow to Respond). These are saying that both rear O2 sensors (the post cat sensors) are not responding to O2 sample content changes fast enough (for reference both of these sensors are mounted in BDG 90* CEL Eliminators & have been in these for almost 2 yrs to rectify the P0420\P0430 Cat Efficiency DTC codes I was getting when I was running the Bama tunes at that time prior any dyno tuning by my current tuner) so I looked at the Mode 6 Component Self Check Test results for all O2 sensors to see where the failures were occurring.
The test results showed that both O2 sensors were failed due to the lean-to-rich switch rate being BELOW the min allowed tolerance but the rich-to-lean switch rates were right at\just above the min allowed tolerance as well. This data is conclusively showing that since the repair work\retune the O2 sampling content% flowing into the BDG's has changed (O2 content output is more static than it was prior) which is a sign that the Kooks cats have improved operations now (much less HC pass thru substrate...) but also is a sign that these BDG eliminators are gonna become an issue now causing essentially false rear O2 sensor DTC's so I had to remove them.
At this time I also remembered the initial data that I had gathered back then (was using the "new" Ford OEM replacement O2 sensors which are BOSCH #15717 O2 sensors....a dedicated pre-cat O2 sensor design that is also shown by Ford to be used for dedicated post-cat O2 sensor usage) may have been skewed by the O2 sensors I had installed (the original S197 O2 sensor design for Ford at manufacture called for a dedicated front O2 sensor\dedicated rear O2 sensor setup)...which means that the O2 sensor elements use a different sized shield over them. This shield also determines the amount of exhaust sample content allowed around the element as shown in this picture of the NTK's I have currently installed:
View attachment 72390 The front sensor is the lower one, the rear sensor is the upper one. So even if the rest of the O2 sensors are identical they will not react the same...the rear sensor is actually less sensitive than the front sensor to O2 exhaust content so if 2 of the same design were used as both front\rear O2 sensors this would throw off the PCM in determining cat efficiency (the coding inside the PCM) in the 1st place. The front sensor's amplitude performance is just as important as well as the rear sensor's rich-to-lean & lean-to-rich performance in determining cat efficiency as the coding used in the PCM is predicated on this type of O2 sensor's design performance input to properly do it's thing w\ fueling but also cat efficiency calc's.

So I ordered a couple of the 96-04 Mustang Cobra MIL Harnesses (which are set up to work w\ the very same NTK 22060\22500 O2 sensors that were used in 05-10 S197's as these were also the very same O2 sensors used w\ the 96-04 4.6L Modulars) then got under car & pulled the BDG 90* CEL Eliminators, put the NTK 22500's back in the exhaust piping then before I plugged the Cobra MIL's in I ran tests w\ the NTK's themselves & noted thru watching the voltage readouts the cat's operation had indeed gotten better. I could see the cats actually light off once they got hot enough (the rear O2 sensor's voltage switching rate narrowed up & stayed between .785\.675 once RPM's were raised to 2,500 & cat temps exceeded 950*F then essentially stayed in this range w\ the occasional drop to .120\.130 while back at idle. Cat efficiency is tested by PCM between 1,300-2,500 RPM's which is normal driving range & why you raise the RPM's into this range to check the O2 sensor voltage response & the switching ratio between the front & rear O2 sensors) so it appears that none of these CEL eliminators are needed anymore but I then installed them anyway to see what they will do to the rear O2 sensor's voltage signal. After doing this then restarting the car & running the same tests the voltage signal change that I could see was that they reduced the amount of signal rise (at same speed they crested at .587\.465 & took longer to drop back down to the same .125\.130 at idle so in essence a shorter peak rise w\ a longer time to drop so a lower, slower sine wave oscillation pattern) which the PCM readily accepted this pattern as good (came out to the exact same front\rear cat switch ratio as w\ the BDG's eliminators but w\ more lean-to-rich & rich-to-lean rear O2 sensor movement which put them in the .34\.28 for B1S2-min was .07, .31\.22 for B2S2-min was .12 for B1 cat @ .191, B2 cat @ .238 which is passing OBDII for the O2 sensors AND the cat's efficiency) so the PCM actually stopped monitoring the cats at that time (the cat STFT & efficiency% is removed from the live data only leaving the O2 sensor voltages to monitor) as it determined that they are operating just fine....which in actuality they really were. So I cleaned up the install, put her back on the ground & drove the car about 18 mi thru stop & go traffic to see if all stayed clean. Got no MIL so I parked her for the rest of the day.
I then retested for this the next day from a full cold start to see if any thing showed to change. Monitored thru to full hot & performed the exact same test procedure as done prior…..and got the exact same behavioral results from the PCM as described above!

So this is now also resolved......and all is almost back to stock configuration!
Update:
After I went out yesterday & removed the 2 pedal extensions from my Stang's clutch & brake pedals (did this due to the excellent results I got from swapping out my existing PowerTorque HP Clutch Master Cylinder (an all aluminum spec'd version of the OEM Ford plastic Clutch Master Cylinder) to the OEM Ford part# DR3Z-7A543-A 13-14 GT500 Clutch Master Cylinder (an all aluminum version that is designed to move more clutch fluid volume in the same stroke length than the OEM Ford equivalent for my '09 GT) that resolved the issues I had due to installing an Exedy HP clutch package (flywheel, clutch disc, PP, new TOB & PB.....small clutch disengagement issues causing some minor shifting hiccups while speed shifting from this package being designed for a low pedal engagement height) bout 1 1\2 yrs ago, I got out my trusty Foxwell NT301 OBDII scan tool & pulled up the Mode 6 Component Self-Check Test results for the front\rear O2 sensors & both cat's efficiency switch ratio results to see how all is faring after driving the car normally since I posted last on this aspect.

1st thing I saw right off is that we are still passing OBDII Readiness Check results (green light) so I know all is still good & within passing range so now am looking to see if any self checks reveal any changes & the direction that they're moving towards. Checked both B1S2 & B2S2 lean-to-rich & rich-to-lean check results as follows: B1S2......current LTR (v\ms) @ .10 (min allowed @ .07), current RTL (v\ms) @ .15 (min allowed @ .12). B2S2.…..current LTR (v\ms) @ .10 (min allowed @ .07), current RTL (v\ms) @ .15 (min allowed @ .12). This data demonstrates that both of these O2 sensors are very consistent in operation & also show to be fairly slow in response as indicated by the amount of voltage rise per millisecond of time w\ the RTL rate being slightly faster than the LTR rate. In comparison here is both B1S1 & B2S1 amplitude results (amount voltage swing between the highest reading to the lowest reading): B1S1 current (v) @ .7536 (min allowed @ .5287), B2S1 current @ .8256 (min allowed @ .5878). Just to give some comparison I ran the math (the PCM doesn't record this data) after looking at the live data of both B1S2 & B2S2 to come up w\ their amplitude results (B1S2 @ .525, B2S2 @ .588) so the rear O2 sensors aren't reaching the same amplitude of the front O2 sensors....which is what is supposed to happen if the cats are working as the rear O2 sensors are picking up less O2 sample content % after the cats as opposed to what is being sent to them from the front O2 sensors operation.

So from checking the B1 & B2 cat efficiency switch ratio results we see where this has readjusted from the numbers I gave in prior posting to reflect the normal operations since as follows: B1 cat switch ratio @ .336 (up from the .191 ratio but threshold is .578), B2 cat switch ratio @ .422 (up from the .238 ratio but threshold is .637) so all is still passing OBDII. This new pattern is derived from mostly in town driving so a lot of stop & go at fairly low speeds between 0-45 MPH but is where the PCM will run the majority of Cat Efficiency Self-Check tests. The main reason for the larger disparity between B1 cat to B2 cat is strictly due to EVAP operation (system uses STFT readouts above the normal established STFT patterns to determine when all fuel vapors are removed from canister during the canister purge cycle & since the EVAP line attaches to the intake manifold on the B2 side the majority of the ingested unmetered air ends up going thru B2 cylinders so the B2 cat has to deal w\ a little more excess O2 than the B1 cat but I know what I'm seeing is a normal pattern now due to me replacing the EVAP canister & all leaking connecting lines & leaking CVS\CPV w\ an all new OEM Ford system so I know that there isn't any air entry into the EVAP system now other than where\when it is supposed to enter....from the end of the CVS vent line thru the dust filter while the CPV is energized\controlled by the PCM. While I was looking at the live data I once again saw the PCM pull the cat's B1S2 STFT, Cat Efficiency% & B2S2 STFT, Cat Efficiency% PID's from the live data stream (done testing them) leaving only the 4 O2 sensor's voltage PID's in the stream to monitor so I'll expect to see some updated cat switch ratio test results the next time I check the Mode 6 results. OBDII Readiness shows a clean slate...no stored DTC's, no pending DTC's & no stored FF data so I know the PCM is now operating clean.

Next in order is to take car on an extended drive run at freeway speeds to fully test all under a good load (also to finish completion of the EVAP monitor which is the only 1 left to complete since the last dyno session on 4-2-20 to then have reached full OBDII Readiness completion). After this is done this should fully validate the Kooks Hi Flow Race Cats w\ my Stang's 4.6L FBO component\cams setup w\current dyno tested tune settings.....even though these cats should IMHO perform under OBDII even better if Kooks had stuck to the OBDII rear O2 sensor bung placement of the OEM cats (at minimum the cat shell should be extended an additional 1 1\2" at rear of cat to accommodate installation of the rear O2 sensor bung on the outer cat housing just ahead of the end cap weld seam instead of in the exhaust piping downstream of the cat OR use a 45* O2 sensor bung welded on the 45* end cap as close to the end cap weld seam as feasible to simulate the same).

I plan to test this in the near future as I have already picked up some Vibrant 45* O2 Sensor bungs to get welded onto the cat's end caps after I mark position & cut the hole in the end caps w\ my Dremel for the O2 sensor element to protrude thru then retest the cats to see if we get any cat performance improvement just from moving the rear O2 sensors to where they correspond towards the design purpose of an OBDII-certified OEM cat for my car....

Otherwise all is running great since 4-2-20!
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
FYI...………...
As of today I haven't gotten a return response from BBK Performance on the email I sent on 4-1-20 of the issue of the 2 outer butterfly shaft seals @ BBK #1763 62mm TB leaking & failing a smoke test.....been 11 days & counting.
As of this time I still haven't gotten a response back from BBK Performance on this so I'm gonna go w\ the results of my smoke testing showing these outer shaft seals have failed & there aren't any replacement parts available to repair it so this BBK #1763 62mm TB is rendered bad so I'm gonna toss it in my junk pile to be hauled off as scrap metal.

I really liked this part......it worked fine, calibrated fine, looked good, price good but is shown to not be as robust a part as it needs to have been so I won't recommend it to anyone going forward. Seals failed in less than 18 months of service whereas my OEM Ford unit is still good after 9+ yrs of service AND at least 18 months of sitting idle in a box......

So from my experiences if a 62mm TB is considered, you'd be money ahead & just get the Ford Performance 62mm TB & have your tune recalibrated for it if the KOEO TPS voltage output in your PCM is calibrated lower than 1.16v or higher than 1.22v (the FP 62mm TB TPS closed is set @ 1.19v) as the PCM is shown to be able to rescale the KOEO TPS voltage being off .03v on it's own w\o issue.
 

GlassTop09

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

As of yesterday I finally got the cooling system upgraded on ole girl...…………….
Installed a Mishimoto 3-row HP Aluminum Radiator along w/ a set of Mishimoto HP Silicone Radiator Hoses (in black to go w\ my blackout theme under the hood) & a Ford Performance M-8C607-MSVT Cooling Fan Upgrade (which is an OEM part for 13-14 GT500) to up the cooling reserve capacity so this should rectify any\all engine cooling scenarios going forward so at this time she's all done.

Was a long journey getting all up to snuff to then fully optimize these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 camshafts but in the end it was worth it!

Now it's time for some of this...……..
:driver: :beer:
 

GlassTop09

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

As of yesterday I finally got the cooling system upgraded on ole girl...…………….
Installed a Mishimoto 3-row HP Aluminum Radiator along w/ a set of Mishimoto HP Silicone Radiator Hoses (in black to go w\ my blackout theme under the hood) & a Ford Performance M-8C607-MSVT Cooling Fan Upgrade (which is an OEM part for 13-14 GT500) to up the cooling reserve capacity so this should rectify any\all engine cooling scenarios going forward so at this time she's all done.

Was a long journey getting all up to snuff to then fully optimize these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 camshafts but in the end it was worth it!

Now it's time for some of this...……..
:driver: :beer:
Update:
Been running & recording live data to check on the upgraded radiator\cooling fan progress using the OEM 195*F thermostat.....so far all is operating excellent. Regardless of how hard the car is pushed to date the ECT goes no higher than 199*F from a low of 196*F at full hot idle....this is w\ the AC on & using Valvoline Ford Orange 50-50 pre-mix coolant w\o any water wetter additives. Made a 312 mi run today to get some Whataburgers (mainly to get out of the house from COVID syndrome.....closest Whataburger to my house.....and to drive the car), AAT was 84*F....IAT's ran at 89*F-90*F @ 12.2 psi-12.8 psi atmos across 2,009' elevation rise (5330'-7339') at speeds between 55-90 MPH w\ avg speed @ 71 MPH (mostly on cruise control between Native reservations outside of rain spells....except for 1 3 mi stretch where I kinda let her eat a little until I got the "look"...….). Avg 25.3 MPG w\ 3.73 gears on 26" dia tires to boot...………...

I don't think I'll be having any overheating issues for a while...……………………..
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Update:
I was under my Stang a couple of days back once again trying to rectify the exhaust rattling that I kept hearing while driving (would show up when under a fairly heavy acceleration load around the 3,000-4,000 RPM range while in 3rd gear) that I had been chasing as noted earlier in this thread. The issue was found coming from the DS exhaust (the top, back end of the Pypes M80 muffler was coming into contact w\ a section of the gas tank shroud just in front of the rear axle pinion flange). I had adjusted this side several times, initially having some success but over time it would come back.
Well this time while I was looking at this trying to figure out why this kept coming back I paid a little more attention to the back half of the Kooks X-pipe where the X-pipe section clamps to the 2 cat sections....didn't look crooked but I decided to loosen up these 2 band clamps just to see what would happen......once I did this & bumped the X section w\ a pry bar I saw the DS cat section come out approx 5/8" & when this occurred I also noticed that the gap on the PS M80 muffler between it & the gas tank shroud had closed up approx 1/2".....BINGO!

All this time it was the X-pipe being installed out of square (had headers\exhaust system installed @ local Ford dealership due to me not having access to a lift).....didn't look like it was out of line but it actually was (pulling exhaust towards the DS of the tunnel). So I put the DS exhaust back together & positioned it back to my original alignment marks then I realigned the M80's to center using the X-pipe (PS of X-pipe is back to it's original position w\ the DS of X-pipe set @ 5/8" further back).....now both of them fully clear the gas tank shroud approx 1/4" on the top w\ approx 5/8" on the sides & both sides are fully hanging off the rear exhaust hangers (could clearly see both sides exhaust tips wiggle when I bump tested the exhaust w\ nothing hitting on the top sides of the M80's). Started the car after tightening all up to heat up the exhaust piping to then go back over all the clamps to ensure that all are fully drawn up then took her on a test drive..............

I can now report w\ full assurance this time that this exhaust rattle is now gone for good & more importantly, according to my butt dyno, the false knock (subsequent spark timing cut) that we kept running into when on the dyno around the 3,500-4,000 RPM range (the spot on the dyno TQ curve where the TQ flattens before kicking up again) since I had this exhaust system installed some 3 yrs come this November appears to be gone as well as now I'm not picking up any kind of TQ softening in this range that I used to feel when getting on it.....she pulls thru this area much, much better now like the spark timing isn't being momentarily pulled back thus my assumption that the false knock is also gone. I'll verify this some day when I come up w\ a better reason to get her back on the dyno (as well as verifying the top end since the Mishimoto HP Radiator\FP 13-14 GT500 Cooling Fan upgrade......think she may gain another 2-6 HP, .5-2 TQ peak-to-peak due to the extra radiator cooling capacity & fan airflow holding the ECT down to stop the top end spark timing pull we ran into around the 6,350 RPM peak during the 4-2-20 session).

The 1 part I kept overlooking as it wasn't obvious.............................
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Another update:

Since the last posting (post #105) I had ran a series of tests on my car between a set of NTK 22060\22500 O2 sensors & the FoMoCo OEM F85F-9G444-BD (made by BOSCH) O2 sensors to see which 1's would give the better overall performance curve thru the CL FT data under load (note that the car was tuned last on the NTK's) after I had ran tests on my Kooks Catted X-pipe's 2 hi flow race cats w\o the BDG 90* CEL Eliminators & Cobra CEL MILS installed to see where they actually came in under OBDII w\ my engine now properly operating\fully tuned after finding\repairing all the prior unknown vacuum leaks in brake booster check valve, EVAP canister, EVAP canister lines & both CPV/CVS solenoids.......

Found that the B1 Kooks race cat passed OBDII consistently but the B2 Kooks race cat failed OBDII consistently by just .039 (Catalyst Monitor Ratio max threshold in my PCM for B2 was .578....actual max CE ratio calc was .617 consistently or just 1.95 avg rear O2 sensor switches too many) & the NTK 22500 rear O2 sensors kept setting random P0139, P0159 DTC's (B1S2 & B2S2 HO2S Circuit Slow to Respond.....Mode 6 test data showed the failures occurring during the rear O2 sensor's lean-to-rich V\ms transition dropping below the min V\ms transition threshold) while using the Cobra CEL MILS AND the BDG 90* CEL Eliminators (due to the final tune after all unknown vacuum leaks were found\fixed......never had this issue show up w\ the same NTK sensors in the BDG 90* CEL Eliminators prior the 4-2-20 session) but the V\ms transitions were always fairly low/slow even then (avg LTR was .0008-.0016, avg RTL was .0009-.0016 depending on operating conditions) & the Ford 9G444's won't operate right at all w\ the Cobra CEL MILS (designed to work w\ the NTK NB O2 sensor spec) so I ended up reinstalling the BDG 90* CEL Eliminators w\ the Ford 9G444's in the end to fix all this as the Ford's avg LTR was .0016-.0026, avg RTL was .0016-.0028.....a .0009 avg faster LTR V\ms transition & a .0010 avg faster RTL V\ms transition that stayed well above the min LTR-RTL V\ms transition thresholds (B1S2 LTR @ .0008, RTL @ .0008/B2S2 LTR @ .0008, RTL @ .0012). Now both cat's CE ratio's are holding between .246-.250 which is well below both bank's CE ratio max thresholds thus "passing" OBDII.

So w\ my current tune & my FBO\cammed 4.6L she almost legally made OBDII certification outright thru these Kooks Hi Flow Race cats.........

But I also found thru all my testing that the Ford 9G444's (looking at the pre-cat NB O2 sensor performance now) were slightly better performing than the NTK 22060's by about +1.6% on avg according to the recorded LTFT's under actual operating engine loads in CL (the NTK's ran consistently on both banks in CL under load around -1.6% avg LTFT while the Ford 9G444's ran consistently around 0% avg LTFT) using the same tune & components tested over a 30-day span for each set of O2 sensors (the month of May for the NTK's, the month of June for the Ford's) using the same routes to simulate as close of driving conditions as can be done & same 91 oct fuel from the same pump at the same station. The weather was mostly sunny & warm thruout both testing periods but it is what it is as far as IAT's were concerned........can't control that part. The PCM calc baro readings stayed between 12.6-13.1 psi between both testing periods.............

From monitoring the Mode 6 Component Test B1S1 & B2S1 voltage signal amplitude readouts & counting the voltage switching counts per 1" of time travel off datalogs it shows that the PCM prefers a narrower amplitude voltage signal (lowest to highest) vs a wider 1 w\ a faster switching rate vs a slower 1 (this inherently comes from the shorter amplitude signal as it isn't swinging as wide off PCM fueling modulations so it transitions faster) so this narrower\faster type of amplitude signal showed to be more accurate to PCM in calculating the total amount of free exhaust O2% thus the PCM didn't pull as much fuel out w\ the Ford 9G444's as it did w\ the NTK 22060's while under varying loads during CL operation. The avg Mode 6 test amplitude signal range for the NTK's was between .7252-.8344 (.1092) while the Ford's was between .6284-.7204 (.092) or .1 mV less w\ more switching counts per 1" (the NTK's hit 8 counts\1", the Ford's hit 12 counts\1") thus the Ford O2 sensors were signaling slightly more free exhaust O2% per bank than the NTK's were & the LTFT's results revealed this.

Now could this small amount of difference be actually felt?

The short answer is no.....a 1.6% difference in AFR fueling either way this close to the target of 14.64 AFR is negligible (won't be seen on a dyno sheet either as these PCM's go into OL during WOT) but it was interesting to see that it does make some difference as to which type of O2 sensor is being used. In going back thru the 2009 FoMoCo OBDII Summary I did find that Ford did code in the NTK & BOSCH NB O2 sensor voltage signal range specs in the Spanish Oaks PCM firmware to use in determining the HO2S operating min-max voltage scales (NTK is the wider scale, BOSCH is the narrower scale) so it appears that the BOSCH scale, at least from my testing results, is the more accurate avg scale when compared to the NTK scale around a CL target of 14.64........which made my tuner look very good concerning his MAF scaling in my tune (essentially spot on......he was happy when I informed him of all this data) using a Ford OEM MotorCraft MAF sensor in my FP Bullitt 85mm CAI.

So since I had test data results to use, I went w\ the Ford OEM F85F-9G444-BD NB O2 sensors in my Stang going forward.......which ironically were the very 1's I had installed originally after buying the car (had the factory NTK O2 sensors w\ the green & blue colored connectors w\ 139,439+ mi on them still installed & were still working fine but I changed them out anyway at the time due to the mileage w\ the new Ford OEM replacements to freshen all up). This doesn't make the NTK 22060/22500 NB O2 sensors inferior at all.....just that within a very small percentage range around the CL target AFR setting the wider amplitude signal range is not quite as accurate but will work just fine.

So I'm back to the original setup from where I started from................running the Ford OEM NB O2 sensors w\ the BDG 90* CEL Eliminators. The good thing is that now I know that a set of Kooks GREEN cats will legally pass OBDII in New Mexico if it ever decides to expand OBDII emissions certification outside Bernallio Co (only county in New Mexico that requires OBDII cert for registration at this time & in 9 more yrs it won't matter).

Except all the more wiser now & have learned a lot for myself along the way...............which is a good thing.
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Just thought I'd post this in this thread instead of starting a new one.......................

For all those that are running a Ford Performance Intake Manifold I think I've found a design issue in it that can cause some issues w\ OBDII certification passage concerning cats that I didn't think about\know of when I bought it. Here is a picture of this manifold beside the OEM intake:
IMG_0315.JPG
Please note on the stock unit the casting just behind the TB mount flange then look at the FPIM unit.....that casting is the EVAP plenum-isolated port routing thru the manifold from the EVAP CPV connection to the lower port located at the bottom, rear of the TB mount flange to promote even EVAP vapor\unmetered air distribution into the incoming metered air stream to promote stable O2 sensor feedback across both banks (which the PCM uses the STFT readouts from pre-cat O2 sensors to determine the amount of free O2 sent into the exhaust ahead of the cats as well as for engine fueling control). This is important for the PCM to do as accurate a Catalyst Efficiency check as can be done while the PCM is also performing EVAP canister purging cycles.
The FPIM's EVAP connection is not ported thus isolated to this same area behind the TB mount, it is open ended into the side of the manifold's open plenum right in line w\ cyls #1 & #2 intake runner on B1 and in close proximity to cyls #5 & #6 intake runner on B2 as the PCV return connection is in both manifolds. The PCV side isn't a problem as this system uses metered MAF air (as long as there aren't any leaks in the PCV system proper to allow unmetered air in thru it) but there'll be unmetered air along w\ trapped canister fuel vapors passing thru the EVAP CPV into the intake manifold as well as w\ the OEM intake the open plenum collection area is located below the intake cyl runner flow laminators to facilitate mixing\settling before air entry into these runners as opposed to the FPIM intake's open plenum area\intake cyl runners. I verified this configuration difference recently when this specific OEM manifold design caught my attention watching a YouTube video of a '07 FR500S production race car & from reviewing my CE monitoring test results I did on my car May\June of last yr then witnessing the LTFT's fluctuating while my car was idling instead of staying relative stable once learned & I had recorded all this on the tests but didn't register w\ me at that time. My test data initially showed both cats passing the OBDII Component Checks for Catalyst Efficiency but over time slowly showed degradation & failed but only 1 cat failed then upon a KAM reset to verify pattern (which if cats were actually bad they should have failed on the 1st drive cycle--pending DTC) then set the permanent fail P0430 DTC w\ the MIL on the 2nd drive cycle but they didn't do that....they both passed on the 1st drive cycle as they did during the 1st test period and it took several days for them to fail again...in the exact same pattern AND w\ the exact same failed CE ratio result on the exact same B2 cat which in retrospect is rather odd & not the expected normal failure pattern.

Now as far as engine fueling control goes this doesn't cause an issue w\ the FPIM installed and could be deemed fairly routine STFT\LTFT behavior BUT the unmetered EVAP air entry from EVAP purge cycling while the PCM cat CE checks are also running unevenly entering specific cylinders across engine banks can cause excessive O2 amounts getting sent into the cats causing a potential premature cat CE failure result (the PCM actually does this intentionally when it is testing the 2 rear O2 sensors for Component Readiness monitoring checks) simply due to the PCM not being able to perform independent cyl fuel control based on independent cyl O2 exhaust monitoring. This manifold was evidently designed by Ford w\ the main focus for racing purposes but not necessarily w\ the OBDII cat CE testing in mind (IOW's...low speed stop & go daily driving where all PCM cat CE monitoring takes place as well as EVAP canister purging) as the OEM intake manifold was. Now if a good, high quality & properly sized cat that conforms to OBDII compliant monitoring stds is used I'm sure that it can\will overcome this quirk from this small EVAP routing design change between the 2 intake manifolds & operate just fine but this is 1 of the issues concerning the use of aftermarket hi flow race cats w\ OBDII monitoring & why they're so hit or miss w\ cat CE.....

I'm gonna go a different route as it should kill 2 birds w\ 1 stone throw....so to speak.

I've ordered a used OEM intake for a '08 GT 4.6L engine (intentional for the metal removeable IMRC runner controls) along w\ Steeda CMDP's (gonna keep the OEM IMRC's functional if I'm forced to reinstall them in the future but these CMCV's are an OEM non emissions specific engine device\component as their specific design purpose is for engine performance enhancement, not emissions thus should be Ok to legally disable in tune...they're not in the same situation as the VCT is for example since the PCM uses VCT for EGR purposes to control NOx emissions when engine is under light load% operating conditions thus has an emissions specific task as well as for performance...they're not OBDII monitored as this is written into the tune software but this issue is 1 of a few others in which makes the PCM performance tuning an issue outside of the OBDII monitors w\ the EPA concerning emissions compliance...they can be limited if proof of emissions compliance is provided but can't be legally locked out\disabled unless an EPA\CARB approved tune is used w\ the phaser lockouts....ala Livernois) & Steeda heat blanket insulation to cover the bottom of this intake's plenum area to promote cooler air intake charge thru it by arresting the heat soak from the engine valley between the cyl heads to replace the FPIM then check all this again to see if the Kooks race cats now will permanently pass the OBDII CE monitor tests.

These intakes are not the easiest to get ahold of in good used condition for a decent price (new is $609.95 + tax off www.Ford.parts.com) as 1 might appear to think due to the age of this S197 platform (took a while but found 1 for $190.00 + tax & shipping from LKQ....in like new condition) & this 4.6L 3V V8's service longevity as most won't part out a complete engine unless it's totally junked out but these don't sit in junkyards very long so is a good testament to this '05-'10 S197 platform's popularity\service record.

Once I get all the work done & tests run I'll post the results.......

Just putting this out here for the information..........

Edit: Just got done checking the Ford Mustang Workshop Manual (2005-2010) under Powertrain Control and Emissions Operations: Intake Air Systems & found that the CMCV's (IMRC Electric Actuated Airflow Control) must have an electrical feedback to the PCM for monitoring purposes to be legal for OBDII monitoring so I was wrong....these are seen by the OEM manufacturer (Ford) as having an emissions related purpose & so need to be operative & has been submitted to the Fed EPA as such to obtain the EPA CoC document. It was the IMTV Electric Actuated Airflow Control that does the actual intake runner length change to effectively perform the same function as the CMCV's that are not considered an emissions related device thus no OBDII requirement so can be legally disabled....my bad.
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
EVAP Port Opening OEM Manifold.jpg
This is an attempted picture of this EVAP port outlet in OEM IM behind the center bridge in backside of TB mounting flange where the EVAP vapors\unmetered air enters the intake plenum area below the intake runners. The light reflection in the center of picture is off the port outlet (best I could do w\ what I got & knowledge of using MS Photo software).
EVAP Port Isolate OEM Intake Manifold.JPG
This picture is to show that this port is isolated from the plenum from the EVAP CPV connection (upper connection) to the backside of the center section of TB mounting flange.

This is what I am referring to in earlier post that is not present in the FPIM....and it will affect the O2 sensor feedback fidelity to the PCM when the EVAP CPV is cycling if the EVAP discharge port isn't located in the incoming airstream as shown here in relation the ITR's to promote proper, more even EVAP discharge into all 8 intake runners when it cycles so the actual A\F ratio mix in EACH cylinder is more accurately reflected thru the O2 sensor feedback to the PCM (the sample read\calc'd by the PCM from the O2 sensor is an accurate extrapolation of even distribution of all cylinders in the cylinder banks).

This is important for proper PCM O2 sensor feedback OBDII free% O2 measurement control into a cat for Catalyst Efficiency monitoring due to the PCM's STFT % w\ the FPIM is actually being more driven by the front 2 cylinders in each cylinder bank where the majority of the EVAP discharge is being ingested thru but fuel control is metered to ALL cylinders in the bank equally off the feedback results.....fuel control is actually making up more (pulling fuel away to make up for the EVAP vapors) for the 2 front cylinders (where the majority of this vapor is going thru due to the location of the EVAP port being located in the side of the FPIM's plenum pointing directly into #1, #2 & closest to #5, #6 intake runner entries) which can leave the 2 rear cylinder's actual fueling in each bank somewhat out of adjustment (usually leaner in proportion to the density of the EVAP fuel vapor\unmetered air) compared to the 2 front cylinders so can throw off the O2 sensor feedback loop's overall accuracy (example of STFT reading used to determine free O2 in exhaust: PCM calc's say STFT is +2% free O2 when the actual may be +4% to +6% free O2 because an O2 sensor isn't reading the entire exhaust output content but is only sampling a small amount of it so can miss a lot as it can only react to the sample that has come into contact w\ the O2 sensor's element inside it's shielding & the PCM can only extrapolate to the 2 rear cylinder's A\R mix in each bank to match the calc's made from what it knows thru the O2 sensor feedback sample it got). I had picked all this up in a couple of FORScan datalogs logging STFT's last year that definately showed the PCM cycling the EVAP CPV but it didn't click until recently this year after I noted the outside OEM IM casting design layout in a video & figured out what was beneath it.....it never dawned on me when I took the picture of the FPIM beside the OEM IM on the tail gate of my truck during the FPIM install....some 2 1\2 yrs ago!

This issue--as small as it appears--can make it much harder for a cat to pass under an OBDII Catalyst Efficiency monitor w\ this FPIM......especially w\ hi flow race cats (as my currently installed Kooks Catted Midpipe has) that are of a 2-way internal design instead of a 3-way internal design (what the cerium brick is in there to account for w\ a 3-way cat design but can hurt some cheaply loaded 3-way cats as well) & is why I'm pulling my FPIM off my Stang & replacing it w\ an '08 OEM IM w\ Steeda CMDP's since this car isn't gonna be used primarily for racing so to me the O2 sensor feedback fidelity for good OBDII CE operation\compliance is far more important than the FPIM is (OEM IM will most likely shift the current HP\TQ curves to left of current peaks which should improve drivability & low end response vs current w\o a large hit to top end output). So another dyno session is coming in the near future as well.

FYI........
 
Last edited:

Dino Dino Bambino

I have a red car
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Posts
3,880
Reaction score
1,751
Location
Cyprus
I'm pulling my FPIM off my Stang & replacing it w\ an '08 OEM IM w\ Steeda CMDP's since this car isn't gonna be used primarily for racing so to me the O2 sensor feedback fidelity for good OBDII CE operation\compliance is far more important than the FPIM is (OEM IM will most likely shift the current HP\TQ curves to left of current peaks which should improve drivability & low end response vs current w\o a large hit to top end output). So another dyno session is coming in the near future as well.

I can't wait to see the results.
My car is entirely street driven and the engine operates mostly in the 1500-3000rpm range, with only occasional bursts to 6000+rpm. For that reason I was never tempted to swap in an FRPP intake manifold and kept my OEM unit with CMCVs. Though those high rpm bursts are addictive, it's also fun to use the strong lower rpm torque especially on the highway, where overtaking in 5th gear (stock 3.55 axle gears) is totally effortless and the throttle response is instantaneous. That torque also helps highway cruise gas mileage.
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Yeah Dino I'm doing it..... A little backdrop...........
This all got going right after I retired & bought her....had a couple of coworkers who were fellow gearheads, 1 of which was into drag racing & this coworker was the 1 who was the little "devil" sitting on my left shoulder. My original intent was to build her for all round purpose leaning on drag racing since I found out that there was a NHRA-sanctioned track in Albuquerque thus the component choices....not really wanting to be very competitive but wanting to be decent performing & have fun but w\ a focus of a potential FI application down the road (centri SC at the time) thus the 3.73 gear choice as well as the FPIM & cams.
After a while over time I realized that that wasn't the direction I really wanted to go w\ this particular S197 (Glass Roof Edition) plus I noted how a rear suspension setup that had drag racing focus didn't have the type of compliant ride I really liked (I like smooth but nimble, crisp response for touring....more in corner carver area) so I started reversing course but also looked to take advantage of the OEM development across the S197's production run to use better OEM designed parts from the later MY's to upgrade my MY to get a 2-fer....maintain OEM ride compliance but improve overall handling performance at the same time by targeting OEM SVT & some specific Ford Performance suspension parts.
The FPIM wasn't on my radar to get swapped out until after I had ran all the tests last year to see if I could get the Kooks hi flow race cats to pass OBDII CE....got very close to actually pulling it off. Then I realized the EVAP routing in the FPIM has a negative effect on OBDII CE but I also didn't want the CMCV's either so now you know the rest............
I know I could have gotten around this issue w\ the FPIM just by installing the PROPER EPA cert, OBDII compliant cats oversized to account for the performance tuning & manifold quirk but since my target has changed for the car I don't really need as much top end power & the fix for the OBDII CE is to reinstall the OEM IM so out goes the FPIM & in goes an '08 OEM w\ the removeable CMCV's so I can use Steeda CMDP's & save the OEM CMCV's to reinstall if I'm forced to do so to comply w\ Fed EPA OBDII in the tune (which I'm not so sure this will matter since these aren't listed under IM Readiness OBDII monitors...the emissions monitors) so we'll find this out down the road at a later time so after this no more IM changes as I've also ruled out any FI installations going forward as I simply don't NEED it to enjoy her.

As for the dyno run, I'm even more curious as to what the effects of the increased cooling capacity I have installed last year is gonna have as well as this IM so the 1st runs I'm gonna have my tuner to do w\ the tune as it is currently to get an apples to apples comparison between the 2 IM's (the only changes made engine-wise) then make any tweaks needed to make the most out of the longer intake runners. I have a gut feeling that she's gonna surprise me on the amount of top end HP\TQ loss....meaning less than what I may think it's gonna lose but I'm also definately gonna be interested in how much the low end hopefully improves in relation to how the mid range responds as well.

As usual I'll post up w\ the results.

PS--1 thing I found out before doing this is you can't use the 09-10 OEM IM mounting bolts w\ a 05-08 OEM IM.....they're 12.5mm (or just shy of 1/2") too short (05-08 uses M6 x 62.5mm, 09-10 uses M6 x 50mm). I had planned to use the bolts from my 09 IM but I thought I'd make a dry run to make sure before I tore her down....glad I did! So I'll be making a trip to my Ford dealer to order a set Monday or this swap woulda happened today.
Also FYI....this is how good the Mishimoto HP radiator\GT500 cooling fan is doing....just now after a run w\ car parked & engine idling, the inlet rad coolant temp is 190*F, outlet rad coolant temp is 87*F.....a 103*F delta at idle just from the cooling fan alone running on low speed setting, taken w\ a heat gun.
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

If y'all ever need to get some of these 05-08 FoMoCo OEM IM mounting bolts from Ford, just know that they aren't cheap. When I bought my used 08 IM LKQ didn't pack the bolts w\ it (wish they had've) but by chance the 2 middle inside bolts were still in the CMCV's (they had a non-rubber O-ring that fit inside the hole to prevent these bolts from falling out when backed out) so I only needed 8 total (7 reg & 1 w\ stud to secure the engine harness to...mounts in rear on DS). Found out yesterday Ford discontinued the 1 w\ stud but still have the reg's so picked up 8 reg M6 x 62.5mm bolts w\ flat washers.....they list @ $18.99 ea (ouch!) but come in a 4-pack only (not individual) so you have to buy a 4-pack just to get 1.....ouch! Due to me being a well travelled & regarded customer my dealer cut me a little slack & charged me $12.00 ea so I bought 2 4-packs for the grand total of $96.00 + tax....IOW's a smooth C-note for 8 of these puppies even w\ a 37% price cut!

So unless you're a stickler for OEM (like I am), head to the nearest auto parts store & save you some money. M6 x 62.5mm (or M6 x 2 1\2") w\ flat washers.
 

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
Wow thats a lot of info! (I made it to the intake photos lol)

But how do I get my cat monitor to run? I still have no pass or fail, just incomplete. The first 5 monitors now complete in an 8 mile drive, and the other three are just staying incomplete. O2 O2 heater and cat monitors are basically giving me the middle finger.
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Wow thats a lot of info! (I made it to the intake photos lol)

But how do I get my cat monitor to run? I still have no pass or fail, just incomplete. The first 5 monitors now complete in an 8 mile drive, and the other three are just staying incomplete. O2 O2 heater and cat monitors are basically giving me the middle finger.
2013 MY OBD-II System Operation Summary (fordservicecontent.com)

Hey Juice,

Didn't know if you already have this in hand so I provided a link to the FoMoCo OBDII Summary for 2013 MY vehicles above. This should cover your Coyote since you're using the OEM PCM & assist you in figuring out what's going on from an OBDII standpoint for your situation.
From your posted info your issue is that all your O2 sensors haven't completed yet....this is what's holding up the cat monitors....CE monitors won't run until the PCM has confirmed\passed all O2 sensors are tested\functioning properly (needs all 4 O2 sensors to do a Cat Eff test) so I'm guessing that the rear O2 sensors are the ones the PCM is trying to test but something is causing the PCM to loop the testing (meaning it's performing several retests looking for a satisfactory result...most likely due to some test entry requirement isn't being met yet). They haven't failed yet so the basic aspects of the O2 sensors in question are good. The O2 sensor heaters are a good starting point to make some checks as the PCM might see the heater voltage return Ok (no DTC for heater circuit problem) but is having trouble when testing the heater voltage range feedback control from test cycling the PCM O2 heater ground circuits so it's stuck in a test loop.....or something to this effect.
I'm thinking rear O2 sensors are the issue as if the front W\B's were the issue you'd know that already. This summary will give you all the in's & out's on all 9 separate O2 sensor self check tests for all 4 O2 sensors (Mode 5 stuff).

Check out the flow charts for your W\B's & rear O2 sensor checks to note where the flow charts show potential process loops.....those are where the PCM can get stuck in infinite loops repeating test checks thus can help you identify what, where to look for solutions then do the same for the Cat CE monitors.

As for the cat monitors I think your PCM is gonna be using the A\F Integrated Cat Efficiency test method as the 1st 2 CE methods shown are the same for a 09 MY car (Lincoln's had W\B's this MY, Stangs do not) so I'd study this very closely as this method can be somewhat cantankerous to complete.

You'll see what I mean when you read up on it.

Hope this helps.
 

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
Those last 3 tests have always been difficult to get to run. Rear O2s were new at build time, upstreams new about two years ago. O2 operation looks normal in live data. Both strategies behave identically (crate6 & kwc4) as far as obd2 is concerned. Thanks for that doc.

Update: reviewed document and it gave me direction to investigate. It seems the fuel level input plays a part in when the cat test is run. My pcm does not get a fuel level signal, but I could have sworn fuel level is reported @85% iirc. Hmmmmm The cat monitor did run a few times in this config.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top