What have you done to your mustang today?

I had my fill of bonkers fast, track days, etc…& hadn’t tried the s197 platform yet..this Shelby is so beautifully analog..5spd, live axle, bolt-action hurst, etc & that glorious 3 valve howl..I’m still surprised how much I look forward to driving it.

But if you’ve never owned a c6 z06 treat yourself..it’s one of the best, coolest cars ever built..dry sump 427 ci, all aluminum monocoque frame, magnesium engine cradle & roof frame, carbon fiber roof & fenders, independent upper & lower A-arms front & rear, rear transaxle, coolers for the oil, trans & diff, TR6060, giant 6 piston brakes w front/rear cooling ducts, 200 mph t/s..Dave Hill & Taj Juechter just nailed it..in ‘06 they delivered 3,130 lbs & 500 hp/tq that’s still totally relevant & hangs w anything on a track today, but in an analog 3 pedal only platform. There’s serious parts shortages now, & you may want/need to update the 427’s heads, but imho the car is a work of art.

Continued bringing info together concerning the PCV systems to verifiy I have the best set-up. I realised the catch can may require cleaning out at every oil and filter change. Though I don't think anything is wrong, I still need to be familiar with what's on this car.
**********
Moved the Mustang out into the rain where it got a rinsing off.
**********
Tried out my "new-to-me" old Canon S100 Elph pocket camera purchased off of CL.
At 2.1 MP it's not a high resolution camera. But I won't have to resize the image to post on a forum or attach to an email. The camera colour saturation and depth is better than my newer camers. Took some photos of the '05-Mus.

Tried to drive it to work since I fixed my fan and did the external relay conversion for it. Brake caliper still chirping at me, worse than ever, even after greasing it.. really didn't want to spring for a new caliper but it's unbearable to drive as is with the noise.

Drove it to work, trying to use up some of the fuel in the tank since I have to pull the fuel pump. My Chinese 2-year-old pump that I got from Jegs for about $120-$130 is no longer reading fuel level correctly.
I was at a light the other day and my "miles to empty" went from 56 to 348 while sitting/idling. Over 102 miles after filling up the tank, it's just barely over a half-tank now, and those were pretty aggressive miles. Normally I'd be close to 1/4.
So, since the pump is under warranty, I'm gonna start there, send it out and hopefully get a brand new replacement.

So today has been an interesting day... passenger side window stopped going up/down. So regular analysis... driver side and passenger side and Auto-up close not function on that right side. Driver side window is still fully operational. Did a quick check of fuses in the passenger side kick panel and relays under the hood and all is well. Thinking connector in the door or window regulator.

OK now things get very strange... car won't start! I turned the key nothing and here SJB energize and normal lights on dash but engine will not crank. Started my diagnostic, got my Chilton manual out and researched... battery has 12.5V sitting, looked at relays & fuses, put car in neutral (automatic), turned steering wheel back & forth, etc. Still nothing, so I am wonder could the SJB taken a dump? So I disconnect the battery and carefully remove it and found little to no corrosion (see pics). I cleaned all points of contact with CRC electrical cleaner and added a thin film of dielectric grease. Still no engine crank, I am about to jack up the right side and hit the starter with a hammer (old school), but I decided to go to this forum and search. Well, the search function sucks! sorry guys.

Used Ai and it gave me step by step instructions, but it's what I have already done... except it has listed a small starter fuse 5AMP in the SJB. I used this link: https://www.startmycar.com/us/ford/mustang/info/fusebox/2005/5th-gen/starter-fuse#problems-article
to confirm and I replaced it and the car started perfectly! Ironically, the fuse removed did not look burnt? Whoever posted that link I owe a cold beer.

I will post at a later date my TB issue from a couple of weeks ago, but it is now resolved and car is running well again. I will look closer into the passenger side window in the next few days...

2005 GT 4.6L

Started going thru the PCV system by reviewing Vortech's installation instructions, reading posts on this forum and articles on the web.

Removed the hose from the intake-to-catch can.
Removed the hose from what may or may not be a PCV. TBD.

Removed the catch can.

I have no idea what brand it is. Anyone know?

graybeard said:

2005 GT 4.6L

Started going thru the PCV system by reviewing Vortech's installation instructions, reading posts on this forum and articles on the web.

Removed the hose from the intake-to-catch can.
Removed the hose from what may or may not be a PCV. TBD.

Removed the catch can.

I have no idea what brand it is. Anyone know?

View attachment 117079

View attachment 117080

Click to expand...

That catch can looks like a Billet Technology design, but it might be a UPR since they copied those designs pretty closely back in the day. They used to be known as Unauthorized Product Reproductions, lol.

Gabe,
Yes, a Billet, or some spin-off.
Attached are a couple more photos of the catch can.

When I opened it up, there were about 2 tablespoons of dirty oil and some sludge.

There was some seepage around the drain plug, but no drips. Drain plug took a 3/16" hex key, not metric.

Was sitting around last Sunday morning & decided to take my Stang on another fuel mileage test run (#6.....) since all work was done (the heater hose connector changeouts, CHT sensor & spark plug replacement......) just to see how she'd do (last time was 9-18-25......) ........results posted below:

Now this wasn't on my radar of expectations from these results, so I got to digging back thru my data records today to see where this may have come from (matched all of the fuel mileage test dates w\ the closest dates of tune cal revisions & subsequent datalog data that might reveal areas where this improvement developed from.........the fuel test dated 4-22-25 was the closest match......test @ 27.1 MPG vs this 6-22-26 test @ 27.46 MPG....), so I've listed the relevant changes below that showed up from the data for those so interested:

Note: All fuel mileage tests were run over the same stretches of city\hwy roads in the exact same manner (used cruise control set @ 75 MPH w\ HVAC on--whether using heater or AC over the hwy sections) using E10 91 oct fuel (car is setup in tune cal for E10--14.08 EQ stoichAFR thru my HPTuners MPVI2+ interface--official EQ stoichAFR setting all the OEM's use w\ the US EPA & 91 oct thru my SCT X4 tuner--this should set the appropriate KS algorithm frequency associated & enable VID Octane Adjust feature.....).

1. The far & away obvious change was due to the MAF recurve done in response to the air filter changeout (a component\part) from a clean K&N E-1997 08-09 Bullitt replacement to an OEM Ford 08-09 Bullitt FA1895 replacement I bought\used to perform a test after watching a Motor Oil Geek video that had the folks from Donaldson on--a well renowned US air filter manufacturer--which exposed the MAF curve being off to the tune of 3.5%--over fueled......due to resolution issues (read excess air turbulence thru MAF section at lower RPM's....). Further digging revealed that the suspect K&N filter wasn't the 1st filter I had bought & installed that I ran in service for over 1 yr (the 1st 3 fuel mileage test results were under this K&N filter--10-17-24 @ 26.1 MPG, 2-7-25 @ 26.5 MPG, 4-22-25 @ 27.1 MPG---changed 1st filter out on 8-17-25 due to visual excess dirty condition & installed the 2nd filter NIB condition from K&N....)--it was the 2nd filter (had bought 2 of them to facilitate cleaning w\o having the car down waiting on filter drying & reoiling.......) that caused this (the corresponding last 2 worst fuel mileage tests results--24.5 MPG @ 8-29-25, 25.7 MPG @ 9-18-25--followed the timeline to a tee.....) after running tests to confirm that no oil had touched the MAF sensor hot wire to skew the results at the time........thus exposed the manufacturing defects\offsets across them from K&N that doesn't exist w\ Ford due to OEM parts having to meet OEM warranty replacement QA\QC criteria as well as EPA scrutiny for Ford to obtain CoC (certificate of conformity) signoff--thus MUCH tighter manufacturing tolerance control\accuracy.
2. The CHT sensor changeout (a component\part) that was done during the heater hose connector replacement.........can't find any conclusive data that showed this part having an effect.......but the pictures do show that the old sensor was missing a piece when compared to the new sensor that could be important to this sensor's accuracy--thus affects the ECU SD airmass calcs thru the tune calibration that can influence MPG as well as other things--thus needs to be mentioned.
3. Spark plug changeout (a component\part) that was also done during the same heater hose connector replacement.......same general sentiment as #2 but plugs do reveal\verify the slightly over rich condition that was mentioned in #1.
4. Changed IM Dynamic Airflow setting from GT 10.90L to Bullitt 9.81L (tune calibration change) .......from looking at the results, this doesn't really jump out concerning MPG (the GT 10.90L setting was present during all of the prior tests, only the last test--#6--had the Bullitt 9.81L setting), but it could, as well as for any available HP\TQ differences. This setting has direct influence on the Ford ECU SD ETC airmass calcs thus as such has to be mentioned for integrity's sake.......IM air volume setting that Ford used in tandem w\ this 08-09 Bullitt CAI (was the last setting that I had overlooked to change so that all pertinent OEM Ford settings\maps that was used in my tune cal matched to the OEM 08-09 Bullitt CAI\08 OEM IM for full tune cal compliance......done at the 1st of this year......). The 1 noticeable change seen was in Cat CE Ratio or emissions.........using the GT 10.90L, this CE ratio avg around B1 @ .035, B2 @ .039 vs the Bullitt 9.81L CE ratio avg around B1 @ .049, B2 @. 055.......proving the Bullitt 9.81L setting was used by Ford to improve Bullitt's available HP\TQ output vs the GT but didn't negatively affect emissions output in any conceivable way.
5. Balanced TF (transient fuel) Accel\Decel FI PW settings for IR\port fuel puddle or "TAU" (tune calibration change) .......finally got this fully dialed in around the 1st of this year to fully properly match up to my FR 62mm TB's sweep rates to completely remove momentary throttle tip-in transient fueling leanouts--causing intermittent tip-in detonation--thus cleanup & optimize engine throttle response........all settings were increased to match TB (using a formula I devised to come up w\ a multiplier to convert the OEM 55mm TB's in-tune PTA\EA mapping to match the FR 62mm TB's corrected, calibrated in-tune PTA\EA mapping for ETC SD airmass calcs....) then balanced between accel vs decel to dial this in during OL PE\WOT throttle sweeps off gear shifts to clean up any initial throttle tip-in knock detected (manual trans....), thus no inkling\thought of saving fuel was in mind...........but the results speak for themselves........any increased MPG attributed from this work came from improved engine efficiency across the board, but can't clearly define it thus mentioned for integrity's sake.......definitely didn't negatively affect the emissions either. This work was finished after the 9-18-25 #5 fuel mileage test results were recorded.

All else in tune calibration was still set the same across the board as all else was finished product...........all as listed below along w\ 3.91 gears on 26.1 dia tires for a mean final ratio of 4.02..........so FR Hot Rod cams can be very fuel efficient as well as emissions efficient in a 4.6L 3V V8 while also putting out very good TQ\HP numbers for what they were intended to do (Greg Banish also said in 1 of his books that this is 1 of the overlooked benefits of running full VCT-compliant lopey cams due to their natural EGR tendencies.........depending on how well their characteristics are dialed in thru continuous VCT tuning across the board, not just WOT--the only in-tune method of affecting\changing an engine's pumping efficiency on the fly vs RPM.........is where DynoSim 6 engine dyno simulation software comes into play--recommended by both Billy Godbold--Comp Cams had a hand in helping the author--Larry Atherton w\ Motion Software--in developing it--along w\ John Baechtel, author of "Performance Automotive Engine Math"--another highly respected ex-GM engine development engineer--that GREATLY reduces the amount of time to test\develop optimized VCT cam timing mapping.......bought this in early 2023.....) & it appears that I'm on track to fully achieving it (1 of my goals I set to achieve self-tuning my ride after reading about this from Greg Banish since my car will be primarily touring & street duty--CL part throttle--but still get as much HP\TQ out of her that's there to get across the board during OL PE\WOT.........).

Now just need to get healed up enough to get my timing refresh\upgrade work done & GSport-GESI EPA-cert hi flow cats installed to eliminate the recorded exhaust backpressure bottleneck created by these FR Hot Rod cams flowing thru my current MagnaFlow #5461336 CARB-cert cats from 4,200 RPM on up (been putting this off for too long............).

If you want to be really precise, you must do your runs also at the same ambient air temperature and air pressure
Your work is great!

Found the issue with the passenger door window not going up/down, harness plug was not fully seated & clipped in... I cleaned all the connections, applied some dielectric grease, pushed in the wire pins & re-taped the entire harness, also lubed the tracks. Works perfectly!

I had replaced the complete regulator assembly 10+ years ago with an OEM unit and I must have not locked it in place? Over the years it lost contact?

Now to return the new Dorman #742-279 to AutoZone and get my $100.00 back! LOL

Had a small header leak that Pypes was kind enough to warranty for me (props to their lifetime warranty), so had the joy of installing headers again. Didn’t want to do it again, so also had them Cerakoted inside and out. Also replaced motor mounts.

Was impressed at the temperature difference. After a few hard pulls, primary temps showed around 500F with infrared. Before they would be a few hundred F higher, and radiant heat is reduced.

Got my warranty claim approved for a replacement Jegs fuel pump, and ordered a replacement.

The next part belongs in the "what pissed you off today" thread:
Pump is on backorder. Estimated delivery date is 8/20/26.

This wouldn't be a big issue except I need to get my state inspection before 8/31 so I can get my registration renewed before 8/31.
And the car needs to be driven after the new pump gets installed, to clear OBD monitors.

Only great part about the pump not arriving until 8/20 is I'll be on vacation that week so I can quickly install the new pump and then head out for a drive to reset monitors.

Let's hope the plan comes together as I need it to.

Love hearing about life time warranty being honored and company’s backing up their products! Let’s keep posting those, so we know who to do business with!

GriffX said:

If you want to be really precise, you must do your runs also at the same ambient air temperature and air pressure
Your work is great!

Click to expand...

Appreciate the comment!

And this is why IMHO aftermarket tuners really need to stop messing w\ the OEM ECU airmass measurement\correction\scalars\mapping trying to force engines in\under operating conditions trying to gain more HP\TQ that are out of bounds thus throwing all of this off in the OEM ECU's.......that is, if ACCURACY thus CONTROL is what the goal is........the OEMs know this, they know\understand air\gas measurement science & are APPLYING it in these ECUs........they're the ones coding\programming all of this into OEM ECUs for the last 20-25 yrs for the specific reason that they know these vehicles will be operating under varying operational AAT & air pressures.........that too many aftermarket tuners either fully disable or radically alter out of any semblance of accuracy.......especially tuners using dynos since the dyno stack has airmass correction calibration routines as well (you only need\can use 1 system--guess which 1 most try to fall back on, eh?).

For this Spanish Oaks ECU, this is SAE J607.......60*F, 29.92" Hg & RH @ 0%.

When I read of folks giving praise to Holley for adding all this type of air measurement correction capability to their standalone Dominator ECUs, I see the blatant hypocrisy in it as the OEMs have been doing this for a LONG time in their ECUs that most have been disabling\breaking...........

Just saying.................

The hallmark of any good air\gas measurement system is that a single air\gas reference model is paramount to accurate measurement so correction factors can be used to account for any changes to AAT or air pressure that are different from the single reference model to then make correction back to--or refer if preferred...the STD model, thus a SINGLE POINT of REFERENCE for accurate results. This is needed to accurately know the amount of actual airmass that is entering the engine to then apply the accurate amount of fuel to it.......the AAT & air pressure needed is the AAT & air pressure (to accurately know the air density of the actual air........this is what engines need to accurately know the actual air volume\mass filling the cylinders at any point in time\RPM....) that is crossing the INTAKE VALVES while they're open, not just entering the CAI. There exists VE density & VE final correction mapping in SD that uses the MAF air temp AND ECT (remember the CHT sensor issue I fixed.........) to correct the 1st calculated\corrected airmass measurements to this final measurement to THEN add the correct amount of fuel to............

Anything\component that throws any of this off (such as the bad K&N air filter......or disabled\altered correction settings......) will have an effect........mostly will not be good effects.

This is what NO dyno air stack is calc'ing\correcting for\to..............thus why I say this stuff needs to be left alone in the ECUs.........if accuracy is desired. This is important, not only for achieving max HP\TQ, but also for achieving good MPG & emissions......

Therefore, in my case, I'll trust the ECU thus the OEM Ford engineers\programmers work & I have already gone thru my tune calibration & ensured that the pertinent settings\scalars\mapping that have direct influence over all this that I found modified have been corrected back to MY OEM status--thus EPA CoC signoff certified & have ran the actual numbers it spits out against the SAE J607 reference model correction factor to ensure that the ECU calc'd numbers correspond & match up (thus spitting out accurate airload% equations.....), then applied the in-tune SD VE corrections to see the final numbers also match up........I was a certified F3 Electronic Gas Measurement Tech at 1 time in my working past for Phillips Petroleum Co (now ConocoPhillips Co.....) thus I might know something about this........... I also have an Altronics Pocket NHRA-cert Altimeter that I've used to check air density & altitude reference in my area then ran numbers using same online equations using the ECU recorded datalog numbers to back calculate elevation to then check them against my altimeter.........found the ECU was more accurate (got much closer to my actual elevation recorded at my WOT test area by a factor of 2.......ECU is using a MAF-based measurement system thus accounts for elevation changes thus air density on the fly.............) thus I don't even bat an eye anymore.......

My 2 cents.........take this FWIW to you.

JC SSP said:

Love hearing about life time warranty being honored and company’s backing up their products! Let’s keep posting those, so we know who to do business with!

Click to expand...

Since you posted this, this is a good thing to know if 1 buys a Mishimoto HP Aluminum radiator as they'll honor their lifetime warranty as well......that is, if you have kept all of the original purchase receipts AND pre-register it on their web site PRIOR any warranty claims.........been there, done that so it's true.

Been in contact with shop #2 on my car -- they want to go back to stock and start over.

Quick recap -- after getting the supercharger installed and 800 miles of driving, a couple of the emissions tests weren't completing. Shop #1 that did the install did the initial tuning, but after some driveability issues they couldn't figure out, they had to outsource to shop #2 as 1) they had other projects that were backing up and 2) they were at a loss.

Shop #2 was able to address some driveability issues, but still can't get the O2's to read. They checked the tune, yes they're turned on. They checked the sensors, yes they're good. They checked the O2 wiring harness, yes it's good. They checked the main wire harness, yes that's good too.

At this point they want to return my tune to stock and rebuild. Shop #1 used SCT and that's the handheld tuner I have (X4), shop #2 uses HP Tuners, and I guess shop #2 must've tried to use the SCT tune as a starting point. So now they're reverting my PCM back to stock and rebuilding from there.

Hoping this is getting close to the end of the saga on this. I've driven the car maybe 3 weeks since the start of the year, dropped it off at shop#2 for a 'quick' check of the tune on April 21'st, and now we're at the 4th of July. Missed all the best driving weather.

Sorry to be a downer here, it's just been a long road ever since the engine blew in 2022. Been one issue after another between the engine rebuild and tuning issues.

STILL chasing a squeak/chirp.. driving around it's a cyclical chirping that sounds like it's coming from the front left corner.. it increases and decreases with speed so one would assume brakes or something related to them. I have already replaced the brake rotors, pads, front calipers and inspected the dust shields multiple times. Still can't find it. There is no witness marks on anything and with the wheel lifted and spinning by hand it's quiet..

My last guess at this point is a bad hub bearing since it's a rotational noise and only occurs under the weight of the car but I've never heard one chirp before, usually more of a grinding. Plus they're are only 18 months old.. tired of tearing it apart at this point, just want to drive it.

I wonder if a rotor is warped or a caliper pin is sticking

Rayne2ravage said:

I wonder if a rotor is warped or a caliper pin is sticking

Click to expand...

That was the initial diagnosis as the noise would appear under light braking and go away when pressed harder. So I replaced all the rotors and pads. Noise came back but now it was chirping unloaded and would go away when braking.. so next diagnosis was it has to be a sticking caliper, replaced those, noise persists..

Now the noise is not tied to anything other than road speed. The only thing I have not changed since the noise started is the actual hub itself but I did those 18 months ago as routine maintenance, hard to believe one would already be bad when the factory ones went 16 damn years.