Lunati VooDoo #21270700 Camshafts

Discussion in 'Mustang Chit Chat' started by GlassTop09, May 24, 2019.

  1. Juice

    Juice forum member

    Im not defending any tuners.

    As for the Bama tune, unless your tuner used HP to read and tune your car after BAMA, the tune he gave you was not based on what BAMA did. SCT cannot read and than modify what is in the pcm. .cef files cannot be opened/edited with SCT software.
  2. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member

    On pg 11, post #201 of this I guess from that posting I do already know the tune file copy of my car that my tuner gave me can have some of the BAMA tuning still in it...........since I also know that my prior tuner actually used the old BAMA tuning he read out of my PCM as the base file for his well as prior tuner himself admitting to me that he did use it.......
    BTW this was another reason why I went w\ HPTuners over I wouldn't be stuck like I was w\ my SCT I think I already knew all this prior but I appreciate your letting me know.

    That is 1 of the $64.00 questions I have w\ my tune after seeing what I saw in it before I started tuning it myself..........what part is whose doing? If it was BAMA tuning & it was wrong, then why didn't he either 1.) toss it & start over w\ his own clean base tune or 2.) actually fix the bad BAMA tuning well as properly tune for the actual parts installed on my engine that he DID know of prior start? as well as BAMA as I gave them a listing of all the installed parts on engine.........including the 62mm which I caught them turning stuff off that I specifically asked that not be done (still have the email correspondence to this day on all that when I made them correct my tune from me finding it thru a general OBDII scan tool.....I guess that they think can't provide a window into some of the tuning settings changes........if you know what to look for & the OBDII scan tool has enhanced access...............). Main reason why I went to use a local tuner & get away from remote tuning.............back then.

    Doesn't matter in the end as either way it falls back on him as he had the car last.........................not a question of "good enough"............that good for leaving an engine a few degrees of spark timing short to maintain engine safety. All the stuff I've found, fixed & posted in this thread IMHO is NOT a qualifier of "good enough"........just because the engine ran & I was fortunate enough that it didn't destroy itself before I caught it all? each their own I guess............
  3. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member


    Been busy going thru datalogs & several tune revisions to fix\remove another item that I've already posted about is a couple of pictures of this:
    Prior WOT ETC APP TB TPS Control Out of Synch to EVAP.JPG This is what was going on during a WOT run (simulated a 1\4 mi run).......the ETC APP Throttle control & ETC TB TPS Throttle control operating out of synch causing EVAP to still purge during this time causing potential leaning out of the fueling & causing erratic OL fueling enabling........which can cause the very engine knock I'm seeing...............also that Jeffery Evans @ EPA (the 25+yr professional tuner who put out the training videos I've used) couldn't help me with as he admitted that all the Ford Mod Motor vehicles he's ever tuned had the EVAP removed (racing primarily) thus was disabled in the tune file thus he didn't know how to go about rectifying this. So just because you've been doing something for a long time doesn't mean you know everything about it...........someone also taught him......that also didn't know how to properly handle on & so on...........
    This is how bad tuning can get spread out across the industry over time & get accepted as "good enough" I know that he isn't the only 1 that doesn't know either............but I'm the 1 w\ the issue so it is for me to figure it out as I KNOW that the Ford engineers had already crossed this bridge as they'd have to solve this as well (they already had........but others either unknowingly or intentionally have messed it up trying to do\fix other things. What I appreciated from Jeffery was that he was HONEST about this & not trying to blow smoke........thus why all the revisions\datalogging to figure out the PCM calibration's underlying code logic mapping\processes to then make sense of the tune settings so then you know exactly what\how to go about setting all up to function properly...........).

    This picture is the results of all this work:
    Current WOT ETC APP TB TPS Control In Synch to EVAP.JPG So now going forward, I know exactly how this SO PCM's underlying code is mapped out to function thus know which settings changes to make & how they'll all operate together to prevent what you saw occurring in the prior picture. You now see all is in synchronization w\ each other thus proves that the Ford engineers had already provided for this that some subsequent tuners out there tuning on these cars for a living don't have as good a handle on tuning these SO PCMs as they'd like you to believe...........most of the settings used are still OEM stock settings but the main thing is that when making setting changes you understand what's going on in the background so that you don't cause more issues than you're trying to fix.

    Yes......there are 25+yr professional tuners out there who don't know how to do this properly to this day & maintain emissions compliance at the same time. They only know how to use the disable switches in the tune file to fix some stuff................

    BTW..........I have already got w\ Jeffery Evans @ EPA & have sent him all this info along w\ all pictures of all tune settings that cover this issue (I got a LOT more than what I've posted here) as well as a full writeup to fully explain what, when, why, how & methodologies to help him out........just as he has done helping me out.

    What he does w\ it is on him...................

    This had to be rectified before moving on to any other reasons why I'm constantly seeing engine knock.
    Hi JC SSP,

    No problem w\ that sir...............most of what you've typed I've already done all that legwork & have verified that it isn't the issue\cause..........I've already proved the .030" plug gap in the Brisk XOR14YS plugs is causing issues w\ combustion stability thus need to open them up (the NGK Iridium IX ZNAR6AIX-11 0372 plugs weren't the cause of any of the knock & they also maintained better combustion stability than the Brisk plugs currently installed.......have the data to back that up) so, since I got to pull them back out to do this, I'm also gonna run compression tests at that time to gather the actual static compression numbers. I've already done relative compression checks on several occasions & the engine passes these in very good order thus I already know the cyl pressure variances should be very little between all the cylinders........within at least the 10% accepted variance......the actual numbers should prove this out). The only thing octane is gonna prove is that the current E10 91 oct fuel around my neck of the woods is suspect..........which I know it is just due to it being E10 91 octane & I'm not gonna be running around buying octane to put in a primarily street-driven car......... All my evidence\testing to date has lead to the engine knock being real........not false knock.

    What its looking like after each item is removed from this puzzle is simply the engine cyls #2, #3 & #5 can't tolerate any more spark advance timing past 24.5*-26.5* at .75 load & up due to high cyl temps causing preignition\detonation.......stay at\below this & she'll run up all day.

    I could've done "good enough" a LONG time back by simply cutting spark timing until it all stops then up it until #5 cyl starts up again then backdown just enough until it stops then call it a day...........but that doesn't answer the actual cause of why these 3 cyls only out of 8 thus you DON'T LEARN ANYTHING except that they were knocking & I cut timing until it stopped................which is why I keep going thru the process until I find out the reason why..........cause there IS a reason why only these 3 cyls........finding\ID'ing and\or rectifying the real cause instead of assumption is learning something valuable that can be useful info in the future...........also the main reason why a lot of folks come in this BBS looking for the very answers to their various issues..........

    I have recently reloaded my prior tuner's detuned knock sensor sensitivity threshold mapping after replacing the tested\verified badly spiking original KS's to see what my prior tuner had seen to set these maps up & data logged afterwards......found this mapping fixed #2 & #3 cyls knock.....but not #5 cyl & in the process also found that this mapping was causing a lot of false knock at lower engine RPMs\loads that the OEM KS maps didn't, due to the X-axis alterations differing from the OEM maps which had the PCM having to use interpolation alone between 1,000 RPM's to 3,000 w\ stock settings that were set up initially under OEM Ford X-axis (these X\Y axis settings creates a PCM interpolation scale path of how the actual cell settings are applied) then changed the maps X-axis scaling which will throw off how PCM will apply the exact same settings just due to the X-axis scaling changes alone........why you shouldn't be doing this at all unless you have to rescale a map to accommodate FI usage because you HAVE to as no factory SO PCM calibrations are set up to support FI in any way, shape or form........only NA configs & w\ NA configs you have no reason to change any map's X\Y axis...........). This kind of stuff comes from folks trying to use tune files that have been modified for FI or settings that specifically should be used w\ FI only in a NA tune file (a LOT of tuning folks use\teach to use modified FI settings w\ NA tune files........causing various operational quirks that didn't need to happen w\ a NA 4.6L as Ford had already taken care of all of that for a NA engine.......thinking that the FI-based settings will net you better NA findings to date has mostly verified the exact opposite.....).

    A couple of pictures to show this more clearly:
    PCM KS cyl 1 X-Axis Prior Tuner or BAMA tuner.JPG PCM KS cyl1 X-Axis OEM.JPG
    Left is prior tuner\BAMA tuner generated, right is Ford generated.......remember Ford tunes all this stuff to intermesh cleanly w\ all other sections of the tune thus PCM operations, so when you start changing X\Y axis settings on maps you better know what\why you're doing it for & what other parts of the tune needs its X\Y axis to be updated as well to match up so PCM interpolates the cell data properly & in synch w\ the rest....................this goes for Copperhead & up PCMs as well.

    The difference is that in the end I'll KNOW why these 3 cyls only out of 8..........all due to my changing my car's tune file KS Mode from the OEM Ford-set Global Mode (which makes individual cyl knock look like all 8 cyls are knocking thus 1 would've had a MUCH HARDER TIME of finding out WHICH CYLS are having the issue) to Per Cyl Mode so VCM Scanner is showing all 8 cyls KS info individually instead of showing only 1 KS channel for all 8 cyls thus made this finding MUCH EASIER to isolate\spot thus not waste a lot of TIME messing w\ cyls that aren't having the issue........since this 4.6L 3V V8 is equipped w\ 2 KS's that are mapped\assigned to individual cyls thus can ID the individual cyl(s) w\ the issue. The car's engine has no issues operating in all other conditions............except under full load WOT operations above .75 load only.

    As soon as the weather lets up (snowing w\ plunging temps so outside work environment sucks at the moment) the plugs will get pulled\inspected & compression tests run on all 8 cyls to gather the info (never has been done since I bought the car some 5+ yrs ago w\ 139,433 mi on the clock....original numbers-matching engine......currently has in excess of 162,300 mi.......) then make a decision to either regap the Brisk plugs or reinstall the now verified\known properly operating NGK Iridium IX ZNAR6AIX-11\0372 plugs after a good cleaning...........

    My hunch is the physical compression test results is gonna shed a light on what I'm seeing concerning engine knock in cyls #2, #3 & #5 vs the rest.................
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2023
  4. JC SSP

    JC SSP Member

    upload_2023-1-22_2-2-34.png I just realized its knocking on every other firing order #3, #2 & #5... Not sure if it is indicative of anything, just found that strange.
  5. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member

    Now you're stepping into my're starting to use known info\data to diagnose this particular dilemma, thus not relying on just assumption\anecdotal info.........also applying critical thought.

    Note on pg 18, post #358 in this thread, I posted a picture of a drawing of the in-tune per cyl KS assignments that I also mapped by engine firing order (note the very small numbering in each cyl circle at bottom of circle........that reps engine firing order sequencing) w\ the solid parallel lines drawn between B1\B2 cyls (this is the cyl pairing on the crank throws, ie, #1 cyl to #5 cyl) to aid in figuring out how all this is designed to work to then figure out what is going on from any data logged data that is shown to not follow this pattern. You'll note that #3 & #7 cyls are assigned to the opposite bank's KS mic as these 2 cyls share the same crank journal & fire 90* off each other (this is to offset any undue KS mic influence from these paired cyls firing right behind each other in firing order.......all other cyls are assigned to the KS mic mounted closest to them thus the same bank as their paired cyls do not provide any undue crank force to crank journal throwing off the other paired cyl when it is firing during ignition\power stroke).

    Using all this along w\ data logged KS mic voltage data is how I figured out that I had a failing KS mic when at 1st I only saw knock on #5, #6, #3 & #8 cyls only & not #1, #2, #7 & #4 cyls when all cyls are under the same loading\fueling (have recently done post mortem checks on the replaced 14 yr old OEM KS's & verified the failed #0 KS mic--serviced #1, #2, #7 & #4 cyls) thus now I'm seeing knock show up on #2 cyl under load while #3 & #5 cyls have always shown knock under load (now seeing knock thru BOTH KS mics........which makes sense now thus verifies the KS data can now be trusted).

    Now this data was coming thru me reinstalling the Ford-tuned OEM KS per cyl sensitivity threshold map settings for all I then ran test by reinstalling the prior tuner's detuned KS per cyl threshold map settings (which was setup off the now known bad #0 KS mic on B1) to run on the new KS mics to see which cyls knock would still come thru or disappear........found #2 & #3 cyl knock disappeared but not #5 cyl so from this finding I can deduce that the knock on #5 cyl is definitely real but questionable on #2 cyl (B1 side where bad KS mic was mounted & #2 cyl is assigned) & #3 cyl (B2 side where the good KS mic was mounted & #3 cyl is assigned along w\ #5 cyl)........but all 3 of these cyls follow the same spark advance timing curve patterns as #5 cyl when the knock would occur......between 24.5* thru 26.5* range during spark advance application ramp up by KS activity between the base BKT spark advance timing mapping from 23.5* (the spark timing "floor"--that the PCM will start applying additional spark advance timing when KS go active & no knock is detected) & MBT spark advance timing mapping max of 27.5* (the "ceiling"--the highest spark advance timing allowed to be used.....also the spark advance timing that TQ Management uses to calc the maximum theoretical or "brake" TQ thus "MBT" engine TQ output requested from the 545 A\D count row of the Driver Demand TQ Request map--determines WOT TQ requests). So, the smart thing is to treat #2 & #3 cyls the same as #5 cyl & now figure out why only these 3 cyls start knocking in this spark advance timing range while the others show no signs of engine knock at all........when all are put thru the same air loading, same fueling, same spark timing patterns, same PCV oil mist\flow, same VCT cam timing\spark advance correction timing.......even after installing plugs that are 1 step colder & gapped tighter?

    The only other thing I know of that can set this kind of pattern up is excessive static cyl compression variation......meaning that cyls #2, #3 & #5 still have retained higher static compression numbers thus less wear than the rest of the cylinders (but not enough loss thru piston ring sealing to noticeably affect PCV flow thus oil consumption to bring carbon depositing into question.......the NGK plug porcelains show this) over the now 162,350+ mi currently on engine. Engine is not misfiring at all (even though some combustion instability while under\just after full loading has been noted) thus no reasoning to run a cyl leak down test (intake\exhaust valves are seating just fine) so only a simple compression test to see how much static cyl compression variation is present & if this fits the cyl knock pattern I'm seeing......meaning #2, #3 & #5 cyls show higher overall static compression numbers than the rest of the cyls........if this is so then there's the answer to the engine's current knock pattern........also more insight into prior tuner's thinking\knowledge, interpretation & actions during tuning of my car's engine.

    Then all will make perfect sense as to why cutting the spark advance timing to stop this is appropriate as all else has been pretty much verified fixed\ruled out as a cause.......including the tuning thus I'll be satisfied w\ the final results & know that ALL tuning done is proper & cleanly\safely & fully optimized for the operational conditions at hand........including emissions as well.
  6. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member


    Had to go get measured for an outfit (wife's sister's daughter is getting married in August & wants family to have special clothing attire.................) so had to stop w\ prior posting........................

    While going back thru data log recorded off latest tune revision #65............I stumbled on a report (from in 2019) I found back in March on A\F ratios. When I read thru it these 2 items jumped out at me:
    AF Ratio Performance Tuning Peak Power.PNG AF Ratio Stoich for Various Fuel Types.PNG
    Note what this report says concerning fuel stoichiometry from E10 unleaded fuel. The reason why this jumped out at me is due to what I've ended up using in my tune file for fuel stoich AFR & for OL base fuel map Lambda settings.
    1st, me ended up using the 14.08 fuel stoich AFR setting for the E10 91 oct unleaded fuel as this fuel stoich AFR has consistently provided the tightest STFT+LTFT feedback data to confirm its use in matching up to established MAF table calibration, established LWFM, SD & ETC TB PTA\EA map calibrations & established fueling settings for injectors thus fuel delivery in general thus validating the 14.08 fuel stoich AFR of the E10 91 oct fuel I'm currently using.......along w\ an ethanol% fuel test result to back it up.

    2nd, the Lambda settings I ended up going with in the OL base fuel Lambda map the PCM's EQ Ratio Lambda fuel control in my tune file.............eerily shown to practically match up w\ the AFR given to provide peak power based off the fuel stoich AFR of 14.08. I ended up falling on Lambda .86 as the best OL base fuel number for my engine under WOT operations (gives the smoothest & most powerful HP\TQ response during WOT operations) which when run out mathematically equals what this AA1Car report said........14.08*.86 Lambda = 12.1:1 AFR vs report stating AFR of 12:1 for E10 pump gas (based off the same 14.08 fuel stoich AFR for E10 fuel) for peak power generation...........

    I find the coincidence very intriguing................also somewhat reassuring as well. This now explains what I observed thru several data logs of WOT runs had some merit..........also now dispels the notion of thinking that all specific gasoline fuel stoichiometry is based off the std fuel stoichiometry of is based strictly on the std fuel stoichiometry principle alone (all O2 moles & all fuel moles present are fully, completely consumed during combustion) thus this AFR number will be very different for each type of fuel, even though the Lambda number will practically be the same.

    1 of the things I was doing was using Lambda calc'd AFR off 14.64 fuel stoich AFR setting in prior tuner's tune file (14.64*.87 Lambda = 12.74 AFR) as the target for setting OL base fueling in my tune file, when in reality I had unknowingly already arrived at this same stoichiometric point off 14.08 fuel stoich .86 Lambda setting @ 12.11:1 AFR (14.08*.87 Lambda = 12.25 AFR.......only .14 AFR difference)! Lambda is based off the O2 mole content in free air 78% N2\21% O2 prior combustion to O2 mole content in exhaust post the difference in these 2 Lambda numbers is the amount of embedded O2 in the 10% ethanol that isn't accounted for in the air molecules up front but IS accounted for in the final result of no O2 moles left unconsumed along w\ no fuel moles left unconsumed.
    Thus, in this case, 12.74:1 AFR is practically the same as 12.11:1 AFR due to the respective fuel stoich AFR composition makeup between E0 & E10 pump gas to arrive at Lambda!

    The more I adjusted this & ran thru WOT hits then observed thru data log data, the more I kept circling back to Lambda .86........................

    Wonder why we all should stop trying to use AFR to gauge\set all fueling & go strictly w\ Lambda!
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2023
    dark steed likes this.
  7. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member

    Hey JC SSP,

    Been thinking thru all this again & I may have come up w\ a good reason to run a can of octane booster thru my engine to see if the engine "knock" is really cyl generated or frequency generated (another way of saying noise as sound is a frequency that is generated above what we hear\feel as "normal" frequency\noise--in reality this is what we DON'T hear\feel as this would be the background noise threshold).

    If it is cyl generated, then raising the fuel's octane rating (resistance to knock) should alter the knock pattern.......essentially make it go away since from observing the engine knock frequency (amount of knock thru the amount of spark advance timing initially pulled) in the data logs is mostly fairly small at 1st then as engine load increases (off gear shift into higher gear) the knock frequency sometimes increases (spark timing is cut again) but at times it doesn't (PCM in spark recovery pattern making a saw-toothed pattern adding spark advance timing back in according to the tune-set recovery rate per process loop until it either reaches the KS max spark advance timing--which is always .01* below the MBT spark advance tables, another knock event occurs or you let off the APP which, when the APP A\D counts recedes below the WOT Disable A\D counts setting, the PCM will suspend all WOT operations & switch back into CL-Normal Mode).

    You got me to refocus on the firing order pattern of this engine knock occurring on the adjacent following cyl in 90* firing order until it gets to the furthest 2 cyl pairing on each bank from each other..........#4\#8 vs #1\#5. The crankshaft is a carrier of frequency whenever a cyl fires putting a load on a crank journal, which will dissipate over time & in theory, since this V8 is a 90* cross-plane crank setup that fires every 90* of rotation & if the firing cyls crank journals are close enough along w\ the crank journal loading from leading cyl to following cyl during a single power stroke cycle (the VCT cam timing retard amount can set this up)......I'm wondering if the noise frequency is being passed from the leading cyl that has already fired thru its crank journal thru the crankshaft, up the following cyl crank journal & into the following cyl as it is being fired causing this cyls noise or frequency level to exponentially rise above the KS noise sensitivity threshold thus PCM thinks it is "knocking" but this phenomenon is skipping over the next cyl in 90* firing pattern to load up again into the adjacent following cyl's firing sequencing until it reaches to the 2 most rearward cyls on the crankshaft (the frequency is diffused enough due to distance that this stops until the firing order once again gets back into the "center" of the crankshaft).

    Yep, this thought seems like it is way out in left field.................

    Running a can of octane booster in the fuel can go a long way to force this out in the open as if the fuel octane is raised high enough to ensure that no knock is occurring cyl-wise & this pattern still shows up, then it surely has to be false knock generation as I've theorized\laid out above...........applying the laws of physics to explain the pattern we see in the engine firing order from knock.

    Easy enough to test...........

    You just keep right on throwing them thoughts out there..........................

    PS edit--Since you've obviously used some of this octane booster, which is the best to get for octane boost level concentration?
    PS edit#2--Ordered 2 cans of this: VP Racing Fuels Octanium Unleaded Madditive Octane Booster (1) : Automotive
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2023
  8. Laga

    Laga Senior Member

    Before ethanol or MTBE was added to fuel. A chemical called the BTEX complex was used as the main octane booster. It consists of benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylene. Toluene is the most common, available, and least dangerous of these and is often used at the drag strip. It has an AKI octane rating of 114. It is your best bet. A one point in the past. Premium fuel was 40%-50% toluene. You can use this calculator.
  9. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member

    Thanks, Laga!
  10. JC SSP

    JC SSP Member

    I have not used octane booster in few years. 93 octane is available in my area and most of my cars are daily drivers and have a conservative tune.

    When I did use it in my FI and/or high-compression engines, 104 and even STP were used with no detonation "ping". All were readily available at local auto parts. It takes awhile to get it mixed with fuel in the tank and my plugs would turn reddish in color. This was the additives in the booster and nothing to do with heat or detonation.

    Good luck and keep us informed on your findings.
  11. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member


    Got up this morning & saw that it was cloudy but also saw some clear sky peeping thru so I decided to put on a set & get outside & pull the plugs & run compression test (after I finally remembered where I put my OTC Ford 12mm plug adapter hose to attach to my HF compression tester......tester only came w\ the Ford 14mm plug adapter for all 91-07 4.6L's.......damn OTC adapter hose costs more than the entire HF kit.....) that wind was brutal.......!

    Got all tore down & Brisk XOR14YS plugs pulled.........all looked good so wiped them up & regapped the Brisk plugs from .030" to .040" (the tight end of the OEM 4.6L V8 plug gap calls for .040" to .050") then got all set up & ran compression tests on all cylinders as follows:
    4.6L Cylinder Compression Test Results 1-25-23.JPG So these results X-nay my theory of #2, #3 & #5 cyls static pressures being higher than the rest..............was kinda surprised to see such low static cyl pressures across the board (was figuring in the 150-160 psi range) in light of how well this engine runs........but she does have officially 163,358 mi on her (checked the odometer) w\o a whiff of any blue\black smoke out the exhaust at all. But all is in order as the total cyl pressure variance is at 7.4%----under the 10% acceptable threshold so will keep feeding her MC 5W-30 FS oil for the moment but will be looking to go to MC 5W-40 FS oil in the future (I think 40wt is about the hot limit that can pass thru the VCT solenoid screens w\o issue).

    PS edit (1-25-23 @ 11:31 hrs)---Just now realized that during the cranking of engine to record the cyl pressures, I forgot to hold the APP in flood mode position (so TB would be fully open to not restrict air flow into cyls) so what I recorded was thru TB at 18* TBA.....cold start TB open angle! Oh least I did crank engine over a full 10 compression strokes per cyl to ensure that cyl pressure reached full gauge movement. I definitely ain't gonna redo it any time soon.......

    Good call on me backing off installing FI on this engine........................

    Pulled all COP boots to check springs & blade attachments to COPs.......all COP attachments were clean w\o any signs of corrosion (so no electrical resistance between COP blade & spring) so put all back together & R&R'd all. Before I started her up, I flashed in revision #66 (reinstalled prior set of base BKT\MBT spark advance map settings that had max MBT spark advance timing at .70 load & up @ 28* & BKT @ 24* w\ current VCT spark adders at .70 load & up will max out @ 29*\25* total for upcoming octane booster test.......I had actually cut these maps to MBT @ 24*\BKT @ 20* to test if knock would stop but the snows last few days shut it down...........but while I was in there, I also reset the fuel inj ref CA setting from 330* to 335* to see if I would get a bump in low end TQ output as well from crowding the cam IVO timing point to injection EOIT to ensure that no fuel puddling is occurring before intake valve actually opens & from reading up on some folks fine tuning this by moving this setting around to find where the engine likes this best.......usually best done on a dyno to actually see the results but you never know.........only changes vs last revision).

    Fired her up & I could immediately tell from the exhaust sound that the regapped Brisk XOR14YS plugs & fuel inj ref CA setting change had an effect\impact.......engine tone got deeper but also was smooth as silk......this was a cold start @ 33* AAT. Warmed her up to full hot idle.......all running well & very smooth\quiet for a 4.6L..........

    Went on my 37.6 mi DC route to run all out......including making a full WOT 1\4 mi hit to test engine combustion stability.......all went well. Got back home & checked I\M Readiness monitors after saving datalog.......all monitors completed except EVAP & had no pending DTC's thus no FF's.......all clear! So, the .040" gap in the Brisk XOR14YS plugs cleaned all this up (subsequent Mode 6 MM cyl data confirmed) so this is resolved...... Mode 6 Cat CE Ratio results were also on point......B1 @ .090.......idle LTFT @ -3.1%\B2 @ .121......idle LTFT @ 0.8% w\ CMBT @ 1,477*F avg so all in line.

    Checked data log & found that #5 cyl is still showing knock at .75 load & up around 4,300-4,500 RPMs & at 25.5* thru 26.5* section of KS spark advance ramp, getting progressively worse off every gear shift after 1-2 shift when it starts showing up but quickly stops & is recovering the rest of the time in between shifts. #2 cyl only made 1 brief knock appearance after KS spark advance had fully ramped the 4* to MBT during the 3rd gear WOT pull then in recovery the rest of the time making it back to full 4* before I shifted into 4th gear. #3 cyl was fully quiet the entire time so it has improved somewhat (some of this may have been a symptom of the tight .030" plug gap but this doesn't explain why the others showed no knock at all running the same .030" gap....) so there you have it.

    Otherwise, engine runs just perfect........smooth as a baby's bottom w\ no issues. Will hold all as is until I run the octane booster in the fuel to make final WOT test to see if the cyl knock goes away under WOT.

    In the meantime, the fuel inj ref CA reset from 330* to 335* seems to indeed noticeably increase low end TQ response as there was no doubt that engine low end response improved (the .040" plug gaps most likely also had an impact as well.......but I've driven before under the NGK Iridium IX's w\ their .044" plug gaps so I'm discounting this aspect for now.......). I remembered this fuel inj ref CA setting was set @ 349.5* in prior tuner's tune file (4.5* advanced ahead of the OEM cam's 345* inj ref CA setting......) so I may have brought all back to prior optimized fuel inj EOIT point w\ my Lunati cams as it was for my OEM cams before I swapped them out (prior tuner 1st tuned my car using a BAMA race 91 oct tune as base file when I still had the OEM stock cams installed......I installed the Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams the following year, but prior tuner never reset this to match up to the Lunati cam's adv dur IVO timing......) so I'm pleased w\ the results from resetting this as well.

    The octane booster (I bought this green label version of VP Racing's product as it is labeled to be compatible w\ catalytic converters & O2 sensors vs their blue label version) is supposed to get here either Monday or Tuesday so I plan on putting it in w\ a fill up to raise octane level up the full 7 numbers that this product calls for when using 1-32 oz can per 10 gals of fuel then once I've driven the car around long enough to ensure that the octane booster has fully made it into fuel rails, I'm gonna take her out to NAPI International Raceway & Test Facility & datalog a couple of WOT runs to see if the knock goes away or not.

    I love the IPC WTE graph line results showing 0 IPC WTE's pretty much most all the time......but especially when the engine is put under a load.......this is indicating that the ETC TB PTA\EA, SD w\ LWFM predicted airload calcs are matching the MAF-generated airload calcs to the tee, thus says that everything is in line A\F thus TQ output-wise. Tune operation during WOT hits is dead consistent now.......all in full synchrony so this is also now fully resolved.

    Almost there folks......almost there.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2023
  12. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member

  13. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member

    After some more thinking on this, I also need to factor in both the flywheel\clutch assembly on the #4\#8 end of crankshaft vs the HB located on the #1\#5 end of crankshaft into this theory..........the flywheel\clutch assembly is a 0 lb balanced assembly that will certainly offset any crankshaft-induced harmonics that move towards it vs the HB, whose job is to dampen the crankshaft-induced harmonics that move towards it.
    From this observation, again applying the same laws of physics, the flywheel end is doing a much better job of diffusing any crankshaft-induced harmonics from cyls firing in sequence (#4 cyl fires in front of #8 cyl off same 90* firing pattern & BOTH cyls are paired on the same crank journal.....but use opposite KS do #3 cyl & #7 do #2 cyl & #6 cyl) as opposed to the HB end........also is where the CKP sensor\trigger wheel is located on these 4.6L V8's.........and is also where the #5 cyl that is "knocking" is the following cyl in 90* firing sequence to #6 cyl, which both cyls are using the same #1 KS mic that #6 cyl is closer to than #5 do #7 cyl & #2 cyl also use the same #0 KS mic that is closer to #2 cyl & is the following cyl in 90* firing sequence to #7 cyl...........

    You think this is 1 reason as to why Ford switched the CKP sensor\trigger wheel setup for the Coyote back to the flywheel end of crankshaft then shut off the auto crank relearn feature in the code? And why the 4.6L V8 NEEDS the auto crank relearn feature?


    PS edit--the more I go thru this & think it over, the more I'm coming to all this being false knock generation that is set up from my using the VCT cam retard timing to "synch up the crank journal loading exchange" between the leading cyl to following cyl during a single power stroke event.......... The octane booster test should clear this up.......

    PS edit #2--just thought of another test I can run..........reset my airload VCT map settings for .70 load & up rows to use no more than 10*-12* of cam retard (this will insert a "gap" between the leading cyl to following cyl during a single power stroke event to "arrest" the frequency exchange). Will try this test after running octane booster test & knock persists.......this follow up test should nail this if the octane booster test fails.................
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2023
  14. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member


    Just checked & found that my octane booster is out for delivery today........early delivery so my testing is gonna be happening very soon. I also have already prepared tune revision #66a as well (airload VCT load% cam retard settings from .70 load & up reset back to prior tuner's settings & .60 load row is interpolated between .50 load to .70 load rows for smooth transition......none were set to cross 73* BBDC where the leading cyl & following cyl in 90* firing sequencing were both applying force to the crankshaft during same power stroke thus has a gap where the crank frequency from leading cyl can disperse before following cyl loads the crankshaft back up during power stroke) for follow up testing to use if octane booster test doesn't fix this cyl knock on the same cyls occurring at the same RPM range in practically the same manner w\ very few variations to pattern............

    Will post the results & the final tune resolution from them when I gather it all.
  15. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member


    Ok folks the verdict is of today my car's tune is fully optimized w\ tune revision #66.

    Here is the picture of my engine running tune revision #66 as reported in post #391 on 1-25-23 after reflash during the initial DC in which I performed this WOT hit........after making all the various tune setting changes, corrections & necessary component replacements prior to arrive here:
    Tune Rev #66 WOT Run 1-25-23 Before Octane Booster in Fuel.JPG Now here is the picture of my engine running same tune revision #66 as reported in post #391 after putting in 8 oz of VP Racing Octanium Unleaded Octane Booster to 16 gals of COPC E10 91 oct unleaded fuel (the very same E10 91 oct fuel from the very same fuel pump @ ConocoPhillips gas station that I've used in most of my tuning that conforms to the fuel stoich AFR of 14.08....10.8% ethanol content) on 1-27-23 then driving car over 100 mi to ensure fuel was fully mixed in tank & fully loaded in fuel rails to then run this WOT test hit today @ 1-28-23:
    Tune Rev #66 WOT Run 1-28-23 After Octane Booster in Fuel.JPG The octane booster mix was a little stouter than what the label said to use (2.6 oz per 10 gals of fuel if vehicle was equipped w\ ECD's--emission control devices.....a fancy name for catalytic converters using rear O2 sensors) as when I corrected for the other 6.1 gals in tank--put 9.9 gals in tank to top off--the mix came out to 4 oz......but I doubled it to make it stouter w\o hopefully causing damage to my MF #5461336 CARB-cert TWC aftermarket cats (why I also made the 100 mi test cats CE Ratio results afterwards.....results were right in line w\ prior results so cats showed to not be adversly affected from the octane booster in the fuel--B1 @ .141\B2 @ .105 on 1-27-23 vs B1 @ .098\B2 @ .121 on 1-25-23 initial DC after tune reflash).

    Ran WOT run in same area of NAPI International Raceway & Test Facility today as usually ran to try to maintain as much similarity to get accurate & repeatable results (also to evade the "boys") as possible. Checked cat CE Ratio results after today's WOT hit as follows:

    B1 @ .098\B2 @ this verifies that this VP Racing Octanium Unleaded Octane Booster does just what it says it does.......when used fairly close to the mix recipe VP Racing gives, that is.

    The conclusion is that there did exist some real cyl knock (why I used the octane booster in fuel to find out) in this oddball knock pattern that is certainly due to all the things I've laid out prior (this is what test #2 was set up to prove if this octane booster test didn't show any real effect on the cyl knock pattern......don't need to use it now) as we now know that the cyl knock was being affected by the firing order, the cyl-to-KS mic assignment order & the VCT cam retard scheduling which dictated how this cyl knock frequency was traveling thru crankshaft as well as the engine block & across all the cyls to show up in the manner that it this proves that I've reached the point in my tuning where the E10 91 oct fuel's octane AKI# can't support any more spark advance timing than 24.5* to 26.5* on its own.........which also now indicts my prior tuner's tuning even more as the only items that were different\changed from his tuning to mine were new KS mics, 1 step colder plugs (which made absolutely no difference) & a K&N E-1997 Bullitt-replacement reusable air filter covered by the same dust sock that was used on prior FP OEM Bullitt air filter during the last 2 dyno all the dyno sheet results that I posted in this thread was made off shady tuning done to make prior tuner look good by the peak HP\TQ a LOT of the items that I also posted earlier showing component damage was also somewhat due in part to this shady tuning being run.

    The data doesn't lie, tuning should've carried at least the same total spark advance timing during a WOT run as his did (rechecked his tuning vs mine & we're at approx the same amount of total spark advance @ 27.95*-28* base BKT w\ 0* of VCT spark adder included + 4* KS spark advance added = 31.95*-32* total BKT w\ base MBT\MBT VCT spark advance adder at 0* @ 34*-34.13* so PCM used the BKT spark advance--the lower of the 2--for prior tuner.
    In the same area of the tune mapping my total spark advance @ 28.17*-28.03* base MBT w\ MBT VCT spark adder correction of .05* per degree of VCT cam retard applied = 28.8*......all applied from base BKT spark advance map at 24.8*--includes the same BKT VCT spark adder correction of .05* per degree of VCT cam retard applied--same as to the base MBT spark advance......+ the full 4* of KS spark advance added--created from the 4* gap I made between the base BKT to base MBT spark advance map settings across the board so PCM can apply additional spark advance timing to base BKT\BKT VCT spark adder correction as deemed needed based off KS activity automatically--to the base BKT\BKT VCT spark adder advance so PCM cut the base BKT\BKT VCT correction + KS spark advance timing to arrive just under base MBT\MBT VCT spark adder max 28.8* to stay lower than MBT @ 28.5* total spark advance........a full 3.45* LESS using the exact same E10 91 oct fuel........but I needed to use octane booster to safely arrive\run at this number........thus verifies the shady WOT tuning I uncovered thru datalogging while running his tune file as is as well as his shady tuning was making himself & his tuning "skills" look better to me thru the dyno sheet peak numbers..........another thing that a lot of tuners do to stand out in order to attract more customers............instead of just doing all proper safe tuning to get all the HP\TQ safely out of engine to build a good quality reputation off of that no one can tarnish or destroy as your work & results will do all the talking for you..................

    To be able to run safely & fully on the same COPC E10 91 oct fuel alone, I'll have to cut spark advance timing a full 4*-5* at least to get engine to run fully thru WOT w\o any octane booster usage........or leave all as set & just add approx 10 oz of octane booster to fuel tank whenever I want to go full WOT & party as all else is fully clean, optimized & safe as is tuning-wise as long as I stay out of full on OL WOT operations using clean E10 91 oct fuel alone (only choice I have in my neck of the woods).......... would love to test her out on some good clean E10 93 oct fuel to see if this knock completely goes away at the same settings currently loaded in PCM from my last revision #66 tune file..............

    So at this time I'm electing to leave all as set as I don't rag on her at all really, don't have the slightest inkling of racing anyone period (which I know I've pissed off some of the local yocals who've tried to entice me into a race but I ignored them........) but I DO want to KNOW exactly where she is & all involved so that I'm fully aware of everything so know what, when, how & what to do\not to do to keep all in good order (is also why I don't let other folks drive my Stang if at all possible.....even my wife.....cause I know what'll happen when they're out of my sight so can't trust most folks these days w\ someone else's property to follow any instructions & take the same care for my stuff as I would for their own stuff) so as long as I keep her in CL-Normal Mode she's all good w\o any worries.

    So yes, I'm 1 of those who will gladly\easily put my money where my mouth is when it comes to what I want\desire & not allow myself to become beholden to another's interest\agenda that I don't agree with.........but also take my title of US citizen & the responsibilities that go along w\ it very other US citizens as well as myself......regardless of whether Red or Blue....

    Yep, this has been a LONG, LONG process but I'm totally pleased w\ the outcome. Only thing left to do at some time in the future is to put her on a dyno w\ some octane booster in the fuel to see what the final peak HP\TQ numbers would come out to just to have some numbers to go w\ all my tuning. 1 of the big things for me is that thru all of this I've managed to maintain\improve engine's emissions output thruout thus have demonstrated that this is very easily done thru the tune file legally w\ a 4.6L V8 in NA form using aftermarket non-OEM components thus is no reason why a modded & tuned NA 4.6L engine can't legally pass emissions from a point of the sciences. The politics behind this is entirely another matter......most of it doesn't have anything to do w\ the US EPA either......its not to say that the EPA is perfect.....its not, but a LOT of the STATES have misinterpreted, mis-applied thus not followed current EPA regs that do still allow for modded engines in VIN'd vehicles to be legal to run under current emissions standards for the MY that the vehicle was manufactured using aftermarket emissions devices (essentially Fed\CARB cert catalytic converters only) after said VIN-equipped vehicle has eclipsed it's EPA-mandated OEM factory emissions warranties (Fed is 5 yr, 50,000 mi.....CARB is 7 yr, 70,000 mi) that forced the certification of all other aftermarket components (CAI, TB, LTH, IM, etc) due to the vehicle--regardless of whether new or used--still being under this mandated factory emissions warranty period that the OEM's had to honor in order to sell said vehicles to the public). That is current EPA regs since 1-09...........a LOT of States are overusing the "original condition" clause to overshadow the EPA recognized "certified condition" std that supercedes the "original condition" clause when the "certified condition" can be shown\proved & OBDII test results are all legally passing. But the EPA can't do anything about this due to the States Rights clause in the US it is up to the VOTERS in these States--whether Red or Blue--to make the changes.......not the US Fed gov! The US EPA can only legally enforce what the States themselves have agreed to enforce according to the Federal EPA laws that the States ratified to follow OR the State-generated EPA laws (CARB for example.....California being the creator State) the States have created\approved\adopted that supersede current US Fed EPA law thus have US EPA long as the States that adopt CARB enforce the same CARB laws they created\adopted\approved & received Fed EPA exemption status on OR enforce on Federal properties (the US Federal interstate hiway system) only.

    I've learned a LOT of things about this 4.6L 3V engine & the SO PCM that controls it that seems to be lost on a LOT of tuners out folks as well as 25 yr+ professional tuners........which is really a shame on the automotive tuning industry on a platform that's been out for so long after its production run has ended.

    But the old adage still holds one knows everything about something & unless you're continually making efforts to continue to LEARN you'll never know fully what you SHOULD know............ain't got nothing to do w\ how long you've been doing something but has everything to do w\ a person's will\drive to learn thus know.......knowledge is the real power but it is wasted when it is not learned OR shared OR applied.

    I hope all this is of some use to my fellow S197 owners........sure was a lot of fun as well as frustration sometimes for me but this old adage also applies........."persistence always will pay off in the end if we just keep at it........develop the plan, apply the plan & stay focused on the end goal that the plan was designed to accomplish & not on the journey necessary to get there"............
  16. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member


    I had ran all this by Jeffery Evans @ EPA to see what he had experience of from using the Per Cyl Mode in the Knock Retard section of tune (he recommends using this mode for knock control in his Ford Mod Motor HPTuners training so has a lot of insight into it).

    He replied that in his experience using this mode, he hadn't ran into the specific scenario that I described to him so couldn't give any insight on my particulars.......but he did inform me that there were some SO PCM strategies\OS's that exist that did show some issues applying knock retard correctly when enabled in Per Cyl Mode but he couldn't remember any specific strategy ID's\OS ID's to help me to see if my PCM was using 1 of them.
    From all that I had discovered when going thru all the SO PCM OEM tune files I got hold of from '05 thru '10 & noted that the 05-07 tune files had differences in them that made using them w\ my tune file untenable or items that just didn't exist vs my tune file, my gut read is the suspect strategies\OS's Jeffery is referring to are most likely in the 05-07 MY SO PCM's & not in the 08-10 MY SO PCM's. The only real issue I had w\ the per cyl knock control wasn't an issue of the was a failing knock component (#0 KS mic) that made the per cyl knock control seem to favor 1 side of engine over the other.

    Also, after getting some sleep & going back thru all that I have gone thru, I just can't leave the WOT spark advance timing where it is knowing that clean E10 91 oct fuel can't carry the engine thru WOT on its own (you'll note when looking at the 2nd picture in the 4th gear WOT hit at the very end before APP let up, you'll see that #2 & #5 cyls showed a little knock), so I've set up tune revision #67 & cut it in both base BKT & MBT spark advance maps from .70 load row thru 1.0 load row by 4* to match up w\ all the data log data showing this to start around 24.5* so hopefully this will arrest the cyl knock since this cutting now puts this suspect area at the top of the 4* KS spark advance curve instead of at the beginning of it (KS spark advance ramp in rate maybe too fast at this engine load & RPM.....there is coding in the knock retard section called Knock Fast Mode Events & Knock Fast Mode Transient Events that is supposed to kick in when cyl knock is detected during a transient tip-in event--like after a gear shift under WOT as the KS spark advance timing is pulled whenever the ETC APP Throttle control signal drops then it is reapplied when the ETC APP Throttle control signal swings back to you'll note in the pictures provided in prior posting--& slow down the spark advance add in ramp rate to lessen the amount of added spark advance timing per process loop & lengthen the amount of process loop time for the full KS spark advance timing to be applied vs the normal ramp rate & process loop time.....which is faster. I may need to reset these 2 settings to help w\ this but I need to get more info on the background coding 1st...)

    Gonna be awhile before I can fully test this out (have to burn out all the octane boosted E10 91 oct fuel 1st to get back to clean E10 91 oct fuel) but I'll know it's in the PCM thus I'll feel better about it so gonna flash it in then normally DC the car to get all dialed in then just enjoy the ride from there.
  17. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member


    Been thinking about this Global Mode vs Per Cyl Mode setting in Knock Retard control in SO PCM & the issues reported that some strategies\OS's have w\ Per Cyl Mode application, so I ran a test using last tune revision #67 after reinstalling all OEM per cyl knock sensitivity threshold mapping (still had prior tuner's detuned maps loaded) to force cyl knock (still have the VP Racing Octanium Unleaded octane boosted E10 91 oct pump gas in tank) to hopefully show up using the Per Cyl Mode w\ MBT set @ 25* max spark advance. Here is the following WOT run:
    Tune #67 Using Per Cyl Knock Retard at MBT 25 Degrees On E10 91 oct Octane Boosted 1-30-23.JPG Got #5 & #2 cyls to show some knock at 25* using Per Cyl Mode. Changed this to Global Mode in same #67 revision tune w\ no other changes, reflashed, set up VCM Scanner to log knock using single knock avg +\- channel (avg's per cyl knock detected into a single output) & reran WOT run during DC:
    Tune #67 Using Global Knock Retard at MBT 25 Degrees On E10 91 oct Octane Boosted 1-30-23.JPG Got a clean run using Global Mode w\ exactly same settings used under Per Cyl Mode, so I then started to find where the ceiling was. Flashed tune revision #68 (reset both base BKT\MBT spark advance maps @ .70 load & up rows to max out at 25*\29*.....only changes made) & reran WOT during DC:
    Tune #68 Global at MBT 29 Degrees on E10 91 oct Octane Boosted 1-30-23.JPG Got knock at 29* so engine can't handle this amount of spark advance timing even w\ octane booster so I flashed in tune revision #69 (reset both base BKT\MBT spark advance maps .70 load & uo rows to max out at 23*\27*......only changes made) & reran WOT during DC:
    Tune #69 Global at MBT 27 Degrees on E10 91 oct Octane Boosted 1-30-23.JPG Still got knock at 27* so she still can't handle this amount of spark advance timing.....but she's getting closer as 2nd gear was clean w\ knock showing up in 3rd gear. After this DC was finished, fuel level was very low (less than 1\8 tank) so filled up w\ fresh E10 91 oct fuel (should be practically no octane booster in fuel rails by the time I get to the test area at NAPI International Raceway & Test Facility......approx 25 mi drive to get there), flashed in tune revision #70 (reset both base BKT\MBT spark advance maps at .70 load & up to max out at the same 21*\25* we started from) & reran WOT during DC:
    Tune #70 Global at MBT 25.2 Degrees on E10 91 oct No Octane Booster 1-30-23.JPG Still got some knock but it's almost fully gone running on clean E10 91 oct fuel (PCM only cut 1* of spark timing momentarily off the full 4* KS added spark advance timing), so I flashed in tune revision #71 (reset both base BKT\MBT spark advance map's .70 load & up rows to max out at 20*\24*.....only changes made) but was too late to drive out to the test facility (dark) so I just completed DC driving around in town to complete I\M Readiness monitors knowing that I'll still need to do the MM 60\40 Crank Trigger Wheel Relearn Training thus will make the WOT run after this is done sometime tomorrow.

    From the looks of things, engine should be able to tolerate MBT max of 24* spark advance timing during WOT 1\4 mi simulated run on clean E10 91 oct pump once this is verified, the only test left to do is the 4th gear 2,000 RPM to limiter WOT dyno simulated run to see if engine can remain stable thruout the run........during the highest loaded 29* WOT 1\4 mi simulated hit, ECT at start @ 192*F---at end @ 203*F; EGT at start @ 1,418*F----at end @ 1,690*F; IAT at start @ 52*F----at end @ 48*F...... but have to cut all short as the pavement ain't nice to these Continental Extreme Contact DWS06 255\40\18 front tires (getting way too much tramlining on these narrow, rough 2-lane farm roads to keep pushing it) so I'll have to finish this up on US 550 S (have easily run up to 120 MPH on occasion w\ car dead stable since installing the '08-'09 OEM Bullitt take-off front\rear springs on all 07-14 GT500 front\rear suspension w\ Roush 3rd Link; 11-14 GT\12-13 Boss 302 std Track Pack front\rear sway bars & Koni Orange struts\shocks w\ front end alignment afterwards so no long as I don't get caught......).

    In the end, the Per Cyl Knock Mode was working & was in the ballpark......but the graphs look better using Global Knock Mode (can tell that the Ford engineers spent the most time ironing out\perfecting the Global Knock Mode algorithms as this is the mode they targeted to use for engine reliability\warranty purposes) so I'm gonna keep using Global Knock Mode on the '09 GT OEM tune's knock per cyl sensitivity threshold mapping going forward. All other PCM coding still functions the same way as it did under Per Cyl Mode w\o issue so all else is good.

    Once the 4th gear WOT dyno sim run is verified, the tuning will be fully completed........
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2023
    Cum Grano Salis likes this.
  18. GlassTop09

    GlassTop09 Senior Member


    Well of today I've FINALLY got this thing tuned out as good as I can get street tuning wise using the knock sensors w\ the OEM per cyl knock sensitivity threshold map settings loaded to tell me when all is good running on clean E10 91 oct pump gas.

    After running tests between Global Mode vs Per Cyl Mode for Knock Retard control, I got to thinking about all this & then I realized that I wasn't using all the tools I had at my disposal to assist in tuning this thing.
    It finally hit me that I could use my Foxwell NT301 scan tool's Mode 6 MM per cyl results to dial in WOT fueling (when fueling is good, cyl velocity variation will be at its least number of recorded counts per cyl after running thru a WOT run due to combustion stability from proper\accurate fueling......thus the Mode 6 Self-Check MM cyl last counts data will tell you this). So, I started looking at\using the Mode 6 MM cyl data after each tune revision\WOT 1\4 mi run & I found that the sweet spot for WOT sample set of Mode 6 MM cyl last counts data along w\ type A\B misfire% data........aligned w\ .84 Lambda (14.08 * .84 Lambda = 11.83 AFR) instead of .86 Lambda @ 12.11 AFR as the optimum WOT fueling setting running clean E10 91 oct pump gas. Still very close to the AA1car report of 12:1 AFR w\ E10 fuel stoich AFR of 14.08 for peak power...........

    Note: After getting this dialed in, it hit me again that I could've been using Forscan all along to do this part as I have a compatible USB dongle & Forscan loaded on my laptop (could've pulled this PCM Mode 6 Self-Check data all at once for everything after finishing w\ VCM Scanner data logging & had saved copies to go w\ all VCM Scanner data logs............).......oh well, can't think of everything but I'm DEFINATELY gonna remember this going forward!

    Once I got the fueling sorted out, I then started cutting spark advance timing until I got clean KS spark advance 4* curves during WOT 1\4 mi runs.......ended up at 18.2* BKT\MBT max spark advance timing (BKT max spark advance timing + the 4* KS added spark advance timing will always agree with the MBT max spark advance timing since both BKT\MBT VCT spark advance adder maps use the exact same settings.......unless the BKT spark advance timing is corrected for ECT, IAT or lean Lambda.......the intentional 4* separation of all settings in base BKT spark advance timing map vs base MBT spark advance timing map sets the KS additional spark advance timing adder range thus this range is considered normal spark advance\retard operations)......this is the most spark advance timing I could run w\o creating excessive cyl knock during WOT 1\4 mi runs on clean E10 91 oct pump gas @ .84 Lambda (could add as much as 25* max spark advance timing using 8 oz of VP Racing Octanium Unleaded Octane Booster in same E10 91 oct pump gas w\o cyl knock.....proves how bad our E10 91 oct pump gas is in the Land of Enchantment).......which is a LONG WAY away from the 31.95*-32* of max BKT WOT spark advance timing that my prior tuner had set.........then hid the KS's from the PCM during, I'm glad I didn't beat on this thing @ WOT depending on the 4* max of knock spark timing retard prior tuner had put in his tune like I had to do street tuning WOT under my tuning (why I had the max knock retard timing map set @ -8* for a combined total of -12* retard from MBT max spark advance timing.....for safety's STILL set for this right now)........would've certainly cost me an engine!

    PS edit--BTW, them Motive Gear F888390 3.91 gears\Eaton Tru-Trac LSD lubed up using Lucas HP 85W-140 GL-5 dino diff fluid are holding up just fine......been ripping on them pretty hard over the last 2 months tuning WOT & they just keep asking for more.......16 in-lb pinion preload set using JEGS Ford 8.8" solid spacer shim kit is holding up just fine as noise, runs, drips or errors......performing excellent to date.

    So I then cut 1* more spark advance timing from both base BKT & base MBT spark advance maps at .70 load & up rows to set at final of 13*\17* max spark advance timing in both base maps, then started final tuning using the BKT\MBT VCT spark advance adder map .70 load & up rows from 2,250-6,500 RPM columns to fine tune\dial in as much final spark advance timing as I could get in before PCM started seeing knock off the VCT cam retard settings (PCM will use VCT to roll in this extra spark advance timing at the same time when it is rolling in the cam retarded EVO timing thus is rolled in slow enough to squeeze in as much spark advance timing as I can get in w\o causing excessive cyl knock......goal was to stay within 1* of cyl knock getting pulled at any time during WOT so any short, momentarily retarded spark advance timing is retarded within the "normal operational 4* KS spark advance timing zone" & staying above the BKT "floor" settings.......this IS the other advantage of using these BKT\MBT VCT spark advance adder maps in addition to making up for the lost dynamic compression from retarded cam IVC timing) & got it back to almost 15*\19* total max spark advance timing applied at 20* of VCT cam retard EVO timing @ 6,500 RPM's w\o causing any real cyl knock (graphs showed a couple of false knock events during the 3rd & 4th gear WOT hits on final revision.......on a couple of short sharp #0 KS mic 50v-100v signal drops that PCM interpreted as momentary 1.5* cyl knock then recovered immediately back to full 4* KS spark advance ceiling........otherwise all clean).

    I'm calling it done at this point as to go any further, it is just better\makes more sense to finish up on a dyno to see\record any tangible results from any more changes to fully determine where full optimization really is.........I could reset fueling to a lower Lambda number then up the BKT\MBT VCT spark advance adder map multi settings to get her at\over 20* max spark advance timing but won't be able to tell if this is worth the effort vs where we are at currently doing street tuning off knock sensor activity.

    Vitals listed off WOT 1\4 mi run from final tune revision as follows:
    ECT.............start @ 194*F---end @ 199*F (Mishimoto HP 3-row aluminum rad\FP GT500 rad cooling fan in tandem w\ Steeda UDP's)
    EGT.............start @ 1,391*F---end @ 1,697*F (have COT set @ 1,750*F)
    IAT..............start @ 39*F---end @ 37*F (thru cooling mods in front of OEM Bullitt CAI entrance)

    Mode 6 Cat CE Ratio results off final .84 Lambda WOT fueling (all I\M Readiness monitors completed except EVAP):
    B1 @ .098.......idle LTFT @ -2.3%
    B2 @ .078.......idle LTFT @ 1.6%
    CMBT @ 1,435*F avg
    Will be interesting to see where all this ends up during the dead heat of summer........but it's all looking really good at this time.

    Gonna be a long while before this happens.............ain't in no hurry to find\get numbers..........unless somebody in the meantime sets up a local dyno for rent & provides the portable WB & controller w\ exhaust venturi tube.........

    Checked PCM VID block to see if it was still set for 91 oct fuel.......found it was...........w\ the Spark Advance\ BKT Corrections\ VID Octane Adjust map using all OEM settings (some tuners zero this map out, prior tuner included........but Jeffery Evans stated in his training videos that this map doesn't need to be messed with, so I had reinserted all the OEM settings back into this map some time ago after verifying the PCM VID block still showed using 91 oct to test this out.........looks like Jeffery was right about this.......) so this is showing to be good as well.

    The largest improvement far & away is all around drivability.......starts up, runs & drives excellent.......the much-improved low end\mid-range TQ output response to go w\ these 3.91 gears\26" dia tires is very nice paired up w\ all the listed OEM suspension upgrades done........what makes this car sooooo much more fun to drive around in now........

    Now it's time to get her all cleaned up inside & out..............and put her on the road!
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2023
  19. Cum Grano Salis

    Cum Grano Salis Member

    Yes, the lopey/choppy idle, Boss does that with Track Key program. Is it really the cams or a simulation or a feature that actually performs two-fold? Nobody can say outright, no claims made at all other than car runs better. Point being is a similar program out there, maybe have the best of both worlds?

    Don’t need to know I ‘spose.
  20. Juice

    Juice forum member

    Tuners call it the ghost cam. Since the Boss has twin cams, and operate independent, you can manipulate the theoretical cam centerline and lobe separation angles at multiple mapped points. Mapped points are different cam timing definitions, and go from advanced toward retard as load and rpms increase.
    My guess is, the track key retards all the mapped points. So optimum power is reached sooner, and it idles in a different mapped point vs the non-track key.
    Cannot be done with the single cam 3v.
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2023
    Cum Grano Salis, crjackson and JC SSP like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.