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 at 7:28 PM
    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 at 4:20 PM
  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 at 1:32 AM
  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 at 3:41 PM
  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.
  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.