Lunati VooDoo #21270700 Camshafts

GlassTop09

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

I ran across a copy of the OEM Ford Workshop manual for the '05-'10 S197 Mustangs that covered the operation of the VCT & how the PCM uses it.....noted that when TPS sees the TB go past a certain % blade angle (didn't say what it was but by deduction this has to coincide w\ the IMRC open\close mapping tables which the PCM switches from IMRC closed tables to IMRC open tables--read CMCV's--around the 2800-3200 RPM area) this tells the PCM that the engine is past closed throttle operation & is in part throttle to WOT throttle operation so from this point forward the PCM will only retard cam timing using either RPM or load% (Ford's word for torque management) as after this point the PCM will now ignore/disable the EGR & IMRC closed function (emissions) & switch to IMRC open mapping tables to go for max power so will follow the VCT retard per RPM schedule as set in the WOT tables.
So in my case of the false knock noted between 3500-3800 RPM's the PCM isn't retarding the cams using RPM's until after 3750 mark so unless the PCM is retarding the cams due to some load % trigger threshold setting (that I have no knowledge of) to stall the TQ curve it appears to be initially due to spark timing cut from the false knock detected then the big cam retard degree change following shortly thereafter (going from 2* retard after 3750 RPM's to 12* retard) is most likely the main cause of the flat TQ curve between 3500-5000 area.
Manual doesn't give any details as to what & how the PCM will retard the cam timing according to load % calculations during part\WOT throttle operation, only that the PCM will retard cam timing during part\WOT throttle using RPM, load % or TPS only so I'm giving my best interpretation of what may be occurring from application of the info (according to my understanding) gained from the FWM which is subjective to some degree.

Just put some 1,752 mi on these Lunati VooDoo cams & all went great....no issues, no MIL's, all Mode 6 data checks out clean & car shows a green check light for IM readiness on my Foxwell NT301 scan tool both going down & coming back (yeah I keep it w\ the car at all times & have a ScanData 900 scan tool stored in the wife's MKS as well) so I know that all component tests have ran, completed & passed several times so all is good. She sure loved the 14.3 atm air while we were in E. Dallas, TX visiting family this past week/weekend.....didn't hardly need to downshift out of 5th to pass, just press the throttle & she was GONE (well, the 3.73 gearing & 26" dia tires giving the rear end a mean 3.88 gear ratio along w\ the extra engine TQ output)! ;)

I did note that the exhaust resonance from these Pypes Super Bomb mufflers/resonators does cause some stuff underneath the car to rattle due to heavy vibration around the 3,000-up RPM mark so's I will be getting under the car in the near future to see if I can locate the offending culprits & try to silence them. I intend to also get a couple of cans of Boom Mat Spray Mat sound deadner & spray the entire trunk floorboard area to try to quiet the car internally as much as I can (most of the noise is coming from the trunk area where the 2-4" x 14" resonator tips reside).

So I'm gonna let this all rest for a while going forward & just enjoy the car for the time being. Eventually we'll get it all sorted out but I have to say that these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams are a worthwhile investment in my case.

FYI...…………………...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Posts
97
Reaction score
48
Location
Netherlands
This thread is a good read and a wealth of knowledge, as these online boards are supposed to be. Tip of the hat from Europe!
 

Dino Dino Bambino

I have a red car
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Posts
3,880
Reaction score
1,751
Location
Cyprus
Dale, I replotted your dyno curves with the stock cams and the dyno curves with the Lunati Voodoo cams (with a x1.11 multiplier) onto the same sheet so we can make a direct comparision of the two.
Stock cams: 330.6 rwhp @ 5800rpm, 325.6rwtq @ 4400rpm
Lunati cams: 354.5rwhp @ 6600rpm, 329.1rwtq @ 4900rpm

I think the FRPP intake manifold & 62mm TB complement the Lunati cams very nicely.

Lunati Voodoo Stage 1.jpg
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Got no argument from me Dino as I agree w\ your results as well...………….

Now I'll need to tell off on myself here as I think I've just solved the false knock issue as well....and I'm the cause of it.
I got under the car Tuesday to check for the rattles\vibrations heard during our trip coming from the rear of the car & the only thing I could find was where I had installed some rubber hose around 2 sections of the BMR PHB brace where the exhaust piping came over it. I did this after installing the BMR equipment early in 2018 as I thought the exhaust might come into contact w\ it causing rattling against it (BMR PHB brace is much wider than the OEM brace & exhaust piping was VERY close to hitting it). I had forgotten about this assuming that the rubber would absorb any rattling from exhaust striking the brace so while I was under here I made adjustments to both side's exhaust piping to close up the gap between the X-pipe & catback piping (found that the Ford dealership had put the 2 front piping sections between the X-pipe & M80 mufflers too far into the mufflers so pulled them out approx. 1" which closed the gap at the X-pipe to within 1/8" so then this allowed me to move both sides rearward approx. 1\2" which gave the necessary clearance from the PHB brace to put both side's exhaust fully back on the exhaust hangers w\ 3/16"-1/4" of clearance gained from the PHB brace which when I drove the car afterwards & revved the engine RPM's into the 3,000-4,000 area the rattling & vibration that I had heard prior during our trip was now gone.....also betting that the false knock was being caused by this & is gone now as well.

The good thing is at least I finally made some real progress in this area.

The stuff we create sometimes...……………...

:facepalm:

PS---I forgot to mention here that during our trip my car w\ these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams tuned w\ all VCT tables max retard set @ 20*, w\o CMCV's & running 3.73 gears w\ 26" dia tires & all the FBO's still hit 24.5 MPG going (into lower alt thus denser air) & hit 23.3 MPG coming home (into higher alt thus less dense air but was also tuned in this higher air) running avg speeds of 75 MPH w\ the AC on turning around 2350 RPM's (when I use the actual gals fuel pumped over the actual mileage travelled the car hit 26.6 MPG going & 25.1 MPG coming home) so not only do these cams make excellent power\torque pretty much across the entire powerband they are also very efficient while doing it, which is a good thing considering that I'm limited to using only 91oct or higher premium fuels (tuned for them only). I got caught in a situation on the way back home where I had to stop at an Exxon station where they only had 90 oct premium gas & the store didn't sell any octane booster so this had me a little worried but it turned out that the oct was close enough for the PCM to make easy corrections to spark & cam retard timing to keep all good but you could tell that she was running w\ a little less power until I refilled on the next stop w\ some good COPC 91 oct premium fuel then it all came right back to normal.
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

Since the last time I have made the following changes to the car: I installed a new set of Ford Racing M-9593 LU24A injectors after continuing to see the LTFT's continue to spread apart between B1 & B2 (had gotten to B1 @ +1.6%, B2 @ +12.2% at hot idle) and after rechecking all for vacuum leaks & finding none anywhere, then running a can of Seafoam thru the gas tank then catching the LTFT's change on B2 (dropped down to +8.6% w\ B1 remaining unchanged for a couple of days then seeing B2 LTFT's go back up to +12.2%) which I concluded that I had a screen trying to plug on at least 1 or several B2 injectors (side which fuel enters the fuel rails from the tank...had already changed the fuel filter earlier in the year) so instead of buying new screens & O-rings to replace on these OEM injectors (the purple LU24's that came std on '09 on) that had 151,000+ mi on them I decided to replace them w\ the new LU24A's which are supposed to have an improved 6-nozzle spray pattern vs the older LU24's. After installation of the new injectors & checks to ensure all was up to snuff I then checked the LTFT's after warmup & noted that the B2 LTFT's didn't change but B1 did....they moved towards the B2 LTFT setting (at +9.4% from +1.6%) which indicated that the issue was actually at least 1 or several B1 injectors were slightly leaking thru or over spraying causing vs B2 side. So then to see how bad this was vs the base tune mapping I reset the KAM then had my scan tool hooked up & set up on live data to see all thru a cold start to hot idle & saw the fueling was now way lean so it was apparent that my tuner had the fueling set up good from the start (had him to reset this at last dyno session due to being heavily rich w\ car getting misfires until warmed up) & this injector leaking issue in combination w\ the bad spark plug resistors that I found was the cause. So I reached out to my tuner, informed him of all this & set up another session to get all checked, new injector data updated in the tune & rerun to see where we are now...………….

Just got her off the rollers again (same place: On3 Dyno & Performance) & now reporting that we have gained some more HP\TQ over the last time. The 2nd sheet shows the final HP/TQ gains vs the last dyno session in which we gained another +10.52 HP\+11.53 TQ all across the board. When my tuner had input all the pertinent injector data for the new LU24A's in the tune & made a few drivability runs to check all he also took note of the MAF data looking a little off so after pulling the MAF sensor & checking it to make sure that it was clean (it was) he then closed the hood to ensure the MAF signal was as clean as it could be then checked it & found the MAF signal calibration was approx 15% low from where it should have been w\ the TB TPS idle angle so he recalibrated the MAF sensor in the tune to correct it then after making a few more drivability runs to make sure all is well he made a couple of WOT runs w\ the hood closed sealing the FR Bullit 85mm CAI then made the last WOT run w\ the hood up (this is the results on the 1st sheet posted) for comparison which shows that there was a difference but the difference was pretty small between the 2 (+3.18 HP\+1.78TQ) which verifies the good design of the FR Bullit 85mm CAI as the only noticeable difference is mostly at the top end (which the ram air effect would rectify). So we're now sitting @ 331.48 HP @ 6750 RPM's (she's still gaining to redline)\308.15 TQ @ 4895 RPM's (moved slightly up curve as well) final peak numbers on this Mustang dyno (using the same 8%-10% correction factor given earlier in this thread to correlate to DynoJet numbers this puts us at peak 357.99 HP/332.80 TQ @ 8% correction, 364.62 HP/338.96 TQ @ 10% correction). Also during all this we again saw the false knock is still occurring at the same area of the curve, still the same small amount of spark timing pulled as before & all going back to normal as before. At this time this is definitely a quirk of this particular 4.6L's harmonics output as I know for certain that all is definitely clear on the exhaust now & all else is good so not worried bout this going forward. Checked the LTFT's when I got home at hot idle they were as follows: B1 @ -.08%, B2 @ +.08% so looking very good at this time but will need to perform a complete drive cycle to allow the PCM to relearn then check them again to see where they shake out afterwards.

Just for grins & giggles I conducted a survey awhile back of several tuners online who had actual experience tuning on both Mustang & DynoJet dynos to get a more direct avg of the median difference between the 2 dynos & from this survey I found that the smallest difference given was 8% low, the largest difference given was 14% low but the overwhelming consensus difference given was between 10%-12% low. When you avg both sets of numbers (the max hi & low & the consensus hi & low) they both come out to the same median difference of 11% low on a Mustang vs DynoJet so this is a good result due to the agreement of both avg's from individually given info from several individual & autonomous sources. But in the end IMHO peak dyno numbers don't give much real info except for direct comparisons of work\parts done\changed or weather changes....but the dyno HP\TQ curves-especially the TQ curve-themselves can give you a wealth of info as to what to expect as to how the engine should react & how the power should come on & hold and\or drop off when the throttle is nailed WOT. The rest will have to be determined from actual use in some type of timed event (drag strip, autocross course, 0-60 time, etc), from driving feel & response afterwards (butt dyno) or datalogging the vehicle thruout all aspects of cold start, idle, closed throttle\part throttle operation then having your tuner look over the logs to determine if any other changes need to be made tune wise......

When I asked my tuner as to what he thought was a factor in the HP\TQ gains that we saw today over the last session, he said that the injectors "may" have an impact due to being new w\ the better nozzle spray pattern (read fuel atomization here) as well as the recalibrated MAF "may" have helped w\ the load% (TQ) calculations in the tune but the far & away difference was the IAT difference due to climate changing in our area (AAT at last session was 96*F @ 8-27-19, AAT at this session was 71*F @ 10-8-19) from summer to fall here in the US Four Corners area @ 5380' elevation.

So once again these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams are still carrying the mail w\ no signs of drop-off up top. They continue to show to be an excellent cam choice for those who want across the board performance improvement vs the OEM cams w\ a good idle quality but not stock & works well w\ the std array of FBO's commonly used. This is Lunati's mildest camshaft set (the low end) they make for the 4.6L\5.4L 3V engines.

IMG_E0120.JPG

IMG_E0121.JPG
 

Dino Dino Bambino

I have a red car
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Posts
3,880
Reaction score
1,751
Location
Cyprus
I still think you should be getting around 355/329 on a Dynojet so with your new dyno numbers, I'd use a multiplier of 7%. That would translate into peak numbers of 354.7/329.7 with ~290rwtq at 2700rpm.
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
I still think you should be getting around 355/329 on a Dynojet so with your new dyno numbers, I'd use a multiplier of 7%. That would translate into peak numbers of 354.7/329.7 with ~290rwtq at 2700rpm.

Yeah that'll be a good comparison factor to apply for conversation sake. Note the change in the HP/TQ curve line pattern off 2500-3500 RPM vs the other 2 prior On3 dyno sheets....this is amazing to me that a 25*F change in IAT would realign the low end HP\TQ that much thru load% (TQ) calculations then carry out across the rest of the curve but I have to think that the MAF recalibration also has to play a factor here as well as the MAF readouts are also used in the load% (TQ) cals so a 15% correction (especially when the correction is higher) has to have an effect. Now how large of a factor, I don't know but I do know that it had to be a factor in the outcome.

This round has also improved the closed throttle performance & this has to be due also to the cooler IAT & MAF recalibration as well as getting the fueling back that my tuner had taken out during last session when I reported the car being overly rich on cold start (I had replaced all coils & spark plugs before last session to rectify the misfires that I was getting..found 2 bad plug resistors w\ very high OL olms >9K max resistor limit for the MC HJFS 24FP spark plugs w\ a little over 10,000 mi on them), which turned out to be from injector leakage on B1 side. She's much more responsive to throttle inputs now & the power delivery is very smooth & linear to throttle inputs w\ no drop-off or hesitation so all is well.

At this point I believe that she's pretty much topped out in current build form & I have really come to appreciate the performance that I've gotten from these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 camshafts...excellent all around power gains over the OEM cams w\ very good fuel efficiency that also rivals or exceeds the OEM cams as well. Also I have to give a big shoutout to my local tuner who has done a masterful job of tuning my car w\ these Lunati cams.

:happythumbs:
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Update (warning....long post):

Since the last posting here all was going well until around mid November my car started misfiring again on cold starts w\ large spread between B1 & B2 LTFT's at hot idle (B1 @ -7.8%, B2 @ -2.3% w\ both B1 & B2 STFT's switching), this time tripping the P0307 DTC (#7 cyl) but all cylinders were showing misfires....just not near as much as #7 & #2 was but all misfires stopped after engine warmed up to full hot idle. Since this was the 2nd time I've run into this issue since installing these cams I decided to go thru the full diagnostic plate & check everything out even if it didn't appear to be an issue before I got w\ my tuner (suspect fueling settings to be part of the problem due to drastic IAT temp changes in US 4 Corners area....going into winter & Lunati's were installed & tuned thruout summer & early fall.....).

So I tore her apart again & ran every check: checked PCM drivers\wiring for injectors.....all pulling down 1-2v @ 2.3-2.4a @ 61-69 freq so all injectors were getting good grounds thru PCM so all injector pintles were cycling fully (no short pulls creating lean fueling), all injector coils tested at 13-14 ohms (good) & none were leaking (pressured them up outside of manifold for visual inspection) so all OK but I swapped #5 cyl injector w\ #7 cyl injector just to get verification....reset OBDII & reran monitor...still got P0307 DTC after 2 consecutive cold starts but eliminated injectors (even though they're new Ford Racing M-9593-LU24A injectors....). Pulled all coils & plugs (Champion 9406's....MC HJFS 24FP equiv) & checked....all looked good w\ no carbon tracking inside boots or on plug porcelains so just to check, I regapped all plugs from OEM @ .042" to .035" (to make it easier for coil to fire gap) then also swap #5 cyl coil & plug w\ #7 cyl coil & plug to get verification....reset OBDII & reran monitor....still got P0307 DTC after 2 consecutive cold starts. Ran same checks on PCM coil drivers\wiring...all pulling down 1-2v @ 2.4-2.6a @ 63-69 freq so all coils were getting good grounds thru PCM, all coil's primary windings tested at 22-25 ohms (good) so assume all are good from swap test results (also, these coils are new Ford Racing M-12029-3V coils...). Ran vacuum gauge idle @ 17" inHg @ 5380' elevation (alt corrects to 21" inHg....normal vacuum range so no vac leaks) but pulled my FR Intake Manifold off anyway to check all out....all gaskets were like new w\ no flat spots or cracks & manifold port flanges were all square & straight (checked w\ framing square) & manifold checked out on close visual checks so flipped gaskets over just cause & remounted it (did stack another set of washers under the 2 long Allen head bolts that draw down the center of manifold to spread out the tq load--found the washers I used weren't strong enough to handle the 89 in\lbs torque, bolt heads had tried to pull thru the center of them--so the manifold felt much more solid in the middle this time when I tq'd her down). Ran vacuum gauge afterwards & got the exact same readings as prior then used carb cleaner & sprayed all flanges, connectors & hoses....all came out negative. Isolated brake booster, EVAP & PCV just cause....got no changes. Checked exhaust as best I could....could see no signs of leakage around header flanges & header gaskets looked good & all exhaust header studs\nuts that I could access were still tight & held the 18-20 ft\lbs tq called for. But I still kept getting the P0307 DTC after OBDII resets but I had all this info in hand when I called my tuner & informed him of the situation. So he set me up an appointment & I took my car down to On3 Performance the evening before so that he could run a datalog on my car thru a cold start 1st thing in AM when engine was cold so that he could see what was going on.....

I was there when my tuner went thru my tune file & made some tweaks to the fueling based off the earlier settings made thru the 4 prior tuning sessions in the base fuel map in the low load areas where he knew the car would be using during cold starts & from my recorded test results of the misfire monitor just after finish of cold start showing the pending P0307 DTC & misfires across all cylinders along w\ the heavy O2 sensor fuel corrections after CL then again same day after full warmup, drive cycle perform & IM Readiness prove out which cleared the pending DTC & showed the misfires to be gone but not the heavy fuel correction back to stoich during CL (pulled some fuel out so when the corrections were added based on ECT the overall result would be a little leaner). Hooked up to car & ran datalog thru a cold start...while standing outside the car I clearly heard a coil(s) on B2 side arcing when also hearing the exhaust note change so I knew the coils were jumping spark but why I didn't have a clue. But my tuner also saw that the PCM was actually pulling spark timing back into the negatives due to COT (cat over temp protection) kicking in so he made changes to this setting so that the PCM wouldn't pull so much spark timing away so the engine wouldn't lose so much energy to throw off the piston velocity accelerations then the car ran a little better but we knew that the intermittent misfires were causing the cats to get overheated from flashing off the unburnt fuel & O2 from them so I had to rectify this myself. But as usual once the engine warmed up all went away & all came back to normal but we did hear a slight ticking sound coming from the B1 side valve cover around area @ #1 cyl. Put her back on the dyno to see if the rest is still OK & we found that the car has lost low end WOT HP\TQ from the last session (approx 20 HP\TQ) but all came back to normal after 4500 RPM's.....

What we found is the VCT was not responding as before down low (slow to respond to PCM commands so they stayed at base timing too long instead of moving to initial 2* retard & up causing the TQ loss) on the initial WOT hit but caught up w\ PCM after 4500 RPM's on so no loss of most mid range & top end HP & TQ, only down low. Both VCT solenoids\CMP's showed to be working electrically just fine but the cam phasers were slow to respond to PCM commands until around 4500 RPM's. Tuner made some tweaks to the VCT tables to see if he could speed them back up but got no response so he put the settings back to where they last were as we both knew what this meant....the issue is oil pressure related (oil was fresh MC Full Syn 5W-30 as car had been serviced 1st week of November & have been using this same oil prior to this run so it's not the oil). Drivability wise I noted no issues. Now it could be the screens\plungers in the VCT solenoids varnishing up but from my visual inspection of engine internals during cam install I highly doubt this. But from the newly noted slight ticking when full hot from front of B1 side suspecting a lash adjuster is starting to lose adjustment (engine is dead quiet when cold) I'm suspecting that the ole oil pump may have just crossed the wear point @ 152,583+ mi where she's starting to lose just enough oil pressure at full engine temp to start affecting other component operations below 4500 RPM's at WOT & the lash adjuster on 1 of the valves on #1 cyl at hot idle (tail end of press oiling path) so it looks like I'm gonna be planning to do a full timing job on her soon to replace the oil pump w\ a hi pressure hi volume unit (like the Melling 10340MV) so I'll also be replacing all lash adjusters & followers as well when I do all this in the spring\summer to freshen it all up w\ the new redesigned FR components (redesigned VCT solenoids, cam phasers, lash adjusters w\ new redesigned followers, iron chain tensioners & hardened guide pivots, improved chains, guides, etc) so afterwards she should be in good shape. Min oil pressure specs for this 4.6L V8 is 75 psi @ 2,000 RPM's so it's very possible that the oil pump has lost some efficiency so I'll be planning to get a pressure reading off it at some time as soon as it warms up enough to get under it to install an oil pressure gauge tap. Also got me a HPTuners nGauge to use to datalog the car going forward & so that I can now go to remote tuning w\ my tuner as well if needed....

Always something but the car is 10+ yrs old so stuff gonna start giving up eventually...……………………..

Got to thinking bout the spark arcing that I heard afterwards & the only thing that I could think of was it had to be related to the dielectric grease (SuperLube brand) that I used when changing coils\plugs (also had used this stuff when I was diagnosing the misfires I had earlier on the MC HJFS-24FP plugs\OEM coils after initial cam install back in the summer but never gave it any thought as to this grease being suspect then) so I pulled all apart, pulled all coils & plugs, pulled all coil boots off so that I could clean out the springs & inside of coil boots of all this grease (found rubbing alcohol works very good for this as it will strip all of this silicone grease & it's film off but not harm the boot rubber & leaves no residue behind), put them back together then got out the old set of MC plugs & cleaned the porcelains off as well (these have the ribbed porcelains which are supposed to be more misfire resistant vs the smooth porcelain design of the Champions), gapped them to .040" (closest my wire gapper has to .042" spec w\o going over) & dropped them back in along w\ the now clean coils & coil springs & boots (I did hit the inside of each coil boot w\ a little WD-40 before install for insurance). Did all this early Monday morning of this week (18*F outside....was COLD mother) so engine would still be cold to test all out. Fired her up & straightway I noted a HUGE improvement! Monitored on scan tool thru a full cold start......all misfire monitor checks (EWMA counts, misfire\cat damage counts, misfire\emissions counts, highest monitored combustion events counter & highest cylinder misfire rate counter as well as all individual cylinder misfire last counters) all came back at 0% or 0 counts so I now know that all dielectric grease ain't so dielectric as claimed as it was this SuperLube dielectric grease that was actually causing all these damn misfires (these Lunati VooDoo cams at base timing w\ 14* of advance cam timing GI do raise cylinder compression pressure higher vs the OEM cams w\ 7* GI cam timing advance due to IVC earlier AND no EGR as the Lunati EVC @ 8* ATDC vs the OEM EVC @ 19* ATDC during intake stroke so cylinder fill has more air\fuel volume w/ these Lunati cams vs the OEM cams which puts a higher load on ignition to fire the plugs so the coils would intermittently jump spark thru the dielectric grease film on plug porcelain to plug base instead of thru resistor core to plug gap until the plug core resistors warmed up enough to lower resistance so spark would stop jumping to external plug base) from the jump!
I never would have thought this to be the issue prior to now! Ran her thru several cold starts since then & all is showing to be well now concerning misfires...….damn!

All this time...………………….

Lesson learned...……….. Do NOT use ANY dielectric grease (at least this SuperLube grease) on these Ford coil boots....only use WD-40 if needed.

Now as to the FT spread (at hot idle B1 LTFT @ 0%, B2 LTFT @ +7.8%)...… Prior this tune session the CL FT's were B1 LTFT @ -7.8%, B2 LTFT @ -2.3% w\ both side's STFT switching around 0% (the O2 sensors will correct any set fueling commanded from OL base fuel map w\ ECT & load correction during cold start once the O2 sensors come online & PCM switches into CL....the correction differences can point to OL cold fueling issues whether excessive rich or lean as well as other operational issues). After this tune session they had settled out at B1 LTFT @ 0%, B2 LTFT @ +7.8%. So while going thru all this checking for intermittent misfires (FT's can help spot these as well) I also noted that the EVAP_VP pid was showing a small but constant negative readout (showing vacuum in fuel tank where the FTP sensor resides) during idle even though AAT was in the high teens for low's to low 30's for high's temp wise & car is parked (little to no fuel flashoff\vaporizing)....not right but PCM never set a MIL & EVAP monitor would eventually prove out in IM Readiness (PCM is supposed to cycle the CPV open\CVS closed only when the vapor pressure in fuel tank reached a set positive pressure threshold then cycle the CPV closed\CVS open when a certain amount of purge time has lasped to prevent from drawing too high a vacuum on fuel tank after EVAP has passed IM Readiness checks) so I suspected the CPV to be working but not seating off fully when commanded closed (part is original so never been changed....over 10 yrs in service & connects to intake manifold above PCV on B2 side of intake....) so I ordered a replacement yesterday (everybody in town was out of stock) & got it this morning. Changed this part out then started the car & monitored the FT's for approx 2 hrs of idling time & saw the PCM start readjusting the LTFT's down afterwards to B1 LTFT @ -3.1% from 0% & B2 LTFT @ +3.9% from +7.8% so the leaking CPV was the main cause of the FT's getting out of whack (small vacuum leak during CVS open time from leaking CPV which mostly affected B2 side) which wasn't helping w\ the misfires either, especially on B2 side (lean) causing PCM to put even more fuel to this side making B2 side even more rich causing the engine to run unbalanced so some of the recorded misfires were fake! Not enough to set off any DTC's & not enough for most to even worry about (less than 10% either way) so if I wasn't periodically monitoring & making note of the PCM functions data I wouldn't have caught this until the PCM set a DTC or worse...…. After seeing all this I then immediately went to the local Ford dealer today & picked up a new FoMoCo gas cap to replace the existing 10 yr old original gas cap that was installed on the car off the assembly line (has the BP logo on the cap where Ford recommended using BP fuel at that time & the warning symbol to not use E85 fuel) as I knew this at some point was gonna be next so got ahead of this 1 (have already gone thru this issue w\ my '03 Dodge RAM 1500 truck's original OEM gas cap's seal failing after 16 yrs service causing P044x EVAP DTC....replaced w\ new OEM gas cap from dealer just last month). Observed PCM go thru Phase O Initial Vacuum Check on EVAP system which verified that the CVS is sealing off (system pulled a decent vacuum level of -2.726" H2O on gas tank before PCM commanded bleed off) & is also opening back up (system dumped vacuum off gas tank back to 0.00" H2O very quick once PCM command CPV to close & CVS to open & readout stayed at 0.00" H2O for several minutes before vapor pressure started building in tank also verifying new CPV seating off full when closed) so I won't look to replace the CVS at this time but will do this sometime later this year to finish up all the EVAP system refresh. I never thought to pay any attention to this prior as the EVAP has always passed IM Readiness checks so I was suspecting other areas to find the vacuum leak on B2 side (which I could never find) or fueling issues concerning fuel injectors (now know that the original fuel injectors and original coils are most likely still good so I have spares now).

The data was right there in plain sight pointing to the cause for the FT spread but I kept overlooking it due to other data saying there wasn't an EVAP issue......even though there WAS an EVAP issue in the making causing another issue that is more commonly associated w\ other causes.

So now I'll drive the car to allow the PCM to finish making fuel readjustments for CL operation (should see better gas mileage now going forward as well) then make note of where it all settles out for my records so I'll know where the new established baseline is at for future TS purposes.

In closing if you don't already have a decent OBDII scan tool to use to help TS these cars I HIGHLY urge\recommend to get 1 & learn how to use it as at some point you'll need it to figure out issues!

Exhausting & stressful but is also fulfilling when finally tracked to proper conclusion...….also sharpens your diagnosis skills!

Apologize for the long winded posting but I needed the therapy!

:funnypost:
 

GlassTop09

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

Just got done making checks thru scan tool after making a 162 mi run on car since all this work was done to allow the PCM to settle out w\ all the corrections....all is functioning well w\ the B1 #1 cyl cam follower ticking virtually gone now. Scan tool shows IM Readiness proved out (all monitors show passed) w\ 8 warmups & 348 mi recorded since the last DTC clearing. FT's at hot idle @ 750 RPM's w\ both B1 & B2 STFT's switching around 0% (stoich) are: B1 LTFT @ -1.6%, B2 LTFT @ +2.3% so all is pretty much back to normal as far as this is concerned (EVAP system is normally cycled by PCM thru CPV while the CVS is normally open after IM Readiness proveout so B2 FT's will always tend to be slightly more lean corrected vs B1 since EVAP CPV line enters intake manifold on B2 side thus B2 cyl #5, #6 & #7 will get the vast majority of the small amount of unmetered air that is drawn into the EVAP system during canister purge time thru open CVS due to proximity in firing order 1,3,7,2,6,5,4,8 & closest to EVAP port...).

Note the B1 & B2 LTFT % fuel cut correction for the excess unmetered air drawn into the EVAP system from the leaking CPV...... 1.4% reduction for B1, 5.5% reduction for B2 since replacing the EVAP CPV.

Engine idle quality is good as well as the fueling in the base fuel mapping of tune (noted by how close to 0% the B1 & B2 LTFT corrections are in CL).

The cam follower tick is most likely an issue w\ a lash adjuster which is controlled by engine oil pressure. The lash adjuster's plunger may have been momentarily sticking from some varnish formation off a cold start allowing a little clearance between the cam lobe & cam follower's roller then started freeing up after the 162 mi extended run on engine at constant speed between 70-80 MPH, but all the latest noted symptoms are telling me that it's time to go in & do a full timing refresh & replace all these moving components as well as upgrade the oil pump while the rest of the engine is still in good shape before I look forward to slapping any FI on her at this mileage point.
Done had the valve covers pulled once when I installed the Lunati VooDoo cams which was a good time to have changed out all the lash adjusters\cam followers & VCT solenoids then but I didn't so I'm not gonna waste any more time this round & do it all up front (had anticipated doing this at some point so I had already bought all the specialty tools up front to do a full timing job on this 4.6L when I bought the specialty tools necessary to install the cams w\ the front timing cover still installed last spring).

This is where we're at for the moment. Runs good otherwise.
 

Dino Dino Bambino

I have a red car
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Posts
3,880
Reaction score
1,751
Location
Cyprus
Glad to hear you've sorted the EVAP issue. Since your engine has 150k miles on it, a refresh of the valvetrain (timing chain, guides, guide tensioners, cam phasers, cam followers, lash adjusters) together with a new oil pump and VCT solenoids would be a wise move, and should ensure the engine remains trouble-free for another 150k miles.
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
IMHO it is also a wise move, if 1 can afford it, to get yourself a HPTuners nGauge to use as a diagnostic tool as the main strength of this part is it's datalogging capabilities along w\ it's compact size. This tool can access the necessary powertrain PID's so that you can keep track of all engine functions to find issues occurring (like this issue w\ the VCT system) well before the PCM will flag it thru a DTC & w\o having to take it to a shop for analysis. Wouldn't have known this was occurring had I not elected to get the car checked on the dyno again while there at the shop (was curious to see what effects on HP\TQ cutting spark plug gaps would have since I had closed the plug gaps from .042" to .035" while trying to resolve the misfires. We also checked the air filter to see if it had a part to play as well by making a run w\ it installed & a run w\ it removed....got no change from earlier graph except at the upper end...only around 8 HP at peak RPM's--still at redline @ 6750--so we eliminated it as a contributor & my tuner doesn't think the plug gap change has any major effect either which is the only other real change that was made since the last session prior to this 1...so the only obvious change in engine operation noted from last session to account for the low end HP\TQ drop was the recorded change in VCT operation & it couldn't be rectified thru the tune so we knew it was mechanical in nature). Where oil pressure\volume counts the most concerning VCT operation is when needed to retard the cams as you're also having to counter the cam phaser spring's wound tension (necessary to return the cams back to base timing once engine is shut off so pin can lock the phaser sections together to facilitate engine start up w\o oil pressure) as well as the valve spring's tension on the cam lobes & is most critical at lower engine RPM's so this is just as important for daily driving as it is for peak performance.

Costs me another $250.00 to find this out so I made the investment in a nGauge to get the capability to get all this info myself going forward.

I had earlier ran across & scored on a killer deal on a small laptop (a 12" Lenovo ThinkPad X240 less than 2 yrs old, equipped w\ Win 10 Pro OS which has MS Excel 2016 embedded & upgraded w\ a 500Gb SSD w\ 3 wall AC chargers w\ BT & WiFi in pristine condition) locally for $150.00 thru Craigslist so now I can read\graph the datalog files from my new nGauge myself & have dl'd FORScan (a free full function OBDII software written specifically for Ford, Mercury & Lincoln vehicles & when used w\ the extended license will unlock the software to allow it to be used for most OE capabilities including bi-directional control & some low level programming so as close to the original Ford IDS software as can be done w\o patent infringement...extended FORScan license is a 1-time cost of $50.00 for unlimited usage) along w\ OBD Auto Doctor software (for accessing my Dodge & other vehicles) so I should now be able to do pretty much what I want\need to do from a diagnostic\troubleshooting standpoint as soon as my new OBDII to USB dongle arrives (got the 1 that the authors of FORScan recommended to get for use w\ their software to give full compatibility\function for $35.95 off Amazon.....should be at my porch on 1-15-20).
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

Got my OBDIIEx OBDII-to-USB dongle in, set up in my laptop & have hooked all up to my car & ran FORScan. Set up the dashboard w\ the PID's I wanted to look at then started car & monitored them all. Found out that the 1st 15 PID's are actually graphed in the oscilloscope tab so that's good to know so I'll have to rearrange the dashboard PID's so that the PID's that I want graphed are set up there & in the order that I want so the data will be very relevant to the whole engine operation. But in the meantime just in the 35-45 mins that I had this up & running I have spotted another potential issue in the making.

The PID's in question are concerning misfires. I had set up 1 misfire PID (misfire: yes\no....this PID looks at the CKP sensor during engine non-load induced crankshaft velocities to determine if a misfire has occurred) then had set up another misfire PID (misfire: nm...looks at the total number of misfires that has occurred since last engine start up). While looking at the rest of the PID's while the engine was running I had noted that the misfire: yes\no PID was always reading no while engine was idling or at higher RPM's signaling that no misfires were being detected.....but the other misfire PID that was recording the total number of misfires since last start up was gaining counts intermittently all during the 35-45 mins of engine run time at idle\higher RPM's. 1 misfire monitor showed no misfires happening at all (corresponding w\ IM Readiness pass) but the other 1 is showing misfire counts increasing intermittently...…..hhhhmmm……..interesting...……. I have PID data showing the CKP & CMP sensors are working & have synched up so all this is within the thresholds set up in the PCM but PCM is also reporting inconsistent misfire data.....so maybe I just may have found where the Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cam specs are contributing to some false misfire data that the PCM is flushing out thru reading the CKP sensor data as these cams do exhibit a slight lope at idle so this just may be the PCM deciphering the fluctuations in the CKP sensor velocities as intermittent misfires as read thru the 1 misfire PID due to the induced lope caused by the cams but it's not enough to trigger the other misfire PID due to the low actual engine load during idle so it reports no misfires....OR the CKP sensor is starting to wig out a little but not enough for the PCM to flag it as failing but is enough to create the misfire data discrepancies between the 2 misfire PID's I'm monitoring...….

An interesting rabbit I'll chase sometime later on. I just posted this to give an instance of what you could track using this FORScan software.

Now what I was really after using this software was tracking the VCT operation as I had set up the PID's in FORScan to see the VCT CMP sensor data to see if\how the cam phasers are responding to PCM commands, especially at low engine RPM's (representing lowest operational engine oil pressure to VCT system) & any VCT error data shown that would point to where the slow response could be caused & found thru this data that the VCT system was showing to respond normally & very fast retarding the cams on small load changes across both banks w\ both cam phasers staying in phase then once the actual engine load reached the PCM calculated load per TPS angle the PCM returned both cams to base timing (during CL operation) also very fast so maybe during the 162 mi run whatever that was causing the cams to respond slowly to PCM commands during low RPM WOT loads on the dyno has now healed itself......suspecting VCT solenoids being the culprit (but not enough for the PCM to flag a fault) at the time but from what don't know but doesn't appear to be an issue now from looking at this data thru FORScan...….

I find this very interesting data to ponder on but this isn't gonna change any of my plans as I'm gonna do the full timing refresh work regardless as my main goal is to get the oil pump upgraded ASAP (gonna go w\ the Melling 10341 Hi Performance Oil Pump....Melling's top of the line performance oil pump for the 4.6L 3V....gives 20% more oil volume as well as 20+ psi more oil pressure vs OEM according to Melling's site & it's available thru Amazon so the price should be around the cheapest found for it @ $174.95) as well as all the other timing components while the getting is good. The other 2 Melling SKU's (10340 & 10340-BR) are hi pressure but std volume rated units according to Melling's site. This may be marketing but since the price difference between these 3 units is only +- $45.00 max highest to lowest I'm going w\ the big boy for the extra volume. All 3 come w\ the 80 psi spring installed w\ the 60 psi optional spring to use but I'm gonna go w\ the 80 psi spring......duh!

In the meantime I'm gonna get some more seat time using this FORScan software (got my 12v car charger in for my Lenovo ThinkPad X240 laptop today) on my car to get very familiar w\ it. I really like what you can do w\ it as this software is close to the same level as the Ford IDS software in many aspects especially if you purchase the extended license to unlock FORScan's full potential which is only a 1-time $50.00 fee for lifetime usage so if I find I like it enough I'll spring for the extended license.

So far I like it! Also have the OBDWiz software as well (version is for all other OBDII vehicles both domestic & foreign from the same authors of FORScan) for use on my Dodge.

Fun times ahead!
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Update (warning, even longer post):

I looked at my car some more this morning using FORScan after rearranging the PID's to facilitate the oscilloscope graphs & as of now I have definitively deciphered what's happening w\ the car's misfires as witnessed thru FORScan during a full cold start to full hot idle run session…..

The vast majority of the "misfires" that is being recorded are due to the Lunati VooDoo cam's specs creating the CKP velocity fluctuations that don't compare well to the factory recorded CKP velocity patterns when the car's PCM was initially trained when it rolled off the assembly line (this data is kept in the PCM's non-volatile mem & can only be accessed\changed thru Ford's IDS software) but they are well within the threshold pattern for a non-load induced CKP velocity fluctuation (engine at hot idle w\ manual trans in neutral\auto trans in park or neutral) so the PCM records these as no misfires unless an actual dead miss occurs while engine is not under any load. So within the 751 total recorded "misfires" during this graphing session the car had a grand total of 6 actual, real misfires, all 6 of them occurring while the engine was cold (ECT < 82*F). I verified this by pulling up the Mode 6 data then counting all the last misfire counts for all 8 cylinders & the results matched the recorded total misfire number that was shown thru the total misfire dashboard PID. The 6 real misfires were counted from the recorded PCM graph line of the misfire yes\no PID (switches the line from a 0 to 1 then back to 0 on a detected non load misfire).

The issue that this creates is that the total misfire number is what the PCM is using to quantify the % of cat damage, the % of emissions decline & if the % of consecutive misfires within this total number reaches a predefined amount then the PCM will look at the total number of misfires for each cylinder then takes the highest number of the lot that exceeds another threshold that is used to distinguish an individual cylinder over the others to then set the specific P030x DTC, otherwise if the highest count doesn't cross this defined threshold the PCM then applies the generic P0300 DTC. So as long as the stock OEM cams are still in the engine that will match w\ the factory induced misfire training in the PCM at assembly then the PCM will have a good baseline to then learn from. But when you install a set of aftermarket cams w\ differing profiles that upset the CKP velocities from the initial misfire training w\ the OEM cams, then whether the PCM can decipher them or not will depend on how radical the difference is from the initial PCM training that the PCM can make out during the learning phase (when KAM is cleared or on every cold start which resets the misfire monitor so the PCM is rechecking the CKP velocities to determine if anything has changed). So in my case these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams are not so radically different from the OEM cams that the PCM couldn't learn the differences (which would cause a P0315 DTC) or couldn't discern the differences within the 1st 1,000 RPM's of a cold start (the P0316 DTC), but the myriad of false misfires will actually skew the rest of the data outside of the EWMA counts (which is derived from math based off the non-load induced CKP velocity fluctuations vs load induced CKP velocity fluctuations & deceleration CKP velocity fluctuations learned during the misfire monitor training as noted in the Ford OBDII certification procedures) as these are the numbers which the PCM uses to determine if the misfires are bad enough to then trigger the individual cylinder misfire monitoring\reporting as well as emissions & catalyst decline to then determine the P0300\P030x DTC to set. So anything that makes this worse (like the poor dielectric grease I was using prior or higher lift, longer duration, larger overlapped cam profiles) only skews these numbers even more.

The issue w\ the PCM seeming to always set on #7 mostly then #2 afterward had more to do w\ the engine's cross plane crank tendencies to induce a slight power pulse offset due to cyl #7 being married to the same crank journal as cyl #3 (which is the cylinder firing in order just before #7) then #2 cyl is next in order but is on the same crank journal as cyl #6 which fires next after #2 (1,3,7,2,6,5,4,8 firing order...1,5 in plane 1; 2,6 in plane 2; 3,7 in plane 3, 4,8 in plane 4 so when I compared the number of misfires on each cyl to the firing order & cylinders married to each crank plane this becomes more clear) but on a different plane of the crank, so how the power pulses cross the crank planes from individual cylinder firing pulses & the crank metal's reaction to these pulses can also be falsely picked up thru the CKP sensor as a "misfire" when it actually isn't as other factors can come into play to affect this as well (actual cylinder pressure, pressure leakoff rates during compression, flame front turbulence, actual air\fuel % mix, etc.....it won't take much of a difference here to create a larger velocity difference relative to the adjacent cylinder attached to the same crank journal at the crank's CKP sensor....like the EVAP CPV leak into B2 side more than B1 side). The disappearing of all misfires once the engine warms up past a certain point points to a lot of what I just typed as the crank metal has absorbed enough heat thru the engine oil so that the metal becomes more uniform in relaying the power velocities to the CKP wheel so the CKP sensor pulses smooth out which helps the PCM to make better determinations but the same can also be applied to the power impulses from the flame front off ignition as the combustion chamber temps come up (read stabilize here) during warmup from a cold start. Yep this is getting deep into the weeds of engine dynamics\metallurgies but is still relavent to the results as what we're discussing here is milliseconds of difference in CKP sensor pulses for the PCM to decipher actual crank velocity changes.....

So to rectify the money light my tuner reset the misfire min ECT enable setting in the tune at my direction when on the dyno last from the OEM 20*F (where we'll NEVER straighten this out completely due to the Lunati VooDoo cam's profile) to 80*F (where I had noted this issue straighten itself out based off of all the knowledge I had learned\known of engine engineering design & the amount of time invested checking\recording then evaluating the scan tool data results....1 of my strong suits is concerning the science\mathematics behind all this as at 1 point in my youth I had considered going to college to pursue an Engineering degree but real life got in the way & my Dad was a certified, trained automechanic technician\body refinisher, owned his own small 1-man business for 35+ yrs & I spent most of my youth growing up at the shop w\ my Dad working on cars...I took to the mechanical side as it was more interesting to me than body work\painting....FYI) so the misfire monitor turns on AFTER the engine has warmed up enough for the PCM to be able to actually detect actual misfires from the fake misfires as these fake misfires will diminish to the point of essentially irrelevance (show very small, intermittent patterns so the PCM will dismiss them as mostly noise). Also found that if the heat was turned on the PCM cycling the AC compressor on\off caused the load to change which caused the false misfire counts to increase while the engine load was up then go away when the AC compressor was switched off & engine load returned back to normal so this made all this even more worse than it actually was as well.

This is why the car never showed any symptoms of this thru the PCM during the summer months due to the ambient temps keeping the engine heated up past this 80*F threshold but once the ambient temps forced the engine temps below this point during cold starts the PCM now couldn't determine the difference so it started counting more of these false misfires as real ones than there actually were upon cold startup thus eventually setting off the money light. Most of the real misfires were occurring just after the engine started up & came up to the PCM set RPM's to speed up O2 sensor & cat warmup & due to the induced load raising the ignition load enough that the coil spark found the lesser resistance path thru the poor grease to the plug shell than thru plug resistor core to the plug gap until engine temp lowered the ignition load thru the plug resistor core enough so the path reversed back to normal.

But since a carbon track can be very hard to detect on a plug's porcelain if the track hasn't had enough time to really score the porcelain surface enough to be clearly seen (both sets of plugs I have ran have been subjected to this poor grease thus potential microscopic tracking), I have ordered another new set of MC HJSC-24FP plugs thru Amazon (cheapest cost out there) to install in this engine to determine if the very few real misfires that are showing up are due to very fine carbon tracking on a few plugs since the COP coil boots are new w\ no cracks in the dielectric rubber & now are fully cleaned of the bad dielectric grease (I'll most likely hit em 1 more time w\ rubbing alcohol & a small round brush just to ensure while changing out the plugs) AND this time I'll also do a cylinder compression test while the plugs are out so that I can record the data at this mileage point in time as well for records (forgot to do this the last time when I cleaned the coil boots & changed plugs...the early morning cold temps may have had something to do w\ me forgetting.....) & based off the results I find I may follow up w\ a cylinder leak down test on whichever cylinder's compression test result warrants it done but the results from my last relative compression test ruled this out then so I don't expect to find anything different now.

Ran all the KOEO & KOER self-demand tests on the PCM to record\save the log data results for future reference....she passed all w\ flying colors so I know all is fully functional & within specs otherwise concerning PCM & all engine end device control functions.

So to really resolve any CKP fluctuation issues w\ the PCM from aftermarket camshafts that the PCM can't learn around, the PCM needs the non-volatile base misfire monitor to be retrained thru the Ford IDS software to the engine w\ the aftermarket cams installed & engine running w\ car parked (which only the Ford techs....or anyone who is fortunate to have access to....w\ this Ford IDS software can do as there is a procedure to do this written into the software then the software can write the recorded data into the PCM's non-volatile onboard mem so it's always there). This procedure is mentioned in the various Ford OBDII Data Sheets for all the specific MY vehicles from 1996 thru 2019 (found here:
https://www.motorcraftservice.com/FreeResources/OBD).


I'm really digging this FORScan software as w\ this you can really perform very good, deep diagnostics on your later model OBDII equipped Ford, Lincoln or Mercury ride to find & fix stuff WELL before it becomes a major problem.....& the base std license version is freeware so all you need is a Windows laptop (or Mac laptop w\ Boot Camp to run Windows) w\ an OBDII to USB dongle to connect for the best results. You can use a BT OBDII dongle w\ FORScan but the results will not be as good (I have an ELM327 BT OBDII dongle & I couldn't get it to pair up w\ my laptop's BT) as w\ the USB dongle (which is why the FORScan authors recommend using the OBDIILinkEx USB dongle as your preferred OBDII interface w\ their software) as it hooked up to laptop & set up drivers in Win 10 Pro w\o issue & FORScan picked it up on initial plug in & hooked up to the OBDII port & synched up w\ all the car's modules w\o issue....all essentially plug & play. Also w\ this software you can play back the saved live data logs for diagnostics at any time (don't need to be hooked up to the car's OBDII port).

That's what I'm talking bout!

:waytogo:

Again sorry but the geek in me really gets into stuff like this...................

And I haven't brought up the data that shows the actual cam phaser/chain/tensioner wear throwing the B2 side CMP error correction out farther vs B1 side OR the data that is giving relevance to the false engine knock noted from the dyno runs as B2's knock sensor signal is degrading worse vs B1's knock sensor signal so B2 side of engine is more prone to giving a false knock signal vs B1....all seen thru this FORScan software!

:)
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Having the right tools on hand to use can help a LOT w\ this kind of diagnosis.

It was very apparent that the CKP velocity variations that the PCM was recording as misfires weren't caused from actual misfires when the O2 sensors aren't reporting out of synch STFT % positive spikes that excessive unburnt O2 would create if it is present in the exhaust at the same time that the PCM is recording a misfire (which would be the case if the cylinders were actually misfiring) so the cause for the PCM to record these was due to other causes that variate CKP sensor pulse timing...once I had the right tool that could gain access to the data then arrange that data in a way that makes it all easier to see & decipher in real time (which at that time was my Autel AL 539B\Foxwell NT301 general OBDII scan tools being used to look at real time live data while car was being run thru a cold start, but I have a MUCH, MUCH better tool to use now which revealed the rest of the story). Since the PCM itself thru it's system checks has ruled out the CKP sensor itself being the issue (CKP sensor passed PCM self checks which are pretty stringent) then the only causes left were mechanical in origin....the Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cam profile (valve duration & overlap which is set from the IVO, IVC, EVO, EVC valve timing points as well as any GI cam timing off 0* whether advanced or retarded that is different from the OEM cam profile that the base MM in PCM is factory programmed to) & to a lesser but still relevant degree the dynamics of the crankshaft transferring the power impulses from the crank rod journals thru it's metal structure in a cross plane journal design to a front mounted CKP trigger wheel\CKP sensor that is also affected by the engine's harmonic balancer that is attached to the very section of the crankshaft that the CKP trigger wheel is also married to in direct relation as well as temperature changes to the crank's metal composition that will affect how impulses are carried across the crankshaft's axis to the CKP trigger wheel & affect the power impulses from actual combustion of air\fuel mix being transferred thru the pistons, con rods to the crank journals...……. Since temperature changes were showing to be a major influencer in all this then it is easy to then go in the tune & reset the MM's min ECT actuation trigger to the lowest ECT temp at which the issues diminish the most.....w\o disabling the MM completely (which is what most tuners would do to fix this issue....my tuner included) as IMHO is a major mistake to make but I can understand from most tuner's perspective as it's easier to eliminate this monitor to keep the money light off instead of going thru all the necessary testing\tuning time to recalibrate the MM's settings as this isn't important & necessary to making HP\TQ thru the tune.....which is what folks are more willing to pay the tuner's costs to do, not to line out a misfire monitor to work w\ aftermarket camshafts...……….
Just for the record, I've also been studying sample Spanish Oak tune files thru HPTuner's VCM Editor software for some time now (which you can d'ld & use for free to do this as it's all provided in their software) so I've become much more familiar as to what is available in the tune files to access\change & where all is located thru their software so that I know as well as my tuner so I can actually have pertinent participation w\ my tuner on some of the aspects of tuning my ride on a more collaborative basis as I can now participate from a position of actual knowledge concerning the tune files & VCM editor software instead of simple speculation....…....

More than 1 way to skin a cat...………...

Now ask yourself why would Ford themselves set this MM min ECT enable setting for their 4.6L engines at 20*F? Why not 10*F? or 0*F? or lower.....?
The only reason for this MM setting is to provide a way to "monitor" the engine's exhaust output for emissions potential during cold starts when the O2 sensors aren't on line to satisfy the Fed gov requirement for emissions management in this scenario but at temps lower than 20*F Ford knew the crankshaft can't reliably transfer the velocity pulses to the CKP trigger wheel consistently enough to be read using the OEM cams for misfire detection so below this temp setting the MM will not run...……or any other setting higher than the min 20*F factory setting that accomplishes the same results w\ aftermarket cams being used…..

Ever gave any thought as to why Ford would move this CKP trigger wheel & CKP sensor on the Coyote platform engines from the front of the engine's crankshaft as designed on these 4.6L engines (where the harmonic balancer resides....what is the design purpose of a harmonic balancer on a cross plane crankshaft?) to the rear of the engine's crankshaft (where the flywheel\flexplate & all related equipment resides that is usually 0* balanced to relieve the crank of operational vibration while spun at high RPM's & is usually held under some type of TQ load to further reduce fluctuation)?

Kinda makes the crankshaft harmonic balancer's function & integrity a little more important on these 4.6L 3V's now, yes? Also could give 1 some pause to replace the OEM unit w\ a unit designed to reduce parasitic engine power draw (underdrive pulleys) unless the undersized harmonic balancer is manufactured to strictly adhere to the Ford OEM design criteria in materials used as well as actual design function so the undesired crank harmonics are adequately diminished back to OEM levels of tolerance so all else will fall in line.....that includes the influencing of the CKP trigger wheel to CKP sensor relation during rotation..... Also to actually check the HB bolt to ensure that it's still tight & at TQ specs...…..

FYI, this is the MAIN reason why I chose to use Steeda's UDP design over the others...……..they simply got the blessing by Ford to have the same folks who built the Ford 4.6L HB's for mass production using Ford's HB design criteria to build the Steeda units out of the same materials used for the Ford units using the same manufacturing processes then had to pass the same QA\QC certification criteria as set by Ford so that they will work on these 4.6L engines w\o issue as they meet the Ford OEM criteria in every aspect of manufacture then the rest was done for Steeda (the anodizing, degree markings, pulley 25% downsizing & logos) so in essence this is 1 time where Ford "built" a part for an aftermarket company to sell.....maybe in exchange for Steeda building a better functioning CAI for Ford to use then allowing Ford to badge it as their own for the special Shelby GT series 07-09 run of cars...……..

You never know...…..

There is a reason why most modern computer controlled engines others have designed\built, regardless of an I or V design, have the CKP trigger mechanism\CKP sensor mounted off the rear of the crankshaft at the flywheel end to begin with...……...regardless of how much a PITA to access these parts can be...…...

Also why it pays 1 to do as much of the diagnostic work yourself to bring data to the table that a tuner doesn't have the time to collect to facilitate the resolution of these type of nagging issues thru the tune. Just need a little knowledge & the right tools to use.

Just an example...……...

;):)
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

Got the spark plugs swapped out yesterday morning. All of them looked very good (outside of #3 cylinder which showed a little coloring on 1 side of the porcelain indicating a very small potential valve stem seal leak, but at 152,000+ mi this is minor) so the fueling is now verified to be on point for operation in my elevation\climate at worst case scenario (winter) w\ these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams. Checked the COP boots & found all of them looking very good w\ the exception of....you guessed it....#7 & #2 (there was enough residual grease left inside the boot farther up that redeposited around the top of the plug porcelain once these parts got hot then seeped out to the plug base)! So a little more cleaning to rectify this so now I can report that this episode is fully resolved. When I installed these COP's back in I installed them dry this round & upon startup monitored thru a full cold start (all work done on fully cold engine) so as of now w\ new clean MC HJSC-24FP spark plugs & fully clean COP's I now have absolutely no misfires!

Hell of a journey to go thru......99% of it all was self-induced BUT the good of it all is the capturing of the DATA so hopefully all this can help someone else out.

Now I did try to run compression tests w\ my compression tester but I ran into a snag....my M12 x 1.25 adapter wouldn't thread into the cylinder head! I fought this for some time before realizing this. Went back to HF to check on this & picked up another kit (Maddox kit which is a knock off of the OTC 5605 kit that has Ford specific adapters for the older 16mm plug threading so I assumed that the M12 adapter would work). Tried to install this kit's M12 adapter & it wouldn't fit either so I took this 1 back & got refund. Hit the 'Net, ran the search engines & found that there is a Ford special 12mm adapter for this as well as for the older plug design & OTC makes it (5608)….. So my HF Pittsburg compression tester isn't a bad setup, it just doesn't have this Ford special adapter but the good news is that OTC made the upper part of this adapter to use a std M14 x 1.25 thread so it'll still work w\ my HF unit. The bad thing is that this 1 adapter costs 15% more than my entire compression test kit costs...….but when you gotta have it then it doesn't matter, huh? :) So I have it saved in my car\tool parts list on Amazon to buy it at a later time. Which is a good thing I found this out now as I couldn't have used my leakdown tester either as it doesn't have this Ford specific adapter.

After getting all this other stuff now identified & resolved it now has narrowed another issue down. During the cold start after resolving all the other issues I saw that B2 O2 sensor is still picking up some unmetered O2 in the exhaust on B2 side only after the O2's come online during warmup then goes away once engine temp comes up which now is indeed unmasking that there IS a very small vacuum leak present most likely at the intake manifold\cylinder head area on B2 (even though all my prior testing\checking methods I used couldn't find any definitive evidence of this so thought to be related solely to the actual B2 plug misfires & EVAP CPV valve leak....but none of the procedures\methods I used will reach the backside of the intake manifold runners in the valley area) when cold but what my fear is that this leak isn't at the flanges...it may be in the FRPP intake manifold itself & so the only way I'm gonna find this out is to smoke test it while it is still very cold outside (won't find this leak otherwise) so I'll also be getting a smoke tester that can also be used to do EVAP testing as well (has the air flow meter installed w\ integral 12v air compressor) soon to do this. Have already got 1 lined up on Amazon that has good reviews but is relatively cheap when compared to the other better known brands & comes w\ all the attachments including a 4" pump up bladder...…..

I'm really hoping this leak IS due to a B2 side manifold flange gasket(s) shrinking while cold as this will be very easy to rectify as I'm gonna compare the gaskets that came w\ this intake manifold (currently in use) w\ the OEM gaskets that are in my OEM TO intake manifold to see if there are any thickness differences or temp tolerance differences then get\use the better gaskets.....if this leak is found in the intake manifold proper then I'll have another decision to make IF the leak is somewhere that can't be easily repaired......

But the really good thing thru all of this is once this issue is rectified it ALL will be rectified outside of the timing refresh work to upgrade the oil pump w\ these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cams & car will now be solid thruout the seasonal climate changes as well.

Getting there!
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
525
Location
Farmington, NM
Update (concerning gasket height thickness):

Did some checking around & according to MAHLE the '08 MY intake manifold gasket height thickness is 6.34 mm as opposed to the '05 MY gasket height thickness of 6.25 mm....which ain't much (.09 mm diff) whereas the gasket height thickness for a '09 manifold is 6.37 mm (whole different OEM gasket design though which won't work w\ the FRPP Intake Manifold) so it does appear that this vacuum leak issue from manifold\gasket shrinkage while cold was an issue. But all the auto parts stores in my area carry the Fel-Pro brand gaskets in stock instead of the MAHLE brand (have to order them) & I can't find any info on height thickness of the Fel-Pro gaskets. Called the local Ford dealer to check on this as well...they couldn't find any technical info for gasket height thickness on the FoMoCo 08 MY gaskets either but they do have them in stock. I can get the Fel-Pro gasket set at AZ for the cheapest price in town @ $16.95 a set but I may go w\ the OEM FoMoCo 08 MY gaskets @ $42.24 + tax a set ($5.28 ea x 8). I plan to bring 1 of the existing gaskets from the FRPP intake for comparison before buying.

PS--(1/26/20)--I failed to also mention that this FRPP Intake Manifold (as well as the OEM ones) is designed to only apply so much force to the gasket (the purpose of the metal sleeves installed where the mounting bolts go thru the composite mounting flanges) once the bolts are torqued thus the reason why they need no more than 89 in\lbs. This is to keep from over torqueing & damaging the composite material but can also allow the composite mounting flanges to shrink\expand for temp tolerance since they're in close contact to the cylinder head so this gasket height thickness has some importance here. Just thought I'd share this...…….

I have already had this manifold off once since initial installation around 5-18 & inspected it thoroughly & couldn't find anything physically wrong w\ it anywhere (manifold has been thru a winter prior this 1...but may have been leaking then as well just wasn't bad enough to show itself). Had inspected the existing gaskets & couldn't find anything wrong w\ them as well either but they don't extend very far out from the manifold flange surfaces (looks to be less than 1/16") so I can see shrinkage in the manifold & gasket materials being a major issue w\ manifold vacuum leakage if it got cold enough but in order to prove this I'll need to smoke test this manifold early in the AM when it is at the coldest AAT to then pinpoint where the actual leakage is coming from as once ECT gets in the 70*F-90*F range during warmup the vacuum leak shows thru datalogging to stop then B2 STFT drops back down to normal operational ranges switching around 0%. It's a very small vacuum leak at worst (showing less than +12% to +15% STFT fuel correction increase on B2 once the O2 sensors comes online w\o influencing the B2 LTFT % much at all which is well under the +25% threshold for a P0174 DTC set so if it wasn't for the false\real misfires tripping the P030x DTC's to draw my attention to all this I may have never caught this..or the bad EVAP CPV as well until WAY down the line) so I hope it's at the manifold runner gasket flanges\cylinder head contact area & not in the plastic seam in the lower runner section just above where all the bolts are at as this seam is supposed to be permanently sealed now w\ the bolts as decoration instead of using these bolts w\ a gasket to seal off this seam (which would develop leaks over time).

Once all is pinpointed & repaired I plan to retest w\ smoke tester again in early AM AAT's to verify repair. Smoke tester should be at my door Monday then weather forecasts for snow on Tuesday so timing is pretty good. Gonna prep the car Monday (remove my coil covers to expose all) for early Tuesday morning smoke test. Also got 2 new FoMoCo knock sensors coming to replace them while the manifold is off this time to cover this known upcoming issue that I found thru the FORScan datalogging as well.

There are so many different separate operational issues that can have unmetered O2 existence in the exhaust as a symptom that it makes finding\fixing them very tedious w\o having to go thru the laundry list to confirm\deny each 1 unless a good diagnostic datalogging tool is used to make this easier.

In hindsight I wish I had this laptop & OBDII to USB interface w\ FORScan software in hand much earlier...…………………………...
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

Got up this morning to find it was snowing....had 3" of snow on the ground already. But the good news was that the UPS truck had dropped off a package.....my shiny brand new Autool T110 MrCarTool Smoke Leak Detecter w\ all the attachments necessary to perform smoke tests on all systems including EVAP.

Got all situated & prepped the Stang to perform the test while she was cold (was 31*F outside....wish it was colder but oh well). Ran test & well here is the result:

Hell of a deal! So it wasn't the intake manifold gaskets after all...…...

I would have never found this as I didn't expect this part to be bad (the brakes were working just fine & the internal check valve is good) as this hole is VERY small (couldn't feel any air blowing out of it but you could clearly SEE the smoke coming out of it). I checked the manifold over very thoroughly w\ my flashlight (looked thru the openings between the runners & looked thru the area beside the alternator as well as at the rear) & didn't see smoke coming out anywhere else (outside of around the bladder that I had poked into the inlet of my CAI's tube...never could get it to completely seal off inside my CAI tube even after lubing it up w\ baby oil to help it seal off any gaps).

Checked around town & NOBODY has this part in stock AND all the auto part stores in town only can get this part w\ the brake booster as an assembly for my Stang. My local Ford dealership don't have it in stock either but they can get it (coming out of Michigan so it'll be a week before it gets here) so I got it on order.

Funny as I can see a ACDelco part for a Chevy listed in O'Reiley's online store that looks exactly like this 1 but it's not in stock either & it costs more ($28.95 + tax vs the FoMoCo part @ $10.95 + tax w\ free shipping thru Ford dealer).

Just had to show this as I thought it was funny...……………...and the reason why you should always follow up w\ a smoke test to finish verifying the system's integrity even if you thought you had them vacuum leaks all isolated\repaired just to make sure...………………….

:waytogo: :Big Laugh:

PS--(later today)--After typing this earlier I went back & plugged the line to my brake booster to remove the defective brake booster check valve & retested after working w\ the bladder some more to get it to seal better than what y'all saw in video (couldn't get it to completely seal off but much better)….and found the 2nd leak....both butterfly shaft outer seals in my BBK #1763 62mm TB. As was the case for the bad check valve these leaks were small but are present (airflow gauge ball had lowered down between the 2-3 upper scale line mostly due to getting a better seal on the bladder) so I pulled my OEM 55mm TB out of storage, pulled the BBK 62mm TB off & switched TPS & TB actuator motor drive back onto the OEM 55mm TB & reinstalled. Checked all out 1 more time while there was a little more pressure on system....all else checked out as good (includes full intake system from air tube just aft of MAF section thru PCV system thru intake manifold thru cylinder heads...saw no smoke coming out thru\around exhaust so all good on the intake side. Fired her up & all is well (original TB off car so TPS stop is still set to PCM scaling so PCM don't know it's changed as TPS voltage scaling is the same....BBK TB was calibrated to the OEM TPS scaling when originally installed). Put the defective check valve back in the brake booster for now to hook the vacuum line back up to test drive the car.....all working\running very smooth so OEM 55mm TB is operating fine. Will check on the PCM after new part is installed to see where she settles down at for FT's for records.

So as of now I have all this fully resolved. Misfires are finally fully resolved, PCM OBDII misfire monitor adjusted in tune to work w\ the Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cam's profile to stop the fake misfires, EVAP CPV leak found & fixed & intake system fully smoke tested & verified sealed (after replacing the defective brake booster check valve & leaking BBK 62mm TB) so all is hunky dorey w\ my Stang….shouldn't have any more issues in this area going forward. All left to do is the oil pump upgrade & full timing refresh work then after that...……...who knows?

Good times ahead!

:clap: :biggrin: :waytogo:
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

Hooked up my laptop to OBDII port & fired up FORScan software to run all diagnostic tests on car again after making repairs & test drive Monday. Started car up & all was looking very good. Noted the MAF reading (I use the imperial setting instead of metric) was now very steady at hot idle @ .73 lbs\sec w\ TPS blade angle still sitting @ 13.3% (same w\ the 62mm TB installed but the MAF lb\sec reading fluctuated more...bouncing approx .04-1.0 lbs\sec). This is due to the OEM 55mm TB bringing the system back into balance w\ the PCV system (airflow thru the PCV valve's orifice when seated at high manifold vacuum) at low RPM's due to the reduction in area around the butterfly valves (read better airflow control) which can clearly be seen thru using this software's PID dashboard to display multiple live PID data streams. The engine's idle is very smooth, much smoother than when the 62mm TB was installed but also note that the TB TPS blade angle didn't change at the same engine idle speed w\ this OEM 55mm TB installed vs the BBK 62mm TB (which in reality should have since the effective open blade area at the same blade open % angle is LESS w\ the OEM 55mm vs the BBK 62mm...TPS angle should have increased >13.3% to compensate) so here is proof of the PCV system making up the extra air flow volume around the 55mm TB due to the small airflow restriction thru TB from less open blade cross sectional area to satisfy the PCM so the TPS angle is held at the same point as before as the PCM doesn't know that the TB has been changed out (the 62mm TB's TPS stop was calibrated to the same KOEO TPS voltage output signal that this OEM 55mm TB's TPS stop was set to from factory so as long as the signal output range is the same the PCM thinks all is the same).

Have all FORScan dashboard oscilloscope data scan logs saved for records & evidence.....

This action (assuming also the removal of at least 1 of the 2 found vacuum leaks at this time) caused the PCM to lower the LTFT fueling points approx -.03% to -.05% (less fuel) as it doesn't have to make up for the MAF fluctuations & the unmetered air from the 62mm TB shaft seal leak. I also noticed now how the IAT's affect the FT's more than I figured they would as I could see the PCM making FT corrections to IAT changes while I had the hood up so colder air was swirling around the open air filter of my FR Bullitt 85mm CAI (could see the STFT % pattern curve on both banks rising\falling as the PCM made fueling corrections based off changing IAT's--MAF readouts were steady w\o fluctuation which attests to the engineering work Ford put into this CAI's open filter & MAF section design to provide the PCM a clean MAF signal...I run the Ford designed FR open dry filters) vs having the hood closed which now was trapping engine\header heat under the hood warming the air up that was entering the CAI (thruout test at beginning w\ hood up IAT started @ 35*F-45*F then got up to 99*F w\ hood closed w\ car parked). This changed the LTFT fueling points another -1.56% to -2.34% lower w\o MAF lb\sec, engine load%, engine idle RPM or ECT changes....only changes noted was spark timing (rose from approx 18*-20*adv to 22*-24* adv), knock sensor signal (the actual signal generated from each knock sensor while engine was running at idle: B1 knock signal moved from around 81 to 90, B2 knock signal moved from 91 to 120) & baro from 13.2 psi before smoke test Monday to 12.3 psi since test drive afterwards (lower inferred air density also contributing to less fuel needed....PCM makes IAT corrections to MAF calculations internally to determine fueling needed during CL so the MAF data you see is the calculated MAF off the actual MAF sensor's voltage signal change from air density thru velocity cooling the sensor's heated element based off the MAF section's known ID). All this work is improving the car's idle exhaust sound from these Lunati VooDoo #21270700 cam's profile...smoother & deeper resonance but still has a light chop to it which is music to my ears!

Good stuff that using this FORScan software is revealing about my engine's operation thru the PCM control...……….

Now this signal coming from B2 knock sensor, according to FORScan software bullet points explaining the PID data, is showing signs of some signal integrity loss (which could be responsible for the false knock we were seeing during all the dyno runs this car has been thru & nothing I did externally made any difference) so I have ordered a new set of knock sensors for my car (original FoMoCo, got them in today) to install when I do the full timing work\oil pump upgrade (which I have began to order the parts in to do as budget will allow w\o going into our emergency fund stash). I'm starting w\ the VCT solenoids as I'm gonna put these in ASAP as the screens may have been an influencer in the slow VCT response & if these have come apart I need to address this potential as quick as possible to not allow any potential pieces to get lodged in oil passages away from the solenoid cavities so I can remove them. These VCT solenoids (upgraded FoMoCo design) will be in next week so I'll start w\ this part of the overall work as these are fairly easy\simple to change out & IMHO are the 1st item to suspect w\ VCT response issues as the VCT doesn't do anything w\o these operating & the screens are a potential restriction point to oil flow especially over time (these are original VCT solenoids w\ >152,800+ mi on them) & you can't check\test for this w\ solenoids installed so I'm gonna treat these as a maintenance item of sorts & get them swapped out ASAP to remove this part from the puzzle then address the rest later when the weather gets better in 2-3 months (while performing the smoke tests I looked at the oil pressure sending sensor position while I had the CAI head removed & this is gonna be a PITA to attach an oil pressure test gauge hose to this port).

Also noted thru the Mode 6 data (is MUCH easier to read\digest thru FORScan AND all FORScan Mode 6 data can be saved as a separate log file to my laptop so can be accessed w\o being connected to the OBDII port & can use different saved logs to compare systems progress\digress across time) that I may not be done w\ the EVAP system as the .040" leak test result is passing but is also just on the verge of crossing the max EVAP .040" leak parameter threshold so there is still a potential O2 leak issue in the EVAP system so I'll be breaking out my now trusty Autool T110 Smoke Leak Detector & testing the car's entire EVAP system for leaks (while changing out the UCA diff bushing recently I noticed that 1 of the line sections off the EVAP canister...the section that attaches to the 5/8" metal line that goes to the CPV...didn't look so good where it bends into a 90* to attach to the canister inside the canister guard) as it appears that I'm gonna be getting a EVAP P04xx DTC soon if I don't address it so another issue to resolve.

Once the replacement BB check valve gets in & installed on car as well as resolving the potential O2 leak in EVAP system I'm gonna reset the PCM's KAM to perform a full drive cycle to allow the PCM to relearn all to then see where it all turns up.

Getting it done...………..………..

PS--(1-30-20)--Got call from Ford dealer today that the BB check valve was in (came in faster than I was told....good!). Picked it up & installed it then monitored the car to see where the FT's go now.....at hot idle the LTFT's are now even closer to stoich (0%) than before: B1 @ -0.8%, B2 @ +2.3% w\ hood closed & IAT @ 66*F & engine idle is very, very smooth w\ these Lunati VooDoo cams giving that good sounding lope cadence thru my Pypes Super Bomb MM catback……… EVAP testing coming up next (maybe this weekend). Have already checked w\ Ford dealer on parts...only part that can be purchased separate is the CVS, all else will come as a full assembly package (all new lines, EVAP canister, CVS, dust filter & canister shield) & new full EVAP assembly is $247.50 + tax so if any leak is found in the system it is more cost effective to replace the entire EVAP system as to replace just the CVS alone as you have to remove practically the whole EVAP system outside of the CPV line & purge line from gas tank just to access it.... FYI.

This leaking BB check valve (the leaking CPV as well) has been present on this car since the day I bought it & AFAIK the BBK 62mm TB shaft seals may have been leaking since I bought & installed it as well but none were bad enough to set off a MIL or draw my attention since the Lunati cams were installed until the 2nd round of self-induced misfires finally set off the MIL & started me on this journey. Here is the part # for this BB check valve if anyone may need it: Ford XW4Z-2365-AA. Final costs to resolution: 1 set FR M-9593-LU24A fuel injectors (now know weren't necessary but got upgraded spray pattern out of them), 1 set of FR M-12029-3V COP ignition coils (now know weren't necessary...bad dielectric grease made OEM coil set look bad, figured this out w\ 2nd set of coils in car...cleaned boots & springs on 2nd set to fix), 1 set of Champion 9406 plugs (smooth porcelains easier to jump spark & ruined by bad dielectric grease...micro carbon tracked), 2 sets of MC HJSC-24FP plugs (ribbed porcelains misfire resistant & low ohm resistor center core...original set in car when cams were installed--initial misfire issue after Lunati cam install...found 2 plug resistor cores ohm test >20K but also were hampered by bad dielectric grease...micro carbon tracked...didn't catch the bad grease at that time. 2nd set in car currently w\ COP coils installed dry & running perfect w\ no misfires). A LOT of time involved checking, testing, R & R, monitoring, gathering information, tuning adjustments & dyno testing 3 sessions & some swearing but we got here in good order finally.

Got to thinking again....I might take her back to On3 & make a dyno run or 2 after knock sensor\VCT solenoid replacement just to see if all does come back to normal before continuing on w\ the oil pump upgrade & full timing refresh work.....

We'll see.
 
Last edited:

GlassTop09

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

Got a thought & made a run to the local O'Reily's Auto Parts store & picked up some stuff to build this test lead to cycle the CVS to test EVAP system. Here it is...……….
IMG_0164.JPG IMG_0165.JPG
After finishing build I got out the Autool T110 Smoke Detector & set all up to smoke test the EVAP system. Pulled the CPV out to expose the CPV inlet line connector to insert the smoke detector output line (had to put some electrical tape on metal taper to get it to seal in the plastic CPV connector) then ran this test lead to the rear of car to hook it up to the CVS (unplugged the connector at the canister, installed a couple of mini breakout box pins in extension socket then attached test lead). Hooked all up to battery then fired up the smoke machine to start testing EVAP system and here is the results (mind you this EVAP system has passed OBDII IM Readiness Check; Mode 6 EVAP .040" Leak test results @ 1.056" H2O....min -32.042" H2O, max 2.082" H2O EVAP .040" leak test passing range):

Looks like I'm gonna need to replace the entire EVAP system (everything except the main CPV line & 2nd half of the canister post CVS vent line that goes in behind the front section of the passenger side LCA) as Ford only sells this as a fully assembled replacement kit (EVAP outer shield, EVAP canister w\ CVS & CVS dust filter installed on canister & all mounted on outer shield w\ all lines attached to connect EVAP canister to filler neck & gas tank including new EVAP pressure sensor & to CPV metal line & 2nd half of CVS vent line....4 outer quick connect couplings). Aftermarket only sells you the EVAP canister alone or the EVAP canister & new canister shield & nothing else which is fine if all the lines & sensors\CVS check out good, but the prices they charge is not far off or exceeds what Ford charges for the entire EVAP system w\ all new parts, lines & sensors included so going w\ FoMoCo @ $247.50 + tax....gonna order this 1st thing in AM to hopefully get it in by mid week.

So we're repairing ANOTHER set of unmetered O2 entry points...….test found CVS valve working but will not fully seat off, jumper CPV line off canister has a small hole in it & at least 1 or more connections leaking on EVAP canister itself under outer shield (air gauge showing system flowing around 3.5 L\min air volume w\ CVS cycled closed....pretty good leak in system) so once this is done we'll be ever closer to resolving all the wear parts on the car as this stuff has also been leaking since I bought the car even though it passed OBDII.

Goes to show once again the value of periodically checking your ride w\ a scan tool that can provide live data AND access to Mode 6 PCM OBDII system test results data to find stuff before it becomes a larger issue!

Sometimes it can be too late if you're waiting on the MIL to tell you that something's wrong & can leave you stranded costing more in the end.

Better to be proactive than reactive...………..

FYI.

PS--(2-1-20)--To put the EVAP leaks into more perspective, the system pressure that the 3.5L\min airflow rate was recorded w\ the CVS closed was .3 kg\cm2...or .4331 psi....or +12" H2O....or .8818 in\Hg....or .0299 bar so this is a LOT of air flow at very LOW air pressure so even if you were to reduce this in half to "simulate" actual vacuum (engine pulling 18 in\Hg @ 750 RPM's which is approx. 25-27 in H2O) I don't have to go very far into knowing that this is a HUGE vacuum leak that I (and anybody else as well) would have skipped over if it weren't for the tools that provided access to the pertinent data that is ALREADY available to point you in the right direction....that now may require my car to be retuned to compensate after repairs (CL operation isn't the issue as the PCM will adapt for all these changes\corrections in this scenario...part throttle\WOT operation IS the issue as the PCM is in OL during this time which is using the static OL base tune fuel mapping which may now be off some (richer due to being manually set to match the amount of air from MAF readings but not taking into account of any excessive unmetered air from outside sources IF tuner didn't look at the O2 sensor data to determine final fueling....this may not be a bad thing in reality....just might squeeze out a little more HP\TQ due to spark timing increase from slightly cooler CC temps from the now "extra" fuel injected but now could also cause accelerated cat damage from HC fouling\overheat of substrate...I can show you where this has also changed in the Mode 6 Cat Efficiency test results data for the worse even thru these Big Daddies Garage 90* CEL Eliminators being installed....still within OBDII passing criteria but the actual results have moved considerably towards the max threshold parameters from all these repairs\corrections vs before but due to the initial criteria that the PCM cat monitors were programmed to read\detect, these monitor results aren't really matching to actual cat substrate damage\inefficiency but is more inline to actual O2 changes in the tune due to the O2 corrections affecting the switching rates of the front O2 sensors slowing down relative to the rear O2 sensors switching rate post cats due to less unburnt O2 present in exhaust before the cats, not the other way around as initially designed & programmed by Ford to meet OBDII compliance regarding cat efficiency...rear O2 sensors switching rates increasing post cats vs the front O2 sensors switching rates due to increased O2 present in exhaust post cats to determine actual cat efficiency. This is why it is critical to have the engine retuned after this kind of work if you're also running cats, whether OEM or aftermarket, if the tune being used has been changed from the OEM tune file & engine is being operated in OL a fairly large % of time).

Again, this is data for another whole topic of discussion but is relevant to this 1 as well as I'm running aftermarket cams AND engine has been tuned AND running aftermarket cats...that also aren't fully designed to OBDII compliance for proper catalyst monitoring thru the PCM as Ford designed initially thus also throwing all this off……..

FYI.
 
Last edited:

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top