Might be go big or go home time on my '06

cavero

forum member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Posts
709
Reaction score
117
Location
NoVA
Yeah, I noted this myself.............am curious............are you using the CMCV's w\ your OEM IM as well?
Yessir, I read somewhere that the CMCV's were there to help with low end torque (sort of like putting your thumb over the end of a hose) so I wanted to leave them in to help as much when the centri blower goes in next year
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,159
Reaction score
546
Location
Farmington, NM
Yessir, I read somewhere that the CMCV's were there to help with low end torque (sort of like putting your thumb over the end of a hose) so I wanted to leave them in to help as much when the centri blower goes in next year
Thanks for the response..........I knew you also was using the FRPP IM prior & was curious.

You probably saw Four Eyes video on this.......................

FYI............I also ran A\B testing on these (I still had my CMCV\actuator assembly intact......swapped out my Steeda CMDP's & put the CMCV's back on IM & ran A\B tests using same tune as ran w\ CMDP's) on my 4.6L in April along w\ the patent data\drawings from Ford on these along w\ the cyl head port\CC design to see 1. if the claims were true & 2. if true, some idea of how much vs CMDP's.

Found that the claims made by Ford are indeed true, but there's more to this than what most think. The exact phrase should be "they help w\ part throttle low RPM engine TQ output when the CMCV's are closed" due to regaining low RPM IM runner charge velocity (airspeed) that is lost due to the intake port in cyl head shortening the IM runner taper away from the back of the intake valves due to its size (w\o these the air charge velocity will start to slow down once it leaves the IM runner to accommodate the 2 intake valves. High airspeed or velocity is needed to provide adequate intake A\F mixing of fuel w\ air in a port feed EFI system to facilitate full complete A\F combustion, but also exhaust gas reversion from the moment the intake valves open due to Pi (vacuum) being lower than Pc (atmosphere) from the TB restricting airflow causing IM pressure to drop below the exhaust pressure & only will stop backflowing when the Pi is higher than Pc (either when the exhaust valve physically closes OR the negative exhaust pressure wave returns off initial exhaust valve opening from exhaust blowdown......whichever happens 1st). It is this exhaust reversion that also lowers the A\F % that enters the CC thus will affect A\F combustion efficiency at low engine RPM's, lowering TQ output & will affect it even more if the A\F & inert exhaust gas isn't thoroughly mixed during the intake stroke due to the cyl head being an open design (means the cyl head has no quench area for the piston to further agitate the A\F & exhaust mix during compression\ignition) causing hot pockets in CC enticing detonation. This is a natural quirk of valve overlap in a NA configured engine.........no way around it.

There is always a con for every pro in engine design...............

Every camshaft that is ground w\ overlap in it will have some exhaust gas reversion occurring during the exhaust-to-intake stroke cycle during part throttle low RPM operations.......full stop. Designers usually limit the amount of IVO to EVC degree spread to limit the amount of exhaust reversion that does happen (this exhaust reversion is what affects IM vacuum levels) but when you do this, you limit the amount of air mass the engine can process at high RPM........the wider the IVO to EVC degree spread, the more exhaust gas can backflow into the IM due to the IVO occurring when the piston is also still pushing out left over exhaust gasses at the end of the exhaust stroke thus Pi is even more < than Pc......also what causes the crankshaft instability--engine rocking\lope--during idle that all lopey cams have.......but this also improves airmass processing at high RPM operations thus is a balancing act for a cam designer when setting\grinding cam events depending on what the needs\goals are to be achieved.

CMCV's also provide a service during high RPM WOT operations as well when they are open (at high RPM the engine is creating more than enough air charge velocity on its own) by instilling some air turbulence in the airstream to facilitate full A\F (also any exhaust gas that does reverse backward due to high exhaust backpressure) mixing during intake cycle so air\fuel mix fully combusts & eliminate the hot pockets that will cause detonation (what quench is designed to prevent) thus can safely run higher ignition timing for more power.

The results I got from my A\B testing showed all of this........part throttle low RPM TQ output gains were between 5-10 ft-lbs TQ output & at WOT I was able to pick up another 1.5*-2* of ignition timing AND lean out fuel by 2 points before detonation showed back up which gained another 5-7 ft-lbs TQ output at WOT.......using same everything else in same manner tune wise thus IMHO validates Ford & their claims regarding the CMCV's.

Not earth shattering but the differences in results CAN be felt pretty much across the board.

Where the big benefit is at is emissions (from the complete full A\F combustion in each cyl w\o detonation outputting much less HC & CO & NOx to some degree) helping cats to fully process by not overloading them w\ excessive HC & CO from poor combustion efficiency & depending on how much exhaust gas reversion (or EGR.......main goal is NOx reduction) is allowed\used during part throttle low RPM\cruise operations thru VCT settings in these areas of operation......MPG can also be gained. My Mode 6 Cat CE Ratio checks made after every initial tune reflash (fully resets ECU so results are as virgin as can be once the IM Readiness monitors complete thus are solely a result of the tune calibration settings & component operation\condition) showed a 28% reduction in avg CE Ratio (cat efficiency went up.......a good thing especially if in an area that requires vehicle emissions passage for registration thus cats installed).......which validates the improved combustion efficiency (increases overall cyl pressure gain from fully complete A\F burn within the CC) which validates the improved HP\TQ outputs.

So, in short, I'm also back on running the CMCV's in my '08 OEM IM as well w\ the Lunati VooDoo cams & now w\ these FRPP Hot Rod cams & they'll pass an emissions test as well if tested by the real numbers instead of a Fed\CARB certification lookup list.........
Refer to this post I made in this thread some time ago..................https://www.s197forum.com/threads/lunati-voodoo-21270700-camshafts.136257/page-24 post #472.

I just followed up on this since I was planning to install a set of FRPP Hot Rod cams & started researching reasons why these cams reportedly show a tendency to lose part throttle low RPM TQ output...........found that these CMCV's have a fair part in helping these cams retain their part throttle low RPM performance due to their cam profile design in relation to all I typed above..........read the product description on the Ford Performance web site.........the 50 HP gain is quoted to be gained by using a set of ported 3V heads & the stock intake manifold.................that is a tell.

This is also a concern on any aftermarket cam set that focuses on improving mid-range & top end HP\TQ vs the OEM cams as their IVO to EVC crank timing spread is larger & are more advanced than the OEM cams (which has the overlap IVO event happening early enough ahead of the critical 30* BTDC crank angle where the piston is still fairly accelerated pushing exhaust out of the CC on its way to TDC during the exhaust stroke.

I can definitely report that using these CMCV's go a long way into cutting the amount of FRPP HR cam low RPM part throttle TQ loss........among some other things as well.

After all...........Ford DID design all these components................

Provided below is a picture of the very drawing that Ford submitted for patent certification of this 3V's IM CMCV system.................along w\ an IM Readiness result I just pulled last night after final tune revision of these FRPP Hot Rod cams w\ CMCV's flowing thru my CARB-cert MF #5461336 TWC cats for reference..............Catalyst #1 & #2.........these are lopey cams w\ a lot of overlap on a tight LSA that don't have any legal emissions certification attached to them saying they're emissions compliant..............but they sure are achieving it.

A snapshot of some of the value that these Ford 3V CMCV's do bring...............

You're making a good choice to do what you're doing IMHO. As far as using these w\ a centri, I hope that your tuner doesn't use the OEM Ford IMRC opening\closing schedule as is for these CMCV's, or you'll end up breaking these due to trying to force too much air thru them under 3,500 RPM's when they're closed as well as throwing the MAF & subsequent SD calcs off due to the MAF reacting to the closed CMCV plates instead of the TB (sonic air velocity thru the CMCV's smaller openings causing a large deltaP across the blades causing the CMCV shafts to twist & blades break off & the back pressure causing the MAF to stall sending in bad airmass readings that won't match the ETC SD airmass calcs off the TB's open blade angle). I ran into this issue myself in NA config........fixed this by finding the MAF-to CMCV blade load% crossover point then resetting the RPM-to-engine load% schedule settings to open the CMCV's fully when engine loads% exceeded .38 from 1,000-2,250 RPM's (saw low RPM cruising speeds up to 80 MPH stayed within .15 thru .35 load while cruising) & on any low RPM high load accelerations then get fully open by 3,000 RPM's regardless. Once this is done properly, it opens up the tuning capabilities to run more advanced VCT cam timings & gain even more usable HP\TQ but still reap all the benefits from the CMCV's.

The 1 good thing that FI does bring...........it's use does eliminate IVO & EVC exhaust gas reversion during overlap due to Pi > Pc once the TB moves open & by-pass (if TVS FI) closes.

Good luck w\ your setup & I hope you succeed w\ it.

Patent Drawing of Ford 4.6L 3V CMCV Design.JPG
 

Attachments

  • obdiimode6data61924B.txt
    7.2 KB · Views: 5

cavero

forum member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Posts
709
Reaction score
117
Location
NoVA
Ditto, I think your post needs its own thread and a Sticky! I've been reading it over a few times. Looks like they're still doing the CMCV's on the Coyotes too, wouldn't have lasted another 15 years if it didn't work.

One of the things I've got to read over again is w/ the cam phaser and lopey cams. Before the engine rebuild, I had phaser limiters, which still allowed 20 deg of movement. Now after the rebuild they're completely locked out.
 

cavero

forum member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Posts
709
Reaction score
117
Location
NoVA
Oh and yeah I'm definitely going to ask them about the CMCV schedule. I've talked to them before about blowers and they've talked about how suddenly shutting the throttle can be really bad, so they're probably aware of it. But I'll definitely bring it up
 

cavero

forum member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Posts
709
Reaction score
117
Location
NoVA
I never thought this was going to keep dragging in like this. Got the car back from the body shop yesterday, they did a good job except they smoothed over the corner on the wheel arch too much and really softened it a lot.
1000010488.jpg

Compare that to the passenger side


1000010489.jpg


They were pretty good about it though, immediately said yep they see it too and to bring it back in a couple weeks and they'll redo it, obviously on their dime.
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,159
Reaction score
546
Location
Farmington, NM
Before the engine rebuild, I had phaser limiters, which still allowed 20 deg of movement. Now after the rebuild they're completely locked out.
HHHhhhhhmmmmmm.........................

One of the things I've got to read over again is w/ the cam phaser and lopey cams.
Please elaborate on this when you can as I'll assume that your builder\tuner had some input into the decision to completely lockout VCT using FI w\ a set of lopey cams...........................curious to know the reasons why when the overwhelming usage case is the opposite w\ this 4.6L 3V........

In the meantime, I recommend this book if you want to learn\know all the skinny on camshaft design, purpose, optimization, optimization using VCT\VVT, etc.

The author is none other than William "Billy" Godbold of Comp Cams fame thus you'll be very hard pressed to find a better, more accurate & reliable source of information\knowledge anywhere concerning camshafts whether NA or FI...............w\ this Ford Modular 3V in particular.

Available on Amazon if interested.......................

Billy Godbold's New Book.JPG
 

GlassTop09

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Posts
1,159
Reaction score
546
Location
Farmington, NM
Oh and yeah I'm definitely going to ask them about the CMCV schedule. I've talked to them before about blowers and they've talked about how suddenly shutting the throttle can be really bad, so they're probably aware of it. But I'll definitely bring it up
FYI.................

I've took a couple of pictures provided below of this CMCV RPM to Engine Load Opening Schedule that is used in a 06 MY Spanish Oaks ECU calibration file (1 on the left is the Ford OEM Schedule settings, 1 on the right is using the settings I've set for use in my '09 3V that should effectively shield the CMCV's from getting overwhelmed by synching their operation to the TB's operations thus the TB will shield the CMCV's when the ECU is told to close them & will also shield them long enough when the ECU is told to open the CMCV's to allow them to get out of the way........tuned to a FR 62mm TB thus should be even better used w\ an OEM 55mm TB........).

This is possible due to the initial airmass calcs are made using SD......not the MAF.....thru the ETC TB control using the TB's calibrated PTA & EA mapping thus the ECU is preemptively calc the airmass thus the actual engine load% according to the preemptive TB TPS & TBA so the ECU will already preemptively set the TB at the necessary TBA to prevent the CMCV's from getting overwhelmed (remember, this is a DBW system......not DBC) thus is only waiting on the engine RPM's & VCT cam timing settings (which will actually determine the actual airmass velocity & flow........the air pump if you will refer) to respond to the trigger point. Rinse & repeat in the opposite direction.

The big issue w\ this setup on the 3V is the CMCV system is using an electronic actuator that reports CMCV position to the ECU, so a tuner has to set this up in the tune calibration to achieve "synch".......also has to 1st embrace this tech to see its strengths & then do some critical thinking outside of the box along w\ some testing to gather the necessary data to then reset the CMCV scheduling to get all to play well together.
You just can't rely on the Ford OEM CMCV scheduling as Ford initially set all this up w\o any thought of performance on the production models, only to achieve 2 things.......1.) EGR application to lower NOx emissions as much as possible & 2.) CAFE standards to hit the EPA reg fuel MPG targets at the time. This is why the OEM VCT timings were set so retarded (also why the max operational range of VCT is 60* retard).........Ford actually used the VCT to control the engine's airmass velocity\flow throughput thru cam timing.....not just the TB.....during part throttle low to mid-range RPM engine operations to keep the CMCV's from becoming an air choke while closed thus they can keep the CMCV's closed across the board & not affect the MAF accuracy to TB control then open them fully only when WOT OL PE was called for or the operational part throttle engine RPMs exceeded 3,200.......whichever came 1st. This was done to capitalize as much as possible on the accelerated IM runner velocity provided by the closed CMCV's to counter the cyl head's intake port poor airmass velocity performance........also is why the OEM cams profile is setup the way they are........these cams were never designed by Ford to provide high mid-range & top end HP\TQ in this 3V engine.....only high off idle part throttle low RPM HP\TQ for max drivability.
This action is also why these CMCV's had a tendency of shafts getting stuck due to being stationary for most of their operational time......simply from NOT being rotated for long periods of time allowing the PCV oil mist coking to build between the shafts & the metal housing then get set from the radiant IM port heat from cyl head temp AND hot exhaust gas reversion during overlap.

This is my read as to why Ford redesigned these CMCV's to become integral into the composite IM doing away w\ the metal housing starting in the 2009 MY forward......... I believe that by just cycling these periodically will practically eliminate this sticking issue in the 05-08 OEM IM CMCV metal housing design.........which is guaranteed to happen once the scheduling is reset in the fashion I'm showing.

FYI............since Ford had to use the factory production OEM IM on the 08 GT FR500S factory production race cars to compete in the Challenger Miller Cup series at the time (the very car the FRPP Hot Rod cams were developed to be used in), I'll bet the farm that this CMCV scheduling isn't anywhere resembling the OEM production settings in that car's ECU tune calibration...........
The FRPP 3V IM & 62mm TB were developed later on by Ford SVT to further improve on the FR500S's mid-range to high RPM response\top end speed performance to accentuate the FRPP Hot Rod cams timing profile when a set of LTH's were used to improve the scavenging performance........FYI.

What folks may have not realized is that the Ford engineers aren't stupid........they knew this was an issue that hindered the adoption of these CMCV's on the 3V in the performance world & this was resolved w\ the Coyote for the 2015 MY forward when Ford reinstated the CMCV's by using a vacuum-assisted actuator instead of an electronic actuator to operate the CMCV's (uses high engine manifold vacuum to hold the CMCV's in the closed position against a spring in the actuator) so when the ECU opens the solenoid to allow engine manifold vacuum to the actuator, the CMCV position will "automatically synch" w\ the TB since the TB's TBA along w\ engine RPM's is what mostly sets\controls operational engine manifold vacuum levels so whenever the TB is opened, the engine manifold vacuum will drop, the CMCV actuator will see this & the spring will override & move the actuator to open the closed CMCV's in proportion to this, then when the high engine manifold vacuum is restored by the TB returning to a position that will not allow these CMCV's to get overrun, this will override the spring & fully close the CMCV's again thus preventing the very issue that is present w\ the 3V's electronic actuated CMCV system...........essentially taking a tuner\human out of its basic operations. The vacuum source for the CMCV actuator is taken just behind the TB itself thus the reaction is almost immediate in both directions. Then when the engine RPMs are high enough (usually once mid-range RPM operational area is reached.....3,000-4,000 range) the ECU will close the solenoid & vent off the actuator vacuum thus the spring in actuator will fully open the CMCV's & keep them open until all returns to desired operational RPM levels then the ECU will recharge the actuator w\ engine manifold vacuum & close the CMCV's.

I thought I'd provide all this info to help you in your conversations w\ your engine builder\tuner as I'll surmise that you'll most likely have an uphill battle w\o some actual current counter evidence provided of this type of operational usage concerning these CMCV's w\ this 3V.

So don't be surprised if they tell you that they won't guarantee any engine warranty if you push this. Having VCT locked out ain't gonna help this either............

This has been tried before in the past so isn't something new (there's an article put out back in 2006 of an individual using these CMCV's on a Procharger-equipped--centri FI--3V that found these CMCV's twisted up\broken after engine failure resulted from ingesting the debris) thus is most likely why this CMCV usage w\ centri or turbo FI was shunned going forward........but from my current testing work\operational data gathering results I'll also bet the farm that the individual\tuner made the mistake of using the OEM production CMCV scheduling as set by Ford instead of doing the upfront testing work to find the critical MAF to CMCV crossover point then reschedule the CMCV's to properly "synch" to the TB to prevent this from happening going forward.

Was very new tech back in those days thus most likely wasn't embraced by the performance world due to the E-word (emissions) also being associated w\ their operations...............

Most just lock these CMCV's open on the Coyotes as well for peace of mind when using centri\turbo FI..........not necessarily due to these not actually working as intended. Which is understandable when you're looking at sizeable costs from potential engine damage, so most tuners won't tune the engine unless they're locked open for liability reasons when centri\turbo FI is being used thru the OEM IM.

Doesn't mean this type of CMCV usage won't or can't work.............................

Hope this helps.

06 Ford Spanish Oaks OS OEM Calibration CMCV RPM to Load Opening Schedule.JPG

06 Ford Spanish Oaks OS Optimized Calibration CMCV RPM to Load Opening Schedule.JPG
 

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,664
Reaction score
1,925
Another vote to just fix it.

If you were to coyote swap it, using a gen 1 pcm is the simplest. The guages will work. Tuning will be required though.
PATS deletes are done so you dont need a coyote car instrument cluster. Dont need PATS delete if the control pack strategg is flashed to the pcm.
 

crjackson

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Posts
626
Reaction score
317
Location
Midgard
Got the car back from the body shop yesterday, they did a good job
I disagree! You’re a much more laidback person than me. I’d be pretty agitated and they’d be a-fix’n it.

Don’t settle for this sub-par work.
 

cavero

forum member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Posts
709
Reaction score
117
Location
NoVA
I disagree! You’re a much more laidback person than me. I’d be pretty agitated and they’d be a-fix’n it.

Don’t settle for this sub-par work.
Oh yeah I'm definitely bringing it back in a couple weeks to have them do it right. I'm laid back about it because they immediately said they'd fix it. Otherwise yeah I'd be pissed.
 

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top