So I’ve done a little research but it’s so scattered and contradictory I figured I would get some education here on it.
My ‘08 is already running a JLT intake, Hot Rod cams, long tubes and gears so nothing too wild, just a nice streetable weekend cruiser. I have underdrive pullies sitting on the shelf to go in too whenever I get time.
Are charge motion delete plates worth the investment on a basic street car? What real world numbers have you guys seen from them? Is it a serious retune for them or a basic parameter change?
I’m curious on them mainly just because I like tinkering with stuff but if the time and money investment isn’t worth it maybe I’ll look towards other things. Thanks guys!
My 2 cents.......................
From studying up on their location in the intake runner tract & purpose of design, my knowledge level of engine design\function & the science behind air\gas flow dynamics I can understand the
general reasoning why what is typically said concerning Ford CMCV's w\ engine TQ gain\loss but IMHO this is far more of a red herring concerning actual engine TQ gain\loss than they're being mainly
geared more towards an emissions target purpose (think here creating extra air charge velocity offset--thus air charge motion--to 1 side of the CH's intake port to assist w\ fuel\air atomization & any EGR mixing during the intake air charge thru air tumble\roll into combustion chambers to promote even, complete fuel burn & a cooling effect to effectively control CC temps by reducing chamber hot spots to control NOx emissions output since EGR mixing is now done in the
combustion chamber itself using VCT instead of in the
IM's plenum ahead of the intake runners thru a separate EGR control valve w\ NOx control being the sole purpose of EGR application) to optimize
max engine's emissions efficiency as their effect on real engine TQ gain\loss is actually very small to practically none....more\less a side effect as air charge velocity & air mass\volume delivery are 2 distinctly separate things as long as any fixed flowing path restriction used to increase air charge velocity doesn't cause the intake air's compressibility factor to exceed critical compressibility (the point at which a flowing gas can no longer compress w\o incurring a physical pressure drop across a fixed flow path restriction---the IM's plenum\runner design ahead of these CMCV's will dictate 99%+ of the engine's low speed TQ production capability from an air charge mass\volume delivery standpoint in NA trim--not the CMCV's & is also why all fuel is sprayed into air charge stream
downstream of the CMCV plates as any liquids added to the flowing airstream upstream of these CMCV plates will change (lower) the air's compressibility factor & cause an excessive deltaP across the CMCV plates when closed thus actually
reduce the effective air mass\volume charge into the cylinder during the intake stroke further reducing engine's HP\TQ output capability) so is mostly hype IMHO as actual tuning of the VCT & ignition timing set points within all the IMRC control maps around the cam profile in the tune along w\ the TQ Management tables w\ HP\TQ output in mind as the main focus instead of emissions will far & away affect actual engine HP\TQ output across all engine operating RPM's vs what these CMCV's will give you. I see hyping these CMCV's as a TQ gaining device a marketing ploy more than anything else to gain sales..... All it would take is a 1 ft\lb TQ gain to validate the statement..........even a 5 ft\lb TQ gain at low RPM's is very hard to feel the twisting force effect gain from it.
Like others have stated & is 1 of the reasons along w\ what I typed here is why I removed them.....the removal of them does eliminate 1 more mechanical issue\DTC\MIL to have to deal with......but they can also be tuned around while in place just as easily as removing them until they hang up on you so the choice in the end is IMHO a personal preference thing.....actual tuning of the tune files along w\ the actual IM plenum\runner design & cam profile in use for low speed engine TQ output is where it's at w\ these 3V's.....not so much the CMCV's. The rest is in the mechanical block design (bore & stroke displacement).
If you get some time & are interested, read up on the CMCV operation in the 2005-10 Mustang 4.6L 3V here:
Ford Workshop Service & Repair Manuals - fordrepair.info - 2005 Mustang Powertrain Control And Emissions Diagnosis Intake air systems (iihs.net) pgs 4-5. Then read up on the EEC (electronic engine control) system's design\operational purpose here:
Ford Workshop Service & Repair Manuals - fordrepair.info - 2005 Mustang Powertrain Control And Emissions Diagnosis Electronic engine control (eec) system (iihs.net) pgs 1-2 then tell me again what the main purpose of all was intended for w\ these cars off the production line......according to the source--Ford Motor Company.
