Close



Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 112
  1. #51

    Default

    Yes, we had to measure for pushrods since I went with the Scorpion rockers. Stock ones didn't even reach.

    I've read rockers often need readjusting after a bit anyway. I really hope that's it, and I'm glad you think so, haha.

    And thanks for the input on fuel. I do like the idea of sticking with premo.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  2. #52

    Default

    Brad,

    Watch the video that you posted carefully.

    They start the engine at it dies after a couple seconds, twice. Doesn't idle.

    An unknown about of time goes by.

    Around 9 minutes into the video the engine is idling, but is rolling up and down. They appear to be tuning the VE table. This is the volumetric efficiency table for the engine (RPM versus load). Notice that the cursor is moving around in the 6 or so cells as the engine idles. They've edited these cells to values of around 30-35 to try to make the engine idle properly, which it does not. Notice that the values in the cells to the right are in the 60 range and the ones just above are in the 50 range. This shows you how massively far off this entire map is. At least 75% of these cells need to be changed. That is going to require a long time to get that done.

    In addition there is a spark versus RPM versus load table that needs programming. If this first table was off by a factor of 2, why should the spark table be any closer?

    You can tune an engine on a dyno that is a load bearing type. Most Dynojets are not this type. They only have a fixed load, which is the inertia of the drum. Some shops have an add on option which adds a brake to the dyno. This allows the rpm to be held constant and the load varied. To map a FI system on a dyno, the engine needs to be held at a given load and rpm, then the VE adjusted to get the predicted O2 reading correct. This needs to be done for every cell. Then the same thing is done with spark table, except at every load and rpm point, the spark advance is varied while you look at how much torque is generated to determine the optimum timing for that one cell.

    This is easily 10+ hours of work if everything is working perfectly.

    95% of dyno tunes are just WOT rips while they adjust timing and mixture to get maximum power. This is only tuning the very top row in these tables.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  3. #53

    Default

    This whole thread made me just drop my advance down to 11. You guys got me all paranoid about pinging and how the engineers know best...
    1984.5 G.T.350 5.0 CFI AOD Convertible (TRX package, loaded)
    K&N filter in a stock dual snorkel, GT40 heads, Edelbrock 3721 intake, MSD 8456 Dist., MSD 8227 coil
    Comp cams XE254H, hypereutectic pistons
    Hooker Super Comp Shorty Equal Length Headers, catted BBK H-pipe, full custom duals
    Maximum Motorsports caster/camber plates and strut tower brace, 3.73 rear, dura grip (both Yukon)
    Ford Performance Springs, Firehawk A/S 225/55r16 on LMR TRX r390 wheels (street)
    Federal 595 rs-rr 245/40r17 and 255/40r17 on OE cobra r wheels (race)
    AOD rebuilt with a 6 clutch direct drum, Koline steels stacked with 8 clutches, Kevlar band, superior shift kit, new torque converter. --Everything else stock and fully functional.

  4. #54

    Default

    Woooo! Paranoid Car Guys Club assemble!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    Brad,

    Watch the video that you posted carefully.

    They start the engine at it dies after a couple seconds, twice. Doesn't idle.

    An unknown about of time goes by.

    Around 9 minutes into the video the engine is idling, but is rolling up and down. They appear to be tuning the VE table. This is the volumetric efficiency table for the engine (RPM versus load). Notice that the cursor is moving around in the 6 or so cells as the engine idles. They've edited these cells to values of around 30-35 to try to make the engine idle properly, which it does not. Notice that the values in the cells to the right are in the 60 range and the ones just above are in the 50 range. This shows you how massively far off this entire map is. At least 75% of these cells need to be changed. That is going to require a long time to get that done.

    In addition there is a spark versus RPM versus load table that needs programming. If this first table was off by a factor of 2, why should the spark table be any closer?

    You can tune an engine on a dyno that is a load bearing type. Most Dynojets are not this type. They only have a fixed load, which is the inertia of the drum. Some shops have an add on option which adds a brake to the dyno. This allows the rpm to be held constant and the load varied. To map a FI system on a dyno, the engine needs to be held at a given load and rpm, then the VE adjusted to get the predicted O2 reading correct. This needs to be done for every cell. Then the same thing is done with spark table, except at every load and rpm point, the spark advance is varied while you look at how much torque is generated to determine the optimum timing for that one cell.

    This is easily 10+ hours of work if everything is working perfectly.

    95% of dyno tunes are just WOT rips while they adjust timing and mixture to get maximum power. This is only tuning the very top row in these tables.
    I like BREW2L, but I notice he moved right on to slapping a turbo on that car before we, the youtube audience, even got to see if he resolved his tuning without it. My guess is not. Sounds like something I would do.

    I'm really trying to be better, resolving one thing at a time. I'm highly motivated to do it right this time. I see the light at the end of the tunnel here. I can have a good running car I can jump in and drive whenever I want.

    Anyway, the stuff you're talking about with adjusting every single cell... you're still talking about stuff that would need to be done with the Megasquirt, right? At least, I would think the Cobra computer would have most of that nailed down already.

    I do wonder if I should even install the catalytic converters I bought to quiet down the exhaust before I see what the engine is doing. I'd hate to ruin them before I even get started.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  5. #55
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    The internal factory Ford Five Oh calibrations are just part of the extra strength Synergy 5000 engines increased punch.


    The Australian Ford Falcon Sprint/200KW [268 HP net] engines are a very similar build to the 93-95 Mustang Cobra engines in the States.



    Roush did the basic timing and air fuel ramps (shared with the 305 hp 351 calibration, which followed on from the Turbo 375 hp 25th Anni planned King of the Hill killer for 1989, the EA 351 GT Falcon,

    "https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2Fev8 4n7.png&hash=a1e43facfeecfb70c5bf612e76b54ddd"


    and eventually released in the 1995 SVT-R351)


    Ford USA decided to keep its hands off releasing those in the USA in the 5.0. Roush work yielded the 1990 de Tomaso Pantera Si 305 hp engine, which was then quickly downgraded to your X3Z code computer, which gave the car 248 hp. The early 1990 cam and EECIV calibration is basically what the Australian EECV 2001 295 hp 220 Kw 12QB calibration is.

    Saleen did a lot of other work, without any help from Ford.

    Between 1993 and 2001 when he was fired, Jac Nasser officially signed off on a filtered technical link with Fords Watson and Aston Martins Tickford division to develop the various 210-215-225/248/268/295/335 hp Box/Bin/Batch/Catch code EECIV and EECV's.

    Those calibrations are 300 hour dyno test compliant for the five basic strengths of 5.0 based engine.

    Box/Bin/Batch/Catch code for the Ford Falcon EB GT and/or Sprint XR8 EECIV is 2DCA, a X3Z work-alike.

    You can emulate those higher 268, 295 and 335 hp settings with a J3 plug, and TI Performance supply a plug in to use any Australian EECIV. They have a lot of stuff removed.

    https://www.tiperformance.com.au/library/tuning-files/

    The Box/Bin/Batch code list is designed around the Crane 2031 cam. However both the E cam and the 2031 and some of the other 2040 were designed with US emissions laws in mind.

    http://www.fordmods.com/ecu-fuel-sys...t-t130838.html
    https://www.fordforums.com/threads/c...4/#post-300192


    A full list of just the Oz EECIV and EECV batch codes from the first 162 hp EFI Falcon 250 XF to the later 2008 Barra 422 hp 4.0 liter turbo 4.0 liters sixes are here. Including all versions of the 5 different strengths of OHV Windsor design, Cleveland 2 plant 5.0 based V8.

    They may look like a typical bat winged fourdoor Tbird, Cougar or Mustang, but the engine is all Cleveland plant pushrod heart



    http://forum.efidynotuning.com/viewt...hp?f=51&t=2613

  6. #56

    Default

    So, if I understand you correctly, and I think I actually do this time , I could grab the tune files for those more potent calibrations, and slap it on my ECU? That would be pretty cool. Especially if I got one from a Fairmont.

    I've been doing some reading on the Moates site. Pretty interesting stuff. I see their J3 chip allows you to switch between different tunes if you want. I didn't know why you would want to do that, but then I started to get that you could have a "fun" tune with a richer mixture, and a "efficient" tune with a leaner one... possibilities... I didn't know the engine would tolerate such a wide range of AFRs.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  7. #57

    Default

    Brad,

    Look at the graph linked below.

    http://nebula.wsimg.com/05c01937f92f...&alloworigin=1

    Power output does vary with a/f ratio, but the amount is tiny. Between 14:7:1 and 12.5:1, there is only a couple percent difference. The main reason to use different tunes in a Moates chip would be for different spark advance maps. You would use a different tune based on the octane rating of the fuel in the car, or the boost level.

    You are not going to get a 20% increase in engine power with a different tune. That is fantasy. Assuming the same octane rating for the fuel, there might be a couple percent difference based on mixture and timing. The big advantage to having the car tuned is that the drivability can be made much better.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  8. #58

    Default

    Brad,

    I would go purchase a copy of the book below and read through it before making a decision, so you know more about what the issues are.

    https://www.amazon.com/Engine-Manage.../dp/1932494421
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  9. #59

    Default

    Okay, that simplifies things then not needing to choose "fun" or not.

    I'll have to check out that book.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  10. #60
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Jack is bang on. Once the engine ancillaries are dialed, the fettering of the advance and air fuel tables makes very little difference. The computer controls the feedback closed loop air fuel only 10%, and under open loop, maybee another 25%.

    Since you don't have some variable way to changing octane from 87 to 105 and back again, your compression ratio based peak performance gain wont be seen is service.

    Primary notice a "good" Catch code 268-295 or 335 hp engine is the really good mid-range torque which loves to murder or kill T5 gearbox main shafts and third gear clusters.

    Since the bulletproof 1965-1976 TopLoader was downgraded to the other SROD and T series 170 and 5 series gearboxes beginning 1977, Ford spent all of its time eliminating mid range "assinators" of T5s and 4W70R's or AOD's. Even the Tremec T45's or 3550's are still marginal under even a good 5.0 with 350 lb-ft. Which is what a 295 hp engine makes under the 98 octane EECV modification with a stock 9.4 compression ratio moved up to 10:1.

    Every little octane and compression bump with the HO cam gain shows itself in the huge mid range torque increase. That is addictive and fun.

    A lot of the turbo guys tend to look at stock engine box codes, and dabble a little.




    The results are usually this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancakeshake View Post
    So I had the heads installed with ARP bolts. Torqued right. Felpro 9333.

    Looks like a pretty nasty pop. Vicious failure. Strange thing is I didn't hear or feel anything.


    The general rules on engine tune is that emissions certification for reduced octane 87 to 91 verses 97 to 101 takes off 10% of the peak power optimized. Cam duration of the exhaust is restricted to pass the Federal Motor Vehicle standards, without Variable Valve timing on the cam sprocket, that's 15% off the best peak an old 270/290 Cobra Jet cam profile could make. Without Variable cam lift or variable lobe center, your down 30%.

    The reason for all the EECIV and EECV J3 kits is turbocharging and Nitrous and Hi test racing fuel modified engines.

  11. #61
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    The key ingredient must be the knock sensor.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEWB0oqbdfo

    https://youtu.be/hEWB0oqbdfo



    The Australian situation with respect to gas octane has always been brilliant. 91 is Standard, 95 super, 98 and even 100 are optional with octane boosted at Texcao or BP or Shell. The USA situation is different. Altering peak timing should be done with 6 week old 89 gas. For diets of new 93, you can then asses the new peak advance . For a Windsor, it'll take an electrode off the plug, and you get very little leeway but if you have a knock sensor, you are golden and well on the safety factor.


    If you can fit it in. Crows foot wrench might help you.


    About 15 years ago Jeff Bellman gave two important posts in the Turbo Forums

    J&S SafeGuard.. Works absolutely great.. It gives me the confidence to use the low octane unleaded.

    J&S will retard the timing ONLY on the cylinder that is detonating, and do it before that cylinder has a chance to fire again.. Without your having to look at lights..

    http://www.jandssafeguard.com/

    (He ment the Universal version for distibutor, ie. Duraspark/Solid State/ HEI/TFI/ESC et al )

    http://www.jandssafeguard.com/NewUni...alVersion.html

    It takes out various degrees of timing, depending on the intensity of the detonation.. If the detonation is so light that it can't be heard.. The J&S might only take out 1 or 2 degrees of timing.. But if it clicks hard, it might take out up to 20 degrees of timing.

  12. #62

    Default

    Okay, so that's a unit that would operate completely independently of the Ford electronics, whether it be the ECU or TFI, correct? It interrupts the PIP in the same way the ECU does?

    When you guys were first talking about a knock sensor, I wondered if that meant sending it to some unused circuit on the EEC connector and having it just know what to do with that. I'm guessing that's not the case.

    I understand the sensor itself likes to be in the water jacket. The easiest place to do that would be in the intake, but not necessarily ideal because it's not the block or the head? I see the one in that video is installed into the transmission flange on the back of the block. Just drill a hole and slap it in?

    I do like the idea of doing this, but I'm hoping to do (most of) my tuning this year, and adding this to the list of projects would take some major pain-in-the-@$$ disassembly I was VERY happy to be done with last year.

    I don't know. It's certainly a good safety net for someone paranoid like me.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  13. #63

    Default

    Brad,

    Yes and yes.

    The knock sensor needs to be mounted directly into the block. You want to mount it into a very stiff location, so that the high frequency vibration from the knocking is conducted into it well. You also need to make sure that the mounting of the sensor itself is stiff. This is so that the mass of the sensor, which is cantilevered away from the mounting surface doesn't end up with a resonant frequency which is in the pass band of the frequencies that you are trying to measure. If the sensor has pipe threads, tap the block really deep, so as little sensor is cantilevered away from the block as possible.

    Optimally you also want to mount the sensor an equal distance from all cylinders. This is impossible to do in a pushrod engine. The lifter galley floor is too thin to mount the sensor in. This is why Ford put it at the back of the block, where it is thick.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  14. #64

    Default

    Dang, just looked up the price for that thing. It's slick, but I don't know about worth $600!!
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  15. #65
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    When Chev reworked the 1955 to 1995 SBC back to 351W specs.

    Four bolt head clamping
    9.5 inch deck
    875 thou lifters
    SEFi (aka planned Roush 25 thAnniversay Turbo 1988 to 1995 Saleen/SVT 351R spec)

    GM also fixed the Atoll splitting by high mounting the cam, and isolating off the Noise,Vibration and Harshness prone center section of the cylinder bank "vee".

    The twin knock sensor lifter plate and its multi-related air fuel and advance lock-up table is the secrete to protecting the LS engines with high compression ratios. For EECIV Fords, Ford never made the next safety step that the 5.0 and 5.8 trucks had.

    An external control which eliminates the need to fiddle with air fuel and tge standard advance curves would essentually give you what I call, in my language, means tested safe ignition retard.

    The J&S Universal base system does the sane thing...if the three month old stale gas octane is no longer even 87, then it will retard under load in only the situations knock is evident. If a splash of 93 is added, it'll ensure full advance.

    This might be your most cost effective option.

    You have to work through this in your own way.

  16. #66
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    When Chev reworked the 1955 to 1995 SBC back to 351W specs.

    Four bolt head clamping
    9.5 inch deck
    875 thou lifters
    SEFi (aka planned Roush 25 thAnniversay Turbo 1988 to 1995 Saleen/SVT 351R spec)

    GM also fixed the Atoll splitting by high mounting the cam, and isolating off the Noise,Vibration and Harshness prone center section of the cylinder bank "vee".

    The twin knock sensor lifter plate and its multi-related air fuel and advance lock-up table is the secrete to protecting the LS engines with high compression ratios. For EECIV Fords, Ford never made the next safety step that the 5.0 and 5.8 trucks had.

    An external control which eliminates the need to fiddle with air fuel and tge standard advance curves would essentually give you what I call, in my language, means tested safe ignition retard.

    The J&S Universal base system does the sane thing...if the three month old stale gas octane is no longer even 87, then it will retard under load in only the situations knock is evident. If a splash of 93 is added, it'll ensure full advance.

    This might be your most cost effective option.

    You have to work through this in your own way.

  17. #67

    Default

    Let me ask you this. How likely is it that I'll even have to make changes to the spark table? At least initially, I'd rather leave as much as I can alone. Another example would be the MAF curve, I wouldn't think I would have to do a thing to that, since the MAF I have is the very one the computer expects to see. Ditto the fuel injectors.

    I don't necessarily want to squeeze every last hidden pony out of this thing, I just want to make it run as happily as it can.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  18. #68
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Id say zip chance of needing to change it, Brad. The whole gist of EECIV was that it is a self compensating system that optimises a/f and adminisers just enough of the TFi to spark it. The issues are only getting enough fuel snd spark when you suddenly get a better snake under the thing. Then it lags. 248 hp verses 295 hp... its all just the freedoms thay come from extra octane and then opening up fuel and spark limits and finding the right MAF transforms and injector dead time. All that goodness is , um locked down with door keper safe gaurds.

    The hp is capped by exhaust, intake flow rates, but mid range torque can be raised a lot without those programmed details restricting it.

    The US fuel situation with respect to octane forced Ford to eliminate some more dynamic options of fiddling with the advance ramps. Propably because the FoMoCo 5.0 block pizza base has some limited capacity to deal with all the stuff typical hop ups induce.

  19. #69

    Default

    By snake you mean cam?

    Are you saying there are things I won't be able to change?

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  20. #70
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZephyrEFI View Post
    By snake you mean cam?

    Are you saying there are things I won't be able to change?

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    The 5.0 is the snake. How its feed and shed defines how great it can become hp and torque wise.

    The relevent parts are adjustable on the Cobra batch cide with a J3 port.

  21. #71

    Default

    I'm still reading the book, Engine Management: Advanced Tuning. I'm learning a lot, but there's a heck of a lot to digest. And I don't expect to know everything once I'm done.

    I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what the task ahead of me will look like, like how much will I need to do with the tuning software. I guess I won't know until I get the wideband installed and drive around.

    I did find a definite source for non-oxygenated 91 (what does oxygen have to do with ethanol content?) though, so that's good.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  22. #72
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    In a 1995 book on special fuels for racing, it covered off gelled oxygenated gasoline as being a high aromatics fuel. The modern gasoline just has more alcohol in it, more oxygen with that conpound. The stoichometric ratio is leaned off from 14.65 parts of air to one of fuel, to over 15.2 parts of air to one of fuel. Its effectively a ratio of 15.2/14.65 leaner, or 3.75% leaner in another measure.


    Great thing is, all the really danger Will Robinson bits are not as easy to change, so Moates is fun and very safe.

  23. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    In a 1995 book on special fuels for racing, it covered off gelled oxygenated gasoline as being a high aromatics fuel. The modern gasoline just has more alcohol in it, more oxygen with that conpound. The stoichometric ratio is leaned off from 14.65 parts of air to one of fuel, to over 15.2 parts of air to one of fuel. Its effectively a ratio of 15.2/14.65 leaner, or 3.75% leaner in another measure.


    Great thing is, all the really danger Will Robinson bits are not as easy to change, so Moates is fun and very safe.
    Cool, thanks. Since we're on spring break I think I might put the car together and take it for a ride. We'll see. I was going to wait for some of the other parts to come that I will buy with my tax refund. But the IRS site doesn't really give any information on whether there's an expected delay on refunds. It just says "to avoid delays, file as soon as possible". Thanks for being specific.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  24. #74

    Default

    Okay, tax refund came, so my wideband, clamp-on O2 bung (I don't weld), Quarterhorse, chip, and Jaybird burner thingy have all been ordered!

    Since we're on quarantine at least until May, I should be able to get it all installed in a reasonable amount of time.

    I'm thinking I should do all this first, and get SOME tuning done before I install the cats on my exhaust to avoid damaging them.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  25. #75

    Default

    Clamp on O2 bung?
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •