TuNiN n00b Exp -Cpl n00b ?s

[entity-unknown]

Awesome and Thank You!

[entity-unknown]

I'll do the tables after I retune now I've finally relocated my IAT and built a new intake :D
Question:
Can I use the Motorcraft IAT/MAF 6 wire all-in-one combo sensor say from an 04-09 F150 4.6L Ford Part# YC2F-BA AFLS161 (I believe I don't care about the part # so much either) for the A9L2 magic code? I gather I can since the voltage as I understand is the same but there's so much mis-information about the "MAF calibration", ECM specific Part #s for MAFs (which appear to NOT be true), etc. so I just wanna make sure from your/ya'lls view ;)
I know what I need from the wiring/harness/pinout perspective but beyond that, the voltage is really all that matters (I believe) so I should be good right?

Intake Build Info:
As for the new intake, it's 102mm (4"~) I.D. intercooler pipe with the MAF and ACT sensor mounts I designed and 3d printed. ACT is about 10-20* over ambient now (AZ summer time, so ambient is about 100-110*) and very consistent (while moving, idle obviously will be higher). Just opening the hood vents, I was about 20-30* over ambient. Prior, basically stock for the intake system and the ceramic coated exhaust headers, I was about 50-70* over ambient then wrapping the exhaust below the headers up to the first cat reduced to about 40-60* over ambient. It does raise if I sit at idle but it's still way lower because of the open vents on the hood. The TB is 52mm x 2 inlets so 104mm total and the intake tubes are 55mm I.D. x 2 (minus those "tube shaping coils" they have inside). The original MAF setup was roughly 3" I.D. overall with a 55mm Mustang MAF sensor body choke point in the center.

The Y-Coupler I designed is 104mm I.D. at the large opening with the two 52mm I.D. outlets (104mm minimum volume at any given point in the coupler) that go to the main intake tubes w/ a 22.5* bend at the center of the coupler. My friend is WAY better at CAD than I am (he designs parts for a living) so he's re-designing it for me (and he wants one too) to look more like a real part ;) Next time I'll prob print in a special TPU (Thermal Plastic Urethane) I have called NinjaFlex which is awesome for structure, tear resistance, and heat tolerance. I might even build it with some ABS structure since I can print w/ two materials at a time which would allow a more rigid structure at say the connection ports with ABS or say 75% ABS, 25% TPU with a more flexible portion around say the mid-section using only TPU. TBD.

One thing w/ MAF (ya'll prob know this :D ) is it needs laminar (even/level/not turbulent) air flow to measure accurately. MAF setups usually have a mesh screen to make this happen so I had to make sure I added that which I did. Since the pipe and air filter hide it, it was ok for it to not look pretty but it's nylon screen so it's tough and I used ABS plastic slurry to form the outer ring and basically mold it into the filter and around the pipe. Works very well :)

Tuning Progress Updates:
Since I almost doubled my intake size, my MAF table was WAY off. What was running perfectly fine, won't even start now :D I had to increase the MAF table values and now I'm running at a much lower MAF AD Count across the entire RPM range (expected).

My average MAF AD Counts were about 125-175 for idle w/ the 3" setup and 55mm MAF body choke point. When it's a solid tune, closer to the 125-135 range, and a tune that's decent but def needs refinement we'll say 150-225 average.
My average MAF AD Counts now are about 50-60 so I finally get to use the lower MAF table. I gather this means this will open up the upper portion of the MAF table too since it's not being choked at the upper end. I think a bit over 850 is the highest I've seen so far.

Took me a while to get it to just run cuz I was paranoid about flooding the engine again and it was hard to get a reading on the HEGOs w/ the short run time. I need to make a custom Histogram for the HEGO Voltage now for these hard/fail start situations rather than gamble "Am I rich or lean?" cuz finding out I was rich and now am richer (not financially:*( ) sucks cuz you can flood the engine fast if you're over and recovery seems to usually be pull all spark plugs and air out which even then takes a couple/few hours....

So I used some logic, watched the Dashboard HEGO voltage and saw blips showing .2-.4 and figured w/ the wider air intake I was probably running way lean and upped the values. Finally got it running and then was able to continue tuning the MAF table to get it running properly again.

ECTs are always 178*~ rarely going above 180* even on a hard pull but I haven't done a balls out pull more than say 1/4 mile. I have seen it drop to 174-176* plenty even on 110*+ days on a decent pull so sayin 178* average is true and very consistent ;) I love my Robert Shaw 180* thermostat and FlowKooler Water Pump :D I have replaced the ECT sensor and the new one reads exactly the same plus I have an inline analog temp gauge in the cooling piping and the dash gauge using a separate sensor so 3 separate locations, and they all agree too so it's not mis-info ;) I did modify a couple tables/scalars to accommodate this a while back which did help. The default is 180* ECT for the next "level up" for some fuel/spark/etc. tables ideally I figure for a 190* thermostat. I'm in AZ and I replaced an engine from overheating and 190* is pretty border line here in the summer so I'm happy with my 180* and you won't convince me otherwise ;) So because of this I modified the tables/scalars for 170* instead of 180*. W/ the FN022 scalar, I had to change the -30 to -40 since I reduced the 180 to 170 then the tables it affects like FN1306 ECT values incremented logarithmically but JUST changing the scalar FN022 value 180 to 170 value really made the ECT column look "not good". I did this a couple months ago and it made a noticeable difference performance/feelwise and lookin at the FN1306 table, it makes sense as to why. Also, it doesn't seem to have done anything negatively ;)

Crappy Tuning Detour:
When me and my buddy dropped the block in, we went with "yeah it's cool, you can install the engine with the transmission in the truck still." Two of two engine installs I've done this and now this counts for 2 for 2 that I have to remove the transmission to fix something that f'd up during the install when stabbing the engine/transmission together via the engine hoist/engine. It caused the AOD's front pump seal to leak so it's been leaking ever since I did the install I guess 2 years ago now. It's been a slow drip every so often but with all the fun I've been having now everything else has been squared away, the seal finally said F' it and leaks pretty bad. So I get drop the AOD and t-case, and deal with all that. At least I am VERY familiar with this part since I've pulled the AOD/t-case several times over the years now ;) The lesson I'm taking from this is install the engine WITHOUT the transmission installed, then install the transmission. I have NEVER had issues dropping/installing the ZF5 or AODs so I'm sticking with that if there's a next time ;)

The better you fix one thing, the more another thing breaks.... Good life lessons...

[decipha]

read the pre tune info

[entity-unknown]

Funny I had that up cuz I was reading on something else about the intake portion :) I see my question about the MAF sensor is answered there off the cuff with "I highly recommend a slot style MAF sensor". I understand that's the even more updated style and I've seen folks say they've used them so this confirms I can use the MAF sensor I want OR I can drop in a slot style that'd include an IAT/MAF combo like you suggest ;)

From what I've learned the key benefit to the slot style I see is it pulling from the "center" (a deeper measurement than say the 1st gen MAF like I have pulling from the edge of the intake about 1/2" in which also reads heat soak from the engine bay so not accurate to true ambient inside the intake pipe. "Center" is ambiguous since that depends on where the depth of the measurement vs. the center of the intake pipe's radius where the MAF is mounted. I figure pulling the measurement further from the intake pipe edge is the more critical goal than "center" but center or close as possible is still a key goal as well.

This is why I want the round port style I mentioned since it pulls deeper as well but a slot is still in consideration too. I'll probably hit up a junk yard and parooze around that way I have real physical dimensions to measure. I'm thinkin the slot style will interrupt flow less than the round/curved style i.e. more laminar flow. I gather the curve vs. the slot would create more pressure/less laminar, albeit at a micro scale. I believe that creates resistance/heat as well to some micro scale and one goal is to not add any additional heat since that is what is being measured. Also they might use more modern/sensitive thermistors (could be good or bad :D ) but maybe not. Things I'll ponder and look into more.

The PMAS HPX-E High flow MAF Decipha suggested (which includes an IAT (same as ACT just new words from Ford in the 90s) looks interesting... The "extended range" bit and the idle resolution seems interesting too. I'll do some more reading up on that, probably will give the PMAS a call :) Fortunately I'm sure this intake will be more than adequate for now as I continue the design for a final version and maybe a PMAS will have a home in it :D I'd call this my v1.0a for now tho ;)

On a side note, I'm printing off all Decipha's dox so I have em in hand to highlight and paper is just easier in ways vs. having all your articles open in tabs (and all saved in PDF) kinda like my Decipha's Tuner Guide Pocket Book :D

[entity-unknown]

Remember that "wall" I mentioned? I've hit it a few times and always figured it was the tuning or something else with all the other various issues.

It was the TPS! I replaced it and sure enough, things are WAY better now and no more "wall". I would have never figured this out (logically besides throwing parts at it) and with everything I've changed..... I just simply never would've figured it out in this life time :D Except..... I have LOGS!!! So here's another story BUT this unlocked the last piece to be able to properly tune this EFI setup.

Failing TPS adds Turbo and Blow Off Valve :D
Been having this issue that kept getting worse but I've made so many changes lately it was hard to really suspect what it was. I checked some stuff for the TPS before and noticed as I pressed the pedal the TPS voltage would reset momentarily then pick right back up. Didn't occur to me what this would do later and again making so many changes all while tuning the EFI.

I built a new intake that's 4" (104mm) all the way to the TB (The 302 TB is 4" or 52mm x 2). The old intake was 3" but had a 55mm MAF body which was a choke point.

I was able to accelerate NP before but w/ the new intake I could not easily accelerate after half throttle. Oddly enough that's where the TPS voltage dropped when I tested it but this is a few weeks later so I wasn't puttin them together yet. Once I got my tune in order I could haul ass but if I pressed the pedal hard at half throttle EVERY SINGLE TIME it would make this PSSSHHHHH Blow Off Valve like sound but more like vacuum. Makes sense w/ the new intake, maybe it has a leak? Nope sealed that so well I doubt I'll ever be able to dis-assemble it ever again even tho I built it to be able to break down and the issue remains.

The craziest part of the BOV sound is the next result was like a turbo spooling up and the truck really accelerated. I paniced each time and backed off cuz I knew somethin wasn't right.

In each log when the event occurs I can see the TPS dropping in/out on the hard accel and only then otherwise it always shows like it should, nice and smooth.
The air intake stayed consistent but when it'd drop out it increased and the EFI went right with it and had no problem fueling which is why it ramped up like the turbo feeling but because it chugs momentarily when the TPS drops out despite the AFR being proper still, I gather that's what gave the perception of the turbo spool feeling. I don't have a turbo so I know this is not normal ;)

After seein several logs of the TPS dropping out and given the fact the dead spot is SO consistent so as long as I slowly ramp past it, all is well OR if I work around that dead spot, all is well..... It's gotta be a damn sensor!!!!

Sure enough I turned the truck on but didn't start the engine w/ my laptop hooked up and I checked the pedal and watched the TPS meter. Sure enough it kept dropping out.

Replaced the damn TPS sensor and voila! Bonnie has balls again :D Now the entire drive train is not only leak free but fully operational ;)

[entity-unknown]

I don't think I've found a TPS voltage log value for the EEC-IV, just the AD Counts. Is it just not there?
I believe 190 AD Counts in .95 volts so that works but since I replaced the TPS I'm gonna finally set the TPS to .95 ;)
I COULD probe it, but all that really matters I figure is what the ECM sees anyways.

For the record, my typical TPS ADCount was 178 w/ the mechanical idle setup. Now w/ the TPS replacement and re-adjustment to the mechanical idle to dial that back in, I'm at 151 TPS ADCounts so now it's a good idea for me to adjust since I can't get passed the 600ish TP AD Count range to hit WOT which I have set to 725 still since 730 was my average range for TP and the pedal all the way to the floor.
After I setup the TPS to .95 volts, I'll see where I'm hittin then ;)

[red5.0fogger]

It doesn't have to be .95 volts at idle, there is a range for it.

[entity-unknown]

I've seen the debate sayin it doesn't matter so I let it be especially after reading the logic behind RATCH. I coulda swore I was on one of the getting started dox or whatever again and it said that was a requirement but I've been going by this statement the whole time in the Idle Air doc:
"Many used to believe the TPS had to be at 0.99 for max power, thats complete crap anyone feeds you that garbage you wrap them in the mouth as per decipha. The ecu takes the lowest tp voltage since key on (known as RATCH) and uses that as a relative position of 0 throttle which can be logged as the payload TP_REL, this is the relative throttle position the ecu uses for its calculations. TP_REL does not exist in the older foxbody ecu's."

That's why I didn't care about the TPS .90-95 voltage forever but somewhere recently re-reading everything I coulda swore I read that while I'm trying to cross off everything from the basic To Dos. Thought that was my last item :D Maybe it was on the EEC Tuning Forum then cuz they focus heavy on voltage for those tunes. I've been workin on too many things but Thank You for calling that out :D

As it stands my base tuning is FINALLY complete now that all the mechanical/sensor stuff is resolved. (NOT) Surprisingly the ability to dial things goes REALLY fast when everything is in order and it truly gives light so how precise the measurements EFI makes.

When I started all this like most folks with no knowledge of EFI so say a lil exhaust leak... Meh it won't affect anything as long as it's getting fuel, that's all that matters..... or say ACT vs. ECT fueling ratios ;) :D I've been significantly enlightened and I've really just begun ;)

I have another detour for a while to deal with but I'll keep at it ;)

[entity-unknown]

One thing I oops didn't include in that last post was I did set the TPS to 190 before fogger replied and it did improve things. It picks up noticeably sooner and more frequently. It's clearly a difference in the fueling too.

I figure the reason why is the FN331B TPREL Accel Enrichment table. When my TPS Ratch is 178 like it's always been, that means it takes 12 extra steps in AD counts/throttle travel to hit the next table of adjustment which is 452 where it reduces fueling by 25% from Stoich.

W/ the TPS ratch @ 151, it was even harder to hit that 452 adjustment point. Not like I was tryin just simply means it required more than my typical pedal travel.
After modifying the TPS so I could rotate it to sit at 190 AD counts (I had to take off a fair amount of meat) that means I'm hitting that 452 adjustment point a lot sooner and I definitely did.

So maybe not necessary to set the TPS to .95v / 190 AD (I hope I did that math right :D) but maybe it has some merit?

I will say I prefer the benefit of the accel enrichment to occur where the pedal is at NOW vs. before because it's where I'd expect it to begin picking up as is. I'd say I'm at about 25+% pedal travel when this happens now vs. before it was closer to say 33+%. This made that 33% and beyond acceleration just better over all as well. Anything below 25% has always been cruising travel speed and anything above is when I want and they do accel noticeably faster for any vehicle I owned including both Broncos so this just feels right as is.

Feel free to vote this being Logical thinking or Kreuger Effect :D

[decipha]

Negative.

Thats tprel not tp voltage. It doesnt matter where you start from as 0 you still have to travel the same tp distance to reach the same +0 point.

Sounds like your tps was so far out of range it never set the closed throttle flag before.