AllZWay Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Actually mine is like yours... it only makes 255ish and 295ish torque unrestricted. Sorry James ... I thought that was your restricted number. Yours is an SD motor, right? I'm beginning to think that is the answer ... convert to an speed density set up. No MAF, different intake and camshaft. Yep..Mine is a '93 computer and speed density. My car was so rich on dyno day that it nearly made Louis pass out from trying to tie the car down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Very informing reading here. This isa PDF from Ford Motorsports web site. I highlt encourage ALL Ford CMC racers and ALL CMC Directors to read this. In short, it provides the answers that resolve Jeremys issues. http://www.fordracingparts.com/download/charts/Fuel_Injectors_and_Adaptors.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 Thank you for that read Glenn. It was helpful although this line stood out to me. While this method works quite well on less sophisticated electronics, such as the EEC-IV found in Fox body Mustangs, it is not recommended for newer vehicles which have a much higher dependency on the calculated value of load. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Not recommended. Doesn't say it will not work. My guess it related to part throttle driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Again, has anybody tried to simply swap the key tumblers while swapping ECUs? It takes about 5 seconds per car, and the only "fancy" tool you need is a nail about 2" long if you still have the plastic trim around the steering column. Mark I have no dog in this fight (I don't even have a dog), but IF the p/o of the #55 tuned the computer, wouldn't the PATS be one of the first things disabled along with the emissions stuff? Seems kinda silly if someone were going to the bother of cheating yet leaving those bits intact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 Not recommended. Doesn't say it will not work. My guess it related to part throttle driving. MAF Table has nothing to do with part throttle Glenn. Only Full Throttle Closed loop. Open loop looks to 02 sensors first, searches up and down for 14.7, up, down, up down, This happens all the way to full throttle! Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Again, has anybody tried to simply swap the key tumblers while swapping ECUs? It takes about 5 seconds per car, and the only "fancy" tool you need is a nail about 2" long if you still have the plastic trim around the steering column. Mark I have no dog in this fight (I don't even have a dog), but IF the p/o of the #55 tuned the computer, wouldn't the PATS be one of the first things disabled along with the emissions stuff? Seems kinda silly if someone were going to the bother of cheating yet leaving those bits intact. I made the same remark just today myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Not recommended. Doesn't say it will not work. My guess it related to part throttle driving. MAF Table has nothing to do with part throttle Glenn. Only Full Throttle Closed loop. Open loop looks to 02 sensors first, searches up and down for 14.7, up, down, up down, This happens all the way to full throttle! Thoughts? Disagree. The MAF is used under part throttle. Disconnect yours and drive around like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Not recommended. Doesn't say it will not work. My guess it related to part throttle driving. MAF Table has nothing to do with part throttle Glenn. Only Full Throttle Closed loop. Open loop looks to 02 sensors first, searches up and down for 14.7, up, down, up down, This happens all the way to full throttle! Thoughts? From the linked article: The second, and preferred method requires the ability to alter the calibration inside the PCM, generally through the use of one of the aftermarket tools available. When using this method, the actual flow data for the injector (available on our website for all FRPP injectors), as well as the “transfer function†for the MAF are entered into the calibration in the PCM. Generally, it is recommended to test the new calibration on a dynamometer to ensure that the engine receives the correct A/F ratio at all speeds and loads. Provided this is performed by a competent and experienced tuner using proper equipment, this is by far the best method and will result in the best part-throttle drivability and idle, and the least amount of trouble with check-engine lights, returnless fuel, electronic throttle monitors, transmission shifting, etc. Looks like it is used for part throttle driveability to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 it's part of the equation but only as a variable. The 02 sensors will control the computer table, until you unplug the MAF, the the computer goes into a limp mode and can only look at the 02's not seeing the incoming air... it switches to an alternative, unused, table But the 02 sensors in are the driving force in open loop. They control the mixture of air and fuel. At WOT, the computer switches tables, turns off all emission controls, and the MAF becomes the driving force. On the dyno, I would sit at 14.5-14.9 until WOT, then, and only then, would the potentiometer make any difference to the A/F ratio... thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 Again, has anybody tried to simply swap the key tumblers while swapping ECUs? It takes about 5 seconds per car, and the only "fancy" tool you need is a nail about 2" long if you still have the plastic trim around the steering column. Mark I have no dog in this fight (I don't even have a dog), but IF the p/o of the #55 tuned the computer, wouldn't the PATS be one of the first things disabled along with the emissions stuff? Seems kinda silly if someone were going to the bother of cheating yet leaving those bits intact. I made the same remark just today myself. knowing what I know, if I was going to cheat, PATS is the last thing I would disable.... I wouldn't want it used in any car but my own Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Speaking for myself and several I have talked with this past week, your allegations of cheating is not winning you many friends. My dad once told me that a smart man picks his battles. That means there are certain battles that cause a person to pay a very high price in order to win. Its at that point each one of us has to decide if its worth it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Sean Highland Motorsports (519) 421-2291 can't remember the guys namesHPP Racing (972) 395-9844 talk to Manny Dallas Mustang 1-800-Mustang talk to Archie And what other service do each of these companies provide? ECU tuning. They have a financial interest to tell you the only way to fix the issue is by tuning the ECU. As a director, I'm not interested in ECU tuning for CMC. Put the Cobra mass air meter calibrated for 24lb/hr injectors on the car, and retest (obviously, with AFR, as should have been done from the start). Before you say "when it doesn't work, then what?" - we won't know until it's tested. Once it is, then we can determine what the next move is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 Speaking for myself and several I have talked with this past week, your allegations of cheating is not winning you many friends. My dad once told me that a smart man picks his battles. That means there are certain battles that cause a person to pay a very high price in order to win. Its at that point each one of us has to decide if its worth it or not. I'm sorry mitch! I didn't realize I had accused anyone of cheating... that wasn't in my agenda if I did say or imply that... I have stated my concerns with the 55s owner. I have not protested him though. If I thought someone was truely cheating, I would not hesitate to file an official protest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 Sean Highland Motorsports (519) 421-2291 can't remember the guys namesHPP Racing (972) 395-9844 talk to Manny Dallas Mustang 1-800-Mustang talk to Archie And what other service do each of these companies provide? ECU tuning. They have a financial interest to tell you the only way to fix the issue is by tuning the ECU. As a director, I'm not interested in ECU tuning for CMC. Put the Cobra mass air meter calibrated for 24lb/hr injectors on the car, and retest (obviously, with AFR, as should have been done from the start). Before you say "when it doesn't work, then what?" - we won't know until it's tested. Once it is, then we can determine what the next move is. I have officially resigned my research on this issue. My device will be removed and no more data will be collected. I will post up my af results from the cobra maf, if I can afford to test it, but it will stop there. My car will go back on the dyno before cresson to get re-certified. I would like to thank all the directors for their hard work on this issue. There were over 50 emails in the past 24 hours!! They pulled strings to get VIPs on the phone. It was a very good effort by these folks. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, but the fault is sincerely mine. Can't wait to see you all at MSR^C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacabuche Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 The MAF sensor acts like a load sensor, just like the old speed density motors. The O2 only measures if there is enough fuel for that load. if something is out of range it will adjust accordingly. This mainly works at part throttle and idle. Once you are at full throttle the fuel maps switch to the limp mode settings which are a failsafe. This is designed to keep the motor intact and will usually be too rich. Tuners usually lean out the tune on a bonestock motor to its sweet spot to make maximum power. As a technician I like to make sure everything is working to its full potential before I start changing parts. From what I've seen, many people changing too many parts and at the end they don't know what was component that made more power. Spending all that money when it was just a lousy fuel pump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I'm sorry mitch! I didn't realize I had accused anyone of cheating... that wasn't in my agenda if I did say or imply that... I have stated my concerns with the 55s owner. I have not protested him though. If I thought someone was truely cheating, I would not hesitate to file an official protest... Did you say "Jerry is cheating"? No. Did you say ... knowing what I know, if I was going to cheat, PATS is the last thing I would disable.... I wouldn't want it used in any car but my own ... in response to ... Seems kinda silly if someone were going to the bother of cheating yet leaving those bits intact. ... when discussing why when you and Jerry swapped ECUs neither would work in the other. In a court of law, you might be able to convince some one of reasonable doubt. But this isn't a court of a law ... we are your peers. And you are alienating yourself because when this fight is done, your peers are asking who will you target next? I can see by the length of your posts and the technical nature of your responses you have a lot of passion about this subject. I too have penned novels, pointing fingers and making demands, much like you are now. Spread F-Car calipers and the center bar in a T-Top car come to mind. I still don't like the anarchy of this series and will never understand what appears like a "head in the sand" approach. There have been many go before me (Matt King and Richard Dickey) come to mind and many will follow. So you have to make a choice. You are at a crossroads. Do you continue this battle or do you gather your data, decide what Jeremy can live with (and without) and move forward. I promise you ... the grade on this uphill battle, due to all this drama created, has become a lot steeper. Been there ... witnessed that. Good luck ... you will need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 In my experience with EEC-IV cars, simply installing a stock Cobra MAF meter won't do anything to help the injector situation; the difference is in the Cobra ECU calibration. Maybe something has changed on the EEC-V cars, though. My EEC-V car is bone stock, so I haven't messed with it yet. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 I'm sorry mitch! I didn't realize I had accused anyone of cheating... that wasn't in my agenda if I did say or imply that... I have stated my concerns with the 55s owner. I have not protested him though. If I thought someone was truely cheating, I would not hesitate to file an official protest... Did you say "Jerry is cheating"? No. Did you say ... knowing what I know, if I was going to cheat, PATS is the last thing I would disable.... I wouldn't want it used in any car but my own ... in response to ... Seems kinda silly if someone were going to the bother of cheating yet leaving those bits intact. ... when discussing why when you and Jerry swapped ECUs neither would work in the other. In a court of law, you might be able to convince some one of reasonable doubt. But this isn't a court of a law ... we are your peers. And you are alienating yourself because when this fight is done, your peers are asking who will you target next? I can see by the length of your posts and the technical nature of your responses you have a lot of passion about this subject. I too have penned novels, pointing fingers and making demands, much like you are now. Spread F-Car calipers and the center bar in a T-Top car come to mind. I still don't like the anarchy of this series and will never understand what appears like a "head in the sand" approach. There have been many go before me (Matt King and Richard Dickey) come to mind and many will follow. So you have to make a choice. You are at a crossroads. Do you continue this battle or do you gather your data, decide what Jeremy can live with (and without) and move forward. I promise you ... the grade on this uphill battle, due to all this drama created, has become a lot steeper. Been there ... witnessed that. Good luck ... you will need it. The finger was not pointed at Jerry. He hasn't changed anything on the car. As far as a steep uphill battle... its been snowing in dallas, I grabbed my sled and hauled ass back to square one. I have chosen to take the wise stance of many in this series, if it ain't broke don't fix it... drama yes, passion yes, knowledge yes, series progress? I don't know, but my direct questions weren't answered to get us to a common technical ground, although a directive was ordered. So I will find a fix within the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Out of curiosity, what are the 4.6L 2V cars using for exhaust to hit the CMC2 power/torque numbers? I have been doing some exhaust research lately for my TTD 2004 GT, as I'm trying to raise low-end torque (not limited in TT) without affecting the peak HP (at which I am currently limited), and it appears that a relatively small exhaust, not necessarily the dual 2.5" or dual 3.0" setup (or 1 3/4" primary longtubes) that some people generically install, is a better way to go. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I'm running an 03 GT in CMC2. Just got my annual done, and am finally happy with my numbers. Motor is original stock/untouched 89k mile 2v. Stock exhaust manifolds, Pypes 2 1/2" off road X pipe to duel 2 1/2" pipes w/ duel 14" long 2 1/2" inlet/outlet "bullet" mufflers, duel side exit (90 deg. non-mandrel bent) 2 1/2" tailpipes. Other "power" mods include: Steeda underdrive pullies (crank, alt., water pump), K&N "fitpak" intake, FMS aluminum driveshaft. I run 18 lb. wheels with 255/40/17 RA1's. Numbers were.. 256hp/296 tq, 257hp/296tq, 261hp/301tq. I dont have the dyno sheet to show you the curves (forgot to make copy before I submitted to our regional director Ed McGuire). Do remember the air/fuel was "as good as could be" (from experienced dyno tuner). Mark, dont think there's much to be had as far as the low-end torque your looking for from these engines w/out an illegal tune (CMC rules). And guess I'm not a help to you w/out my dyno sheet (your more than welcome to contact Ed for my info). Was putting this out there in regards to the original posting concerning 2V power numbers. -Chris #14 CMC2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I was mostly asking because, on torque-challenged cars, opening up the exhaust might not be the best idea if you're trying to make low-end power at the slight expense (or maybe not) of top-end power. The 4.6 2V engines are reportedly low on torque (for this class), but I'm wondering if people are shooting themselves in the foot by installing too-big exhaust components. Then again, it sounds like Chris' car is right there in the ballpark, without strange engine combos, compression ratios, or ECU tuning. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Mark- I'm in agreement with your statement (bigger piping is worse when looking for tq. esp. on a small displacement engine). However, before I changed my pipe size, what I found to help w/ my tq number, was moving the "X" in my primary piping closer to the front/engine side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBolt Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I'm running an 03 GT in CMC2. Just got my annual done, and am finally happy with my numbers. Motor is original stock/untouched 89k mile 2v. Stock exhaust manifolds, Pypes 2 1/2" off road X pipe to duel 2 1/2" pipes w/ duel 14" long 2 1/2" inlet/outlet "bullet" mufflers, duel side exit (90 deg. non-mandrel bent) 2 1/2" tailpipes. Other "power" mods include: Steeda underdrive pullies (crank, alt., water pump), K&N "fitpak" intake, FMS aluminum driveshaft. I run 18 lb. wheels with 255/40/17 RA1's. Numbers were.. 256hp/296 tq, 257hp/296tq, 261hp/301tq. I dont have the dyno sheet to show you the curves (forgot to make copy before I submitted to our regional director Ed McGuire). Do remember the air/fuel was "as good as could be" (from experienced dyno tuner). Mark, dont think there's much to be had as far as the low-end torque your looking for from these engines w/out an illegal tune (CMC rules). And guess I'm not a help to you w/out my dyno sheet (your more than welcome to contact Ed for my info). Was putting this out there in regards to the original posting concerning 2V power numbers. -Chris #14 CMC2 Chris, Those are great numbers for stock manifolds. I hate having to run long tubes. Everything you want to do on the car is a bitch because of them! I was told the 4.6 could not make the numbers without them. Hell your numbers are better than mine and I supposedly have a tune. So here is another 4.6 making the power and the A/F is good without a tune, long tubes, or the Steeda timing adjuster. JJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Yup, I was originally thinking long tubes for sure, but was pleasantly surprised. I did try to keep all the rotating mass as light as possible (lightest wheels, lighter/smaller tire (255 as opposed to the 275), stock solid rear rotors, alum. driveshaft, ect. There has been some variation from the PI cars (I think the 99 to 00 or was it to 01) were reading/putting out somewhat lower hp/tq than the 01-04 models. I was impressed on how well the CMC directors did their homework in classing the car with the CMC numbers, with just basic bolt ons (and some exhaust tuning). Although I still think those darn big torqued LT1/LSx cars need some more weight -Chris #14 CMC2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.