Open filter vs PCM timing
#26
10-07-2008
Here is some info I think ya'll who run open air filters and the stock ford tune will find interesting. Now, I can't speak for stock ford tunes other than what was programmed for my 2006 4.0L. But I'd suspect that other rangers are not much different than what I'm seeing on mine.
The stock ford tune for my truck starts to remove timing at only 80F!
As you'll see in the chart below the curve starts to fall rapidly once the intake air sensor sees 80F. The amount of timing that's actually pulled is not easily known because the engines timing is modified by other factors like, load, rpm, ECT, knock sensor, ect...
Point being, if you run the stock ford tune and have an open air filter; Chances are that your causing the PCM to remove power at even fairly cold temps! As you can see on my web page the air temps from the engine room are SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than the outside ambient temps. For example, take even a 50F degree day. At 50F ambient if you were driving around town in a 30mph zone, came to a stop at a light, then wanted to go WOT when the light turned green? You'd most likely be giving up 5-10HP just because of the engine room heat effecting the sensors readings.
So.. IMO if a guy is going to run a stock tune and a open air filter. You really ought to consider boxing in the filter. Or maybe going back to the stock airbox. Or... make sure your tuner has adjusted this for you. (you can't do this with the x-cal)
btw, I have my tune set to start to pull timing at 110F and I've created a true "CAI" (cold air intake) And even with my cai my intake temps will creep up over 100F in a certian 40mph zone I travel for work.
Just something to consider....
The stock ford tune for my truck starts to remove timing at only 80F!
As you'll see in the chart below the curve starts to fall rapidly once the intake air sensor sees 80F. The amount of timing that's actually pulled is not easily known because the engines timing is modified by other factors like, load, rpm, ECT, knock sensor, ect...
Point being, if you run the stock ford tune and have an open air filter; Chances are that your causing the PCM to remove power at even fairly cold temps! As you can see on my web page the air temps from the engine room are SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than the outside ambient temps. For example, take even a 50F degree day. At 50F ambient if you were driving around town in a 30mph zone, came to a stop at a light, then wanted to go WOT when the light turned green? You'd most likely be giving up 5-10HP just because of the engine room heat effecting the sensors readings.
So.. IMO if a guy is going to run a stock tune and a open air filter. You really ought to consider boxing in the filter. Or maybe going back to the stock airbox. Or... make sure your tuner has adjusted this for you. (you can't do this with the x-cal)
btw, I have my tune set to start to pull timing at 110F and I've created a true "CAI" (cold air intake) And even with my cai my intake temps will creep up over 100F in a certian 40mph zone I travel for work.
Just something to consider....
Rich, what are the units on your graph?
#28
10-07-2008
Bob what you fail to understand are two things.
1) How **FORD** uses this "TQ" info. The PCM bases an awful lot of timing, fuel, and tranny functions on what the engine output power is. This is simply a measure of TQ as put into the tranny. I've NEVER said it was the same as what ford claims (207hp). They are two different things! What I have said, is that it's a compairable way for us ranger (and all fords) guys to show yours/mine power against each other and in a repeatable way. This is easily done and doesn't cost money as does dyno time. Any of us with a scanguage or x-cal can measure this and then report what real world conditions we see.
2) Scale. If I measure a 10HP difference using the ford PCM and this "scale" is off by 5% from the advertized claims? Then my 10HP claim is in reality 10.5hp or maybe 9.5hp.
Your only arguing with me in principal. I'm saying it's "close enough" for car forum discussions and to use as a before and after measurement when modding at home. Is a small 1/2hp difference really enough for you to throw this issue out? If so.. Bob you simply are argumentitive by nature or you don't understand scale.
My head hurts...
Rich
1) How **FORD** uses this "TQ" info. The PCM bases an awful lot of timing, fuel, and tranny functions on what the engine output power is. This is simply a measure of TQ as put into the tranny. I've NEVER said it was the same as what ford claims (207hp). They are two different things! What I have said, is that it's a compairable way for us ranger (and all fords) guys to show yours/mine power against each other and in a repeatable way. This is easily done and doesn't cost money as does dyno time. Any of us with a scanguage or x-cal can measure this and then report what real world conditions we see.
2) Scale. If I measure a 10HP difference using the ford PCM and this "scale" is off by 5% from the advertized claims? Then my 10HP claim is in reality 10.5hp or maybe 9.5hp.
Your only arguing with me in principal. I'm saying it's "close enough" for car forum discussions and to use as a before and after measurement when modding at home. Is a small 1/2hp difference really enough for you to throw this issue out? If so.. Bob you simply are argumentitive by nature or you don't understand scale.
My head hurts...
Rich
Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 10-07-2008 at 11:39 AM.
#29
10-07-2008
Bob I'll deflate your balloon one step further!
You can't put the power curve that you show in that picture down to pavement!!! Tranny convertor, clutch slip, engine load, tire slip, gear ratios, and TQ convertor lockup all effect the TQ produced. It's a **dynamic** and **floating** output.
I'd suggest you spend a little time on a chassie dyno and spend some time data logging your trucks PCM. Then maybe you'll start to understand what I'm trying to say. (I've done much of both)
Oh and one other little tid bit.. there is no such thing as "HP" on a internal combustion engine. There is only torque and gear ratios which amplifies the TQ. (A personal pet pieve of mine.. and yet I keep saying it. Ug..)
Rich
You can't put the power curve that you show in that picture down to pavement!!! Tranny convertor, clutch slip, engine load, tire slip, gear ratios, and TQ convertor lockup all effect the TQ produced. It's a **dynamic** and **floating** output.
I'd suggest you spend a little time on a chassie dyno and spend some time data logging your trucks PCM. Then maybe you'll start to understand what I'm trying to say. (I've done much of both)
Oh and one other little tid bit.. there is no such thing as "HP" on a internal combustion engine. There is only torque and gear ratios which amplifies the TQ. (A personal pet pieve of mine.. and yet I keep saying it. Ug..)
Rich
Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 10-07-2008 at 11:50 AM.
#30
10-07-2008
Bob I'll deflate your balloon one step further!
You can't put the power curve that you show in that picture down to pavement!!! Tranny convertor, clutch slip, engine load, tire slip, gear ratios, and TQ convertor lockup all effect the TQ produced. It's a **dynamic** and **floating** output.
I'd suggest you spend a little time on a chassie dyno and spend some time data logging your trucks PCM. Then maybe you'll start to understand what I'm trying to say. (I've done much of both)
Oh and one other little tid bit.. there is no such thing as "HP" on a internal combustion engine. There is only torque and gear ratios which amplifies the TQ. (A personal pet pieve of mine.. and yet I keep saying it. Ug..)
Rich
You can't put the power curve that you show in that picture down to pavement!!! Tranny convertor, clutch slip, engine load, tire slip, gear ratios, and TQ convertor lockup all effect the TQ produced. It's a **dynamic** and **floating** output.
I'd suggest you spend a little time on a chassie dyno and spend some time data logging your trucks PCM. Then maybe you'll start to understand what I'm trying to say. (I've done much of both)
Oh and one other little tid bit.. there is no such thing as "HP" on a internal combustion engine. There is only torque and gear ratios which amplifies the TQ. (A personal pet pieve of mine.. and yet I keep saying it. Ug..)
Rich
Rich, if your graphs came from a chassis dyno, they might be believable, and the basic characteristic curves (with some offset) would look like the crank
dyno measurements. Your "derived" plots, however are way off!!
#31
10-07-2008
Rich, I gathered that Y was timing and X was temperature, but I'm asking again, what are the units? Is your response your way of saying you don't
know?
#32
10-07-2008
Unregistered User
Posts: n/a
bob why do you care? hes "modding" his truck, you don't believe in that remember.
i'd like to see some of your real world data to prove all of your theories.
oh thats right you don't have any as you have never "modded" anything but rather go off of what you see on the internet.
i'd like to see some of your real world data to prove all of your theories.
oh thats right you don't have any as you have never "modded" anything but rather go off of what you see on the internet.
#33
10-07-2008
Drive the truck in the winter and you will get about 8hp gain from the air temp drop. That 8HP gain will then put enough stress on the motor that it will blow.
Thats the conclusion I came to in another thread while trying to follow his logic.
#34
10-07-2008
The Y axis are "units" of ignition. Refering to crank rotational position.
I don't dodge questions Bob. I leave that to the Libs and sales / marketting weenies.
Rich
#36
10-07-2008
8Hp gain across the rpm range for a 3.0 underdrive pulley = $100 = $12.50 per added HP.
Off the shelf boost is $3,000.00 for a gain of 60? That adds up to $50 per additional HP.
That is figuring the last selling price of the whipple supercharger before it was discontinued. Face value for face value if you will.
An Xcal tuner. Assuming $400 for 8 HP= $50 per additional HP. they generally run less money and the HP gain is probably higher. there will be some sacrifices in higher octane gas to get the better gains but the same applies for boost.
You are right in one respect. You stated "significant" gain. I would suspect that a lot of guys here are focused on the following:
"recover the lost momentum from offroading mods"
I don't know if your statement fits in the posters question. It's an assumption on your part or a platform to educate everyone on the forum. I'm using the same forum to show how these products can be worthy in the right circumstances.
For those that fit into my category the two mods I mentioned will generally do that. In my case- with the only evidence I have being 1/4 mile times- I was able to lift my truck 3" and install 32" tires and not lose a tenth of a second in 1/4 mile times. that is with a 4.0 engine. 4wd extended cab 3.0's offer more of an urgency to compensate from offroad mods since the starting HP is lower.
Another factor is available dollars. $100 is much easier achieved than $3000. if it helps to recover the extra weight of larger tires, it is worthy.
The tuner does double duty in correcting the odometer. For those that have increased their tires size, this must be calculated into the expense.
Off the shelf boost is $3,000.00 for a gain of 60? That adds up to $50 per additional HP.
That is figuring the last selling price of the whipple supercharger before it was discontinued. Face value for face value if you will.
An Xcal tuner. Assuming $400 for 8 HP= $50 per additional HP. they generally run less money and the HP gain is probably higher. there will be some sacrifices in higher octane gas to get the better gains but the same applies for boost.
You are right in one respect. You stated "significant" gain. I would suspect that a lot of guys here are focused on the following:
"recover the lost momentum from offroading mods"
I don't know if your statement fits in the posters question. It's an assumption on your part or a platform to educate everyone on the forum. I'm using the same forum to show how these products can be worthy in the right circumstances.
For those that fit into my category the two mods I mentioned will generally do that. In my case- with the only evidence I have being 1/4 mile times- I was able to lift my truck 3" and install 32" tires and not lose a tenth of a second in 1/4 mile times. that is with a 4.0 engine. 4wd extended cab 3.0's offer more of an urgency to compensate from offroad mods since the starting HP is lower.
Another factor is available dollars. $100 is much easier achieved than $3000. if it helps to recover the extra weight of larger tires, it is worthy.
The tuner does double duty in correcting the odometer. For those that have increased their tires size, this must be calculated into the expense.
I wouldn't expect anything less from somebody selling the stuff!!
Now, lets see some independent test data!!
Here is some independent test data of HP vs temp, and assuming the 3.0L has 150HP, similar gains can be seen by dropping the ambient temp by 40 degrees:
But, anything is possible, when you live in a dream world........
#37
10-07-2008
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ogden, Utah
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#38
10-07-2008
Please explain "units of ignition" The crank rotational position is measured in degrees, and I'm having a hard time seeing the ignition timing changing by more that 100 degrees!!!
#39
10-07-2008
What Bob just can't seem to get past is that if it came from "ford" its the best without question. Well.. I've got over ten years experience as a ford engineer on many different platforms. I guess if I have the screen name "ford" instead of "wydopnthrtl" I might have more weight in convincing him on differing things?
It's so easy to point at something non-tangible and use it as a standard. Like saying "ford". Or "global warming"
Well... in a honest discussion "ford" can't answer just like "GW" can't answer. And therefore those "things" can't be directly taken to task. But put a real person & measurable science behind the name and they can be taken to task.
Bob does exactly what all run of the mill Libs and politicians do. He questions everything and make claims its "bad". But then he will **NEVER** back it up with results measured by himself. Think about it... in all of Bobs posts he wants to point at what other people / companies say. Never what *he* measures.
Am I wrong?
Rich
It's so easy to point at something non-tangible and use it as a standard. Like saying "ford". Or "global warming"
Well... in a honest discussion "ford" can't answer just like "GW" can't answer. And therefore those "things" can't be directly taken to task. But put a real person & measurable science behind the name and they can be taken to task.
Bob does exactly what all run of the mill Libs and politicians do. He questions everything and make claims its "bad". But then he will **NEVER** back it up with results measured by himself. Think about it... in all of Bobs posts he wants to point at what other people / companies say. Never what *he* measures.
Am I wrong?
Rich
#40
10-07-2008
Where did you get "consisently dropping temp"? The purpose of the graph was to show the effect temp has on HP!
#41
10-07-2008
Bob your just arguing. You and I know exactly what timing is. There are 360 degrees of crank rotation and you know it. You really need to put down the hammer and pick up a laptop. Go... learn... then come back to the forum with something more than arrogance heaped on top of ignorance!
I'm fed up talking about this.
Rich
#42
10-07-2008
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Bob does exactly what all run of the mill Libs and politicians do. He questions everything and make claims its "bad". But then he will **NEVER** back it up with results measured by himself. Think about it... in all of Bobs posts he wants to point at what other people / companies say. Never what *he* measures.
Am I wrong?
Rich
Am I wrong?
Rich
He posts crappy links and says he wants to see independent tests but wont try it for himself. He has been brainwashed.
I have said this before and I will say it again. How can someone join a truck modding forum and expect everyone to listen the "OEM is best" crap when it's not.
Last edited by whippersnapper02; 10-07-2008 at 01:49 PM.
#43
10-07-2008
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ogden, Utah
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but he is showing how to help fix something that can keep you from losing 10 hp
#44
10-07-2008
Wayne- Pulley adds 8hp. Dyno'd.
Bob- you can get similar results from lowering air temps 40 degrees.
Wayne- How?
Bob- Drive it in winter.
Wayne- Why is pulley junk?
Bob- I have PROOF. People have electrical issues. Read this statement from FORD and read these links I provided.
Wayne- there is a cure for the electrical issue. I made a pulley to speed up the alt. I don't think it's necessary, but if it adds peace of mind, why not.
The other PROOF besides the electrical issue is your statement from Ford showing that these mods may add additional stress to your engine. Since I countered your electrical issue with a legitimate solution I deem it no longer valid. this only leads you with Fords statement of stress in the engine.
So.... i can deduct the following- if an 8hp gain from pulleys causes additional stress to your engine and therefore should not be used, why would the same not be true for driving in the winter time, which you stated would net a similar gain.
Am I missing something here?
#45
10-07-2008
Wayne I was a FEAD engineer for 6 yrs. (front end accessory drive)
A smaller crank pulley would actually put less stress on the front main, crank, and the other pullies!
The larger a crank pulley the more of a lever effect you have pulling on the belt. It's a simple class 1 lever.
btw, the highest stress on the motor is at the heaviest throttle w/o being in open loop and at high rpms... and when the ac clutch kicks in.
So.. approx 80% throttle, 4500rpms and when that AC clutch suddenly locks you get a huge spike of force on the front main, crank, crank pulley, belt, and what ever accessory is feeding the crank.
On the pass car/truck 4.6/5.4 engines I was getting a 510lb side load on the water pump. The next time you look at a mod motor water pump.. you'll notice that the ribbing is 8mm thick and that there are lots-of-em!
Now you know.. "the rest of the story".
But hey... what do I know?
Rich
A smaller crank pulley would actually put less stress on the front main, crank, and the other pullies!
The larger a crank pulley the more of a lever effect you have pulling on the belt. It's a simple class 1 lever.
btw, the highest stress on the motor is at the heaviest throttle w/o being in open loop and at high rpms... and when the ac clutch kicks in.
So.. approx 80% throttle, 4500rpms and when that AC clutch suddenly locks you get a huge spike of force on the front main, crank, crank pulley, belt, and what ever accessory is feeding the crank.
On the pass car/truck 4.6/5.4 engines I was getting a 510lb side load on the water pump. The next time you look at a mod motor water pump.. you'll notice that the ribbing is 8mm thick and that there are lots-of-em!
Now you know.. "the rest of the story".
But hey... what do I know?
Rich
#46
10-07-2008
Sorry guys. This is wrong thread for this. basic summary of the entire thread (from a cynical eye of course).
Wayne- Pulley adds 8hp. Dyno'd.
Bob- you can get similar results from lowering air temps 40 degrees.
Wayne- How?
Bob- Drive it in winter.
Wayne- Why is pulley junk?
Bob- I have PROOF. People have electrical issues. Read this statement from FORD and read these links I provided.
Wayne- there is a cure for the electrical issue. I made a pulley to speed up the alt. I don't think it's necessary, but if it adds peace of mind, why not.
The other PROOF besides the electrical issue is your statement from Ford showing that these mods may add additional stress to your engine. Since I countered your electrical issue with a legitimate solution I deem it no longer valid. this only leads you with Fords statement of stress in the engine.
So.... i can deduct the following- if an 8hp gain from pulleys causes additional stress to your engine and therefore should not be used, why would the same not be true for driving in the winter time, which you stated would net a similar gain.
Am I missing something here?
Wayne- Pulley adds 8hp. Dyno'd.
Bob- you can get similar results from lowering air temps 40 degrees.
Wayne- How?
Bob- Drive it in winter.
Wayne- Why is pulley junk?
Bob- I have PROOF. People have electrical issues. Read this statement from FORD and read these links I provided.
Wayne- there is a cure for the electrical issue. I made a pulley to speed up the alt. I don't think it's necessary, but if it adds peace of mind, why not.
The other PROOF besides the electrical issue is your statement from Ford showing that these mods may add additional stress to your engine. Since I countered your electrical issue with a legitimate solution I deem it no longer valid. this only leads you with Fords statement of stress in the engine.
So.... i can deduct the following- if an 8hp gain from pulleys causes additional stress to your engine and therefore should not be used, why would the same not be true for driving in the winter time, which you stated would net a similar gain.
Am I missing something here?
From the Ford statement, concerning UDPs:
"The same goes for problems stemming from higher cooling system temperatures because of reduced water pump flow caused by the installation of underdrive pulleys. Increased underhood temperatures caused by owner-induced changes to a factory design-specification part can have a detrimental effect on any number of powertrain components or systems – some that may have long-range implications."
So, yes, your missing a lot!!!!
#47
10-07-2008
Wasn't the purpose of your graph to show that similar HP gains could be had doing this over a mod such as a Pulley or tuner.
#48
10-07-2008
I did address that Bob. Hook up a scan gauge II and you get an accurate water temperature reading. Am I supposed to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?
#49
10-07-2008
Bob Bob Bob... you have clearly not listened to what I've said. These "units" are used in mathmatical calculations. Your trying to apply direct end result info to scalers. It's not that easy in calcs Bob.
Bob your just arguing. You and I know exactly what timing is. There are 360 degrees of crank rotation and you know it. You really need to put down the hammer and pick up a laptop. Go... learn... then come back to the forum with something more than arrogance heaped on top of ignorance!
I'm fed up talking about this.
Rich
Bob your just arguing. You and I know exactly what timing is. There are 360 degrees of crank rotation and you know it. You really need to put down the hammer and pick up a laptop. Go... learn... then come back to the forum with something more than arrogance heaped on top of ignorance!
I'm fed up talking about this.
Rich
Rich, I would respect you a lot more, if you would just say you don't know what the units are, instead of trying the BS approach!!!!
#50
10-07-2008
Bob, you just increased my sales. My average ticket was $120.95 for a pulley and belt. We are now up to $315 with the addition of a scan gauge II and an alt pulley. Let me know where to send the check.
