4.0 MAF mod "tuning" information -- new stuff - Page 3 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech General discussion of 4.0L OHV and SOHC V6 Ford Ranger engines.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #51  
Old 02-04-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Hello, Gary! Yes, I remember you're older, lol. Thanks for jumping in there with a cool headed assessment. You've got me nailed, for good or for ill.

I think I got the nickname after someone got a little jiggy with one of the young ladies on the site, and I intervened. I believe she gave me the nickname then, and it was affectionate.

Nice to see you over here. I have buttons that are too large, to my regret. I apologize to everyone who has had to watch me go over the top. I have to confess, Dave pushes my buttons like few other people -- even Colin can't do it quite as well, lol. I'm not sure why that is.

New members please note: I'm a cranky, middle aged guy and do not represent the overall tone of this site.

Thanks folks for the supportive PM's, and in general not turning this into a free-for-all.

Anyway, I'm done regardless. Do or don't do this mod, it's all the same to me. I've given you what I know and will continue to do so as I uncover more information.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-04-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3elz
Dave pushes my buttons like few other people
He does it to us all! See some of my photo related posts..

Last edited by NHBubba_Revisited; 02-04-2005 at 02:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-04-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
You, push things, Colin? Unthinkable!

Hey, I'm trying to clean up the mess a bit -- don't run behind me dropping more trash!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-04-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Not sure if you mistook my last post!?! I edited it down.. Whatever.. disregard me and carry on!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-04-2005
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3elz
Well, Bob, we'll have to agree to disagree. With MAYBE a 5 to 10 percent gain in top end air flow total (because of other restrictions) the increase in air flow through the sensor is relatively small, and I can't see it being enough to damage it. (I know what's coming from someone: "if it's small then why do it?") If it was very large, you'd run out of range at the top of the MAF's voltage and start to run lean at the top end -- but that's not happening. You'd run lean because the airflow signal says less air is flowing than actually is, and the fuel trim might not be able to compensate.
Thanks for sharing the info on the MAF mod with all of us. I believe that many of us on this site enjoy reading about and perhaps trying some of the ideas that you come up with. I pulled my MAF out today and took a look at it and I agree with you that increased contamination is probably a non-issue.

I still believe that there would be some increase in flow over the sensor elements after the mod. With the backside cut away, the flow would be straight through and not have to change direction twice like it does in the factory configuration. At low flow rates, this shouldn't make much of a change in the measured flow rates but should show a greater increase as the overall flow through the MAF increases.

This may, in fact, be what prevents the mod from pushing the mixture too far lean. Increased flow over the sensor elements would increase the measured flow rate at the same time the actual flow rate increases while bypassing the sensor.

As far as WOT mixture goes, I believe that you will find that there is no determination of fuel trim during open loop operation. The LTFT is developed during closed loop adaptive mode based on the what is learned from the oxygen sensor operation. The fact that the LTFT says that you are not near the fuel clips in closed loop feedback says nothing about where the mixture is during open loop operation.

If you are seeing a power increase, though, it is pretty clear that the OL mixture is not running much if any richer than stock. Ford calibrations (and many others) are deliberately run richer than ideal during open loop operation for cat temperature protection. That's why it's so easy for aftermarket chip manufacturers to make more power, even on 87 octane fuel. Having no concerns about catalytic converter temperatures or the emissions performance warranty, they just lean out Ford's calibration until it matches the ideal power mixture (about 12.5:1).

It is possible that this is another way that the MAF mod returns more power. In addition to the probable flow rate increase, the net mixture change may make it slightly leaner than the overly rich factory calibration.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-04-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Ah, that explains a lot, thanks.

Well, the only saving grace here is that open loop operation, barring O2 sensor failure, is a mercifully short time. The engine has operating modes based on engine temperature, but as soon as the O2 sensors get hot, closed loop operation starts. Since the sensors are heated, that doesn't take too long.

Are we fully "open loop" on WOT, or is there still and adaptive mechanism for that mode? Guess I"ll look that up, or if you have the answer let me know.

I'm not sure HOW long though. I need to find that info or figure it out because you've made me curious.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-04-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Well, this is from the service manual (my italics for emphasis) on fuel trim:

Long Term Fuel Trim (Long Term FT) (displayed as LONGFT1 and LONGFT2 on the scan tool) is the other parameter that indicates long-term fuel adjustments. Long Term FT is also referred to as Fuel Trim. Long Term FT is calculated by the PCM using information from the Short Term FT to maintain a 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio during closed loop operation. The Fuel Trim strategy is expressed in percentages. The range of authority for Long Term FT is from -35% to +35%. The ideal value is near 0% but variations of 20% are acceptable. Information gathered at different speed load points are stored in fuel trim cells in the fuel trim tables, which can be used in the fuel calculation.

I remembered (incorrectly) the ranger of authority being +/- 25%. However, it says the +/- 20% is "acceptable" so I would presume being less then -20 or greater than 20 percent would eventually trigger the CEL. Since Doc's truck was at 22 when I first cut it, and went UP from there, that would be consistent with that.

No doubt his trim table is pretty well updated by now.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-04-2005
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,833
There is a complete base open loop table based on RPM vs Load that is used as the default fueling for the calibration. It has multiplicative and additive modifiers based on inputs like temperature and inferred barometric pressure. When closed loop operation entry conditions have been met, the calibration switches over to a closed loop using fuel trim and the O2 sensors. There are certain RPM/load cells that are always open loop. The trend is the higher you move in RPM or load, the more likely you are to be in the open loop only region of the tables.

WOT at all RPMs is open loop.

High RPMs cells are usually open loop at all loads.

There is no adaptive learning or feedback operation in open loop. There may, however, be an Open Loop Fuel Modifier that is uses the LTFT to attempt to correct open loop fueling based on what was learned in closed loop.

Last edited by V8 Level II; 02-04-2005 at 03:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-04-2005
doc's Avatar
doc doc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Media, PA
Posts: 1,406
Hey John, do not forget about the dementia also.... LOL
I am glad to see we are bacjk on topic... I always thought this site was against bashing, I guess the moderators have gone away... oh well.

Answer to the question: What kind of milage data you looking for? I normally got 150 miles per tank w/ stock intake. Went to 160 w/ K&N. I have yet to refill with the maf mod so I do not know that milage.
-Doc
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-04-2005
optikal illushun's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coal Region, MTC to be exact...heart of the coal region.
Posts: 2,232
oh ok, 160 isnt good!
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-04-2005
doc's Avatar
doc doc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Media, PA
Posts: 1,406
well I have 33's so my milage sucks.. never wasany good to begin with!
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-05-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc
Hey John, do not forget about the dementia also.... LOL
I am glad to see we are bacjk on topic... I always thought this site was against bashing, I guess the moderators have gone away... oh well.

Answer to the question: What kind of milage data you looking for? I normally got 150 miles per tank w/ stock intake. Went to 160 w/ K&N. I have yet to refill with the maf mod so I do not know that milage.
-Doc
Is that with or WITHOUT compensating for those monster tires?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-05-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Danville, VA
Posts: 2,664
i get about 240 a tank....and i think thats horrible....
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-05-2005
doc's Avatar
doc doc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Media, PA
Posts: 1,406
I have never seen any where near that.. unless I forget to reset the trip meter when I fuel!!
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-05-2005
D.
Unregistered User
 
Posts: n/a
As I offered earlier..

Factory box/intaketube, nothing cut. EM DIS 6pack and My exhaust with Hedders were the only external engine mods. I'm going to *assume* the ecc5 module was at all factory values ( don't know, just did 2 pulls and then yanked it ) .

Factory maf , Uncut, 213 at the rear wheels. Lost a LOT of the powercurve at 5500.

Cut the maf , 217 at the wheels, developed a miss around 5 grand and at 5500 the a/f went to 10:1 ( I don't know HOW this happened, I was sure it would go leaner , not richer ) . I'm sure programming would have helped.

This was just one quick pull as I was in a rush to put in a new Pro-M 80mm, a new Throttlebody, Intake tube and intake, Nozzlet and EM Tec3 ECM.

I think circumsizing the maf has the same gains as moving to a Pro-M or a Granetelli. The torque curve was +/- 2-3 lbft. On rollers, theres no way to check ' seat of pants ' improvement as your sitting still.

D.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-05-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Thanks, D. Your information got lost in the brou-ha-ha....ha ha.

10:1 is leaner. Target A/F from Ford is about 13.5 to 1 (or about that, I forget the exact number off the top of my head).

Yes, I was surprised by the lean condition as well. I would have thought flow through the MAF sensing tube would increase with the flow through the whole MAF on a 4.0, but it did not.

I think the reason why is laminar flow. The uncut 4.0 MAF sticks slightly over halfway across the MAF body (tube) inner diameter. At the sides of the tube, flow is more chaotic and of somewhat less effective velocity. When we cut the MAF, we are no longer measuring between the side (inlet) and the center (outlet) -- but between the side and the side.

So in fact, cutting the MAF in a 4.0 reduces flow through the MAF as measured by the fact that the predicted required fuel is not adequate -- reflected by the high LTFT number. So the engine THINKS there is less air, puts in the fuel for that, and then tries to add more when the O2 sensor feedback reports lean.

On my 3.0 the sensing tube goes the full diameter of the MAF body. It measures from one side of the body to the other side of the body. Cutting it means we're measuring just across one side, but still both inlet and outlet are on sides of the tube. That could be why 3.0's are less affected in terms of calibration by the change.

Thanks for the data, D.

Last edited by n3elz; 02-05-2005 at 04:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-05-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cape Coral, FL
Posts: 638
I remember anytime you offered to do the MAF mod, you always gave a warning beforehand and asked if the person still wanted to proceed!
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-05-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Yes, we "informational pedophiles" are very considerate of our victims that way...even when the victims are over 30 years old...
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-05-2005
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3elz
10:1 is leaner. Target A/F from Ford is about 13.5 to 1 (or about that, I forget the exact number off the top of my head).
Chemically correct mixture for gasoline is about 14.7:1. The oxygen sensors switch the mixture slightly above and below 14.7:1 at closed loop idle and cruise.

Maximum power enrichment for WOT would be about 12.5:1

Excess enrichment for cat temperature protection is often about 11~11.5:1

10:1 is so rich that it can cause cylinder wall washing and is not commanded when the engine is at operating temperature.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-05-2005
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Oh, yeah, you know I COMPLETELY inverted that, lol! Sorry about that. DOH! [hits self roundly on forehead]

I really don't know what I was thinking. I guess somehow because Doc's was running lean. Oh well.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-06-2005
D.
Unregistered User
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing
10:1 is so rich that it can cause cylinder wall washing and is not commanded when the engine is at operating temperature.
Bob hit the kill on the dyno when it went 11.5:1, he saw it coming and reacted. The low ratio came from screen data when it was done. Was ( more then likely ) recorded durring the shutdown process.

I've blown 2 engines on his dyno ( well.. a headgasket and a composit manifold ) and he didn't wish to be there all night sweeping up plastic parts ( again ).

Compared to a ' Stock ' Pro-M, theres not a lot of difference.. both need re-coding to obtain any real world gains ( or a lot of learning time ).

The Pro-M , throttlebody, 42# injectors, ECM and other items for the day spun to the tune of 250. Theres more there but I'll get it next weekend if my new headunit comes in.

D.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blown MAF hotwire, "slow return to idle" Andre DOHC - 2.3L Duratec / Mazda L Engines 2 05-07-2013 09:39 AM
Redline Tuning HoodShocks Mishaps "Help" 2001fordranger General Ford Ranger Discussion 5 08-12-2010 12:47 PM
For Sale: Tons and tons of stuff (Ranger, F150,Explorer) Lots of parts LOOK! NEW stuff OHIO Police Interceptor Interior, Exterior, Electrical, & Misc. 23 04-28-2010 05:54 PM
New to site, need some information! onecleanride Member Introductions 17 09-11-2008 02:02 PM
6x9 Mod - Need some information for a proper Non-Sub Amp WowMike2001 Audio & Video Tech 16 08-13-2008 05:08 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:27 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.