Ask me tuning questions - Page 2 - 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
  #26  
Old 09-26-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
MPG UPDATE:

Interesting! I've been using sunoco 94 all sumer now. Mileage has been right in the 20.5mpg area on avg. (all kinds of driving and tune testing at WOT)

Well with this 87 tune I've been running Speedway 87 octane. (Owned by Marathon oil) This has only been two tanks, however I fully filled the last tank and fully filled (seen in neck and not going down) this tank, the scanguage, and the math both match. (mileage / gal = MPG)

My mpg for this tank was 18.62. Traffic was nearly 50/50 hwy and stop/go driving.

So.. considering that my timing and fuel tables are identical for low rpm and loads. I'm kinda supprised it dropped that much. I can only guess that the sunoco 94 is good stuff.

Next week I'm going on a road trip and will report what those 2-3 tanks average.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-26-2008
rwenzing's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,805
Is your knock sensor more active with the 87? It may be pulling spark out.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-28-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing View Post
Is your knock sensor more active with the 87? It may be pulling spark out.

As of right now no. I'm running only 2 deg more than stock and only at WOT. At 85%-ish I'm running only 1deg more. In the 0 to 75%-ish areas of throttle, timing is factory stock via the tune. Although.... I do have it increased down low via the x-cal... hum... I'll watch it more closely.

I've not changed the max allowable timing from Ford... which I assume is done for 87 octane at 75F temps?
My timing running down the hwy is pretty much where it was with the 94 tune. It runs in the 36-38 area at a steady speed/load @ 70mph.
I'll make sure to data log KS activity.

You can feel it at WOT too. Once I get past 1/2 throttle the power just ain't thar like it was on the 94 fuel/tune.



Rich

Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 09-28-2008 at 05:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-02-2008
BurningRANGERtires's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: North Sin City, NV
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
I've spent the majority of my time tuning / trying different tranny settings. I gotta tell ya. This is how ford should have made it to begin with! At low throttle input it's just a shade firmer than stock. You wouldn't even notice. Yet the heavier the throttle the firmer the shifts. And at WOT it'll dang near bark the tires on the 1-2 shift. Has once too. Also, I lowered the 5th gear shift and TQ convertor lock up. It's nice. At 35mph the shift happens and 1/2 a mph later the convertor locks in 3/4ths the time it used too. So now I don't have to be going 55mph for it to finally go into lockup.. even though I'm lightly accelerating with traffic. I'm tellin ya.. it's smooth and the way it should have been from ford.
Ever since you have gone nitrous I had always wondered how you are holding up with the automatic transmission. Do you have the 5 speed automatic or the a 4 speed. I have an 01 (i think with the 4r55e transmission) and will it be able to replicate what you are doing with your tranny (i believe the newer trucks have a 5 speed auto)?? Only reason I have been scared to go FI of any kind is that I'm worried i'm going to break something (went threw a auto transmission on my 05 Nissan Sentra). Have you done anything to beef up the transmission?? Also I can't tell by the posts but was this all done by the x-cal 2 (would I be able to change the settings on my transmission like you did with that tuner?)?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-05-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Jeremy,

I've got the SCT pro racer tuning software. I use this to write all these tunes. I then download them to my x-cal2. Then use the x-cal 2 to re-flash the trucks PCM.

Tranny: Yes I have the 5speed. I believe it's the 5R55E
Nitrous tune settings:
I've done five things to account for the increase in power and to maximize 1/4 mile ETs.

1) Increased non-shift pressure by 5psi in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gear.
2) Increased the pressure in the mph vs load charts (+29psi max)
3) Decreased target shift slip times
4) Adjusted the TQ convertor lockup points
5) Adjusted the TQ convertor lockup speeds

Now... I've not just taken a wild guess at this stuff. I've slowly increased / decreased parameters based on slowly stepping up nitrous shot sizes and then testing and testing... and TESTING!
I started off with a 20shot, 35shot, 50shot, and finished the season out with a 60shot.
I started out mimiking the ford factory parameters but increasing them as needed to get positive but not harsh shifts. I kept on pushing it until I felt it was too harsh and then played with minor settings to get the feel I was wanting. As is shooting a 60shot my shifts "feel" positive but not harsh. It's nowhere near a tire barking type of shift. But when it does shift the truck lunges forward in a smooth feeling. All three shifts are like this. (I never go WOT up in 5th)

My 94octane and 87 octane tunes are much more conservative. And I must say I'm quite proud too. At very light throttle you would never know it's not stock unless I told you what to look for. And the heavier the throttle the more agressive it feels. The 1-2 shift is my most agressive at WOT and I've heard the tires *lightly bark* a time or two.

As far as you tuning your trucks tranny like I've done. You'll need to work with the company you bought the x-cal from (aka tuner) and work with them to get the settings to your liking. I'll tell you this though... Its taken me about 60hrs of tuning just on the computer to figure out what I do and don't like. Maybe the "tuners" out there have done all this fine tuning already? IMO I doubt it!
I know that from bama and henson, thier tunes did not address all these little likes/dislikes that I'm talking about. Those tunes IMO were "safe" and were more of a generic guestimate as to what I was asking for.

btw, on my last nitrous tune I *forgot* to adjust the 1-2 shift throttle valve pressures. (they were set at stock pressures) I'm-a-tellin-ya right now.. there is no way I could spray a 50+shot on the stock tranny pressures.
It didn't slip out of control.. but the shift was very very slow. So slow that I had to back out of it because I thought something was wrong with the tranny. I checked the tune, fixed it, and then re-tried it. Works perfect now.

Since I'm the only one doing this on a ranger.. only time will tell if I'm going to have a tranny that lives. I'll tell you this though. I change the fluid every 10k miles and carefully look at the fluid each time. All three times I've changed it I see no degradation in the fluids color, smell, nor do I ever see any debris on the plug or in the pan or even the filter. I'm at 41k miles and see ZERO indication that anything is out of spec.

Next year I *might* try a 75shot. But then again.. I'm already into a 14.5 with the proper launch technique. IMO a year round daily driver 4x4 that runs 14.5 is very respectful. I'm happy as can be as is.

Rich

Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 10-05-2008 at 04:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-05-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
87 octane MPG update:

I've now run 4 tanks of 87 octane gas on my 87 octane tune.

Avg so far is 19.65mpg (50/50 city/hwy)

And on my 1000mile vaction trip last week I averaged 20.10mpg (30/70 city/hwy w/3 people and 200lbs in the bed)


I've been trying to figure out how to lean this out some more. I've changed a few things and will re-flash the truck tonight. After I've run three tanks I'll report back.


Rich
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-05-2008
leadfoot's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: MA
Posts: 894
Hey rich,

I greatly dislike the shift strategy of my automatic transmission. IMO it has the engine operating at an rpm range that is too high. Specificly the enging downshifts too easily and when just cruising it doesn't want to upshift quick enough. I have heard in other threads that the best way to get good gas milage with the 4.0 OHV is to keep the engine under load and under 2000 rpm with a manual transmission. So that is what I basicly want to do, keep the engine at a lower rpm, lock the torque converter more and drive under more of a load to take advantage of the OHV's torque. After I pay off net years insurance I am going to buy an X-Cal 2, so would it be able to fix and adjust this? Does the tranny revert to an alternate shift stategy at WOT?

I average 14.5 mpg driving conservativly. I have to blame most of it on the tranny, I wish I went with a manual. My father gets better gas milage with his 5.3 Tahoe, that transmission takes advantage of the torque and it criuses at a lower rpm than my truck. Also does the x-cal 2 and stock ignition sytem have MSD capability and would there be any advantage?

EDIT: I installed a shift kit to fix the 1-2 shift flare, which worked but I did not notice any other difference.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-05-2008
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
I've been trying to figure out how to lean this out some more. I've changed a few things and will re-flash the truck tonight. After I've run three tanks I'll report back.


Rich
Running leaner is not the answer for better MPG. Driving habits, and running at Stoich (14.7 A/F) will give you the best MPG.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-05-2008
04 EDGE
Unregistered User
 
Posts: n/a
we dont all drive around like a 55+ year old man, and maybe some of use want performance with MPG gains bobbie.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-05-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post
Running leaner is not the answer for better MPG. Driving habits, and running at Stoich (14.7 A/F) will give you the best MPG.
Mr Bob, I'm not an "expert" on stoich. But what I have read tells me that it's a "best fit" balance of percentage of burn vs power vs emission output.

Stoich is also effected by the boutique of the fuel used. 10% oxygenated fuels (common around here in SE Mich) burn slightly leaner. This causes the fuel trims to "learn" to add a little fuel. Hence the reason why we all get worse mileage with it. (gotta love federal mandates)

Now two things. 1) I don't care about a small power loss at hwy speeds. I'm only using 45% to 50% of the engines power at 70mph (I've measured this) and would gladly give up a little tip in power to gain a mpg or two.
2) I'm ok with increasing NOX emissions as long as they are within "specs" set by my over burdening federal Government. Here is a decent read on lean burn.

I do agree on the driving habits though. IMO that's the number one thing a guy can do to improve fuel usage. It's in part why I get better mileage than most 4x4 rangers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fuel_ratio

Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 10-05-2008 at 09:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-05-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04 EDGE View Post
some of use want performance with MPG gains...
I firmly believe that I can have both! WOT tables and modifiers are completely different than part throttle and part load parameters. Shoot.. my 87 octane and 94 octane tunes are identical below 60% throttle.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-05-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by leadfoot View Post
Hey rich,

I greatly dislike the shift strategy of my automatic transmission. IMO it has the engine operating at an rpm range that is too high..
You and I are on the same page there! I've lowered 3rd, 4th, and 5th gear shifts. I've also got the TQ convertor lockups happening 0.5mph after the shifts. 5th gear is a little low at light throttle. My revs drop to 1200 when the convertor locks up.. but the motor still has plenty of TQ to pull along with traffic. Besides.. the exhaust note goes from barely noticable to a nice rumble at that rpms. Yeah I loose a little bit of power.. but it makes me smile every time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by leadfoot View Post
I am going to buy an X-Cal 2, so would it be able to fix and adjust this? Does the tranny revert to an alternate shift stategy at WOT?.
This stuff is controlled in the tune thats programed onto your x-cal. So no **you** can't change it. It has to come from the company you've purchased the tune from. This can be a nearly impossible task if your **** about tweaking the little things (like me).

As delivered bama and henson both adjusted the WOT shift points to what I asked for. And that in itself can be a real pain if they don't change the speeds to a high number. But they really didn't change much else as far as I can tell. And they certianly didn't change the part throttle shift points.

The tranny will shift on rpms *or* speed depending on what the PCM sees first. At WOT I've got my speeds set to a very high number so that it will always shift on the commanded rpm. It's working perfectly... even on my nitrous tune.
Part throttle though is always based on speed vs throttle position. That takes trial and error but I've got a decent curve set to my likeing now. It's just one of those things that you could tweak until you die IMO.

I noticed that Lasota made the TQ convertor lock up rates a little quicker (not sooner.. just quicker). Otherwise all other shift related parameters were stock.






Quote:
Originally Posted by leadfoot View Post
Also does the x-cal 2 and stock ignition sytem have MSD capability and would there be any advantage?.
Hum... my understanding is that our ignition systems are a waste spark setup. I honestly have no idea what would happen with a true "MSD" setup?

Me personally.. I went with a ultra high quality plug that's one ranger colder & gapped at 0.040". My idle is silky smooth and my a/f at WOT immediately went 0.4 to 0.5 leaner. Even though Lasota recommended that I avoid those plugs.. I see absolutely no down sides or unpredictability from them. My a/f curves are as smooth as regular plugs. They just have shifted leaner and I see no evidence of misses. (it's a very expense plug though @ $11 per)
The one range colder plugs works perfectly *except* after a cold start. They are fine at idle and at higher loads. But if I start the motor and let it idle for 30 seconds. Then pull out onto the hwy (couple hundred yards away) at about 20% throttle it'll *slightly* stumble until the plugs get some heat in them. Once they do it runs smoother than stock.
I'll wait until it gets cold to see what they do in sub-freezing temps. I may have to go to a stock heat range for my non-nitrous daily driving. (bob will be gloating over this admission)

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadfoot View Post
EDIT: I installed a shift kit to fix the 1-2 shift flare, which worked but I did not notice any other difference.
You know.. my shifts are at least 100% better than in stock form. All I've done is tuning and fluid changes. I get no flares on any shifts and the annoying clunk at 20mph (3-4 shift) was easily fixed by slowing the shift at that throttle position vs vehicle speed. That one 3-4 shift point is about the only area where I slowed actions as compaired stock. Nearly every thing above 10% throttle is quicker. And it's all on curves too. So at like 15% throttle it's 2psi more and 10% quicker. That gives a slightly noticable positive shift feel. Especially on the 1-3 skip shift. Then at 50% throttle its like 10psi more and 25% quicker.. and the TQ convertor is commanded to lock up 0.125 seconds after the shift takes place. Then at WOT I've just tweaked the pressures to suit my likes. I'll sometimes lightly bark the tires on the 1-2 shift and is just "firm" on the 2-3 & 3-4.

Rich

Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 10-05-2008 at 09:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-06-2008
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
Hum... my understanding is that our ignition systems are a waste spark setup. I honestly have no idea what would happen with a true "MSD" setup?
Yup, Ford's DIS, and EDIS are both waste spark systems. The MSD system offers no advantage at all.

As far as your spark plugs, only Motorcraft has a spark plug P/N with an optimized heat range for the 4.0L, not Bosch, NGK, or Denso
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-06-2008
cchsbuzz19's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North Canton, Ohio
Posts: 2,417
I got the K&N intake and I was just wondering what you meant by changing the tune when you get a conical filter?

Thanks,
Clay
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-07-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchsbuzz19 View Post
I got the K&N intake and I was just wondering what you meant by changing the tune when you get a conical filter?

Thanks,
Clay
I've observed two things about the K&N FIPK kit.
1) The MAF readings make the WOT a/f slightly leaner. I suspect that this is in part why it does make some more top end power.
2) An open filter sucks in hot engine room air when the truck is sitting still and slowly moving. That heat soaks the intake as well. The hotter air not only is less dense but it also causes the stock ford tuning to pull timing at only 80F.

So from a tuning perspective I've done two things. I've added a little fuel in open loop. (WOT) And I've raised the temp at which the PCM starts to pull timing.


Rich
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 10-21-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vernon
Posts: 36
Ok Im doing a full exhaust headers back and Im getting the volant CAI.. What do you advise I do about my tune?? Can I just get one of the portable programmers or should I take it somewhere??

** 00' B4K **
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-25-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Baron, I don't think you'll have to do anything. In my experiences headers that have the 02s placed the same distance from the exhaust valve will usually run slightly richer than stock. Everything else downstream will reduce backpressure and allow the air to flow more easily. This will accurately be measured by the MAF. No worries there.

Now if the 02s are closer or further away? Then the amount of time between the PCMs command and the 02s readings will be effected. This is a changeable parameter within the software and SCT recommends this be addressed when needed.

The volant products I like very much! Good quality.. but they really can't handle **significantly higher flow rates**. On a stock longblock ranger.. no worries there either. However if your spraying, or boosting a motor, the volants can't keep up. (like Lightnings & cobras)
This is why I went with a K&N on my ranger. Even off nitrous I've seen a small gain up top by removing my air box from around the conical K&N. So at 4000+ rpms and me spraying that HUGE airbox I have is still limiting me. (making a new one this winter to adress this )

A tuner really gains you power in two major areas.
1) Timing down low. Even with 87fuel you can really make it come alive. Tip in power and low speed is very noticable if given enough timing.
2)Timing because of higher octane.
With 93 octane I'm able to run 10-12deg more than the stock 87 tune from ford. You can sure feel it over 50% throttle too.
As far as adding / subtracting fuel.. the power is pretty much the same. I've run it in stock a/f (13.1:1), I've run it leaner (13.8:1), and I've run it at 12.7:1. Trap speeds are identical. So I'm sticking with the 12.7 and having some comfort that I'm not overheating anything.

Rich

Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 10-25-2008 at 07:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-04-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
I've been working on my tunes lately. Using my scanguage I've been observing the relationship between load, throttle position, timing, fuel, and vehicle speed / rpm.

It would make common sense that the higher the load (vehicle speed) that MPG would go down. (wind resistance and such) Well.. I've been noticing that I get slightly better or the same mileage at 70mph that I get at 65mph? So I set out to figure it out. I found that the load at 65mph and 70mph was the same. But the timing was running a good 5deg higher. And I noticed as the timing climbs so does instant mpg. I couldn't sleep Sunday night so I figured I'd write some tunes to increase mileage in the situations where I drive.

Sure enough.. at the rpms related to 65mph vs 70-72mph my timing was lower in the tune and fuel increases. I increased the timing in those areas and I actually added fuel vs taking it away. (50-70mph) And my instant mpg is now significantly higher! At 55mph it's holding 27-28mpg & at 70-72 it's in the 23-25mpg area. (last week it was in the 20mpg & 17mpg respectfully) Going up grades it goes down to 18mpg.. and down grades it's running 35mpg. These are far better than what it was running!

I also addressed a lot of really small tweaks that I've been making notes of. Things like shift points and firmness on a very small scale of change.

Right now I'm running a 92octane tune for speedway brand fuel (marathon owned). It's performance is decent but my top end timing is down 3deg to prevent knock retard. I think next week I'm going to try some shell 93 (have written a tune for it as well)

You know.. this stuff takes time and it's expensive in up front costs. But in the end the ability to just go home and change things with a mouse is a bazillion times easier and more effective than tweaking a carb, and tranny valve body. And getting a tuner to make these small tweaks would cost a fortune. The ability to just do it myself is very rewarding. It'll also pay off big time when I get the Lightning running.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-04-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Update:

I've been honing the tunes lately. Ran across something interesting too.

You know how a choke works. It decreases the air/fuel ratio when at cold temps. (more fuel) And as the motor warms it opens and gets the A/F ratio back to stoich.

Well.. ever since this ranger was new I've noticed that the colder it gets, the longer it takes to start when the motor is at ambient temps. Especially when the temps get below 25F! It did this when stock and after all my bolt on mods too. Even the one range colder plugs didn't seem to change this. (Usually it makes cold starting harder) The only thing that ever seemed to have an impact was when I'd add acetone to the fuel. (which btw makes a significant improvement in cold starts)

In temps above 30F it'll usually fire within 1/2 a second and on these cold michigan mornings it'll take a good 4-5 seconds of cranking to fire up. Annoying.. very annoying.

I didn't know if it was winter fuel, fuel filter, dirty injectors, ect.. But since this is repeatable and has done it since day one I suspected it was intended by ford to have this "feature". I donno.. maybe it's to allow for oil flow?

Anyway.. in the tune I found something very interesting! The stock ford tune doesn't add any fuel for colder temps *during the crank*. None at all. Good grief.. that's like try to start a old school car without setting the choke!
I figured I'd try adding some fuel during the crank and WOW!! Now i fires right up. This morning it was -1F and the truck fired up with only about 1 second of cranking.

In the below pics you can see the stock ford tune and what I've done to basicly add a "choke".

ECT = Coolant temp
LAMBDA = the commanded A/F ratio. (1.0 = 14.64 and less than 1.0 is richer)


STOCK FORD TUNE





MY TUNE


Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 02-04-2009 at 06:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-04-2009
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Rich, I would check to see if your fuel check valve is leaking. To verify this, on a cold stast, turn the key to the "RUN" position for a few seconds, followed by turning it back to the "off" position, and repeating this a couple of times. If it starts right up, then you will know that is the problem. If
the problem was the start up fuel table settings, there would be thousands, and thousands of 4.0L SOHC with cold start problems. By changing the fuel table on start up is compensating for the lower fuel pressure on a start up. Using the "short reach" plugs, which are TOO COLD ,doesn't help either....
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-04-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
I'm well aware of common problems with cold starts. If that was the case, commanding more fuel would'nt have changed a thing.

btw, extended cold cranking on some MY 4.0L is a complaint. I've got friends in low places...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-04-2009
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
I'm well aware of common problems with cold starts. If that was the case commanding more fuel would'nt have changed a thing.
RIch, there is two ways to get more fuel, increase the duration the injector is opened, and/or increase fuel pressure. If the check valve is leaking, it is taking the fuel pump more time to come up to the correct fuel pressure on a cold start.......Obviously you didn't think of a leaking fuel check valve.....
Again, if the problem was the fuel table being wrong, there would be thousands and thousands of people complaining of cold-starts!!

Last edited by Takeda; 02-04-2009 at 07:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-04-2009
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
In the below pics you can see the stock ford tune and what I've done to basicly add a "choke".

ECT = Coolant temp
LAMBDA = the commanded A/F ratio. (1.0 = 14.64 and less than 1.0 is richer)


STOCK FORD TUNE





MY TUNE


Rich, what do you think the ECT values are in your tables?????? Looks
like you are showing two different locations in the tables........
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-04-2009
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Rich, I suggest you check out this site:

http://fordfuelinjection.com/


Go to the download section. There are some great documents that go into detail of the algorithms the PCM uses to determine A/F ratios. The ECT/Lambda table you show is just part of what determines the start up fuel mixture. There are fuel tables for the time the engine runs after start up, and other "enrichment" tables you are missing......
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-06-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post
...you are missing......
Iroic. LOL.. I think you need to take another look at which issue I addressed.

Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 02-06-2009 at 11:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Damn...I ask a lot of questions... RazorEdge General Technical & Electrical 5 12-05-2013 01:16 PM
I've always wanted to ask BurningRANGERtires Suspension Tech 56 10-01-2008 06:31 PM
Gotta ask Reddsurion 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 16 09-20-2008 03:39 AM
Value of my Ranger (or how much should I ask) CNYDave General Ford Ranger Discussion 26 09-18-2008 08:00 AM
Im sure this is a bad idea, but I just have to ask.. VulcanMotor~PowerHouse Drivetrain Tech 19 12-28-2005 10:02 AM


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 02:15 PM.