Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Corral,

I just installed the new harness with the new calibration. I broke out the credit card and got it all. And it was worth every cent. Probably the best upgrade since I got the system years ago. The harness fit like it was ment for my car. Instructions were crystal clear.

Car drives like a Honda. Drivability is absolutely better than it was. And that's tough for me to say because it was excellent before and for me to notice, and I notice everything about a car I've had for 20 years, says a lot.

Now for the sensors and where I mounted them:
Ethanol content sensor. Mounted on an aluminum l channel that I had laying around. I used a couple of self tappers for this. Then I mounted it on the passenger side of my subframe connectors. Put on a couple of fittings, cut the fuel line, put in a couple of #8 females and extended the harness. Fit perfect.

Fuel pressure sensor:
I mounted this in the passenger side corner. It's there out of sight. I basically used it as a union and feed point for my rails. Tied the vac reference in the vac source that feeds map, bov, fpr.

Followed the instructions for enabling the sensors. Simple enough. I screwed up setting the idle. Quick email to Chris Richards and quick reply saying "read the instructions.". 2 minutes later idle set correctly. No more looking for the best spot between spark advance and idle pi corrections. The system does it.

Drove it to make sure everything was fine.
I went to the station and but in 5 gallons of e85. Mostly every station on Long island has e85 now so getting the sensor was a no brainier. I brought the ethanol content into my variables and it read 40%.

Drove it to work the next day. Filled up on premium.

Now there was absolutely no difference in drivability whatsoever. I can't tell what fuel is in there. Just by the exhaust smell.

The pro m does it all. Everything. Car is amazing.

My engine is a 408w. It has what people call "too small" for a top end. Afr 185s 72cc and an Anderson B31 cam. About 400 to the wheels na.

Then I added an V3 SI trim. Again people say "too small!". "you need at least a Ti trim!"

With a 6.87 crank and a 3" upper, running new calibration with all the sensors running and a tank full of e67. Yes e67. Filled up again with e85 and it told me it was only 67% ethanol:. Laid down 587hp and 575trq on a mustang dyno at 12#s and a rev limit of 6000. About 400lbs at 2500. Rocket ship graph lines.

I DID NO TUNING WHATSOEVER! I ENABLED THE SENSORS AND SET A NEW LOWER IDLE SPEED AND LET THE SYSTEM DO WHAT ITS SUPPOSED TO DO! I didn't touch anything in the program. I didn't screw with the new spark adder setting at all. All spark table are box stock.

The Dyno operator said it "looked" lean at 2500 rpm. Commanded .80 at loads above .900 at 2500 rpm. This made him feel better. I've since changed it back.

I have had multiple combos ran of the stock tune.

This is why I bought the system. This is why I've gone through about 12 different engine combinations. I don't want to tune. I want to start the car and go.

My car has never driven better. I'm very happy with it and I might be able to leave this engine combination alone. I've gone through 2 tanks of pump gas and 2 tanks of e85. You would never know the difference.

The old calibration was great. This one just stihs all over that. I really appreciate the customer service I have gotten from Chris Richards.
Most of the time I email him I've usually been up for 24 hours plus so sometimes it's something dumb that I should've know. Either way, there is no one in the business who responds on a Sunday. He really does go out of his way and has my respect and appreciation.

I know that this has been a lengthy post but the system has paid for itself again. I have about $4000 into it. Maybe more. But the reward of doing it ALL IN MY DRIVEWAY AND NOT PAYING A TUNER, the money saved is probably triple that.

Any questions please feel free to pm me.

Take care
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
I DID NO TUNING WHATSOEVER! I PLUGGED IN SOME NUMBERS AND LET THE SYSTEM DO WHAT ITS SUPPOSED TO DO! I didn't touch anything in the program. I didn't screw with the new spark adder setting at all. All spark table are box stock.
I use Water/Methanol, so no E85 for me but I'm confused as to what you wrote. What numbers did you plugin and why no changes to the spark adder table for flex fuel?

Thanks
Michael Plummer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
What I meant was enabled the sensors and set a new lower idle speed. Editing now. Also can be interpreted as cutting and pasting maf transfer function, engine configuration, injector configuration, idle speed, high and low slopes, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I use Water/Methanol, so no E85 for me but I'm confused as to what you wrote. What numbers did you plugin and why no changes to the spark adder table for flex fuel?

Thanks
Michael Plummer
Not really going to get into the spark adder until I get a higher percentage of ethanol in the tank. Says e85 but does vary from station to station. Minimum is 70%. But I've had lower.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
What I meant was enabled the sensors and set a new lower idle speed. Editing now. Also can be interpreted as cutting and pasting maf transfer function, engine configuration, injector configuration, idle speed, high and low slopes, etc.
Okay, my mistake, when you said you plugged in numbers you were referring to the setup for the new calibration software.....gotcha.

Thanks
Michael Plummer
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
Not really going to get into the spark adder until I get a higher percentage of ethanol in the tank. Says e85 but does vary from station to station. Minimum is 70%. But I've had lower.
As you know, it shouldn't matter the percentage of your E85 you have because that "percentage" of E85 is multiplied by the values in your flex_fuel_base_spark(RPM, Load) table.

Example: Let's say, your table has 4 degrees more spark advance everywhere over 2000rpms and over a load of 0.500 but your E85 percentage is 50%. If you multiply 4 by .5 your results would be 2 degrees of spark advance. These two degrees would be added to your base spark table. This is going to be interesting to see how much more spark advance people add to their table.

Good luck
Michael Plummer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Then if that was the case with my previous Dyno run, then the spark table was definitely being used during it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Well, this is great to hear. You beat me to it! I've had everything in the car for a while now but I haven't enabled the Flex Fuel controls because there are no stations near me that sell E85 and all my fuel jugs at home are filled with MS109. However, I took the car to work with me today and I need to head to Canton after work. There is a station there that sells E85. I'm gonna fill up directly from the pump.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Then if that was the case with my previous Dyno run, then the spark table was definitely being used during it.
Pro M's ethanol spark adder table ships with 1 degree advancement in the higher load areas. If you're ethanol content was 67%, then you were advancing spark .67 degrees on the dyno over the base spark table.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
The fact that I can see the percentage of ethanol in my variables is amazing.

I was talking with a friend who has an Evo. About 500 to all four wheels. He says he gnikcuf hates speed density and all the hard starts he gets because he was tuned on e85 that turned out was wasn't really e85. He has to go to only one station because their fuel is consistently within e85 specs.

He doesn't even bother during the colder months. Damn thing has the worse time starting and idles like crap.

I don't have that problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Well, this is great to hear. You beat me to it! I've had everything in the car for a while now but I haven't enabled the Flex Fuel controls because there are no stations near me that sell E85 and all my fuel jugs at home are filled with MS109. However, I took the car to work with me today and I need to head to Canton after work. There is a station there that sells E85. I'm gonna fill up directly from the pump.
The pro m changes the stoich automatically based on the percentage of ethanol that is present in the fuel.

Lambda is lambda
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
The pro m changes the stoich automatically based on the percentage of ethanol that is present in the fuel.

Lambda is lambda

Yes, but I didn't want to mix MS109 with E85. The flex fuel sensor adjusts stoich automatically based on the ratio of gasoline and ethanol. MS109 has a lower stoich than true gasoline because it is oxygenated, but not with ethanol. I have a specific calibration file for my MS109 tune that has the stoch value set appropriately. I want to say it's 13.41 but don't have the data sheet with me.

If you're mixing any ratio of pump gasoline and E85, then you're good to go just letting the sensor tell the ecu the ethanol content and letting the ecu do its stoich adjustment automatically.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Now there was absolutely no difference in drivability whatsoever. I can't tell what fuel is in there. Just by the exhaust smell.
I don't want to hijack this thread. I just want to add that my experience last night was very much like kjb302ho's. Based on the way the car drives and behaves, the change in fuel type was totally undetectable.

I pulled up to an E85 pump on fumes last night. (I was actually afraid I wasn't going to make it!) I shut the car down and flashed in the E85 calibration I had prepared ahead of time. I then pumped in 14 gallons of flex fuel (and filled a 5 gallon jug) and took a picture to remember the occasion. I made note that the $2.99/gallon price was much more attractive than the $15/gallon for MS109. Before I started the car I brought up the Fuel Ethanol Content Ratio gauge as I was very interested to see how the sensor reacted.

Go time. I turned the key and the engine fired as usual. I have a -10 supply line, and that and my rails were obviously still filled with MS109. Within 2 seconds the ethanol gauge started to rise. It took approximately 5-6 seconds for the needle to sweep from 0 to 65%. This all happened before the car was running long enough to enter closed loop. When the system entered closed loop, I noted that absolutely nothing out of the ordinary was happening on the PI gauges. Corrections on both banks were still hovering between 0% and 1% just like they had been with the MS109. The system adapted flawlessly to the new fuel. The ethanol content gauge continued to read 65% throughout by entire 45 minute drive home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Not a hijack John awesome to hear that you had the exact outcome as I did. The system has really outdid itself.

Fortunately for me, e85 is $1.89/gallon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Great to hear all this. I was initially planning on adding meth (w/93) after I got the new motor broke in but e85 may be a better alternative. The supplemental harness and fuel sensors are a little cheaper too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
The Dyno operator said it "looked" lean at 2500 rpm. Commanded .80 at loads above .900 at 2500 rpm. This made him feel better. I've since changed it back.
I've been thinking about this part and I think I have a pretty good idea of what was going on here. Before we can get into that, we need to get a better understanding on what is meant by "lean." I think that can cause a lot of confusion, and that's because people use the term with two related but different definitions intended.

Definition 1: (This is my preferred definition.) Lean means an actual lambda higher than what is being commanded. It doesn't matter what you think lambda should be. It doesn't matter what the running conditions are. It's just commanded vs actual. If you're commanding .87 but you're getting .95, then you're lean. If you're commanding .95 and getting .95, then you are neither rich nor lean, even if you're at a super high load. (That would be wrong, but it wouldn't be lean under this definition.)

Definition 2: Lean means a lambda higher than what you think it should be. For example, some people might make a general statement that while in boost, a/f should be .80. If you believe lambda should be .80 while in boost and you're seeing an actual measured lambda of .87, then by Definition 2 you're lean. The definition is not taking into account what is being commanded. If .87 is commanded, then by Definition 1 you are not lean.

Now back to your dyno experience. I believe the dyno operator was using Definition 2. Here's why.

Tuning is really trying to balance out power, safety, fuel economy/emissions, and drivability. Pro M's out of the box calibration achieves a happy middle ground with all of these. On the other hand, dynos are usually heavily tipped toward the maximizing power side. I don't expect that your car was "lean" by Definition 1, and it was actually delivering exactly what was commanded. What I do expect is that the dyno operator thought you should be around .80 (11.8 ish in gasoline talk) once you were in boost and that's why he said "lean." In fact, most dynos I've seen actually have a pre-set dotted red line at 11.8 going across their a/f chart. This is what they consider your target for the entire run while you're WOT with a forced induction car. Pro M's commanded fuel is not going to match that with a centri blower car. Pro M commands richer and richer a/f as load increases, and load will more-or-less increase as boost increases.

So why does the dyno expect this? Again, we are back to that balance. Dynos are looking for power. It has been my experience that gasoline cars will generally pick up some power if you command closer to .82 once you cross a load of 1 and make it to .80 by load of 1.4, but your fuel economy will suffer when you enter that region of the table. (Disclaimer, I don't know about E85. I'm new to that.) Pro M gives you a nice balance out of the box and doesn't sacrifice fuel economy for what amounts to about a 10-15hp gain (again, based on my experiences). The dyno is looking for max power. Pro M allows you to easily tweak the commanded lambda if you want to maximize power and sacrifice some fuel economy. It sounds like you did that to appease the dyno guy and then set it back. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
John, you are absolutely correct. I just didn't want hear him tell me it's lean when I know it's not. When it was "lean" it was commanding in the appropriate cell because of the load given at x point of the rpm.

I agree with your definition about lean.
When I had a restricted fuel filter, his wideband said lean because it actually was lean.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top