Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About 68fastback

  • Rank
    Need DOHC alloy big-block!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Region
  • Interests
    All Fords, Mustangs, Shelby!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,835 profile views
  1. Could be the strut mount as you mentioned, or where the strut bolts to the hub, or the strut itself could be failing. Possible, but less likely, are a failing tie-rod end or failing rack mount bushing (least likely)..
  2. What an awasome pic that is Rob!! Hope you have a great event this year! :bandance: I think TG needs a personal invite -lol ;-)
  3. ...just because that reporter says those things does not make it so. Did she talk to all parties involved? What did Cleo have to say? What about all the Intellectual Property changes? Also, who owned their home(s)? The Childrens Foundation and the Carroll Hall Shelby Trust (which owns Shelby Intellectual Property that is widely licensed) seem to be different legal entities. There are so many questions and it's always sad to see this contention when someone passes, but it is quite commonplace and there are reason why it is -- reasons no one seems to be talking about. Seems to me his wife has the legal right in Texas to decide where he is to be burrried. That said, if he wanted to be buried in a particular place or be creamated or whatever, my personal beleif is she should honor that, but there's a very different legal precedent if the family wrestles control from Cleo vs she retains control and still honors his wishes (or not). Would the family be fine if SHE honored all his wishes but did not cede control to the family? This is far from cut and dried and far from over, imo, and there's likely more than meets the eye. That reporter didn't even comment that they attempted to contact Cleo ...doesn't that seem odd ...whether or not she responsed? Anyhow, lost of unanswered questions.
  4. ...was exactly my thought, Phil. ...and Cleo is his estranged wife? Since when? She's been with him thru thick and thin.. Sad how you can say anything you want about someone after they're departed. I can understand differning opinions between family and Cleo re where he would be laid to rest. --- I also I did notice some very unusual trademark filing changes while Carroll was in the hospital ...trying to reassign GT500 first use to a much earlier date with a reason stating it was a simple mistake :shades: ...maybe it was but seems a strange time to notice that. Also, it was not signed by Carroll but via power of attorney -- both for the submission and the validation ...and tho separate POAs ...alos seemed strange. Dunno why or if it's legit but it struck me as very odd.
  5. Based on past experiences posting in threads here, Dennis likely will not get involved -- can't blame him. Same reason folks at Ford won't< I think. I'm glad blackshelby occasionally posts up here -- he is a wealth of true knowledge on how to do things correctly, but you've seen how that sometimes works out (more so in the past, I hope). Actually I don't see this problem resolving itself until tuners are taught how to tune properly by the schools run by the suppliers of the software (e.g. SCT, others) and it would seem they have little motivation to impact their ability to help their customers (tuners) require their customers (us) to tune more often, etc ...even if such practices potentially expose us (reduced safety) when experiencing improved altitude-density vs the day of the tune, etc. Ford likely started adding MAF guidance in the FRPP catalog starting 4 or 5 years ago because such practices (MAF transfer fucntion not reflecting flow) are highly undesireable -- even dangerous. I don't see Ford getting more proactively involved. Remember tunes are actually the proprietary IP (Intellectual Property) of the OEM's who appareltly look the other way on modifying if, for the benefit of their customers enjoyment. And I don't see tuners changing how they tune unless the customer demands it. Knowledge is power and that's probably the best way to manage the problem until/unless the product schools come to embrace and teach proper methods. --- By way of analogy (which may or may not work -lol), I consult on owner-builder residential construction and one might think the best person to ask about best-prectices is the average contractor. Unfortunately, I can assure you there are myriad practices among contractors for any given situation that run from fundamentally defective to competant and, in my experience, most contractors could not accurately explain best-practice on the proper way to install windows in new construction. My point is just that asking people who are installing windows is not necessarily usefull in determining what is correct. The science of a correct installation transcends the best materials (window, sheathing, house-wrap, flashing, etc) which still.require correct installation to perform properly, etc.
  6. thanks, guys. [you too, Joe :giggle:]
  7. Lol ...oh, how I wish I knew how. Maybe in another life ...starting *before* retirement age -lol .
  8. Thanks, Steve. I actually have no formal engineering training ...tho I tremendously enjoy science and technology I'm just an old corporate F100 wonk by trade -lol ...technology analyst, development manager, line-of-business competive strategist, etc, so I'm comfortable with crawling through complex systems and solutions. And Ford's mass-air system sure qualifies -lol- but the basics are fairly straight forward -- as I know you also know. ;-) Btw, blackshelby is the man! And I know he's helped out many a fellow GT500 owner when others tuners couldn't -- just for the love of setting things right. Anyhow, thanks for the kind words -- but I'm just a self-taught engineer at best. ;-)
  9. Thanks for the kind words, Ray. The more folks understand the less they'll accept on blind faith and the more questions they'll ask and the better they'll be able to sniff out BS and the better it will eventually get for everyone, I think. I can assure you a deeply knowledgeable mass-air tuner who does things correctly is happy to share info with his customers -- if they ask ...just like a doctor whose mantra is "above all, do no harm."
  10. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but if cost is not a big issue (it's all relative, isn't it) you're always better off optimizing the exhaust path and intake path first. I realize it's less bang for the buck than a pulley -- and the pulley can still be added if within MAF meter range and pumps, etc. but optimizing intake and exhaust paths will lower boost while making more power. Seems counter-intuitive but you can significantly destress your motor at all given rwHP levels -- and make more power at any rwHP level -- with less boost and more optimization than will more boost and less optimization. You'll also reduce heat as Terum pointed out so the tune won't have to pull timing to keep you safe. Realize that high boost heat soak won't show on dyno pulls (unless pulled several times back to back or, better yet, on a loading dyno that actually used that way) and tuners typically want you to see the best case HP on the dyno, but with lots of boost you'll never see that peak 'dyno' consistently on a track (or even on repeat runs on th estreet) due to heat soak *unless* you invest in optimization. So lets get back to the optimization for a minute. Lower boost not only permits you to see more of the 'dyno' HP in actual use use (less heat = less timing pulled in real-world use) but making HP through optimization (vs boost) also converts more of the power at the connecting-rod to the rear wheels. Ok, lets level-set on some terminology. Lets call power at the connecting rod ENGINE HP. Let's call HP at the crank-clutch interface BRAKE HP (as in water-brake HP on a bench dyno), and then at the wheels we all recognize that as rwHP. So how does optimization (of intake, exhaust, IC, HE -- and even the SC itself) convert more ENGINE hp to RW hp? By reducing boost thru flow optimization, for a given amount BRAKE or RW hp you're actually making that HP will less ENIGNE hp because less disporportionately LESS energy is going being used to physically drive the SC because it can flow more for the same parasitic energy consumption. And SCs can consume *lots* of HP (some as much as 300HP) at high boost levels. As an example, if your SC is consuming 150 peak ENGINE hp at 14.6#, to double the effective displacement of the engine (i.e.14.6# boost, because NA is 14.6# of natural atmospheric boost) optimization of the intake and exhaust alone (not SC mods) can easily unload 20-25% of the SC's HP and put tht to the rear-wheels. So 14.6# on a stock intake/.exhaust might only produce the same HP as 10# with an optimized intake/exhaust. This benefit is real on all FDSCs -- even highly efficient SCs like the TVS. Then, as you add HP with more boost, you are always getting more of it (more for each increment of boost vs unoptimized) to the rear wheels because the intake and exhaust paths are already well optimized and not causing the SC to eat lots of HP. But it's even better than that because at the SAME level of boost you also will make more ENGINE hp -- and more of THAT bonus ENIGNE HP will ALSO go to the rear wheels because even as HP is added the SC will take relatively less HP and the benefit gap between optimized and not-optimized gets progressibley larger (not linear) with more boost.. This is why LTs, race cats, and 3" exhaust to the tips is so beneficial with low restriction intake and super-high flowing TB (like the L&Ms). Then KEEPING all that additional 'dyno' HP in heavy real-world use conditions (repeat runs, track-days, etc) is why a bigger heat exchanger (HE), an efficient intercooler (IC), and more circulating pump flow and more sump capacity becomes important. But there's even another benefit. Fixed displacement superchargers (FDSCs) have an interesting characteristic: as intake pressure-drop approaches only one inch of mercury (1" Hg -- a relatively small vacuum) efficiency starts dropping off MUCH more rapidly. So, with a stock intake path and stock headers and stock exhaust (or just cat-backs), as you start forcing the SC (especially the stocker) to move more air with a smaller pulley you're bumping the perssure drop in the intake path well over 1" Hg at higher boost levels (probably anything over 10# with the stock intake and MAF tube) so you'll actually generate disproportionately less benefit because more potential rwHP is being lost to physical losses in the SC (HEAT -- more energy required for smame work). However, if the intake path is well optimized, you'll make the most HP possible at any given boost level; more of it will go to the rear wheels, you'll even get proportionately more rwHP for the same SC than on an unoptimized engine and you'll keep more ENGINE, BRAKE and RWHP under heavy use conditions (less heat, less timing pulled) and more of that difference will also make it to the rear wheels. A tripple benefit! So while the pulley gives some instant gratification and excellent bang for the buck, it actually is the least efficient way(in terms of engine stress) to make more power at the outset. The ideal sequence is: full exhaust optimization (LTs, high flow cats, 3" straight thru to the tips); high flow intake including MAF tube (if needed to support your target HP down the road; and, of course, calibrated based on flow), super-flowing TB, HE/IC/pump improvements, optimized SC inlet and elbow and, last in the sequence, is a smaller pulley. Ok, so only a few folks do things like that (believe me some do -- usually ex-racers who know how this works and why), but that is the sequence to get the most HP to the rear wheels with the least stress on the motor under all conditions. Do you have to do things in that order? No. But once you know the *best* order you can decide where you want to make your instant-gratification tradeoffs. Pulleys are cheap so if you've done no optimization, go easy initially (as Terum points out) with the small pulleys if yoiu must pulley before optimization. But also, consider your long term HP goals (as much as possible is not a goal, it's a wish -lol) and if your goal is 750rwHP, by all means add optimization mods as early in your mod process a possible and size your mods accordingly (big exhaust, MAF tube to support 1100 ENGINE HP, L&M TB, etc). Why 1100 ENGINE HP for 750rwHP? Because 750 rw is about 885 at the BRAKE and, with SC parasitic losses (even optimized), that's about 1065 at the ENGINE needed to support 750rw. So a 123 MAF tube (or even a 140CJ if going for well over 750rw) is not overkill if 750 rw is where you're headed (123 will idle better than the 140 but the 140 will give you more headway *if* you will really need it). Ditto for LTs, 3" TB, IC/HE etc. And don't forget a cone-end filter. At 750rwHP air flow (remember flow = HP) a cap-end filter will almost certainly bump the SC well over 1" Hg pressure drop and efficiency will suffer, so the filter is actually important on an FDSC making bi power. As an aside, there are presently no cone-end 6" filter (fits 140mm CJ MAF tube) that I'm aware of *but* I understand JLT mayhave one ready (later next month?) to go with Jay's new 146mm(?) CF MAF tube (serious racers rejoice!), so if you're on the edge of making a big-MAF decision because you actually need it, might want to wait before deciding on the polished CJ 140mm tube or the JLT 146 CF tube, else the 123 will support 750rw no problem. The JLT 6" cone-end filter should fit both the CJ 140 and the coming JLT but I have no specifics -- just so you aware a big 6" cone-end filter is likely coming. Also, you may not want to be on the bleeding-edge of that adoption cycle until someone has the 146mm (*if* you really need that much flow) professionally flowed with your same MAF sensor (remember you can't calibrate a MAF METER unless you flow it with the actual TUBE + SENSOR), so if you're a little patient the bleeding-edge folks (or maybe even Jay?) will have calibrated that for your tuner and, no doubt, JAY will make available whatever info he can on the correct flow-based data (dunno, but you can bet someone will). Anyhow, hopefully how the above HP and efficiency pieces tie together helps with a broader understanding of what and why. Pulley when you like but realize the tradeoffs and try to optimize your decisions as best as you can as you move toward your goals. You'll lso spend less in the long run if you think that way because you'll have little or no throw-away if yoiu know where you want to get to and methodically chip away at it. And with a properly calibrated MAf with flow capacity to support your targets, you'll be able to incrementally make changes with minimal retuning -- once you get to an FRPP tune base (or equivalent) with your target MAF meter (tube + sensro) calibrated to flow, you'll just need to know when you'll need bigger injectors (will require tune change for new injector slopes, etc) and pump capacity (at same standard delivery pressure -- no gimics), and life will be good as you move toward your targets.' Btw, I'm not a tuner. I've never tuned a mass-air car because I don't have a dyno, but you don't have to have a dyno to understand the principles and do things smartly and if you decide to pully early for cheap fun, so be it ...but you'll know what you're doing and the tradeoffs your making and you can balance your budget with your goals in an intelligent fashion with the least expense overall ...if you so choose. Sorry for another long post, but I've always appreciated when others have taken the time over the years (I'm old -lol) to help educate me, so I know some of you likely will benefit from these insights -- and if just one of you does, I'm pleased to have been able to help. Have fun! -Dan
  11. I appreciate your frustration, shelbypowered. You simpy want wnat most folks want for their car. A good tune that kicks things up a bit so you can have fun as asafely as possible. I've seen several of Jon's tunes and they *all* had changed the MAF curve from actual flow for the intake in question. Does that mean he does that for every tune? Dunno, but I haven't seen any that didn't, so you ought to simple ask him. Possibly for an FRPP base tune with some mods he occasionally doesn't mess with the MAF transfer function, but even for those tunes (where there's no reason to touch it, like on yours) in all I've seen he has and I assume he would tell you whether he did or not on yours if you ask him. Why? Because he beleives it ok to do that. To be clear, we're not talking about messing with the mass-air sensor itself -- that's a piece of hardware plugged into the MAFair-tube. The tube + the sensor is called the MAF meter (so we have our terminology straight). The MAF meter (specific sensor in a specific tube) has specific flow characteristics. No MAF meter is 100% linear (for various physical reasons: shape, sensor flow-interference patterns, non-linear turbulence at differnt air flow rates, etc). If the meter (senssor-in-tube) response curve was 100% linear a tuner could calibrate it correctly by programming a straight line function from zero flow to maximum capacity is because linear respons = a straight line curve -- from 0 to 5v. In reality, the [MAF] meter curve programmed into the tune must adjust for this -- i.e reflect *real* flow across the rpm range. This is done, in essence, by every small voltagev increment representing ever more flow -- but the flow increments mapped against voltage are a NOT LINEAR function -- a curve.. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. If you pull air through a tube of a fixed configuration starting off slowly, every time flow doubles the effort needed to pull twice the air will *more* than double -- it's a curve, not a straight line function. And the more doubling, the greater the slope change of the curve. Additionally (as mentioned above) the specific size, shape, interior tube obstructions (the physical sensor it self is a major one) all affect flow in a non-linear way as flow varies from zero (no air movement) to maximum defined flow (where the sensor returns 5 volts to the ECU) . However, each voltage increment must represent a different AND NON-LINEAR amount of flow to ACCURATELY reflect the PHYSICAL flow going through the tube at any given instant. That is the SOLE AND CRITICAL PUSPOSE OF THE MAF in all mass-air cars (Ford and GM use different sensor and ECU communication logic, but the MAF engineering rationale is indentical). So, in the Ford system (voltage based; GM uses frequency) it should be apparent that it's critical that the return voltage correctly maps to actual physical flow once interpreted by the ECU logic, else the ECU will be doing things to the engine it doesn't really intend to do. The mass-air meter curve (alternatively called the MAF transfer function) is how the tuner programs that relationship (flow as a function of voltage) into the tune so that the ECU alwasy knows EXACTLY what the true air flow is at every instant -- critical because only then can ALL the other functions in the tune logic work properly because virtually all of the logic is affected by the MAF because air flow = horsepower and the correct fuel must be inserted into the port consistent with precisely how much air is going past (the injectors us pulse width modulation, essentially the time that an injector is 'open' is varied since the injector itself alwasy flow the same amoun when 'on' so what is varied is how long it's on per intake stroke). If the MAF is not accurately calibrated to flow, the tune will push control into and out of dozens of tables at incorrect entry and exit points and the operation of the engine will not be accurate and, under untested conditions, it will be less safe (or worse). At idle and under low load the O2 sensors' stoch switching is used to dynamically adjust A/F. This is known as closed-loop operation. At high load and WOT, fuel is commanded based solely on tables, not the O2s. This is called open-loop operation and this is the mode the tuner focusses on. However, the ideal A/F is not a static requirement across rpm because, evan at WOT, load and cylinder pressures vary with rpm. If it didn't, your dyno curves would be flat. Different load demands different A/Fs to be safe. The more load the more fuel for a given quantity of air is needed to be safe. At low load A/Fs of 14.6 to 14 (idle to low load) are fine. More importantly, less load permits less fuel with the same amount of intake stroke air. Why? Because less fuel is required to prevent detonation under less load. This is yet another reason not to mess with the MAF transfer function (curve) except to make it refelct 100% accurate flow because there's no point in a flat A/F curve. It needs to be what the engine load is demanding and the only way to achieve that accurately FOR ALL CONDITIONS (not just the conditions the day of the tune) is by basing the whole tiune on an accurate MAF meter. So, why is it bad to target A/Fs? Well, achieving good A/Fs isn't bad at all, but tweaking damaging the MAF's calibration to artificially target them is bad. And that is why a tune is then needed if a mod is made...because any mod will throw the A'Fs off if it was done the wrong way. Why? BECAUE THE TUNE IS THEN NOT ACCURATE FOR THE FULL RANGE OF THE METER -- 5V. So a mod that makes more HP pushes the tune into unchartered and necessarily inaccurate territory -- SO WILL ANY CONDITIONS THAT YIELD A HIGER ALTITUE DENSITY THAN THE DAY OF THE TUNE.. That is a real problem lurking to bite you -- maybe when you go to a different track either at a differnt altitude or a day with really "good air" (better than the day of the tune). If the MAF is correct, you could change a pulley or exhaust or intake or operate at differnt altitude-densities and NO TUNE would be required (up to meter range and pump capacity, etc) -- even tho those mods and/or conditions produced substantiall more HP than the day of the tune -- because the A/Fs WILL BE ACCURATE FOR THE FULL RANGE OF THE CORRECTLY CALIBRATED METER. Not surprisingly, that is the whole point of a mass-air car. It's why Ford ditched the old speed-density approach 20+ years ago. It's just nutty to defeat the whole purpose of mass-air engineering by distorting the curve and then trying to 'fix' dozens of other settings to compensate for that on the day of the tune, It should be clear that only serves to *potentially* put the engine at greater risk under myriad real-world conditions that didn't exit the day of the tune (better altitude-density as explained above) and to have the customer come back (or datalog, etc and email changes) for every little mod/change. Even then, it's still less safe under improved altitude-density conditions because it has essentially defeated how a mass-air cars properly works and the entire tune is therfore slightly inaccurate because it's always necessarily making innacurate assumptions about true air flow at all rpm -- even at idle. Make sense? Hope it helps a bit.
  12. I and possibly others had previously mentioned that Dennis Gomes at Tasca Ford in RI tunes correctly (and someone immediately bad mouthed him -- that's why I haven't (and won't) comment further) I'm not trying to push any tuner, just explain (as Ford has done, tho even that has been twisted by others) why one method is correct and others are not. The MAF is the basis on which the entire tune parametrics, software logic, and relaed hardware (including the sensors) realte. Its is he foundation of the building. If it's off everything else will be off. Ask your tuner straight up if they tweak the MAF curve to target A/Fs on the dyno. I believe they will tell you honestly because they don't believe it's a bad practice. You mention in post 218: "I have the bump up and down idle but little else to compain about." That's a perfect example of a symptom that is almost certainly caused by the MAF transfer function not being 100% accurate. Others in this thread have had similar/other quirky symptoms (I forget who, you'll have to read back) and when the MAF cureve was fixed all symptoms went away, Tuners who understand the importance of this spot these problems all the time and the fix (or part of the fix because tunes may be off in other ways too that try to compensate for the eroneous MAF curve) is alwasy to start with a correct MAF transfer function that reflects dead-nuts flow up to the full 5v -- no guessing. If a tuner knows the correct flow curve for your intake it should be used -- no exceptions. For an unusual intake combination (custom tube, different sensor, custom intake, etc) the intake pieces (as a unit with the sensor installed) should be flowed by a professional specialty shop who have equiplent that can flow it *natively* (no scalling or estimating from a partial flow analysis -- actual flow) and the curve representing that flow (up to 5v saturation) should be hwat's used. That should be the basis of every mass-air car tune -- no exceptions -- so there's an accurate foundation for the +/- million lines of code and +/- 5,000 parameters in dozens of tables in the rest of the tune can then work with accurately together. Have a great Easter ...gotta run.
  13. After 6 years of hearing "if so and so tuned my car so it has to be right" I just have to chuckle. The vast majority of tuners you're aware of here (yes him, and him, and him too) do *not* tune correctly. It doesn't matter how many cars they've tuned or how many years they've been doing it. It doesn't matter how fast the cars go. The fact is that a correct tune (MAF reflecting dead-nuts flow and all other functions consistent with that) can make just as much power (it's dependent on timing) as an incorrect tune can, but the correct tune will be safer every time -- over a wider range of real-world conditions and, as a side benefit, permits adding mods (within MAF, fuel, tables, etc) without requiring tune changes because the tune is already correct across the full 5v range of the MAF meter -- the basis of virtually *all* of the computer tune logic. Targeting A/Fs with the MAF transfer function: wrong. Setting it to refelct dead-nuts airflow: right. Then the whole tune can also be done correctly so all functions will relate properly. Y'all have wonderful Easter with family and friends.
  • Create New...