Topic Sponsor
2011+ Engine Related Questions Sub-Forum to the new engines that debuted in 2011.

3.5L Ecoboost New Misfire Fix TSB Jan 2014

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-05-2014, 10:45 AM
  #41  
Senior Member
 
maplelakeduckslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Albertville, MN
Posts: 1,521
Received 196 Likes on 140 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by clearnetedm
Fair point I think but for a tuner noob like myself how would a 87oct tune here directly improve this issue? I know we've been talking about the PCM update possibly changing the tune to help, or assuming, but I've never hear folks say a sct tune or other is the way to go to have this issue fixed. Does the SCT tune by default adjust things to correct this issue?

Again this isn't challenging at all. I know very little about tunes and never done one and likely wouldn't. I can't pay to play.

As far as if the update takes power away, you can always get it back by getting an aftermarket tune. That's what I had to do on my '11...that or drive a truck with 30% less HP and TQ. Its just that after Ford did the update it was a struggle to even get an aftermarket tune to function correctly in my truck.
Old 03-05-2014, 10:51 AM
  #42  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
makuloco2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 170
Received 189 Likes on 62 Posts

Default

The Ford Hotline engineers didn't even have the information on what exactly changed in the tune, oh well I tried. Someone is just going to have to be the guinea pig here and with the rainy season ahead I am sure I will see my share of customers coming into the dealer wanting the fix.
Old 03-05-2014, 01:24 PM
  #43  
Senior Member
 
13'TwinScrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 1,071
Received 153 Likes on 103 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by johndeerefarmer
I will not get the flash until I see what it does for the truck. I don't want to lose any power. Of course since I am tuned anyway it makes no difference.

I may have gained some low end response with it, but it was RICH----real rich. In 200 miles I looked like I was driving a diesel----my rear bumper was saturated by carbon build-up.

MPG dropped big time to like 16.2-16.5 HWY (Prior to the flash I had got about 19-21mpg) on trips up north. The turbos spool faster but it is CONSTANTLY in boost at like 62-65mph.
Old 03-05-2014, 01:57 PM
  #44  
Member
 
Tuner Boost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 661
Received 127 Likes on 96 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by leghost
If the TSB were a real FIX the plug gap would be returned to 0.040.....
Correct, and we all know that wont happen.

Originally Posted by johndeerefarmer
Gonna be hard to get full efficiency with the newer CAC's since Ford changed them internally.

I said screw it and got the Wagner.
The entire function of a IC (or CAC as Ford refers to it as) is to cool the charge air down to make more power and efficiency. The hotter the air charge, the more it expands, the less room for oxygen molecules and the less power/economy.

I agree with you, all OEM IC's are pretty small and inefficient anyway.

Originally Posted by 13'TwinScrew
This the 2013+ CAC have what appear to be foam pieces internally that prevent efficiency. It basically looks like they attempted to do everything possible to raise the temps in the CAC in a hope to vaporize the condensate, IMHO.

I pulled the top plate and mine and in about 200 miles had the limp mose issue in the rain. Threw that sucker right back on and have had no issues since.

All I know WBY5 box code that they flashed me to SUCKS royally.
Cure ALL the issues here:

https://www.f150forum.com/f70/ecoboo...23824/index73/

Originally Posted by taubr unit
Get a sct tuner and a tune for the truck I your concerned about it. IMO that's the best way to go. You can get a safe 87oct tune if you don't care about performance at all vs a performance tune. Sure it's a few hundred bucks but it's a better/long term fix vs Fords band-aid fix.
Agreed. Optimized all engines will do better. The Factory tune is always designed to cover all variables in the production process so error on the rich side. Each engine will be slightly different and will benefit from a tune , especially where A/F ratio and timing are logged allowing the tune to be optimized to that specific engine.


Originally Posted by makuloco2000
The Ford Hotline engineers didn't even have the information on what exactly changed in the tune, oh well I tried. Someone is just going to have to be the guinea pig here and with the rainy season ahead I am sure I will see my share of customers coming into the dealer wanting the fix.
PM me if you want to guinea pig and document the solution to all of this. I am assuming your a Ford service tech, correct?

Originally Posted by 13'TwinScrew
I may have gained some low end response with it, but it was RICH----real rich. In 200 miles I looked like I was driving a diesel----my rear bumper was saturated by carbon build-up.

MPG dropped big time to like 16.2-16.5 HWY (Prior to the flash I had got about 19-21mpg) on trips up north. The turbos spool faster but it is CONSTANTLY in boost at like 62-65mph.
And this will result in even greater intake valve coking....so it is a trade off. Correct it at the source and it all goes away w/out TSB flashes, warm intercoolers, etc.
Old 03-06-2014, 12:07 PM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
itguy08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 835
Received 177 Likes on 120 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by dieselhunter44
Hopefully someone will dyno their truck before and after the TSB is performed. I wonder if it will have a positive effect on power and torque, unlike earlier tBS's that killed power
Also curious if anyone has dyno'ed before and after the previous TSBs? Cause the butt meter can lie like a rug.
Old 03-06-2014, 12:22 PM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
itguy08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 835
Received 177 Likes on 120 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by leghost
If the TSB were a real FIX the plug gap would be returned to 0.040.....
Why would it matter? I get what the narrower gap does but if nothing else the shorter gaps allows you to run them longer before it causes drivability issues.

I changed the plugs on my SHO (which does not have the condensation issue; the cars are not affected) at 71k and the idle smoothed out, she seemed a tad more responsive, had better fuel economy, etc. And it was the same Motorcraft Iridiums gaped at 0.032 from the factory. I think the old ones were .04 and opened up to around .05 or so (I forget exactly; it was a couple weeks ago)

Did the F150 too and the 4.5k RPM miss went away completely.
Old 03-06-2014, 02:08 PM
  #47  
Member
 
Tuner Boost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 661
Received 127 Likes on 96 Posts
Default

Because the factory would want to keep the gap they determined was best (not always reality as we know).

Here is what we see in the cars.....not as much water in the IC/CAC as it is less effective than the F150's, but plenty of oil ingestion and unburnt fuel and water accumulating in the crankcase as they have the same PCV system that only evacuates at idle and part throttle when no boost is present:







Intake valve coking is more severe then on the F150 as well:

Old 03-06-2014, 02:37 PM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
itguy08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 835
Received 177 Likes on 120 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Tuner Boost
Because the factory would want to keep the gap they determined was best (not always reality as we know).

Here is what we see in the cars.....not as much water in the IC/CAC as it is less effective than the F150's, but plenty of oil ingestion and unburnt fuel and water accumulating in the crankcase as they have the same PCV system that only evacuates at idle and part throttle when no boost is present:
Other than looking nasty what exactly does it do? I've got plenty of miles on mine (71,9 something), serviced by the book and it has that residue. Power is fine, idle is smooth as glass, and it runs fine on regular 'old gas.

Any dyno runs before and after to show a real difference in performance? Cause the only ones I've seen were from BG where after 40 runs the best they could do is "gain" 2hp (~.75%) and 4 lb-ft (~1.5%). That's not directed as a slam but an invitation.

So unless you have OCD about a spotless intake or plan to modify it what is it hurting? By the time the car/truck has 150-200k I'm going to be looking at another one anyway as it will most likely be 10-15 years old and will have little other issues cropping up that will drive me nuts. And I'll feel like I got my money's worth.

Last edited by itguy08; 03-06-2014 at 02:40 PM.
Old 03-06-2014, 06:47 PM
  #49  
Senior Member
 
Wannafbody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Pittsburgh Pa
Posts: 2,121
Received 172 Likes on 145 Posts

Default

I had a 94 Mustang 5.0 and it looked way way worse than that when I removed the intake manifold, it was like a black tar.
Old 03-06-2014, 08:28 PM
  #50  
Senior Member
 
itguy08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 835
Received 177 Likes on 120 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Wannafbody
I had a 94 Mustang 5.0 and it looked way way worse than that when I removed the intake manifold, it was like a black tar.
Bingo! I'd bet every engine has that goop. Except carburated engines or throttle body injected engines as those send fuel/air throughout the intake.


Quick Reply: 3.5L Ecoboost New Misfire Fix TSB Jan 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:51 AM.