NOTAGT

Great stuff ! Remember the Coyote motor uses cam-torque-actuated phasers, not an oil pressure system as on the 5.4 Triton. Also, my 2009 had this phaser/timing chain/tensioner etc fault. This has been resolved with lockouts,new chains ,tensioners and guides. The Linernois tune stacked on an SCT tune really kicks *** . Plenty of 2009 and 2010 owners have this issue as well. Even my brother who has a 2011 ecoboost had the dreaded issue.
What I think some people miss is that a faulty oiling system (leaky tensioners/oil pump ?) causes an oscillation of the cam phaser which causes the phaser to fail. Lockouts ensure that this is not possible. Defeating the now unrequired VCT solenoids ensures better engine oiling all around now. Better reliability is a great tradeoff .

ElliotTheCarpenter

I disagree, partly because my stock set-up with my SCT tune has made my truck run and sound awesome, and partly because it's not a hard job to do.

Also what do you mean you have a "Linernois tune stacked on an SCT tune"? A custom SCT tune that works with your lockouts would be a great thing but you scare me a little when you say you have a stacked tune. It makes me wonder if you reprogrammed your ECU AND put a chip on the port. The chip would over ride the SCT changes, but some tables and variables could throw your engine into a super lean/rich condition or under/over advance your spark if SCT has calibrated one variable while your chip has recalibrated something related. But more importantly it's just an overall big no-no.

badincite

What's the best route replacing all the cam phasers or doing the cam phaser lockout? And if I do the cam phaser lockout (with tune of course) do I need to bother replacing the cam phasers. I'm assuming I should still replace the timing chains and and guides when I install the lockouts.

Fordjunkync

Just noting (not arguing)
(watching my programmer screen)
Phaser timing is full advanced when the engine is off, at idle & at deceleration)
(When the engine is off the phaser is at rest--the clock spring has returned the phaser to full advance & the PIN is locked)
(I dont know if the PIN locks at idle & deceleration but sounds plausible)

While driving the phasers constantly move & is manipulated by the throttle peddle.
While driving on flat road & holding the throttle completely still you can get the phasers to neutral out. (50/50 on the phasers vanes.)

The "lockouts" lock the timing at full advance.





OTHER
Now I just recently opened 1 of my 90,xxx mile phasers (I will open the other maybe later today for comparison).
I see there is clearance for the phaser vanes to move this much when the PIN is locked (the phaser even shows a machined mark on the outer edge).
This will be removed with the "lockouts"






.

vintageman

That's a touchy subject, phaser replacement or lockout install. If you have bad phasers, they need to be replaced in my opinion. If you choose to use the lockouts, they need to be in a good phaser not a bad one. I replaced my phasers just over a year ago and have had no issues with phaser noise at all. I replaced all the timing components, phasers and lash adjusters and followers with OEM parts. If you go the cheaper route with Dorman Phasers, then you should probably be prepared to do them again with OEM because a lot of the members here that have used Dorman phasers have reported that they failed not long afterwards. I thought about the phasers but so far, have not pulled the trigger because I believe the engineers (even though I think they could have done a better job) are probably smarter than me in regards to the design and would have installed lockouts if they were really necessary. Just my 2cents, good luck with whichever route you go on this. There are plenty of us on this site that have done the job successfully so don't be afraid to ask for any guidance or advice.
Tom

badincite

What make a phaser bad the spring? If your locking them in whats the point of replacing them if your not using the spring portion?

vintageman

The original design has a pin that is hollow. That pin would break, the new phasers have a solid pin that is less prone to breaking. Take if for what its worth, in my opinion, if there is a bad part, I replace the bad part. If my phasers were bad and I planned on putting the lockouts in, I would still replace the bad part. Like I said originally, touchy subject, everyone has their own opinion on this subject. There are a ton of threads on "do I need to change my phasers if I put lockouts in", try a search, do some reading and make a decision. Your truck, your decision. Good luck, let us know what you do and how it turns out.
Tom

F150Torqued

I did not mean to be demeaning, only EMPHATIC, and for that I apologize to @dougiefresh if he took it that way. I admit I assertively challenged (what I considered -and do consider- to be) "mis-information" that other members might take to heart as reliable information. I challenged the comment that "The truck takes off with great power...", (under the post title line of "Final Repair AND Lockouts only way to go.) which misleads the reader as to the effect of installing lockouts.


My sole objective is to relate information I have so others can evaluate and learn from my experiences ... uncontaminated by mis-information. I have done considerable probing (even 'hacking') of the 5.4L OBDII system with my scan tool and driven miles while logging or monitoring gauges and grafts of phaser operation. I can assure you that when "taking off with great power", the ECU has the phasers set firmly at maximum advance. That is the same position forced by lockouts, so therefore there would be NO DIFFERENCE in feel or anything else, and should not be the measure of comparison for installing lockouts. What I also can assure you is that under a VERY LARGE percentage of driving conditions, the ECU is feeding in some degree of retard. (ALL of that -for whatever design reason- is defeated with the lockouts, which forces the phasers to the OPOSITE position!) Good or bad? You decide, but its the opposite position. A lot of my research is described and detailed here with several screenshots from my scan app:
http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/11...l#post15647418


You'll notice, I got BLASTED for that post too.



And then, there's this mis-information ...:

Timing adjustments are limited to ONLY two (2)- either retard OR advance. The ECU currently does it - are we to think it is less than the maximum advance corrections that could be achieved? Besides, retard is for a totally different effect that cannot be replicated by ANY degree of advance changes. There are NO timing adjustments that can compensate (even minimimally) for lockouts effect on powerband - and no explation was offered to support this claim. Advancing timing (too much) at low RPM will produce no additional power, only cause a labor knock (and more nox emissions from 'hotter' combustion temps). So please explain to us what "timing adjustments" the Livernois ECU Update is supposed to do to "to make sure the powerband is minimally affected". In fact, it may sound more "sexy", what the Livernois update does in actuality is only equvilent to cutting the trace to the MIL on the instrument cluster.


Then @GrimaceTimus struggles to conceed the real truth about effect on emissions by stating "the lockouts produces (slightly) more emissions". Please explain. With NO EGR effect - there is NO combustion process cooling and fuel trims must run richer to maintain proper lambda in the complete absence of recirculated exhaust gases. (this HAS TO result in less MPG and reduced CAT life. And, without cooling combustion temps at all, there is nothing to curb NOX emissions. This would be exacerbated by excessive timing advance.)

Refering to the Livernois Lockouts - @NOTAGT states "Defeating the now unrequired VCT solenoids ensures better engine oiling all around now." Excuse my French, but that's - BULL BUTTER. The VCT is a "spool valve" that routes ALL the oil passing through it to either advance OR retard chambers perportionately based on the ECU's "duty cycle" input control signal. When NO RETARD is commanded, (at idle, deceleration or heavy load conditions), the ECU is applying ZERO duty cycle (same as being unplugged). See the screen shots at the above link. Thus - 100 % of ALL available oil is being routed to the advance chambers of the Phaser, with all residual pressure going to the chain tensioners. There would be ZERO difference (or improvement) in engine oiling. It would be EXACTLY THE SAME AS with or without lockouts. A good visual of VVT oil flow (although its the new Ti-VCT system - its operation is the same as the 5.4 triton) is here:

Additionally - a matter that has not been touched on at all in this discussion --- I am not at all sure installing lockouts, or manufacturing them for sale, is not a violation of federal law and a number of state laws. U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 85 › Subchapter II › Part A provides in relevant part:
42 U.S. Code Part A - Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards
§ 7522 - Prohibited acts:
...
(3)(A) ... or for any person knowingly to remove or render inoperative any such device or element of design after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser; or
(3)(B) for any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or install, any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, where a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this subchapter, and where the person knows or should know that such part or component is being offered for sale or installed for such use or put to such use; ...


The statute provides a $3,500 penalty per occurance for an individual and a $37,500 per day penalty for a manufacture who "defeats" an emission device or system. When a SOHC engine uses VVT in lieu of an EGR, does defeating it fall within this statute. I submit that a case could be made that it does.


I'm certain the disclosure laws would make a person liable if the modification was not disclosed when the vehicle is sold.


For ALL these reasons. It is my opinion that @s_vares presents the best Phaser repair solution here: https://www.f150forum.com/f4/final-r...-sound-141266/


Sorry for the lengthy post, but it is an important subject - with lots of mis-information floating around to sort through.

Fordjunkync

I wished Id had seen your info before.
(Ive been researching into some of this myself as per my posts but not into the level of area that you have.
I see you have been looking into this for a good bit of time (looking at the dates in your links) & I thank you for the legwork (persay) & passing it along.

I was just starting to look at the patterns of computer control of the phaser & how often was the usage of the locking PIN (as for my post at 2334 on this page). Now I see you have already posted info on that in another link you have (Im currently reading with interest, the info you posted of timing & load, also oil & temperature).
(I have a programmer & tow often).

Again thanks





.

NOTAGT

Well i did make sure this was ok by speaking to Linernois before stacking their tune over the SCT tune. No i do not have a chip. I used the handheld tuner and installed the 87octane tune . Truck runs great Not sure how you interpreted that the SCT was for the lockouts. The Livernois lockouts came with their lockout tuner.