Hesitation in boost and high rpm
- Thread starter polskifacet
- Start date
polskifacet
New member
Is it me or is that a date. If the year is actually 14 there is no way its the original pump.
Isn't this the second motor?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
polskifacet
New member
Yes
polskifacet
New member
Dealer replaced long block under warranty. my car was manufactured in 2012. has to be a new one.derfdog15 said:
The long block engine assembly which is Part # DG1Z6006A can be had for nearly 6.500.00 with all parts needed. Part Description: 3.5L Dual Over Head Cam T/C V6 Gas ; SHO Package 1; Gaskets And Additional Parts Must Be Purchased Separately, Includes Oil Pan, Valve Covers, Front Cover & Water Pump. Z http://www.fordparts.com/Commerce/PartDetail.aspx?n=JfBYT2Kj2LUpv3vNzQFYwQ%3d%3d&id=390313021&m=44&search=true&year=2013&make=Ford&model=Taurus
I would love to see some pics of that new engine if possible. Z
I would love to see some pics of that new engine if possible. Z
polskifacet
New member
if you look at log 5 that i just uploaded which is back to stock (87 octane tune), the frp is solid as a rock wtf is going on! its over 2300 psi pretty much the whole time.
polskifacet
New member
sure but this proves the HPFP is fine since it keeps constant high pressure. If anything it could be the tank pump/pumps but then I think you would see that drop pressure if there was an issue there. Fuel line would have to be pinched for the lpfps to have pressure but not enough flow but that's fairly unlikely since AFR is good.
Not sure DI uses the same principle but on my mustang: NA motor you see 40 PSI of fuel pressure at idle, and try to hold 40 while pulling vacuum. At 0 vacuum you see ~ 60PSI (40 PSI + Vacuum). Add boost and you need even more PSI to push the fuel.
So in this case, assuming the same basic principle, lower boost on the 87 tune, means it has less resistance, up the boost, more resistance, pump cant maintain the pressure.
BUt again, I am not a DI guru, just seems logical to me.
So in this case, assuming the same basic principle, lower boost on the 87 tune, means it has less resistance, up the boost, more resistance, pump cant maintain the pressure.
BUt again, I am not a DI guru, just seems logical to me.
I would suspect the LPFP over the HPFP...
I had a similar issue..stock tune I had no issues, logs looked great! The moment I dropped ANY tune on it my fuel pressure would go to crap.. I replaced the LPFP, HPFP, and the FPDM... all of which may no REAL noticeable impact.. at most the LPFP helped a TAD but I could have replaced the strainer for $10 and gotten to same results...
Here is a log of mine that almost look IDENTICAL... mine is commanding a higher load than yours... and your LTFT are already set where mine are not there yet...
You are recording with a SCT device correct? and IIRC you also experience the same issue with LMS tunes? So that would make two DIFFERENCE tuners that are having the same issue correct?
What ultimately ended up being the issue with mine was the tune I was being provided. That is why I ask.
I had a similar issue..stock tune I had no issues, logs looked great! The moment I dropped ANY tune on it my fuel pressure would go to crap.. I replaced the LPFP, HPFP, and the FPDM... all of which may no REAL noticeable impact.. at most the LPFP helped a TAD but I could have replaced the strainer for $10 and gotten to same results...
Here is a log of mine that almost look IDENTICAL... mine is commanding a higher load than yours... and your LTFT are already set where mine are not there yet...
You are recording with a SCT device correct? and IIRC you also experience the same issue with LMS tunes? So that would make two DIFFERENCE tuners that are having the same issue correct?
What ultimately ended up being the issue with mine was the tune I was being provided. That is why I ask.
polskifacet
New member
I have to give LMS a chance to analyze the logs and mention that StealBlueSho had the same issue with a SCT programmer and a different tune which was ultimately fixed by a tune change. I hope this gets solved once and for all guys, I am absolutely willing to drive the 4 hours to LMS and let them have at it. Otherwise I'll setup a gofundme for a AJP tune in the end LMAO!
polskifacet said:
Can't go wrong with an AJPTurbo tune... are you datalogging with the LMS Mycal for LMS? I thought they wouldn't look at the logs from SCT?
Right, in the PM I said I had the same issues you are having when I was tuned with Unleashed which was ultimately resolved by AJPTurbo insisting that my fuel pressure woes were tune related. Both are SCT based tunes.
I would give LMS a good shot at it, haven't heard of anyone they couldn't help with their tune..plus you are invested in their tuner lol...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
polskifacet
New member
Logging with SCT. mycal doesnt have the capability. They will look at them, I can't do any better without getting an invite to their shop.
polskifacet said:
Glad they changed their stance on SCT logging... I would be curious if there are certain parameters they are having you record?
Historically they have said the SCT datalogging is not accurate and people don't look at the right parameters in order to make an informed decision...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
StealBlueSho said:
I can understand saying that about parameters that are logged, depending on the issue. However, the SCT logs are extremely accurate,and have an amazing resolution! I work with engine testing and dataloging for a living and the best resolution we can get is 20ms, and only ~20 parameters at that speed. Granted you can get to ~25 if that is all you log, and can log a whole bunch more parameters at 1500ms or so in a different data mode (less accurate and more prone to drop out).
But the PID read at 1 ms update rate that SCT has is pretty amazing.
