When trying to compare cam angles between Gen I and Gen II Coyotes (mid-lock phasers), is it just a static angle shift of half the phasing range?
Thanks!
Printable View
When trying to compare cam angles between Gen I and Gen II Coyotes (mid-lock phasers), is it just a static angle shift of half the phasing range?
Thanks!
Mid-lock is your baseline hence the IVO goes only -20 max.
The Gen 1 cars don't have their base positions in the 720* range defined, making converting/ comparing them, exactly, difficult. When you plot it out you see the intake cams are not moving that much differently, and you can get an idea that the base values of the gen 1 cars intake is some where around 370*, and thats probably the same as the exhaust.
0*-180*= power
180*-360*= exhaust
360*-540*= intake
540*-720*= compression
A sheet with a simple visual representation of whats happening. Its got its limitations, but as long as you stay with in reason it works fine.
Attachment 96266
Quote:
Originally Posted by veeefour
That's how I first thought of it, but since the range of a Gen I is 50*, that would make the comparison look like this, right?:
Intake Exhaust Gen I 0 0 Gen II 25 -25
Intake Exhaust Gen I -50 50 Gen II -25 25
But then, there is the possibility that the cams are mechanically timed differently (which I thought I heard that they were), or that the total phasing range is different.
"[ECM] 38180 - VCT Intake Cam Advance Phasing Limit vs. RPM vs EOT" and "[ECM] 38179 - VCT Intake Cam Retard Phasing Limit vs. RPM vs EOT" have the intake cam range at +/- 50*, which seems wrong.
"[ECM] 20609 - VCT Exhaust Cam Phasing Limit vs. RPM vs. EOT", is the one table for exhaust cam, and has 46.75*
If we just look at idle condition, which I would expect to have similar cam angles:
Gen I: MP0 = 0* int / 0* exh
Gen II: MP1 = 20* int / 0* exh
So, either they have significantly changed the actual cam angles at idle, or there is asymmetry to the cam positions between generations.
What am I missing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by murfie
Thanks for that spreadsheet murphie.
Even without the Gen I base positions defined in the calibration, can't we use the physical cam timing procedure to figure that out?
And they are. You can clearly see it side to side, the timing procedure is also different. 2 gen has more spacing between banks.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS86
You should be able to. Using a degree wheel while doing it to check base position of each cam. I think procedure is "set it at 12 o'clock, rotate 180*, rotate 360*" type of directions. So many OPG/CS being replaced, but not much reason to care about the base positions, just getting it back in the same spot it was.
I'm just surprised after 5 years if no one has done that and answered the question definitively.
I don't have direct access to a Gen II engine right now.
More less. Attached for 2 gen.Quote:
Originally Posted by murfie
On the other hand 3 gen is different again, resembles 1 gen...
Attachment 96271
Has this been verified/updated etc for KNOWN info?