Coyote 5.0L Single Turbo Advice

[2damslo]

I am in the same process now I have made a set of forward facing headers and was planning on running the Factory wide bands in each collector and an aftermarket after the turbo. My question is it looks like I am going to have to run o2 extensions so should I leave my o2 setting as they were for the longtubes or should I change them back to factory since the Headers ended up being around the length of a mid length

[96gt4.6]

Well I got a chance to play around with some ideas, and so far it appears the system will function off of 1 O2 Sensor. However, there are side effects.

First up, I un plugged the bank 1 O2 sensor, and started/drove the vehicle. The code for that sensor's appropriate failures were set, and the system registered Close Loop - Fault in the fuel system status box. Until I did a WOT pull, at which time it actually goes into Open Loop, and applies the values it's learned while in Closed Loop (presumably) during part throttle. There appears to be no Closed Loop Fuel control whatsoever with an O2 disabled, under wide open throttle conditions:



I'm presuming, that if I had disabled the appropriate DTC's and left the sensor unplugged, the ecu would have starting taking the registered input lambda (.000) and tried to add fuel via trims to get it up, so I never attempted that.

The next thing I did was disable that O2 in the tune, not the codes, but the entire sensor as Eric and I had been discussing. This, however produced a very adverse affect. Once I started the car, it ran on what felt to be only 4 cylinders. Not from a fueling issue, but it literally had disabled a few cylinders, and most of my PID's went away in the scanner. They didn't come up as un-supported or anything, just no data shows up when you try to log. Re-flashing the tune again, produced the same results. I'm assuming, this turns off multiple things in the computer's hardware, possibly 4 injector or coil drivers perhaps as well. So, at this time, that route is a no-go:



This leaves me with 2 options. A log, or a merge system design.

However, it would appear of going to a log setup, having only 1 o2 is going to seriously cripple the constant closed loop fuel control of this system, not something I really want to do. Granted, it will still be fueling off of MAF so as long as I dial the curve in all should be well, in addition to having an in-car wide band either way, but i'd much rather let the ecu stay in complete control.

A merge design present problems.....ones that I can probably overcome, but in all honesty the space constraints i'm working with are surprisingly tight, given that i'm not willing to compromise anything as far as removing components from the vehicle for space reasons, nor running exhaust under the K member/ect. Traditionally, my builds are compact, and maintain O.E. driveability, ground clearance, ect.

I've sourced all the components for the build, and am starting fabrication here shortly. I'm still moving towards the Merge system, but only time will tell.

[Eric@HPTuners]

When you change to 1 O2 sensor, you also have to change the injector mapping like I previously posted. I've not test any of this on a Copperhead, but it has always worked in the past.

[96gt4.6]

^ Thanks Eric! Forgive my ignorance, I just reviewed that info and will give it a try this evening!

[96gt4.6]

Just so I'm clear, this table is the one in question? And, I can see where different banks are assigned differently, so change them to the appropriate bank, in this case change 1-2-3&4 to -1- as my driver side O2 is the bank i'll be using:



Thank you for the help sir!

[Eric@HPTuners]

I "believe" when you change the number of 02s to "1" then the PCM defaults to using the bank 1 sensor. If you are using bank 2, you might need to change it. I typically zero out that LTFT Bank vs. Cylinder # table to make it work.

[96gt4.6]

Ah, ok that makes sense as the config goes to a single vs. 2, hence making the table assignment change, got it.

I will poke at it some and report back, again thank you!

[96gt4.6]

Looks good sir! If I were close to ya I'd give you a hug, this problem was one of the biggest issues I was worrying about. She runs just fine off of the RH sensor.



On with the build! Again, thank you Eric!!

[Chris5.0]

Been doing this for 3 years, works fine.

[96gt4.6]

Thank you all for the help, we're off and running with the installation! I will update here as I progress through the tuning side of it once it's up and going:

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forum...=98489&page=37

[Kevin@JPCRacing]

Thank you all for the help, we're off and running with the installation! I will update here as I progress through the tuning side of it once it's up and going:

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forum...=98489&page=37

Did you have feedback at wot/boost on the fuel trims? I have one here that forces open loop anytime it is full load.

[96gt4.6]

I do not recall any issues, however I was made a good offer on the car......and sold it before I had a chance to really play with it in boost. Here's a 3 psi log as I was beginning tuning on it, if that helps.3psi log.hpl

[Kevin@JPCRacing]

I figured out my issue. I plugged a second 02 sensor into the bank 2 harness(it's just laying on the floor doing nothing) and it works perfectly now. Any time I would go over 100% load with only one sensor connected, it would force open loop. This is on an 11-14 control pack strategy, not sure if that has anything to do with it.

Your log looks mint, did you have one or both sensors installed?

[96gt4.6]

Kevin,

That log is with only one sensor, placed in the hot side piping on the passenger side/crossover pipe, using the method Eric outlined in this thread.

However, this was using the Roush Mustang Strategy.

Al

[15PSI]

I have no emperical evidence as to where the spring limits are. I have a PD Blower on my GT and run around 11 PSI with no problems. My valvetrain is OEM stock.

[96gt4.6]

Just a little update on this. I had sold the car back in 03/16', and the new owner is just now getting around to completing his vision of her. He was able to Achieve a very good HP result after changing out the On3 Turbo for a unit more suited for his HP goals (mine were 500 RWHP), in addition to correcting some other details the car required to proceed.

Anyhow, what pertains to this thread is that I had been contacted by the shop that performed the work, regarding my O2 sensor placement, and using only 1 O2 sensor. They claim that, using only 1 O2 is not possible and certainly placing it in the Hot side of the turbo system and not in the down pipe was entirely incorrect, will result in improper AFR readings and in this case, cause the system to go into Open Loop above 1.0 load values.

We have traded a few comments on Facebook, along with video and a log screenshot of this not being the case for me.....but i'm no expert and certainly do not have a track record like this place has. So, I simply wanted to convey this information for anyone reading this thread, that apparently you can't put an O2 in the hot side and expect it to work properly, nor utilize only 1 O2 sensor on the Coyote with the Factory ECU and keep it in Closed Loop fuel control under WOT, however I did not seem to have that result personally.

What I don't understand......is that if this is true.....why do companies such as Hellion put the stock O2 sensors in the hot side still? This shop claims to know someone at Hellion, and that they simply only build the kits and do not take into account that you can't put the O2's there....the must be in the down pipe.

I will refrain from naming the shop, as it's not pertinent to this conversation, merely wanting to know the reasoning behind this when some seem to claim it works just fine, and others say absolutely not.

[caniggia]

I don't know why they stated this way, but i always install them right after manifolds and they read same values as at tail pipe I use for compare.

[96gt4.6]

I'm not entirely sure myself honestly. I did not seem to have an issue with going the one sensor route as Eric had told me, as well as seeing that the Hellion single turbo kits utilize a sensor in the hot side as well. I designed the O2 placement similar to most other kits on the market, and used some of this article as a reference for such. In the article, they even say:

"The 2011 5.0L Mustangs have wide-band O2 sensors in the front location, which is really cool because you can go into the computer and command an air/fuel ratio at WOT. But in a turbo application, you don't command the same air/fuel ratio as you would in an N/A or supercharger because the sensors see increased backpressure due to the turbos. You have to make sure the MAF functions are right on par in order to effectively use the wide-band O2 capabilities."

Here's the article on the Hellion single kit: http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-t...turbo-install/

I personally had no issue this way either, and the car also had a pillar mount wide band which was located in the down pipe, and my AFR's were safe and seeing nearly the same lambda as the O2 sensor placed in the RH stock location. The shop and I have been trading posts on FB for a bit, and i'm just not sure what to think, and simply do NOT want to build in errors if i'm doing so, which is why i'm glad this thread is still here, as it details many responses from a few companies while I was designing the kit.

The shop claims to know someone at Hellion that designs their kits, and they say that they are: "turbo companies not tuning companies......which is a big difference." which basically implies that the companies designing such kits do not know where to place the O2's, which should be left up to a tuner like himself. This is where I have a problem, as if Hellion truly is doing such, then who wants to buy a kit that has to be immediately modified to move the O2's?

They claim that they were seeing an .8 A/F difference using their ECM/AFM 1000 lambda wideband vs. the stock wideband located in the RH stock Coyote location (hot side of turbo system).

I'm not trying to slander the shop.....but they are making it clear that I know what I did wrong here, and I want to also make sure this is the issue before I go designing the next system, and perhaps see why other people are doing it the same way, and having success.

[caniggia]

To stop this, i would say that afr says nothing without egt and knock sensor, so no matter where it's placed, egt should be resonable and no knock. Tuning turbo car without egt makes no sense.

[96gt4.6]

Thanks for you input.

This thread has been linked from the Facebook Post, so maybe we can get some insight from them as to the how/why of what i'm being told, or simply not understanding at this time vs. what we have already discussed from this thread's beginning. I'm not biased and certainly not perfect, but simply looking for some answers, other than it just can't be done that way.