Bama says it is NOT turning off knock sensors
8/9/14, 10:25 AM
#6
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 27, 2014
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you "turn off" knock sensors on the Coyote? I haven't looked at any Ford ECU files but on other makes, you can't turn off any given sensor, only change what effect that sensor's readings have, or in some cases change response times. Are you sure you don't have a conservative tune, or is this knock sensor field the raw sensor data, or the resulting effect of that knock sensor data?
Just calling it like I see it. I have no tune on my car and as I said, haven't studied any Ford engine data.
Just calling it like I see it. I have no tune on my car and as I said, haven't studied any Ford engine data.
8/9/14, 12:28 PM
#9
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 27, 2014
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen this throughout the tuning world for tuners taking the easy way to better dyno numbers. Import tuners love this trick. You flatten the knock table so the sensor instead of pulling 2* for a given event/set of events, can only pull 1* or 0.5* per event/set of events. That's dramatically oversimplified of course, but illustrates what I'm asking. I've even seen knock sensor response set as close to zero as that ECU would accept, effectively rendering the sensor off....it's still reporting, just what it's reporting results in no change or very little change in timing.
Knock sensors are simple two wire sensors, power and signal. Turn on the ignition, and it's live. You can't just "turn it off" without disconnecting it and setting a check engine light. But you can change the response.
8/9/14, 12:31 PM
#10
Bullitt Member
Yup. That's why they offer their "#8 cylinder warranty". They know they have shady tunes, so they have that to cover their ***. How many other tuning companies offer a warranty like that?
8/9/14, 01:49 PM
#11
Banned
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This doesn't surprise me at all but let's not pretend that it's just Bama tunes. There are certain realities when it comes to making your internal combustion engine perform at a different or higher level. If you change just the tune of an engine without changing things like cylinder heads, exhaust system or fuel delivery there is pretty much only one way to make an engine like that run faster and that is to lean it out. That is pretty much all that any of these tunes will do and we all know it. Now, if you were to incorporate real mechanical changes to your motor like different heads that flow more cfm, headers for better exhaust flow, a more robust or higher flowing fuel delivery system, forged pistons or other internal engine racing parts and then change the tune to accommodate those new parts then you could or likely would have a faster engine while at the same time an engine that does not have to be run lean to achieve more power. The downside, as we all know, is that such an engine is also going to use a lot more fuel. Quite frankly you have to give credit to Ford for developing a 420 hp V8 engine that can run on 87 octane and not have detonation. Even a 305 hp 3.7L V6 that runs on 87 without detonation is an engineering marvel compared to what we had just 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Even more impressive is the mpg these cars get on the factory setting or tune as it were. There are a lot of places that Ford cuts corners during the production and building of the Mustang but the motors is not one of them. My guess is that the factory tune is pretty close to the safe limits of the engines to begin with and changing the tune to a leaner mixture is only asking for trouble. I totally get that as car guys we like to tinker with our cars but the reality is that there is no cheap and easy way to achieve better performance with these motors and that is what tune companies have tried to offer. The whole CAI / tune market makes a lot of money for very little gains in actual hp and a lot of potential harm to your engine. I'm glad to see someone called them out on it. I run the factory tune and factory air intake on my 3.7 and did the same with my GT. I might change the factory paper filter for a drop in K&N but other than that I won't mess with it. If I ever reach a point where I really want to get more hp out of my engine I won't even bother with the CAI and a tune route because it's just asking for trouble. I realize that I would have to spend real money on something like a supercharger, performance heads, better exhaust, etc etc. It would cost many thousands of dollars but I know the engine would not be running at the ragged edge all the time (mixture wise) just to give an extra 15 or 20 hp.
8/9/14, 02:40 PM
#12
GT Member
Join Date: April 3, 2014
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious. Has anyone here with a 12-14 had a #8 cylinder issue? Thought that was pretty much 2010 and 11's. Changes were made to the motors and that pretty much ended it.
Not promoting Bama, Lund or anyone else, but it seems Bama puts out a lot of tunes and I don't hear many people saying their motors are toast. I'm not sure I've even heard of one in the last year I've visited here.
Their tunes may not be the best.....nor the worst, but lets hear from them on the sensor being disabled first before jumping the gun.
If I've learned one thing here it's there's generally a reputable reason for most of this stuff.
Not promoting Bama, Lund or anyone else, but it seems Bama puts out a lot of tunes and I don't hear many people saying their motors are toast. I'm not sure I've even heard of one in the last year I've visited here.
Their tunes may not be the best.....nor the worst, but lets hear from them on the sensor being disabled first before jumping the gun.
If I've learned one thing here it's there's generally a reputable reason for most of this stuff.
8/9/14, 03:34 PM
#13
Bullitt Member
Curious. Has anyone here with a 12-14 had a #8 cylinder issue? Thought that was pretty much 2010 and 11's. Changes were made to the motors and that pretty much ended it.
Not promoting Bama, Lund or anyone else, but it seems Bama puts out a lot of tunes and I don't hear many people saying their motors are toast. I'm not sure I've even heard of one in the last year I've visited here.
Their tunes may not be the best.....nor the worst, but lets hear from them on the sensor being disabled first before jumping the gun.
If I've learned one thing here it's there's generally a reputable reason for most of this stuff.
Not promoting Bama, Lund or anyone else, but it seems Bama puts out a lot of tunes and I don't hear many people saying their motors are toast. I'm not sure I've even heard of one in the last year I've visited here.
Their tunes may not be the best.....nor the worst, but lets hear from them on the sensor being disabled first before jumping the gun.
If I've learned one thing here it's there's generally a reputable reason for most of this stuff.
TMS isn't what I would consider a "Performance forum", so if you want to read up more on the issue, head over to SVTperformance or S197Forum. You'll find all you need to know.
Btw, 2010 mustangs don't have the 5.0, so no #8 cylinder issue with those. The '11-'12 coyote engines have oil squirters, where as the '13-'14 engines have no oil squirters and added hypereutectic coated pistons. (A few 2012 engines have the coated pistons with no squirters)
Last edited by KushBandit; 8/9/14 at 03:36 PM.
8/9/14, 04:15 PM
#15
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Btw, 2010 mustangs don't have the 5.0, so no #8 cylinder issue with those. The '11-'12 coyote engines have oil squirters, where as the '13-'14 engines have no oil squirters and added hypereutectic coated pistons. (A few 2012 engines have the coated pistons with no squirters)
Last edited by cdynaco; 8/11/14 at 12:44 PM.
8/9/14, 04:18 PM
#16
Bullitt Member
I know bud. I didn't imply the Hypereutectic was a coating, I said Hypereutectic coated pistons, meaning they're Hypereutectic and coated. Hypereutectic is an Alloy.
Last edited by KushBandit; 8/9/14 at 04:21 PM.
8/9/14, 04:20 PM
#17
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Like they really want to push the limit so they have to rebuild an engine under their warranty. 
Brenspeed blew up more than one engine via #8 failures and they left their owners high and dry because they didn't have the ***** to add a warranty.
8/9/14, 04:32 PM
#18
Bullitt Member
How come Steeda hasn't had an engine blow? Even the '11-'12 engines that are apparently prone to this issue haven't had problems with Steeda tunes.
I'll add that I'm not a Bama or AM basher. I'm going off what I've read on Bamas site and what I've been told by respected members of the performance-oriented forums. The Bama datalogs I've reviewed didn't look good either. Why is it that Bama constantly has tune revisions with their customers?
Last edited by KushBandit; 8/9/14 at 04:41 PM.
8/9/14, 04:47 PM
#19
This doesn't surprise me at all but let's not pretend that it's just Bama tunes. There are certain realities when it comes to making your internal combustion engine perform at a different or higher level. If you change just the tune of an engine without changing things like cylinder heads, exhaust system or fuel delivery there is pretty much only one way to make an engine like that run faster and that is to lean it out. That is pretty much all that any of these tunes will do and we all know it. Now, if you were to incorporate real mechanical changes to your motor like different heads that flow more cfm, headers for better exhaust flow, a more robust or higher flowing fuel delivery system, forged pistons or other internal engine racing parts and then change the tune to accommodate those new parts then you could or likely would have a faster engine while at the same time an engine that does not have to be run lean to achieve more power. The downside, as we all know, is that such an engine is also going to use a lot more fuel. Quite frankly you have to give credit to Ford for developing a 420 hp V8 engine that can run on 87 octane and not have detonation. Even a 305 hp 3.7L V6 that runs on 87 without detonation is an engineering marvel compared to what we had just 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Even more impressive is the mpg these cars get on the factory setting or tune as it were. There are a lot of places that Ford cuts corners during the production and building of the Mustang but the motors is not one of them. My guess is that the factory tune is pretty close to the safe limits of the engines to begin with and changing the tune to a leaner mixture is only asking for trouble. I totally get that as car guys we like to tinker with our cars but the reality is that there is no cheap and easy way to achieve better performance with these motors and that is what tune companies have tried to offer. The whole CAI / tune market makes a lot of money for very little gains in actual hp and a lot of potential harm to your engine. I'm glad to see someone called them out on it. I run the factory tune and factory air intake on my 3.7 and did the same with my GT. I might change the factory paper filter for a drop in K&N but other than that I won't mess with it. If I ever reach a point where I really want to get more hp out of my engine I won't even bother with the CAI and a tune route because it's just asking for trouble. I realize that I would have to spend real money on something like a supercharger, performance heads, better exhaust, etc etc. It would cost many thousands of dollars but I know the engine would not be running at the ragged edge all the time (mixture wise) just to give an extra 15 or 20 hp.
lol