After researching this, I've contacted SCT and they don't have an official stance on this, but informed me of the factory concern as well. I don't have the information from Ford that they do, but I will pinpoint the concerns that I see in a BASE SCT tune that MANY tuners use (even when selling “custom” tunes).

Knock Sensor

1.) The Knock sensor adds up to 6 degrees more timing in the Knock Sensor Advance table.
2.) The knock sensor Retard Rate is reduced .5 up to 1 full degree of revolution. The way this is works is how much timing is reduced per 1 revolution of the engine.
3.) The Knock Sensor Advance Rate is reduced but it is higher then the retard rate. If the advance rate is higher then the retard rate the timing will be added in FASTER than the knock sensor can pull it out.

Spark Advance

1.) Global timing adder is increased from 0 (stock) to 5 degrees (more). Remember this is globally so it adds timing everywhere, from idle to cruise to medium load to WOT.
2.) Base Table for Piston Protection is raised from stock to all 63 degrees. Now this table is mostly at 63 stock except the top three rows on the table, basically WOT, and the values vary from 19 down low to 25 up top.
3.) Max Spark Advance is all raised to 63, and this table in stock form varies from 24 to 61 but the higher numbers are down in the lower RPM’s and they decrease as the load on the engine increases (as you push the throttle down while driving).

The main factor in the Knock sensor advance table and the Global Spark is that they are NOT regulated. For example if the stock tune goes to 22 degree's then with the BASE tune the knock sensor adds 8 degree's and the global is adding 5 then you have the potential for more then 35 degree's of timing!!! Even if the knock sensor picks up on it, the Retard rate has been lowered so it will pull timing but not even as fast as the stock tune. That's just an example as the actual timing level of the engine is calculated by a tremendous amount of factors but it could be a possibility.

Then another scenario is, even if the Global and the Knock sensor spark adders weren't raised, the Base Table for Piston Protection and the Max Spark Advance is raised so high that it can't properly limit the amount of spark table protection, and therefore deliver too much timing, and this opens the possibility for engine damage to ANY cylinder, with #8 being the most likely one to fail.

Why did this happen to dealers in the beginning? Because they ALL begin with the base files. We wouldn't know where to start on a PCM that's brand new from Ford without the research and development from SCT, there are MANY more changes then simply spark and fuel. The difference between just using the base file and examining the base file and doing something different is where experienced custom tuning comes in.

These are the items that have jumped out of the tune to me as being questionable and just some of what I change. I invite any Custom tuners to tell me their idea on the subject or tell me where they feel that I may be wrong. I'm not saying specifically that the SCT base file will give you issues, as from what SCT says, this may be a factory issue and there are plenty of Mustangs using these files. What I am saying is that if your car has the possible issue from the factory, installing one of these BASE tune files (or a CUSTOM TUNE file that does not make any changes to these parameters from the “Base Tune” file) may increase the possibility of this failure.

This was posted on The Mustang Forums..

This comment about all dealers having these issues, I can give you a list of CUSTOM tuning dealers that have never had this issue and have been custom tuning for much longer then these cars have been out, BOTH Diablosport and SCT.

Thanks, Doug

 

Great info Doug thanks for sharing.

 

Sorry, but you are late to the #8/Coyote tuning game. The #8 issue was real and has been addressed. Your Alabama source who saw "ZERO" issues, doesn't change the FACT, the #8 issue did occur to both tuned and stock cars. Just because it isn't talked about here doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

Not saying it didn't, like I say above SCT notes it their conversation with me. I'm just stating the changes in a base file that could make this concern more likely to happen.

Also, I've been around this concern since the beginning in late 2010, I'm just bringing around this information because of the comment " that all custom tuning dealers have had a 5.0 with this issue" after tuning it. I find that to be a untrue statement.

Thanks, Doug

 

Very good info Doug.....I hear good things about your tunes from hytek. I might have to see if your tune works better on my car.

 

Great info Doug! Keep up the good work! May be seeing you very soon fir a tune!

 

[QUOTE="Roelito78"]Great info Doug! Keep up the good work! May be seeing you very soon for a tune

 

We personally haven't had any cylinder 8 failures. Thanks for sharing your views and knowledge on the topic.

 

Informative post, thank you for sharing. I think you may have misinterpreted what I said, though. Some of the original post was left out of the quote.

True custom tunes are the only tunes that Bama offers. We don't work off of SCT's base value file and have R&D'ed our own file using our fleet of over 6 2011+ Mustangs on our in-house Dynojet 224xLC. We're confident in the files that we've developed and while many dealers may use value files to get them started, we don't.

As for the Cylinder #8 problem... Personally, I think the problem was a limitation/threshold that tuned N/A 5.0L's were crossing and it could have to do with octane/temperatures/tuning logic/piston design all adding up. If the moons lined up, you ended up with 7 cylinders. I don't think it's necessarily "overly aggressive tuning" or "bad quality gas" or "a mechanical flaw", individually. Even proven, trusted tunes from ourselves and most of our competitors have been associated with a cylinder 8... and I've had tons of customers with bad quality gas and no cylinder 8! We do use factory knock settings, so that may be responsible.

I know the pistons changing in the 2013 has gotten people to start talking, but I don't think it means there was a "flaw" in 2011-2012. I was by no means trying to say it's a mechanical problem. It could just mean Ford doesn't want their customers to have to worry. They know people buy Mustangs to mod them, so it's in their best interest - and they're a brilliant company with some of the best engineers in the world.

This is sort of a dead horse, but whether or not it's a tune issue or an underlying limitation that is brought out by tuning, Bama stands behind their calibrations. We're confident in what we do and we offer a REAL warranty. We didn't draft it up for publicity, we did it to show that we stand behind our products and have honored the warranty twice, now. (Most shops will never admit how many or even dare to chime in on a cylinder #8 thread, unless to say "not it!")

Hope this helps clear things up!

Shane

 

Very true, and I know Mike at Bama and he's a very quality tuner.

As for the 2011-12 to 13 difference, I'm glad you mentioned that. The 2013's I've been doing have used a completely different spark table on these now since they no longer have the piston squirters to help keep piston temps down. It'll be interesting to see how this new change works out with tuning dealers as well.

Thanks!! Doug

 

Three shops have done engine tear downs and they have confirmed there Is oil squirters in the block and they are there.

 

What? The 2013's have the squirters back in them? Then is there a part number change again for the block?

 

So whats the word on the 2013s with the oil squiters....do they have the old pistons or the new coated version?

 

Shawn from AED as stated for over a year, the problem with the #8 is in the stock tune. Don't know what he means by that.

When I decide to get a tune, it will be from Steeda. This is just my preference and nothing against the other companies out there.

 

stock calibration causing an engine component failure?? I guess we should see how that plays out ...

if thats the case Ford better put some money in the bank for their power train coverage

j/k

 

I remember reading him say that but I can't recall any more info on that or what exactly he said was the problem. It had something to do with how the ECU handles fuel/timing/spark @ WOT.