Who has running/driving experience with the Gen 3 Coyote? Please weigh in.

[edwardb]

I'm posting this new thread in the Roadster forum because I think it will get the most views and (hopefully) responses. Although this is for my new Gen 3 Coupe with a Gen 3 Coyote (2018+) crate motor. Today I'm officially legal and had my first drive. Nothing extensive. Just under 10 miles. I've run the engine considerably over the past year during the build, e.g. first start, general testing, A/C charge, etc. Also did a very brief run up and down the street before going to paint. But barely above an idle in 1st and 2nd. So not conclusive about much of anything. Today was the first real run under power. This is what I reported in my Coupe build thread.

Not so good news: My Gen 3 Coyote is clearly not too happy yet. It kind of cuts out occasionally which if you have the gas down gives a pretty good jerk. Oddly at even RPM numbers. Like 2,000, 3,000 etc. Once back home scanned the ODB2 port, and had P0172 and P0175 codes, which is system too rich on both banks (both O2 sensors). Also had a P061B code - Internal Control Module Torque Calculation Performance, which I've seen before. Not sure if they're related. Did another short run with the nGauge and ran a log file. I'm far from an expert on such things. But looking at the data clearly shows it running too rich at certain times. I couldn't detect any correlation between the RPM drops and the data. But hard to tell (at least for me) looking at 1000 lines and 33 columns of data. What I have heard is the MAF sensor tuning in the Gen 3 is very critical. Without the stock airbox likely that's a big issue. The other thing I've heard about the Gen 3 is that the stock tune runs rich. Perhaps those two things are related. Bottom line it's driveable but not optimal and running too rich for long can't be good for it. I've already sent a message to Lund Tuning who I've used for a couple Gen 2 custom tunes. Hopefully they have experience with the Gen 3 crate motor. Seems by now they should have.

Curious if others here have their Gen 3 running and driving and what your experience has been with the stock tune.

[rsw81]

Subscribing to edumacation

[BEAR-AvHistory]

Have you had the car tuned yet? The modified intake track tends to cause idle & stalling issues. If the gen 3 is anything like the gen 1 the location & position of the MAP sensor is critical.

[Al_C]

It seems odd to me that the stock tune would run rich. But what do I know? Mine's a Gen 2. Nevertheless, advice I've received (from you, too, Paul!) was that the MAF is indeed critical. I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know, but if the crate engine's target market is the Mustang, I have to believe that it wants the Mustang engine bay environment - in other words, I think your assessment about the airbox is the key. Absent a new tune, is there a way to replicate the same airflow characteristics without the big airbox? Trust me, I'm certainly no expert, but if it's running rich it would seem to need more air. Maybe a different air filter? I'm just wondering aloud if that would be worth a try.

[edwardb]

Just to clarify a couple things. The Gen 3 is running the stock tune. Nothing changed there (yet). There was a lot of discussion about the Gen 1 and Gen 2 in the past about whether they needed a custom tune. Many run them successfully with the stock tune. My #8674 build with a Gen 2 actually ran nearly 1000 miles before I decided to have a Lund Racing tune done. It ran OK, but for sure ran better after the tune. So I recommend it for those versions. But nothing like what I'm seeing with the Gen 3 stock tune right now, which is basically not driveable. Agree the MAF sensor location and orientation is critical. Although I have Treadstone performance CAI parts on the Coupe, the overall layout is very similar to the Spectre setup on the Roadster.

BTW, I'm already in discussion with Lund Racing and the initial focus is, in fact, on the intake and MAF sensor. I'll be placing a tuning order, but it will be some days before that gets turned around with the log files, tune revisions, weather I can actually drive in, etc. But still interested in what other actual experience Gen 3 installations have experienced. It's obviously a pretty different animal than the Gen 1 and Gen 2, and many builds are using the Gen 3 now.

[Caddy Dad]

Congratulations on getting 100% legal! That's great!

[GFX2043mtu]

Can you post the log files? Those of us who know how to tune cars need those to find out what’s going on that isn’t right. If you believe the MAF signal isn’t clean one thing you may try if possible is adding an additional length of straight pipe before the MAF (can be cheep PVC with chamfered ends). Try to add as much as possible so that the air has the longest, straightest shot to the MAF as possible. The cleaner the MAF signal the better the ECU knows what’s going on. Some times tuners try to tune out bad intakes and with mixed success. But in my experience it’s far better to do what it takes to get laminar flow past it. Also the intake ID size is just as critical as the MAF table is set for a given diameter inlet size. So check to make sure that lines up also. If it doesn’t then driving logs will need to be done and the MAF tables will need to be rescaled. One other trick OEM’s and builders some times use is a flow straightener in the inlet right before the sensor. These do wonders for fixing moderate turbulence issues. From a peak performance stand point they may cost you a couple horses but I don’t think any one will notice.

[Railroad]

I am sure between Lund and yourself you will get everything resolved.
I have not looked at your intake air tube, but since MAF has been hot rodded, it has been found that clocking the air tube, which relocates the MAF sensor can affect the sensors signal.
Just something easy to try, if possible and you want.

[edwardb]

Thanks for the comments guys. Much appreciated. I could maybe figure out how to post the logs. But they were done somewhat haphazardly, e.g. one while driving up and down my street and the other while the engine was running in the garage. I was interested to see if I could confirm the rich condition (for sure) and see any correlation between the rich readings and/or the brief cut-outs and other readings (didn't see anything). At this point, nothing actionable to do with those. I'll get logs done under the control conditions requested by Lund once I start the process with them. Which I'm for sure doing. The discussions I've had with them today do center on the intake, as mentioned before, and they also commented about the short distance between the air cleaner/tube are and the MAF sensor. Also suggested maybe it could be longer there. My responses so far: Room is limited (see picture) so would take some significant changes which I'm not even sure how possible, I do have a honeyComb airflow straightener there already (see picture), and this is nearly the exact setup as on the Spectre intake on my Gen 2 Coyote Roadster. Which runs perfectly. Although maybe is less sensitive, who knows. I could clock the MAF sensor more to the front though. Maybe I'll see if that makes any noticeable difference.

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=124431&d=1584728725

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=99523&d=1545753535

[rich grsc]

Have you run it without the honey comb? Maybe that is causing some issue?

[edwardb]

Have you run it without the honey comb? Maybe that is causing some issue?

No, that was put in during the build. I put one in my Gen 2 Coyote Roadster after driving it for 1-2 seasons without. Seemed to smooth things out just a bit, but who knows, could have been my hopeful imagination. But that is what they're supposed to do. Whatever, it certainly didn't have any negative effect. These are universally praised for helping to smooth the air by the MAF sensor.

Update: I have a custom tune on order with Lund Racing. They've been super helpful so far getting it all sorted out, getting the specs for the car, the engine, etc. We're going to use the same nGauge I used for the Roadster. So that speeds things up a bit. Hopefully the process will start with logging and preliminary tunes next week and I'll be able to report some progress. Although now there's snow in the forecast for Monday. Grrr...

[Railroad]

I wonder if the honey comb channels could have a venturi effect being so close to the maf sensor.
Ford used a screen in the late 90's to smooth air flow.

[edwardb]

I wonder if the honey comb channels could have a venturi effect being so close to the maf sensor.
Ford used a screen in the late 90's to smooth air flow.

Screens to clean/straighten the airflow over the MAF sensor are used a lot in OE intakes. Often just as close as the one installed here. Obviously I'm open to whatever makes the engine run well. But actual data will determine that. I'll be real surprised if this honeycomb straightener is a problem. They're very common. As I mentioned, I have one in my Gen 2 Coyote Spectre intake and it runs great. It's in a similar location. At the opening to the MAF adapter tube. Just under the clamp holding the air cleaner on. Pictured below. Interesting to compare the Treadstone parts in my Coupe with the Spectre parts in the Roadster. Both are very similar in configuration. Note especially the short distance between the air filter and the MAF sensor. One thing I did notice is I have the MAF sensor more on the front on the Roadster, which is typically recommended. For grins, I'll trying clocking the Coupe one around a bit. Probably shouldn't be moving it after the tuning calibration starts.

There's no question the MAF calibration is tightly tuned to the stock airbox. It's expected plus the Ford Performance engineer I've talked to said the same thing. Also said, which I mentioned before, that's it's especially critical with the Gen 3. Reason? I'd just be guessing. Maybe the direct injection? Maybe the different intake and heads? Maybe the higher compression ratio? There are just so many differences between the Gen 2 and the Gen 3. We'll see what Lund sees when they get the data.

I was really hoping with this thread was to find someone who's actually driving a Gen 3 Coyote and hear about the experience. Nothing yet.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ab234/edwardb123/Factory%20Five%2020th%20Anniversary%20Mark%204%20R oadster/Coyote%20Engine/.highres/IMG_3721_zps4ly6jd2j.jpg (https://app.photobucket.com/u/edwardb123/p/4834f2bb-2bd5-40fb-85f9-654f52fc983c)

[totem]

Are you using the reducer in the MAF housing?

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=99523&d=1545753535

It is required to have a near OEM calibration. However, if you retune, you might want to remove it to have full diameter, full flow. Also, if you remove it now, it will lean your mixture and may improved your driveability.

[totem]

Are you using the reducer in the MAF housing?

It is required to have a near OEM calibration. However, if you retune, you might want to remove it to have full diameter, full flow. Also, if you remove it now, it will lean your mixture and may improved your driveability.

This would have applied to the 4in Spectre MAF housing. I see you are using the Threadstone 3.5in housing.

[edwardb]

This would have applied to the 4in Spectre MAF housing. I see you are using the Threadstone 3.5in housing.

Right. No reducer required for the Treadstone Performance parts. They are 3.5-inch out of the box and don't include any kind of reducer. The 3.5-inch tube is the same as the OE tube.

[GTBradley]

Paul, if lengthening is determined to help, could you go straight through to the wheel well? I saw that someone did that on a Roadster some time ago. I think their idea was to effectively create a cold air intake, but it seems like it could give you a long straight run, though from the pictures I can’t tell if that’s possible.
Bradley

[shark92651]

I have a Facebook friend that just completed a MK4 with a Gen3, but I am unaware of any issues like you described. He did run a Lund tune pretty quickly after he completed the build so perhaps the issue was there but was eliminated in the tune before he noticed. I will ask him to check this thread and respond if he has any input.

[FFinisher]

Hey Paul, PM sent.

[GFX2043mtu]

I’ve driven a couple 2018 mustangs gt’s. One at the track helping a guy out and one around town for a few miles. I will say at light loads the tuning could use some refinement as it seemed hesitant/laggy to inputs. Not so much jerky as the light throttle movements didn’t seem proportional to the power available. Under full go however it wasn't bad. As I’m sure you know all production vehicles could benefit from a good calibration by a competent tuner. The factory has to work around EPA requirements which don’t focus on drive ability or power. So some compromises have to be made. With a light car these issues become exaggerated and your probably fully noticing them along with the intake issue. Plus your exhaust is different which also plays into the calibration. I’ve personally never dealt with Lund before as I calibrate my vehicles myself. I’ve heard good things and I’m sure they’ll get you all set once done and you’ll like the end result. I’m just curious what they find in the log files as I would love to see them myself.

[edwardb]

I’ve driven a couple 2018 mustangs gt’s. One at the track helping a guy out and one around town for a few miles. I will say at light loads the tuning could use some refinement as it seemed hesitant/laggy to inputs. Not so much jerky as the light throttle movements didn’t seem proportional to the power available. Under full go however it wasn't bad. As I’m sure you know all production vehicles could benefit from a good calibration by a competent tuner. The factory has to work around EPA requirements which don’t focus on drive ability or power. So some compromises have to be made. With a light car these issues become exaggerated and your probably fully noticing them along with the intake issue. Plus your exhaust is different which also plays into the calibration. I’ve personally never dealt with Lund before as I calibrate my vehicles myself. I’ve heard good things and I’m sure they’ll get you all set once done and you’ll like the end result. I’m just curious what they find in the log files as I would love to see them myself.

Thanks for the feedback. Lund is just getting started on my tune. Just now received the base tune so away we go. Hope to have some news to share before the week's out. Initial feedback is the Gen 3 went to a 4-inch MAF tube (versus the 3.5-inch tube in the Gen 1 and Gen 2) so the 3.5-inch aftermarket tubes we're installing (Spectre and Treadstone) like before don't play nice with the stock tune in the Gen 3 and cause the excessive rich condition. Stay tuned.

[dhuff]

Right. No reducer required for the Treadstone Performance parts. They are 3.5-inch out of the box and don't include any kind of reducer. The 3.5-inch tube is the same as the OE tube.

On my Gen 3 the factory box was 4" at the location of the air flow sensor, which is how i installed. I've been about 12 miles but have not experienced a rich code.

[Murd]

I’m by no means an expert on efi systems but here’s my common sense thoughts.
The surface area of a 3.5 vs 4” circle is almost 25% smaller. The MAF sensor basically reads the speed of the air, not the volume right? The ECU would think it’s getting 25% more air than it actually is, if it thinks it’s breathing through a 4” tube.
Wouldn’t it also act like a restrictor plate, limiting your HP potential as well?

[edwardb]

On my Gen 3 the factory box was 4" at the location of the air flow sensor, which is how i installed. I've been about 12 miles but have not experienced a rich code.

Right. I clarified that in the last post earlier today. The Gen 3 is 3.5-inches at the throttle body. But unlike the Gen 1 and Gen 2, the Gen 3 is 4-inches by the MAF sensor. I'm two iterations into the revised calibration from Lund and it's running remarkably better. No cutouts or hesitations, no codes in the couple log drives today. It's going to be fine. Just need to get it where they like the data and I like how it runs, which hopefully won't be too much longer. I'll give a full report when completed. Yours may not throw codes, but I wouldn't be sure it's optimal. According to the Ford Performance engineer I talked to, anything other than the stock air box will likely need some level of re-calibration. Some more than others. I have a couple reports not detailed in this thread from others who experienced the same things that I did. The MAF sensors have always been critical, but on the Gen 3 apparently even more so.


I’m by no means an expert on efi systems but here’s my common sense thoughts. The surface area of a 3.5 vs 4” circle is almost 25% smaller. The MAF sensor basically reads the speed of the air, not the volume right? The ECU would think it’s getting 25% more air than it actually is, if it thinks it’s breathing through a 4” tube. Wouldn’t it also act like a restrictor plate, limiting your HP potential as well?

I'm sure Ford changed to a 4-inch tube by the MAF sensor for a reason. Logic would be for more air and in turn my power. But the Gen 3 has the same size throttle body as the Gen 1 and Gen 2. It's common on these engines when doing power adders, different intake manifolds, etc. to go to a larger throttle body. But not the case with the stock setup. So in the end will staying with the 3.5-inch tube throughout affect the power? I don't know, but I can't imagine it's very much since the throttle body would be the limiter and this setup doesn't have any kind of forced induction. It's a very strong engine and for my driving will never reach the peak of whatever it has, even if slightly south of its maximum. So I'm not concerned to be honest. What I've found out, and reported above, is the new tune is able to manage my setup. I'm not going to start swapping parts now that the tune is being calibrated to what I have already purchased and installed. Other builders may want to do what dhuff did and use a 4-inch MAF adapter. That would be different than the Spectre or Treadstone Performance (what my Coupe has) parts recommended by Factory Five.

[Railroad]

Do not know if I am interpreting this right, but as a MAF reaches it max reading capacity, that is all the tuning room it has.
By calibrating for a higher air flow, small tube, the sensor will use a higher % of its capacity.
Point being, your sensor will max out before you reach max hp, I think.
That does not mean it cannot be tuned to run right, up to that point.
Just stuff I have read and may be wrong about.

[edwardb]

Do not know if I am interpreting this right, but as a MAF reaches it max reading capacity, that is all the tuning room it has.
By calibrating for a higher air flow, small tube, the sensor will use a higher % of its capacity.
Point being, your sensor will max out before you reach max hp, I think.
That does not mean it cannot be tuned to run right, up to that point.
Just stuff I have read and may be wrong about.

This is getting pretty far beyond my personal knowledge or experience. What I do know is the Gen 2 and Gen 3 use the same MAF sensor (Motorcraft AFLS195) for whatever that's worth. Also keep in mind, as I described, even though the tube where the MAF is located on the Gen 3 is 4-inches, the throttle body itself is still only 3.5 inches. Same as the Gen 1 and Gen 2. I've read some of the same things about stock MAF sensors running out of capacity when power adders are thrown into the mix, e.g. doubling HP etc. But this is incremental and I imagine in the range of what the stock sensor can handle. I suspect Lund would say something if that wasn't the case. But it's a fair question and I will ask.

[edwardb]

OK, final update and status for this thread. As of an hour or so ago, completed logging the third version of the custom calibration from Lund Racing. Word back from John Lund, Jr. who's doing my tune: "I'm happy with that data! Log looks great. Fueling is good. Wide open throttle is happy. Knock sensor is happy." Not only is he happy, so am I. Engine runs great. All the bad stuff I reported before is gone. Only about 20 total miles on the car, and Michigan is now totally on lockdown. So it's going to be a few weeks before I can drive it any more. But I'm pleased and excited how it's running and everything I hoped the Gen 3 Coyote would be. For my last data run, he requested a wide open throttle (WOT) hit as best I could. I have a secret place I go when that's necessary (I'm not telling...) but it's a few miles away and didn't want to venture out that far. We live out in the country a bit and there was basically no traffic on the 2-lane highway that goes by our neighborhood. So did find the bottom of the accelerator (gently...) while in second. The goal was 7,000 RPM. I saw the tach starting to swing by 7,000 and the speedo by 80, so let go. Lets just say it really got in a hurry and LOUD. Amazing. Car was rock solid. That's not usually my thing and won't repeat (much) but gave me a healthy respect for what's there. That kind of action belongs on a strip or track. And BTW, zero DTC's with the two last rounds of calibration and logs. So bottom line all good and as far as I'm concerned, solved. The tune comes with a three month warranty. So I can log more data and have them review if I think it needs it or if I just want to do a followup after I've driven it more extensively. I'm planning to do that once I can start driving.

I asked about the 3.5-inch tube and the MAF sensor. Both zero issues. Said the 3.5-inch tube isn't an issue since I have an open element air filter. Also said the MAF sensor has plenty of range for this mostly stock setup, and actually can be safely used for much more.

I wanted to make a video of my last logging run just to record what the car was like while driving, what the engine sounds like, etc. Didn't work out for several reasons. But did this gauge sweep while it was running in the driveway just before taking off. Not great but gives a little bit of an idea. https://youtu.be/mDcixNQ5rJM. Note the sliding windows are closed and I have the filler panels in the quarter window scoops. It's not real loud. But while driving and with higher RPM's is plenty loud. I expect we'll be using the same ear plugs as when in the Roadster.

So here's my conclusion on this subject FWIW: The Gen 1 and Gen 2 Coyotes could be successfully run with the stock tune from Ford Performance. Many did and still do. I ran the stock tune in my Gen 2 for about 1,000 miles and thought it ran OK. After several others found a custom tune made it even better, I had Lund Racing do a remote tune on it (similar process as this time around with the Gen 3) and it was markedly improved. But bottom line not mandatory. I now believe that story is probably different for the Gen 3. Clearly when the same 3.5-inch intake pieces as used on the Gen 1 and 2 (either Spectre or Treadstone Performance) are used on the Gen 3 the MAF calibration is off and must be adjusted. Otherwise it will run rich, throw codes, and all around not be happy. Like mine was. If you duplicate the 4-inch MAF tube, like Ford is now using for the Gen 3, meaning different parts than the previously used Spectre or Treadstone, or maybe the same Spectre part without the insert in the MAF adapter, you may be better and and may get by without a custom tune. But IMO, builders using the Gen 3 Coyote should expect it to need a custom tune and if you don't already have a tuner that knows these engines (specifically the crate version) then I highly recommend Lund Racing. It's around $500 if you already have the input and logging device (e.g. nGauge like in my video) or around $700 if you don't. But my suspicion, and I have it on good authority from Ford Performance engineering, is if you use anything other than the stock airbox, you should get a custom tune for optimal running and performance. I would plan on it.

With that, thanks everyone for your input and following this discussion.

[Kool AC]

Congrats Paul on getting it smoothed out. Once again you are on the forefront of the latest technology on these builds, getting answers to questions we might not have known to ask.

[Railroad]

All good news! Great description of the ride.

[More Than You Think]

Edwardb
Thanks very much for all your posts and expertise. I lit off my Gen 3 Coyote engine yesterday and it was very helpful to have read this post before doing so. It fired right up as Coyotes do and it idles crappy and is running rich and threw a code after about 10 min of run time in the driveway. Having all the information in your posts helped immensely to understand why the Gen 3 was behaving the way it was.

I have not taken it out of the driveway just yet, want to make sure all the T&Ps are correct. I'm in conversations with Lund about a scanner and tune. I'm frustrated that they will not talk to customers by phone and insist only on email. Very frustrating. Any way to get to them by phone??

Thanks

[edwardb]

Edwardb
Thanks very much for all your posts and expertise. I lit off my Gen 3 Coyote engine yesterday and it was very helpful to have read this post before doing so. It fired right up as Coyotes do and it idles crappy and is running rich and threw a code after about 10 min of run time in the driveway. Having all the information in your posts helped immensely to understand why the Gen 3 was behaving the way it was.

I have not taken it out of the driveway just yet, want to make sure all the T&Ps are correct. I'm in conversations with Lund about a scanner and tune. I'm frustrated that they will not talk to customers by phone and insist only on email. Very frustrating. Any way to get to them by phone??

Thanks

I've dealt with Lund repeatedly through three different tunes. 100% email all the way. Never actually talked to anyone. I didn't find it to be a hinderance. They were always quick to respond and sometimes took a number of back and forths but always was OK. Just how they choose to do business.

[More Than You Think]

Thanks Edward!
I ordered my tune from Lund this am.

[Mike Garrett]

Very long tread, here’s my short answer. I have a roadster, Mark 4 with generation 3 Coyote. With stock emc it ran very bad, I have no screen in the intake. As a roller I took it to a guy that knows Coyotes and had him put it on a chassis dyno. Runs great now, 443 rear wheel hp. I never even think about my motor anymore.

[Railroad]

Very long tread, here’s my short answer. I have a roadster, Mark 4 with generation 3 Coyote. With stock emc it ran very bad, I have no screen in the intake. As a roller I took it to a guy that knows Coyotes and had him put it on a chassis dyno. Runs great now, 443 rear wheel hp. I never even think about my motor anymore.

Mike, good for you, but I think as a novice would read your post, the chassis dyno fixes the tune.
The "guy that knows Coyotes" modded something in the mix.
Congrats on the horsepower numbers.

[More Than You Think]

Edward
I was reading your older posts on tuning a Gen 3 Coyote for the first time. I'm just starting the tune process to get my Coyote running better (too rich as you know).
Would you recommend using this 4" SPECRE MAF set up on a Gen 3 Coyote in place of the 3.5 inch silicone tube setup that comes from FFR?
I really do not like the silicone part quality that comes with the kit. The 90 degree silicon tube is kind of floppy and ugly to say the least. I understand the 3.5 inch throttle body opening is the limiting element for airflow to the engine.

[edwardb]

Edward
I was reading your older posts on tuning a Gen 3 Coyote for the first time. I'm just starting the tune process to get my Coyote running better (too rich as you know).
Would you recommend using this 4" SPECRE MAF set up on a Gen 3 Coyote in place of the 3.5 inch silicone tube setup that comes from FFR?
I really do not like the silicone part quality that comes with the kit. The 90 degree silicon tube is kind of floppy and ugly to say the least. I understand the 3.5 inch throttle body opening is the limiting element for airflow to the engine.

The stock setup on the Gen 3 is 4". The Spectre setup is 3-1/2" in the MAF area (with the insert) which is what the Gen 1 and Gen 2 were. I used Treadstone 3.5" parts on my Gen 3 (was an alternate listed on the Factory Five Gen 2 instructions at the time, no Gen 3 instructions existed at the time) and discovered after the fact that the Gen 3 was larger. Discussed this with Lund when they did my tune. They said for a stock setup, the 3-1/2" tube was fine and their MAF calibration with take it into account with plenty of headroom. Done and runs great. Probably if I had known I would have done 4" to duplicate stock. But doesn't seem to matter. Use whatever parts you're happy with and the custom tune will dial them in.

BTW, many are using MRP Performance parts now. The Treadstone performance parts Factory Five lists are apparently hard to get. I used MRP Performance for my Truck/LS3 build. They shipped same day and are very nice. Highly recommended.

[facultyofmusic]

Hi Paul, I'm getting close (at least I hope I am) to starting my Gen 3 coyote for the first time and I wonder if I should query Lund for a map similar to yours and load it on before my first start. I'm a complete n00b at this stuff but I've heard that running the engine properly (especially too rich) can damage the catalytic converter. Since I plan to go with Lund tuning down the road anyway, would you recommend this?

(Edit: I'm also surprised this isn't in the Coyote R&D forum. This thread is a must read for anyone going Gen 3 coyote.)

[edwardb]

Hi Paul, I'm getting close (at least I hope I am) to starting my Gen 3 coyote for the first time and I wonder if I should query Lund for a map similar to yours and load it on before my first start. I'm a complete n00b at this stuff but I've heard that running the engine properly (especially too rich) can damage the catalytic converter. Since I plan to go with Lund tuning down the road anyway, would you recommend this?

(Edit: I'm also surprised this isn't in the Coyote R&D forum. This thread is a must read for anyone going Gen 3 coyote.)

The engine will start fine on the stock tune. Yes, it’s widely agreed the stock tune is rich. Don’t go crazy with how much you run it and I find it hard to believe your cats would be damaged. The whole Lund tuning process is based on actually driving the car and logging the engine. I would wait until that stage to contact them. I have no idea if they have a mechanism to provide a “base” tune far in advance of the actual process. My guess is not, plus don’t really think it’s necessary.

[Merciless]

Paul,

I contacted Lund about tuning my Gen 3 Coyote. They recommended to lock out the IRMC. I searched through the forum and I think you kept yours active. What was your reasoning and how did you specify that with Lund?

Thanks.

[edwardb]

Paul,

I contacted Lund about tuning my Gen 3 Coyote. They recommended to lock out the IRMC. I searched through the forum and I think you kept yours active. What was your reasoning and how did you specify that with Lund?

Thanks.

When I did my tune with Lund, I never said anything about it and neither did they. So mine are installed and active. That's the short answer. Did Lund give any reason(s) for recommending to lock them out? This subject is discussed a lot on the Mustang forums. So lots to review there if you want to dig deeper. Consensus seems to be for NA locking out the IRMC's maybe adds a little high end power but slightly hurts low end torque. But many report no difference. Some just want reduce complexity and the possibility of failure. For me, no compelling reason to delete them based on (1) how well the car is running (four seasons completed), and (2) how I drive it. But I wouldn't die on that hill.

[toadster]

When I did my tune with Lund, I never said anything about it and neither did they. So mine are installed and active. That's the short answer. Did Lund give any reason(s) for recommending to lock them out? This subject is discussed a lot on the Mustang forums. So lots to review there if you want to dig deeper. Consensus seems to be for NA locking out the IRMC's maybe adds a little high end power but slightly hurts low end torque. But many report no difference. Some just want reduce complexity and the possibility of failure. For me, no compelling reason to delete them based on (1) how well the car is running (four seasons completed), and (2) how I drive it. But I wouldn't die on that hill.

to add on Paul's comments - the mustang community often does the CMCV/IMRC lockout when they go with performance adders (supercharger, etc) because it negates the need for the split plane as there's boost at lower levels which somewhat negates the need for the valves... I removed mine primarily due to space contraints

Lund has no issues with removing them as they code them out in their tune so you don't throw codes

I think in a car as light as the Cobra, the low-end vs upper-end runners don't make that much of a difference

[JeffP]

Paul,

I contacted Lund about tuning my Gen 3 Coyote. They recommended to lock out the IRMC. I searched through the forum and I think you kept yours active. What was your reasoning and how did you specify that with Lund?

Thanks.

For an added datapoint.. I didn't lock mine out and I have a Lund Tune. No issues.

[facultyofmusic]

I asked Lund the exact same questions. Here's a transcript:


Lund: Looks like your IMRC is not working. getting p2004 and 2005 which are stuck open codes. My suggestion is to lock them. they are pointless anyway.


Me: Thanks for the quick response! What are the consequences of leaving the IMRC still active aside from the codes showing up? I took a look at the steps to remove the intake manifold and IMRC. It doesn't look too difficult but if it's just codes then I don't mind leaving it there until I get the time to do the removal and lockout.


Lund: with the codes present the Knock sensors do not work so it will not make optimal power as the knock sensors can not add timing. also, they can not pull timing in the case that you get subpar fuel quality.

I then proceeded to lock out my IMRC with some zip ties. Car drove great since then.

EDIT: I was able to remove the IMRC modules and do the lockout without much hassle with the engine in the car and body on the car. If you didn't cram the firewall with stuff it shouldn't be an issue.

[edwardb]

I asked Lund the exact same questions. Here's a transcript: Lund: Looks like your IMRC is not working. getting p2004 and 2005 which are stuck open codes. My suggestion is to lock them. they are pointless anyway.

At the risk of beating a dead horse... Don't know about the pointless comment. One person's (or company's) opinion. I don't think Ford engineers or bean counters would have them if they weren't there for a reason. Per Ford, "...charge motion control valves to partially close off port flow at lower engine speeds. This increases the air charge tumble and swirl for improved air-fuel mixing, resulting in better fuel economy, idle stability, and lower emissions." CAFE standards are a big deal to the carmakers, and even small improvements spread over the entire fleet are a big deal. I'm sure everyone knows this. I do agree for our purposes they aren't a big deal either way, as I said in my first post. But a little context sometimes helps.

Having said that, in multiple cases, the P2004 and 2005 codes were because the system isn't plumbed with vacuum out of the box. Both the Gen 2 and Gen 3 IMRC systems require engine vacuum to operate and a couple of added hoses. Neither the Ford Performance or Factory Five instructions mention or show what's needed. I've posted what's necessary, as have others, and it's been widely discussed. As has been pointed out, for NA (normally aspirated) they don't hurt anything and MAYBE give the desired results they're designed for. For others, who just want them out of there or have to because of space (like the Hot Rod and Truck) easy enough to remove, lockout, and change the tune accordingly.

[Andrew Davis]

Paul, not a lot of forum "time", did run into a puzzle with my gen3 coyote. Ran ok at first, then got progressively worse.
A real head scratcher, and frustrating as heck. Turned out to be the 2 and a half year old gas I had in it. Couldn't believe it. Never had issues with chain saws or lawn mowers, but draining and putting in fresh gas made my coyote happy. This was non-ethanol 92 octane fuel, both old and new. Hope this helps. Andy

[Railroad]

https://www.crcindustries.com/stor-go-174-ethanol-fuel-treatment-stabilizer-16-fl-oz-06142/

[Merciless]

When I did my tune with Lund, I never said anything about it and neither did they. So mine are installed and active. That's the short answer. Did Lund give any reason(s) for recommending to lock them out? This subject is discussed a lot on the Mustang forums. So lots to review there if you want to dig deeper. Consensus seems to be for NA locking out the IRMC's maybe adds a little high end power but slightly hurts low end torque. But many report no difference. Some just want reduce complexity and the possibility of failure. For me, no compelling reason to delete them based on (1) how well the car is running (four seasons completed), and (2) how I drive it. But I wouldn't die on that hill.

Thank you for the feedback. I'm would like to keep the IRMC. In fact I didn't know anything about it. My Lund costumer service lead, asked if the IRMC is locked out. I said no. He said in two more emails that it should be locked out for the tune. So I was under the impression that it's a must. But after your response. I checked the Lund website for the Gen3 Coyote Swap. There is a stock intake manifold option. Thanks again.