Idle problems after my 3.2 swap!

[Off Road SHO]

I think I would double check the valve timing. Pull the upper cover and put the harmonic pulley notch at the -0- mark on the middle cover. If the cam sprocket dimples are not at the backing plate dimple (12 o'clock high), rotate the harmonic pulley a complete 360 and check them again. If they still don't line up, your timing is off.

Why did you swap in 3.0 exhaust cams? It's the intake cams that give you the extra 1/2 mm of lift.

Tom

 

[jonheese]

I think I would double check the valve timing. Pull the upper cover and put the harmonic pulley notch at the -0- mark on the middle cover. If the cam sprocket dimples are not at the backing plate dimple (12 o'clock high), rotate the harmonic pulley a complete 360 and check them again. If they still don't line up, your timing is off.

Right-o. Will do that this week-- I'm planning on taking a day off work just to work on this damn-- I mean, this car.

Why did you swap in 3.0 exhaust cams? It's the intake cams that give you the extra 1/2 mm of lift.

Did I mention this was over two years ago? You are correct, it was the intake cams I swapped.

 

[LOUDSHO92]

You might want to pour a small amount of oil in the cylinders and try and start it. It may help restore compression for it to ignite. That is how I revived a SHO that sat for 5yrs.

 

[rubydist]

it is not going to run right with that mafs until you have a tune in the pcm.

therefore, I would unplug the mafs and try starting it. with the mafs unplugged, the pcm is smart enough to ignore that and use the other sensors to try to make the engine run. let us know how that goes.

 

[jonheese]

You might want to pour a small amount of oil in the cylinders and try and start it. It may help restore compression for it to ignite. That is how I revived a SHO that sat for 5yrs.

I thought of that, but then forgot to try it. Thanks, I will give that a shot.

it is not going to run right with that mafs until you have a tune in the pcm.

therefore, I would unplug the mafs and try starting it. with the mafs unplugged, the pcm is smart enough to ignore that and use the other sensors to try to make the engine run. let us know how that goes.

Yeah, I have a stock 55mm MAF that I'm going to try. Easy enough. Thanks.

 

[zak]

Jon the Harbor Freight tester uses a low inlet pressure so the numbers are hard to compare. Get a good one (100 psi inlet). Based on my own experience (see last post):

http://www.shoforum.com/showthread.php?t=117087&highlight=leakdown

. . . if you are seeing 50% on the low pressure Harbor Freight tester, then you have a valve set (intake pair or exhaust pair) slightly open.

Okay, I did a leakdown test on #4, #5, and #6 (because they're so easy to do with the intake still on), and got surprising results:

#4 - 50%
#5 - 50%
#6 - 30%

It's possible that I wasn't quite at compression TDC for these readings, but I think I did a pretty good job and never saw the readings get any lower (i.e. any tighter). I was expecting less leakdown for cylinders that showed 165+ psi in compression tests...

I tried to stethoscope where the air was hissing, and I think it was the exhaust valves on all three, although it was much louder on #5 than #4 and #6.

And now that I think about it, my Harbor Freight leakdown tester may not be very accurate-- maybe I should just go by the loudness/frequency of the hissing air? If I do that, I get exactly what I expected: lots of leakdown in #5, very little in #4 and #6.

I'm thinking it may be time to pull these heads... What do you all say?

 

[jonheese]

Jon the Harbor Freight tester uses a low inlet pressure so the numbers are hard to compare. Get a good one (100 psi inlet). Based on my own experience (see last post):

http://www.shoforum.com/showthread.php?t=117087&highlight=leakdown

My air compressor was regulated to 90-100 PSI while testing, and the manual for the leakdown tester says the max is 100 PSI...

. . . if you are seeing 50% on the low pressure Harbor Freight tester, then you have a valve set (intake pair or exhaust pair) slightly open.

Yeah, read down a bit further and you'll see that I was able to get some better (more accurate, I hope) readings from those cylinders. I just had to be patient enough to ensure that I was on the correct stroke while testing at TDC, and getting the hang of the leakdown tester took a few runs.

 

[jonheese]

Okay, so I've spent a little quality time with the car today, and here's what I've done and what I've found:

While reconnecting my remote start switch, I managed to cause the pos battery cable (where it connects to the starter) to touch the oil filter, so when I connected the battery, I heard a loud "POP!" I had no idea what made the sound at the time, and everything seemed to be fine (no fuses popped), so I just continued along with what I was doing. Needless to say, as soon as I cranked the engine, virtually all of my oil poured out of the ~1/8" hole in the oil filter onto the driveway... Doh!

Dumped some kitty litter under the car, then went back to the parts store for some more oil and a new FL1A, and filled it back up. I went ahead and put a can of RESTORE oil treatment in while I was at it.

So then I started it again, and I almost think that it's running a *little* better than it was on Sunday (although still nowhere near running on its own with the throttle closed). Maybe just wishful thinking... Anyway, I ran it for 5-10 minutes so it could warm up a bit (it has no coolant yet, so it should warm up quickly), then did the compression test again-- this time moving the secondary vacuum bits out of the way so I could get to #2 and #3-- with very different results:

#1 - 180 psi
#2 - 185 psi
#3 - 180 psi
#4 - 170 psi
#5 - 175 psi
#6 - 178 psi

So I know those numbers are lower than optimal, but I'm hoping surface rust might account for that... And at least they're consistent, and not totally dismal (right?). Surely *all* of my cylinders don't have something major causing compression loss, right? I'm thinking it has to be something global/system-wide (like surface rust) that I can fix by running it for a bit. I really don't want to have to pull the heads unless there's no other option.

The items left on my list are:

* Re-check codes (will do that in a minute here)
* Try running with stock MAF (forgot to swap the MAFs first thing)
* Spoonful of oil in the cylinders, re-check compression to rule out ring problems
* Marvel Mystery Oil in the cylinders (have some MMO)
* Remove upper timing cover and check timing
* PB Blaster on the valve stems (need to test with rubber seals in a cup first)
* Check compression without shims (have to remove intake and VCs)
* Remove/rebuild heads

So I'm grabbing some lunch now, that I'll go back out and start back at the top of that list. Any suggestions are welcome and appreciated.

 

[jonheese]

[NOTE: This post failed to submit, so I posted it an hour after writing it.]

Okay, so I tackled the next few items on the list:

* I rechecked the codes. Still just 565 and 111.
* I reconnected the stock MAF and started it up again. No change in the behavior. After running it for ~5-10 minutes, I checked the codes again and got 565 and 157 (the MAF voltage low code again...) Maybe it's my wiring? Check for 5V on the <insert color here> pin?
* I re-ran the compression tests on the hot engine in two runs, dry and with oil. Now here's where it gets interesting:

#1 dry - 185 psi
#1 oil - 155 psi, 145 psi (checked it twice, no idea what's going on)
#2 dry - 190 psi
#2 oil - 217 psi
#3 dry - 195 psi
#3 oil - 217 psi
#4 dry - 175 psi
#4 oil - 240 psi
#5 dry - 190 psi
#5 oil - 225 psi
#6 dry - 190 psi
#6 oil - 245 psi

Aha! So the oil definitely put the compression numbers back up where they should be (except for #1, I have no idea what's going on there... Maybe my pressure gauge got oil in it or something?). So the rings aren't sealing.

So based on the fact that the cylinder bores looked very nice and clean when I first bought the engine, I'm going to stick with the "rings are fine, cylinder walls has surface rust" theory...

So, now that I've temporarily sealed the rings with some cheater oil,
I'm going to go out and replace the plugs, and see how it runs... Might run decent long enough to clean off the cylinder walls and then get back to normal...?

I'm definitely making progress...

 

[jonheese]

Okay, I'm pretty sure I'm making steady progress...

After putting the plugs back in, hooking everything back up, filling it
with water (tips for burping welcome) and firing it back up, it now runs
noticeably smoother. Still progress to be made, as it won't run with
the throttle closed (gotta go look up that idle relearn procedure
again), but it certainly does try. It now chugs along for 8-10
revolutions before dying.

I'm working on the exhaust now... I'll probably need to run to AZ to
pick up a little flex exhaust piece and some clamps...

 

[rubydist]

you do not have a compression problem. move on to your other issues.

 

[jonheese]

Okay, I got back to the car today, and did the following:

1. Topped up the radiator and coolant bottle-- the radiator only had a couple inches of air space that filled up almost immediately, but the overflow bottle was bone dry, and I had filled it up on Wednesday. The car was cold when I did this today.

2. Started and ran the engine for a minute or two. It still behaved the same, sputtering and running rough, and only when the throttle is held open a bit. When it's running rough, you can see the engine shaking since its out of balance with only some cylinders firing, and then when it randomly smooths out and the RPMs increase, the engine is completely balanced and thus still. It usually runs smoothly just long enough for me to back off the throttle, and then when it comes back down, it's all stumbly again.

3. Tested spark with this spark tester. I started with the sensitivity turned all the way down, but I wasn't seeing any spark on any of the wires (keep in mind that I need to start the engine with one hand, then hold the throttle open with the other, and then switch out the starter switch for the spark tester...). I turned up the sensitivity slowly a click or two until I saw the tester light up. The #4 and #6 wires showed spark at that sensitivity level, but I had to turn it up a little (one or two clicks) to see it on #5. I think I might have turned it up enough to pick up the signal from #4...

Now that I'm typing this up, I realize that I really need to go back out and re-test this to figure out which, if any cylinder pairs are/aren't firing for sure. I also checked at the coilpack end of the wires, and I recall that some of them seemed like they weren't showing spark, so I concluded that I should try swapping coilpacks.

4. I went out to my running parts car and stole its coilpack. Installed it on this car, and plugged everything back in. Started it, and everything was still rough, no improvement. I also stole its DIS, but since the DIS replacement process is a little more of a pain (thermal grease), I'm holding off of that until I think it's more likely to fix my issue.

5. As Zach Leahy suggested on the V6SHO list, I put my mechanic's stethoscope on the injectors to see if they were all clicking-- they are.

6. Zach also suggested trying starter fluid to see if the MAF problem was causing too little fuel to be demanded. I don't have any starter fluid, but I figured in a pinch that throwing some MAPP gas in there might work (thoughts?). I pointed my (unlit) MAPP torch in the MAF, and it actually idled. Rough, but it stayed running without any throttle input. I probably had the torch there for 10-15 seconds, and when I took it away, it continued running, but extremely rough, like puff-puff... puff-puff-puff... puff... puff-puff.. etc. It probably ran for 45-60 seconds by itself like that before it finally died.

7. I checked the MAF using the procedure Nick sent. First test was for key on power between the power and ground pins-- supposed to be >10.5V, I got 5.7V. I realized that that sounded a lot like a signal voltage, and I saw that it wasn't entirely clear which way the pinout diagram was oriented. Tried it the other way, and I got 12.57V, which is pretty close to what my battery is at. I also confirmed continuity between the MAF wiring VPWR pin and the battery +, and between the MAF wiring GND pin and the battery -.

I guess I'll have to try my other 55mm SHO MAF...

8. I re-ran the codes at this point. Some are the same, some are new:

565 - Canister Purge (CANP) solenoid - circuit failure
157 - Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor - signal voltage is too low
528 - Clutch Switch (CS) - circuit failure
211 - Profile Ignition Pickup (PIP) sensor - circuit failure

Huh? 211? Isn't that the crank sensor? Is it really telling me that my crank sensor (replaced when I did the 60k on the engine stand) is failed/failing? That can't be right, or at least it can't be causing my issue, can it?

Feedback appreciated. Thanks.

 

[jonheese]

Took it for another drive out in the county (~10 miles round trip). Got it up to speed (70-75 at one point) and approached redline a few times as I was moving through the gears.

The engine does have an okay amount of power when driven hard, but you can feel and even see the hesitation/stumble with the little shimmy or **** you get every few engine revolutions. It feels relatively smooth when coasting in gear, although you can still feel the hesitation there too. Under load (eg. 3rd gear, 60 mph, WOT), the hesitation is probably most obvious, but it doesn't get in the way of the car making *some* power.

It's been 3 years since I've driven a Taurus SHO, and in the meantime I've daily-driven an '03 Mini Cooper and a '12 VW Jetta 2.5L I5, and both felt quite lighter (the Mini was ~2500 lbs and the Jetta 3000 lbs). This car feels like a lead sled in comparison-- is that just my butt dyno being recalibrated by driving lighter cars with more HP/lb?

Anyway, the moral of the story is that I've still got something causing a stumble, but it still feels powerful enough for me to think that it's got to be sound physically. It still will not idle without dying.

When I rev the engine up and then close the throttle, I can hear the vacuum hoses screaming, so I know they're leaking. I'll swap whatever I can from my parts car, and I'll be going to the parts store to buy whatever else I need. I assume that bulk vacuum hose of the correct diameter should work, right?

I'm thinking primarily of the vacuum hoses for the secondaries:

1. From the rear surge tank to the vacuum reservoir
2. From the vacuum reservoir to the secondary switch
3. From the secondary switch to the tee under the IAC
4. From the tee to the rear butterfly actuator
5. From the tee to the front butterfly actuator

Then also the long ones going from the ****** in front of the IAC to the CANP solenoid and from the solenoid to the tee on the radiator support.

Any further ideas are appreciated.

 

[Ocnaj]

I'm pretty sure a 3.2 swapped Gen 1 has a better power to weight ratio than both of the cars that you mentioned. Especially when it comes to lower rpm torque. So I would say it doesn't have all of its power yet.

Yes, any GOOD(quality) vacuum hose will work for whatever vacuum leaks you have.

If you didn't already I would still replace the DIS module just to see if there's change. If you have weak spark on 2 cylinders and you know the coil pack is good then the DIS module is faulty.

I wouldn't think a crank sensor would cause this type of behavior but I could be wrong.

 

[jonheese]

I'm pretty sure a 3.2 swapped Gen 1 has a better power to weight ratio than both of the cars that you mentioned. Especially when it comes to lower rpm torque. So I would say it doesn't have all of its power yet.

Fair enough.

Yes, any GOOD(quality) vacuum hose will work for whatever vacuum leaks you have.

AZ had ArmorMark brand vacuum/windshield washer line... I wasn't thrilled with using dual-purpose line, but in a pinch, it's all I had access to. A quick test with my vacuum pump seems to indicate that it'll work fine (i.e. won't collapse under normal intake vacuum levels).

I replaced all of the secondary vacuum hoses yesterday right before I quit for the day, and it still squealed when I started the engine to move the car back to its spot, so I think my vacuum leak(s) are either where the secondary butterflies seal against the surge tank(s), or the manifold-to-head seal, or both.

If you didn't already I would still replace the DIS module just to see if there's change. If you have weak spark on 2 cylinders and you know the coil pack is good then the DIS module is faulty.

Yeah, I went back out and tested for spark again using my fancy pants spark tester, but it's just too irregular to be sure. I'm going to find some time to go out and do it old-school-- pull the DIS connectors, pull the #5 plug, ground it, crank it, and watch for spark.

I suspect that I am getting spark on all cylinders, just not reliably. The DIS is the next item on my list to try replacing.

I wouldn't think a crank sensor would cause this type of behavior but I could be wrong.

I agree. A dead/malfunctioning crank sensor would just cause the engine to not run at all. That one threw me for a loop...

Thanks.

 

[rubydist]

If you have vacuum leaks, you are way down on power. If you study the power output of an ic engine, you will note that as the mixture goes lean, the torque drops off very fast. You need to fix your vacuum leaks.

btw, a Mini Cooper can barely get out of its own way, especially at our elevation. A Cooper S is a lot of fun though. I've never found a VW that ran right, so I have no idea what a decent example of those would do.

 

[jonheese]

If you have vacuum leaks, you are way down on power. If you study the power output of an ic engine, you will note that as the mixture goes lean, the torque drops off very fast. You need to fix your vacuum leaks.

Not to be rude, but isn't that what I just said?

btw, a Mini Cooper can barely get out of its own way, especially at our elevation. A Cooper S is a lot of fun though. I've never found a VW that ran right, so I have no idea what a decent example of those would do.

I respectfully disagree to both. I'm not sure what you came to this thread for...

[youtube]RDjCqjzbvJY[/youtube]

 

[rubydist]

A Mini Cooper has a whopping 121hp rating. I've driven enough of them to know they are slugs.

 

[jonheese]

Actually, the 1.6L engine in my 2003 Cooper was rated at 116hp. Did you drive the 5-speed? It's no race car, but it can definitely be driven quite briskly. Feathering the clutch, I could accelerate off the line fast enough to beat most ordinary cars, and it would eat corners for breakfast. At around 2500 lbs, it felt very light and had plenty of torque for me to consider it a fun car to drive. Nowhere near a slug.

Do you daily drive a Ferrari or something?

Do you think you're helping me by posting in this thread? I'm curious.

 

[rubydist]

My point is that your butt dyno (and everyone else's) is totally useless.

A Mini Cooper runs around 15.8 - 16.2 in the quarter. Sure, it handles great, and is a lot of fun in the twisties, but it is not fast in acceleration.

A decent SHO runs around 14.9 - 15.3 (stock)

A current Town and Country van runs around 16.0 in the quarter, so the Cooper is not is the greatest of company, performance-wise.

An engine with serious vacuum leaks is not going to perform. Until you get that fixed, you are wasting your time looking for why your car is "slow".