Crank Sensor Mod for those with big hands
Champion
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 8
From: Western NY,
ok so I managed to get the bolts out (thanks god I have a 3" body lift which gives me more room... but I cant see to get the sensor out. Is the rubber grommet supposed to come out or should I be able to get the sensor out while leaving it in?
I think the sensor might be the causing my cylinder1 misfire issues under load which started right after having the transmission replaced..
I think the sensor might be the causing my cylinder1 misfire issues under load which started right after having the transmission replaced..
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Guys
I really hate to bust up your little mod party here, but it really needs the proper clarification about the crank sensor position mod you keep talking about.
In the first place, anybody who has spent time tuning an engine would know that anything less than about a 5 degree change in base timing will do you no good and certainly not be noticeable.
A simple trip down memory lane to your elementry school arithmetic lessons will help you out and avoid all this slotting madness.
Without having one in front of me, I'm guessing, the slot in the flywheel that the PCM is looking for on each rotation is approximately 8" from the crank centerline, maybe more, maybe less, but lets take it as an example.
If the slot is 8" from the crank centerline, that means the diameter of the wheel/slot is 16", take that times 3.14, pi, and you get 50.24" circumference, divide that by 360 degrees and you get .139" per degree, that means you would have to move your crank sensor nearly 3/4" to the advance direction to get to 5 degrees.
Your genius with the squirrel fetish seems to be proud of the fact he was able to enlarge the mounting holes of his PCM from 5/16" to 3/8", that would enable him to move the PCM a total of almost 1/32' to the advance side, equating to almost 1/2 degree, see where we are headed?
Even if you were to be able to slot the mounting holes even further, there is no way the PCM mounting bracket would move that far without hitting the block.
So much for the incredibly obvious, somewhere on this site some genius tried to tell you that moving the PCM would screw up the fuel map, causing dogs and cats to fall from the sky, right, got it.
The relationship between the cam position sensor and the CPS is a very broad area, all the ecm needs to know is if the general relationship is in the ball park to get the thing started.
I spent many years sorting out fuel maps for a couple of US OEMs, the only thing the OEMs are interested in is passing EPE emmissions testing, they could care less about the fuel consumption, as long as the numbers coming out of the tailpipe meet spec, which comes to the fallacy of it all, all the geniuses at EPA are looking at is the percentage of the bad stuff coming out of the pipe, not the volume.
So when they get the damned thing to only puke out the prescribed PERCENTAGE of nasty stuff, they are happy and passed, the real issue is, because they have had to detune this thing so far, the user now has to put his foot much closer to the floor to get the results they want, hence a much higher VOLUME of pollutants, irrespective of the percentage of contaminates to the output, get the picture?
I have an '01 1500 4wd 5.9 with just over 30k on it, a real hanger queen, I've been considering putting a front mounted CPS on it to play with by just milling a slot in the damper and mounting a stock CPS to it, that way not hosing up anything else to make a proper comparison.
I once was about to try fooling the intake air temperature sensor years ago but quit when I garaged it, but not before measuring the resistance of the air sensor in an effort to make the emc think the intake air temperature was colder, hence giving the engine a bit more fuel and timing, probably a bit more effective than just advancing the base timing.
If you really want to make a difference in performance & mileage, advance the CAMSHAFT about 5 degrees, all US manufacturers retarded the cam timing back around '74 to reduce the debunked "oxides of nitrogen" theory.
Q
I really hate to bust up your little mod party here, but it really needs the proper clarification about the crank sensor position mod you keep talking about.
In the first place, anybody who has spent time tuning an engine would know that anything less than about a 5 degree change in base timing will do you no good and certainly not be noticeable.
A simple trip down memory lane to your elementry school arithmetic lessons will help you out and avoid all this slotting madness.
Without having one in front of me, I'm guessing, the slot in the flywheel that the PCM is looking for on each rotation is approximately 8" from the crank centerline, maybe more, maybe less, but lets take it as an example.
If the slot is 8" from the crank centerline, that means the diameter of the wheel/slot is 16", take that times 3.14, pi, and you get 50.24" circumference, divide that by 360 degrees and you get .139" per degree, that means you would have to move your crank sensor nearly 3/4" to the advance direction to get to 5 degrees.
Your genius with the squirrel fetish seems to be proud of the fact he was able to enlarge the mounting holes of his PCM from 5/16" to 3/8", that would enable him to move the PCM a total of almost 1/32' to the advance side, equating to almost 1/2 degree, see where we are headed?
Even if you were to be able to slot the mounting holes even further, there is no way the PCM mounting bracket would move that far without hitting the block.
So much for the incredibly obvious, somewhere on this site some genius tried to tell you that moving the PCM would screw up the fuel map, causing dogs and cats to fall from the sky, right, got it.
The relationship between the cam position sensor and the CPS is a very broad area, all the ecm needs to know is if the general relationship is in the ball park to get the thing started.
I spent many years sorting out fuel maps for a couple of US OEMs, the only thing the OEMs are interested in is passing EPE emmissions testing, they could care less about the fuel consumption, as long as the numbers coming out of the tailpipe meet spec, which comes to the fallacy of it all, all the geniuses at EPA are looking at is the percentage of the bad stuff coming out of the pipe, not the volume.
So when they get the damned thing to only puke out the prescribed PERCENTAGE of nasty stuff, they are happy and passed, the real issue is, because they have had to detune this thing so far, the user now has to put his foot much closer to the floor to get the results they want, hence a much higher VOLUME of pollutants, irrespective of the percentage of contaminates to the output, get the picture?
I have an '01 1500 4wd 5.9 with just over 30k on it, a real hanger queen, I've been considering putting a front mounted CPS on it to play with by just milling a slot in the damper and mounting a stock CPS to it, that way not hosing up anything else to make a proper comparison.
I once was about to try fooling the intake air temperature sensor years ago but quit when I garaged it, but not before measuring the resistance of the air sensor in an effort to make the emc think the intake air temperature was colder, hence giving the engine a bit more fuel and timing, probably a bit more effective than just advancing the base timing.
If you really want to make a difference in performance & mileage, advance the CAMSHAFT about 5 degrees, all US manufacturers retarded the cam timing back around '74 to reduce the debunked "oxides of nitrogen" theory.
Q
Guys
I really hate to bust up your little mod party here, but it really needs the proper clarification about the crank sensor position mod you keep talking about.
In the first place, anybody who has spent time tuning an engine would know that anything less than about a 5 degree change in base timing will do you no good and certainly not be noticeable.
A simple trip down memory lane to your elementry school arithmetic lessons will help you out and avoid all this slotting madness.
Without having one in front of me, I'm guessing, the slot in the flywheel that the PCM is looking for on each rotation is approximately 8" from the crank centerline, maybe more, maybe less, but lets take it as an example.
If the slot is 8" from the crank centerline, that means the diameter of the wheel/slot is 16", take that times 3.14, pi, and you get 50.24" circumference, divide that by 360 degrees and you get .139" per degree, that means you would have to move your crank sensor nearly 3/4" to the advance direction to get to 5 degrees.
Your genius with the squirrel fetish seems to be proud of the fact he was able to enlarge the mounting holes of his PCM from 5/16" to 3/8", that would enable him to move the PCM a total of almost 1/32' to the advance side, equating to almost 1/2 degree, see where we are headed?
Even if you were to be able to slot the mounting holes even further, there is no way the PCM mounting bracket would move that far without hitting the block.
So much for the incredibly obvious, somewhere on this site some genius tried to tell you that moving the PCM would screw up the fuel map, causing dogs and cats to fall from the sky, right, got it.
The relationship between the cam position sensor and the CPS is a very broad area, all the ecm needs to know is if the general relationship is in the ball park to get the thing started.
I spent many years sorting out fuel maps for a couple of US OEMs, the only thing the OEMs are interested in is passing EPE emmissions testing, they could care less about the fuel consumption, as long as the numbers coming out of the tailpipe meet spec, which comes to the fallacy of it all, all the geniuses at EPA are looking at is the percentage of the bad stuff coming out of the pipe, not the volume.
So when they get the damned thing to only puke out the prescribed PERCENTAGE of nasty stuff, they are happy and passed, the real issue is, because they have had to detune this thing so far, the user now has to put his foot much closer to the floor to get the results they want, hence a much higher VOLUME of pollutants, irrespective of the percentage of contaminates to the output, get the picture?
I have an '01 1500 4wd 5.9 with just over 30k on it, a real hanger queen, I've been considering putting a front mounted CPS on it to play with by just milling a slot in the damper and mounting a stock CPS to it, that way not hosing up anything else to make a proper comparison.
I once was about to try fooling the intake air temperature sensor years ago but quit when I garaged it, but not before measuring the resistance of the air sensor in an effort to make the emc think the intake air temperature was colder, hence giving the engine a bit more fuel and timing, probably a bit more effective than just advancing the base timing.
If you really want to make a difference in performance & mileage, advance the CAMSHAFT about 5 degrees, all US manufacturers retarded the cam timing back around '74 to reduce the debunked "oxides of nitrogen" theory.
Q
I really hate to bust up your little mod party here, but it really needs the proper clarification about the crank sensor position mod you keep talking about.
In the first place, anybody who has spent time tuning an engine would know that anything less than about a 5 degree change in base timing will do you no good and certainly not be noticeable.
A simple trip down memory lane to your elementry school arithmetic lessons will help you out and avoid all this slotting madness.
Without having one in front of me, I'm guessing, the slot in the flywheel that the PCM is looking for on each rotation is approximately 8" from the crank centerline, maybe more, maybe less, but lets take it as an example.
If the slot is 8" from the crank centerline, that means the diameter of the wheel/slot is 16", take that times 3.14, pi, and you get 50.24" circumference, divide that by 360 degrees and you get .139" per degree, that means you would have to move your crank sensor nearly 3/4" to the advance direction to get to 5 degrees.
Your genius with the squirrel fetish seems to be proud of the fact he was able to enlarge the mounting holes of his PCM from 5/16" to 3/8", that would enable him to move the PCM a total of almost 1/32' to the advance side, equating to almost 1/2 degree, see where we are headed?
Even if you were to be able to slot the mounting holes even further, there is no way the PCM mounting bracket would move that far without hitting the block.
So much for the incredibly obvious, somewhere on this site some genius tried to tell you that moving the PCM would screw up the fuel map, causing dogs and cats to fall from the sky, right, got it.
The relationship between the cam position sensor and the CPS is a very broad area, all the ecm needs to know is if the general relationship is in the ball park to get the thing started.
I spent many years sorting out fuel maps for a couple of US OEMs, the only thing the OEMs are interested in is passing EPE emmissions testing, they could care less about the fuel consumption, as long as the numbers coming out of the tailpipe meet spec, which comes to the fallacy of it all, all the geniuses at EPA are looking at is the percentage of the bad stuff coming out of the pipe, not the volume.
So when they get the damned thing to only puke out the prescribed PERCENTAGE of nasty stuff, they are happy and passed, the real issue is, because they have had to detune this thing so far, the user now has to put his foot much closer to the floor to get the results they want, hence a much higher VOLUME of pollutants, irrespective of the percentage of contaminates to the output, get the picture?
I have an '01 1500 4wd 5.9 with just over 30k on it, a real hanger queen, I've been considering putting a front mounted CPS on it to play with by just milling a slot in the damper and mounting a stock CPS to it, that way not hosing up anything else to make a proper comparison.
I once was about to try fooling the intake air temperature sensor years ago but quit when I garaged it, but not before measuring the resistance of the air sensor in an effort to make the emc think the intake air temperature was colder, hence giving the engine a bit more fuel and timing, probably a bit more effective than just advancing the base timing.
If you really want to make a difference in performance & mileage, advance the CAMSHAFT about 5 degrees, all US manufacturers retarded the cam timing back around '74 to reduce the debunked "oxides of nitrogen" theory.
Q
