High LTFT at idle, no vac leak

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for that info.

So the vacuum reported by the ECU is complete BS, then? How could it possibly know if there's a leak *after* the MAF? That would explain why the reading didn't change as I unplugged vac lines.

Which, then, means my MAF either needs to be cleaned (again this week) or is bad. Which... would also account for the fuel trims.
 
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
Thanks for that info.

So the vacuum reported by the ECU is complete BS, then? How could it possibly know if there's a leak *after* the MAF? That would explain why the reading didn't change as I unplugged vac lines.

Which, then, means my MAF either needs to be cleaned (again this week) or is bad. Which... would also account for the fuel trims.

Added more info to my other post, but yeah, it could be bad. Again, Ive used forscan to diag MAFs before. If you chart the MAF out like I did the STFT on the other post, you can see a good MAF vs a bad one. I have seen example charts on the internet, but its too late for me to go find one.
Basically if you are charting out the MAF signal, and blip the accelerator to 3k rpm and hold, there should be a quick and rapid rise in MAF signal. It will peak then drop back down to a lower average level. The inital 'surge' of air is the intake manifold filling, and once thats done its only the engine constant state requirement it sees, so it drops back and levels out. If it kinda lazily climbs up and you dont get that peak, its bad.
I highly recommend using a bluetooth equip laptop and putting forscan on it so you can map out these signals.
 
Last edited:
I don't know that I have a vac leak still; I believed I still had a leak because I'm seeing 6psi from the ECU now, just as I didn't believe I had a leak *when I did* because I was seeing 28psi. Now that I know those numbers are calculated, rather than measured, I'm beginning to backpedal on the possibility of still having a vac leak. Especially given that I had everything back together yesterday and fuel trims within the +/- 10% range.

The sudden drop in calculated vacuum (now that I know it's calculated -- thanks again for that info) combined with the simultaneous jump in LTFT tells me the MAF is reading less air than is actually coming past it.

I didn't count out the PCV system, replaced the PCV valve the other day, RTV'd the grommet in place and put a thin film of RTV on the PCV valve, as well. Overkill, but when I'm hunting a vac leak the overkill is worth it.

The Torque app can chart adequately enough to do what you propose. I'll look into that before I investigate the fuel pressure regulator. I can tell you (because Torque retained the snapshot) that my MAF was reading 2.8g/sec at idle when I last shut if off.

It's amazing how ones perspective can be changed by a single piece of information.

I do find it odd that I havne't had a CEL or even a pending code through all of this, even when LTFT was pegged at 25% for days before I had time to investigate. Now suspecting the MAF, I googled a bit and found this: https://www.explorerforum.com/forums/ind...-charts.149646/

Based on that, I just looked at the last recorded barometric pressure in Torque. 9.0psi. The MAF is definitely suspect, as I haven't been between 10-15k above sea level with this truck at ANY point. I'm on the coast, at sea level, the barometric pressure should be in the 29-30in/Hg range (14-15psi). In the same snapshot, my phone measured 14.6psi.

I'll clean the MAF again... it very well may be dirty given that I was spraying some silicone-based protectant around the engine bay shortly after the repairs that prompted my "Okay. Resolved. I feel dumb." post. I finally had it running right, I wanted it looking right as well... OOPS!

That means I spent several hours today tracking down a vacuum leak that probably doesn't exist.

I'll report back after investigating the MAF further, including the test you suggested and testing voltages, before and after cleaning.

EDIT: Following the rule of thumb 1g/sec per liter at 500RPM, at the 786RPM the engine was at in this snapshot, I should expect a MAF reading around 3.6g/sec. The 2.8g/sec reading is definitely wrong.
 
Last edited:
Yes. BARO being off is a indicator of a failed MAF. That updates on startup and WOT only. Calculated by MAF. So a low baro means its getting less signal back from the MAF than the amount of air there really is, which ties into the needing +25% fuel very nicely.
And yeah, the codes thing is something I fight with on Fords a lot....I know there is something wrong with the car long before it even thinks about throwning a code about 99% of time. Thats why Im so happy to have tools like Forscan and Torque now....Something that is always problem is misfires. I can feel a misfire and have it annoy me long before the PCM decides Im possibly damaging the CAT, so go into Mode 6 data....Oh, all the cylinders are The reason being is obvious, they dont want to trigger for every little thing, or people will ignore it (they already do) So they only throw codes if you ARE causing emmission system damage...it the case of a miss, cat con damage.
 
Last edited:
This points to a cascade of issues, as there was no indication that it was running rich prior to my earlier repair, and I did find multiple vac leaks, so the +25% I started with was probably correct. Now, however, you can smell the richness of the exhaust.

I'm glad I confirmed a successful repair yesterday, or I wouldn't be looking at this as a potentially secondary issue.

It's definitely time for me to get some sleep now. Will report back tomorrow.

Thanks for pointing me in what seems to be the right direction.
 
MAF tracks throttle position quickly, so I think it's just dirty. Cleaned it with some Lectra-motive because I'm out of MAF cleaner at the moment and my vac went from 6psi to 12psi which, I think, is actually right. I believe the high-20's readings I was seeing before were in error, but they looked okay to me because I'm used to seeing vac measured in in/hg and the numbers were about right in that unit.

I'm heading out to grab some MAF cleaner now, then will reset the ECU and go for a drive.

Next time I'm spraying stuff under the hood, I'll throw a bag over my air filter. This MAF has been cleaned at least half a dozen times since i bought the truck in April.
 
Okay, so my baro readings went back up from 12 (13 actually, when i started the truck after that last post) to the high 20's, then fell back to 7psi, and I *DID* verify that it's reading PSI and not in/hg. Current barometric pressure where I am is 30.08in/hg, or 14.8psi, so 12-13psi would be the correct expected range for vacuum right now.

My K&N filter was starting to show white spots from various aerosols that had been sprayed around it, so I picked up a recharge kit for that while I was out getting MAF cleaner. If I keep getting funky readings from this MAF, though, it's going to be replaced.

When I bought the truck, it still had the stock air box and vacuum was reading in the high 20's then, even after cleaning, so I'm not prone to blaming the oiled filter for this failure. The whole reason the K&N intake was installed in the first place is that the ring clamp that holds the air box closed broke and you can't find them aftermarket for these trucks; it was either pay $125 for a junk yard intake that's gonna have a rusted out and ready to brake ring clamp (e.g. spend money to end up in the same place) or $300 for the K&N intake as WA now follows CARB regulations and I needed something with a CA EO # on it (plus I was still technically living in CA at the time). Ditching the oiled filter and reverting to stock is not an option at this time.

I've cleaned the MAF with the correct cleaner now. Once the filter is dry and re-oiled properly, I'm going to clean the MAF once more before reassembling the intake. If things go screwy again, I'll be dropping $100 on a new MAF.
 
Originally Posted By: clinebarger
A MAF sensor issue would normally cause a lean condition to worsen with load.


Generic data is NOT to be trusted when it comes to Manufacturer Specific PID's.....The value multiplier could be way off.

If the MAF is Under Calculating the air flow at idle....It will grossly under calculate air flow under load! They don't just suddenly correct off idle.
 
If the MAF were the only input used to determine fuel trims, I would full agree with you. MAF and throttle position inform which fuel map is used, upstream O2 informs fuel trim much more than MAF does.

MAF reading low would cause the ECU to use a lean map, yes. However, the O2 sensor reading lean would cause the fuel trims to increase.

Now, if you read the link I posted earlier (https://www.explorerforum.com/forums/ind...-charts.149646/) that is discussing a MAF that reads high at idle due to contamination of the wire that sits in the flow. The result is a rich condition at idle and the ECU leaning it out with negative FT; under load, this MAF will read low, rather than high.

If the out-of-flow wire is contaminated and the in-flow wire is clean (opposite of the bulletin I linked), one could reasonable expect the opposite. That's what I'm experiencing, though cleaning does not resolve it, which leads me to believe that part of the sensor is marginal and failing. When I check voltages, everything seems fine, though.

At any rate, the driveability is much improved with all that I've done. No more shudder or shake at idle (a little vibration, but nothing I haven't felt in much younger otherwise healthy engines), stalling when dropping to idle or depressing the clutch has ceased, I'm done screwing with it until and unless a CEL wants to light up and give me a code to work with. At this point literally nothing I do seems to have any effect on fuel trims, LTFT is at 18% at idle and within +/-10% under any load at all and I can't find any components that test out of spec or appear not to be working.

I'm gonna kick myself when my quart of Kreen gets here tuesday and a 16oz in the gas tank fixes it. From moment one of this I've thought it was injectors and have been doing anything and everything to save myself that work. Yesterday, a whistle even emerged that wasn't present (or at least had gone unnoticed) before, under certain load conditions, which I've been told is something dirty injectors do sometimes.

Doesn't make sense to me why (or how) injectors would whistle, my first thought would be vac leak or plugged exhaust, but it does seem to be coming from around the fuel rail area (hard to tell definitively at 60 on the freeway) and all the vac lines in that area have been inspected and connections checked and re-checked.

At this point I'm confident it's not my intake manifold or plenum gaskets, as I would expect those to get worse under load, not better. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
 
Another point for faulty MAF: https://www.carsdirect.com/car-repair/how-to-tell-if-you-have-a-faulty-mass-airflow-sensor

"A faulty mass airflow sensor will cause problems similar to low compression or low vacuum, and will also show symptoms similar to when your vehicle has low fuel pressure from a faulty fuel pump. Here are some of the most common symptoms of a faulty mass airflow sensor:"

...

"Excessively rich or lean idling"

I'd say +18% is excessively rich, and it's only abnormal while idling.

EDIT: And another point for faulty injector: http://www.underhoodservice.com/troubleshooting-mass-air-flow-maf-sensors/

"Positive fuel trims caused by leaking fuel pressure regulators and injectors also tend to disappear under increased engine loads."
 
Last edited:
Unplug the MAF and see how it runs. Ive done that before too. Make it run off the static 'Failed MAF' table. When I accidentally leave it unplugged on a car with a good MAF, the only thing I notice is the trans shifting slightly later/harder which tells me that table is 'safe' in that it has slightly more load than is really happening.
 
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
At this point I'm confident it's not my intake manifold or plenum gaskets, as I would expect those to get worse under load, not better. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.


A small vacuum leak will show positive fuel trims at idle & CORRECT under load! Because intake vacuum drops with heavy load/high throttle angles.

Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
Another point for faulty MAF: https://www.carsdirect.com/car-repair/how-to-tell-if-you-have-a-faulty-mass-airflow-sensor

"A faulty mass airflow sensor will cause problems similar to low compression or low vacuum, and will also show symptoms similar to when your vehicle has low fuel pressure from a faulty fuel pump. Here are some of the most common symptoms of a faulty mass airflow sensor:"

...

"Excessively rich or lean idling"

I'd say +18% is excessively rich, and it's only abnormal while idling.

EDIT: And another point for faulty injector: http://www.underhoodservice.com/troubleshooting-mass-air-flow-maf-sensors/

"Positive fuel trims caused by leaking fuel pressure regulators and injectors also tend to disappear under increased engine loads."


Positive corrections indicate a LEAN condition.....Negative corrections indicate a RICH condition.

I did not read the articles.....I've read enough technician trade magazines to know that writers get stuff backwards A LOT. And for that matter....Manufacturer TSB's can be confusing with terminology.

Small Vacuum leaks can cause whistling noises....I've heard engines that sound like a young kid playing a recorder (badly).

I may be mistaken here.....But don't older Fords display the BARO/MAP PID in Hertz(Frequency)?
 
I went at it with a vac gauge and pump today, there's no leak. Period. There may have been before I poked and prodded around the PCV valve and hose, though, as the clamp I had put on that wasn't quite over the nipple... the whistle is much less pronounced now and only happens as I'm pressing the gas (e.g. as my foot is actively moving downward), whereas there was previously a position at which I could hold the throttle in certain gears and at certain speeds to make it whistle. Either way, no change in LTFT after 50 miles of mixed driving.

Plugged directly into the manifold, I get a slight but rapid fluctuation in vacuum, like 3 or 4 in/hg. According to this guide: https://www.onallcylinders.com/2015/05/0...ngine-problems/ that indicates worn valve guides, which is entirely possible with this engine. The fluctuation disappears when I connect the gauge to a vac line; it's possible that my gauge is overly sensitive.

I wish I had easy access to a smoke tester to finally put that to bed, but I don't. I'd take it to a shop for that if I wasn't currently between jobs. I have also pressure tested each and every line individually, as well as the EGR valve and fuel pressure regulator, and they all hold perfect vacuum. So, for now, let's stop considering a vac leak. There, quite simply, isn't one.

I ruled out a cracked, damaged, or improperly sealing valve with a compression test. The engine was already warm, so I don't have cold test numbers (maybe tomorrow afternoon), but I've got 191-195-190-196 hot. Everything's good there, though a leakdown test might show differently. I don't have any gas smell to my oil, so I don't think I have a ring issue.

Coming back around to valve guides, this engine did have oil issues when I bought it, leading to lifter failure, so I wouldn't be surprised if that caused valve guide wear. I am also wondering, though, if dirty/varnished valve stems slamming into the guides could cause them to give a little. That would explain why it sometimes corrects (as it did the other day) and would potentially be fixed with Kreen (which gets here Tuesday).

Going way back in the thread to where I mention an occasional shimmy/shudder, that came about after replacing the lifters, my working theory was that the replacement of the collapsed lifters was pushing the valves open farther. Given that at least two lifters were collapsed for the 10k I put on the truck since I've owned it (and likely much longer than that) my thought is that part of the stems of those valves that would normally pass through the guides (but wasn't because the lifters were collapsed) gummed up and is sticking intermittently now that the lifters have been replaced. I'm leaning more and more toward that theory for the shimmy/shudder, as well as the (now gone) stalling issue because:

  • It never happened just idling
  • It rarely happened after light acceleration or revving
  • It often happened after heavy acceleration followed by depressing the clutch or shifting to neutral
  • It almost always happened after revving to higher RPMs while stationary
  • Stalling happened about half the time, shimmy/shudder the other half, which makes sense if one or both valves could be sticking -- 1 = shimmy/shudder, 2 = stall
  • It has become less common and less pronounced slowly over time, no repair that I've done seemed to have a measurable impact on it
  • The duration of the shimmy/shudder, when it happens, has been getting shorter and shorter
  • The shimmy/shudder doesn't fade away, it just stops, as though something has IMMEDIATELY corrected, rather than being slowly adjusted/corrected for by the ECU, which is what would happen if a sticking valve suddenly unstuck


If I really hammer on it, I can get it to shimmy/shudder about 5% of the time. Used to be I could consistently make it shimmy/shudder or stall. As listed above, no repair I've done seemed to contribute greatly to that, it's just gotten better over time. There was a whole week where I drove a few hundred miles but did no work on it whatsoever and it improved the most during that week. It's improved about as much in the past week, and I've driven it about as many miles.

At this point I'm just gonna Kreen it and see where that goes. If it's worn valve guides I expect Kreen to make the fuel trims worse as it cleans away crud that's helping them seal; but, then, I'd expect to be burning some oil if it were worn valve guides, and I'm not. Not a drop. Kreen was planned for this engine regardless of these issues, simply given the prior oil issue when I bought it; I'm not expecting it to fix anything or have a measurable effect other than making the oil super dark as it dissolves varnish and deposits.

Back on fuel injectors, though, I would expect to see a hit in fuel economy if my fuel trims were due to a vac leak or other improper metering of air flow, or a faulty O2 sensor, or EGR issue, or whatever else have you. I see a solid 23MPG mixed, which is better than I should be seeing for this truck. Clogged, failing, intermittent, or slow-responding (that's the one I'm leaning toward, reasons later) injectors would *actually* inject less fuel, so a positive trim would put it back where it should be (or close but maybe a little low) which would either not affect fuel economy, or would improve it slightly as the engine could still be running a bit lean. That's what I'm seeing here.

As for why I think I have one or more slow-responding injectors, rather than clogged, failing or intermittent: I have, thus far, run three Lucas fuel system treatments, two bottles of Cataclean, two bottles of Techron, a bottle of Royal Purple Max-Clean, MMO, and an acetone/MMO blend through this engine. That's 10 treatments in 4 months. Mind you, the trip between here and the bay area used almost two full tanks and I made the trip 7 times, so that's 14 tanks right there. I've filled up total of 30 times, though. Literally 1/3 of the gas that's run through this engine since I've owned it has had some sort of treatment in it to clean the injectors. If they *were* dirty, they shouldn't be now.

Failing injectors, I would expect, would remain lean through the entire power band, likely getting worse under load. This engine does the opposite.

Intermittent injectors could explain the shimmy/shudder and stalling, but that problem as been going away. I would expect that problem to be more persistent if it were related to my fuel trims.

That leaves slow-responding injectors, which would self-correct under load as the delay before activation would become a smaller and smaller fraction of the activation pulse as more fuel was requested. It could even be something as silly as a loose plug or corroded connector increasing the resistance to one or more injectors, causing the slow response. I wouldn't be able to answer to that with regard to cylinder 3 or 4 because those simply are not accessible without removing the intake plenum, which I'm not doing unless I have to. I do know that cylinder 1 and 2 are clipped in firmly and the connectors are clean and dry.

My DPFE sensor is also the original aluminum-bodied part that is known to corrode and fail, though mode 6 seems to indicate it is within spec, so it's not really suspect at the moment.

Is it possible that a faulty DOWNSTREAM O2 sensor could do this? I know a faulty UPSTREAM sensor could, but I also know my upstream sensor is functioning well; the downstream sensor doesn't seem to kick on until the truck has been driven a bit, never really kicks on if I just let it idle, and kicks off if I let it idle for a while after driving. Not sure if that's normal for this truck or not, but also not sure if it would cause this issue; if not I intend to leave it alone whether it's normal or not, as my emissions DTCs all report COMPLETED.

In summary: valve guides, fuel injectors, the DPFE sensor, and the downstream O2 sensor are the last 4 things this could really be. The DPFE and O2 are the least suspect, but easiest to address. Any further guidance on this is greatly appreciated; at this point, moving forward without further confirmation would simply be firing the parts cannon at the problem, and I don't have funding for that at the moment; unless a part tests bad, I really can't replace it right now.

EDIT: Another point against worn valve guides: My exhaust is CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN. No smoke, black or white, when starting, when idling, or under load. None whatsoever, even after sitting over night or for several days. Of course, lack of white smoke is expected in an engine that is *not burning any oil*, which is what I've got.

EDIT 2: I found this most useful manual: http://www.pittauto.com/customer/piauel/pdf/ford/194-287 LRG423.pdf
It confirms what the earlier linked article states re: valve guides and also adds that the flutter will fade with RPMs if it's valve guides or get worse with RPMs if it's valve springs. It also mentions adjusting the gauge damper, which my gauge does not have, but running through a vac line rather than direct to manifold should (and appears to) have the same effect. While I did rev the engine while connected direct to manifold, I didn't note whether there was any change in the needle bounce; I'll do that again tomorrow afternoon. Now I know: no change = gauge sensitivity, increase = springs, decrease = guides. If there's an increase or decrease, I have a definitive answer; if not, I can at least cross a possibility off my list.
 
Last edited:
Wow, you've been through a lot! Good work to date; your diagnostic skills (and those of the contributors) are far beyond mine. Just one thought though ... I was stumped for a few days some years ago by what turned out to be an intermittent vacuum leak. It was on the rubber corrugated hose that runs from the MAF to the intake plenum. The hose was cracked on the bottom only, and the cracks would open up only under some circumstances.

Good luck!
 
Thanks for the suggestion, but my MAF has no suck host, just a 4-wire connector. Sounds like your MAF has a MAP sensor as well and actually measures vacuum; unfortunately, mine does not. In fact, it wasn't until Colt45ws pointed out that the vacuum readings from my ECU are calculated, rather than measured, that I realized the only way to get an actual vacuum reading from this truck is to hook up a gauge.

The gauge and the ECU don't agree, but they're consistently off by the same amount (about 5in/hg) so I'm okay with that; the MAF is still suspect, but I don't think it's bad enough that the O2 sensors can't correct for it.
 
Another thought was the intake air temp sensor reading high, which would cause the ECU to think the air was thinner and calculate lower air flow as a result. I did rule this out yesterday (along with the coolant temp sensor) when I connected to OBD in KOEO and noted that both sensors read the same temperature after the truck had sat over night. Unless they're both off by the same amount, they're not only both working, but the most accurate pair of temp sensors I've seen in a vehicle of this era.
 
Well, I ruled out valve guides or springs. Gonnected direct to manifold this morning and ZERO needle bounce. It also seems that actual vacuum comes closer to calculated vacuum under load; it's off by 4.5in/hg at idle and less than 3in/hg at 2000 RPM.

Confident now that there's no vacuum leak; at least nothing meaningful enough to push fuel trims above 10%.

So, do I fire the parts cannon at it and replace the DPFE sensor and (if someone here can confirm whether it would affect fuel trims to this degree) the downstream O2 sensor?

Or do I figure out how to test the injectors without removing them from the fuel rail or removing the intake plenum?

I would also like to point out that, whenever I have a problem, it always seems to be the least likely cause. In this case I would almost expect it to be a slow-responding injector, based on that alone.
 
Well, MAF is good. Possibly marginal, but good.

Unplugged it, started the truck, and it immediately began sputtering, missing, and just plain running like sh@t.

Shut 'er off, plugged MAF back in, started right up and ran fine.

Also, I just noticed a couple typos in an earlier post (posted from my phone, thanks Autocorrect)... "no suck host" should read "no such hose". Too late to edit.
 
OP, in my case the cracks in the hose were allowing air in downstream of the MAF. Therefore, the signal the MAF sent to the ECU was not a true indication of how much air was entering the intake manifold, so the ECU was not providing the injectors the correct duty cycle.

But of course this only works (or doesn't work) if the MAF is actually measuring the volume of incoming air, and providing feedback to the ECU.

Anyway, good luck as you continue to chase this!
 
On a hot engine, run a dynamic compression test and post the numbers at idle, and snap throttle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom