DIY charge motion delete for 2010 GT? - Ford Mustang Forum
Like Tree1Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-28-2018 Thread Starter
SHELBY GT 350 Member
4.6L Member
S197 Member
 
JBert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Central Massachusetts
Posts: 8,931
           
DIY charge motion delete for 2010 GT?

I'd like to delete the charge motion valves in my 2010 GT, but the intake is different from earlier years so the plates are not appropriate, and Steeda does not sell the plugs any more. I think the intake on the 2009 is the same as the 2010.

I've seen some threads about do-it-yourself approach to removing the butterflies, but I'm not sure if this would work on my 2010.

Any thoughts or clues about this? Or warnings about what not to do, if I take it apart and figure it out for myself?

thanks in advance


| 2010 GT coupe | Daily Driver with some Steeda and GT500 take-off stuff for the occasional track day
JBert is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-28-2018
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
Bullitt95's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 3,391
 
You could just swap in an '05-'08 manifold with DIY delete plates made from the original CMCVs, and sell your '09-'10 manifold to recoup some of the cost.

Bullitt95 is online now  
post #3 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-28-2018
OFFICIAL FORD RACING (FRPP) PARTS TECH.
 
raysmust's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2015
Location: DEARBORN
Posts: 7
             
Garage
I have a 2009 Mustang intake with the plates and shafts already deleted. All the holes are plugged in the intake and I would love to sell it.
raysmust is offline  
 
post #4 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-28-2018 Thread Starter
SHELBY GT 350 Member
4.6L Member
S197 Member
 
JBert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Central Massachusetts
Posts: 8,931
           
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt95 View Post
You could just swap in an '05-'08 manifold with DIY delete plates made from the original CMCVs, and sell your '09-'10 manifold to recoup some of the cost.
thanks for the suggestion; but I feel like there must be something "better" about the '10 manifold that I would be losing if I went backwards to the '08, thought I don't know exactly what that is

Quote:
Originally Posted by raysmust View Post
I have a 2009 Mustang intake with the plates and shafts already deleted. All the holes are plugged in the intake and I would love to sell it.
that sounds pretty good to me, will send you a PM . . . . can we confirm that 2009 manifold is the same as 2010?

| 2010 GT coupe | Daily Driver with some Steeda and GT500 take-off stuff for the occasional track day
JBert is offline  
post #5 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-29-2018 Thread Starter
SHELBY GT 350 Member
4.6L Member
S197 Member
 
JBert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Central Massachusetts
Posts: 8,931
           
when I have a few minutes I'll try some searches to find the old threads about this . . . but meanwhile,


do I understand correctly that the charge motion delete simply amounts to removing the valves and the linkage, and then plugging the holes that are left behind?


so any kind of plug will do; such as silicone or epoxy? I guess the key thing is you don't want pieces of the plug breaking off and getting ingested by the motor.


Also the actuator can be removed; but if so the tune needs to be corrected, apparently so the computer does not get confused by the lack of response from the actuator.

| 2010 GT coupe | Daily Driver with some Steeda and GT500 take-off stuff for the occasional track day
JBert is offline  
post #6 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-29-2018
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
HuntingKy's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Sonora,KY
Posts: 213
 
Just some thought


I have heard that some people were disappointed with the results
HuntingKy is offline  
post #7 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-29-2018 Thread Starter
SHELBY GT 350 Member
4.6L Member
S197 Member
 
JBert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Central Massachusetts
Posts: 8,931
           
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuntingKy View Post
. . .

I have heard that some people were disappointed with the results
thanks for that; will have a look at it after work; I have been wondering why Ford would go to all the trouble to put then in there, if removing them was better . . . have heard some conflicting inputs on this

| 2010 GT coupe | Daily Driver with some Steeda and GT500 take-off stuff for the occasional track day
JBert is offline  
post #8 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-29-2018
GT Member
2.3L Member
S197 Member
 
bl817's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 1,293
 
Garage
when I first got my SCT programmer, it had the option to turn them off. I did that and made a hook so to speak out of a wire coat hanger to hold them open. you could try that first if your on the fence about removing them. good luck

Lots of bolt on goodies...
bl817 is offline  
post #9 of 23 (permalink) Old 06-30-2018 Thread Starter
SHELBY GT 350 Member
4.6L Member
S197 Member
 
JBert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Central Massachusetts
Posts: 8,931
           
That video really does make me wonder about this mod; also a bit surprised that his numbers were fairly low considering he had headers too.


I definitely do not want to lose mid-range torque, since that is the most important thing for my intended use (road track; not always in the top of the powerband).


I know I have seen some posts that say there actually is a gain of mid-range with the CMV delete, but that just doesn't make sense because increasing low end and mid range is the purpose of the valves. Looks like it is time to spend some quality time with the search feature . . .

| 2010 GT coupe | Daily Driver with some Steeda and GT500 take-off stuff for the occasional track day
JBert is offline  
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
Bullitt95's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 3,391
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuntingKy View Post
Just some thought

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoQnoAQJJg8

I have heard that some people were disappointed with the results
The ECU has to be retuned to take into account the additional airflow that results from removing the plates as well as the removal of the CMCV actuator. With a proper tune there's a 6-10rwhp gain and NO loss of torque anywhere in the rpm range.
If you have any doubts about the benefits of deleting the CMCVs, take a look in Charge Motion Delete Plates
Bullitt95 is online now  
post #11 of 23 (permalink) Old 07-01-2018 Thread Starter
SHELBY GT 350 Member
4.6L Member
S197 Member
 
JBert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Central Massachusetts
Posts: 8,931
           
^ thanks for reposting that, I think that is the link that I was going to try to find.


hmmmmm . . . .

| 2010 GT coupe | Daily Driver with some Steeda and GT500 take-off stuff for the occasional track day
JBert is offline  
Apprentice
 
Hazey's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Location: Morinville
Posts: 113
 
Garage
Am I the only one who noticed that there is no dyno test of a stock manifold with the charge motion valves deleted in that video? He compares the FRPP manifold (which has no provisions for the CMCVs) to a stocker with the valves in place.
The FRPP manifold is a known mid range killer on N/A cars due to runner cross section and length, not because it deletes the CMCVs. It was designed for boost and/or 7000+ RPM. Using data from that manifold to demonstrate why you should keep your CMCVs is laughable.
Hazey is offline  
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
Bullitt95's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 3,391
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazey View Post
Am I the only one who noticed that there is no dyno test of a stock manifold with the charge motion valves deleted in that video? He compares the FRPP manifold (which has no provisions for the CMCVs) to a stocker with the valves in place.
Yup I had noticed that there was no dyno test with the stock manifold & CMCV delete, so it doesn't illustrate the effect of the CMCV delete alone.
The only useful piece of information was that the numbers went from 292/307 to 305/316 with the addition of an aluminum driveshaft, Kooks LT headers/X-pipe, and Ford Racing 62mm TB.
Bullitt95 is online now  
post #14 of 23 (permalink) Old 07-02-2018 Thread Starter
SHELBY GT 350 Member
4.6L Member
S197 Member
 
JBert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Central Massachusetts
Posts: 8,931
           
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazey View Post
Am I the only one who noticed that there is no dyno test of a stock manifold with the charge motion valves deleted in that video? . . . .
Yes I did notice that; but the other part about how the CMCV's work, and why they are there, makes sense . . . dyno results seemed a bit off in many ways, including the FRPP manifold comparison.

I think I am going to give Ray's manifold a try, because that will make it easy to reverse if I don't like it; plus I'll need the tune to go with it, so all together it will cost a few hundred bucks to try.

| 2010 GT coupe | Daily Driver with some Steeda and GT500 take-off stuff for the occasional track day
JBert is offline  
Apprentice
 
UnexplodedCow's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: Cross Lanes
Posts: 73
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBert View Post
thanks for the suggestion; but I feel like there must be something "better" about the '10 manifold that I would be losing if I went backwards to the '08, thought I don't know exactly what that is



that sounds pretty good to me, will send you a PM . . . . can we confirm that 2009 manifold is the same as 2010?
I have a 2010 and did the plug mod (found them on eBay a while back). I also opted to keep the stock plugs in the end of the manifold, to help prevent vacuum leaks, as well as using a touch of RTV on the plugs in the kit. So far it's been fine. I didn't like that method, though, as it felt a bit "backwoods."

The earlier manifolds will bolt directly on, and do exactly the same thing. The only difference is the CMCV section being metal, and replaceable, along with O-ring gaskets. I think they switched over to the all plastic design because it was cheaper to manufacture (certainly seems that way), and harder to modify.

If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a used '05-'08 manifold and some CMCV delete plates, despite the increased cost. O-rings will have a lower chance of leaking in the long term.

UnexplodedCow is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1