802SHO 2010 Build
- Thread starter 802SHO
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Yeah a digital GearHead lol
DadMobile
Worlds 3rd least slowest Ecoboost SHO
I love this style, your going to ****** that worlds fastest EB record!
One thing I’ve learned from all the diagnostics I’ve done on this car is how valuable negative test results are. A test doesn’t have to prove you’re right to be useful. Every failed theory narrows the list of possibilities until eventually all that’s left standing is the truth.
That’s where I’m at right now with the tuning.
Ryan’s current theory is that there is something in the OS or strategy that is causing the PCM to intervene. The logs repeatedly show the throttle closing to maintain roughly 368 lb-ft brake torque and the Torque Source reporting Engine Speed Limit. He’s already escalated the issue to HP Tuners engineering, which is exactly what should happen when you start running into behavior that doesn’t make sense.
At the same time, I’m not ready to conclude the OS is the problem without testing other possibilities.
A friend of mine, Brendan, just a solo/private tuner from Canada, has been tuning his own MKS for several years and has spent a lot of time working with the torque model and inverse tables in HP Tuners. His approach was never based on calculators or theory alone. He made small changes, logged the results, kept what worked, threw out what didn’t, and eventually landed on a torque model that allowed his car to report 580+ lb-ft brake torque and over 60 lb/min airflow. He also pointed me toward another SHO using the same ECU family that reports 600-650 lb-ft brake torque without issue.
That immediately raises a question. If another Green Oak car can calculate and report 600+ lb-ft brake torque, is there really a hard 368 lb-ft ceiling in the OS?
Maybe. Maybe not. So instead of arguing about it, we’re going to test it.
Brendan reviewed my file and a few things immediately stood out to him. Keep in mind he doesn’t work for a shop, follow specific guidelines or protect a brand, the biggest one was the inverse tables. Some of the values in my current calibration are scaled so aggressively that the math suggests the engine could make torque numbers that are nowhere near reality. His opinion is that the PCM may be seeing torque and airflow relationships that simply don’t make sense. If the model becomes unbelievable enough, the PCM could be defaulting to a factory safety strategy and pulling everything back toward the stock 368 lb-ft area because that’s the last place it knows how to operate safely.
That is only a hypothesis. Ryan’s hypothesis is that there is still a limiter or strategy issue in the OS. Brendan’s hypothesis is that the torque model itself is causing the PCM to trip a protection strategy.
Both theories are reasonable. Neither has been proven.
So the plan is, Brendan is going through the file and changing the things that stand out to him based on his experience. We’re correcting tire revs per mile, cleaning up parts of the torque model, adjusting some pressure control logic, setting the car up for a true 0% wastegate duty cycle baseline, and then running the exact same road test again.
The result is informative either way.
If the car still hits the same wall, still reports Engine Speed Limit, still closes the throttle and still parks around 368 lb-ft brake torque, then Ryan’s theory gets much stronger.
If brake torque climbs naturally, the throttle stays open, and the car behaves differently, then we learned something equally valuable and Ryan will have another piece of information to work with.
Either outcome is a win because it replaces assumptions with data.
At this point HP Tuners engineering is looking at the issue from one direction and Brendan is helping me look at it from another. I’m not interested in proving anyone right or wrong. I just want to know why the PCM is doing what it’s doing.
Same road. Same hardware. Same 0% duty cycle baseline. Different model.
Let’s see what the car says. When the rain stops the model diagnostic test starts.
That’s where I’m at right now with the tuning.
Ryan’s current theory is that there is something in the OS or strategy that is causing the PCM to intervene. The logs repeatedly show the throttle closing to maintain roughly 368 lb-ft brake torque and the Torque Source reporting Engine Speed Limit. He’s already escalated the issue to HP Tuners engineering, which is exactly what should happen when you start running into behavior that doesn’t make sense.
At the same time, I’m not ready to conclude the OS is the problem without testing other possibilities.
A friend of mine, Brendan, just a solo/private tuner from Canada, has been tuning his own MKS for several years and has spent a lot of time working with the torque model and inverse tables in HP Tuners. His approach was never based on calculators or theory alone. He made small changes, logged the results, kept what worked, threw out what didn’t, and eventually landed on a torque model that allowed his car to report 580+ lb-ft brake torque and over 60 lb/min airflow. He also pointed me toward another SHO using the same ECU family that reports 600-650 lb-ft brake torque without issue.
That immediately raises a question. If another Green Oak car can calculate and report 600+ lb-ft brake torque, is there really a hard 368 lb-ft ceiling in the OS?
Maybe. Maybe not. So instead of arguing about it, we’re going to test it.
Brendan reviewed my file and a few things immediately stood out to him. Keep in mind he doesn’t work for a shop, follow specific guidelines or protect a brand, the biggest one was the inverse tables. Some of the values in my current calibration are scaled so aggressively that the math suggests the engine could make torque numbers that are nowhere near reality. His opinion is that the PCM may be seeing torque and airflow relationships that simply don’t make sense. If the model becomes unbelievable enough, the PCM could be defaulting to a factory safety strategy and pulling everything back toward the stock 368 lb-ft area because that’s the last place it knows how to operate safely.
That is only a hypothesis. Ryan’s hypothesis is that there is still a limiter or strategy issue in the OS. Brendan’s hypothesis is that the torque model itself is causing the PCM to trip a protection strategy.
Both theories are reasonable. Neither has been proven.
So the plan is, Brendan is going through the file and changing the things that stand out to him based on his experience. We’re correcting tire revs per mile, cleaning up parts of the torque model, adjusting some pressure control logic, setting the car up for a true 0% wastegate duty cycle baseline, and then running the exact same road test again.
The result is informative either way.
If the car still hits the same wall, still reports Engine Speed Limit, still closes the throttle and still parks around 368 lb-ft brake torque, then Ryan’s theory gets much stronger.
If brake torque climbs naturally, the throttle stays open, and the car behaves differently, then we learned something equally valuable and Ryan will have another piece of information to work with.
Either outcome is a win because it replaces assumptions with data.
At this point HP Tuners engineering is looking at the issue from one direction and Brendan is helping me look at it from another. I’m not interested in proving anyone right or wrong. I just want to know why the PCM is doing what it’s doing.
Same road. Same hardware. Same 0% duty cycle baseline. Different model.
Let’s see what the car says. When the rain stops the model diagnostic test starts.
I absolutely love this. Instead of one guy waiting and one guy looking….there are 8 eyeballs looking at this and I now have access to the model through my friend Brendan. The logic makes sense, the changes are understandable the test is strictly same road same % duty. That’s low risk. And I like that it’s 70% still Ryan’s file bc it would prove he’s been mostly right.
In diagnostics you eventually land at a place where you no longer are emotionally attached to results. You still prefer a result but the test result is all you want. True or false let’s find out the truth.
In diagnostics you eventually land at a place where you no longer are emotionally attached to results. You still prefer a result but the test result is all you want. True or false let’s find out the truth.
Is this A) Operating System that needs a limiter exposedOR
B) Operating system triggering protective logic bc the calibration contains errors?
The car will vote next. As soon as it stops raining for F sake.
This type of diagnostic test is exactly why I own a new TRS and valve body/ solenoid assembly sitting on a bench instead of in the trans. No test is worthless…not even a triple check.
Has anyone else gone this far into talking about tuning? Just a random thought.
My final analysis of this situation is that this upcoming test is going to answer a lot more questions than just whether Brendan’s theory is correct or not.
One thing I’ve learned over the last year is that sometimes the answer you’re looking for isn’t the answer you get. The value is in the information. Every test narrows the possibilities.
This test is going to answer several lingering questions that have been sitting in the background for a long time.
The obvious question is whether the torque model itself is causing the PCM to trip a protection strategy. But there are other questions hiding behind that one.
One thing that has bothered me for a while is how difficult the car has become to fully relearn the Knock Octane Modifier (KOM). SCT calls it Octane Adjust Ratio. HP Tuners calls it Knock Octane Modifier. Either way, the concept is the same.
In the past I could consistently get the car back to -0.96 fairly quickly. Usually 8-10 minutes of loaded driving and it was there. Lately I’ve spent 30+ minutes trying to get it to fully relearn and have never been able to get it all the way back. The highest I’ve seen recently is around -0.64.
I don’t have to wonder anymore I can look. Having access inside the file is where guessing gets replaced with answers.
One thing Brendan immediately noticed was that Power Enrichment was delayed until roughly 70% throttle. Power Enrichment is the point where the PCM transitions from stoich operation into a richer commanded fuel mixture under load. That richer mixture helps cool combustion, increase exhaust energy, spool the turbos harder, and gives the PCM more useful information about what the engine can tolerate. Brendan’s position is that 70% throttle is extremely late for a turbocharged application. His preference is closer to 30% throttle.
The logic actually makes sense.
If enrichment doesn’t occur until 70% throttle, then unless I’m essentially going wide open throttle the PCM isn’t spending much time in the operating range where it can aggressively learn fuel quality and knock tolerance. Looking back, that may explain why KOM has become so difficult to fully relearn. I shouldn’t need repeated WOT events to get there. Historically I never did. Moderate load and moderate throttle were enough.
So now another question gets answered: Will earlier enrichment help the car relearn KOM more quickly again? I genuinely don’t know, but it is a testable theory. Another lingering question is whether this setup is really as different from a normal SHO as we originally thought. When the car was fighting voltage issues, BOV issues, fuel pressure reference issues, electrical problems, and a handful of other mechanical problems, it was very difficult to know what data was trustworthy. When the hardware isn’t behaving correctly, confidence in the calibration naturally suffers too.
Now that the voltage is healthy, the BOV is working, the fuel system is behaving, the grounds have been corrected, the relay issues have been corrected, and the hardware has proven itself capable of moving serious air, I’m starting to wonder if this isn’t some alien calibration that requires completely unconventional tuning. Maybe it isn’t that different.
Maybe it still behaves like a Ford Green Oak SHO PCM wants to behave, but it needs believable airflow, believable torque, believable pressure relationships, and believable vehicle speed information.
In other words, maybe it is fundamentally still a SHO calibration, just scaled appropriately for a combination that moves significantly more air than stock.
That’s why I love this test.
It isn’t simply testing whether Brendan is right. It’s testing whether a healthy system combined with a calibration that more closely matches reality changes the PCM’s behavior.
Does brake torque finally climb naturally?
Does the throttle stay open?
Does the car stop falling back toward 368 lb-ft?
Does KOM relearn faster?
Does part throttle improve?
Does the PCM trust what it’s seeing?
Or does it hit the exact same wall and strengthen Ryan’s OS theory?
And I love that I don’t need to check with anyone to see if it’s ok to run my test. I’m not helpless and that feels great even if I end being wrong. That’s freedom
My final analysis of this situation is that this upcoming test is going to answer a lot more questions than just whether Brendan’s theory is correct or not.
One thing I’ve learned over the last year is that sometimes the answer you’re looking for isn’t the answer you get. The value is in the information. Every test narrows the possibilities.
This test is going to answer several lingering questions that have been sitting in the background for a long time.
The obvious question is whether the torque model itself is causing the PCM to trip a protection strategy. But there are other questions hiding behind that one.
One thing that has bothered me for a while is how difficult the car has become to fully relearn the Knock Octane Modifier (KOM). SCT calls it Octane Adjust Ratio. HP Tuners calls it Knock Octane Modifier. Either way, the concept is the same.
In the past I could consistently get the car back to -0.96 fairly quickly. Usually 8-10 minutes of loaded driving and it was there. Lately I’ve spent 30+ minutes trying to get it to fully relearn and have never been able to get it all the way back. The highest I’ve seen recently is around -0.64.
I don’t have to wonder anymore I can look. Having access inside the file is where guessing gets replaced with answers.
One thing Brendan immediately noticed was that Power Enrichment was delayed until roughly 70% throttle. Power Enrichment is the point where the PCM transitions from stoich operation into a richer commanded fuel mixture under load. That richer mixture helps cool combustion, increase exhaust energy, spool the turbos harder, and gives the PCM more useful information about what the engine can tolerate. Brendan’s position is that 70% throttle is extremely late for a turbocharged application. His preference is closer to 30% throttle.
The logic actually makes sense.
If enrichment doesn’t occur until 70% throttle, then unless I’m essentially going wide open throttle the PCM isn’t spending much time in the operating range where it can aggressively learn fuel quality and knock tolerance. Looking back, that may explain why KOM has become so difficult to fully relearn. I shouldn’t need repeated WOT events to get there. Historically I never did. Moderate load and moderate throttle were enough.
So now another question gets answered: Will earlier enrichment help the car relearn KOM more quickly again? I genuinely don’t know, but it is a testable theory. Another lingering question is whether this setup is really as different from a normal SHO as we originally thought. When the car was fighting voltage issues, BOV issues, fuel pressure reference issues, electrical problems, and a handful of other mechanical problems, it was very difficult to know what data was trustworthy. When the hardware isn’t behaving correctly, confidence in the calibration naturally suffers too.
Now that the voltage is healthy, the BOV is working, the fuel system is behaving, the grounds have been corrected, the relay issues have been corrected, and the hardware has proven itself capable of moving serious air, I’m starting to wonder if this isn’t some alien calibration that requires completely unconventional tuning. Maybe it isn’t that different.
Maybe it still behaves like a Ford Green Oak SHO PCM wants to behave, but it needs believable airflow, believable torque, believable pressure relationships, and believable vehicle speed information.
In other words, maybe it is fundamentally still a SHO calibration, just scaled appropriately for a combination that moves significantly more air than stock.
That’s why I love this test.
It isn’t simply testing whether Brendan is right. It’s testing whether a healthy system combined with a calibration that more closely matches reality changes the PCM’s behavior.
Does brake torque finally climb naturally?
Does the throttle stay open?
Does the car stop falling back toward 368 lb-ft?
Does KOM relearn faster?
Does part throttle improve?
Does the PCM trust what it’s seeing?
Or does it hit the exact same wall and strengthen Ryan’s OS theory?
And I love that I don’t need to check with anyone to see if it’s ok to run my test. I’m not helpless and that feels great even if I end being wrong. That’s freedom
DadMobile
Worlds 3rd least slowest Ecoboost SHO
It’s unfortunate that after all this time and money it still doesn’t want to shift. I think after some more time and money the car will shift right. I wonder if changing out the PCM would solve these issues? With everything you have done -a custom PCM seems like a logical solution.
Being that this is going to be the fastest EB car on the planet, do you have plans to install a roll cage?
Being that this is going to be the fastest EB car on the planet, do you have plans to install a roll cage?
I don’t care if anyone likes seeing what Chuck says, it’s so true. The results of this test are going to hand the truth a microphone.
Tomorrow we learn some truth.
Tomorrow we learn some truth.
DadMobile
Worlds 3rd least slowest Ecoboost SHO
The truth will set you free! Who is Chuck?
Car felt better but hit the same wall again. 368 desired brake torque. Butt dyno liked it but the log said otherwise. That was the first good feel that did not come back supported in the log.
Car made 49 lb/min. 1.8 load but like a fly, flying into the same windowpane…we hit the glass wall again.
I initially slightly celebrated lmfao…and then took pics.
And then saw the same limit. Damn.
Low-mid throttle felt better and low speed shifts felt crisper ….the hit it felt like a delay but went pretty well…I thought it felt cleaner. Resetting KOM didn’t seem to work and early enrichment wasn’t really working.
It’s just weird the butt dyno liked it the best so far.
Back to my own drawing board while Ryan waits to hear from HP.
Car made 49 lb/min. 1.8 load but like a fly, flying into the same windowpane…we hit the glass wall again.
I initially slightly celebrated lmfao…and then took pics.
And then saw the same limit. Damn.
Low-mid throttle felt better and low speed shifts felt crisper ….the hit it felt like a delay but went pretty well…I thought it felt cleaner. Resetting KOM didn’t seem to work and early enrichment wasn’t really working.
It’s just weird the butt dyno liked it the best so far.
Back to my own drawing board while Ryan waits to hear from HP.
Ok an update. I’m thinking to use Forscan to do a crank relearn and KAM reset. Then retest Ryan’s ReV8 file. Turns out Eric Brooks, the lead Ford Engineer and developer for HP is the one who has my file. That’s pretty awesome. 
Similar threads
