DadMobile
Worlds 3rd least slowest Ecoboost SHO
Dude craves attention but I’m pretty sure he’s been banned from the biggest SHO pages at this point. He relegated to this forum and his little safe space page. Karma is a B.
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.
SM105K
Streetlight Grand Prix Champ/ IG @fafomotorsports
Yet you still come running back, with the same redundant crap. Let's throw a party fan boy.
Last edited:
They found it 
DadMobile
Worlds 3rd least slowest Ecoboost SHO
That’s neat, they acknowledged what everybody told you last year to be true. It’s crazy you started attacking the auto engineer telling you the same thing, the same dude was working with SCT on this exact problem last year and was close to a solution! Maybe by the end of the year you’ll get a an answer as I’m sure paying engineers to solve a problem in an aged out dying platform is at the top of their list.They found it
Cool story. Who said there was a missing engine brake torque limit? I’m sure they’ll continue to pay their staff to support their software
Oh, all the tuners in the platform taking notes? Bc I crushed all their assumptions
SM105K
Streetlight Grand Prix Champ/ IG @fafomotorsports
Welcome back Simple Jack!
DadMobile
Worlds 3rd least slowest Ecoboost SHO
Please explain how you crushed their assumptions. I’d love to hear it in your own words.
I’m tuning in HPTuners and getting results and making headway. Sharing information never uncovered. Clearly they didn’t tell me what they didn’t know. If I had listened I’d have gotten nowhere fast. That usually means what was being said was inaccurate to say it nicely.
Rev9 Update
Back in HPTuners I did another crank relearn in Forscan bc I’m unsure it stays intact flashing back to stock calibration. The car felt great and it pulled the best so far.
After reviewing the log and talking with Ryan, I’m increasingly convinced Rev9 was intended as a systems validation run rather than a power tune.
The previous Brake Torque Limit was increased from the stock 500 Nm value to 881 Nm (650 lb-ft) and the results were immediate.
Peak values from the run:
-Desired Brake Torque = 650.0 lb-ft
-ETC Torque Request = 650.0 lb-ft
-Scheduled Torque = 696.7 lb-ft
-Engine Brake Torque = 433.5 lb-ft
-Actual Load = 1.922
-Desired Load = 1.921
-Airflow = 55.2 lb/min
-Boost = 18 psi
The interesting part is where the torque sources changed.
At peak torque, Torque Source still showed Engine Speed Limit while the PCM was requesting 650 lb-ft and scheduling nearly 700 lb-ft. Later in the pull, once actual load exceeded the current torque model range, Torque Source changed to Engine Indicated Torque Limit.
That appears significant because the current torque model effectively tops out around 1.9 load and the car reached 1.922.
One thing that immediately stood out was the fueling. Lambda was down around .72, which is extremely rich. On a power tune I’d normally expect the conversation to be moving toward .80-.82 lambda, not .72.
The fuel system was intentionally given an enormous safety margin while we verified that the new brake torque limit changes worked, verified fuel pressure remained stable, verified the injectors and HPFP were happy, verified boost control remained stable, and verified that the car could move beyond the previous intervention point without setting DTCs.
The result was exactly that. No P0219. No DTCs. No positive knock observed. Fuel pressure tracked. Load tracked. Boost control remained stable with WGDC still relatively conservative. The previous torque ceiling appears to have moved and a new torque source was identified.
What’s even more interesting is that Johnny Powers at HP Tuners is already looking into the next bottleneck. He personally wanted an update and I gave him one on Sunday. I told him the Y axis in Indicated engine torque cannot exceed 2.0 load. First he wanted me to check with Ryan, under advanced access if he was able to access editing load above 2.0 and Ryan thankfully was available Sunday and reported no. Johnny said he’d have it editable by mid day
It sounds like this may ultimately become an Advanced Access feature where users receive a warning prompt before extending the torque model beyond factory-defined limits.
If that happens, Ryan should be able to properly extend the torque model rather than operating at the edge of the factory calibration range.
We’re also investigating rear drive unit clutch duty cycle control similar to what exists on later SHOs.
My friend David brought up a calibration he performed on a 2016 SHO where rear differential clutch duty cycle was controlled by throttle position, vehicle speed, and gear. According to him, that single change dramatically improved launch performance and reduced both 60-foot and quarter-mile times.
His comment was: “**** should see if we have the ability to control the rear differential clutch duty cycle. That one table alone had my buddy’s 2016 I was tuning in stock wheels and tires cutting a 1.6-1.7 60 ft and 11.5 1/4 mile on the street. Ya it allows u to control the lockup clutch duty cycle and axis are TPS vs vehicle speed by gear.”
Johnny is currently investigating whether similar functionality exists within the 2010-2012 Green Oak strategy. Or he mentioned, “
So the older cars might have been controlled by another module for the diff? Yeah if it’s hard coded I might be able to do a patch to increase it. But we shall see.”
One thing that has become increasingly obvious through this process is that there are still capabilities buried inside these older operating systems that were never fully exposed. Every time we remove one ceiling, we discover what the next ceiling actually is.
Johnny also made me laugh with this comment: “lol. Good luck with stuff like this for GM and Dodge..Only Eric and I care about the masses and not just big name tuners.”
I humbly recognized how rare this truly is. I told him, “Yeah I know this isn’t normal, I truly appreciate what you’re doing.”
For now Rev9 looks like a successful systems check. The previous brake torque ceiling moved. The car reached 1.922 load. The PCM requested 650 lb-ft.
A new torque source appeared. And we now have a clear direction for the next phase of torque model expansion.
Back in HPTuners I did another crank relearn in Forscan bc I’m unsure it stays intact flashing back to stock calibration. The car felt great and it pulled the best so far.
After reviewing the log and talking with Ryan, I’m increasingly convinced Rev9 was intended as a systems validation run rather than a power tune.
The previous Brake Torque Limit was increased from the stock 500 Nm value to 881 Nm (650 lb-ft) and the results were immediate.
Peak values from the run:
-Desired Brake Torque = 650.0 lb-ft
-ETC Torque Request = 650.0 lb-ft
-Scheduled Torque = 696.7 lb-ft
-Engine Brake Torque = 433.5 lb-ft
-Actual Load = 1.922
-Desired Load = 1.921
-Airflow = 55.2 lb/min
-Boost = 18 psi
The interesting part is where the torque sources changed.
At peak torque, Torque Source still showed Engine Speed Limit while the PCM was requesting 650 lb-ft and scheduling nearly 700 lb-ft. Later in the pull, once actual load exceeded the current torque model range, Torque Source changed to Engine Indicated Torque Limit.
That appears significant because the current torque model effectively tops out around 1.9 load and the car reached 1.922.
One thing that immediately stood out was the fueling. Lambda was down around .72, which is extremely rich. On a power tune I’d normally expect the conversation to be moving toward .80-.82 lambda, not .72.
The fuel system was intentionally given an enormous safety margin while we verified that the new brake torque limit changes worked, verified fuel pressure remained stable, verified the injectors and HPFP were happy, verified boost control remained stable, and verified that the car could move beyond the previous intervention point without setting DTCs.
The result was exactly that. No P0219. No DTCs. No positive knock observed. Fuel pressure tracked. Load tracked. Boost control remained stable with WGDC still relatively conservative. The previous torque ceiling appears to have moved and a new torque source was identified.
What’s even more interesting is that Johnny Powers at HP Tuners is already looking into the next bottleneck. He personally wanted an update and I gave him one on Sunday. I told him the Y axis in Indicated engine torque cannot exceed 2.0 load. First he wanted me to check with Ryan, under advanced access if he was able to access editing load above 2.0 and Ryan thankfully was available Sunday and reported no. Johnny said he’d have it editable by mid day
It sounds like this may ultimately become an Advanced Access feature where users receive a warning prompt before extending the torque model beyond factory-defined limits.
If that happens, Ryan should be able to properly extend the torque model rather than operating at the edge of the factory calibration range.
We’re also investigating rear drive unit clutch duty cycle control similar to what exists on later SHOs.
My friend David brought up a calibration he performed on a 2016 SHO where rear differential clutch duty cycle was controlled by throttle position, vehicle speed, and gear. According to him, that single change dramatically improved launch performance and reduced both 60-foot and quarter-mile times.
His comment was: “**** should see if we have the ability to control the rear differential clutch duty cycle. That one table alone had my buddy’s 2016 I was tuning in stock wheels and tires cutting a 1.6-1.7 60 ft and 11.5 1/4 mile on the street. Ya it allows u to control the lockup clutch duty cycle and axis are TPS vs vehicle speed by gear.”
Johnny is currently investigating whether similar functionality exists within the 2010-2012 Green Oak strategy. Or he mentioned, “
So the older cars might have been controlled by another module for the diff? Yeah if it’s hard coded I might be able to do a patch to increase it. But we shall see.”
One thing that has become increasingly obvious through this process is that there are still capabilities buried inside these older operating systems that were never fully exposed. Every time we remove one ceiling, we discover what the next ceiling actually is.
Johnny also made me laugh with this comment: “lol. Good luck with stuff like this for GM and Dodge..Only Eric and I care about the masses and not just big name tuners.”
I humbly recognized how rare this truly is. I told him, “Yeah I know this isn’t normal, I truly appreciate what you’re doing.”
For now Rev9 looks like a successful systems check. The previous brake torque ceiling moved. The car reached 1.922 load. The PCM requested 650 lb-ft.
A new torque source appeared. And we now have a clear direction for the next phase of torque model expansion.
Similar threads
