GH Tuning and 100% meth injection don’t mix.

[mattr66usa]

Ryan Martin is tuning my car now. He knows it’s a 2010 and didn’t flinch

Good luck. I hope you are the first deep into the 10s. The 10-12 leaves a lot to be desired when you can't even get the full output of the pump since you can't change the delivery valve parameters yet. Oh btw, guess how XDI figured out what that needed to be on the SHO....

 

[802SHO]

Matt, you’re trying to pivot the conversation away from the meth question into a completely different subsystem. The delivery valve topic has nothing to do with the fact that your meth methodology does not map to what the hardware is actually capable of. The HPFP limits on the 10–12 cars are well understood, and changing the delivery valve logic is a separate engineering problem that doesn’t resolve the tuning limitations we’ve been discussing.

Your point about how XDI reverse-engineered the delivery valve parameters is interesting but completely unrelated to this discussion. The fact that they had to characterize those behaviors manually actually reinforces the larger point: when a subsystem introduces new mass flow or new pressure behavior, someone has to sit down, measure it, model it, and deliberately calibrate for it. XDI didn’t lean on “the system will figure it out.” They went in and built the data from scratch because guessing isn’t a calibration strategy.

And that’s exactly why meth tuning deserves the same level of intention. Whether meth contributes ten percent of the fuel or twenty, it still changes the burn rate, the temperature profile, the octane threshold, and the combustion phasing. None of those things fall under the delivery valve category. None of those things are corrected just because the ECU trims AFR. And none of those things are solved by invoking airflow limits or stock turbo constraints. Those are simply different conversations.

You’re presenting the HPFP limits as if they disprove the need for intentional meth calibration. They don’t. They only show that both systems require deliberate modeling to be used to their full potential. That’s why people push back when your method is framed as complete. It works, yes. It runs, yes. But it does not fully utilize the capability of the hardware, and calling that out isn’t an attack on your résumé. It’s pointing out a technical gap that the community keeps repeating as gospel.

Respectfully.

 

[802SHO]

Yeah I’m wondering how someone will figure out how to KEEP me the World’s Fastest EcoBoost SHO. I didn’t get here bc nobody knows anything.

The fact that you offered and then backed out is sadly hilarious to me. Good luck getting GH up top. Where I’m headed, you’ll never catch up.

Good luck

 

[mattr66usa]

Matt, you’re trying to pivot the conversation away from the meth question into a completely different subsystem. The delivery valve topic has nothing to do with the fact that your meth methodology does not map to what the hardware is actually capable of. The HPFP limits on the 10–12 cars are well understood, and changing the delivery valve logic is a separate engineering problem that doesn’t resolve the tuning limitations we’ve been discussing.

There's more wrong with the level of support, but that's a big one for someone wanting max power. Also when you go to put bigger injectors in, the solenoid driver parameters are missing as well as all the airflow modeling for the turbos. I was only giving you facts on why I ducked out of the project, nothing more.

Your point about how XDI reverse-engineered the delivery valve parameters is interesting but completely unrelated to this discussion. The fact that they had to characterize those behaviors manually actually reinforces the larger point: when a subsystem introduces new mass flow or new pressure behavior, someone has to sit down, measure it, model it, and deliberately calibrate for it. XDI didn’t lean on “the system will figure it out.” They went in and built the data from scratch because guessing isn’t a calibration strategy.

Who is "they" ? it has nothing to do with what you surmised and the parameter to fix the problem isn't even in the Ford part of the calibration. It has nothing to do with flow either. It was the Bosch German part that was delivered to Ford for the difference in physical mass and timing of the valve since the valve is different physically. It was me that figured it out, not "They". Go ahead and ask Uwe at XDI how it all got figured out and distributed to the masses.

And that’s exactly why meth tuning deserves the same level of intention. Whether meth contributes ten percent of the fuel or twenty, it still changes the burn rate, the temperature profile, the octane threshold, and the combustion phasing. None of those things fall under the delivery valve category. None of those things are corrected just because the ECU trims AFR. And none of those things are solved by invoking airflow limits or stock turbo constraints. Those are simply different conversations.

other than injector PW and Timing adjustments, what other magic parameters account for this in your mind? Can't wait to hear this.

You’re presenting the HPFP limits as if they disprove the need for intentional meth calibration. They don’t. They only show that both systems require deliberate modeling to be used to their full potential. That’s why people push back when your method is framed as complete. It works, yes. It runs, yes. But it does not fully utilize the capability of the hardware, and calling that out isn’t an attack on your résumé. It’s pointing out a technical gap that the community keeps repeating as gospel.

Nope, I was giving one of the reasons I ducked out of your project at that time and now permanently after your little attention-seeking adventure yesterday and today.

Respectfully.

Yeah no so much. There was nothing respectful on how you acted from the beginning.

 

[802SHO]

Matt, I’ll say this plainly. I didn’t downplay how I acted because I’m not hiding from it. I reacted the way I did because you repeatedly dismissed me as if I “don’t understand,” all while being surrounded by a crowd that has no clue what we’re actually discussing. Look around at your followers for a moment. Not one of them is participating in this conversation at a technical level. They aren’t debating airflow modeling, burn rate changes, effective octane, substitution ratios, knock threshold shifts, or heat-induced timing windows. They aren’t even following the core argument. That’s your crowd. And you’ve conditioned them to defend your stance without understanding it.

I’d rather have twenty people who understand the conversation than twenty thousand who cheer for the wrong reasons. Your mob doesn’t intimidate me because none of them can engage with what’s actually being said. You can drown a point in noise, but it doesn’t erase the point.

And let me be clear about why I’m even pushing back. My knowledge of methanol doesn’t come from theory, internet folklore or wishful thinking. It comes from experience. From installing, operating, maintaining, troubleshooting, and actually comparing untuned meth to properly tuned meth on the same hardware. I know exactly what happens when a system is used at twenty percent capacity, sold as “complete,” and left to the ECU to sort out. My first meth tune was exactly like the style you promote. I felt the IAT2 drop, nothing else. Huge potential left on the table. That was the first red flag. The second was switching to a tuner who actually tuned it, and the difference was night and day. Same car. Same parts. Completely different engine. That’s why this hits harder for me than it might for someone else. I’ve lived both outcomes. The half-utilized version and the fully tuned version. So when I see people repeating misinformation and calling it safer or complete, I’m going to challenge it.

And yes, you once directly told me that you don’t want to tune for meth because of liability. That’s fine. Everyone gets to choose what they support. But that’s exactly why transparency matters. Your customers don’t know that. They don’t know they’re getting a capped version of a system capable of much more. They’re told the small nozzle and diluted mix is “optimal,” when the real reason is that you don’t want to tune the full system. That’s your choice, but the responsibility is on you to say it plainly. Instead, people walk away believing that 50-50 and low flow is “how meth works,” and then repeat it as gospel across the entire platform. That’s how misinformation spreads.

My stance isn’t built on theory. It’s built on installation, operation, logging, maintenance, comparison, and results. When you’ve experienced both sides, the gaps in your approach stand out clearly. You can talk about your résumé, your experience, your engineering background, and that’s fine. But that doesn’t change the fact that in this specific area, the customers who rely on you aren’t given the full picture. You know exactly how to tune meth when you choose to. You’ve even admitted you only do it for a select few. So this isn’t about your ability. It’s about your decision not to apply that ability broadly, and the confusion that creates for everyone else.

I’m setting the record straight because the community deserves clarity, not half-truths wrapped in reassurance. People should know what they’re really getting. They should know what their system is actually capable of. They should know what “full potential” looks like versus “partial use.” And they should know that saying “the ECU will figure it out” is not the same as an intentional meth calibration.

That’s it. Nothing personal. Just the truth you keep sidestepping.

 

[802SHO]

I’m basically standing up for a huge crowd of people who are all starving but don’t even realize it. I’m saying every one of them deserves a full portion of bread, but they’re so blindly loyal to you they don’t see I’m trying to make sure they all get what they should have had from the beginning. I want them full, satisfied, and actually aware of what the full portion looks like and why they deserve it. I’m saying give everyone more bread, and somehow I’m the one getting beaten down for it.

Unlike them, I follow my own path. I don’t need anyone’s approval to say what I say or do what I do. That’s exactly why they lash out at me — because they can’t sway me and it threatens the illusion they all depend on. What they don’t see is that I’m trying to help every single person in this community running GH tuning. I’m not against them. I’m literally advocating for them to get more than the watered-down version they’ve been told is enough.

If an informed current customer leaves that’s on you. That’s speaks to you not me. I’m after truth and I don’t care who’s offended

 

[mattr66usa]

Here you go buddy... Here's more insight than I've ever divulged in one place: https://shoforum.com/threads/setting-the-record-straight-and-802-sho-has-a-problem-with-me.147752/

You've chosen a path of scorched earth out of the blue for some reason and I've clearly explained a lot of things that won't sink in for you. You are one of handfull of people that have modified your car as far as you have and are not an average SHO owner. Once you reach the limit of airflow octane or air density, one of those becomes the limiting factor when it comes to tuning for meth. It has nothing to do with me refusing to tune for meth as you keep trying to tell people. You act like methanol is some magic bullet that fixes something major with a combination. Methanol injection isn't some magic bullet. The way I tune most customers gets them to 99% of the same place with the exception of a level of safety. I won't make a meth-dependent tune that is required not to lose fuel pressure in the case it is using it to replace a fuel source on a pump that is too small to keep up with airflow demand unless they have the boost dump solenoid installed. It is irresponsible for me to tune a customer's car in this way because meth flow cannot be guaranteed and is not monitored by the vehicle's pcm. Just like it was irresponsible for me to tune your car when I know there are parameters I would need that aren't available on the 10-12 pcm tuning software packages yet. Maybe your new tuner can have it added for you, but I would be wary of anyone that doesn't know the limitations of the platform honestly.

 

[802SHO]

Matt, you keep leaning on the “10–12 support limitation” as if that somehow explains why you backed out. But that doesn’t hold up, and you know it. The 10–12 platform has produced the fastest EcoBoost SHO’s in existence for over a decade. Between my car and BPD1151’s, the record has lived entirely on this generation. If the platform were the problem, the two fastest SHO’s wouldn’t both be 10–12s. They wouldn’t hold the record for a combined ten years. They wouldn’t still be the benchmark everyone else measures against.

That’s why your explanation falls apart. You didn’t refuse the project because the platform was incapable — it has proven you wrong for a decade. You stepped away because tuning a 10–12 at the level required would expose the limits of your method. When you realized whose car it actually was, and how far past “average SHO owner” this build goes, you retreated behind the talking point of missing parameters rather than face the calibration requirements head-on.

My point has never changed: you know how to tune meth when you want to, because you’ve done it on competition builds. You just don’t offer that level of utilization to the majority of your customers, and instead of stating that plainly, you frame it as “safety” or “platform limit.” That distinction matters because people deserve to know whether they’re getting the capped version or the complete version. The myth that “meth doesn’t need tuning” came directly from the environment created around your approach. That’s the only reason I’m pushing back — to correct what people now repeat without understanding.

This has nothing to do with any other tuner. It has nothing to do with driving business anywhere. It isn’t personal, even if tension built along the way. I’m pushing for clarity and honesty because this community deserves straight answers about what their hardware is actually capable of. If someone wants mild meth usage for cooling only, great. If someone wants full utilization, they should know what that is and that it requires real calibration. That’s not an attack — that’s transparency.

You underestimated who you were talking to, and that’s fine. But don’t hide behind the 10–12 excuse. That platform has already proven itself. My car has already proven itself. And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the discussion here is about method and clarity, not which PCM year you feel comfortable with.

 

[mattr66usa]

Matt, you keep leaning on the “10–12 support limitation” as if that somehow explains why you backed out. But that doesn’t hold up, and you know it. The 10–12 platform has produced the fastest EcoBoost SHO’s in existence for over a decade. Between my car and BPD1151’s, the record has lived entirely on this generation. If the platform were the problem, the two fastest SHO’s wouldn’t both be 10–12s. They wouldn’t hold the record for a combined ten years. They wouldn’t still be the benchmark everyone else measures against.

That’s why your explanation falls apart. You didn’t refuse the project because the platform was incapable — it has proven you wrong for a decade. You stepped away because tuning a 10–12 at the level required would expose the limits of your method. When you realized whose car it actually was, and how far past “average SHO owner” this build goes, you retreated behind the talking point of missing parameters rather than face the calibration requirements head-on.

My point has never changed: you know how to tune meth when you want to, because you’ve done it on competition builds. You just don’t offer that level of utilization to the majority of your customers, and instead of stating that plainly, you frame it as “safety” or “platform limit.” That distinction matters because people deserve to know whether they’re getting the capped version or the complete version. The myth that “meth doesn’t need tuning” came directly from the environment created around your approach. That’s the only reason I’m pushing back — to correct what people now repeat without understanding.

This has nothing to do with any other tuner. It has nothing to do with driving business anywhere. It isn’t personal, even if tension built along the way. I’m pushing for clarity and honesty because this community deserves straight answers about what their hardware is actually capable of. If someone wants mild meth usage for cooling only, great. If someone wants full utilization, they should know what that is and that it requires real calibration. That’s not an attack — that’s transparency.

You underestimated who you were talking to, and that’s fine. But don’t hide behind the 10–12 excuse. That platform has already proven itself. My car has already proven itself. And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the discussion here is about method and clarity, not which PCM year you feel comfortable with.

Tell me where I have been wrong about anything I have stated with facts please.

Proven itself? I'm telling you the limitations of the pcm and you just choose to ignore them. Actually, someone behind the scenes reached out to me last night to tell me there may be hope in adding the stuff that is missing, so there is some hope possibly. Your little attack on me may have lit a fire for the tuning software folks to get some better definitions for the software so maybe not all is lost. So this will benefit your tuner as well.

It's just like your tirade on cams years ago when I said that the VE of the engine in these things drops off a cliff at 5000 rpms. It doesn't make sense to keep raising the boost to the sky to make up for it up top when you could have a nice power curve that the car could utilize instead of running out of steam up top and having a torque output down low that the chassis can't support.

I realize that you put a lot of time and effort in your project and have a pretty bad ass looking car, but until the PCM issues get fixed, it will be a limitation. And if you would have listened to reason way back when, I could have had Kelford do some custom cams when they were in that business but everyone that couldn't tune cams put this bug in your ear that it didn't matter.

 

[802SHO]

Matt, I don’t think you’re talking about SHO EcoBoost competition meth cars you’ve tuned, because there aren’t many. And you really need to stop pretending Ryan is in a league under you. Acting like the guy who tunes MoTeC, HP Tuners, and has lived in Ford’s torque logic at a far deeper level than you somehow isn’t capable is basically a slap to your own face. That’s not a technical point — that’s you trying to manage perception because that’s all you have left in this argument.

You keep talking about limitations of the PCM as if those limitations are the platform’s ceiling instead of just your ceiling. My last version of the car already proved your VE-drop narrative has exceptions. The car physically shifted faster and pulled harder shifting at 6200 than it did at 5700. That is real world data from a vehicle with real airflow, real mass flow, and real combustion conditions. So I go by results. You go by the graphs you’ve decided are universal. Your comfort limits are not the platform’s limits and never have been.

And the idea that I “ignored” PCM limitations is wrong. I know exactly what isn’t defined yet. What I don’t do is take those missing tables and pretend they justify half-utilizing a system. You keep repeating the PCM limitations like they disprove anything I’ve said about meth calibration. They don’t. They only prove the point I already made: when a subsystem adds or substitutes fuel mass, you either model it or you accept a capped system. What you call “safer” is just capped. It’s fine if that’s the service you provide, but it doesn’t redefine the physics behind meth or the difference between a capped file and a fully optimized one.

And for the record, stop worrying about Ryan. He is not trying to be you, nor is he under you. He’s capable of the work and he already tunes beyond your comfort envelope on other platforms. Pretending he’s beneath you doesn’t elevate you. It just reinforces why I called out the gap in your meth approach.

As for the cams, your VE argument back then still ignores the fact that different hardware configurations change the curve. My engine, turbo system, weight, converter, and shift strategy weren’t the same as the scenario you framed. My car proved that directly. You refused to see it because it didn’t fit your model.

At the end of the day, nothing I’ve said has been personal. I’m addressing your method, not your résumé. But your limitations are not the platform’s limitations, and my results already proved that once. They will again.

If you genuinely know how to correctly tune methanol and you consciously choose not to apply that knowledge for the majority of your customers, then that isn’t a question of capability; it’s a question of responsibility. Because once you possess the understanding of how a system should be calibrated for full utilization, and you instead deliver only a restricted, partial version of that calibration while presenting it as complete, the issue becomes ethical. That’s why I said it would almost be better if you didn’t know how to tune meth properly, because at least ignorance isn’t a choice. But knowingly withholding the full method while allowing people to believe they’re experiencing the system’s full potential is where this crosses from preference into malpractice. Not mechanical malpractice, but informational malpractice: deciding what customers “should” get without telling them what’s being withheld.

And none of that is personal. It’s the exact reason this whole discussion started. Customers deserve to know whether they’re getting the complete version of a calibration or a capped version. If you prefer the capped version for your comfort level, just say so plainly. But don’t act surprised when somebody calls it out, especially someone with firsthand experience of the difference between untuned meth and properly tuned meth. People can’t make informed decisions when information is being selectively filtered, and that’s the core issue here.

 

[802SHO]

When you talk about VE falling off after 5000 rpm as if that alone defines the usable powerband, you’re ignoring what has already been proven at the track. My old SHO picked up real MPH and dropped real ET when shifting at 6200 instead of 5700. That isn’t theory, that isn’t speculation, and it isn’t a debate about airflow models — it’s the physical reality of the combination under full load. If VE truly “fell off a cliff,” the 6200 shift would have been slower. It wasn’t. It was the opposite. That alone shows the limit you describe is your comfort limit, not the platform’s limit. The same way my record pass required ignoring that artificial ceiling, the future setup with ported heads, higher-flowing hardware, and real charge-cooling from proper meth utilization will extend that window even further. Mechanical advancement and software advancement have to move in parallel, and any tuner who caps one while the other evolves ends up defining their own boundary, not the engine’s.

You advance the platform mechanically with one hand and create a false software limitation with the other hand. Move your hand away blocking the software and see what happens

 

[802SHO]

When we’re talking about results in the real world instead of on paper, that’s where your VE-and-MBT-centric worldview falls apart. Out on the pavement, the car decides what works, not a graph.

 

[Tbird6]

Thanks 802 I learned a lot.
That is one fast SHO!
.
.
.

 

[Bighead Super T]

Man, someone needs to stand on their own merit and stop stepping on someone else to lift themselves up... my lawrd... what happened to working together to make the platform better..

 

[802SHO]

Man, someone needs to stand on their own merit and stop stepping on someone else to lift themselves up... my lawrd... what happened to working together to make the platform better..

That’s interesting by all means can you divulge how you came to that conclusion

 

[802SHO]

If by stepping on his VE, MBT, and cam-limitation nonsense you’re GD right. The whole platform deserves to step out and up to what’s actually possible with the platform limit, not his.

His VE and MBT numbers are values from his test car in his isolated configuration. That isn’t a platform ceiling. It’s just a data point. A snapshot. Not a hard limit.

And that’s the entire disconnect here: he treats those values as commandments when they’re really just measurements from a single combination. The minute you change the turbos, the intercooling strategy, the meth system, the fuel system, the heads, the exhaust energy, the harmonics, or the airflow path, VE and MBT shift. That’s why real-world results destroy static assumptions. That’s why I ran quicker shifting at 6200 than 5700 when his VE logic said the opposite. That’s why my builds keep breaking his rules and making more power anyway.

The platform limit moves when we move the platform. His limits only apply to him.

 

[ShatteredMJ]

Honestly I have great respect for both of you. That’s why I am silent. Not because I am a clueless fan who can’t argue technical facts. I’ve always known the GH tune isn’t extracting every last HP out of the car, it even says so on the website. It’s the margin of safety that made me choose Matt. I see the non meth dependent tune as a pro and not a con. I know a lot of power potential is left out. Almost all tuners can calibrate for methanol as supplemental fuel and make way more power. In fact that’s how everyone else is doing it on other turbo platforms. I don’t believe I was sold the idea that what I got is the limit and that I should be good. Though I’m sure you are seeing people who are blindly repeating things they heard and actually have no idea what they are talking about. Majority of people are that way.

Of course with an advanced build like yours Andrew, you would need special attention and tuner support. You are pushing past the known platform limitations and exploring the uncharted. I would say obviously your build should be treated differently and past the safety margin put for average consumers. You don’t mind taking risks either. But that isn’t the case for most people. I have great respect for you and I have reached out to you for advice in the past and you have been nothing less than very kind and helpful. I did not want to be caught in friendly fire from either side so I kept to myself. I’m sure most people here are silent for the same reason.

Much respect to both of you.

 

[802SHO]

I see you.

Thank you for that bc I am just advocating for truth. It took 2+ years of hearing meth “just for cooling” and i just couldn’t take it anymore. Looking past the smoke and mirrors, like the Wizard of Oz moment when you finally see what’s behind the curtain.

Turns out the wizard wasn’t a wizard, the magic wasn’t magic, and the rules weren’t rules. Once you see the strings, you can’t unsee them. Some people get mad at the truth. I just hold the flashlight.

 

[Bronco2fan]

Definitely respect and awe as I've stated many times. You guys have way more understanding of this platform than the regular tune it and send it people.

Andrew, you've put more time and money into yours that most people can't or won't. You deserve the most performance that's available.

I personally took my tune out (had a livernois) for safety sake. And chose not to get another. I have over 200k on her now and just enjoy the power of the stock file. Still plenty of get up and go for the size of her. If I want to scare myself I take the S550 out lol.

 

[mattr66usa]

Matt, I don’t think you’re talking about SHO EcoBoost competition meth cars you’ve tuned, because there aren’t many. And you really need to stop pretending Ryan is in a league under you. Acting like the guy who tunes MoTeC, HP Tuners, and has lived in Ford’s torque logic at a far deeper level than you somehow isn’t capable is basically a slap to your own face. That’s not a technical point — that’s you trying to manage perception because that’s all you have left in this argument.

You keep talking about limitations of the PCM as if those limitations are the platform’s ceiling instead of just your ceiling. My last version of the car already proved your VE-drop narrative has exceptions. The car physically shifted faster and pulled harder shifting at 6200 than it did at 5700. That is real world data from a vehicle with real airflow, real mass flow, and real combustion conditions. So I go by results. You go by the graphs you’ve decided are universal. Your comfort limits are not the platform’s limits and never have been.

You are having a hard time comprehending what I said. I said the natural VE curve of the engine drops off a cliff at 5000 rpms. That is a fact. Yes you can keep pumping more boost into the engine and revving past that point, but it is diminishing returns. And I shift all the cars at 6000-6200, so I don't know what the **** you are talking about AGAIN! If you shift too early you drop way below the powerband especially on the 2-3 shift.... That's basic car math..... Almost every engine in existence can benefit from cams to move the natural RPM range of the engine where it is more usable. And yes there are things limiting the potential of what the PCM can control, but you aren't mentally capable of understanding or your cognitive dissidence won't let you for some reason. It has nothing to do with who is behind the keyboard. The parameters exist, but aren't available to any tuner. That is a fact not something a tuner can magically pull out of their butts on the 10-12 cars because the tricore pcms were much easier to reverse engineer the parameters out of (13+ cars).

And the idea that I “ignored” PCM limitations is wrong. I know exactly what isn’t defined yet. What I don’t do is take those missing tables and pretend they justify half-utilizing a system. You keep repeating the PCM limitations like they disprove anything I’ve said about meth calibration. They don’t. They only prove the point I already made: when a subsystem adds or substitutes fuel mass, you either model it or you accept a capped system. What you call “safer” is just capped. It’s fine if that’s the service you provide, but it doesn’t redefine the physics behind meth or the difference between a capped file and a fully optimized one.

Just drop it already. You really are incapable of understanding what I said and don't even understand what you are saying. But if you keep trying to slander my business out of the blue and unprovoked, I'll have to get a lawyer involved.

And for the record, stop worrying about Ryan. He is not trying to be you, nor is he under you. He’s capable of the work and he already tunes beyond your comfort envelope on other platforms. Pretending he’s beneath you doesn’t elevate you. It just reinforces why I called out the gap in your meth approach.

I'm only worried about him because you are his customer! I'll say a prayer for him.

As for the cams, your VE argument back then still ignores the fact that different hardware configurations change the curve. My engine, turbo system, weight, converter, and shift strategy weren’t the same as the scenario you framed. My car proved that directly. You refused to see it because it didn’t fit your model.

You can't get around valve opening area under the curve.... head porting helps, but it doesn't solve the problem of having to make gobs of torque in order to get big hp numbers. It sure would be nice if you had an extra 1000 rpms of usable power band like most turbo cars instead of a truck-like cam profile...... Let that sink in and understand.

At the end of the day, nothing I’ve said has been personal. I’m addressing your method, not your résumé. But your limitations are not the platform’s limitations, and my results already proved that once. They will again.

If you genuinely know how to correctly tune methanol and you consciously choose not to apply that knowledge for the majority of your customers, then that isn’t a question of capability; it’s a question of responsibility. Because once you possess the understanding of how a system should be calibrated for full utilization, and you instead deliver only a restricted, partial version of that calibration while presenting it as complete, the issue becomes ethical. That’s why I said it would almost be better if you didn’t know how to tune meth properly, because at least ignorance isn’t a choice. But knowingly withholding the full method while allowing people to believe they’re experiencing the system’s full potential is where this crosses from preference into malpractice. Not mechanical malpractice, but informational malpractice: deciding what customers “should” get without telling them what’s being withheld.

So tell me again since you keep dodging the question..... What controls are there besides Ignition timing and Injection pulsewidth to tune for meth if i'm doing it wrong? You keep using fancy words like "combustion dynamics" and other things that are very abstract. So you tell me what other magic knobs exist for meth tuning......

And none of that is personal. It’s the exact reason this whole discussion started. Customers deserve to know whether they’re getting the complete version of a calibration or a capped version. If you prefer the capped version for your comfort level, just say so plainly. But don’t act surprised when somebody calls it out, especially someone with firsthand experience of the difference between untuned meth and properly tuned meth. People can’t make informed decisions when information is being selectively filtered, and that’s the core issue here.

It's always personal. Because when you try to help a customer get the best compromise of power and safety, you take responsibility for the fact that they trust your judgement. I do tell the customer what they are getting and what the tradeoff is..... so again, where is the rub? Why do you care so much?

After this I will start breaking up posts into single messages so you can't keep being a broken record of nonsense information that gets hidden in long posts.