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

[mattr66usa]

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.

I've never said to anyone that meth is JUST for cooling. If you let it, ignition system has automatic controls to take advantage of the extra octane as well, but you refuse to comprehend that.

 

[mattr66usa]

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.

You are such a crusader! Thank you for your vast research into this issue so you can show everyone how much you don't understand about the very car you are modifying.

 

[mattr66usa]

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.

You shave enough weight and pump as much air in as possible you can make it go faster even if the engine is trying to suck a golf ball through a garden hose because the VE curve is all wrong...... You aren't proving anything other than lots of money spent for vastly diminishing returns instead of addressing problems one by on and doing it systematically.

Let me summarize the journey of an SHO owner:

Tune only:12s

Add turbos, pump and DPs on E30:11s,

Not streetable, no creature comforts, 100K invested: better run some deep 10s soon.

Buy a mustang spend 15k and run 9s

Diminishing returns.......

 

[mattr66usa]

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.

Again you are making things up. EVERY CAR SHIFTS PAST THE POINT OF THE VE PEAK OF THE ENGINE. Why don't you shift at 7000? It should go faster than shifting at 6200 right? I guess that's just the tuner's limitation..... Oh wait, that's right! because the engine is even less efficient at making HP at 7000 RPMs than it is at 6000...... So you are either not able to comprehend the information I have put out there or you are purposely twisting my words for some kind of gain. I don't get it.

 

[802SHO]

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).

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.

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

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.

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......

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.

Dude enough already you are basically word vomit at this point. Keep managing perception here that I dont understand. It’s weak and looks pathetic for you

 

[802SHO]

I’ve talked to you, and over you and around you and essentially outlined your body in chalk technically but yet you cling to “You don’t understand” like a pacifier to an infant. Go make some cool parts, the one thing you’re best at.

 

[mattr66usa]

I'm going to st

I’ve talked to you, and over you and around you and essentially outlined your body in chalk technically but yet you cling to “You don’t understand” like a pacifier to an infant. Go make some cool parts, the one thing you’re best at.

What imaginary world are you living in? Your refuse to give any facts about any of this. I'll start an all-technical thread so you can explain to the masses how my approach and understand of methanol injection is flawed. You have yet do do so....

 

[mattr66usa]

Matt, for someone who just listed off decades of tuning, engine building, cam design, and TV appearances, ending the discussion with “let the AI tune your car” is a pretty dramatic downgrade in confidence. If your method were as airtight as you imply, you wouldn’t need to fall back on dismissing the argument by blaming a tool, especially after spending several comments emphasizing how long you’ve been in the industry. The contrast between the resume and the final reply is hard to ignore.

I only put in the same energy that was coming from your post. I started a post with a full technical discussion so you can't hide behind this statement any longer.

When the technical questions get specific, your responses shift from explaining your logic to explaining your background. And that’s exactly why this conversation matters. You’ve built a strong reputation in the platform, and people rely on what you say. That’s why accuracy matters more than authority. Your method isn’t “wrong,” but it is incomplete, and the moment it’s questioned past the surface level, the foundation shows its cracks.

I started a post just to be technical and I am hoping for a good technical discussion, but I know it won't be because you are incapable of understanding the facts.

This isn’t me misunderstanding the platform, and it certainly isn’t AI skewing anything. It’s simply pointing out what your own explanations reveal: you do know how to fully tune for meth, because you’ve done it for competition cars. You just choose not to for the majority of customers. That’s a business decision, not a physics one. That’s the disconnect. You call it safer, but the safety you’re referring to is primarily for the tuner, not necessarily the engine, and that distinction is important for people to understand.

No it is a fundamental understand that you simply don't possess.

You’re right that customers need to drive home safely. But they also deserve clarity. If someone wants meth strictly for cooling, fine. If someone wants it fully optimized, that should be clearly defined as well, not implied to be equivalent to the partial approach. And dismissing the discussion by pointing to AI doesn’t change the technical realities being discussed. It just avoids them.

I have given plenty of technical content to combat this statement, you just can't comprehend because you are using a 3rd party (AI) to interpret it for you and give talking points. You even boasted about it in the past. That is plagiarism if you are representing it as your own words.

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

That doesn't mean anything to me. He's a great tuner but will face the limitations I outlined until it gets fixed by HP tuners or SCT. So not flinching either means he is going to tune around the limitations by some other means, or he isn't aware. I hope you aren't putting words in his mouth.

 

[Majestic]

WTF started all of this, and frankly, who cares? I've been (casually) following 802's build and think a lot of it's cool. But did Matt turning down Andrew for tuning start all of this nonsense? I don't run a Gearhead tune, mainly because he wasn't around when I bought the car.

This is a dead platform. I really don't see anything to be gained by going nuclear on one of the only tuners/companies who actually makes parts for it and provides good, safe tunes for what 99.5% of SHO owners actually want. It's here, FB, and God knows where else.

I don't know either of you. But I honestly don't understand what 802 is trying to prove here? So far, NOBODY can tune your car or get it running well enough to even make a pass. I don't think attacking Matt is going to accomplish that.

 

[mattr66usa]

WTF started all of this, and frankly, who cares? I've been (casually) following 802's build and think a lot of it's cool. But did Matt turning down Andrew for tuning start all of this nonsense? I don't run a Gearhead tune, mainly because he wasn't around when I bought the car.

Your guess is as good as mine.... We've always disagreed on some things, but up until the point I told him I didn't feel comfortable tuning his car because of the PCM limitations, we had a cordial relationship. So you may be right that this attack may have been provoked by that very thing. I am however still working behind the scenes to get the parameters added to the software so his and other 10-12 cars can be tuned to their full potential whether he hates my guts or not.

 

[luigisho]

Haven't seen one of these flare ups in a while.

 

[802SHO]

WTF started all of this, and frankly, who cares? I've been (casually) following 802's build and think a lot of it's cool. But did Matt turning down Andrew for tuning start all of this nonsense? I don't run a Gearhead tune, mainly because he wasn't around when I bought the car.

This is a dead platform. I really don't see anything to be gained by going nuclear on one of the only tuners/companies who actually makes parts for it and provides good, safe tunes for what 99.5% of SHO owners actually want. It's here, FB, and God knows where else.

I don't know either of you. But I honestly don't understand what 802 is trying to prove here? So far, NOBODY can tune your car or get it running well enough to even make a pass. I don't think attacking Matt is going to accomplish that.

You’re way off. So far off I can’t even fully reply. Please unfollow me if you’re that dense dude

 

[802SHO]

I want to be very clear about something up front: this was never a “tuner war,” and it was never about ego, followers, or whose logo is on what part. It started as a technical discussion and only escalated because of how that discussion was repeatedly misframed, redirected, and avoided.

The original issue was simple and specific: methanol injection is not “just cooling,” and any meaningful amount of methanol—at any concentration—adds fuel mass, changes combustion dynamics, affects VE, MBT, and lambda, and therefore must be intentionally tuned for. That is not opinion. That is engine physics. Anyone installing methanol is doing so for a deliberate performance increase, not as a decorative safety blanket, and they deserve to know whether their tuner is optimizing for it or merely tolerating it.

The pushback did not come because this physics was wrong. It came because acknowledging it forces an uncomfortable level of transparency.

Instead of addressing that core point directly, the conversation was repeatedly diverted. New threads were created. The scope was narrowed, then widened, then narrowed again. Focus was shifted from methanol tuning methodology to abstract quizzes about MBT definitions, credential gatekeeping, and accusations that criticism itself was the problem. At no point was a clear, falsifiable explanation provided of how methanol is modeled, where fuel mass is accounted for, or what changes when meth flow begins beyond vague statements like “the tune accommodates it.”

That matters, because in engineering, authority does not replace explanation. Credentials do not override physics. And repetition does not become truth simply because it is delivered confidently.

A recurring tactic throughout this exchange was framing understanding as something that must be earned before criticism is allowed. “You don’t understand the basics.” “Prove you know MBT.” “Get in this other thread.” That is not how technical discussion works. If a method exists, it can be described. If it cannot be described, then customers deserve to know that limitations exist.

The irony is that the more this was defended as “settled,” the more it revealed itself as incomplete. VE drop and MBT plateaus were presented as engine airflow limits, when in reality they are classic symptoms of turbine choke and excessive drive pressure. That distinction matters. Conflating exhaust-side restriction with engine breathing capacity leads people to chase cams, heads, and manifolds while the real constraint remains untouched. That isn’t just inefficient—it’s misleading.

This same pattern showed up again and again: real data points, but incomplete conclusions. Real gains down low and in the midrange, followed by a flat top end that gets sold as “the engine is done,” when the exhaust side simply cannot swallow any more mass. Selling that ceiling as a hard limit is convenient, but it isn’t honest.

The conversation also drifted into insinuations about my own car, my use of AI, and my motivations. That framing was backwards. I’m not disgruntled—I’m energized. What AI did for me was compress years of fragmented understanding into months of clarity. It helped me see where prior system-level scope was inadequate, where software limitations like SCT actually matter, and why prioritizing power over control always ends badly. I adapted to survive, and what I learned fundamentally changed how I view this platform.

My car runs. It always has. What changed is that it is now aligned with the correct software, the correct tuner, and a methodology that treats added fuel mass with the respect it demands. That isn’t frustration—that’s progress.

The real issue underneath all of this is integrity. Customers deserve transparency. They deserve to be told whether a modification they are installing will be actively optimized, passively tolerated, or deliberately ignored for liability or convenience. There is nothing wrong with conservative tuning. There is something wrong with presenting conservative tuning as optimal performance without disclosure.

Methanol injection is not lowering springs. It is not cosmetic. It is an active performance adder that alters combustion. If a tuner chooses not to tune for it beyond safety margins, that choice must be stated plainly so the customer can decide whether that aligns with their goals. Anything else removes agency from the person paying for expertise.

This was never about tearing anyone down. It was about correcting groupthink, restoring technical honesty, and empowering people with enough information to make their own decisions. The silence from the background throughout this debate wasn’t apathy—it was people watching closely, waiting for clarity that never came.

In the end, the truth is simple: physics doesn’t care about reputations, forums, or who sounds most confident. Fuel is fuel. Pressure is pressure. Limits move when constraints are removed. And customers deserve the full picture, not half-truths dressed up as certainty.

That’s not hostility.
That’s accountability.

 

[mattr66usa]

I want to be very clear about something up front: this was never a “tuner war,” and it was never about ego, followers, or whose logo is on what part. It started as a technical discussion and only escalated because of how that discussion was repeatedly misframed, redirected, and avoided.

Nope you made it personal from day one.... Like when I told you porting the stock exhaust housings years ago would do no good.... now you are in another thread saying that the stock exhaust housings are too restrictive to make real power..... WOW, Thank You for the Confirmation!

The original issue was simple and specific: methanol injection is not “just cooling,” and any meaningful amount of methanol—at any concentration—adds fuel mass, changes combustion dynamics, affects VE, MBT, and lambda, and therefore must be intentionally tuned for. That is not opinion. That is engine physics. Anyone installing methanol is doing so for a deliberate performance increase, not as a decorative safety blanket, and they deserve to know whether their tuner is optimizing for it or merely tolerating it.

Tell us how fuel mass changes VE EXACTLY?

The pushback did not come because this physics was wrong. It came because acknowledging it forces an uncomfortable level of transparency.

Instead of addressing that core point directly, the conversation was repeatedly diverted. New threads were created. The scope was narrowed, then widened, then narrowed again. Focus was shifted from methanol tuning methodology to abstract quizzes about MBT definitions, credential gatekeeping, and accusations that criticism itself was the problem. At no point was a clear, falsifiable explanation provided of how methanol is modeled, where fuel mass is accounted for, or what changes when meth flow begins beyond vague statements like “the tune accommodates it.”

Until you understand the very basics, you can't understand any of it. You fail to grasp that and still refuse to accept it.

That matters, because in engineering, authority does not replace explanation. Credentials do not override physics. And repetition does not become truth simply because it is delivered confidently.

You won't get into the physics because you are either too stubborn or don't have the aptitude to grasp it. I'm tired of being nice about it.

A recurring tactic throughout this exchange was framing understanding as something that must be earned before criticism is allowed. “You don’t understand the basics.” “Prove you know MBT.” “Get in this other thread.” That is not how technical discussion works. If a method exists, it can be described. If it cannot be described, then customers deserve to know that limitations exist.

You can't attack a complete method of something without understanding the foundation of how it works. You are throwing around large concepts without understanding the very basics of the system and you are flat wrong because of it.

The irony is that the more this was defended as “settled,” the more it revealed itself as incomplete. VE drop and MBT plateaus were presented as engine airflow limits, when in reality they are classic symptoms of turbine choke and excessive drive pressure. That distinction matters. Conflating exhaust-side restriction with engine breathing capacity leads people to chase cams, heads, and manifolds while the real constraint remains untouched. That isn’t just inefficient—it’s misleading.

Like I said. You are confusing the engine's base VE characteristics with airflow. How may times do i have to explain it???????

This same pattern showed up again and again: real data points, but incomplete conclusions. Real gains down low and in the midrange, followed by a flat top end that gets sold as “the engine is done,” when the exhaust side simply cannot swallow any more mass. Selling that ceiling as a hard limit is convenient, but it isn’t honest.

You are such a crusader.... So tell me why you need more boost at 6500 rpms to make the same power as you do at 5000 rpms with larger turbos that aren't turbine side restricted even at close to a 1:1 boost:drive ratio like you are talking about?

The conversation also drifted into insinuations about my own car, my use of AI, and my motivations. That framing was backwards. I’m not disgruntled—I’m energized. What AI did for me was compress years of fragmented understanding into months of clarity. It helped me see where prior system-level scope was inadequate, where software limitations like SCT actually matter, and why prioritizing power over control always ends badly. I adapted to survive, and what I learned fundamentally changed how I view this platform.

Only because people that actually know you know you aren't capable of throwing these concepts out there like you are. You are trying to hide that you are in over your head and can't explain things, therefore you can't be specific and talk to each individual concept in the system other than say "X, Y, and Z are changing with meth".

My car runs. It always has. What changed is that it is now aligned with the correct software, the correct tuner, and a methodology that treats added fuel mass with the respect it demands. That isn’t frustration—that’s progress.

Okay, so how is he tuning around the Bosch-level driver parameters for the pump and injectors that is missing from the tuning software as of this writing?

The real issue underneath all of this is integrity. Customers deserve transparency. They deserve to be told whether a modification they are installing will be actively optimized, passively tolerated, or deliberately ignored for liability or convenience. There is nothing wrong with conservative tuning. There is something wrong with presenting conservative tuning as optimal performance without disclosure.

Yes you are attacking my integrity because you don't understand something about the way I tune. And my integrity revolves around customer's cars that don't grenade when the meth decides to not flow, or has bad spray pattern etc. That's what integrity is.

Methanol injection is not lowering springs. It is not cosmetic. It is an active performance adder that alters combustion. If a tuner chooses not to tune for it beyond safety margins, that choice must be stated plainly so the customer can decide whether that aligns with their goals. Anything else removes agency from the person paying for expertise.

This was never about tearing anyone down. It was about correcting groupthink, restoring technical honesty, and empowering people with enough information to make their own decisions. The silence from the background throughout this debate wasn’t apathy—it was people watching closely, waiting for clarity that never came.

I'm tired of being nice about it dude... write your own words and quit trying to sound intelligent when you aren't. You are the one about to get "cooked" as you put it in your original Facebook posts that were taken down. It isn't that hard for me to show everyone what you are doing:

In the end, the truth is simple: physics doesn’t care about reputations, forums, or who sounds most confident. Fuel is fuel. Pressure is pressure. Limits move when constraints are removed. And customers deserve the full picture, not half-truths dressed up as certainty.

That’s not hostility.
That’s accountability.

once again..... LOL This has been very entertaining for me, but it is taking up too much of my time to have to defend myself against your baseless accusations. Get a life!


I invite everyone in this forum to paste what he has been writing all this time into the Grammarly AI checker now that it is cemented in my replies. LOL

 

[Majestic]

You’re way off. So far off I can’t even fully reply. Please unfollow me if you’re that dense dude

Unfollow? What are you, 14? **** up a rope then. I think everyone is tired of your BS by now.

 

[802SHO]

Unfollow? What are you, 14? **** up a rope then. I think everyone is tired of your BS by now.

Please divulge. Exactly what is my BS? Be specific.

 

[Flash Gordon]

I want to be very clear about something up front: this was never a “tuner war,” and it was never about ego, followers, or whose logo is on what part. It started as a technical discussion and only escalated because of how that discussion was repeatedly misframed, redirected, and avoided.

The original issue was simple and specific: methanol injection is not “just cooling,” and any meaningful amount of methanol—at any concentration—adds fuel mass, changes combustion dynamics, affects VE, MBT, and lambda, and therefore must be intentionally tuned for. That is not opinion. That is engine physics. Anyone installing methanol is doing so for a deliberate performance increase, not as a decorative safety blanket, and they deserve to know whether their tuner is optimizing for it or merely tolerating it.

The pushback did not come because this physics was wrong. It came because acknowledging it forces an uncomfortable level of transparency.

Instead of addressing that core point directly, the conversation was repeatedly diverted. New threads were created. The scope was narrowed, then widened, then narrowed again. Focus was shifted from methanol tuning methodology to abstract quizzes about MBT definitions, credential gatekeeping, and accusations that criticism itself was the problem. At no point was a clear, falsifiable explanation provided of how methanol is modeled, where fuel mass is accounted for, or what changes when meth flow begins beyond vague statements like “the tune accommodates it.”

That matters, because in engineering, authority does not replace explanation. Credentials do not override physics. And repetition does not become truth simply because it is delivered confidently.

A recurring tactic throughout this exchange was framing understanding as something that must be earned before criticism is allowed. “You don’t understand the basics.” “Prove you know MBT.” “Get in this other thread.” That is not how technical discussion works. If a method exists, it can be described. If it cannot be described, then customers deserve to know that limitations exist.

The irony is that the more this was defended as “settled,” the more it revealed itself as incomplete. VE drop and MBT plateaus were presented as engine airflow limits, when in reality they are classic symptoms of turbine choke and excessive drive pressure. That distinction matters. Conflating exhaust-side restriction with engine breathing capacity leads people to chase cams, heads, and manifolds while the real constraint remains untouched. That isn’t just inefficient—it’s misleading.

This same pattern showed up again and again: real data points, but incomplete conclusions. Real gains down low and in the midrange, followed by a flat top end that gets sold as “the engine is done,” when the exhaust side simply cannot swallow any more mass. Selling that ceiling as a hard limit is convenient, but it isn’t honest.

The conversation also drifted into insinuations about my own car, my use of AI, and my motivations. That framing was backwards. I’m not disgruntled—I’m energized. What AI did for me was compress years of fragmented understanding into months of clarity. It helped me see where prior system-level scope was inadequate, where software limitations like SCT actually matter, and why prioritizing power over control always ends badly. I adapted to survive, and what I learned fundamentally changed how I view this platform.

My car runs. It always has. What changed is that it is now aligned with the correct software, the correct tuner, and a methodology that treats added fuel mass with the respect it demands. That isn’t frustration—that’s progress.

The real issue underneath all of this is integrity. Customers deserve transparency. They deserve to be told whether a modification they are installing will be actively optimized, passively tolerated, or deliberately ignored for liability or convenience. There is nothing wrong with conservative tuning. There is something wrong with presenting conservative tuning as optimal performance without disclosure.

Methanol injection is not lowering springs. It is not cosmetic. It is an active performance adder that alters combustion. If a tuner chooses not to tune for it beyond safety margins, that choice must be stated plainly so the customer can decide whether that aligns with their goals. Anything else removes agency from the person paying for expertise.

This was never about tearing anyone down. It was about correcting groupthink, restoring technical honesty, and empowering people with enough information to make their own decisions. The silence from the background throughout this debate wasn’t apathy—it was people watching closely, waiting for clarity that never came.

In the end, the truth is simple: physics doesn’t care about reputations, forums, or who sounds most confident. Fuel is fuel. Pressure is pressure. Limits move when constraints are removed. And customers deserve the full picture, not half-truths dressed up as certainty.

That’s not hostility.
That’s accountability.

"Methanol injection is not lowering springs. It is not cosmetic."

If you think lowering springs don't mess with suspension geometry, you are ignorant in the same way you think you can just "tune for" a fuel source that the PCM has no input for.

 

[802SHO]

"Methanol injection is not lowering springs. It is not cosmetic."

If you think lowering springs don't mess with suspension geometry, you are ignorant in the same way you think you can just "tune for" a fuel source that the PCM has no input for.

I dig your name, always liked the flash but that analogy doesn’t hold.

Lowering springs change mechanical geometry (roll center, camber curve, bump steer), which the PCM cannot influence.

Methanol injection changes combustion conditions (effective AFR, charge temperature, burn rate, knock margin), which the PCM already models and controls through existing inputs: lambda, knock response, load inference, and torque error.

The PCM does not need a “methanol sensor” any more than it needs a sensor that says “E85,” “nitrous,” or “better intercooler.” It responds to the resulting physics, not the label.

That’s why methanol must be intentionally tuned for….not ignored and “let the car figure it out.”

If you disagree, point to a specific part of the speed-density torque model that cannot account for those changes.

 

[mattr66usa]

Methanol injection changes combustion conditions (effective AFR, charge temperature, burn rate, knock margin), which the PCM already models and controls through existing inputs: lambda, knock response, load inference, and torque error.

All is accounted for in the GH tune as stated...... Cool, you finally agree with me.

The PCM does not need a “methanol sensor” any more than it needs a sensor that says “E85,” “nitrous,” or “better intercooler.” It responds to the resulting physics, not the label.

That’s why methanol must be intentionally tuned for….not ignored and “let the car figure it out.”

If you disagree, point to a specific part of the speed-density torque model that cannot account for those changes.

wait..... so now you ARE saying that the model can account for the changes? Pick a side already dude....

 

[Flash Gordon]

I dig your name, always liked the flash but that analogy doesn’t hold.

Lowering springs change mechanical geometry (roll center, camber curve, bump steer), which the PCM cannot influence.

Methanol injection changes combustion conditions (effective AFR, charge temperature, burn rate, knock margin), which the PCM already models and controls through existing inputs: lambda, knock response, load inference, and torque error.

The PCM does not need a “methanol sensor” any more than it needs a sensor that says “E85,” “nitrous,” or “better intercooler.” It responds to the resulting physics, not the label.

That’s why methanol must be intentionally tuned for….not ignored and “let the car figure it out.”

If you disagree, point to a specific part of the speed-density torque model that cannot account for those changes.

I am sorry, but this has to be one of the most ignorant replies to criticism I have ever read. I was not inferring that lowering springs need to be tuned for, I was countering YOUR statement that lowering springs were simply cosmetic. Ironically enough, your reply made my point! If you install lowering springs. you MUST account for changes in the suspension geometry... things like roll center, camber and bump steer. LOL

Your statement on the sensor is even more ironic. How many GM cars get the added E85 sensor for flex fuel? How many tuners in the Ford world complain that the "inferred AFR logic is not good enough and it NEEDS a sensor"? Personally, I absolutely HATE tuning for nitrous, and I try to discourage it as much as possible BECAUE there is NO SENSOR INPUT to the PCM to account for it... meaning, it is not a matter of if, but WHEN you pop a motor because of some component failure in the nitrous system that the PCM was not able to accommodate for BECAUE there was no sensor to tell the PCM that the system had failed! As for the intercooler, again, ironically, there IS a sensor for that. The IAT sensor. A properly tuned Ecoboost vehicle will automatically adjust for an aftermarket intercooler. In fact, that perfectly illustrates the fact that, if you have a variable that you want the PCM to account for, you NEED to have a sensor to measure it so that the PCM can do the appropriate math.

Your comment "point to a specific part of the speed-density torque model that cannot account for those changes." is misguided in principle. The issue has nothing to do with the speed density or torque tables (there can be some nuance to this). The issue is the fuel calculations. You need to add calculations that will account for the added fuel volume in-between the VE calculation and the injector output. Your statement puts the burden of proof on the existing tables. The issue is the tables are unaware of the existence of an additional fuel source. That is the problem.

My point stands. In order to properly tune for methanol, you MUST have an input to the PCM to tell the PCM that the methanol is being injected, and how much. Then there needs to be tables added to the software that will make the appropriate adjustments for said meth.

Feed that into your AI and see what it spits back.