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

[802SHO]

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.

We’re actually talking past each other.

I’m not arguing that meth is safe, self-correcting, or that explicit awareness wouldn’t be better. I’m arguing that methanol changes combustion physics that the PCM already responds to through existing feedback mechanisms, and therefore cannot be ignored or treated as outside the calibration problem.

Lack of a sensor is a reliability and failure-mode issue, not proof that the PCM is blind to the effects. Lambda error, torque error, knock response, and inferred load all change when meth is present — that’s why MBT, VE behavior, and spark requirements shift.

Saying “don’t tune for meth because there’s no sensor” is a valid business and safety policy. Saying “the PCM cannot account for meth at all” is a different claim, and that’s the distinction I’m making.

If the disagreement is about acceptable risk, we agree more than it sounds.

 

[DadMobile]

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

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

option 3. He doesn’t understand, remember or fully read the AI slop he copy & pastes.

 

[802SHO]

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.

You’re still conflating explicit state awareness with control authority.

A PCM does not need a discrete “methanol present” input to respond to methanol’s effects on combustion. It needs observability, and observability already exists through lambda error, knock response, torque error, and inferred load behavior. Those are the same feedback paths used to accommodate E-blends without sensors, nitrous enrichment, post-compressor charge cooling, and airflow increases that exceed modeled VE.

Saying “the PCM is unaware” is incorrect. The PCM is unaware of cause attribution, not state change. Those are fundamentally different problems.

What you’re arguing for is deterministic fault handling and liability protection, not a limitation of the speed-density or torque model. That’s a valid policy position for customer tuning, but it is not a statement about capability.

If lack of explicit fuel-source sensors made tuning impossible:

E85 tuning without flex sensors would not exist

Nitrous tuning would not exist

Water injection would not exist

Supplemental fuel or charge cooling introduced outside the injector model still alters lambda, knock margin, and torque error, all of which the PCM already responds to on a speed-density system.

Boost increases beyond modeled airflow would not work

Yet all of these are tuned successfully — imperfectly, yes, but intentionally — by calibrating around the measured effects, not by ignoring them.

That is why methanol must be intentionally tuned for, not avoided. Avoidance is not a calibration strategy; it is a business decision to eliminate failure modes. Those are different conversations.

Methanol has been used as charge cooling and supplemental fuel since WWII aviation for exactly this reason: it shifts knock margin, burn rate, and MBT. The physics didn’t change because modern ECUs exist — only the risk tolerance did.

If the disagreement is about customer safety and liability, say that. If the claim is that the PCM “cannot” account for methanol in principle, that claim does not hold up under how closed-loop torque-based systems actually function.

 

[802SHO]

option 3. He doesn’t understand, remember or fully read the AI slop he copy & pastes.

Your arrival makes this an official after-school special

 

[TheRedBeardedFury]

option 3. He doesn’t understand, remember or fully read the AI slop he copy & pastes.

From my interaction. Option 3 is defiantly a real thing! Doesn't fully read a comment and only responds to something he think he can win. Same thing with the AI Responses.

 

[802SHO]

Seems like this is a place for tuners who don’t tune meth to come to and try and justify their lack of scope or fear or liability. Weird flex.

The AI jabs are pretty funny bc knowledge doesn’t gain or lose validity based on the tool used to access it. It only gains or loses validity based on whether it matches reality.

 

[802SHO]

Arguing with you guys 1-10 difficulty, 10 being difficult. You guys are a hard 1.3. .3 bc it’s exhausting.

 

[TheRedBeardedFury]

Seems like this is a place for tuners who don’t tune meth to come to and try and justify their lack of scope or fear or liability. Weird flex.

The AI jabs are pretty funny bc knowledge doesn’t gain or lose validity based on the tool used to access it. It only gains or loses validity based on whether it matches reality.

Drag your tuner in here then. There's other tuners here that have yet to contribute or even agree with you about matt. Where you at on contributing? You want us to see your point of view but you ghost the conversations and would rather argue about nonsense. I guess as you said its easier to argue with us instead of arguing your point of view.

 

[Flash Gordon]

At this point, I am doing this more to educate the community rather than you personally, as it seems you are either incapable, or unwilling to listen and learn... so, for the rest of you. This is an example of how Ford deals with multiple fuel sources on a Gen 3 Coyote. Now, this is just one of many tables, but you can see how the PCM is going to blend between fuel sources here. There are injector slopes for both port and DI injectors, so the PCM can calculate the exact volume of fuel being delivered by each. This blending table is literally just the beginning of the logic that is needed in order to properly meter and adjust for the fuel that is being injected into the cylinder. It is also important to know if the fuel is being injected into the port or directly into the cylinder to account for things like tau. It is complicated, and should be complicated. If you add additional sources of air or fuel, you NEED to tell the PCM about it. Failure to do so can have all sorts of negative outcomes. The least of which is just poor drivability.

 

[Flash Gordon]

At this point, I am doing this more to educate the community rather than you personally, as it seems you are either incapable, or unwilling to listen and learn... so, for the rest of you. This is an example of how Ford deals with multiple fuel sources on a Gen 3 Coyote. Now, this is just one of many tables, but you can see how the PCM is going to blend between fuel sources here. There are injector slopes for both port and DI injectors, so the PCM can calculate the exact volume of fuel being delivered by each. This blending table is literally just the beginning of the logic that is needed in order to properly meter and adjust for the fuel that is being injected into the cylinder. It is also important to know if the fuel is being injected into the port or directly into the cylinder to account for things like tau. It is complicated, and should be complicated. If you add additional sources of air or fuel, you NEED to tell the PCM about it. Failure to do so can have all sorts of negative outcomes. The least of which is just poor drivability.
View attachment 96205

 

[802SHO]

You’re not teaching the DI community anything there Big Chief lmfao

 

[802SHO]

We’re still talking about two different problems.

The Gen-3 Coyote example shows how Ford implements explicit source attribution when OEM-grade robustness, fault detection, and repeatability are required. No disagreement there.

My point is about state response, not attribution. On a torque-based speed-density system, the PCM already responds to changes in lambda, knock margin, and achieved torque regardless of why they occurred. That’s why MBT, VE behavior, and spark requirements shift when meth is present — and why those shifts must be intentionally calibrated around rather than ignored.

Lack of a meth sensor is a reliability and liability problem, not proof that the PCM is blind to the effects. Avoiding meth because of failure modes is a valid policy decision. Saying the system cannot respond to it in principle is a different claim.

Those distinctions matter.

 

[802SHO]

Tuners arguing not to tune meth need to be avoided at all costs.

 

[TheRedBeardedFury]

Tuners arguing not to tune meth need to be avoided at all costs.

Again your the only one saying matt doesn't tune for meth regardless of his repeated attempts to explain it to you that you ghost and ignore. Where is your data to support these claims?

 

[Flash Gordon]

We’re still talking about two different problems.

The Gen-3 Coyote example shows how Ford implements explicit source attribution when OEM-grade robustness, fault detection, and repeatability are required. No disagreement there.

My point is about state response, not attribution. On a torque-based speed-density system, the PCM already responds to changes in lambda, knock margin, and achieved torque regardless of why they occurred. That’s why MBT, VE behavior, and spark requirements shift when meth is present — and why those shifts must be intentionally calibrated around rather than ignored.

Lack of a meth sensor is a reliability and liability problem, not proof that the PCM is blind to the effects. Avoiding meth because of failure modes is a valid policy decision. Saying the system cannot respond to it in principle is a different claim.

Those distinctions matter.

OK. Let me explain this in another way. If you add fuel from a source NOT monitored for by the PCM, you NEED to pull it out manually from the calibration. If the factory tables do not have the mentioned options, here are your choices.

A: Rape the VE. You can lie to the PCM and tell it less air is coming into the PCM so it calculates a lower PW to the injector. Not an acceptable option IMO.

B: Rape the injector slopes or modifiers. Lie to the PCM and tell it that the injector is larger than it really is. This will cause all sorts of other issues. Not an acceptable option IMO.

C: Let Jesus take the wheel. You would rely on the fuel trims to compensate for the errors introduced from the meth system. Still not an acceptable option, IMO.

On smaller kits, C this is the ONLY logical option (but still not considered right). The PCM CAN compensate to an extent, but with direct port kits, the amount of fuel being introduced is too much for the PCM to compensate for, so this is no longer an option in your case. Add to that the tendency for the long term fuel trims to kick in to "learn" the errors, but the errors are not present in ALL conditions, so the errors are not something that CAN be learned, so what happens is, the PCM "learns" to pull fuel, then when you get into a similar condition that shares a learned cell, but the meth is NOT injecting, the PCM now goes dangerously lean (because of the learned corrections), and the fuel trims have to react by adding additional fuel to compensate. You are basically playing jump rope with your AFR. Very dangerous game to play.

Which option is your new tuner using?

 

[802SHO]

OK. Let me explain this in another way. If you add fuel from a source NOT monitored for by the PCM, you NEED to pull it out manually from the calibration. If the factory tables do not have the mentioned options, here are your choices.

A: Rape the VE. You can lie to the PCM and tell it less air is coming into the PCM so it calculates a lower PW to the injector. Not an acceptable option IMO.

B: Rape the injector slopes or modifiers. Lie to the PCM and tell it that the injector is larger than it really is. This will cause all sorts of other issues. Not an acceptable option IMO.

C: Let Jesus take the wheel. You would rely on the fuel trims to compensate for the errors introduced from the meth system. Still not an acceptable option, IMO.

On smaller kits, C this is the ONLY logical option (but still not considered right). The PCM CAN compensate to an extent, but with direct port kits, the amount of fuel being introduced is too much for the PCM to compensate for, so this is no longer an option in your case. Add to that the tendency for the long term fuel trims to kick in to "learn" the errors, but the errors are not present in ALL conditions, so the errors are not something that CAN be learned, so what happens is, the PCM "learns" to pull fuel, then when you get into a similar condition that shares a learned cell, but the meth is NOT injecting, the PCM now goes dangerously lean (because of the learned corrections), and the fuel trims have to react by adding additional fuel to compensate. You are basically playing jump rope with your AFR. Very dangerous game to play.

Which option is your new tuner using?

Your A/B/C breakdown assumes meth is being used as required fueling inside the PCM’s control domain. That’s the critical premise I disagree with… and it’s why those options feel like dead ends.

I agree with you that:

Lying to VE is bad practice
Lying about injector slopes is bad practice
Blindly relying on trims at scale is dangerous

Those are all failure modes of using meth as primary fuel without intent.

What’s missing from your list is the fourth option: designing the calibration so gasoline alone satisfies lambda, and meth functions as a combustion modifier — shifting knock margin and MBT, not replacing injector-delivered fuel. In that configuration, loss of meth costs power and margin, not AFR. That distinction matters.

This isn’t theoretical for me — it’s empirical.

On what many consider a limited 2010–2012 EcoBoost PCM, I ran 1500cc VP M1 pre-throttle body meth on an Alky Control progressive controller starting around 7 psi. That setup began under a tuner who did not tune for meth at ~11 psi. After switching to AJPTurbo, the calibration was intentionally built around meth’s effects, boost increased to ~18 psi, and meth was no longer optional.

Results over time, same basic strategy:

2018: 11.83
2019: 11.36
2020: 11.06

Same PCM generation. Same meth approach. Repeatable results.

Today the setup has evolved to roughly 3800cc total meth, combining volute injection and direct port. My current tuner calibrates the fastest EcoBoost platform car on the planet (8.4 @ 160+ on pure meth via MoTeC), and I’m upgrading from SCT to HP Tuners to support the increased resolution this combination demands.

It’s also worth noting: I installed the meth system myself with no prior experience. Testing, inspection, and maintenance were straightforward. This isn’t some mystical or uncontrollable system….it’s plumbing, flow verification, and discipline.

None of this means meth is appropriate for all customers, or that explicit attribution wouldn’t be preferable. Those are valid policy and liability considerations. But they don’t negate the system’s ability to be intentionally calibrated around meth’s effects, nor do they reduce the discussion to VE lies, injector lies, or “let Jesus take the wheel.”

That separation between policy decisions and system capability is the only distinction I’ve been trying to make.

 

[802SHO]

There’s a critical distinction that keeps getting blurred, so I’ll state it explicitly.

Meth tuning is not binary (dependent vs not). It exists on a spectrum of dependence.
In my case — and in most real-world high-performance meth setups — the tune is moderately dependent on meth for optimal operation, but not dependent on meth for lambda safety.

Gasoline fueling is calibrated so the engine remains AFR-safe without meth. When meth is present, it contributes meaningful fuel energy (often ~15–20%), improves knock margin, and shifts MBT. The PCM uses oxygen feedback to reduce gasoline accordingly, so the engine does not run rich.

Loss of meth does not cause a lean condition. It causes loss of power, knock margin, and optimal timing — which is exactly what “moderate dependence” means.

Hard dependence (where meth is required to meet lambda) is unsafe. Zero dependence leaves performance on the table. Reality lives between those extremes, and pretending otherwise is what keeps this discussion going in circles.

 

[802SHO]

The PCM’s feedback is allowed to balance overlapping fuel energy, but it is never relied upon to supply missing fuel. Base fueling remains lambda-capable without meth; trims are constrained and non-authoritative. That’s the distinction.

 

[802SHO]

The fastest Taurus SHO in the world is now fully meth-dependent, and my World’s Fastest EcoBoost SHO is meth-injected. Those aren’t opinions or theories—they’re recorded results. Meth isn’t a side discussion on this platform; it’s literally what defined the ceiling. So let’s stop pretending this is about “letting the PCM sort it out” or blanket claims of danger. Once you’re talking about record-holding SHOs, meth isn’t optional, it’s foundational.

This is SHOForum…last time I checked. SHO and 100% meth go together. Period

 

[mattr66usa]

The PCM’s feedback is allowed to balance overlapping fuel energy, but it is never relied upon to supply missing fuel. Base fueling remains lambda-capable without meth; trims are constrained and non-authoritative. That’s the distinction.

The fuel trims are never relied upon to supply missing fuel? Tell me more.....

Gasoline fueling is calibrated so the engine remains AFR-safe without meth. When meth is present, it contributes meaningful fuel energy (often ~15–20%), improves knock margin, and shifts MBT.

100% methanol (0% gasoline) allows 6% more power at the same airflow. What are you insinuating?

The PCM uses oxygen feedback to reduce gasoline accordingly, so the engine does not run rich.

So which is it are the oxygen sensors adding or removing fuel?

Loss of meth does not cause a lean condition. It causes loss of power, knock margin, and optimal timing — which is exactly what “moderate dependence” means.

Hard dependence (where meth is required to meet lambda) is unsafe. Zero dependence leaves performance on the table. Reality lives between those extremes, and pretending otherwise is what keeps this discussion going in circles.

Again we are in a parallel universe.... I was saying this very thing the entire time, why the change of heart?