Technical Discussion of Methanol Injection (formerly GH Tuning and 100% meth injection don’t mix - Courtesy of 802SHO)

[mattr66usa]

Let's keep it technical on this one so the people can see through the BS.

Let's state some FACTUAL information:
1. Methanol is a high-octane fuel.
2. Methanol has a cooling effect when sprayed into a space and allowed to evaporate (like an intake manifold) and to a lesser extent a combustion chamber via its heat of vaporization of around 35 Kj/mol. This value represents the energy required to convert one mole of liquid methanol into a gas at its boiling point of 64.6C. This just means it gets cold when vaporized and it takes the heat and breaks the chemical bonds of the molecule so you are left with less heat in the spot where it vaporizes.
3. Methanol is corrosive and absorbs water. That isn't a big deal since people typically mix some water with it on the typical injection system.
4. When tuning a car for methanol you have 2 main controls and 1 optional control
.....A. You can add timing for the added octane and cooling effects of the Methanol.
.....B. Fuel must be removed from the factory injectors when the methanol is running vs not running to achieve the same target Lambda of the combustion cycle.
.....C. If you are using methanol for a "fuel crutch" where without it you can't run as much boost, you can run more boost as the fuel pump can now keep up with the methanol running.

That's the combustion-side of the argument. And that's all there is to it.

Now specifically we are talking about the SHO, so let's go ahead and talk about a primer on how the engine derives transmission pressures to shift properly and hold power (I'll purposely be non specific and general since specificity isn't important to the conversation and it will make it easy to understand):

Let's say for clutch A you need 125 psi to hold the power and 175 psi during the shift. In this case there is a non-shifting multiplier (sometimes called a slope) and a shifting multiplier. It takes the inferred torque it thinks the engine is making and makes a decision on how to apply the pressure. There are other factors like ramp rates and other static compensations for pressure but let's stick to the factor that would effect methanol tuning.

The bottom line is that if the inferred torque changes, the transmission pressure automatically changes if the calibration is set up properly.

So how does meth tuning come into play on this specific vehicle (not a 1970s technology or even a pre-2010 vehicle that didn't have wideband O2 sensors and good knock sensors)?

If you spray methanol on a stock car, will you gain power? Yes, but not a whole lot. The wideband O2 sensors will correct the fueling up to the maximum allowed, but you may overpower the limit of the adjustment if you overdo it. Timing will be limited to the factory maximum timing table.
In this case, the real power output and the inferred computer power output don't change much at all.

If you spray methanol on a GH AO tuned car set up for mild meth, will you gain power? Yes. The O2 sensors will pull pulsewidth out of the injectors pretty damn fast, then eventually that change gets learned by the long-term fuel trims on both banks and in the case of unequal methanol distribution between banks learns each bank independently (common problem on non-port injection systems). Timing on the tune is not capped like a stock file so the drop in temperature adds timing to the base maps and the knock sensors have the ability to ADD TIMING up to the maximum allowed that I set that is at or near the MBT timing or until there isn't enough octane to reach that point (just like factory but higher).

MBT timing is the point at which adding timing in that spot stops adding power and just increases cylinder pressure. Let's just say when tuning a car on race gas (with unlimited octane for the application) for example, if timing is very low, each degree you can run adds 15 hp, then after the first 2 degrees you are only adding 10 with each degree of added timing for the next 2 degrees, then eventually you get to 1 or 2 hp added with each degree. That is when you should stop trying to add timing because you have reached the MBT point.

So guess what.... the computer will see the increase in timing and automatically increase the inferred torque reported so the trans stays happy via the background calculations.

Okay, so lets add on top of this what I call a "meth dependent tune"...... What is that? In my book it is something where the extra fuel is making up for a deficiency of the fuel system where without it, the fuel rail pressure would drop like a rock and not be able to supply the factory DI injectors with enough supply and the engine runs lean and can cause damage. This consists of running more boost with meth than you can without because the fuel pump can't keep up without meth running. I typically don't do this for a street customer because of the dangers of tank slosh, or a system malfunction, running out, etc. The street customer uses meth to get to MBT octane level and cool the incoming air charge, not using meth to supplement a deficient fuel system. That's where the dichotomy is for the two types of calibrations we produce.

Please pic apart this logic one section at a time for an "INTELLIGENT" discussion and not some comparison from a holy mary attempt a record pass where you don't care if the engine stays in one piece.

 

[mattr66usa]

Crickets.... that figures.... I would welcome some intelligent dialog, but some are incapable I guess...... Tries to slander a business then runs away when presented with facts. Typical keyboard warrior.

 

[Jordan_R]

I am not up to date on the issues going on in the background but I got some questions just based off how some other tuners have handled some of this a little bit differently so not related to an AO tune I guess:

If you spray methanol on a GH AO tuned car set up for mild meth, will you gain power? Yes. The O2 sensors will pull pulsewidth out of the injectors pretty damn fast, then eventually that change gets learned by the long-term fuel trims on both banks and in the case of unequal methanol distribution between banks learns each bank independently (common problem on non-port injection systems).

Can't you lock the LTFT at WOT and allow the STFT to handle the changes? I am sure I am over simplifying that as I am not a tuner so these questions will be assuming that as well. Just my LTFT was always locked at 1.00 while having flexibility on part throttle / idle to account for different e blends.

Timing on the tune is not capped like a stock file so the drop in temperature adds timing to the base maps and the knock sensors have the ability to ADD TIMING up to the maximum allowed that I set that is at or near the MBT timing or until there isn't enough octane to reach that point (just like factory but higher).

From an optimization standpoint couldn't you have a methanol tune that automatically has the timing already built in and if it doesn't see the knock resistance it needs it could just pull timing instead of waiting for it to add timing? Adding timing is great but even allowing it to feed in takes a few seconds which would be sacrificed power.

Okay, so lets add on top of this what I call a "meth dependent tune"...... What is that? In my book it is something where the extra fuel is making up for a deficiency of the fuel system where without it, the fuel rail pressure would drop like a rock and not be able to supply the factory DI injectors with enough supply and the engine runs lean and can cause damage. This consists of running more boost with meth than you can without because the fuel pump can't keep up without meth running. I typically don't do this for a street customer because of the dangers of tank slosh, or a system malfunction, running out, etc. The street customer uses meth to get to MBT octane level and cool the incoming air charge, not using meth to supplement a deficient fuel system. That's where the dichotomy is for the two types of calibrations we produce.

These cars have tiny little turbos which suck anyways. Unless they are running stock hpfp with tapped out stock turbos I can't see how they would be running out of fuel system. Maybe I am thinking meth dependent tune is more of an octane dependent tune and the knock sensors should be able to make up for it with like you're OAR logic and what not kind of back to my second question. Feel like if you are using methanol to bandaid fuel system you get what you get and should be fully aware of the issues it might cause.

 

[mattr66usa]

I am not up to date on the issues going on in the background but I got some questions just based off how some other tuners have handled some of this a little bit differently so not related to an AO tune I guess:

Cool.... Let's give it a go.

Can't you lock the LTFT at WOT and allow the STFT to handle the changes? I am sure I am over simplifying that as I am not a tuner so these questions will be assuming that as well. Just my LTFT was always locked at 1.00 while having flexibility on part throttle / idle to account for different e blends.

I don't know that you really want to do that because if the long terms already have most of the adjustment done, the short terms have less work to do to get to the target lambda.

From an optimization standpoint couldn't you have a methanol tune that automatically has the timing already built in and if it doesn't see the knock resistance it needs it could just pull timing instead of waiting for it to add timing? Adding timing is great but even allowing it to feed in takes a few seconds which would be sacrificed power.

Yes, but adding timing with the knock sensors is a safer scenario than pulling timing with them if you have to have a big change. "Creeping up" on an optimized point over a few seconds is better than having to pull 5-6 degrees all at once in the case of the methanol not flowing when it is supposed to. But you are absolutely correct that you could do that.

These cars have tiny little turbos which suck anyways. Unless they are running stock hpfp with tapped out stock turbos I can't see how they would be running out of fuel system. Maybe I am thinking meth dependent tune is more of an octane dependent tune and the knock sensors should be able to make up for it with like you're OAR logic and what not kind of back to my second question. Feel like if you are using methanol to bandaid fuel system you get what you get and should be fully aware of the issues it might cause.

if your target lambda is .82 you can only run a load of 1.65 (165% volumetric efficiency) before rail pressure starts dropping even with a low-mile pump. I don't like a sustained pressure drop more than a single MPA because on the shifts, the boost surge will drop it pretty hard. So with a methanol system in place, the substitute fuel source would supplement the maxed-out pump so you could turn the load up. I have set up an in-between tune for a couple of customers that added boost as the methanol dropped the temperature and just told them they couldn't run that tune in the winter-time because the temps would be low enough to trigger the extra boost without the methanol flowing and defeat the purpose of that part of the "safety".

 

[kryptto]

I’ve followed this from the original Facebook discussion to here, and I want to simplify the misunderstanding for the community. Our platform is aging, our cars are becoming rarer every year, and we genuinely need all contributors — tuners, builders, knowledgeable owners — working from the same truth.

Here’s the cleanest breakdown.


-----

First: Matt is right for the customers he normally tunes.

Matt’s AO strategy is built around:

mostly stock-turbo cars

daily drivers

small-nozzle, low-flow meth (if any)

people without hardware failsafes

the goal of reliability over maximum power


In that world:

the PCM can safely correct AFR,

mild meth mostly acts as cooling + knock insurance,

no special “meth tune” is needed,

and meth should not be relied on as fuel.


This is completely valid for the majority of his customers.
And the community genuinely appreciates that he still tunes these cars and still produces parts (like the intercooler), especially as SHO support continues shrinking.

Nothing wrong with that use-case at all.


---

Second: 802SHO is also right — for an entirely different meth setup.

802’s argument is based on:

large nozzles (500–1500cc)

100% meth

meth replacing 10–20% of fuel mass

higher octane requiring different spark

higher cylinder pressure

boosted load targets

consistent MBT timing


When meth is used as real fuel, you must tune for it.
This is standard across every turbo platform.

So his point is also valid:
minimizing meth or calling it “just cooling” is misleading for customers running high-flow setups.


-------------

the misunderstanding comes from describing both systems as just “meth.”

This is where things explode into confusion.

Matt is talking about mild meth.

802 is talking about power meth.


Two totally different animals.
Two totally different tuning philosophies.
Two totally different risk profiles.

Both men are right — just not about the same thing.


-------

A polite but necessary clarification

One thing that would help the entire community — especially newcomers — is avoiding a “one-size-fits-all” stance on meth.

Mild meth doesn’t need meth-dependent tuning.
High-flow meth absolutely does.

So moving forward, it would be really helpful if we clarified:

If a customer is stock or lightly modified: Matt’s AO approach is perfect.

If a customer is running big turbos, big nozzles, or chasing maximum power:
Then the simplified “PCM will handle meth” narrative no longer applies.


This isn’t criticism — it’s just acknowledging that not everyone fits the same profile. And I can see both men are upset and that is fine. What we DONT need is Matt to withdraw, when people come to this forum, there has been roadtested tuners - Brad and GH Matt. Matt I cant use your services I am track and off-road otherwise I would buy your turbos. That said we need your products, torque converters and ICs, period.

And when the meth discussion is framed too narrowly, it unintentionally gives modified-car owners the wrong impression of how meth actually functions at high flow.

That is the core thing 802 was trying to point out.

---

for casual owners reading this

If you just want safety and cooling → follow Matt.
If you want power and run large meth nozzles → follow the tuning strategy 802 describes.

Two tools.
Two use-cases.
Neither wrong.


---

Suggesting we end and lock the thread

At this point, both sides have been clarified and both viewpoints make sense within their intended context.
there’s no need for this to continue turning into a vendor war. the SHO community needs both perspectives and both contributors.

**Both are right — for their respective goals.**

The only mistake was treating one approach as universal.**

Locking the thread after this clarification would prevent further misunderstanding and keep things centered on facts.

 

[mattr66usa]

I’ve followed this from the original Facebook discussion to here, and I want to simplify the misunderstanding for the community. Our platform is aging, our cars are becoming rarer every year, and we genuinely need all contributors — tuners, builders, knowledgeable owners — working from the same truth.

Here’s the cleanest breakdown.


-----

First: Matt is right for the customers he normally tunes.

Matt’s AO strategy is built around:

mostly stock-turbo cars

daily drivers

small-nozzle, low-flow meth (if any)

people without hardware failsafes

the goal of reliability over maximum power


In that world:

the PCM can safely correct AFR,

mild meth mostly acts as cooling + knock insurance,

no special “meth tune” is needed,

and meth should not be relied on as fuel.


This is completely valid for the majority of his customers.
And the community genuinely appreciates that he still tunes these cars and still produces parts (like the intercooler), especially as SHO support continues shrinking.

Nothing wrong with that use-case at all.


---

Second: 802SHO is also right — for an entirely different meth setup.

802’s argument is based on:

large nozzles (500–1500cc)

100% meth

meth replacing 10–20% of fuel mass

higher octane requiring different spark

higher cylinder pressure

boosted load targets

consistent MBT timing


When meth is used as real fuel, you must tune for it.
This is standard across every turbo platform.

So his point is also valid:
minimizing meth or calling it “just cooling” is misleading for customers running high-flow setups.


-------------

the misunderstanding comes from describing both systems as just “meth.”

This is where things explode into confusion.

Matt is talking about mild meth.

802 is talking about power meth.


Two totally different animals.
Two totally different tuning philosophies.
Two totally different risk profiles.

Both men are right — just not about the same thing.


-------

A polite but necessary clarification

One thing that would help the entire community — especially newcomers — is avoiding a “one-size-fits-all” stance on meth.

Mild meth doesn’t need meth-dependent tuning.
High-flow meth absolutely does.

So moving forward, it would be really helpful if we clarified:

If a customer is stock or lightly modified: Matt’s AO approach is perfect.

If a customer is running big turbos, big nozzles, or chasing maximum power:
Then the simplified “PCM will handle meth” narrative no longer applies.


This isn’t criticism — it’s just acknowledging that not everyone fits the same profile. And I can see both men are upset and that is fine. What we DONT need is Matt to withdraw, when people come to this forum, there has been roadtested tuners - Brad and GH Matt. Matt I cant use your services I am track and off-road otherwise I would buy your turbos. That said we need your products, torque converters and ICs, period.

And when the meth discussion is framed too narrowly, it unintentionally gives modified-car owners the wrong impression of how meth actually functions at high flow.

That is the core thing 802 was trying to point out.

---

for casual owners reading this

If you just want safety and cooling → follow Matt.
If you want power and run large meth nozzles → follow the tuning strategy 802 describes.

Two tools.
Two use-cases.
Neither wrong.


---

Suggesting we end and lock the thread

At this point, both sides have been clarified and both viewpoints make sense within their intended context.
there’s no need for this to continue turning into a vendor war. the SHO community needs both perspectives and both contributors.

**Both are right — for their respective goals.**

The only mistake was treating one approach as universal.**

Locking the thread after this clarification would prevent further misunderstanding and keep things centered on facts.

NO SIR.... I clearly said I am tuning cars that are using up to a 20% fuel substitution (the car is running on 20% methanol) and account for the meth in the tune, with the exception of added boost for the methanol unless they are running a dedicated race setup and understand the risks. I have also tuned for big methanol systems in the past for customers with port systems even.

And 802 didn't describe a tuning strategy. He said a bunch of abstract things that don't have any real meaning. I account for the fuel and timing changes needed to extract the power from the methanol being injected. There is always some other limit though like stock turbos that won't make any more power if you were running 50% methanol once you reach the MBT limit of timing and are airflow limited because of the stock turbos. (you can't just keep increasing timing and keep gaining power because at some point you start working backwards even in the case of unlimited octane -that is what MBT timing is).

PS: After we have made the max power available on maximum meth flow available by the system, you can usually dial back the meth flow and make the same power, so I usually end up at that point with the customer, further fueling this notion that "GH doesn't tune for meth"

 

[bpd1151]

Well stated there Kryptto.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

 

[kryptto]

Matt — I’m not trying to debate you further. My last post was meant to calm this down and close it out. But this is exactly the pattern that frustrates people: when someone tries to clarify the two different meth use-cases, you shift the definitions after the fact and pull the conversation back open again.

If you do tune for meaningful meth substitution, great — that nuance simply wasn’t clear in your earlier messaging and quite honestly buried in long rambling posts. Your meth narative was framed mostly as “cooling only” and “PCM will handle it.” That’s the whole point 802 was making.

For mild meth setups, your AO approach works and I think I was very complimentary when clearly from an observer of this argument two people were having there was a muddled message.

For high-flow meth setups, a different strategy is required.

That’s all anyone was trying to distinguish and stop moving the goal posts each time you want to show you are the authority. Mission accomplished, for all the new comers who want this level of instigation and complexity Matt from GH is your man. BTW thanks for proving to everyone on this forum what started all this on FB.

I’m not getting dragged into another back-and-forth — this is my final post on it. You are the reason I read FB but don't post on FB, keyboard crusade warriors. Learn to take a win and stop trying to settle everything with an ever changing narrative. Thanks

 

[mattr66usa]

Matt — I’m not trying to debate you further. My last post was meant to calm this down and close it out. But this is exactly the pattern that frustrates people: when someone tries to clarify the two different meth use-cases, you shift the definitions after the fact and pull the conversation back open again.

If you do tune for meaningful meth substitution, great — that nuance simply wasn’t clear in your earlier messaging and quite honestly buried in long rambling posts. Your meth narative was framed mostly as “cooling only” and “PCM will handle it.” That’s the whole point 802 was making.

For mild meth setups, your AO approach works and I think I was very complimentary when clearly from an observer of this argument two people were having there was a muddled message.

For high-flow meth setups, a different strategy is required.

That’s all anyone was trying to distinguish and stop moving the goal posts each time you want to show you are the authority. Mission accomplished, for all the new comers who want this level of instigation and complexity Matt from GH is your man. BTW thanks for proving to everyone on this forum what started all this on FB.

I’m not getting dragged into another back-and-forth — this is my final post on it. You are the reason I read FB but don't post on FB, keyboard crusade warriors. Learn to take a win and stop trying to settle everything with an ever changing narrative. Thanks

Take your questions to the technical thread where I clearly explain how i am tuning for methanol injection. Oh wait this is it... Sorry. This was started for no good reason other than someone felt the need to "cook" me (his words) because I told him in don't feel comfortable tuning his car with the KNOWN (by anyone that actually knows what they are talking about) pcm limitations of the 10-12 cars. So I put the facts out there.

It is obvious now how I tune for methanol injection since I said exactly how it works in this thread with no pie-in-the-sky abstract wording. I did not change the narrative from anything I have ever said, but once you reach maximum power with the meth flowing and you can dial it back to a lower level (and make the same power), it just makes sense to do so. Or you can simply start at that point because of past experience with the systems and perceive that as some kind of weakness in tuning ability. That's what I think has happened and that's what Andrew is trying to say. This thread is meant to dispel any myths. It is not a win or loose thread. This is meant to be a technical thread and I would welcome moderators deleting anything but technical content on this one.

 

[mattr66usa]

Matt — I’m not trying to debate you further. My last post was meant to calm this down and close it out. But this is exactly the pattern that frustrates people: when someone tries to clarify the two different meth use-cases, you shift the definitions after the fact and pull the conversation back open again.

If you do tune for meaningful meth substitution, great — that nuance simply wasn’t clear in your earlier messaging and quite honestly buried in long rambling posts. Your meth narative was framed mostly as “cooling only” and “PCM will handle it.” That’s the whole point 802 was making.

For mild meth setups, your AO approach works and I think I was very complimentary when clearly from an observer of this argument two people were having there was a muddled message.

For high-flow meth setups, a different strategy is required.

That’s all anyone was trying to distinguish and stop moving the goal posts each time you want to show you are the authority. Mission accomplished, for all the new comers who want this level of instigation and complexity Matt from GH is your man. BTW thanks for proving to everyone on this forum what started all this on FB.

I’m not getting dragged into another back-and-forth — this is my final post on it. You are the reason I read FB but don't post on FB, keyboard crusade warriors. Learn to take a win and stop trying to settle everything with an ever changing narrative. Thanks

Andrew's personal beef with me is clouding the discussion and he is injecting things and making assumptions because he doesn't understand how things actually work in the PCM.

 

[802SHO]

Matt, let’s walk through your logic point by point because several of the pillars you’re leaning on are still built on sand.

You started with the basics of methanol, and no one disputes any of that. Methanol is high octane, high cooling, corrosive, absorbs water, and increases charge cooling and MBT headroom. Yes. We agree. That’s combustion theory 101.

Where your logic falls apart is in how you continue applying those points to the EcoBoost SHO platform as if everything past 2012 is still a 2004 Subaru with no widebands and no torque-based strategy. You keep framing meth use like the PCM is blind, the trims are slow, and that fueling corrections are crude. They aren’t. These cars have extremely fast widebands, fast trims, and torque-based control logic that recalculates torque and pressure constantly in real time. That is why meth-dependent tuning is not uniquely dangerous. It is no more dangerous than a tune dependent on an upgraded HPFP or LPFP. Any component failure in a fueling chain can cause an issue. Meth is not magically special in that regard.

Your argument that meth-dependent tuning is inherently a landmine, while HPFP-dependent or injector-dependent tuning is fine, doesn’t hold up. Every high-power platform on earth uses supplemental fuel: DI engines with PI, ethanol blends, dry nitrous, wet nitrous, meth injection, you name it. If something fails in any of those systems, the engine will get less fuel. That doesn’t make the method dangerous. It means the system must be modeled correctly and monitored. That’s tuning.

Then you claim that without proper torque inference alignment the transmission can’t cope. Yet earlier in the same post you admit that added timing from meth automatically increases inferred torque through the background torque model. So you are essentially arguing both sides: meth changes torque and the PCM handles it automatically, but somehow can’t handle it if tuned differently? That contradiction is still sitting there untouched.

Next, you repeat the same VE and MBT narrative. Again, this might describe your comfort band. It does not describe platform limits. My slip-proven results already proved this. You dismissed my 11.0s as a one-off attempt, a Hail Mary. The problem is that I did it three times in one day and then backed it up with an 11.19 on the street. That is not desperation or luck. That is consistency. And those slips stood for years. That is proof of concept. That is physics on pavement. And you still haven’t addressed why your own LT running your tuning and your turbos with a 130-pound driver in a gutted car still never outran the shadow of my heavier car with a heavier driver.
You can’t talk around that.

Your biggest blind spot is this idea that meth for cooling only is the correct doctrine for daily drivers. That is where your argument fails the hardest. You tune meth the same way you tune fuel. You do not leave unmetered fuel mass inside a combustion chamber and rely on AFR trims to play catch-up. AFR correction is reactionary, which means exactly what I explained earlier: in the time it takes for trims to settle, the combustion has already run rich or lean for a period of time. Repeated long-term exposure to that causes deposits, bore wash, plug wear, and eventually uneven distribution effects between banks. That is why it must be tuned. Period.

You also still haven’t addressed the core flaw: you push 500 cc, 50/50, and mild spray rates not because the platform demands it but because it stays inside your comfort range. You keep redefining your comfort ceiling as a mechanical ceiling. Those are not the same thing. My results, Mike’s results, multiple community examples, and the basic thermodynamics of boosted engines have all disproven those ceilings. Your own customer on LegitStreetCars disproved your 500 wheel claims on a huge platform when your tune ran out of breath at 450, even after you “found something in the file.” And the excuse train was loud, but the result stayed the same.

Now about your request to pick apart your logic. You invited it. So here it is:

1) Your meth-only-for-MBT approach ignores distribution issues caused by low spray volume.

2) Your insistence that meth-dependent tuning is unsafe is contradicted by every high-power DI platform on earth.

3) Your VE dropoff doctrine is something my time slips directly disproved. If VE fell off a cliff at 5k, I wouldn’t have gained time shifting at 6200. But I did. Three times.

4) Your MBT ceiling is your ceiling, not the platform’s.

5) Your “stock location turbos are done at X” is a claim I bypassed on the track before upgrading them.

6) Your attempt to downplay proven results as Hail Mary passes while ignoring your LT’s own one-shot 11.1 attempt is noted.

7) Your fallback to psychological terms like Dunning-Kruger rather than mechanical argument is the clearest sign the technical side is already over.

And I’ll close with this, because it’s the part you still pretend not to understand:
I didn’t beat your logic because I claimed to be smarter than you.

I beat your logic because I stopped outsourcing my thinking to anyone, trusted my own instincts, gathered real results, learned what worked, studied why it worked, and used AI as a force multiplier to confirm the physics behind those results.
That’s why the platform limits you preach do not match the platform limits I broke on pavement.

You wanted an intelligent discussion.

This is one.

The rest is slips, logs, data, and a build that will be back on the ground, running stronger than ever, without needing even a fraction of your approval.

 

[802SHO]

Hey Matt, you know why I never downloaded your “free tune” for the Gen3 turbos and intercooler I bought from you?

Because I never viewed you as a high-performance tuner in the first place.

I looked at you as a parts option.

A vendor.

Someone who happened to bring another turbo choice and an intercooler upgrade to the table.

That’s it.

I didn’t come to you for a ceiling-shattering calibration because nothing you’ve ever said or demonstrated suggested you were the guy who could push past the limits you’re constantly preaching.

Your own logic is always wrapped in caution tape, framed by your own comfort zone, and defended by attacking anyone who proves it’s not an actual limit.

My results didn’t need your tune.

My records didn’t require your philosophy.

My path forward didn’t need your permission.





And the ultimate irony?

You’re now trying to downplay the very results that invalidated your platform narrative… while insisting I somehow needed your guidance the whole time.

If I thought your tuning was capable of getting me where I wanted to go, I would’ve used it the moment I bought your parts.

But I didn’t.

Because deep down I already knew what this entire debate eventually exposed out loud:

Your parts may have their place.

Your tuning never did.

And boy oh boy thanks for offering to tune my 2010. But you backing out and not even trying was unbelievable. But that’s ok bc this new version SHO breaks the mold that type of tuning is built for. So it never would have worked

 

[802SHO]

Go ahead Matt. Say I don’t understand. Make more noise, splash some more. Make more threads. Try to draw new crowds. Keep managing perception. Keep projecting onto me.

I have way better things to do.

Better company to entertain.

 

[mattr66usa]

Matt, let’s walk through your logic point by point because several of the pillars you’re leaning on are still built on sand.

Let's put this to bed once and for all... You have now completely flipped your talking points I hope everyone can see that.

Where your logic falls apart is in how you continue applying those points to the EcoBoost SHO platform as if everything past 2012 is still a 2004 Subaru with no widebands and no torque-based strategy. You keep framing meth use like the PCM is blind, the trims are slow, and that fueling corrections are crude. They aren’t. These cars have extremely fast widebands, fast trims, and torque-based control logic that recalculates torque and pressure constantly in real time. That is why meth-dependent tuning is not uniquely dangerous. It is no more dangerous than a tune dependent on an upgraded HPFP or LPFP. Any component failure in a fueling chain can cause an issue. Meth is not magically special in that regard.

Are we in a parallel universe you are getting information from? You obviously can't read. I literally wrote that I rely heavily on the widebands to trim the fuel and the knock sensors to add timing. Show me where I didn't say that very thing.

Your argument that meth-dependent tuning is inherently a landmine, while HPFP-dependent or injector-dependent tuning is fine, doesn’t hold up. Every high-power platform on earth uses supplemental fuel: DI engines with PI, ethanol blends, dry nitrous, wet nitrous, meth injection, you name it. If something fails in any of those systems, the engine will get less fuel. That doesn’t make the method dangerous. It means the system must be modeled correctly and monitored. That’s tuning.

Injector PW and fuel pressure are closely monitored by the pcm vs an external system like methanol or nitrous oxide. I've made that point all along. Again, you are talking in circles and people can see through it at this point.

Then you claim that without proper torque inference alignment the transmission can’t cope. Yet earlier in the same post you admit that added timing from meth automatically increases inferred torque through the background torque model. So you are essentially arguing both sides: meth changes torque and the PCM handles it automatically, but somehow can’t handle it if tuned differently? That contradiction is still sitting there untouched.

You are the one accusing my strategy of tuning meth blind to the inferred torque changes.

Next, you repeat the same VE and MBT narrative. Again, this might describe your comfort band. It does not describe platform limits. My slip-proven results already proved this. You dismissed my 11.0s as a one-off attempt, a Hail Mary. The problem is that I did it three times in one day and then backed it up with an 11.19 on the street. That is not desperation or luck. That is consistency. And those slips stood for years. That is proof of concept. That is physics on pavement. And you still haven’t addressed why your own LT running your tuning and your turbos with a 130-pound driver in a gutted car still never outran the shadow of my heavier car with a heavier driver.
You can’t talk around that.

You can pump enough boost into something to make it make up for the shortcomings of the factory engine airflow characteristics that are severely RPM limited. That doesn't make it the optimum way of doing it. Every time you add a pound of boost, you also incur a backpressure penalty. If you had an engine with the proper head flow and camshafts for an extended rpm range, you can make more power on less boost and thus not have a damn banana in the tailpipe because of the turbo backpressure penalty you are incurring. Also, you don't have to make ludicrous torque that the chassis has trouble with in order to make the HP needed to make a good ET.

Your biggest blind spot is this idea that meth for cooling only is the correct doctrine for daily drivers. That is where your argument fails the hardest. You tune meth the same way you tune fuel. You do not leave unmetered fuel mass inside a combustion chamber and rely on AFR trims to play catch-up. AFR correction is reactionary, which means exactly what I explained earlier: in the time it takes for trims to settle, the combustion has already run rich or lean for a period of time. Repeated long-term exposure to that causes deposits, bore wash, plug wear, and eventually uneven distribution effects between banks. That is why it must be tuned. Period.

Again, you are talking in circles, because I literally talked about checking for distribution of the methanol with the customer and that can be plainly seen due to the widebands making corrections PER BANK. Again, you are acting like I never said that.

You also still haven’t addressed the core flaw: you push 500 cc, 50/50, and mild spray rates not because the platform demands it but because it stays inside your comfort range. You keep redefining your comfort ceiling as a mechanical ceiling. Those are not the same thing. My results, Mike’s results, multiple community examples, and the basic thermodynamics of boosted engines have all disproven those ceilings. Your own customer on LegitStreetCars disproved your 500 wheel claims on a huge platform when your tune ran out of breath at 450, even after you “found something in the file.” And the excuse train was loud, but the result stayed the same.

I regularly tune customer's cars with 100% methanol, so again you are saying something completely untrue.
I don't specifically know what you are referring to on the legit street cars thing, but 450 on a base tune is normal on some cars. That's why we do revisions after the sale. Did you forget that? Or are you still telling people that we don't look at datalogs and do revisions if necessary?

Now about your request to pick apart your logic. You invited it. So here it is:

Love it!

 

[mattr66usa]

1) Your meth-only-for-MBT approach ignores distribution issues caused by low spray volume.

This is false.... if low flow gives good semi-vaporization in the manifold (finely atomized from the nozzle), you actually have BETTER distribution because the manifold was designed to distribute air only and not liquid. The methanol vapor more closely follows the design of the intake manifold compared to a mixture heavily laden with non-vaporized methanol. Look up Helmholtz resonator and how they work. The intake manifold doesn't like large volumes of methanol injection because it changes the density of what it is trying to pass to the intake ports and will experience liquid-air separation where air velocity is high (typically when the air has to turn).

2) Your insistence that meth-dependent tuning is unsafe is contradicted by every high-power DI platform on earth.

It is as safe as the person using the system and their diligence to monitor flow, nozzle pattern, tank level, etc. Meth is safe as long as it is actually doing what it is supposed to do, it's when something doesn't work like it is supposed to that bad things can happen.

3) Your VE dropoff doctrine is something my time slips directly disproved. If VE fell off a cliff at 5k, I wouldn’t have gained time shifting at 6200. But I did. Three times.

Addressed earlier. You are paying a major backpressure penality for the amount of power you are trying to make at higher rpms. You would be much better served with lower boost and more VE in the base engine combination. You could make the same power at a lower boost level or less stress on the engine at your proposed boost level especially the valvetrain.

4) Your MBT ceiling is your ceiling, not the platform’s.

You obviously still don't understand what MBT timing is. Why do you explain what you think it is in a different thread so you can be corrected once and for all.

5) Your “stock location turbos are done at X” is a claim I bypassed on the track before upgrading them.

I don't remember this conversation, but the stock turbine housing is a major limiting factor of overall airflow. That is fact.

6) Your attempt to downplay proven results as Hail Mary passes while ignoring your LT’s own one-shot 11.1 attempt is noted.

Your car would be deep in the 10s if you had another 1000 rpms of VE range of the basic engine package with the same mods. You would maintain more "average" horsepower throughout the entire 1/4 mile pass. That's what makes ET drop.

7) Your fallback to psychological terms like Dunning-Kruger rather than mechanical argument is the clearest sign the technical side is already over.

And I’ll close with this, because it’s the part you still pretend not to understand:
I didn’t beat your logic because I claimed to be smarter than you.

I beat your logic because I stopped outsourcing my thinking to anyone, trusted my own instincts, gathered real results, learned what worked, studied why it worked, and used AI as a force multiplier to confirm the physics behind those results.
That’s why the platform limits you preach do not match the platform limits I broke on pavement.

I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine. You have been throwing out abstract concepts to explain simple things that I have already thoroughly explained over and over again. And you chose to make this a personal attack because I was giving you factual information about the current illimitations of the 10-12 pcm. Tell me that isn't the case......

You wanted an intelligent discussion.

This is one.

Just from my side unfortunately. You chose to make this personal and really show everyone how much you really don't know. Your fault sir.

The rest is slips, logs, data, and a build that will be back on the ground, running stronger than ever, without needing even a fraction of your approval.

That's where you are wrong again. I would love to see this platform progress and be a solid 10 second or faster family sedan, but that is not the case until the inherent deficiencies are addressed. This has yet to be done by anyone including me and you.

 

[6500rpm]

@mattr66usa, this could really be a good thread for a lot of us if we stick to tuning aspects/theories. I've strictly repaired new cars for the last 40 years, a huge number of repairs/ recall fixes are strictly reflash oriented theses days coming all the way back from the EE rock and lock proms of yesteryear, but I've never delved into anything other than finding and uploading the patches offered by various manufacturers. ****, I'd even be interested in what other tuners like Ryan Martin can add, or Jordan. I have no idea what he's done with Ecoboost engines, but from what I've seen on tv, he definitely knows how to deal with his fireball Camaro. Also, there seems to be limitations between 2013+ and prior pcm's. I'm not sure we've ever had a comprehensive tuning thread so this is interesting to me.
I'm in a 2013 daily which probably covers the majority of us with the occasional short stop light pull, or long pull in Mexico against like minded vehicles, or the occasional track pull for real world times. Under these conditions there's not a lot of time for the pcm to react if you want to look at average pulls under 12 seconds. Methanol has always interested me, for the cleaning effect on the daily as much as an increase in power. For those reasons, I'd most likely tap the intake runners for methanol for valve cleaning, and I'm doubtful iat2 would be of much use.

I guess what I'm asking is if there's any way we can morph this into something useful to the tuning layman, cause and effect, what to look at on data logs.

 

[802SHO]

It’s funny to redirect tuning questions to the same person who’s been actively dodging tuning questions this entire thread. If he had something useful to say on the tuning side, we wouldn’t be six pages deep in detours and timelines.

I’m happy to keep the conversation technical, but let’s not pretend the lack of clarity so far is coming from the people actually explaining the physics.

 

[802SHO]

It’s really simple. With 100% meth on this platform, IAT2 will usually sit right around ambient or even about 10° below it. Your knock sensors will be at full –4.0 adding timing hard, so you’ll want to watch that and cap them if needed. When the meth comes in — with a proper tune — fuel trims will lean out, and the meth fills the gap, usually landing you right back in that .80–.85 lambda range depending on the setup. You’ll also see fuel pressure rise; it’s normal to see 2300–2400 psi consistently since meth is taking roughly 15% of the load off the HPFP.

And because meth drops combustion temp, increases knock margin, and stabilizes load under SD modeling, you can usually raise boost a safe 2–3 psi over your non-meth setup. The key is that the PCM isn’t fighting pull after pull — airflow, temp, and timing all stay more consistent instead of collapsing from heat. Done right, the car will be fast as **** and repeatable.

 

[802SHO]

With a nice high quality brand like Alky Control you can leave Julio’s preset controller settings as is and no reason to set your target ON psi lower than 6 psi. I have tried lower and it’s just a waste of meth. I leave mine on 7psi bc I can’t tell the difference between 6 and 8 WOT. Under your set psi there’s not enough load to worry about anything so you don’t spray.

It’s really easy and simple. If you want more info on what it’s like to install and test, and
go through the motions of what tuning is like when done properly let me know. It’s a modification much like getting a tune for the first time. Once you experience it, you’ll never go back.

 

[802SHO]

I’m going to make a dedicated 100% meth thread dedicated to brand awareness, install, testing, what it’s like having a tuner not use it and the difference of a tuner that does.

My entire existence as 802SHO was born from methanol bc I literally joined the EcoboostPerfomanceforum just to be able to contact AJPTurbo. I made one introduction as 802SHO and sent Brad a DM.

The very backbone of my car and success is with 100% methanol. I was molded by it, sharpened by it, defined by it and forged in the combustion of it.

Every single track slip of mine has 100% methanol in it. Without 100% methanol 802SHO doesn’t exist.