I’m not claiming I know everything. I’m claiming we’re testing, measuring, and updating our understanding when new data appears
The HP Tuners Misconception: Control vs Abstraction on the EcoBoost SHO
- Thread starter 802SHO
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
I have a feeling there’s going to be a turning point. I hope for all 10-19 EcoBoost SHO’s…that HPTuners has more defined in the OS’s and with the more control and with the higher quality data capturing. At least I think 10-12 OS will.
But are 13+ folks not reading this stuff? Being technical is new for me but is this not a technical forum much? Because we briefly discussed it’s already capable in a non PP ‘16 SHO that we know of…to increase duty cycle of the RDU and cut faster 60’ times and ET. Or is that already available in SCT?
But are 13+ folks not reading this stuff? Being technical is new for me but is this not a technical forum much? Because we briefly discussed it’s already capable in a non PP ‘16 SHO that we know of…to increase duty cycle of the RDU and cut faster 60’ times and ET. Or is that already available in SCT?
Jordan_R
Stock Block Ready To Knock...er..Rock
Realistically you could just put 12v to it and it would engage fully. It's just an electromagnet in the rdu housing but the problem is the clutches will still slip. Mine burned up. When I send you my locked housing it'll be the best you can get as far as engagement. It'll be a true 4wd with power going to the rear end 100% of the time. Just need to get under the car and pull it.
DadMobile
Worlds 3rd least slowest Ecoboost SHO
Neither Sleeper nor Matt are tuning your car, how can they be a roadblock? It seems like you are the roadblock at this point.
If you knew what the problem was, you would have fixed it already. You’re paying a tuner because you don’t know -not because you do know. The tuner you have doesn’t know either that’s why he contacted HPT. HPT doesn’t know because they have not reverse engineered the PCM yet. All of you seem to be speculating because you don’t know the answer!
You let a bunch of people that don’t know the answer gas you up into chasing ghosts. Then you started using CHATgpt after you burned many bridges. You even developed a relationship with the writing bot and gave it a human name, yikes You talk to it like it’s your best friend, weird.
People do have the answers and some have been handed to you. I’m sure your tuner would love to talk to Matt and share data….
You got so excited thinking you finally found the issue and unblocked me but your problem still persists, it cracks me up. If y’all were right wouldn’t your car be running properly??? It’s logic even a crackhead could follow. Then again, a smart crackhead wouldn’t sell crack out of their workplace for obvious reasons so maybe logic and common sense escapes you.
DadMobile
Worlds 3rd least slowest Ecoboost SHO
You never got your car properly running… you bought a car somebody else built and ran slower times than the builder.
Jordan_R
Stock Block Ready To Knock...er..Rock
I beat their best time by almost 3 tenths letting off at the thousand foot with a 2.0 60' lmao
This is the “slop” you keep talking about. Right here. Slop comes from you, Matt and Sleeper. lol
Keith you recently said, “At this point, I’ll let you and Ryan figure it out.” Which is absolutely hilarious bc that’s what’s been happening this entire time.
-Matt immediately disqualified himself “this is a 10-12 car? I can’t tune this” in his software of choice too LOL
-SleeperSolutions “It’s untunable”
-Keith “at this point I’ll let you and Ryan figure it out”
Meanwhile in a land not governed by armchair experts……
-I keep testing anyway.
-Ryan keeps tuning anyway.
-we hit the 500 Nm brake torque ceiling.
-Johnny exposes the brake torque table.
-we hit the 2.0 load torque-model ceiling.
-Johnny starts exposing the torque-model tables.
-Ryan and Johnny start communicating directly.
Ryan’s last message to me yesterday, “Also I have John looking up a few more tables for me to see if they are in the ecu.”
Everything keeps pushing forward with absolutely no involvement whatsoever from you, Matt or Sleeper. Yet all 3 say it can’t be done.
Keep watching.
-Matt immediately disqualified himself “this is a 10-12 car? I can’t tune this” in his software of choice too LOL
-SleeperSolutions “It’s untunable”
-Keith “at this point I’ll let you and Ryan figure it out”
Meanwhile in a land not governed by armchair experts……
-I keep testing anyway.
-Ryan keeps tuning anyway.
-we hit the 500 Nm brake torque ceiling.
-Johnny exposes the brake torque table.
-we hit the 2.0 load torque-model ceiling.
-Johnny starts exposing the torque-model tables.
-Ryan and Johnny start communicating directly.
Ryan’s last message to me yesterday, “Also I have John looking up a few more tables for me to see if they are in the ecu.”
Everything keeps pushing forward with absolutely no involvement whatsoever from you, Matt or Sleeper. Yet all 3 say it can’t be done.
Keep watching.
You guys are treating the 2010–2012 SHO platform as a finished book where the final chapter was written years ago.
Yet I’m actively treating it as an open-source project and writing a sequel you didn't think was mathematically possible.
Yet I’m actively treating it as an open-source project and writing a sequel you didn't think was mathematically possible.
Sleeper.Solutions86
Member
I never said it was a finish book or anything. If you want to be technical about the missing injector profiling the file I had (THE OS) does not have them. That operating system at that time did not allow you to make changes to it. I was on the latest version of beta for that when that video was taken as well.
Without being able to adjust all of the parameters missing and unable to be adjusted yes the car is basically untunable to me. As in I can’t make the necessary changes for the car to work so from an integrity standpoint it’s better to not tune the car than try and make it work and risk something bad happening. Matt had the same perspective I did. The ECU needs the right data to work correctly. That’s why you’re going thru so much to get your car to do even the simplest things.
I really am trying to LEAD you in the correct direction but refuse to listen to anything but your own thoughts or chat GPT.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Without being able to adjust all of the parameters missing and unable to be adjusted yes the car is basically untunable to me. As in I can’t make the necessary changes for the car to work so from an integrity standpoint it’s better to not tune the car than try and make it work and risk something bad happening. Matt had the same perspective I did. The ECU needs the right data to work correctly. That’s why you’re going thru so much to get your car to do even the simplest things.
I really am trying to LEAD you in the correct direction but refuse to listen to anything but your own thoughts or chat GPT.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think this is probably one of your best responses here. I don’t believe you have no clue at all what you’re talking about. Trying to warn me isn’t a bad thing.
From my perspective all I’ve had is this ‘10 SHO. It never seemed to really be a limited thing until of course the 13+ Tricore came around and everyone got like twice the definitions. I totally get why 2X the options automatically comes with 2X the capability assumption but I think it’s true. I’d agree 13+ is more capable bc it can technically be refined much further.
I just work with what I got and I don’t know what my OS is missing until I looked at my buddy Brendan’s file. I don’t even have an AWD tab in Systems like he does. He didn’t have the rear drive unit menu but his PTU menu was pretty big with a launch boost menu?
Do you have that? Have you made any edits or tested it?
You had me thinking maybe I was actually really missing some fuel definitions and honestly I probably am. Ryan hasn’t been smooth sailing, and over here it’s not all gravy.
I’m learning as I go but it’s really interesting in my stock OS WOT start/stop was set to 1,023 A/D count. That’s 5 volts. Also my stock manual fuel target was 1.0 lambda, enrichment was set to 90% throttle angle too with a .10 enrichment delay. That is crazy right even for a stock car? It’s true right that Ford has these cars going WOT with even a few degrees of knock retard as like a “business as usual, nothing to see here” vibe. Likes it’s normal? I remember hearing that years ago.
Like for early PE I learned that reducing the WOT start/stop to 599 is closer to 2.7 volts if I’m not mistaken, bc the TPS sensor probably maxes at 4.7 so that OEM setting essentially prevented PE in my experience. What worked for early PE and resetting KOM fairly easily with normal driving was
-Wot start/stop 599
-Enrichment delay 0.00
-Enrichment throttle angle 40%
And for good measure manual fuel target of .80 lambda.
Of course with WOT lambda dialed in but Ryan completely missed that. He had no clue. I was ready to fire him bc I was actually getting enriched by COT protection he thankfully left enabled. He thought he was waiting on Johnny to expose some missing PE definition. I didn’t fire him only bc those were stock settings. So I guess he didn’t know….but wtf. David fixed all that.
So from being able to see my file, file sharing and talking with other tuners in HP, and also using AI to help me understand I’ve been able to correct a lot. So I think instead of butting heads I bet your perspective could actually be helpful.
That’s why I’m really hooked on HPTuners. I can view what my calibration is and make edits. And can share it and compare files, how HP highlights what’s been edited in file comparisons is pretty awesome. I don’t think I can go back to getting a file and never know what’s in it.
Right now David believes I have undefined torque arrays in the trans
Similar threads
