• Welcome to Ecoboost Performance Forum. Please log in or sign up.
collapse

Looking to switch to unleashed

Started by brandont, August 25, 2014, 06:54:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

IHeartGroceries

There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.

But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
2013 SHO PP

EcoPowerParts

#46
I've responded to you in bold and with that I'm done.

Now, addressing the facts. 91 octane from various regions of course varies slightly, but dear lord, if you have your tune so much on asswhooper that you are having to adjust it because you went to a different station that is part of the problem that shows lack of wisdom in tuning. These are peoples cars, their 40k+ investment, why would anyone want to have to load a different tune everytime they decided to fill up somewhere else than normal, or go out of town?

Yes in town here between two stations with stock tune - not modified I will ping and so do others - STOCK FORD TUNE

Back again on datalogging, these loggers people are using have been proven to be incorrect. A great example is a/f ratio. People continue to request a/f ratio to tune these, and many other cars, but the computer doesn't speak in A/F, so an outside company takes a generic PID (which is broadcast much slower than the way we log) and converts it to a/f. But how is this done? You can't calculate A/F without knowing at the bare minimum the stoichiometric A/F of the fuel you're running. What if it's 14.64, 14.58, 14.53, 14.08, 13.71, etc? The A/F calculation changes based on this, as would the tuning associated with it. This flawed system of datalogging is why it takes so many attempts back and forth to get it better, but also why you never see that need with us. We know enough about these cars that we don't need logs. And in the rare occasion we are stumped, we load the tune into one of 11 different ecoboost vehicles at our disposal and recreate it.

SCT doesn't log in A/F it logs in lambda, what the ECU spits out - not A/F you guys are an SCT house, you know this. You use PID's too, that's what Ford uses, it's created to make the data stream, utilize it etc. It's the definition of data in the ECU:

BD-II PIDs (On-board diagnostics Parameter IDs) are codes used to request data from a vehicle, used as a diagnostic tool.

SAE standard J/1979 defines many PIDs, but manufacturers also define many more PIDs specific to their vehicles. All light duty vehicles (i.e. less than 8,500 pounds) sold in North America since 1996, as well as medium duty vehicles (i.e. 8,500-14,000 pounds) beginning in 2005, and heavy duty vehicles (i.e. greater than 14,000 pounds) beginning in 2010,[citation needed] are required to support OBD-II diagnostics, using a standardized data link connector, and a subset of the SAE J/1979 defined PIDs (or SAE J/1939 as applicable for medium/heavy duty vehicles), primarily for state mandated emissions inspections.

Typically, an automotive technician will use PIDs with a scan tool connected to the vehicle's OBD-II connector.

Another glaring issue with logging is you are asking customers to go out, and run their car hard with a potential issue. It takes just one WOT run with the tune wrong to blow it up. I also don't know how anyone can ask someone to go run these cars in 4th gear on public roads to gather accurate info. Doing a WOT run in 1st and 2nd does not load these cars properly, so not having an log at low load is rather meaningless. I don't know who here wants to sign up to run from 80-140 repeatedly to get important information. And on top of that, by doing so you are watching info, while not knowing if it's right or wrong, so if it's wrong it's very easily going to be too late, the damage will be done, all so someone can get a log that now is worthless since the car is damaged. Again, just another reason why we use our cars to do this.

For people who want to do the most with their cars - gearheads yes we are all prepared to do this, over and over to get the most out of our cars. You act as if I'm a tuner, I'm NOT and don't want to be, I'm just questioning some of the things you say, some of the technical things which are unfortuantely incorrect. I've made plenty of high load pulls - the track is the BEST place to do this, works fantastic. A good tuner will start with a very conservative timing/boost map and then move up from there, just as you did when you started your tunes. Then you up the timing and boost until you get knock or spark blow out etc etc etc. Again, my experience as a customer of Torrie's, Erick's and others. For the guys looking to be top you do things like that, just like you did on BPD's SHO with respect to the new motor/heads etc, you had to find out the max.

When tuned with the right logic, and knowledge behind it, the tune is right from the word go. You don't see Ford going around tuning the car differently for various regions, brands of fuel, or anything like that.

No you see Ford detuning massively OTHERWISE you wouldn't exist, right?

You have also accused us in the past of copying others, which is unfortunate. Let me just spell out some facts about us, our tuning, our products, and the results from it.

I don't remember that happening, are you talking about how you took the same cats from our downpipes and put them on yours? Great job, now you offer a set of downpipes that have come down in price massively since introduced and now pass emissions based off of competition. If you would have offered those downpipes when you came out at the price you're currently at I'd probably never have started working with PPE.

First 600whp EcoBoost Dyno captured on video

Nice jab, thanks for perpetuating that it didn't happen, great job there... I'm happy with the results of my tune and the power output and would happily have the witnesses there sign an affidavit testifying to the fact that it happened. Sorry I didn't video EVERY pull that night, around 20-30 overall as we were going through tuning revisions with the aux fueling controller. I like how I find out the source of that rumor, that I lied about my HP comes from you, thanks for confirmation.

We spend a great deal of time and resources making certain what we have is the best out there, and the easiest, most reliable offering. We would love to be able to charge our customers, and then make them do the work for us, but it's not how we operate.

Some guys want adjust-ability, they should have that, you don't have to provide it, it's completely OK that others do. Not all tuners will fit all customers profile, you don't have to have EVERY customer. Now if someone offers a tuner at a lower price with the capability to do adjustments then that's freaking awesome, WIN WIN for me, maybe not for others.
Mike B | info@ecopowerparts.com
www.ecopowerparts.com -
please use my website for any price quotes and to submit any orders.
Please email me via info@ecopowerparts.com if you have any questions on new or existing orders, PM's via the forum are hard to track your purchase as I can't relate user name to actual name.
https://www.facebook.com/ecopowerparts

Livernois Motorsports

Quote from: IHeartGroceries on August 27, 2014, 02:15:58 PM
There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.

But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


IHeartGroceries

Thanks for the reply

Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.

This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...

Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period

Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.

Here is a chart of GGE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent


Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary

LME


EcoPowerParts

At least you guys are now validating E85 as a valid pump fuel to use, glad to hear. I agree that the fuel system is taxed from the factory and to be careful with mixing.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Mike B | info@ecopowerparts.com
www.ecopowerparts.com -
please use my website for any price quotes and to submit any orders.
Please email me via info@ecopowerparts.com if you have any questions on new or existing orders, PM's via the forum are hard to track your purchase as I can't relate user name to actual name.
https://www.facebook.com/ecopowerparts

Livernois Motorsports

Yes in town here between two stations with stock tune - not modified I will ping and so do others - STOCK FORD TUNE

Well if your detonating stock from Ford I'm not sure I would want to tune with that fuel period. Adding more boost is not the right thing to do.


SCT doesn't log in A/F it logs in lambda, what the ECU spits out - not A/F you guys are an SCT house, you know this. You use PID's too, that's what Ford uses, it's created to make the data stream, utilize it etc. It's the definition of data in the ECU:

We didn't say SCT but do you realize there are literally 50+ PIDS of Lambda in the ECM? Your hoping whoever picked the Lambda in whatever software your using for you to view is looking at the right one?

There are Lambda with different delays and offsets, and we have seen this incorrect data. Again why we don't let data logging impact our tuning unless it's done in-house.
 

BD-II PIDs (On-board diagnostics Parameter IDs) are codes used to request data from a vehicle, used as a diagnostic tool.

SAE standard J/1979 defines many PIDs, but manufacturers also define many more PIDs specific to their vehicles. All light duty vehicles (i.e. less than 8,500 pounds) sold in North America since 1996, as well as medium duty vehicles (i.e. 8,500-14,000 pounds) beginning in 2005, and heavy duty vehicles (i.e. greater than 14,000 pounds) beginning in 2010,[citation needed] are required to support OBD-II diagnostics, using a standardized data link connector, and a subset of the SAE J/1979 defined PIDs (or SAE J/1939 as applicable for medium/heavy duty vehicles), primarily for state mandated emissions inspections.

Typically, an automotive technician will use PIDs with a scan tool connected to the vehicle's OBD-II connector.

This data is for diagnostics and repair shops this data is not required/designed to make changes to the ECM for tuning but nice try
SAE standard J/1979 is a ptotocal that lets people with tools like the snap on scan tool and others view very minimal data. Again something not relevant to tuning an entire engine properly



For people who want to do the most with their cars - gearheads yes we are all prepared to do this, over and over to get the most out of our cars. You act as if I'm a tuner, I'm NOT and don't want to be, I'm just questioning some of the things you say, some of the technical things which are unfortuantely incorrect. I've made plenty of high load pulls - the track is the BEST place to do this, works fantastic. A good tuner will start with a very conservative timing/boost map and then move up from there, just as you did when you started your tunes. Then you up the timing and boost until you get knock or spark blow out etc etc etc. Again, my experience as a customer of Torrie's, Erick's and others. For the guys looking to be top you do things like that, just like you did on BPD's SHO with respect to the new motor/heads etc, you had to find out the max.

I would be willing to bet very few are doing datalogs in 4th gear to 140MPH?


No you see Ford detuning massively OTHERWISE you wouldn't exist, right?

We see ford tuning Differently

You have also accused us in the past of copying others, which is unfortunate. Let me just spell out some facts about us, our tuning, our products, and the results from it.


I don't remember that happening, are you talking about how you took the same cats from our downpipes and put them on yours? Great job, now you offer a set of downpipes that have come down in price massively since introduced and now pass emissions based off of competition. If you would have offered those downpipes when you came out at the price you're currently at I'd probably never have started working with PPE.


Look back through your posts you claimed we copied SCT.
We clearly don't make our pipes here there made by American Racing. He switched all his cats for all his products. They are also all 100% made in the USA. We don't use the same cat as you.



Nice jab, thanks for perpetuating that it didn't happen, great job there... I'm happy with the results of my tune and the power output and would happily have the witnesses there sign an affidavit testifying to the fact that it happened. Sorry I didn't video EVERY pull that night, around 20-30 overall as we were going through tuning revisions with the aux fueling controller. I like how I find out the source of that rumor, that I lied about my HP comes from you, thanks for confirmation.

We are just stating that it's the first captured on video. Like the other vehicles we were the first to set records in basically every category we are in



Some guys want adjust-ability, they should have that, you don't have to provide it, it's completely OK that others do. Not all tuners will fit all customers profile, you don't have to have EVERY customer. Now if someone offers a tuner at a lower price with the capability to do adjustments then that's freaking awesome, WIN WIN for me, maybe not for others.

We will do any adjusting customers want (as long as it safe), call or email in. We pride ourselves in making custom tunes tailored to anyone. We also can change more parameters than anyone currently offers. That's how we got started in this whole tuning.



Livernois Motorsports


[/quote]
Quote from: 4DRHTRD on August 27, 2014, 03:36:30 PM
At least you guys are now validating E85 as a valid pump fuel to use, glad to hear. I agree that the fuel system is taxed from the factory and to be careful with mixing.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk



Only recently has the fuel got better.

Remember we have oem engineers walking around here and when they do tests and say its no good and we see the data we can't argue. Data is data.

We always suggest people use the VP C85 its really really good. And its also tested before it leaves

Its also nice to see you agree with us on the fuel system being taxed. We have been trying to tell you an others the danger of the fuel system when being used with E85

LME

EcoPowerParts

I guess we've been lucky out here to have good E85 for a few years then. :)

Hopefully you guys will fully support E85 as a tuning solution once there's a complete bolt in fuel system upgrade with control for the aux injectors. As we both know this motor loves timing and if there's enough E85 flowing the numbers it can produce on ATP turbos are amazing.
Since you guys are tied so directly with the ECU it's control/functions figure out a way to make it work on conjunction with an AEM or ProEFI aux injector controller without fighting. I'm hoping to have a proof of concept soon, you guys can build it much quicker, you have more resources and more partners. Just remember to give credit where credit is due if you come out with it.
Mike B | info@ecopowerparts.com
www.ecopowerparts.com -
please use my website for any price quotes and to submit any orders.
Please email me via info@ecopowerparts.com if you have any questions on new or existing orders, PM's via the forum are hard to track your purchase as I can't relate user name to actual name.
https://www.facebook.com/ecopowerparts

bpd1151

Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 01:18:38 PMLet me just spell out some facts about us, our tuning, our products, and the results from it.

In 2009, before anyone had software, we were tuning the SHO and MKS.

In 2011, we were tuning the f150 Eco before other companies could even flash it. We were the first again

In 2012, we were tuning the 2013 SHO while other software wasn't out for 6-8 months later

In 2012, we were tuning the Explorer Sport, almost a full year and a half before anyone else.

First to tune the 2.0 fusion

First to tune the 1.5 fusion

First to tune the 1.6 fusion

First to tune the 2.0 escape

First to tune the 1.6 escape

First tune only 12 second SHO

First 11 second SHO

First 12 second F150

First 12 second Explorer Sport

First with upgraded turbo's

First with Downpipes

First with Methanol kits

First to offer 3-bar tuning

First 600whp EcoBoost Dyno captured on video

Highest HP EcoBoost Engine on the planet


Just take a minute to look at the fast list, read it over, and see where our tuned cars are at. I guess it's hard to argue with results.


Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 08:35:37 PMIt's time to set the coolaid down and try a different flavor...

Hhmmmm......

Looking over that LONG list of 1st's for LMS, and coupling it with the fact that LMS car's hold down the list of fastest cars etc......

I, and many others will be more than happy NOT trying out any different flavored Kool-Aid.  :alkashi:






FoMoCoSHO

Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: IHeartGroceries on August 27, 2014, 02:15:58 PM
There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.

But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


IHeartGroceries

Thanks for the reply

Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.

This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...

Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period

Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.

Here is a chart of GGE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent


Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary

LME
The fuel pump number and specs come directly from a Ford dealership parts department. I had this researched when I had the fuel pump recall done as I was curious why no previous years were affected.

Isn't Ford using Bosch DI-Motronic for their system? Bosch says they are. More than a few publications have indicated this is correct also. The parts look exactly the same also. Bosch rates their system for 3k PSI and they claim it is fine for any worldwide fuel including E-85. The question is if indeed it is this system, what has Ford done to lock it down to 2150 PSI?

I don't care about running straight E-85 as I'm sure the law of diminishing returns is at play. Hell Fords collaboration with the "ethanol boosting" concept shows the biggest benefits being a tiny bit of E directly injected. Tiny bit being a meth size tank refilled at normal service intervals.

At 30% we are about 1.13 times straight fuel needed, not the almost 1.4 quoted in your chart. If the fuel system is that taxed stock, how is there ANY room for tuning...straight gas or otherwise? Ford has OK'd E-15 so taking that into account E-30 is only 1.065 above Fords rating.

After many months and a max of about 46% E-85 stock there were no CEL's, no DTC's, no warnings of any kind. (VIA IDS, Torque, Dashcommand, and OBDLink) Fuel trims were pushed beyond Fords stated limits in their OBD system operation summary yet...nothing. Fuel mileage was good, in fact at some blend percentages it was a bit better than stock. The only change with the data I had available was that my 1/4 mile time dropped by 4/10ths (At 25% which was also where I saw the best MPGs), which incidentally, Torque indicated but I was skeptical about. Till i saw my time slips...It felt stronger but who trusts the butt dyno?

These are my experiences researching, using, and testing E-85, YMMV.

Flame suit engaged.





SHOmanMike84

Quote from: bpd1151 on August 27, 2014, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 01:18:38 PMLet me just spell out some facts about us, our tuning, our products, and the results from it.

In 2009, before anyone had software, we were tuning the SHO and MKS.

In 2011, we were tuning the f150 Eco before other companies could even flash it. We were the first again

In 2012, we were tuning the 2013 SHO while other software wasn't out for 6-8 months later

In 2012, we were tuning the Explorer Sport, almost a full year and a half before anyone else.

First to tune the 2.0 fusion

First to tune the 1.5 fusion

First to tune the 1.6 fusion

First to tune the 2.0 escape

First to tune the 1.6 escape

First tune only 12 second SHO

First 11 second SHO

First 12 second F150

First 12 second Explorer Sport

First with upgraded turbo's

First with Downpipes

First with Methanol kits

First to offer 3-bar tuning

First 600whp EcoBoost Dyno captured on video

Highest HP EcoBoost Engine on the planet


Just take a minute to look at the fast list, read it over, and see where our tuned cars are at. I guess it's hard to argue with results.


Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 08:35:37 PMIt's time to set the coolaid down and try a different flavor...

Looking over that LONG list of 1st's for LMS, and coupling it with the fact that LMS car's hold down the list of fastest cars etc......



2013 SHO, PP, Unleashed E25 tune, 3bar, aFe panel filter, 170* thermo, PPE catted DP's, 3rd cat delete, Eibach springs, Black powder coated flower wheels.

ShoBoat

Hold up, so are you saying that just by running 25% E you gained almost a 1/2 second in the quarter. That's only 15% more than the E10 available here? I just want to ensure that I get this right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2012 Pearl White CTS-V Stock
2016 Fusion Titanium 2.0 EB Stock
2013 SHO Black on Black (Gone) PP, Unleashed Custom Tune, 170 TStat, SP534 Plugs, 3 Bar, Airaid Intake, PPE catted downpipes, Corsa Cat-back, H&R Springs. Focal 165KR Front Stage,2 JL W6 10 with Focal 800.1. 12.62 @ 110 mph.

panther427

I don't have any time slips but on stock tune with about 25% it feels like a lightly tuned car. It's very cool.   

They changed the way the lift stop works. It has two different duty cycles now aka psi it supply fuel at.
2013 SHO

FoMoCoSHO

Quote from: ShoBoat on August 27, 2014, 07:10:09 PM
Hold up, so are you saying that just by running 25% E you gained almost a 1/2 second in the quarter. That's only 15% more than the E10 available here? I just want to ensure that I get this right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is 100 % accurate.

And my time slips are posted.

FoMoCoSHO

Quote from: panther427 on August 27, 2014, 07:37:26 PM
I don't have any time slips but on stock tune with about 25% it feels like a lightly tuned car. It's very cool.   

They changed the way the lift stop works. It has two different duty cycles now aka psi it supply fuel at.
Variable vs fixed

75 max PSI vs 65

EcoPowerParts

Quote from: bpd1151 on August 27, 2014, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 01:18:38 PMLet me just spell out some facts about us, our tuning, our products, and the results from it.

In 2009, before anyone had software, we were tuning the SHO and MKS.

In 2011, we were tuning the f150 Eco before other companies could even flash it. We were the first again

In 2012, we were tuning the 2013 SHO while other software wasn't out for 6-8 months later

In 2012, we were tuning the Explorer Sport, almost a full year and a half before anyone else.

First to tune the 2.0 fusion

First to tune the 1.5 fusion

First to tune the 1.6 fusion

First to tune the 2.0 escape

First to tune the 1.6 escape

First tune only 12 second SHO

First 11 second SHO

First 12 second F150

First 12 second Explorer Sport

First with upgraded turbo's

First with Downpipes

First with Methanol kits

First to offer 3-bar tuning

First 600whp EcoBoost Dyno captured on video

Highest HP EcoBoost Engine on the planet


Just take a minute to look at the fast list, read it over, and see where our tuned cars are at. I guess it's hard to argue with results.


Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 08:35:37 PMIt's time to set the coolaid down and try a different flavor...

Hhmmmm......

Looking over that LONG list of 1st's for LMS, and coupling it with the fact that LMS car's hold down the list of fastest cars etc......

I, and many others will be more than happy NOT trying out any different flavored Kool-Aid.  :alkashi:




Why are you quoting that with my picture Mike?
You love the look of a big sexy wrestling coach?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Mike B | info@ecopowerparts.com
www.ecopowerparts.com -
please use my website for any price quotes and to submit any orders.
Please email me via info@ecopowerparts.com if you have any questions on new or existing orders, PM's via the forum are hard to track your purchase as I can't relate user name to actual name.
https://www.facebook.com/ecopowerparts