BPD is still on the stock original transmission, with over 75K on it.  Yes he is running the middle tune file, which is below the threshold that FMC saw transmission failures. 

As for the new bigger pumps, my concern is cam failure.  On the transverse platform, the pump is in the middle of the cam, not towards the rear of the head like on the F150.

Cam failure would NOT be good!  I am sure though that the new pump will only be released after thorough testing, so there's at least that ...

Quote from: StealBlueSho on November 25, 2016, 03:48:51 PM
Just an FYI, I pinged LMS on Facebook about when they are going to be getting an upgraded HPFP for the SHO 3.5 Ecoboost. The response was "Very Shortly"... 

Positive news for those of use who are not knock limited but fuel pressure limited...

We are still testing the HPFP, working on the fuel line and manufacturing now so stay tuned and keep an eye on what updates come out "Shortly" as we progress to the final product.

Quote from: ZSHO on November 28, 2016, 09:50:08 PM
I hope LME will chime in and shed some light on exactly what's in the works.....fingers crossed.  Z

We cannot disclose any more specific details until the official release once everything is buttoned up and ready for sale. Our goal is to release the HPFP as soon as possible but, like all of our in-house manufactured and engineered parts, we want to provide the highest quality of craftsmanship and function to the consumer. We want these to be free of any issues that could arise during a scramble to release effort. So everyone be patient, they will be worth the wait!

Stay tuned on all of our outlets for the official release.

I truly appreciate LME keeping the ecoboost community up to date with there latest upgrades to the ecoboost platform. Z 

Quote from: J-Will on November 29, 2016, 10:47:34 AM
More vehicles are limited by fuel than are breaking the trans.  If this is an evolutionary process, then fixing the fuel problem first takes priority.  Call it supply and demand, or the scientific process of getting a sufficient population to higher HP levels to see where the next limitation is or what consistently breaks next.

Will this cause other issues to surface?  Yes.  And hopefully an aftermarket company will fix that too.  Will it be the LP?  Will it be the trans?  We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

I'm running 17+ PSI with 25 degrees of advance with E30.

Quite honestly, I don't think we need full E85 capability except for the convenience factor. With DI, a blend is the best of all worlds....massive knock resistance, fuel economy (if you care about such things) and the add packs that come with top tier 93. E-85 is great but keep in mind it is made with the crappiest base stock to be found.

Play with the enrichment...you don't need as much as soon with E85 directly injected. Look at the Ford/AVL study in the fuels section, the answer is there.

The 30% buffer of the upgraded pump would allow at least E40-50 which will allow you to crank up the spark ...to a level that will probably blow the motor before you see knock.

Quote from: ZSHO on November 29, 2016, 01:38:57 PM
I truly appreciate LME keeping the ecoboost community up to date with there latest upgrades to the ecoboost platform. Z 

No problem! We want to get provide as much info as possible but cant give away all of our secrets!

Quote from: EcoPowerParts on November 29, 2016, 09:56:01 AMBTW, BPD I have no issue with you putting LMS says before all of your statements, that lets people know that it's coming from them but when you make these comments it looks like it's coming from actual information that you have tried/done yourself and you and I both know that you only know what you are informed of, you don't have real world experience actually building/creating modifications with results. I remember a day when you were parroting the whole E85 is bad thing but now that LMS has changed their position....
In the end I only know what I've done to my car that I've tested and have results on, sometimes I'll take others word on things but I still trust but verify. I think it was pretty dang courageous of me to take a $30K+++ Flex and tear the manifold off and have injector bungs welded on there to try an experiment in fueling and it worked out, paying off with the first 600WHP dyno pull. If only the dang trans had held together but it is what it is.

Does the above even dignify a reply? Meh...... perhaps.

1st off Mike, thanks for letting me and others know, that you have "no issue with (me) putting LMS says before all of (my) statements". Forgive me for not realizing I needed your permission, or rather blessing that is, to post whatever I choose to here.

As far as your presumptions of me not having real world experience..... It's just that, presumptions.
You have no clue about my background, or anything prior to my involvement with the SHO platform.

My SHO is not my 1st rodeo, as I have been modding cars for 30yrs now, harkening back to my days at high school auto shop.

I have a long laundry list of successful project cars during that span.

Do you unbolt parts from your car, and send them off to someone else for modification? Yes. Should that be construed as actual fabrication in the true sense? No. Absolutely not.

You taking apart your Flex, is no more courageous then me having begun modding my $45K+ SHO, starting on day 3 of its ownership.

As far as your claims of me having "parroted" E85 and LMS's support of it. Like you, and many others, I consult those in the know when I don't know something myself. I, like you and many others, also perform research as well. My opinions on E85, or its use, have not changed, and nor does my original post here, about the LPFP having never been the issue. If you consider research as being "parroting" well, then who am I to change your mind? I've long overgrown beating the proverbial dead horse with you.

For the record, LMS has always had the mere ability to tune for E85. Dan will tell you that he is more comfortable with E85 now, than in years past, as the EPA has stepped in, and (forcibly) mandated better regulations.  But in a nutshell, their position has not changed, contrary to what you think.  They still don't recommend its use, and they have their reasons for that. Which I will defer to them to expound upon. Still, just goes to show you've made yet another, presumption.

As far as your claimed 600whp pull...... it's just that, an unsupported, never proven claim. You posted a video that proved 597whp. Granted, is that close to 600? Yes. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Moving along to the below.....

Quote from: EcoPowerParts on November 29, 2016, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: J-Will on November 29, 2016, 10:47:34 AM
More vehicles are limited by fuel than are breaking the trans.  If this is an evolutionary process, then fixing the fuel problem first takes priority.  Call it supply and demand, or the scientific process of getting a sufficient population to higher HP levels to see where the next limitation is or what consistently breaks next.
Will this cause other issues to surface?  Yes.  And hopefully an aftermarket company will fix that too.  Will it be the LP?  Will it be the trans?  We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

It's the transmission, as per my post all the 550+ WHP cars have broken their trans so far except BPD as he's detuned or he's done it and not talking about it. I know for a fact that the other two have as well as I did in my Flex.

You and J-Will both present good points here.

The fueling issues center completely around the HPFP.

I, and many others, are excited about this newest development in the modified, HPFP arena. Perhaps a benefit of its implementation, will be a decreased dependency on the Methanol (for those that are running it like me)? Who knows? I look forward to the results regardless, and I hear the tentative results look quite impressive to say the least.

But yes, once there are more owners out there running the higher horsepower, EB based power plants, then the transmission certainly becomes an almost near identical issue/challenge as the fueling has been.

Just as quickly as you post factual information, there you go again, spewing forth your presumptions.

I am in fact still running my OEM Trans. It is still running strong to this day. That's about the only thing I have left on my SHO to tackle. When I am ready to, I will place my trust in those whom I believe in, to perform the job correctly.

As far as your presumptions on me having de-tuned. Also incorrect. I have actually been running my 525whp file this entire year. Without issue. Although I would never trust you to touch my car, anyone else that would like to pay to have my car inspected to verify that I am indeed still running my original Trans, and anyone else  that would like to pay to inspect my ECM to see that I haven't re-flashed it, by all means.

In the end Mike, I know you and I will never see eye to eye. Unlike you, I accepted that fact a long time ago. I also know that unlike you, I don't have as much stake in the game as you do. But then again, I am not running a business like you are. So I understand how/why, you react the way you do.

My only stake in this game, entails me hopping in/out of my SHO and experiencing that ever infamous "perma-grin" each time I motor her around. Whether that happens to be on the street, or at the track.

I have many people, and vendors to thank for that. LMS being one of them. I will never forget paying respect to each of them accordingly. That said, I'll follow my path, you follow yours. No harm in doing that, that's for sure. Have a nice day.

Everyone, we wanted to come in here and clear things up. Firstly, that anyone sent us down this path other than ourselves is unfortunately not remotely accurate. We started down this path over 4 years ago to come up with a solution for the lack of fueling for gasoline. As, even on 100% gasoline these can run out of fuel with only a tune. To combat this we have implemented many safety features into our tune if this ever happens, but we always wanted to go down the path of finding a true solution for fueling. And now, we are on the doorstep of releasing it. BTW, we designed, and made this solution in house, on our CNC machines, and tested it on our vehicles. So those who felt it necessary to comment on us marketing someone else's product and marking it up are way off base. We are actually substantially cheaper on the 2.3 EB version than other companies. Now, in those situations where we subcontract a product out, we don't just mark it up. Contrary to the implications contained within a certain post, we do indeed make changes to a product, and this is not free to do so. As such, this can impact pricing. However, that's another topic for another time and another thread.

Let's look back at what we have posted in the past, since there seems to be some fogginess around it:

Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on March 11, 2014, 07:24:36 PM
As others have mentioned, E85 is not something that should be played with. Just the inconsistency of the fuel alone is reason not to chance it. The problem is there are very few regulations on how E85 is blended and what it is blended with, so you can't trust it's octane level. Proponents of E85 will tell you to use a test strip to check ethanol content, but that's all it tells you, how much ethanol is in it, not what the rest of the stuff is.

WHEN E85 is good it's pretty cool stuff, but that's just the problem, you don't know when it's good or not. This is why, if you notice, there are no flex-fuel cars made that recommend premium fuel. Every Flex Fuel car and truck is designed to run on 87, or E85. Even the OEM's know that E85 cannot be trusted much beyond 87 octane.

We spent a great deal of time developing the calibrations we offer to ensure the most possible power while being reliable. I definitely feel your pain on only having 91, but we did our best to close the gap between the two tunes to those out west and south of us don't miss out on too much of the fun

Now, this was over 2 and a half years ago that we posted this, and as mentioned above, there has been a mandate that was forced upon the ethanol producers to ensure better quality fuel.  And, if you look further, we posted this about our main issue with using any amount of ethanol, let alone E85:

Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on April 29, 2014, 06:50:34 PM
As for the E85 and the EcoBoost, our position has not changed. This is a hardware problem, so until a new HPFP exists (the only real way to increase flow) E85 will not be supported. And even as such, the video clearly states we recommend C85 so it's of proper quality. We know people are going to do what they want, and it's their choice to do so in the long run, so long as the car is properly set up for it.

Again, this was approximately 2.5 years ago, but, now we have devised a proper solution to be able to support enough flow for E85, combined with improved quality of fuel. These two items together have allowed us to start supporting this. One happening without the other would still have us holding back support on E85. And when we support E85, it's going to be a full flex fuel setup, not the "set percentage" tunes that are often referred to.

In summary, you will support what you feel comfortable with, as well you should.  Looking forward to the new HPFP being released ASAP

Full flex fuel setup?

To me that means a HPFP able to maintain required rail pressure and fuel volume coupled with an inline ethanol sensor and supportive tuning.

Pretty damn exciting if you ask me!

Hopefully everyone has said their peace now and we can keep this thread moving in a positive direction.

Always exciting to see vendors pushing the platform to new levels and it does seem LMS has done the lions share of that with the SHOs thus far.
Now that being said . . . i don't find it coincidental that LMS' pump is coming out right around(or just after) at least one other company started offering new HPFP upgrades on the EB F150.

QuoteBTW, we designed, and made this solution in house, on our CNC machines, and tested it on our vehicles. So those who felt it necessary to comment on us marketing someone else's product and marking it up are way off base. We are actually substantially cheaper on the 2.3 EB version than other companies. Now, in those situations where we subcontract a product out, we don't just mark it up. Contrary to the implications contained within a certain post, we do indeed make changes to a product, and this is not free to do so

I would guess what we see come from Livernois will include the same major component as other vendors with modifications to make it plug-n-play on the SHO's.

I think we need to move on as we are fast approaching the final stages of development and certainly will continue this open discussion but until then may you live long and prosper my friends.  Z 

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on December 02, 2016, 04:52:01 PM
Full flex fuel setup?

To me that means a HPFP able to maintain required rail pressure and fuel volume coupled with an inline ethanol sensor and supportive tuning.

Pretty damn exciting if you ask me!

Hopefully everyone has said their peace now and we can keep this thread moving in a positive direction.

I don't think an ethanol sensor is necessarily needed, as ford uses the wideband O2s and maybe another stock sensor or two, in the flex fuel cars to determine a PID called "Alcohol percentage" or something similar. I am unsure if this is available on the SHO or can be made available, but if so, the ford logic should work.

A co-worker of mine runs a 5.0 mustang, with the alcohol percentage PID being monitored and used by his tune, to add spark, etc. based on E percentage.

Quote from: derfdog15 on December 03, 2016, 12:27:11 AM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on December 02, 2016, 04:52:01 PM
Full flex fuel setup?

To me that means a HPFP able to maintain required rail pressure and fuel volume coupled with an inline ethanol sensor and supportive tuning.

Pretty damn exciting if you ask me!

Hopefully everyone has said their peace now and we can keep this thread moving in a positive direction.

I don't think an ethanol sensor is necessarily needed, as ford uses the wideband O2s and maybe another stock sensor or two, in the flex fuel cars to determine a PID called "Alcohol percentage" or something similar. I am unsure if this is available on the SHO or can be made available, but if so, the ford logic should work.

A co-worker of mine runs a 5.0 mustang, with the alcohol percentage PID being monitored and used by his tune, to add spark, etc. based on E percentage.

That is correct but unless they've figured out how to find/unlock that in the ECU, an outboard sensor would be needed.

Since its a Bosch ECU, I've wondered if flex fuel capability is there but hidden/disabled, especially since the original "Twinforce" was a FFV.

There are some tools for hacking our ECU's that are much more powerful than SCT. Tempting, but since I don't want a bricked ECU and I like to tinker I won't mess with them.

Im looking forward to this and see where it all goes.. This plat form is awesome and the 2 top tuner from what I have gathered are LMS and UNLEASHED which I will be testing both of them.