BTW, I just got off the phone with Edge. Shift Firmness is applied across the entire shifting range EXCEPT at WOT.

Thankfully its like I said because otherwise this thing really would be useless to ME. (And then I would have had to sell a brand new unit for a profit, doh!)

So if you guys are experiencing rougher shifts at WOT it must be something else or a combination of something elses. But I get the feeling no one here but me would care to figure it out so I won't bother you with science and engineering and crap.

 

 

yes i mean with wheels too, bridgestone doesnt make a 325 60R 18 either...a 285 and 325 is about 2 inches, which is about 20% more width on the tire... and 18x9's are quite a bit heavier than the stockers

 

and just FYI, edge can say what they want,but when i softened up my shifts, at wot they definetely were not as firm

 

Wait, you softened your shifts? Like, tried to make them less noticeable, not more? And you're getting a new transmission, right?

 

yeah i softened my shifts so my teeth wouldnt chatter when it shifted...i still feel the shifts pretty well, i am at -1 -1 0, and I already had a tranny rebuild, so my shifts about chirped tire at +5, so i turned them down to make them firm but manageable, I dont want everyone who rides in my truck to have to hold on to their drinks when i shift at 5mph. after the rebuild my shifts were pretty firm, I am assuming something was done to the valve body to firm it up.

 

and my tranny went prematurely due to shifting far far far too much because of the big tires and the underpowered 4.6, I doubt that the firmness had anything to do with it. Now that I have a program that will hold overdrive going up a 1/2% grade instead of slamming into 2nd, I think it will last a bit longer

 

Wow, I'm gone for a few days and miss a golden opportunity to jump in and disrupt the forum?

arrabil, you and I have more in common than most of the folks on this board. A vast majority here really have no insight as to how things work, yet MANY of them will (as you so eloquently put it) :

Yeah, I've noticed this A LOT from this member.....


The short answer is there are some on here who will give you a good KNOWLEDGEABLE answer and can back it up, but they are far and few between! I happen to be the latter (yes, pat on the back...)





Bluejay, you are spot on. Ford did leave "some" on the table, as do all auto manufactures.

I suppose I'll use this thread to reveal the answers I got from Edge regarding AFR's and Level 2 & 3.

According to Brian (or was it Brandon??) Ford tunes the 5.4 a bit on the rich side, about 13:1 for longevity sake. The programmers at Edge take advantage of this and lean the AFR out to the nominal 14:1. My biggest question revolving around the AFR was "...is this leaning out the AFR performed across the entire RPM range, or just WOT?" The short answer is across the entire RMP band.

So this makes complete sense as to the claimed (and felt) 25HP gain on Level2 :

A slightly leaner AFR (but safe) and timing advance.

arrabil,

I truly look forward to more of your posts. Someone with whom I can rest assured is NOT just typing words on the screen for the sake of "sounding" like they know what they're talking about......

 

I was wondering when you were going to come poke your head in, maybe you and arrabil can get in an argument about something, we'll have to have the supreme court decide on that one And RMS, tell me one time where I have "insulted" someone but can't take it back, only person I ever remember trying to insult on here is you, and I accept it just as good as the next guy right back, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

 

I believe you have proven my point in this thread alone.

 

Wow, just when I had already lost faith in this board completely. Well, rms8, I appreciate you publicly jumping in. With more than half a dozen people happily exerting an airtight stranglehold on ignorance, this was not a fight that was ever going to go my way otherwise.

Valve body designs get updated pretty often to correct for problems that can really only be found by millions of miles from unwitting testers (read the buying public). I have no idea if you would ever listen to me but I think you're making a HUGE mistake by using negative numbers in the Shift Firmness settings. The line pressure needs to be AT LEAST what Ford put there. They are already decreasing the life span on the transmission with the pressures they choose. Its very possible the only reason you needed a rebuild in the first place is that lowering the line pressure enough could permanently harm it within a few miles. If you even tested something like "-10" once, you engaged two gears for far longer than the tranny could stand it. And for all I know "-1" could be enough to accomplish that. Line pressure isn't just used to cause a shift either, it is also used to flood the clutches with tranny fluid for cooling purposes. Lowering the line pressure will get less fluid to the clutches, slower.

Since I was the target of it I can safely say you've done it at least once in this thread. Twice if I want to be sensitive about it. But, you've also admitted being wrong once and you're still responding to me, so I've had to give your intentions the benefit of the doubt since its hard to understand nuance over the Internet.

rms8, here is what I've been hoping to understand for a while... The design of the engine is for 83 octane or they would have used a higher compression ratio. And there is no more "power" in higher octane gas, just the benefits of higher compression and more controlled burn is gained by itself, correct? When they tune to 91+ octane, all the tuners say they use the longer burn of the higher octane gas to "optimize the combustion reaction in the cylinder." But since higher octane gas is harder to get burning, and burns longer, doesn't that mean there is more pressure and temperature in the cylinder? Are the rings designed for that? Aren't EGTs going past design specs? Wouldn't you also want different rate valve springs and/or crankshaft and camshafts with different lobes to take advantage of the power being produced at a later time in the cycle?

Something (lack of understanding likely) keeps me skeptical about there being no ill effects from using higher octane gas than the engine was designed for even with timing adjustments (though I understand Ford had to take into account the people who put 93 in their stock vehicle because it "cleans better"). And you did say Ford did what they did for longevity.

rms8, you and I apparently like home theater / audio too.

 

Well insulting must mean 2 different things for me and you...but anyways, the -1 is not softer than stock its softer than gryphon canned tunes which is about +20 over stock so basically I run +19, not factual info but that's how it feels to me...I would never want the shifts to be softer than stock...they were horrible

 

I'm glad you explained that. That isn't documented anywhere either (that I can find).

 

From my understanding, since he is running the edge. The edge already creates firmer shifts over stock, so by him going into negative value, he is only getting back closer to stock performance, Therefore it would be no problem at all.

Edit: I see he has already said what I typed

 

Exactly it would honestly be about -20 to get back to stock