Yeah you have some major problems if your not feeling any change with a Superchip! With all the mods' i've done to my 4.6L the Superchip has got to be the best BANG FOR THE BUCK mods on the list...PLEASE ..PLEASE ...PLEASE... Talk to mike personally to get this fixed for you..You WILL NOT be dissapointed!

 

I just added the chip to my 01' 5.4L SCab about a week ago, got it from Mike. I noticed the difference in shifting the first time I opened the throttle. I mean, dont get me wrong, its not like adding a blower, but it is definitely noticable. If you cant feel any difference, or see you shifts kicking harder, I think you either got a bad chip, its installed wrong, or the ECU has been re-flashed by the dealer and the sticker code is the wrong one.

Good Luck, I stand by the chip, and I would buy one again hands down.

~macro~

 

Hello Red,

You've got some definite problems, but they aren't with your Superchip, they are with your testing "methodology," or lack of it, I should more properly say.

Making such rash & unsupportable claims such as "all this tech is false," etc. without having done controlled timed acceleration testing has ZERO credibility.

People dropping a chip in a 2-3 ton truck and expecting it to make some "significant" difference in the seat of the pants are probably going to be disappointed. Now this of course depends on the person, some people install the Superchips tuning and immediately rave about it, while a few others will feel as you do, that sicne it didn't give a big seat of the pants impression that it wasn't worth while. Which is exactly why evaluating mods by seat of the pants just doesn't work well, it's extremely inconsistent as people vary widely in their individual perceptions. Here's the gist: You can't tell the difference in the seat of your pants between a 20.1 second 1/4 mile and a 18.7 second 1/4 mile, it's not possible for you, me or anyone else. Heck, even with all my experience, in one of our F-150's here (a 550+ hp Lightning), I can't feel the difference seat of the pants between a 13.0 1/4 mile and a 12.40 1/4 mile, which is a wide spread for a 5000 lb. truck and requires significant HP gains to lower it's ET from 13.0 to the mid-12's.

You say you worked for Mobil (who I know well, by the way, and we've had numerous other oil companies employees drop by here as well), and it's nice to have another oil company employee (or former employee) drop by and lend their perspective, but the simple fact of the matter is there are *big* differences in the actual energy content, the # of BTU's per gallon of gas, and that makes a significant difference in performance *and* in fuel mileage. We've been discussing that here for years, and there are years of posts from people doing mileage tests comparing Exxon to Amoco, Citgo, Chevron, Conoco, etc. And in virtually every one of them, Exxon showed the lowest mpg of virtually any "name brand" fuel, and has done so consistently over the past 4 years or so. Using "good fuel quality" and the word "Exxon" in the same sentence is a misnomer in my opinion, as Exxon is among the worst "name brand" gasolines anyone interested in best performance or fuel mileage could be using. Exxon is a pretty "clean" fuel, but it's low in enery content on a relative basis, thus delivers less performance and worse fuel mileage compared to higher energy fuels. About 4 years ago Exxon went "reformulated" year-round and their energy content dropped significantly. The funny thing is, we see in some areas Mobil showing higher mpg numbers than Exxon. There have been a lot of oil company mergers over the past few years, and in a number of cases we're still seeing significant difference in the end-result fuel quality even among the merged brands. I would use Mobil before I'd use Exxon, though neither are among my preferred brands.

Now speaking of energy content, about the only way we laymen can determine relative energy content is by fuel mileage testing. Run 3-5 tanks of each brand/source, tracking mileage consistently during the same time of year so you don't get seasonal skew, and the fuel showing the best mpg under the same basic driving conditions is generally the fuel with the higher energy content. And these same fuels also tolerate more aggressive tuning, so between those 2 aspects, we get a good idea of relative fuel quality.

If the Superchip didn't basically do what we say it does, then you would see vastly different posts here on these boards, you wouldn't see almost everyone who has used a Superchip raving about it as is the actual case. Roughly 98% of those using the Superchip rave about it, which is an extremely high approval rating for any performance part.

By the way, I worked in the oil industry for years too, and I've been in virtually every refinery and tank farm in the 48 states, so I've seen much of the commonalities with regard to the fuel distribution system. Which teaches absolutely nothing about fuel quality, or the # of BTU's per gallon or lb. of fuel, by the way, but certainly *can* lead one to think that all fuels are the same, this is a pretty common theme from those who have been in that industry working in an area where they would see the actual distribution. I've seen it too. But the botom line is, what actually comes out of the gasoline pumps across the country varies, we've seen everything from brand-name gasoline retailers buying on the open spot market to get the cheapest possible fuel, which almost invariably ends up providing a lower energy fuel to teh consumer, and many other scenarios. We really don't know for example, the effect of the different additive packages, what effect there is (if any) on the actual BTU content. The bottom line is, we have to deal with what we see, and we do in fact see significant variances in fuel quality, in raw energy content.

This issue of fuel quality variance has gotten much more noticeable over the past 4-5 years with all the "reformulated" fuels, etc., this issue of energy content varying significantly is really something that has become more pronounced in the past few years, though it's always been with us to a lesser extent. We can take 2 fuels of the same 93 octane, and with the exact same tuning on 2 identical F-150's, have 1 vehicle detonate, and deliver worse mileage compared to the other identical F-150 vehicle not suffering from detonation and getting better mpg.
We have to provide tuning for everything from a stock 4.2 V6 like yours to supercharged Lightnings making 700+ HP, all on pump gasoline, and that *can't* be done without knowing about relative fuel quality.

If you wanted to really identify just what these parts have done for your performance, the thing to do would have been to first go out and get some controlled acceleration testing done in stock trim, and then again after your mods. This is done simply by getting corrected 1/4 mile times, or using something like the newer G-Tech Pro models, etc. Get some real data so you'll know what changed in the performance of your vehicle. By getting corrected 1/4 mile times & trap speeds in stock trim, and then doing the same thing *after* installing each of your modifications, that's the best way to actually know what the results *really* are. Nah, that would be too much like "tech," eh?

I'm just teasing here a little bit with you now, so don't get PO'd, I'm simply trying to make a point with a bit of humor.

Since you didn't do that, now you don't know what the combined effect of those 2 modifications actually are. All you know is that you think you're not happy with the results. And that isn't going to change just by you giving it another 300 or 500 miles by the way, your *methodology* is wrong.

This isn't an issue of getting a wrong code of Superchip (the truck wouldn't start at all if that happened in 99.9% of those cases the motor won't even fire at all), nor do I believe that this is from improper installation as some have suggested, I think you probably did just fine there. This is an obvious simple matter of a lack of proper testing methodology, I.E., trying to evaluate performance mods by the seat of the pants, which you just can't do in a 2-3 ton truck.

I think you're probably a nice guy that just hasn't properly evaluated the effect on your vehicle's performance the changes you have done have had, you're judging by seat of the pants. So you're feeling frustrated because you think you're supposed to feel some big difference in the seat of your pants from a chip and whatever you've done to your exhaust, which isn't a realistic expectation in such a heavy vehicle. At this point, we don't know what the effect your exhaust change has had, it may very well have even *cost* you torque, even while gaining some HP at higher rpms at full-throttle. That is the typical result of exhaust mods on these trucks, as very few exhausts are properly designed for these heavier vehicles, and torque loss is common, even though HP has been gained.

To get what I would call a big difference, or something that I think everyone would call a "significant" seat of the pants feel in a 2-3 ton truck generally requires a supercharger. But that doesn't mean that the Superchip isn't doing it's job.

You might want to spend some time properly evaluating your performance changes before saying something as silly as "all this tech is false," etc. I know it's a natural reaction, but the way to determine what mods have done for your performance is to do before & after acceleration testing. You can't feel the difference between a 17.0 second 1/4 mile run and a 16.4 second 1/4 mile run in the seat of the pants in that vehicle, neither can I and this is what we do for a living!

Note: I have edited this post a bit to add some things I had not mentioned before, and to clarify a bit, but due to post length limitations I was not able to go into some other details.

If you like, give us a call & we can go over this with you briefly, to give you some ideas on how you need to go about properly evaluating performance modifications. I can go over with you exactly how to determine just what your Superchip is actually doing for your performance pretty easily, and I'll be happy to do that if you like, ok?

I wish you well my friend,

 

WOW!
That was a lot to read and made me want to ask you a question Mike. I am in the Northern California area and would like to know out of the gas that is manufactured here other than Chevron could you please tell me which has the Highest BTU/ Energy content you speak of. I realize Chevron has the best but I would like a few other choices due to Chevron being so High in price here. Thank you for any info you can supply me with . Just as an example Chevron as of today is 12 cents a gallon more just for 87 octane and the premium just goes up from there compared to other stations and when your talking 20+ gallons of gas sevrale times a week it adds up real fast but I would like the best bang for the buck so to speak.

Sincerely,
Richard D.

 

I have my chip out right now (really freakin high prices in San Diego like $2.15 for 87!!!) and really noticed the diffrence with it removed. Especially the shifting. I have a 5.4l engine so I should notice more of a diffrence than say the 4.2.

The idea behind the chip is simple. Put a higher octane gas in (more energy content) and then change the timing and some other engine settings to utilize the higher octane. There is really no magic behind the chip, it's just that most people don't want to have to put in the higher octane gas and many people (mainly women) don't want a firmer shift. They want a nice cushy ride in thier big SUV.

Ford would kill themselves if they put a chip like feel to the shifting when they sell there cars and trucks.

As for the air filter and cat-back mods, your only going to notice those mods in your higher RPMs where the engine is demanding more air and in turn produces more exaust. Unlike what many think the air filter and cat-back are not really a gas saving modification, nor is the chip. They are performance modifications. Now you can get better gas mileage as they make the engine more "effecient" but honestly most people who do these modifications are lead footed and will never see the extra gas mileage except on long trips, etc.

I'm sorry that you have not seen/felt the results many of us see, just remember that having the fewer cubic inches will not give you the same result the larger 8s will see.

As a matter of fact my old f150 is a inline 6 with 300 cubic inches (4.9L), not small for a 6 but when looking into a chip for it, I would be paying the same as I would for a V8 but would only be getting a messly 12 HP gain! Totally not worth it.

 

Hi Richard,

Just continue to use Chevron is my advice.

It's generally a false economy to buy a significantly cheaper gasoline, as the energy content will be lower and the fuel mileage will drop. Buying a fuel 12 cents per gallon cheaper could cause detonation with a performance chip installed. It will almost always cause mileage to drop enough to make it a false economy and see no real dollar savings, & that's the problem with buying gasoline based on price, you get what you pay for *at best*. You're not going to be able to find a fuel that performs on a level with Chevron for 12 cents a gallon less, many of the 91 octane premiums are not acceptable fuels in my book. Out west where premiums are generally only 91 octane these days this is a critical issue, you need to use *only* the very best fuels and pay the price at the pump.

You really don't have another fuel comparable to Chevron out there, but some other brands I like are Texaco & Amoco. Here in the east fuels like Shell & Citgo do a good job. I would just use Chevron out there.

If you want to go thru the effort of identifying relative energy content where you are, then you'll need to do your own mileage testing, and for this you need to be extremely accurate. Calculate fuel mileage *properly*, which is done by letting the pump shut off at the first "click" (no topping off), and record how many gallons (and tenths!) it took to refill the tank, and how many miles you drove since the last fillup. Then do the simple math to get an exact mpg number to 2 decimal places. Run 3-5 tanks of each brand/source, tracking & recording your fuel mileage very carefully. At the end of your sampling, which will take a coupla-few months at least, the fuel with the best mileage numbers under the same basic driving conditions is the fuel with the higher energy content. This *must* be done during the same season, you can't compare summer fuels to winter fuels, for example.

We've already determined that Chevron is doing the best job for performance out west, and that is what I would use.

Good luck,

 

I got a chip from Mike in my 4.2 and I can feel a great increase in power. On hills where the truck has to downshift, it doesnt downshift anymore.

I recently ran 87 octane gas (I have a flip chip 87 on one side, 93 on the other) and the reduced power made me go back. The overall feel of acceleration is far better on the 93 gas, it feels like the truck isnt trying as hard to accelerate yet accelerating faster.

From one 4.2 owner to another, the chip works.