Ecu Piggy back device?
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth Texas
Ecu Piggy back device?
Former Sponsor
Joined: Mar 1998
Posts: 13,385
Likes: 4
From: Virginia
In a word, hogwash.
Numerous elements of the text descriptions regarding chips & PCM's are so far off base it's laughable.
Any such device should never be used, nothing should ever be done to "trick" the PCM via this type of device or any other. All that does is grossly alter sensor data being sent to the PCM to deliberately prevent the PCM from being able to do it's job properly.
The PCM has to be able to adjust timing and all other operational parameters on the fly for extremely wide variances in load, weather conditions, altitude, and many other functions, all of which are negatively impacted by such a device. "Tricking" the PCM is strictly a risky and amateurish proposition that can easily backfire worst case, and best case isn't even worth the $2.49 or the time to read about it's hyperbole.
For years, people have been trying to market all kinds of crappola like this, to alter incoming sensor data to trick the PCM. This is an extremely poor technique, used only by those who can't do proper powertrain programming, plain and simple. These types of devices grossly alter the incoming PCM sensor data, usually just tricking the PCM into thinking it's colder than it really is. That is a very well known, sloppy and gross attempt to trick the PCM into throwing more spark & fuel at the motor without concern for loading, altitude, temperature, humidity, etc.
As anyone who has ever dyno-tuned one of these trucks knows all too well, the engines in these F-150's, Expeditions, etc. don't need any more fuel to begin with, nor will that increase power in these vehicles because they are already too rich for best power in the factory program! So much for the added fuel making more power idea, all that will do is reduce power. And the gross timing thrown in by this device altering incoming sensor data to the PCM can potentially send the engine right into detonation, which will then activate the knock sensor, which will then in turn retard ignition timing in HUGE amounts (usually 8 degree intervals) thus reducing power. You can end up going back and forth between detonation and retard, stuck mostly in retard from the knock sensor's response to detonation, with *less* power than you started off with. I can think of much better ways to make power.
Is it possible, under perfect conditions & circumstances, to somehow coax more power from a computer controlled vehicle using this kind of silly "trickery?" Best case, sure, you can pick up a few ponies under the "right" conditions & circumstances, but you are circumventing the PCM from being able to do it's job of protecting the engine properly, by altering the incoming sensor data stream from various sensors (in this case, IAT) so that the PCM never sees the real and actual conditions present. Dumb move, and one that numerous chipmakers such as Jet, for example, have failed at. Why? Because the basic operating *principle* is wrong, tricking the PCM is a poor technique, and is for amateurs. The correct thing to do is use a properly optimized powertrain program, so you make more power safely and still allow the PCM to do it's job properly and receive unaltered sensor data as it needs.
Any in-line device such as this is only doing 1 thing, altering incoming sensor data to make the PCM do something it shouldn't be doing.
The *only* way to safely pull more power from the PCM is to have a properly optimized powertrain program done for the vehicle, so the PCM can still respond properly to widely varying loads, weather conditions & circumstances as it needs to, and so the vehicle is still capable of doing everything it was designed to be able to do from the factory.
This ranks right up there with things like the magnetized pellets to drop in your gas tank to give you 5 more mpg, the mythical perpetual motion machine, etc.
Numerous elements of the text descriptions regarding chips & PCM's are so far off base it's laughable.
Any such device should never be used, nothing should ever be done to "trick" the PCM via this type of device or any other. All that does is grossly alter sensor data being sent to the PCM to deliberately prevent the PCM from being able to do it's job properly.
The PCM has to be able to adjust timing and all other operational parameters on the fly for extremely wide variances in load, weather conditions, altitude, and many other functions, all of which are negatively impacted by such a device. "Tricking" the PCM is strictly a risky and amateurish proposition that can easily backfire worst case, and best case isn't even worth the $2.49 or the time to read about it's hyperbole.
For years, people have been trying to market all kinds of crappola like this, to alter incoming sensor data to trick the PCM. This is an extremely poor technique, used only by those who can't do proper powertrain programming, plain and simple. These types of devices grossly alter the incoming PCM sensor data, usually just tricking the PCM into thinking it's colder than it really is. That is a very well known, sloppy and gross attempt to trick the PCM into throwing more spark & fuel at the motor without concern for loading, altitude, temperature, humidity, etc.
As anyone who has ever dyno-tuned one of these trucks knows all too well, the engines in these F-150's, Expeditions, etc. don't need any more fuel to begin with, nor will that increase power in these vehicles because they are already too rich for best power in the factory program! So much for the added fuel making more power idea, all that will do is reduce power. And the gross timing thrown in by this device altering incoming sensor data to the PCM can potentially send the engine right into detonation, which will then activate the knock sensor, which will then in turn retard ignition timing in HUGE amounts (usually 8 degree intervals) thus reducing power. You can end up going back and forth between detonation and retard, stuck mostly in retard from the knock sensor's response to detonation, with *less* power than you started off with. I can think of much better ways to make power.
Is it possible, under perfect conditions & circumstances, to somehow coax more power from a computer controlled vehicle using this kind of silly "trickery?" Best case, sure, you can pick up a few ponies under the "right" conditions & circumstances, but you are circumventing the PCM from being able to do it's job of protecting the engine properly, by altering the incoming sensor data stream from various sensors (in this case, IAT) so that the PCM never sees the real and actual conditions present. Dumb move, and one that numerous chipmakers such as Jet, for example, have failed at. Why? Because the basic operating *principle* is wrong, tricking the PCM is a poor technique, and is for amateurs. The correct thing to do is use a properly optimized powertrain program, so you make more power safely and still allow the PCM to do it's job properly and receive unaltered sensor data as it needs.
Any in-line device such as this is only doing 1 thing, altering incoming sensor data to make the PCM do something it shouldn't be doing.
The *only* way to safely pull more power from the PCM is to have a properly optimized powertrain program done for the vehicle, so the PCM can still respond properly to widely varying loads, weather conditions & circumstances as it needs to, and so the vehicle is still capable of doing everything it was designed to be able to do from the factory.
This ranks right up there with things like the magnetized pellets to drop in your gas tank to give you 5 more mpg, the mythical perpetual motion machine, etc.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth Texas
Well that was quite a response. Thank you very much. I will not be bidding on that item. Sounded to good to be true. Get 20hp boost for 10 bucks....hmm....
I appreciate the detail and level you went into decribing why it was not a good idea. That was a very informative post. Thanks again
https://www.f150online.com/galleries....cfm?gnum=2761
I appreciate the detail and level you went into decribing why it was not a good idea. That was a very informative post. Thanks again
https://www.f150online.com/galleries....cfm?gnum=2761
Former Sponsor
Joined: Mar 1998
Posts: 13,385
Likes: 4
From: Virginia
You're very welcome.
I wish there was a $2.49 device that could add 20 HP safely (or even 10 HP), as if there was, we'd sell tons of them, and even better, that would leave a lot of people with a lot of extra money for other *additional* modifications to make even more power. In that kind of scenario, *EVERYONE* wins, and that would be terrific for all of us.
Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, **at best**, in this world.
Have fun & best of luck with your truck!
I wish there was a $2.49 device that could add 20 HP safely (or even 10 HP), as if there was, we'd sell tons of them, and even better, that would leave a lot of people with a lot of extra money for other *additional* modifications to make even more power. In that kind of scenario, *EVERYONE* wins, and that would be terrific for all of us.
Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, **at best**, in this world.
Have fun & best of luck with your truck!
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: St. Louis, MO, USA
I think they have to prove that it was the superchip that would cause any problem. Mike knows more about that than I do, but then again we are dealing with Ford's warrantee program. I heard about an incodent where they voided a warrantee on a 2003 Cobra because they saw rubber shavings under the car from burning out.....
- Rick -
- Rick -
Senior Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,317
Likes: 0
From: Virginia Beach, VA
Just my .02 on the issue..... To say a single resistor will work on all vehicles is wrong. To say that hardware trickery can't properly tune a vehicle is also wrong. Done properly on a per vehicle basis, hardware trickery can alter a signal in many of the same ways software changes can.
The PCM end output that tells a vehicle what to do is the only true end effect. Done properly piggyback devices can work. For the same reasons done improperly chips don't.
I've got a mag with some load down testing on a GM truck using the Venon 400 control module. The unit connects to the MAS, TPS, and IAT if I recall correctly. The load down testing was gave impressive results with HP up 20+ and torque up 70+ lb ft.
No doubt this is done by causing open loop load inputs from altering sensor signals. If the variables from the PCM are the same it really doesn't matter if this is created through hardware or software.
Just as with a chip, causing changes in timing, air fuel ratios and other variables can produce power if those variables stay within safe operating levels and combinations.
The PCM end output that tells a vehicle what to do is the only true end effect. Done properly piggyback devices can work. For the same reasons done improperly chips don't.
I've got a mag with some load down testing on a GM truck using the Venon 400 control module. The unit connects to the MAS, TPS, and IAT if I recall correctly. The load down testing was gave impressive results with HP up 20+ and torque up 70+ lb ft.
No doubt this is done by causing open loop load inputs from altering sensor signals. If the variables from the PCM are the same it really doesn't matter if this is created through hardware or software.
Just as with a chip, causing changes in timing, air fuel ratios and other variables can produce power if those variables stay within safe operating levels and combinations.