Printable View
Today's build now has all the necessary parameters required to make the older style TPS work on a 2015+ Mustang or F-150 as required by the GT500 throttle body and others.
The two parameters you will want to adjust to make the TPS play nice is the TPS Config and Sensor Slopes.
See attached tune for inspiration.
Is the inverse true for s197 cars?
GT350 TB on my 2013 acted all sorts of goofy.
You know what'd be great...injector pulsewidth on ALL s197 copperhead strategies. Yet again the new shiny toy gets the attention while we're STILL missing parameters for the s197. Good job HPT...
Does not appear to be the cause..for now we should be glad 15+ can run the CJ manifolds nowQuote:
Originally Posted by mattlinke
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jn2
It stands to reason that s197 cars would need to change tps settings to run s550 parts if s550s need to change settings to cooperate with s197 parts.
I could be wrong, I've no way to know. I went to an frpp 90mm on my car because the gt350 I had wasn't working. It could have been DOA, or settings missing in the calibration. Not sure.
It's a much cheaper option to run the gt350 87mm than the 90 though. I'm sure the benefit is similar.
I am not saying the 350 TB will run on a 11-14, bc it prob won't(like you experienced), what I am saying is that there are no additional tables added to 11-14 Copperhead's to allow similar changes like what was added to the 15+. Just open the file and check your electronic throttle tab, everything appears to be the same, which is why I said no changes were made.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattlinke
I know that's why I'm asking if there are any in the s197 that may be not yet added
Now that hpt has decided to focus on the s550 chances of the s197 getting any further advancements is next to nothing.
Please take that negativity somewhere. I add things to all the Ford vehicles we support constantly. If there is something you want on a specific strategy, email support.Quote:
Originally Posted by schaid
Keep up the great work :) !!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric@HPTuners
I just sent some requests in to support yesterday for my Ecoboost Explorer. My only problem with needing to request what tables I want added is how am I supposed to know that to ask for when HPTuners is the only tools I have for tuning? Dosent make sense to have to buy something like SCT just to see what table are in the PCM to try to request those in HPTuners.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric@HPTuners
Typically you wouldn't need to request for things to be added unless you were doing something really odd ball or out of the ordinary. We are updating all of the Ecoboost definitions, so there is no need for you to email support about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trent_Petersen
Well then maybe you could update my definition first??? :pray: (kidding, as long as its being worked on)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric@HPTuners
+1 here, I was thinking about taking some Jimmy Johns or pizzas to the office in Buffalo Grove (I work ~25 mins away), but I noticed your in Florida, and since it seems you're the "Ford guy" you're the one I need to try to bribe the most :pQuote:
Originally Posted by jc052685
not the case. I had an issue with a 2011 strategy that had not been defined it seemed. Eric had it taken care of in 1 day. The support is much better than any other company out thereQuote:
Originally Posted by schaid
Don't need to email unless oddball or out of the ordinary...like injector pulse width...yeah seems like an odd thing to log...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric@HPTuners
great work Eric!!!! thank you sir
I needed IPW and a few others added and I emailed support and with-in a day or so had an update with pulsewith,trans desired line pressure, and indicated torque for my 2011 strategy.
My point is ipw should not be something we're having to request. I feel as though that is a required parameter. I'm sure there are others that share this belief. I feel as though progressing forward on the next "great" thing shouldn't be a priority when the existing platform wasn't complete. That's my complaint. The 11-14 is incomplete but we've got time to add definitions to the s550 that only a very few are even going to use. I just feel jaded as a long time hptuners customer and supporter. Do we have a ton of capabilities? Absolutely. And I'm grateful for those. But every time I go to tune another s197 coyote I've got to pull the stock file pull a log then get ahold of support wait another day. It becomes a bit of a nuisance to both the customer and myself which is why I've just given up until I saw yet another set of definitions get added to the s550 while the s197 scanner pid list is still incomplete. It's frustrating to say the least. Maybe not the right place to voice these frustrations but it's been chewing at me for sometime and this seemed like the opportune time to voice those frustrations. I'm glad it's gotten some attention and hopefully the right steps are taken to address some of the missing parameters that still exist within the s197 scanner list as well as anything else that may be going unaddressed with the code itself and parameters and definitions we don't have access to but do exist within the pcm and could be beneficial.
I too feel like s197 is sort of neglected, or lagging.
I've seen mention of auto populate for torque and torque inverse stuff for about 2-2.5 years as an example. Still not done, or at least an update.
Adding parameters, and adding functionality like that are two very different things. I have been adding parameters to the Copperheads over the last several days, and a post will be coming soon explaining what I have added.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueprint