 |
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not repost, forward or otherwise publish messages contained in these archives without consent from the respective author(s). These archives may not, in whole or part, be stored on any public retrieval system (FTP, web, gopher, newsgroup, etc.) by individuals or companies, without consent of the respective authors. Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 97up-list); Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:53:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server To: 97up-list digest users Reply-to: 97up-list  ford-trucks.com Subject: 97up-list Digest V2000 #120 Precedence: list ========================================================== Ford Truck Enthusiasts 1997 and Newer Truck Mailing List(Use the Small Chassis List for Rangers, Explorers, Aerostars and Bronco IIs. Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with the words "unsubscribe 97up-list" in the subject of the message. ========================================================== ------------------------------------ 97up-list Digest Fri, 14 Jul 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 120 In This Issue: 2001 Model Changes??? 4W ABS, 99 SD Subject: Possible Electricial Problem Superchips vs. Hypertech PPM vs. Western Diesel Turbo Chip Re: Superchips vs. Hypertech PPM vs. Western Re: Superchips vs. Hypertech PPM vs. Western Diesel Turbo Re: Superchips vs. Hypertech PPM vs. Re: Superchips vs. Hypertech PPM vs. Western Diesel Turbo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JDavis1277 aol.com Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:08:11 EDT Subject: 2001 Model Changes??? Who has the skinny on the changes to the 2001 model year line up? Anything on-line? Is Ford - Navistar planning to upgrade the 7.3 PSD to be competitive with the new GM - Isuzu diesel? What about price increases? IMO, gang, it's that time of year again. Thanks, Butch ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:13:48 -0500 From: Lee Haefele Subject: 4W ABS, 99 SD I read the ABS training manual at the dealer, the drift I get on the operation is: Upon electronic sensing of lockup, prevents lockup by first closing valve to that wheel that prevents further brake pressure. Then if wheel still locks, pulses brake. Does not learn or store settings, does not change front/rear proportion. Is this correct? Do the 2000 or 2001 models do more? I like the Fords, but the brakes on my 99 are unsafe on snow when fully loaded. (In my case I am always fully loaded). Just ordered 2nd GMC, after trying to find someone at Ford to take an interest in this. First 12,000 GVW 4X4 GMC Chassis cab has been no trouble, this one has $3400 in rebates, and wonderful brakes. (I'll probably be expelled from the list) Lee Haefele ------------------------------ From: "Angi & Andy" Subject: Subject: Possible Electricial Problem Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:17:11 -0400 Thanks for all of the help. The hazard flashers either don't work, or the left one will only blink. Turn that off and neither turn indicator will flash. I have been tilting the wheel more lately, so I'll try different heights, and I'm going to get a new Flasher relay on Saturday to see if that will help as well. Maybe one of the two will work. Thanks again! Regards, Andy Mills Personal Aircraft Photography Sortie City www.sortiecity.com From F-14's, F-16's and F-18's to the F-22 and many in between. Dobbins ARB- Marietta, Ga. Amateur Radio: KG4FDK Andy, similar thing happened to me: right turn indicated resulted in fast blinking. After checking the usual suspects I noticed the operation to be normal as long as did not touch the steering wheel tilt mechanism and would leave the wheel in the 'up' position. The 'down' position would cause the fast blinking. The dealer checked it out and confirmed a pinched wire. It's fixed now. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:39:24 -0400 From: Don Francis Subject: Superchips vs. Hypertech PPM vs. Western Diesel Turbo Chip Mr. Lester, First let me tell you that I appreciate your web site and the information, links, and data provided to folks like myself. I have referred several friends and fellow Powerstroke owners to your web site for information on the facts and opinions I have derived from your service. It seems as though you and I have identical trucks, with the only exception being that my 2000 model Lariat, 4x4, 4DR, DRW, LWB, 6 speed, 4.10, PSD is Toreador Red. I've added the K&N Filtercharger, a Fumoto valve, bug & wind deflector(s), a second inline spin-off fuel filter (installed along the frame on the drivers side) and I've installed the new K&N 6001 oil filter. A four wheeling accident managed to break the power steering cooler line on my truck, so I had to replace the cooler with the improved factory replacement. The installation afforded me the opportunity to use Summit synthetic ATF in the new installation, and I've had no trouble with the system since. Today I learned that my truck has developed a coolant leak at the pipe to pump flange on the drivers side of the water pump, and my buddy at work has the same leak in the same place. Both of our trucks were manufactured in December of 99. The local dealership told me that Ford has a fix for the problem - install a new water pump that eliminates the flanged neck and incorporates the neck into the water pump housing without the use of a flange and seal on the right pipe. I have 14835 miles on the truck, and I think you might need to look closely at your truck to see if you have the same leak. The dealer implied that this is a common problem, however there are no TSB's on the issue to my knowledge. The real reason why I've written to you is to seek your advice and hopefully follow it in your quest to perfect your investment. I know that you are right in the middle of the research on your project truck, and I have a request or suggestion. Might I ask you to either conscript someone to do a comparison of the various power chips and programmers out there to compare their actual performance gains on a dynamometer and a fuel efficiency test recorded on a log, using each different application (Superchips vs. Hypertech PPMIII vs. Western Diesel TurboChip)? Or can I contribute to the cause and offer my own truck as a comparison test bed for those three manufacturer's hardware? I'm a US Army standardization helicopter instructor pilot / Instrument Flight Examiner, so I have no ulterior motive or intent to push any particular manufacturer's product. I just want to know some hard facts on what results a person can expect from each application. Some people are concerned more with raw horsepower and torque, some want better miles per gallon, and others are concerned with EGT's and drivability issues. Each individual ranks each one of those improvements in a different order of merit; for instance I feel that MPG's are more appropriate to my needs than raw power, however my own personal true order of merit would have to be MPG's, then drivability, and lastly the added HP & TRQ. The three competing companies for our performance enhancement dollars offer very conflicting expectations on what their products will actually improve. All three focus on the added horsepower and torque of their products, however none of their advertisements use the same empirical data to establish the baseline actual factory power on a stock 2000 PSD. Western Diesel quotes the factory 235/500 published numbers in their ads, whereas Superchips and Hypertech shows a 1999 F350 in their web page. The torque and horsepower charts they offer are for the 1999 PSD and they offer little or no information online on the factory baseline horsepower for the 2000 model PSD. As you know, there are several changes to the 2000 model PSD over the 1999 model, and using data and programs derived for the 1999 PSD might not be the best application to arrive at the best performance potential for a 2000 model. Both Hypertech and Superchips charts show the factory stock empirical data to be much less than the factory advertised numbers of 235/500. This implies that Superchips and Hypertech have actually placed their test vehicles on a dyno before and after the installation of their chip or program module, and Western Diesel is out there relying on the general public's belief that the factory supplied empirical data is accurate across the board for every vehicle. The conflicting use of differing empirical baseline data (factory power) only adds confusion to what the general public can expect to get for their investment dollar. If someone were to take on the three competing companies in a truck that was initially placed on a dyno in a stock configuration, given a baseline to start from (each time), then chart the actual raw horsepower and torque measured at the rear wheels after the application of their product, we would have something worthy of publishing to the public. I am not convinced that the broad spectrum of prices found for each of the competing manufacturer's products properly reflects the concept that we'll be getting what we pay for. Therefore a scientific case study, using one vehicle, in one location, over several months, to arrive at information that is easily compared across the board with the competition, is in order to settle the vast confusion that has been baffling me for the last six months. Can you help? Thanks again for the excellent online publication! Sincerely, Don Francis Fayetteville, NC (910) 630-6674 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:55:12 -0400 From: Ken Payne Subject: Re: Superchips vs. Hypertech PPM vs. Western At 10:39 PM 7/14/00 , you wrote: >Mr. Lester, > > First let me tell you that I appreciate your web site and the >information, links, and data provided to folks like myself. I have >referred several friends and fellow Powerstroke owners to your web site >for information on the facts and opinions I have derived from your >service. Errr.... Don?????? This isn't Lester's site. Ken Payne Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts ------------------------------ From: RSnovi aol.com Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:01:53 EDT Subject: Re: Superchips vs. Hypertech PPM vs. Western Diesel Turbo There was a similar problem within the Ford performance racing industry a short time ago , some of you may be aware of it here is a link for the reading. ATI Procharger ,http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.procharger.com/h2hdt.html Ross Smith 99F250 SD PSD/4x4/SC 9sec93cobra Florida State University National Champs (again) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:19:32 -0400 From: Ken Payne Subject: Re: Superchips vs. Hypertech PPM vs. At 12:17 PM 7/15/00 , you wrote: >Ken, > > Now that I have your attention, can I solicit your opinion on the >subject? Which system (chip/programmer/etc.) would you recommend for a >2000 PSD? Logic dictates that each has their own merit, and each is >tweaking a little different area of the performance envelope of the 2000 >PSD. > > Being a helicopter pilot helps me understand the advantages and >disadvantages of enhancing the performance of any given design. Take >the UH-60 Blackhawk, General Electric T-700 turbine engine for >instance. The original 1976 design developed 1640 shaft horsepower at >sea level and an outside air temperature of 70 degrees. This engine was >designed to provide 80% of the specification torque for 5000 hours. >Future enhancements improved the performance to 1860 shp, but the >unpublished drawback was the added performance decreased the life of the >engine by about 25% if the application demanded much more than 80% >torque for routine flight operations. Thus we have an engine that will >perform better, but only last 4000 hours. Then General Electric >developed the T700-GE701, which was so much more powerful than the >original engine that they had to redesign the cockpit power display >units to accommodate the tremendous increase. The new engine can >develop up to 2250 shp under the same original technical specifications >established for the 1976 model. It can also produce 2400 shp in an >emergency condition, only to be Turbine Gas Temperature (TGT) limited by >a computer to keep itself from melting down the internal parts under the >maximum demand. This "new" engine is only another tweak on the original >design, with a change of several parts to accommodate the increased fuel >and TGT requirements. Have I bored you to death yet? Anywhoo, this >"new" engine has a service life of about 2500 hours before we have to >break it open and start replacing parts to get it back up to speed. >Does this all sound familiar? > > My concern with tweaking the PSD is correlated with the situation >above. Just how far can we tweak the PSD before we find ourselves >reducing the service life of the engine? I don't think anyone has a >definitive answer to that mystery. > > Each of the three major players offering product improvements for >our performance dollar, are doing a poor job when it comes to providing >the requisite information on engine longevity and known or potential >problems with the addition of their respective products. Hundreds (if >not thousands) of people have purchased one of the three performance >enhancing products, however I have yet to find someone who has conducted >an independent study of a comparison of the three. > > Deductive reasoning would have me convinced that reprogramming the >existing chip, or actually replacing the factory chip only manages to >change the existing performance capability within the physical >limitations of the existing hardware installed. The turbo will only >provide so much boost, as will the HEUI fuel injection system will only >deliver a finite amount of fuel. Raising each to arrive at or near 100% >of their designed capacity at different stages or under different >environmental conditions will only prove to reduce the service life of >that item if it was not designed with a failure buffer much larger than >the programmed 100% capacity for the application in which it is >installed. In other words, I know Garrett probably uses that same >turbocharger in another application, however unless it was designed to >operate above the 100% capacity demanded of the Powerstroke, are we >looking at a component that was not designed to be tweaked to operate at >or near maximum boost under lower rpm considerations? > > That is just one of several issues that I think about when I >consider purchasing one of these performance enhancing products. All I >want to know is what is the drawback and potential harm that must be >associated with tweaking through each one of the competing products? I >would imagine that one of them offers better torque in certain RPM's >than the other two. One of them offers better MPG's than the other >two. And one of them offers better horsepower in certain RPM's than the >other two. We cannot have our ice-cream, cake and coffee too, therefore >I doubt that a single one of them actually has a corner on all three >considerations (hp vs. trq vs. mpg's). I'd just like to know which one >does what better! > > Your opinion? Yes, your opinion matters greatly! I see you as the >icon of information, and you at least have, and are privy to, all of the >data that manages to pass through your fingers. Be it that I assume >that most of it is purely the subjective opinion of the thousands of >readers you have, unless you too have a 2000 PSD and have purchased one >of these products in question. And if not, certainly your opinion must >be based on the collective opinions of others, because I cannot find one >case study of a comparison of all three hardware manufacturers products >pitted one against another. > > Recommendations? > >Thanks! > >Don Francis > >PS Feel free to add this to the list serve if you want. It might make >for an interesting exchange of several more opinions, and we might just >get lucky and find someone who has actually installed and compared all >three! Don, No, you haven't bored me. I'll state my opinion, though it is unqualified since I don't have scientific data to back it up. The fundamental problem with applying the principle of "there ain't no free lunch" to engines is that sometimes this logic doesn't apply. Case in point, a simple change to the advance curve on a distributor (real, or computerized) can yield great results without reducing life span. This doesn't apply with a diesel, of course, since it doesn't have spark plugs. However, change the curve too much and you can get pinging, which is piston knock... this definitively reduces life span. As to comparisons, there is no objective data. I'm stepping out on a limb when I say this, but I believe the reason why there isn't is for the same reason there's never objective data for oil additives: the chip makers don't want longevity tests! Logic says that Ford is going to have the engine tuned for the least number of problems. As with any mechanical system, they have to try to get the largest percentile with the least impact. If they reduce horse-power by 5% and decrease warranty work by 30%, they win and so does the consumer. I think this is precisely why warranty work is often denied if a chip change has been made. If the chip increases boost, and/or causes the turbo to be used more often, you're naturally going to cut into its life-span. I'm sure the changes to the chopper engine were more than a chip change to the system! A turbo system, is designed to run a certain number of hours at a certain load. There's just no way you can short-cut that. The chip makers probably don't want head-to-head comparisons and I don't know of any. There are few tests that show data with strictly a chip change. Unfortunately, most show data with a chip AND intake/exhaust system changes. Every single data sheet I've seen from a dyno pull with nothing more than a chip change show results that do not meet the claims of the chip maker. Usually the results were slightly better and on occasion, worse! This is without exception, be it a turbo diesel or a Honda Civic. Chip makers have even been caught in the past implementing ZERO changes to the computer chip. There's a major example with one of the rice burners, the gain was from a change not related to the chip itself and the change was a required part of the installation! I can find this information if you want to know who the dishonest (or at least, the one that got caught) chip maker was. You'll hear many people talk about the enormous power gains they got from their new chip. You'll also hear many people talk about the power gained from Slick 50, which was fined by the FTC for false claims. People are gullible, easily manipulated and will con themselves into thinking they gained something because they spent a wad of cash. There's nothing quite like that feeling that you've done better or are smarter than the average Joe. I've seen literally at least a couple hundred thousand email postings here since the site started and people can fool themselves. Real engine builders know better and know that a little knowledge can often yield far results than a lot of cash. That's what FTE is about, sharing experience so people don't make mistakes (or at least they may make fewer!). Another trick the chip makers use which makes it "feel" like there is more horse power is to play with shift-points. Racers have done this for decades to gain an extra fraction of a second... but there is a cost and racers are willing to live with it. The cost is reduced u-joint and transmission life. A smooth shift with a lower RPM spread is not as strenuous on the drive-train. I'd like to see a head-to-head comparison and I'd even go as far as inviting the chip makers to donate a chip for the comparison, but I doubt they'd do it. Whatever you do, get something in writing concerning the gains and do a dyno pull before AND after the change --- even the most experienced can con themselves so the numbers are important. I have no personal experience with the chips on a Ford diesel, but I will say that I would tend to be conservative and go with whoever >>doesn't<< claim the highest gains. I've forwarded this to the list in hopes of getting some data. Please no "it felt faster" or "it towed better", or even "it was DEFINITELY faster". If someone has REAL numbers, let us know. Ken Payne Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts http://www.ford-trucks.com ------------------------------ From: "Pete Calabrese" Subject: Re: Superchips vs. Hypertech PPM vs. Western Diesel Turbo Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:47:12 -0400 My 2000 Lariat LE CC Dually developed the same leak. Pump was replaced, haven't had a problem since. ___________________________________________________________________ 1991 Mustang LX Coupe 347 : 12.14 112 No NOS yet! : 3240w/driver493RWHP/582RWTQ Griggs, Wilwood, NOS : 11.64 121.53 A few years back...Hudson Valley 5.0 #00 Poughkeepsie Sports Car Club 924EM http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.snkypete.com 1993 Taurus SHO:LPM, C&L : 1998 SeaDoo XPLimited - Coffman equipped! 2000 F-350 CrewCab Powerstroke Lariat LE Dually -----Original Message----- From: 97up-list-bounce ford-trucks.com[mailto:97up-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Don FrancisSent: Friday, July 14, 2000 10:39 PM To: jlester ford-diesel. comCc: tech superchips.com; westerndieselhotmail.com;techsupport hypertech-inc.com; Ford TrucksSubject: [97up-list] Superchips vs. Hypertech PPM vs. Western Diesel Turbo Chip Today I learned that my truck has developed a coolant leak at the pipe to pump flange on the drivers side of the water pump, and my buddy at work has the same leak in the same place. Both of our trucks were manufactured in December of 99. The local dealership told me that Ford has a fix for the problem - install a new water pump that eliminates the flanged neck and incorporates the neck into the water pump housing without the use of a flange and seal on the right pipe. I have 14835 miles on the truck, and I think you might need to look closely at your truck to see if you have the same leak. The dealer implied that this is a common problem, however there are no TSB's on the issue to my knowledge. ------------------------------ End of 97up-list Digest V2000 #120 ********************************** ---------------------------------------------------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts 1997 and Newer Truck List Send posts to 97up-list ford-trucks.comIf you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, send an email to: listar ford-trucks.comwith the words "unsubscribe 97up-list" in the subject of the message. Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com ---------------------------------------------------------- .... To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session
cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.
Advertising -
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy -
Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company. 
|