Hate to see threads about problems without updates or solutions, so here's mine:

Replaced degas cap just in case to the newer cap, no big change.

Threw cardboard in front of radiator as a winter front, tada! ECT now getting as high as 194, average at 190. Bad news is EOT has been 12-14 higher, so I know what I'll be doing soon

Temps are using the EOT from the scangauge site, ECT offered here from James that is the same as the fWT. About 40 or so ambient.

Conclusion: SG is indeed accurate.

Here's another question, let me know if I should put it in a separate post please! Were trucks built different for the warmer areas? Saw a post a while back about trucks equipped with 750cc batteries being intended for the southern states, wondering if that's true and if there were other differences in the cooling system, which would explain why I need the winter front to get to temp. The truck as 750cc batteries and look like they might be the originals (motorcraft)

 

AFAIK the ONLY differences in any kind of cooling system on the 6.0 250/350 trucks has to do with the transmission cooler being bigger in some trucks and block heaters with cords in designated "cold weather" states. No differences in batteries, radiators, thermostats, or fans. There are HD fan clutches available for snow plowing.

 

Huh, thanks. Were the 750cca batteries stock or did the previous owner go cheap? I thought 850cca were stock.

 

i tried this code and it did not work for me. so i am keeping the xgauge code that i have for the ect. on a cold check, 2 days cold (several different checks at different times), the ect is approximately 2 to 6 different/higher over the eot. it looks like we could find a good xgauge code for ect.

 

This is the one I have in my notes but I've never used it. I always use the fWT that came installed on the SGII:


ECT 07E0221139 046205110639 3008 000200010000 ECT Degrees F

 

The xgauge you listed is the one James DeLong from scangauge provided and is the same entry as the stock fWT. If its not working double check what you entered against what is in his post earlier in the thread. Didn't work for me first try because I transposed a 5 and a 0 when entering it. Entering it allows you to name it ECT versus the fWT, otherwise it's basically the same code.

Just don't use the ECT that adds 6, it's absolutely wrong!!

 

I just went back to see about that particular gauge,
The one I posted back on post #17. and originated from this thread:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...ml#post9753800

ECT
07E0221139
046205110639
3008
000200010000
ECT Degrees F

Then the new one from James in this thread is:

TXD: 07DF0105
RXF: 044105050000
RXD: 2808
MTH: 00090005FFD8
NAM: FWT

I have sent an e-mail to James for clarification, and asked for Him to post answer to here.

I noticed the difference in the TXD:
07E0xxxxxx as opposed to 07DFxxxxx. All my Xgauge TXDs are 07E0xxxxxx.

 

I couldn't even find the PID for the one James posted and just like you, Sean, mine are all "7E".

 

Ultimately both XGauges will give you essentially the same answer because they're both pulling data from the same sensor.

The FWT posted above is just simply an exact copy of the standard fWT gauge the ScanGauge comes with. That's why it starts with 07DF. 07DF is essentially a global request from all modules for sensor information, which is the best way to request standard data.

The ECT code above is simply another way to request fWT, but simply requested in a very Ford specific way. We used a Ford PID (1139) and we address the powertrain control module directly (07E0) to request fWT.

Either way, both are going to report pretty much the same value. Through testing people have found both ECT and the standard fWT (or the XGauge for the standard fWT) both report virtually the same values, which makes sense since they're all being pulled from the same sensor.

Which one should you use? Personally I would use the standard fWT gauge that comes with the ScanGauge. In certain rare instances it might be a few tenths of degrees more accurate since it has a *slightly* finer resolution, however most of the time it will be pretty much exactly the same as ECT.

 

I have always used fwt. I like the xtra space for a extra xgauge.

Thanks again James for going the extra mile.

 

i tried this code and it did not work. what is the best code that will work? on a cold check (several days) my ect and eot is not the same. the ect will be 2 to 6 degrees higher than the eot. there has to be a code that will work.

 

Have you tried all three variations of the ECT/fWT? What are you using for EOT? If your temps are about 2 degrees off after cold soak that's supposed to be pretty good. Post up the codes you're using so we can take a look...

 

I would use the fWT that is in the gauge.

And for EOT I would use this one:

TXD:07E0221310
RXF:046245130610
RXD:3010
MTH:00090005F060
EOT

If you feel that these are not good enough, I would then return it to Scangauge for replacement.

As of right now, my ECT (fwt) 40 and EOT 40.2 after 2 days of cold soak. 10:50 am PST.