So that means this +6 is a BUST

Where did this +6 come from anyway??

I was running an original(older) EOT and fWT and only had a max diff of 1 1/2 degrees after 24 hour cold soak

So 2day I entered in the newer EOT and ECT X-gauges

And fWT and ECT xgauge stayed the same for the most part But occasionaly they were 1-2 degrees diff than each other But for the Most Part the Same Reading

I will post my results 2morro after tonights cold soak I have Not been plugging in so the results dont get altered

Truck did Good not being plugged in this AM IIRC was around 30* ambeint

 

Awesome, thanks for the numbers, might not look good for my idea then. Without or with the +6 what's your thermostat operating at according to the SG?

 

Saturday was last the truck was run 1-21-12 to Monday 1-23-12 that is when I took these readings in above quote. Truck sat for 2 days . At that time I did not have the ECT pid programmed just fWT, EOT, TFT right from SC ll website. Ambient temp. was 48*.

Tuesday 1-24-12 I drove truck about 40 miles and has been setting ever since. I just went out and took temps. Ambient temp. 33*, fWT 33*,TFT 33*, ECT 34*, EOT 35.5*. When I installed SC ll the monday after Christmas I would check the temps. to make sure they were close 1*-1 1/2* between fWT, TFT , EOT (I did not have the ECT pid then) . Truck had sat for a few days after Chistmas. Now the spread is 2 1/2* Between Fwt , EOT.

 

The +6 was wholly my idea from watching my temps and seeing what I believe was the thermostat opening/closing around 182 and 186, which was 6 degrees below the thermostat's rating. The 24 hour soak just killed that idea though.

Now I wanna know why it seems a lot of us are getting the lower temps, might just be unanswerable!

 

Without the 6, I max out around 188 give or take with 50* outside temps. With the 6 it went right up to thermostat temp but not much higher. weird. It seems to me like there is some logarithmic errors.

I'm really hoping that my EOT has a BIG error as I've been getting some very high deltas after doing v9 flush.

 

Ya know, some of the positions in the MTH and I think the RXD have something to do with multiplying and dividing. My +6 idea is probably wrong but I wonder if the codes still need adjusting?

I'm really hoping someone from Linear Logic chimes in soon!

 

Well, you've sure opened a big can of worm's.

 

Looks like I sure did! Here's hoping it pays off and we can know if our coolers are good or bad and I hopefully think this may save some unneeded expense / labor!

 

I'm just typing out loud . i would think if the oil cooler is plugging up the coolant temps would be above average, due to the lack of flow back to the radiator. Not be lower like were seeing 186* - 188* with new t-stat.

 

You CANNOT Program it like that you will never get it right!! Its impossible WAY to Many varibles there.

The thermostat does Not controll the Coolant temp that Precise!!!!
The thermostat only Begins to OPEN at 190* ECT and its Fulley open at around 218* ECT

We look at Fluid temps at cold soak Engine OFF Becuz its a Consistent Value that fluid temp wont Fluctuate If its just sitting there with the engine off







If you guys are within a 1-2 degrees ECT vs EOT after a 12 hour cold soak thats REALLY REALLY Close
In FACT thats close Enough if you had say a 20* spread ECT vs EOT that you could say your oil cooler is shot.

My truck with the old EOT Xgauge and the preprogrammed fWT had a 25* spread ( ECT vs EOT ) I then changed the oil cooler and cut it open it was Probably 90-95% Clogged. And also note that at this time after a cold soak 24hrs I had a 1.5* temp diff at that time.

How much diffrence do you guys have after a cold soak

And how big is your operating spread

If your oil cooler is plugged its plugged and needs changing
changing the numbers in the SGII to get a reading you Like wont change the fact your oil cooler is plugged.

 

I was thinking maybe if the cooler is plugged the EOT would be high, ECT low since no heat transfer. All the tests say get it to 190 first, which a lot of the time I'm barely there without the +6.

Maybe the multipliers need work but that's beyond me for now. I've gone back to the regular ECT now and the newer EOT, crossing my fingers. Perhaps the temp fluctuation was just that and not the thermostat working.

Gotta take another look at the xgauge coding manual and see if I can get it figured out!

 

I see what you mean But No it dont work like that

The coolant flow to the oil cooler is almost a bypass in itself


Your senerio that you have here is Perfict explanation for a BAd Thermostat not a clogged oil cooler

 

Yes if the oil cooler is plugged EOT will be HIGH

The Whole cooling system doesnt flow threw the oil cooler its like a Bypass system.

Theres alot more coolant going threw the Block&heads being subjected to lots higher temps than at the oil cooler



Right but just because you change the X-code to say 190* ECT doesnt mean its at a TRUE 190* ECT

And even if you thermostat is running alittle cool And your spread is out of spec a new thermostat wont bring them closer together

 

Right, I know making the SG say 190 doesn't make it so and could be masking a problem, but from what I've seen there are some people consistently running in the lower ranges, prompting my thinking that maybe the math portion of the gauge is off and trying to find a cause or solution to it.

I have a newer (about 6 mos) thermostat, which was replaced due to the SG showing a lower temp, even lower than 186. But the newer thermostat won't get to 190 without warm ambient temps or really pushing the truck or towing.

So, since the SG isn't indicating I'm at the right temp AFAIK, why?

 

Hi Everyone! This is James DeLong from Linear Logic, and I thought I would make a post to help clear up some of the questions posed in this thread.

The original post pointed out a difference between the ScanGauge's ECT reading and the AE Scan Tool he had (186 on the SGII and 189.2 on the AE). Ultimately it's tough to say if there truly a discrepancy between the two since the readings were taken separately, however since they were very steady readings of 186 & 189.2 it's probably a safe assumption. The question now becomes is AE right or is the SG correct?

Personally I feel the ScanGauge is correct. Two key pieces of information make me say this. First, we're using Ford's documentation on how to convert the sensor information properly. It states pretty plainly that whatever value the ECU is reporting for the ECT you must simply double it to get degree's Fahrenheit. This is a relatively common coversion that Ford uses to translate raw data into comprehensible values. Secondly many people have done very long cold soaks and ECT is lining up with EOT & TFT as it should.

I'm not sure why AE is 3.2 degrees higher than ours. Doesn't really make sense to me why AE reports values like 189.2 when really it should be whole numbers divisible by 2 since hex values (which is how the ECU reports data) are always whole numbers, so it would be impossible to get a decimal reading by multiplying a whole number by 2 according to Ford's conversion. My guess is that AE always reads xxx.2 as the temperature since it seems to have a +3.2 bias. I also bet that if you did a long cold soak AE would read ECT 3.2 degrees higher than it's EOT and TFT readings. If it does that's a pretty clear indication that AE is biased up 3.2 degrees incorrectly for ECT.

The RXF and MTH are the only portions of the XGauge that will do any multiplying/dividing. The RXF can be used to add decimals to an XGauge, and it does so by 10 or 100, which will affect your XGauge if you don't compensate for it in the MTH. It can get real messy at times. That's why there was the correction for EOT from F05F to F060. Essentially I needed to subtract 40.00 due to the RXF allowing the XGauge to show out to two decimal places, but F05F subtracts 40.01, so I changed it to F060 so it would be 100% accurate. Nobody would probably have ever noticed a difference really. Their EOT would have to been down into the single digits (since that's only when showing two decimal places is possible for the ScanGauge) and it would have been the difference between reading 5.23 degrees when it was actually 5.24 degrees. I take accuracy very seriously haha .

Finally the ECT without the +6 adjustment (MTH: 000200010000) is the correct XGauge. I know you all seem to have to come to that conclusion with your testing, but I just wanted to reiterate that point. We use data that's supplied by manufacturers along with pretty thorough testing (as some of you may have seen in the powerstrokenation thread that was posted a few pages back), so when we finally put XGauges up on our page we're very confident they're correct.

If anyone has any other questions feel free to ask or if I missed anything that you want clarified let me know. Also, if there are any other sensors you're interested in reading on your 6.0 let me know. I think most of the sensors the 6.0 crowd wanted are already up on our website, but if there's something in particular that we don't have up yet let me know and I'll dig around my data to see what I can do.