Superchips 6.0 Microtuner Thread
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas
Originally Posted by mattsf250
sooooooooooooo, whatcha got now?
and, you dynod both? on the same dyno by chance?
and, you dynod both? on the same dyno by chance?
I based the dyno numbers on the Superchips website to other members dyno results. Even with variations of dynos, atmoshpheric conditions and trucks the results are huge.
The box I run right now is the Quadzilla 160hp module. I will say the drawback to the Quad box is if you use the 160 setting you really do have too much power.
Mark
Senior User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
My 1704 shifted entirely too harsh in Economy mode, but fine in tow and performance mode. I understand there were a few truck/flash combinations that had some problems, but after sending it back to SC for the fix I couldn't be happier with it. I run the economy mode most of the time. Driveability is truly awesome. Acceleration at light throttle is a little snappier than stock, push it past 3/4 throttle and hold on! In the performance mode I got little or no smoke at anything less than WOT. I just burned my first tank of fuel in economy mode after the fix and it looks like about 18.1 mpg mixed driving. Truck - 03/03 build F250 cc FX4 King Ranch 3.73 gears. Love it!
New User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Has any one had a po263 or po278 code show up with scmt installed?Mine does but dont throw them in stock mode.What is contibution/balance cylinder 2and 6 mean ? I hope it does not mean injector issues on that cylinder,and if it does why dont it show up in stock mode ?Any ideas anyone????
Posting Guru
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,584
Likes: 0
From: Lake Mary, FL
Originally Posted by webmaster
And when they do that they cost the merchant money. It costs about $10 in credit card fees for a tuner, plus paying someone to enter/handle the invoice, pack it, ship it, etc. Then you return one of them and the merchant has more fees on the credit card refund, paying employees to handle the RMA, depending on the condition of the product - shipping it back to the manufacturer.
Generally, people who recommend this type of thing aren't people in business for themselves who get hit in the wallet. And its a fairly substantial hit once all is said and done.
Generally, people who recommend this type of thing aren't people in business for themselves who get hit in the wallet. And its a fairly substantial hit once all is said and done.
The point to be taken is if you bought it, it would be REALLY unlikely that you would want to return it.
Senior User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
I have thrown together a rough graph of the SC 1704 Dyno numbers as posted on the Superchips website and posted it in my gallery. Now that's what I call a loooong power curve!
PS If I've made any major mistakes in the graph pls let me know. I'm not the most computer literate person in the world!
PS If I've made any major mistakes in the graph pls let me know. I'm not the most computer literate person in the world!
Senior User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
Originally Posted by tim brown
Has any one had a po263 or po278 code show up with scmt installed?Mine does but dont throw them in stock mode.What is contibution/balance cylinder 2and 6 mean ? I hope it does not mean injector issues on that cylinder,and if it does why dont it show up in stock mode ?Any ideas anyone????
Posting Guru
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,584
Likes: 0
From: Lake Mary, FL
Originally Posted by gonnasellit_temp
I have thrown together a rough graph of the SC 1704 Dyno numbers as posted on the Superchips website and posted it in my gallery. Now that's what I call a loooong power curve!
PS If I've made any major mistakes in the graph pls let me know. I'm not the most computer literate person in the world!
PS If I've made any major mistakes in the graph pls let me know. I'm not the most computer literate person in the world!
I'll have the graphs soon, with full data.
I need to finish my part of the 1714 (04 V8 gasand 4.2V6 gas) project first, then I will get a 03 strategy 6.0 and an 04 strategy 6.0 on the dyno and get it done.
You've all been patient...please be patient a little bit longer.
Post Fiend
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 11,314
Likes: 4
[QUOTE=gonnasellit_temp]I have thrown together a rough graph of the SC 1704 Dyno numbers as posted on the Superchips website and posted it in my gallery. Now that's what I call a loooong power curve!
QUOTE]
What do you mean When you say rough graph ?
I wonder about the max HP of (guessing) 375hp as shown in your gallery and torque is below 700 ftlb....
those two numbers don't match up the torque should be over 700 for that HP...
QUOTE]
What do you mean When you say rough graph ?
I wonder about the max HP of (guessing) 375hp as shown in your gallery and torque is below 700 ftlb....
those two numbers don't match up the torque should be over 700 for that HP...
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Senior User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
What do you mean When you say rough graph ?
I haven't used Excel since I retired a couple of years ago and my format may be a little crude!
I wonder about the max HP of (guessing) 375hp as shown in your gallery and torque is below 700 ftlb....
those two numbers don't match up the torque should be over 700 for that HP...[/QUOTE]
According to the table on Superchips website max HP is 373.7 at 3500 RPM. Torque (from the table) at 3500 rpm is 560.8
I haven't used Excel since I retired a couple of years ago and my format may be a little crude!
I wonder about the max HP of (guessing) 375hp as shown in your gallery and torque is below 700 ftlb....
those two numbers don't match up the torque should be over 700 for that HP...[/QUOTE]
According to the table on Superchips website max HP is 373.7 at 3500 RPM. Torque (from the table) at 3500 rpm is 560.8
Cargo Master
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 0
From: Carlsbad, California
[/QUOTE]According to the table on Superchips website max HP is 373.7 at 3500 RPM. Torque (from the table) at 3500 rpm is 560.8[/QUOTE]
That works out correctly, as (373.7 * 5252) / 3500 = 560.764.
Looking at the stock and SC numbers on the SC web site it seems that the truck is loosing more than 140 lb*ft of torque and 85 HP through the drive train over the 560 lb*ft / 325 HP numbers that Ford was putting out for crank values.
Begin thread derailment {
That or it's just the fact that the Harley version of the truck used in this comparison runs about as well as the Harley motorcycles - probably the latter. I'd love to buy an American bike, but Harley is too much into image and not in to actual performance. The bikes have improved over the past few years now but they are still far out paced by other manufacturers. Sadly, it will be be years before they make a real sport bike, if ever
} End thread derailment
Daryl
That works out correctly, as (373.7 * 5252) / 3500 = 560.764.
Looking at the stock and SC numbers on the SC web site it seems that the truck is loosing more than 140 lb*ft of torque and 85 HP through the drive train over the 560 lb*ft / 325 HP numbers that Ford was putting out for crank values.
Begin thread derailment {
That or it's just the fact that the Harley version of the truck used in this comparison runs about as well as the Harley motorcycles - probably the latter. I'd love to buy an American bike, but Harley is too much into image and not in to actual performance. The bikes have improved over the past few years now but they are still far out paced by other manufacturers. Sadly, it will be be years before they make a real sport bike, if ever
} End thread derailment
Daryl
Post Fiend
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 11,314
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by gonnasellit_temp
What do you mean When you say rough graph ?
I haven't used Excel since I retired a couple of years ago and my format may be a little crude!
I wonder about the max HP of (guessing) 375hp as shown in your gallery and torque is below 700 ftlb....
those two numbers don't match up the torque should be over 700 for that HP...
I haven't used Excel since I retired a couple of years ago and my format may be a little crude!
I wonder about the max HP of (guessing) 375hp as shown in your gallery and torque is below 700 ftlb....
those two numbers don't match up the torque should be over 700 for that HP...
I was just comparing it to what I thought the numbers should be...
the "other" programmer generates roughly the same hp (375 to 387) but torque in the 710 to 728 range...
Last edited by jdadamsjr; Jul 7, 2004 at 06:39 AM.
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 161,999
Likes: 75
From: 3rd Rock
According to the table on Superchips website max HP is 373.7 at 3500 RPM. Torque (from the table) at 3500 rpm is 560.8[/QUOTE]
That works out correctly, as (373.7 * 5252) / 3500 = 560.764.
Looking at the stock and SC numbers on the SC web site it seems that the truck is loosing more than 140 lb*ft of torque and 85 HP through the drive train over the 560 lb*ft / 325 HP numbers that Ford was putting out for crank values.
Begin thread derailment {
That or it's just the fact that the Harley version of the truck used in this comparison runs about as well as the Harley motorcycles - probably the latter. I'd love to buy an American bike, but Harley is too much into image and not in to actual performance. The bikes have improved over the past few years now but they are still far out paced by other manufacturers. Sadly, it will be be years before they make a real sport bike, if ever
} End thread derailment
Daryl[/QUOTE]
Nor refinement, nor technology, nor road holding ability, nor forward styling, nor……..oops better quit now
That works out correctly, as (373.7 * 5252) / 3500 = 560.764.
Looking at the stock and SC numbers on the SC web site it seems that the truck is loosing more than 140 lb*ft of torque and 85 HP through the drive train over the 560 lb*ft / 325 HP numbers that Ford was putting out for crank values.
Begin thread derailment {
That or it's just the fact that the Harley version of the truck used in this comparison runs about as well as the Harley motorcycles - probably the latter. I'd love to buy an American bike, but Harley is too much into image and not in to actual performance. The bikes have improved over the past few years now but they are still far out paced by other manufacturers. Sadly, it will be be years before they make a real sport bike, if ever
} End thread derailment
Daryl[/QUOTE]
Nor refinement, nor technology, nor road holding ability, nor forward styling, nor……..oops better quit now
Senior User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
Originally Posted by jdadamsjr
I was just comparing it to what I thought the numbers should be...
the "other" programmer generates roughly the same hp (375 to 387) but torque in the 710 to 728 range...
the "other" programmer generates roughly the same hp (375 to 387) but torque in the 710 to 728 range...
Posting Guru
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,584
Likes: 0
From: Lake Mary, FL
Originally Posted by gonnasellit_temp
Don't I remember Vic saying somewhere earlier in this tread that the 2004's make about 70 lbs/ft less torque than the 03's? If that's the case that would put the numbers pretty much equal between the two programmers, give or take a little. Now I want both!
Many of the 03's easily break 700 ft lbs....some are making 730 FT LBS.
The 04's (and by that I mean 04 strategy) are not as fast, stock or modified.
The harley truck is an 04 strategy in all cases I've seen, and it makes less power like most 04 strategies..but it still leaves 80' burnouts =o)