Anyone running auto octane zfg?

[st8]

Okay don’t bash me lol just curious. I eventually plan on tuning my 22 ST but letting myself get a little bored before doing so. Only have 1600 miles on my ST. Just wondering if anyone has ran this tune and thoughts on it. Obviously it won’t be as strong as the higher octane, but wondering if it would even be worth it. Back in the day I ran a 87 performance tune on my mustang GT and it was still a big improvement over stock.

My fear with the 93 tune is when I travel, what if there isn’t 93 available? I’m guessing 91 would suffice. How much of a risk would it be to put in 87 in a 93 tune.

 

[ridered74]

You definitely don't want to run 87 on a 93 tune. I would assume the auto octane tune from zfg would be within a tenth or two the dedicated 93 race tune. I run an auto octane tune from gearhead, only done 2 full quarter mile pulls since the weather turned ugly shortly after I got it, but it ran 12.5 and 12.6 on dragy with full tank of gas and no change in tire pressure.

 

[TMac]

Any kind of "auto-tune" isn't coming from a tuner, it's coming from the stock ECU capabilities. Instead of a flex-fuel sensor, Ford uses its wideband O2 sensors (and may also use vapor pressure in the tank) to detect the changes in the A/F ratio, and this allows it to estimate and adjust to gas/ethanol mix. That takes care of fueling, but doesn't mean that it will automatically adjust the spark timing or the boost pressure to take advantage of the extra ethanol content. The ecu certainly has some ability to compensate via other feedback, e.g. detonation sensors to detect whether the timing is too far advanced.

If you run 87 on a 93 tune, the most likely scenario (which it would do stock), would be to detect knock events, retard the ignition and cut boost. These adjustments would happen in short-term correction maps which depending on proprietary factors such as tank refill or time might allow the ECU to eventually make it back to your original tune but I wouldn't do it.

 

[st8]

You definitely don't want to run 87 on a 93 tune. I would assume the auto octane tune from zfg would be within a tenth or two the dedicated 93 race tune. I run an auto octane tune from gearhead, only done 2 full quarter mile pulls since the weather turned ugly shortly after I got it, but it ran 12.5 and 12.6 on dragy with full tank of gas and no change in tire pressure.

Yeah that is what I figured. Is 93 generally everywhere?
Yeah they quote 50hp and torque gains when running 93 on the auto octane. Dedicated 93 tune is suppose to do 75 extra hp and torque. Guessing if I just ran 87 in the auto octane I'd probably be around an extra 25 hp or so.

 

[st8]

Any kind of "auto-tune" isn't coming from a tuner, it's coming from the stock ECU capabilities. Instead of a flex-fuel sensor, Ford uses its wideband O2 sensors (and may also use vapor pressure in the tank) to detect the changes in the A/F ratio, and this allows it to estimate and adjust to gas/ethanol mix. That takes care of fueling, but doesn't mean that it will automatically adjust the spark timing or the boost pressure to take advantage of the extra ethanol content. The ecu certainly has some ability to compensate via other feedback, e.g. detonation sensors to detect whether the timing is too far advanced.

If you run 87 on a 93 tune, the most likely scenario (which it would do stock), would be to detect knock events, retard the ignition and cut boost. These adjustments would happen in short-term correction maps which depending on proprietary factors such as tank refill or time might allow the ECU to eventually make it back to your original tune but I wouldn't do it.

ZFG offers an auto tune. I am guessing some things are just held back so the stock ECU like you said is able to still manage a wide range of octanes.

 

[TMac]

You're right. Just ask yourself this: If it were a true "auto tune", wouldn't that mean if you filled the tank with an e50 mix you'd be making 500 whp- just like a dedicated e50 tune? I'm not picking on any vendors, all have to compete in a small marketplace and a bit of hyperbole is to be expected. But it's the stock ECU's adaptive fueling/timing/boost strategy that is providing that capability.

 

[Cruising68]

On My CTSV, all I had to do was put a flex fuel sensor and bigger injectors, and pump upgrade and my tuner gave me an autosensing tune. I run E85 I get 800 HP. I run 91 I get 700 HP. No different tune, just fill it with whatever and off you go.

Having said that, I have zero experience with Ford, neither tuning nor understanding their fueling. I assume we have a flex fuel sensor but couldn't tell you. Maybe there is something in the Fords that makes an auto-sensing tune much more difficult.

 

[TMac]

On My CTSV, all I had to do was put a flex fuel sensor and bigger injectors, and pump upgrade and my tuner gave me an autosensing tune. I run E85 I get 800 HP. I run 91 I get 700 HP. No different tune, just fill it with whatever and off you go.

Having said that, I have zero experience with Ford, neither tuning nor understanding their fueling. I assume we have a flex fuel sensor but couldn't tell you. Maybe there is something in the Fords that makes an auto-sensing tune much more difficult.

800 on e-85 and 700 on 91? Color me skeptical. Very skeptical.

 

[Cruising68]

That's what the dyno said. This on a supercharged 406ci V8

 

[TMac]

So your tuner did a dyno on 91 which showed 700 whp and then one afterwards that showed 800 whp on e-85? I'm going to let this slide because you're new to this site and maybe your tuner engaged in the same hyperbole as I posted earlier in the thread.

 

[Cruising68]

Take it for what it's worth. I stopped caring what people think about me a long time ago.

 

[Blaster7Romeo]

I have been thinking about the Auto octane tune for when I get mine. I don't want to be tied down to having to run high more expensive fuel when I am on a long trip.. I have been driving a tuned power strokes for almost 15 years now and I am not getting an explorer to spend MORE of fuel lol

I will just have to make that judgment call when I get mine... prob looking for something to clean up shifts in the trans shifting and make it a little more snappy. but like I said I have not even received mine.

 

[TMac]

Take it for what it's worth. I stopped caring what people think about me a long time ago.

I'm not singling you out, so please don't be defensive. I try to educate people, so for the handful of folks that will actually read this post, think about what I'm about to tell you. Your tuner tells you he'll give you an "auto-tune". Then he provides a flex-fuel sensor with a cool app that will tell you your ethanol percentage which you'll also probably pay for him to install on a non-flex fuel sensor vehicle. So now you can tell how much ethanol you're running. And how does the ECU know? Wait, you mean because it isn't a flex fuel sensor equipped vehicle there's no extra wiring harness wires? Which means there isn't any way for the ECU to "see" WTF the sensor is outputting, let alone allow a tuner to adjust some "map" for a sensor that doesn't exist?

The truth is, that the ST and other non- flex fuel sensor vehicles ECU is using the wide-band 02 sensors (there are other patents on using vapor pressure) to "estimate" the ethanol content. That allows it to correct for fueling and some ECUs will try to use this info to adjust the ignition timing to take advantage of this so MPG doesn't drop as much as it might otherwise. But it sure isn't automatically creating a real-time tune that adds 100 plus HP. If that was the case, you wouldn't see a good tuner adding 100HP on just a 93 tune, nor would we need a tuner. But performing a bit of adjustment is totally within the stock ECU capability, and a tuner might even be able to take advantage of a fuel correction map to adjust timing to make changes. But that "auto tune" is built into the algorithms of the ECU, not some genius "tuner", especially in the case of a supercharged engine (like the CTS-V) where it's impossible for the boost to adjust (outside of changing pulleys).

No matter what ECU you have, a great tuner is playing with the boost (via the wastegates), the timing, the cam phasers, and experience to get the most out of a particular engine based on the fuel you specify. If someone's trying to sell you a flex fuel sensor for a vehicle that doesn't come with one and telling you it's going to magically adjust timing, boost, and cam phasing- well they're playing you.

 

[Cruising68]

Not disputing anything you are saying however there are literally hundreds of CTS-V's running a non-stock flex fuel sensor that tells the ecm exactly what fuel you are running and will adjust fueling and timing parameters accordingly to maximize HP based on the fuel you are running. That is a simple fact. Sounds like the Explorer handles it in much different manner.

 

[TMac]

Ok, so you're saying there are unused wiring harness wires to the ECU from the flex sensor? And those flex fuel sensors include a wiring harness for that purpose? I did a google search and didn't find anything like that, but if you'd point me in the right direction, I'd be happy to see it.

 

[Cruising68]

Here's where I got mine. The ECM has an input for alcohol content but no flex fuel sensor stock. The kit wires to the ECM.

https://dsxtuning.com/collections/flex-fuel-kits

Anybody know what ECM the Explorer ST uses?

 

[TMac]

Fair enough! That setup does include wiring harness sensors as well as the ability for the ECU to use it. GM must be using the same basic ECU for many of those cars even though they don't have the flex sensors from the factory. Interesting.

 

[Blaster7Romeo]

Who knows the ability to run the ST like has been described in the CTSV. may be possible in the ECM. could be just so deep in there no one has found it yet or put in the R&D to make it work. But if someone was to make that happen with a flash and maybe a install of a sensor. That could corner the market. But how big is the market is the next question to make it worth it.

 

[Cruising68]

If we can figure out what model ECU is used (Bosch I believe)we can find out if the capability is there. If Ford uses the same ECM across flex fuel and non-flex fuel models then it is possible there is the capability is in the ECM and that makes it a lot easier IMO.

I know GM shares ECM's across many models so obviously the E67(I think) has that capability. Maybe it is the same with Ford.

 

[Cruising68]

I found a flex fuel sensor for a F150 3.5 Ecoboost. I'm guessing if they share ECM's then the capability is there.