ShoBoat Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 its not...... dd you see this posted somewhere about the explorer?? Agreed, the questions are whether or not we have the same drive line as the Explorer. Everything I have seen states that it can send more than 50% to the rears. Also how is this accomplished??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thePUNISHER Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 I believe I read before they coupling is modulated and the rear end is capable of handling 600ft/lbs of torque. I will have try to find that info again. But you onto something with voltmeter I would have been wanting to do the same thing' date=' like said we should varying voltage signal. If this so a 12 volt signal should achieve maximum lockup of the coupling. So in theory we should be able to install a switch in cabin and wire into wire harness with some diodes so not back feed into module or whatever controls it and achieve max lockup at the flick of a switch.[/quote'] crash i have to say theres no way this rear diff can handle 600 ft/lbs....just based on size alone...the physical size of the ring gear and pinion/bearings etc would not be up to handle power of that magnitude.....that would be asking alot of of an 8.8in ford, nevermind the rinky dink rear found in the awd cars....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thePUNISHER Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Agreed' date=' the questions are whether or not we have the same drive line as the Explorer. Everything I have seen states that it can send more than 50% to the rears. Also how is this accomplished???????[/quote'] i will look furthur into this to see if i can find anything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash712us Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 crash i have to say theres no way this rear diff can handle 600 ft/lbs....just based on size alone...the physical size of the ring gear and pinion/bearings etc would not be up to handle power of that magnitude.....that would be asking alot of of an 8.8in ford' date=' nevermind the rinky dink rear found in the awd cars.......[/quote'] I will try and find that info, I may have been mistaken partly about. But if memory serves me correctly I thought 1stsho contacted Jtetk about, so maybe the 600ft/tq was what the coupling was capable of handling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoBoat Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 I will try and find that info' date=' I may have been mistaken partly about. But if memory serves me correctly I thought 1stsho contacted Jtetk about, so maybe the 600ft/tq was what the coupling was capable of handling.[/quote'] Agreed, i think the 600 is for the coupling. The rear end seems a little on the small side for that much power. Although even at 50/50 at launch would be a huge improvment over what we have now. Just my 2 cents. Again however the Explorer can supposedly send 100% of the power to the rears. With the EB in the sport that would mean at least 300ft/lbs are getting there now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoMoCoSho Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 its impossible to send 90% of the power to the rear....because the front wheel drive transmission is what drives the ptu.....you cant change the output of the 6F55 to each axle....theres no way to manipulte this because a mechanical differential is driving the front halfshafts and ptu. techs can cange the amount of current going to the coupling via ids, but cant decrease the amount of output from the transmission itself.... That info came directly from the helm manual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoMoCoSho Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Now that I think about it, maybe that just locks in 90% of the available 50%? That would make sense that its just forcing the available power to the rear for troubleshooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcoBoostSHO Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 I agree with the punisher, best we can do is 50/50.Since the PTU power takeoff unit gets its power from passenger side drive axle. So there is no physical way to limit power at front wheel and divert to rear wheels. If this is the case then the remaining question I would have is - is the JTEkT unit capable of additional coupling force? can we send more current to the variable force solenoid to prevent it from slipping and transfer more torque to the back? If you could change the table mapping then you could increase the torque being sent rearward. Or You could in theory build an additional current controller and use it at the track to lock up the rear from the gitgo...not sure what the PCM would do with that as it would have to be isolated from the original controller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcoBoostSHO Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Now that I think about it, maybe that just locks in 90% of the available 50%? That would make sense that its just forcing the available power to the rear for troubleshooting. This would line up with the theory I just posted. They could increase the coupling force...maybe up to the 90%. If only we knew how to do that via the can bus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoMoCoSho Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Interesting link http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/11120/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodave Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Given the connector on top of the unit and the fact that JTEKT only seems to make two different units (see link) http://www.jtekt.co.jp/e/products/4wd02.html I believe we have the E-RBC unit and not the Intelligent Torque Controlled Coupling (ITCC) unit which looks like it has some electronics built in to it. If that is true then this is a much "simpler" setup than some of us may be thinking and I don't know how variable this will be after all. Maybe there really is something up front in the transmission that controls the torque distribution and this just engages the rear wheels period. I wish I could find a data sheet on these units...Its frustrating they don't really produce them for the public...but understandable I suppose. Still would like to know if this is an on/off unit or a modulated one. that would tell us a lot. I can't agree that we have the ERBC unit. You'll notice it's labeled for 4WD applications. Labels are important in the auto industry. Our vehicles are NOT 4wd, they are in fact AWD, and the two are different, very different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcoBoostSHO Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 I can't agree that we have the ERBC unit. You'll notice it's labeled for 4WD applications. Labels are important in the auto industry. Our vehicles are NOT 4wd' date=' they are in fact AWD, and the two are different, very different.[/quote'] I don't disagree on the differences at all and I certainly get the difference between AWD and 4WD. I just don't think its the ITCC unit either although it is hard to tell by the pictures. All we are doing is applying varying amounts of pressure to a clutch to engage the rear diff and wheels...no transfer case exists. Honestly I think either of those units "could" be used to do something like this but we won't really know without further info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoBoat Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Interesting link http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/11120/ Wait? They make the diff for the Boss?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodave Posted April 6, 2013 Report Share Posted April 6, 2013 Wait? They make the diff for the Boss?? Ya, but it's way bigger and beefier than ours!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash712us Posted April 6, 2013 Report Share Posted April 6, 2013 Ok check this out, pertaining to torque split of drive train system of explorer sport. skip to 5:10 on video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
First-SHO Posted April 6, 2013 Report Share Posted April 6, 2013 That tells me it has to be able to be changed in programming. Maybe Rick can talk Dan into discussing this with his ford buddies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcoBoostSHO Posted April 6, 2013 Report Share Posted April 6, 2013 Very interesting indeed. They do mention to the cooled ptu...but we could still use 50/50 for occasional use etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoBoat Posted April 6, 2013 Report Share Posted April 6, 2013 That tells me it has to be able to be changed in programming. Maybe Rick can talk Dan into discussing this with his ford buddies. I was at the shop today getting the tune and Corsa cat-back installed. First off holy crap what a difference! I honestly didn't expect that much of a difference. And the Corsa sounds really great! Love it, my next mod will be the H&R springs! They had 2 2013 SHOs in the shop getting the "works" done to them and both had the H&R springs and the stance of the car is awesome! OK I am digressing ;p. Rick and Andy were both there and I spoke to both of them regarding our ideas and thoughts on the power distribution. Can it be modified yes, the difficulty is in the programming. The security for modifying the algorithm that deals with this is tougher than the engine, not that they haven't tried. They have had no luck, at the shop anyway. According to Andy we simply cannot plug a module from the Explorer into the SHO, the car will most likely not even start (gotta love CAN bus). They had a similar situation in a GT500 they had in the shop, it was a promo car that got an automatic transmission (contracted by Ford). A Ford engineer had to come out to the shop to do the reprogram as nothing would work right (Drivetrain engineer). They also agreed that 50/50 will be the max we can split the power. If anything our transmission is able to reduce the power to the front, but cannot transfer more than 50% of the total power output to the rears. Also Rick and Andy both agree that the signal is not voltage variable, simply jacking 12V will probably just cook something. So we are sort of back to square one. Unless of course one of you happen to know a Ford drivetrain engineer that would be willing to help out.... :hail: So if Dan could discuss this with his Ford buddies, it would really expedite things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulford8 Posted April 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2013 Well I have round about potential contact but I doubt anything would come of it. I will ask this specific question and see if I can get somewhere. I work with a guy who has an SHO for his wife. He claims to have went to college with once of the platform engineers. He also claims this engineer loaded his car with the mythical 400HP Ford developed tune. Like I said I will ask but if Ford doesnt want it hacked I doubt him or any of the engineers are going to risk their job to help hack it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbo Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 So if they made the Explorer sport capable of 50/50, why didn't they do that to the SHO? The '13 PP is the exact same as it, but a little lighter. It just doesn't make sense to me. I would love to do this to my '11 whenever possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcoBoostSHO Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 So if they made the Explorer sport capable of 50/50' date=' why didn't they do that to the SHO? The '13 PP is the exact same as it, but a little lighter. It just doesn't make sense to me. I would love to do this to my '11 whenever possible.[/quote'] I don't know why they didn't do it on the '13 since it has the cooled PTU (at least I think it does)...otherwise I believe that is the reason for not wanting to keep things transferring too much power back there more frequently...just speculation though. Maybe they just wanted to keep the ECU code the same between models? We will probably never know. We could build a variable current supply to drive the solenoid and put a "dial" in the car to adjust the lockup percentage...IF we knew the current range we would need to provide full power to the solenoid. Without getting the specific data sheets for the solenoid you'd be guessing. I also don't know what would happen if you drove around with it locked up (besides the heat issue I mentioned above). You could make this a track pass only thing though... Gjkrisa 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gjkrisa Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 Did anyone make some headway? Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gjkrisa Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 I'm tempted to delete the ptu and put in a Subaru center diff with upgraded rear Subaru diff program the pcm to not look for that signal anymore Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpd1151 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Pretty confident no head way has been made since the last post in 2013. But your proposal sounds pretty damn interesting. Would enjoy seeing what you can come up with. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHOdded Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 More power to ya if you can make it happen! Pretty tight packaging on the whole drivetrain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.