I have a 2011 SHO non PP, with Airaid intake, and LMS stage 4 tune. I lost by half a sec.... close race. Should have had the 4+ installed.... next time.... next time....
2011 Taurus SHO VS 5.0 Mustang: http://youtu.be/1CJ6o4mwluk (http://youtu.be/1CJ6o4mwluk)
Not bad at all!
Quote from: SHOdded on July 14, 2014, 02:34:48 PM
Not bad at all!
I'm not gonna lie.... I was a little disappointed that I didn't win. ACTUALLY I was really disappointed because I saw that video of our SHO's beating the 5.0 mustang from LMS... but I did just put new plugs in with new thermostat, and 3 bar sensor..... waiting on my new tune, and then I will beat him.... I just know it!
I'm sure you will, launch is critical with our cars. Each one is a little different and like to be brake boosted a little different. Some of my best 60's are from 2k launch. Well done for your first time out! My first time in the SHO at the track I couldn't break 13.2. My 60's were all above 2 seconds my best to date is a 12.7, 1.8 flat 60 foot time with pretty much the same mods as you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nice Vid, it can be done, here is my 5.0 kill.
http://youtu.be/g7R0OTMnGT0 (http://youtu.be/g7R0OTMnGT0)
Yup it can be done, a few weeks ago I came up against a few Stangs.
Here is one of the vids.
http://youtu.be/uLeFp3e4LsA
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Outstanding
:thumb:
Quote from: SHO-TYM on July 14, 2014, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: SHOdded on July 14, 2014, 02:34:48 PM
Not bad at all!
I'm not gonna lie.... I was a little disappointed that I didn't win. ACTUALLY I was really disappointed because I saw that video of our SHO's beating the 5.0 mustang from LMS... but I did just put new plugs in with new thermostat, and 3 bar sensor..... waiting on my new tune, and then I will beat him.... I just know it!
The video of LMS against a 5.0 is a tuned SHO vs stock Mustang. You ran against a tuned 5.0. He ran 8.11 at 88mph, that translates into a 12.7 at 109mph... So if you have stage 4+, it might still not be enough. I saw Tuned 5.0 with intake and stall converters run mid 11's. These V8 are to be taken seriously. The track looked well prepped too, so you didn't have the AWD advantage that you would if racing at a red light... Plus these Stangs weight like 700lbs less than our cars.
So if you can reduce the gap and run a 8.2, that would be very good.
If you want to beat him, my guess is that either you go on a day when track is not well prepped or you use methanol injection.
Good lick and thanks for posting the video!
Quote from: steve142857 on July 14, 2014, 11:17:03 PM
Quote from: SHO-TYM on July 14, 2014, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: SHOdded on July 14, 2014, 02:34:48 PM
Not bad at all!
I'm not gonna lie.... I was a little disappointed that I didn't win. ACTUALLY I was really disappointed because I saw that video of our SHO's beating the 5.0 mustang from LMS... but I did just put new plugs in with new thermostat, and 3 bar sensor..... waiting on my new tune, and then I will beat him.... I just know it!
The video of LMS against a 5.0 is a tuned SHO vs stock Mustang. You ran against a tuned 5.0. He ran 8.11 at 88mph, that translates into a 12.7 at 109mph... So if you have stage 4+, it might still not be enough. I saw Tuned 5.0 with intake and stall converters run mid 11's. These V8 are to be taken seriously. The track looked well prepped too, so you didn't have the AWD advantage that you would if racing at a red light... Plus these Stangs weight like 700lbs less than our cars.
So if you can reduce the gap and run a 8.2, that would be very good.
If you want to beat him, my guess is that either you go on a day when track is not well prepped or you use methanol injection.
Good lick and thanks for posting the video!
I did notice (from the cockpit) that when he hit 3rd gear, his car surged forward and jumped about a half length on me. I just got me email from LMS with my new 3 bar 4+X tune. I am putting my cooler thermostat in this evening, and then loading the new tune, and making a couple of test runs to see what it will do. They said this 93 4+X tune is quite aggressive, so hopefully it will shave off enough off my ET to make me pleased! HAHA, as if I should be pleased with how well it did for what it is. I do have a quick question about the thermostat change.... Does our thermostat housing use a paper gasket, or a rubber O-Ring to seal it up? When I ordered my T-stat, it didn't come with any gasket, so I am assuming it is an O-ring.... is this correct?
Good race.
Yeah, those are cars we are supposed to lose to. But I think on the street from a dig, you'd be ahead or right next to him.
SHO-TYM,if your stat didnt come with an o ring use the original one when you swap them,cause my 170-stat came with an o ring,regarding install you will have to remove the airaid out,and honestly car has to be cold,the longer you wait the better,less coolant loss,8mm socket and 2 bolts and check your recervoir later,easy peasy.
Quote from: ZSHO on July 15, 2014, 09:29:55 AM
SHO-TYM,if your stat didnt come with an o ring use the original one when you swap them,cause my 170-stat came with an o ring,regarding install you will have to remove the airaid out,and honestly car has to be cold,the longer you wait the better,less coolant loss,8mm socket and 2 bolts and check your recervoir later,easy peasy.
thank you sir! I got to looking at it in the garage yesterday, and it was still too hot for me to get it done, so I figured I would just wait a little longer. I saw that I couldn't get to it without removing airaid, and saw a couple bolts.... just made me nervous to take the housing off, and THEN need a new gasket or o ring that didn't come with it, then be stuck until my wife could bail me out with her car! :) So I will probably tackle this tonight as then load the new tune and have some fun. Thank you for your input.
Let car cool...put new tstat in....i let car idle until the fans kicked on and then also turned on the heat full blast to help cycle the fluid....then turn off and check coolant levels!!!
Be prepared for about a half a gallon of coolant spillage at least ...
I am very anxious to hear how you like the 4X and how much difference it makes in your ET. I have been running the 4X for about a month. Although a more aggressive tune, it is perfectly friendly and smooth in daily driving. It really wakes up when you put your foot down, though! ;D
Quote from: SHOnUup on July 15, 2014, 09:38:01 AM
Be prepared for about a half a gallon of coolant spillage at least ...
I am looking to probably do it out in my driveway.... that way I can just rinse away (into an appropriate container of course) I am going to pick up some coolant on the way home so if I do have a "coolant blowout" I will be ready. Thank you for the heads up. Does anyone know if our thermostats are directional?
Quote from: Brucelinc on July 15, 2014, 09:44:42 AM
I am very anxious to hear how you like the 4X and how much difference it makes in your ET. I have been running the 4X for about a month. Although a more aggressive tune, it is perfectly friendly and smooth in daily driving. It really wakes up when you put your foot down, though! ;D
I am glad to hear someone say that it is ok to drive daily with the 4X tune. I didn't want to have to keep flashing the ECU when I would track the car vs daily driving. I will post my results hopefully this weekend. Thank you for the heads up on the daily driving capabilities of the new tune.
Quote from: SHOnUup on July 15, 2014, 09:38:01 AM
Be prepared for about a half a gallon of coolant spillage at least ...
You are correct if you dont let the car cooldown,you will loose substantial ammount of fluid,in my case i let the car sit overnight and tackled it in the morning,lost about half a cup,jut prepare youself with extra coolant and burp the car a couple of times after driving it,to let air out and add coolant if necessary.
Quote from: SHO-TYM on July 15, 2014, 09:47:17 AM
Quote from: Brucelinc on July 15, 2014, 09:44:42 AM
I am very anxious to hear how you like the 4X and how much difference it makes in your ET. I have been running the 4X for about a month. Although a more aggressive tune, it is perfectly friendly and smooth in daily driving. It really wakes up when you put your foot down, though! ;D
I am glad to hear someone say that it is ok to drive daily with the 4X tune. I didn't want to have to keep flashing the ECU when I would track the car vs daily driving. I will post my results hopefully this weekend. Thank you for the heads up on the daily driving capabilities of the new tune.
I'm running the lms 4++ tune that they said was very aggressive and not for dd... i actually think it's smoother than the 4+
Oh yeah? I'm running the 4++++. It's super aggressive. Pretty much hit warp speed the other day.
I would honestly Email Anthony or Brandon over at LMS and ask them if the 4xxx is suitable for a DD,i have the V8 and havent had any issues,regarding the stat there is no direction,just slap it in with the old o ring,good luck.
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 10:06:30 AM
Oh yeah? I'm running the 4++++. It's super aggressive. Pretty much hit warp speed the other day.
4+++++....lol....lms updated tunes for my 2011 this year does have a 4++...3 bar on order...3 bar still means tune only right? If so, I'm coming for that 12.669 fastest tune only?
The new LMS 4X is a great daily driver tune as long as you can get 93 octane fuel. Based on my Aeroforce gauge, there is no knock that results in retarded timing and the fuel pressure and cylinder head temps are in line with the 4+. I think the idle and overall behavior is smoother plus I am getting a bit better overall fuel mileage than with 4+.
You will see higher sustained boost than with 4+ but there are no wild crazy boost spikes. The boost comes on earlier and stays steady right to the shift point. It seems that they did a nice job of balancing boost, timing and fuel with this tune. Oh, by the way, my 0-60 dropped from 4.20 to 3.94 based on the Aeroforce gauge.
What all do you have done to your car?
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 10:06:30 AM
Oh yeah? I'm running the 4++++. It's super aggressive. Pretty much hit warp speed the other day.
Lol Warp 9?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: ShoBoat on July 15, 2014, 11:25:07 AM
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 10:06:30 AM
Oh yeah? I'm running the 4++++. It's super aggressive. Pretty much hit warp speed the other day.
Lol Warp 9?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nah I only made it to 8.9999999999. So close though. Maybe if I twist my #8 spark plug so it faces north I can get to warp 9.
Haha.
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 11:17:44 AM
What all do you have done to your car?
Just the tune and a K&N filter in an airbox with a 3 inch hole cut in it and PVC plumbed to an opening in the inner fender area. I also have a bit lighter tire/wheel combination than stock. The road where I test is new concrete that is very abrasive and provides awesome traction from a dig.
Quote from: Brucelinc on July 15, 2014, 11:28:11 AM
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 11:17:44 AM
What all do you have done to your car?
Just the tune and a K&N filter in an airbox with a 3 inch hole cut in it and PVC plumbed to an opening in the inner fender area. I also have a bit lighter tire/wheel combination than stock. The road where I test is new concrete that is very abrasive and provides awesome traction from a dig.
Guess I need to see what my 0-60 is. I need to find a better way to measure. Torque is to slow. Maybe I'll use livelink.
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 11:27:37 AM
Quote from: ShoBoat on July 15, 2014, 11:25:07 AM
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 10:06:30 AM
Oh yeah? I'm running the 4++++. It's super aggressive. Pretty much hit warp speed the other day.
Lol Warp 9?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nah I only made it to 8.9999999999. So close though. Maybe if I twist my #8 spark plug so it faces north I can get to warp 9.
Haha.
Too Funny
Everyone I know who uses Torque reports slower times than they should be. I am not sure what the deal is but I have seen it many times. Maybe the Aeroforce gauge is optimistic but a friend of mine with one has compared it with 2 other measuring tools and found it to be quite accurate.
When totally stock, I was around 5.2 - 5.3 which is very much in line with the magazine road tests.
Quote from: Brucelinc on July 15, 2014, 12:01:00 PM
Everyone I know who uses Torque reports slower times than they should be. I am not sure what the deal is but I have seen it many times. Maybe the Aeroforce gauge is optimistic but a friend of mine with one has compared it with 2 other measuring tools and found it to be quite accurate.
When totally stock, I was around 5.2 - 5.3 which is very much in line with the magazine road tests.
What's weird is with what I have done and running a e30 tune torque shows a 5.8 or around there. I know I'm not that slow lol. With live link before my e30 tune I saw a flat 5. Which still seems slow.. idk... I need a solid measuring device.
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: Brucelinc on July 15, 2014, 12:01:00 PM
Everyone I know who uses Torque reports slower times than they should be. I am not sure what the deal is but I have seen it many times. Maybe the Aeroforce gauge is optimistic but a friend of mine with one has compared it with 2 other measuring tools and found it to be quite accurate.
When totally stock, I was around 5.2 - 5.3 which is very much in line with the magazine road tests.
What's weird is with what I have done and running a e30 tune torque shows a 5.8 or around there. I know I'm not that slow lol. With live link before my e30 tune I saw a flat 5. Which still seems slow.. idk... I need a solid measuring device.
dynolicious
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: Brucelinc on July 15, 2014, 12:01:00 PM
Everyone I know who uses Torque reports slower times than they should be. I am not sure what the deal is but I have seen it many times. Maybe the Aeroforce gauge is optimistic but a friend of mine with one has compared it with 2 other measuring tools and found it to be quite accurate.
When totally stock, I was around 5.2 - 5.3 which is very much in line with the magazine road tests.
What's weird is with what I have done and running a e30 tune torque shows a 5.8 or around there. I know I'm not that slow lol. With live link before my e30 tune I saw a flat 5. Which still seems slow.. idk... I need a solid measuring device.
Just used torque 60 time out testing the brakes and got a 5.4 and a 5.6...way slow
Quote from: SHOnUup on July 15, 2014, 02:09:39 PM
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: Brucelinc on July 15, 2014, 12:01:00 PM
Everyone I know who uses Torque reports slower times than they should be. I am not sure what the deal is but I have seen it many times. Maybe the Aeroforce gauge is optimistic but a friend of mine with one has compared it with 2 other measuring tools and found it to be quite accurate.
When totally stock, I was around 5.2 - 5.3 which is very much in line with the magazine road tests.
What's weird is with what I have done and running a e30 tune torque shows a 5.8 or around there. I know I'm not that slow lol. With live link before my e30 tune I saw a flat 5. Which still seems slow.. idk... I need a solid measuring device.
Just used torque 60 time out testing the brakes and got a 5.4 and a 5.6...way slow
Ok good. Hah. I thought I was the only one.
Quote from: SHOnUup on July 15, 2014, 02:09:39 PM
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: Brucelinc on July 15, 2014, 12:01:00 PM
Everyone I know who uses Torque reports slower times than they should be. I am not sure what the deal is but I have seen it many times. Maybe the Aeroforce gauge is optimistic but a friend of mine with one has compared it with 2 other measuring tools and found it to be quite accurate.
When totally stock, I was around 5.2 - 5.3 which is very much in line with the magazine road tests.
What's weird is with what I have done and running a e30 tune torque shows a 5.8 or around there. I know I'm not that slow lol. With live link before my e30 tune I saw a flat 5. Which still seems slow.. idk... I need a solid measuring device.
Just used torque 60 time out testing the brakes and got a 5.4 and a 5.6...way slow
Yes, with your quarter mile ET, your 0-60 should be around 4 flat or better. There is a calculator on one of the threads that shows what 0-60 would be based on the quarter mile ET and maybe some other criteria.
I notice my torque MPH gauge is a couple MPH behind car gauge too?
Funny thing is I coasted the last couple hundred feet of 1/4 mile and still hit a 13.7
You mean 12.7, right....as in your signature?
Not coasting to 12.7 for sure...but a 5.8 60 mph time to a coasted 13.7 sounds off...the 12.75 was at Milan Dragway
Quote from: SHOnUup on July 15, 2014, 02:16:11 PM
I notice my torque MPH gauge is a couple MPH behind car gauge too?
Depending on how many PIDs you are monitoring Torque can get laggy...but there are a few factors at play. The first is the hardware you are running it on...then there is Bluetooth connection quality, number of PIDs/calculations, alarms, and finally any logging you are actually doing to the SD card. I minimize my gauges to exactly what is needed but still don't trust Torque for 0-60 times.
I haven't run a full quarter mile with the new 4X tune yet but here is what my Aeroforce gauge showed with the 4+. I am not claiming that it is as accurate as putting the car on a dragstrip and getting a timeslip but I don't have a strip close by.
(http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w562/brucelinc/carstuff015_zps8839e087.jpg) (http://s1330.photobucket.com/user/brucelinc/media/carstuff015_zps8839e087.jpg.html)
Quote from: Brucelinc on July 15, 2014, 03:40:10 PM
I haven't run a full quarter mile with the new 4X tune yet but here is what my Aeroforce gauge showed with the 4+. I am not claiming that it is as accurate as putting the car on a dragstrip and getting a timeslip but I don't have a strip close by.
(http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w562/brucelinc/carstuff015_zps8839e087.jpg) (http://s1330.photobucket.com/user/brucelinc/media/carstuff015_zps8839e087.jpg.html)
Those kind of #'s have to be a tad bit exciting though!!!
My 12.75 had an 1/8 at 8.2 (85.85) and 1/4 at 108.43...1/8 looks right on but the mph for 1/4 seems a little off
Quote from: wasinger3000 on July 15, 2014, 10:06:30 AM
Oh yeah? I'm running the 4++++. It's super aggressive. Pretty much hit warp speed the other day.
This is a pic of car exiting warp speed!
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/07/16/u2eza3ym.jpg)
I thought my speed in the quarter was off, too, compared to the ET. However, with the 4+, I felt like the car ran out of breath around 5700 RPM in 3rd gear but it doesn't shift until 6200. I honestly think I would have had a higher trap speed if I could have shifted to 4th gear a little sooner. If I recall, it doesn't shift into 4th until nearly 100 MPH.
With the 4+, I got the highest boost in 1st gear, a little bit less in 2nd and still less in 3rd. I am not sure why, but that is what the gauge showed. It seems that with the 4X, I get the same boost in each gear so I think it will be better. I just haven't had a chance to run the new tune all the way through the quarter. The last time I was at my test site, there were deer beside the road so I wasn't too comfortable doing triple digit speeds there.
My first run at the track was a 12.9000, that mph was 107.54...just some extra info for ya