I'm looking on switching from lms to torrie. I have a 2013 sho with an airaid cai, corsa catback, 170 tstat, and 3 bar map sensorsl. What gain should I look forward to getting??(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/08/25/097254cdd6ff6279f7831cb1a8bd6d83.jpg)
Definitely the ability to have areas that you personally want tweaked a little adjusted to your liking.
Having the pleasure of dealing with both I can say you can't loose. Torrie is a great guy and he responds really quickly to requests. Almost too quickly lol. He has done wonders with my buddy's trailblazer ss. Customizing your tune on the fly is going to be your biggest plus with Torrie.
Unfortunately we don't all have the luxury of living close to LMS. It would be freaking awesome if they came out with a data logger that way we could customize our tunes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With a 2013 m/y, you can play around with some E!
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Ya @shoboat if I lived closer I could get it dyno tuned but that's a one time tune and I need to be able to adjust. Thanks!!!
All our tunes are custom and can always be tweaked to anyone's liking. They are custom designed by our tuner and run on the Dynojet with vehicles that we purchase. Tunes are then adjusted for various strategy codes. We also upgrade our tunes on a fairly regular basis ie: Stage 4, 4+ and 4X reaching for the pinnacle. They are not "canned" tunes that could be used on any particular model/engine across the board. Our goal is to make tuning adjustments safely for as many parameters as possible and still maintain great daily driver integrity. Performance Driven, Race Proven by 1000's of dyno runs and time slips.
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 25, 2014, 11:57:48 PM
All our tunes are custom and can always be tweaked to anyone's liking. They are custom designed by our tuner and run on the Dynojet with vehicles that we purchase. Tunes are then adjusted for various strategy codes. We also upgrade our tunes on a fairly regular basis ie: Stage 4, 4+ and 4X reaching for the pinnacle. They are not "canned" tunes that could be used on any particular model/engine across the board. Our goal is to make tuning adjustments safely for as many parameters as possible and still maintain great daily driver integrity. Performance Driven, Race Proven by 1000's of dyno runs and time slips.
That's what sold me...all that stuff^^^
^^^^^ What he said!
I can't tell you anything about gains by switching from LMS to Unleashed ,but I can tell you that Unleashed has amazingly quick responses to all e-mails. Even all my stupid questions, they answer!! I've never dealt with a business that has such great service!
Quote from: elund126 on August 26, 2014, 12:37:45 PM
I can't tell you anything about gains by switching from LMS to Unleashed ,but I can tell you that Unleashed has amazingly quick responses to all e-mails. Even all my stupid questions, they answer!! I've never dealt with a business that has such great service!
Don't be afraid to call LMS either. Each time I've called, even for other members issues, they always took time to explain to me what I was looking for.
2 best ones out there, can't go wrong with either.
I don't think you should plan on switching just for "gains" as I don't think you will find any. Both tuners truly know these engines and what they are capable of.
The only real reason to switch is for service. If you feel that LMS is not responding/ taking care of you the way you want then try Torrie.
IMO :)
Quote from: kinder on August 26, 2014, 01:00:25 PM
I don't think you should plan on switching just for "gains" as I don't think you will find any. Both tuners truly know these engines and what they are capable of.
The only real reason to switch is for service. If you feel that LMS is not responding/ taking care of you the way you want then try Torrie.
IMO :)
I would bet that a tune from LMS vs a data logged adjusted tune from Torrie would see gains
I almost got BigMac to let me do the difference as he has a MyCal and I have an SCT that we could use.
Maybe in a few weeks when he's not busy. Hopefully by then Erick@LET will be able to do a tune as well.
That'd be cool to do at the track and compare times. You unleashed guys need to update those times to the list. ALOT of LMS at the top of it.
Quote from: 4DRHTRD on August 26, 2014, 02:14:45 PM
I would bet that a tune from LMS vs a data logged adjusted tune from Torrie would see gains
I almost got BigMac to let me do the difference as he has a MyCal and I have an SCT that we could use.
Maybe in a few weeks when he's not busy. Hopefully by then Erick@LET will be able to do a tune as well.
So LMS doesn't modify their tune for individual customers...
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 25, 2014, 11:57:48 PM
All our tunes are custom and can always be tweaked to anyone's liking. They are custom designed by our tuner and run on the Dynojet with vehicles that we purchase. Tunes are then adjusted for various strategy codes.
Now before you start assuming I'm drinking the LMS Kool-Aid please note that I'm all stock on this car. Also I have stated in other threads that when I do toss a tune on it will be Torrie as he runs the SCT TSX. I'm just grateful we have at least 2 great tuners to work with us. :)
Quote from: 4DRHTRD on August 26, 2014, 02:14:45 PM
Quote from: kinder on August 26, 2014, 01:00:25 PM
I don't think you should plan on switching just for "gains" as I don't think you will find any. Both tuners truly know these engines and what they are capable of.
The only real reason to switch is for service. If you feel that LMS is not responding/ taking care of you the way you want then try Torrie.
IMO :)
I would bet that a tune from LMS vs a data logged adjusted tune from Torrie would see gains
I almost got BigMac to let me do the difference as he has a MyCal and I have an SCT that we could use.
Maybe in a few weeks when he's not busy. Hopefully by then Erick@LET will be able to do a tune as well.
I was supposed to go see Erick@LET last week and got caught up with finalizing the sale of my house/moving. I need to schedule a time with him to drop off the SHO for a week.
Does LMS take a data log file from the customer to make fine tuned adjustments? Do they offer custom tunes for e30?
Well I am gonna find out what difference it makes. My tuner for unleashed should be here tomorrow and in planing a track day next weekend after some data logging. Times will show the difference. I have asked before about custom tunes and they said the only custom tuning lms done is when you go to a 3 bar map sensor..... which I did and it was "custom" but I did no data logging or anything they just sent me tunes like usual
I'd much rather have a tune based on data logs and not just a "here you go!" File. Every engine acts just a little bit different.
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 04:07:40 PM
I'd much rather have a tune based on data logs and not just a "here you go!" File.
I'm the opposite here. I'd rather the tested, tested, and more tested tunes based on dyno use and great #'s to back it than a couple hundred dollar handheld. Just preferences in the 2 styles of tuning as we've all stated.
The tuning for corn is a great ? Haven't heard of them into that yet.
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 04:07:40 PM
I'd much rather have a tune based on data logs and not just a "here you go!" File. Every engine acts just a little bit different.
I agree!!! Some people make amazing power on the same tune I have
Quote from: SHOnUup on August 26, 2014, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 04:07:40 PM
I'd much rather have a tune based on data logs and not just a "here you go!" File.
I'm the opposite here. I'd rather the tested, tested, and more tested tunes based on dyno use and great #'s to back it than a couple hundred dollar handheld. Just preferences in the 2 styles of tuning as we've all stated.
The tuning for corn is a great ? Haven't heard of them into that yet.
It's not the device that dictates the final tune. It's the man behind the computer that is adjusting the parameters according to what he sees from the data log. That is what makes a true custom tune that is far superior in my eyes than a tune that has not been testes on your exact car.
Let's say your car has a less than perfect internals, be it carbon build up on the valves, fuel pump flows less than expected, injector is clogged and so on. When you load that cute little tune from LMS to your car and go for a hot lap without knowing if it's the right fit for your car you are potentially in store for damaged parts right away or even 50k down the road.
Same story now only with unleased tuning, after you load his tune you take it out and do a data log, send it in, and he says something like, hey it looks like your car is a little low on fuel pressure or he notices knock at a certain event so he adjust according to the issues he sees need adjusting.
Make sense?
I too am curious, I think I'll pony up and take mine to LMS and get it on the dyno. I am really curious to see if they can adjust the tune for my mod level for my individual car. I was planning on heading that way next month anyway.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My opinion is that peak gains between the two, or at least comparably matched tunes (say, stage 4 LMS vs. a similarly aggressive mapping from Torrie), is not likely to be huge.
That said, and even though TMS claims their tunes not to be "canned", there is still absolutely a conservativeness to any.....canned tune. It's designed to be applied to dozens of different engines, running different gasolines, in different climates, in different elevations, etc..
Even if you're not interested in dappling in ethanol, a custom tune IS better, becasue as already stated, not all engines are created equal, not all climates or conditions are the same, and this is the biggest one - gasoline quality and formulation can be drastically different, region to region, with some being a great deal shittier than others.
But, LMS still does an excellent job, and by all accounts their semi-tailered tuning solutions do a great job. But, a custom tune is just that extra step. And if you want to play with ethanol, as it has been proven here, even without any modifications to the 13+ fuel system, it opens up a new world for an engine tuner.
If you're okay with sticking with reformulated E10 or conversational gas, and aren't interested in data logging and email correspondence and all of that, LMS is a super easy, great tuning solution with excellent, noticeable results. The Men's Warehouse of tunes.
Unleashed can be your tailer.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 04:36:20 PM
Quote from: SHOnUup on August 26, 2014, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 04:07:40 PM
I'd much rather have a tune based on data logs and not just a "here you go!" File.
I'm the opposite here. I'd rather the tested, tested, and more tested tunes based on dyno use and great #'s to back it than a couple hundred dollar handheld. Just preferences in the 2 styles of tuning as we've all stated.
The tuning for corn is a great ? Haven't heard of them into that yet.
It's not the device that dictates the final tune. It's the man behind the computer that is adjusting the parameters according to what he sees from the data log. That is what makes a true custom tune that is far superior in my eyes than a tune that has not been testes on your exact car.
Let's say your car has a less than perfect internals, be it carbon build up on the valves, fuel pump flows less than expected, injector is clogged and so on. When you load that cute little tune from LMS to your car and go for a hot lap without knowing if it's the right fit for your car you are potentially in store for damaged parts right away or even 50k down the road.
Same story now only with unleased tuning, after you load his tune you take it out and do a data log, send it in, and he says something like, hey it looks like your car is a little low on fuel pressure or he notices knock at a certain event so he adjust according to the issues he sees need adjusting.
Make sense?
Good points. As all tuned vehicles should be monitored(a no brainer to me). As I monitor, if I was seeing some noticeable knock or fuel issues I would also call LMS (no weird knock readings and it runs like a raped ape) for different style tune as they have many available.
If tuning a car "not made so equal", wouldn't the tuning be to take away timing and slow the car down. Thus being more of a candidate for not tuning at all?
This is just fun debate type stuff, please don't take it personal as I am still learning the ins and outs of these cars.
To utter earlier phrase, thankfully we have at least 2 great tuners to satisfy all sides of the fence.
Quote from: SHOnUup on August 26, 2014, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 04:36:20 PM
Quote from: SHOnUup on August 26, 2014, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 04:07:40 PM
I'd much rather have a tune based on data logs and not just a "here you go!" File.
I'm the opposite here. I'd rather the tested, tested, and more tested tunes based on dyno use and great #'s to back it than a couple hundred dollar handheld. Just preferences in the 2 styles of tuning as we've all stated.
The tuning for corn is a great ? Haven't heard of them into that yet.
It's not the device that dictates the final tune. It's the man behind the computer that is adjusting the parameters according to what he sees from the data log. That is what makes a true custom tune that is far superior in my eyes than a tune that has not been testes on your exact car.
Let's say your car has a less than perfect internals, be it carbon build up on the valves, fuel pump flows less than expected, injector is clogged and so on. When you load that cute little tune from LMS to your car and go for a hot lap without knowing if it's the right fit for your car you are potentially in store for damaged parts right away or even 50k down the road.
Same story now only with unleased tuning, after you load his tune you take it out and do a data log, send it in, and he says something like, hey it looks like your car is a little low on fuel pressure or he notices knock at a certain event so he adjust according to the issues he sees need adjusting.
Make sense?
Good points. As all tuned vehicles should be monitored(a no brainer to me). As I monitor, if I was seeing some noticeable knock or fuel issues I would also call LMS (no weird knock readings and it runs like a raped ape) for different style tune as they have many available.
If tuning a car "not made so equal", wouldn't the tuning be to take away timing and slow the car down. Thus being more of a candidate for not tuning at all?
This is just fun debate type stuff, please don't take it personal as I am still learning the ins and outs of these cars.
To utter earlier phrase, thankfully we have at least 2 great tuners to satisfy all sides of the fence.
My examples of less than adequate conditions are just one scenario that a custom tune is beneficial. A more applicable example would have positive power gains. Your tune from LMS does not adjust for your cars specific needs. The car can only adjust for abnormalities to an extent.
I prefer to have my tune built around the data my car provides. Rather than the test car that was run on the dyno for awhile. It's the logical, sensible, and economical choice in my opinion.
Then there is the e30 customization that I have found amazing results from.
I do not belong to anyone's side. I made my choice bases on the options we are given. I went with what I found was best.
Ok here is a question, LMS stated that they cannot tune any further 13+ due to fuel limitations. That the XV1 for example must be accompanied my a meth solution. So how come Unleashed can tune for e30? That is has been stated on here that the 13+ cars have more flow capabilities.
I am just trying to get answers, not bashing here OK!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't know why LMS cannot tune for e30...
All I know is my fuel pressure looks excellent on e30 and I make more power than you guys running the latest and greatest from the other guys. :)
It's time to set the coolaid down and try a different flavor...
It isn't that LMS fundamentally disagrees with E tuning. They tune for E on Mustangs don't they?
The reasoning they've used here time and time again is fueling limitations on the 3.5 EB platform. Now that there's clear evidence that the 13+ fueling system supports E30 and perhaps beyond, I really don't understand what the deal is...
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 08:35:37 PM
I don't know why LMS cannot tune for e30...
All I know is my fuel pressure looks excellent on e30 and I make more power than you guys running the latest and greatest from the other guys. :)
It's time to set the coolaid down and try a different flavor...
Tuning for E30 doesn't really help me, I can't get anything above E10 here. But I would love to see what yours does on a Dyno.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: ShoBoat on August 26, 2014, 09:19:52 PM
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 08:35:37 PM
I don't know why LMS cannot tune for e30...
All I know is my fuel pressure looks excellent on e30 and I make more power than you guys running the latest and greatest from the other guys. :)
It's time to set the coolaid down and try a different flavor...
Tuning for E30 doesn't really help me, I can't get anything above E10 here. But I would love to see what yours does on a Dyno.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
New dyno in my area 6-8 weeks.
But my 1/4 stock + e is as quick as some tuned cars.
Quote from: IHeartGroceries on August 26, 2014, 09:01:15 PM
It isn't that LMS fundamentally disagrees with E tuning. They tune for E on Mustangs don't they?
The reasoning they've used here time and time again is fueling limitations on the 3.5 EB platform. Now that there's clear evidence that the 13+ fueling system supports E30 and perhaps beyond, I really don't understand what the deal is...
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
So.....its enough to fuel BPD' s 700 HP built motor but not some corn?
BPD's fueling system is supplemented with Methanol. And, although he is showing large boost numbers, that is only part of his tunes' equation. We certainly could tune for Ethanol but choose not to on the Ecoboost. We have already explained why. Fueling volume requirements and varying ethanol qualities play a big part in the overall decision. We also have doubts on how accurate any data logging is. Nobody has dyno or track tested the Ecoboost as thoroughly as Livernois has. The results of that testing, as we have said before are proven by countless dyno and track run documentations. We feel very comfortable with our tunes and our wish is that those that use them will feel comfortable as well as appreciate the gains they produce. This is our view on tuning matters discussed.
A little bit off topic here,i know LMS always recomended using BP gasoline for our EB vehicles,lately started using BP and noticed the car running a little bit smoother and more efficient,thank you LMS for the top notch service and tunes.
My Edge has the BP preferred logo on the fuel cap (don't know if OEM tho). Exxon works best for it tho, power & mpg wise.
Quote from: ZSHO on August 27, 2014, 10:40:14 AM
A little bit off topic here,i know LMS always recomended using BP gasoline for our EB vehicles,lately started using BP and noticed the car running a little bit smoother and more efficient,thank you LMS for the top notch service and tunes.
BP is the standard it seems...each one I've stopped at had no problem telling me how much they refill tanks and which days.
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 26, 2014, 11:25:10 PM
BPD's fueling system is supplemented with Methanol. And, although he is showing large boost numbers, that is only part of his tunes' equation. We certainly could tune for Ethanol but choose not to on the Ecoboost. We have already explained why. Fueling volume requirements and varying ethanol qualities play a big part in the overall decision. We also have doubts on how accurate any data logging is. Nobody has dyno or track tested the Ecoboost as thoroughly as Livernois has. The results of that testing, as we have said before are proven by countless dyno and track run documentations. We feel very comfortable with our tunes and our wish is that those that use them will feel comfortable as well as appreciate the gains they produce. This is our view on tuning matters discussed.
What do you use to data log that is different that what SCT uses to data log, since you have both systems and use both systems have you done a side by side comparison, same car, same dyno and can you share how the data was different?
Also are you sure you have the most dyno/track testing? I would hazard that Torrie is equal or has dyno'd more cars and worked with more data logs and I'll explain why:
You will only deal with one customer at a time on your dyno at your shop (mixed in with all the other vehicles you support) vs Torrie will work with multiple people simultaneously each week to do either data log reviews from dynos or live remote data logging. Also unless you've changed I don't believe your own device can do data logs at the track that the customer can do and then send to you vs Torrie works constantly with many people to do data log revisions based off of track logs.
Making these statements are great for marketing but I would hazard not necessarily correct. On the F150 platform I know Erick@LET works almost all day every day reviewing logs, doing tune updates, making revisions and responding to road, track and dyno logs. The other people who tune are constantly reviewing their tunes and working to update them daily and learn daily on this specific platform and as a result are making revision iterations much faster than you guys do.
You make a great "base" tune (since you don't like canned) for many people that is safe based off of your assessment that X tune will work across many different climates, fuel blends etc. The other tuners start with that then work with the customers to modify the tune based off of data logging and review then update accordingly based off of how the car reacts to local conditions and fuel, heck even how the vehicle was built.
More to the base tune point - you make a 91 octane tune but do you make a 91 octane AZ tune and 91 octane CA tune? We have different qualities of gas, some of our stations carry CA gas and we ping mercilessly but if we use local 91 octane gas (local Circle K not associated with Shell) you can run more timing without pinging. I'm sure East coast 91 octane is like gold compared to ours. Since you don't do specific customer data log tune revisions and don't do state based fuel tunes then you have to make a 91 octane tune that works for the worst of fuel instead of sending a tune, getting feedback from the customer on how the tune is working on their vehicle with that fuel and then making +/- adjustments to timing to accommodate accordingly.
Can't knock the logic with your questions Mike. I too am curious, I don't have any issues with my tune at this time but I wonder if there is more to be had. The question that burns for me is why isn't the X4 capable of data logging with accuracy in the 13+ SHO. I have used it on other cars and it seemed to work well. As long as you don't use too many PIDs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: ShoBoat on August 27, 2014, 12:07:25 PM
Can't knock the logic with your questions Mike. I too am curious, I don't have any issues with my tune at this time but I wonder if there is more to be had. The question that burns for me is why isn't the X4 capable of data logging with accuracy in the 13+ SHO. I have used it on other cars and it seemed to work well. As long as you don't use too many PIDs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's not a matter of the tuner, it's a matter of the interface to the CAN bus and the amount of data it can give a once, aka 56k modem vs 1mb - only so much data can come down at once. :)
^^ right, so is there an issue with the interface on the 13+ cars with the X4?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: ShoBoat on August 27, 2014, 12:11:50 PM
^^ right, so is there an issue with the interface on the 13+ cars with the X4?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No...all of the consumer grade loggers take advantage of the 500k baud connection.
Quote from: ShoBoat on August 27, 2014, 12:11:50 PM
^^ right, so is there an issue with the interface on the 13+ cars with the X4?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That I can't answer, I haven't compared an X4 (never bought one yet) vs TSX (which was not good) vs X3 (works great)
As much as I bust LMS chops I bust SCT's chops as well for their issues and some of the things they do and how they can make it WAY better.
I'm an equal opportunity stats checker/functionality fussy guy, if you post up data and it's not backed up with actual tests, numbers, capabilities I start asking questions, I don't just take statements as valid especially things involving numbers.
I'm still hoping that Cobb comes to the table sometime, they would make HUGE improvements on the tuning platform and tuning capabilities.
A friend tuned the same car with SCT and Cobb (4 cyl ecoboost) and within 10 minutes he was able to get way more out of the car safely due to the Cobb software interface and how it instructed him on what limiters he was hitting instead of just guessing with SCT.
But there are still other issues, hardware speed, efficiency of the code, etc....Compare Torque to Dash Command and you will see a huge difference.
Quote from: 4DRHTRD on August 27, 2014, 11:18:04 AM
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 26, 2014, 11:25:10 PM
BPD's fueling system is supplemented with Methanol. And, although he is showing large boost numbers, that is only part of his tunes' equation. We certainly could tune for Ethanol but choose not to on the Ecoboost. We have already explained why. Fueling volume requirements and varying ethanol qualities play a big part in the overall decision. We also have doubts on how accurate any data logging is. Nobody has dyno or track tested the Ecoboost as thoroughly as Livernois has. The results of that testing, as we have said before are proven by countless dyno and track run documentations. We feel very comfortable with our tunes and our wish is that those that use them will feel comfortable as well as appreciate the gains they produce. This is our view on tuning matters discussed.
What do you use to data log that is different that what SCT uses to data log, since you have both systems and use both systems have you done a side by side comparison, same car, same dyno and can you share how the data was different?
Also are you sure you have the most dyno/track testing? I would hazard that Torrie is equal or has dyno'd more cars and worked with more data logs and I'll explain why:
You will only deal with one customer at a time on your dyno at your shop (mixed in with all the other vehicles you support) vs Torrie will work with multiple people simultaneously each week to do either data log reviews from dynos or live remote data logging. Also unless you've changed I don't believe your own device can do data logs at the track that the customer can do and then send to you vs Torrie works constantly with many people to do data log revisions based off of track logs.
Making these statements are great for marketing but I would hazard not necessarily correct. On the F150 platform I know Erick@LET works almost all day every day reviewing logs, doing tune updates, making revisions and responding to road, track and dyno logs. The other people who tune are constantly reviewing their tunes and working to update them daily and learn daily on this specific platform and as a result are making revision iterations much faster than you guys do.
You make a great "base" tune (since you don't like canned) for many people that is safe based off of your assessment that X tune will work across many different climates, fuel blends etc. The other tuners start with that then work with the customers to modify the tune based off of data logging and review then update accordingly based off of how the car reacts to local conditions and fuel, heck even how the vehicle was built.
More to the base tune point - you make a 91 octane tune but do you make a 91 octane AZ tune and 91 octane CA tune? We have different qualities of gas, some of our stations carry CA gas and we ping mercilessly but if we use local 91 octane gas (local Circle K not associated with Shell) you can run more timing without pinging. I'm sure East coast 91 octane is like gold compared to ours. Since you don't do specific customer data log tune revisions and don't do state based fuel tunes then you have to make a 91 octane tune that works for the worst of fuel instead of sending a tune, getting feedback from the customer on how the tune is working on their vehicle with that fuel and then making +/- adjustments to timing to accommodate accordingly.
We are using OEM grade hardware to ensure proper logging. We do not use a PID that then has an equation, to then give a improper value like so many other logging devices. This can result in seeing the wrong values which we have seen happen time and time again. I am not certain why you keep asking the same questions over and over again on this. We offered to fly you here to see what we do, we have offered others that are non-believers to fly you here to see what we do, and whenever we offer, the excuses start flowing. It's very disappointing that you would rather continue to spout incorrect information with no hard data while saying we do the same. The difference is we have offered to show people, while you just bash us rather than caring about the community by having an open mind on things.
Now, addressing the facts. 91 octane from various regions of course varies slightly, but dear lord, if you have your tune so much on asswhooper that you are having to adjust it because you went to a different station that is part of the problem that shows lack of wisdom in tuning. These are peoples cars, their 40k+ investment, why would anyone want to have to load a different tune everytime they decided to fill up somewhere else than normal, or go out of town?
But, we actually do testing on fuels. I think many times people forget where we are. We are in Dearborn Heights, right next to Dearborn. We have access to likely the most automotive testing resources in the entire country, this includes fuel depots that have fuel of different blends specifically just for testing.
Back again on datalogging, these loggers people are using have been proven to be incorrect. A great example is a/f ratio. People continue to request a/f ratio to tune these, and many other cars, but the computer doesn't speak in A/F, so an outside company takes a generic PID (which is broadcast much slower than the way we log) and converts it to a/f. But how is this done? You can't calculate A/F without knowing at the bare minimum the stoichiometric A/F of the fuel you're running. What if it's 14.64, 14.58, 14.53, 14.08, 13.71, etc? The A/F calculation changes based on this, as would the tuning associated with it. This flawed system of datalogging is why it takes so many attempts back and forth to get it better, but also why you never see that need with us. We know enough about these cars that we don't need logs. And in the rare occasion we are stumped, we load the tune into one of 11 different ecoboost vehicles at our disposal and recreate it.
Another glaring issue with logging is you are asking customers to go out, and run their car hard with a potential issue. It takes just one WOT run with the tune wrong to blow it up. I also don't know how anyone can ask someone to go run these cars in 4th gear on public roads to gather accurate info. Doing a WOT run in 1st and 2nd does not load these cars properly, so not having an log at low load is rather meaningless. I don't know who here wants to sign up to run from 80-140 repeatedly to get important information. And on top of that, by doing so you are watching info, while not knowing if it's right or wrong, so if it's wrong it's very easily going to be too late, the damage will be done, all so someone can get a log that now is worthless since the car is damaged. Again, just another reason why we use our cars to do this.
When tuned with the right logic, and knowledge behind it, the tune is right from the word go. You don't see Ford going around tuning the car differently for various regions, brands of fuel, or anything like that.
You have also accused us in the past of copying others, which is unfortunate. Let me just spell out some facts about us, our tuning, our products, and the results from it.
in 2009, before anyone had software, we were tuning the SHO and MKS.
In 2011 we were tuning the f150 Eco before other companies could even flash it. We were the first again
in 2012 we were tuning the 2013 SHO while other software wasn't out for 6-8 months later
in 2012 we were tuning the Explorer Sport, almost a full year and a half before anyone else.
first to tune the 2.0 fusion
first to tune the 1.5 fusion
first to tune the 1.6 fusion
first to tune the 2.0 escape
first to tune the 1.6 escape
first tune only 12 second SHO
first 11 second SHO
first 12 second F150
First 12 second Explorer Sport
First with upgraded turbos
First with Downpipes
First with Methanol kits
First to offer 3-bar tuning
First 600whp EcoBoost Dyno captured on video
Highest HP EcoBoost Engine on the planet
I am sure there are more things, like exhausts we have helped create, and other items, but this post is plenty long enough.
We spend a great deal of time and resources making certain what we have is the best out there, and the easiest, most reliable offering. We would love to be able to charge our customers, and then make them do the work for us, but it's not how we operate.
Just take a minute to look at the fast list, read it over, and see where our tuned cars are at. I guess it's hard to argue with results.
^^ makes sense to me. Thanks for the reply and answering my questions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bravo Zulu Livernois.
There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.
But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
I've responded to you in bold and with that I'm done.
Now, addressing the facts. 91 octane from various regions of course varies slightly, but dear lord, if you have your tune so much on asswhooper that you are having to adjust it because you went to a different station that is part of the problem that shows lack of wisdom in tuning. These are peoples cars, their 40k+ investment, why would anyone want to have to load a different tune everytime they decided to fill up somewhere else than normal, or go out of town?
Yes in town here between two stations with stock tune - not modified I will ping and so do others - STOCK FORD TUNE
Back again on datalogging, these loggers people are using have been proven to be incorrect. A great example is a/f ratio. People continue to request a/f ratio to tune these, and many other cars, but the computer doesn't speak in A/F, so an outside company takes a generic PID (which is broadcast much slower than the way we log) and converts it to a/f. But how is this done? You can't calculate A/F without knowing at the bare minimum the stoichiometric A/F of the fuel you're running. What if it's 14.64, 14.58, 14.53, 14.08, 13.71, etc? The A/F calculation changes based on this, as would the tuning associated with it. This flawed system of datalogging is why it takes so many attempts back and forth to get it better, but also why you never see that need with us. We know enough about these cars that we don't need logs. And in the rare occasion we are stumped, we load the tune into one of 11 different ecoboost vehicles at our disposal and recreate it.
SCT doesn't log in A/F it logs in lambda, what the ECU spits out - not A/F you guys are an SCT house, you know this. You use PID's too, that's what Ford uses, it's created to make the data stream, utilize it etc. It's the definition of data in the ECU:
BD-II PIDs (On-board diagnostics Parameter IDs) are codes used to request data from a vehicle, used as a diagnostic tool.
SAE standard J/1979 defines many PIDs, but manufacturers also define many more PIDs specific to their vehicles. All light duty vehicles (i.e. less than 8,500 pounds) sold in North America since 1996, as well as medium duty vehicles (i.e. 8,500-14,000 pounds) beginning in 2005, and heavy duty vehicles (i.e. greater than 14,000 pounds) beginning in 2010,[citation needed] are required to support OBD-II diagnostics, using a standardized data link connector, and a subset of the SAE J/1979 defined PIDs (or SAE J/1939 as applicable for medium/heavy duty vehicles), primarily for state mandated emissions inspections.
Typically, an automotive technician will use PIDs with a scan tool connected to the vehicle's OBD-II connector.
Another glaring issue with logging is you are asking customers to go out, and run their car hard with a potential issue. It takes just one WOT run with the tune wrong to blow it up. I also don't know how anyone can ask someone to go run these cars in 4th gear on public roads to gather accurate info. Doing a WOT run in 1st and 2nd does not load these cars properly, so not having an log at low load is rather meaningless. I don't know who here wants to sign up to run from 80-140 repeatedly to get important information. And on top of that, by doing so you are watching info, while not knowing if it's right or wrong, so if it's wrong it's very easily going to be too late, the damage will be done, all so someone can get a log that now is worthless since the car is damaged. Again, just another reason why we use our cars to do this.
For people who want to do the most with their cars - gearheads yes we are all prepared to do this, over and over to get the most out of our cars. You act as if I'm a tuner, I'm NOT and don't want to be, I'm just questioning some of the things you say, some of the technical things which are unfortuantely incorrect. I've made plenty of high load pulls - the track is the BEST place to do this, works fantastic. A good tuner will start with a very conservative timing/boost map and then move up from there, just as you did when you started your tunes. Then you up the timing and boost until you get knock or spark blow out etc etc etc. Again, my experience as a customer of Torrie's, Erick's and others. For the guys looking to be top you do things like that, just like you did on BPD's SHO with respect to the new motor/heads etc, you had to find out the max.
When tuned with the right logic, and knowledge behind it, the tune is right from the word go. You don't see Ford going around tuning the car differently for various regions, brands of fuel, or anything like that.
No you see Ford detuning massively OTHERWISE you wouldn't exist, right?
You have also accused us in the past of copying others, which is unfortunate. Let me just spell out some facts about us, our tuning, our products, and the results from it.
I don't remember that happening, are you talking about how you took the same cats from our downpipes and put them on yours? Great job, now you offer a set of downpipes that have come down in price massively since introduced and now pass emissions based off of competition. If you would have offered those downpipes when you came out at the price you're currently at I'd probably never have started working with PPE.
First 600whp EcoBoost Dyno captured on video
Nice jab, thanks for perpetuating that it didn't happen, great job there... I'm happy with the results of my tune and the power output and would happily have the witnesses there sign an affidavit testifying to the fact that it happened. Sorry I didn't video EVERY pull that night, around 20-30 overall as we were going through tuning revisions with the aux fueling controller. I like how I find out the source of that rumor, that I lied about my HP comes from you, thanks for confirmation.
We spend a great deal of time and resources making certain what we have is the best out there, and the easiest, most reliable offering. We would love to be able to charge our customers, and then make them do the work for us, but it's not how we operate.
Some guys want adjust-ability, they should have that, you don't have to provide it, it's completely OK that others do. Not all tuners will fit all customers profile, you don't have to have EVERY customer. Now if someone offers a tuner at a lower price with the capability to do adjustments then that's freaking awesome, WIN WIN for me, maybe not for others.
Quote from: IHeartGroceries on August 27, 2014, 02:15:58 PM
There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.
But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
IHeartGroceries
Thanks for the reply
Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.
This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...
Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period
Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.
Here is a chart of GGE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent)
Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary
LME
At least you guys are now validating E85 as a valid pump fuel to use, glad to hear. I agree that the fuel system is taxed from the factory and to be careful with mixing.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Yes in town here between two stations with stock tune - not modified I will ping and so do others - STOCK FORD TUNE
Well if your detonating stock from Ford I'm not sure I would want to tune with that fuel period. Adding more boost is not the right thing to do.
SCT doesn't log in A/F it logs in lambda, what the ECU spits out - not A/F you guys are an SCT house, you know this. You use PID's too, that's what Ford uses, it's created to make the data stream, utilize it etc. It's the definition of data in the ECU:
We didn't say SCT but do you realize there are literally 50+ PIDS of Lambda in the ECM? Your hoping whoever picked the Lambda in whatever software your using for you to view is looking at the right one?
There are Lambda with different delays and offsets, and we have seen this incorrect data. Again why we don't let data logging impact our tuning unless it's done in-house.
BD-II PIDs (On-board diagnostics Parameter IDs) are codes used to request data from a vehicle, used as a diagnostic tool.
SAE standard J/1979 defines many PIDs, but manufacturers also define many more PIDs specific to their vehicles. All light duty vehicles (i.e. less than 8,500 pounds) sold in North America since 1996, as well as medium duty vehicles (i.e. 8,500-14,000 pounds) beginning in 2005, and heavy duty vehicles (i.e. greater than 14,000 pounds) beginning in 2010,[citation needed] are required to support OBD-II diagnostics, using a standardized data link connector, and a subset of the SAE J/1979 defined PIDs (or SAE J/1939 as applicable for medium/heavy duty vehicles), primarily for state mandated emissions inspections.
Typically, an automotive technician will use PIDs with a scan tool connected to the vehicle's OBD-II connector.
This data is for diagnostics and repair shops this data is not required/designed to make changes to the ECM for tuning but nice try
SAE standard J/1979 is a ptotocal that lets people with tools like the snap on scan tool and others view very minimal data. Again something not relevant to tuning an entire engine properly
For people who want to do the most with their cars - gearheads yes we are all prepared to do this, over and over to get the most out of our cars. You act as if I'm a tuner, I'm NOT and don't want to be, I'm just questioning some of the things you say, some of the technical things which are unfortuantely incorrect. I've made plenty of high load pulls - the track is the BEST place to do this, works fantastic. A good tuner will start with a very conservative timing/boost map and then move up from there, just as you did when you started your tunes. Then you up the timing and boost until you get knock or spark blow out etc etc etc. Again, my experience as a customer of Torrie's, Erick's and others. For the guys looking to be top you do things like that, just like you did on BPD's SHO with respect to the new motor/heads etc, you had to find out the max.
I would be willing to bet very few are doing datalogs in 4th gear to 140MPH?
No you see Ford detuning massively OTHERWISE you wouldn't exist, right?
We see ford tuning Differently
You have also accused us in the past of copying others, which is unfortunate. Let me just spell out some facts about us, our tuning, our products, and the results from it.
I don't remember that happening, are you talking about how you took the same cats from our downpipes and put them on yours? Great job, now you offer a set of downpipes that have come down in price massively since introduced and now pass emissions based off of competition. If you would have offered those downpipes when you came out at the price you're currently at I'd probably never have started working with PPE.
Look back through your posts you claimed we copied SCT.
We clearly don't make our pipes here there made by American Racing. He switched all his cats for all his products. They are also all 100% made in the USA. We don't use the same cat as you.
Nice jab, thanks for perpetuating that it didn't happen, great job there... I'm happy with the results of my tune and the power output and would happily have the witnesses there sign an affidavit testifying to the fact that it happened. Sorry I didn't video EVERY pull that night, around 20-30 overall as we were going through tuning revisions with the aux fueling controller. I like how I find out the source of that rumor, that I lied about my HP comes from you, thanks for confirmation.
We are just stating that it's the first captured on video. Like the other vehicles we were the first to set records in basically every category we are in
Some guys want adjust-ability, they should have that, you don't have to provide it, it's completely OK that others do. Not all tuners will fit all customers profile, you don't have to have EVERY customer. Now if someone offers a tuner at a lower price with the capability to do adjustments then that's freaking awesome, WIN WIN for me, maybe not for others.
We will do any adjusting customers want (as long as it safe), call or email in. We pride ourselves in making custom tunes tailored to anyone. We also can change more parameters than anyone currently offers. That's how we got started in this whole tuning.
[/quote]
Quote from: 4DRHTRD on August 27, 2014, 03:36:30 PM
At least you guys are now validating E85 as a valid pump fuel to use, glad to hear. I agree that the fuel system is taxed from the factory and to be careful with mixing.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Only recently has the fuel got better.
Remember we have oem engineers walking around here and when they do tests and say its no good and we see the data we can't argue. Data is data.
We always suggest people use the VP C85 its really really good. And its also tested before it leaves
Its also nice to see you agree with us on the fuel system being taxed. We have been trying to tell you an others the danger of the fuel system when being used with E85
LME
I guess we've been lucky out here to have good E85 for a few years then. :)
Hopefully you guys will fully support E85 as a tuning solution once there's a complete bolt in fuel system upgrade with control for the aux injectors. As we both know this motor loves timing and if there's enough E85 flowing the numbers it can produce on ATP turbos are amazing.
Since you guys are tied so directly with the ECU it's control/functions figure out a way to make it work on conjunction with an AEM or ProEFI aux injector controller without fighting. I'm hoping to have a proof of concept soon, you guys can build it much quicker, you have more resources and more partners. Just remember to give credit where credit is due if you come out with it.
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 01:18:38 PMLet me just spell out some facts about us, our tuning, our products, and the results from it.
In 2009, before anyone had software, we were tuning the SHO and MKS.
In 2011, we were tuning the f150 Eco before other companies could even flash it. We were the first again
In 2012, we were tuning the 2013 SHO while other software wasn't out for 6-8 months later
In 2012, we were tuning the Explorer Sport, almost a full year and a half before anyone else.
First to tune the 2.0 fusion
First to tune the 1.5 fusion
First to tune the 1.6 fusion
First to tune the 2.0 escape
First to tune the 1.6 escape
First tune only 12 second SHO
First 11 second SHO
First 12 second F150
First 12 second Explorer Sport
First with upgraded turbo's
First with Downpipes
First with Methanol kits
First to offer 3-bar tuning
First 600whp EcoBoost Dyno captured on video
Highest HP EcoBoost Engine on the planet
Just take a minute to look at the fast list, read it over, and see where our tuned cars are at. I guess it's hard to argue with results.
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 08:35:37 PMIt's time to set the coolaid down and try a different flavor...
Hhmmmm......
Looking over that
LONG list of 1st's for LMS, and coupling it with the fact that LMS car's hold down the list of fastest cars etc......
I, and many others will be more than happy
NOT trying out any different flavored Kool-Aid. :alkashi:
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee231/bpd1151/Miscellaneous/BambicFun_zps2b729b9b.jpg) (http://s229.photobucket.com/user/bpd1151/media/Miscellaneous/BambicFun_zps2b729b9b.jpg.html)
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: IHeartGroceries on August 27, 2014, 02:15:58 PM
There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.
But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
IHeartGroceries
Thanks for the reply
Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.
This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...
Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period
Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.
Here is a chart of GGE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent)
Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary
LME
The fuel pump number and specs come directly from a Ford dealership parts department. I had this researched when I had the fuel pump recall done as I was curious why no previous years were affected.
Isn't Ford using Bosch DI-Motronic for their system? Bosch says they are. More than a few publications have indicated this is correct also. The parts look exactly the same also. Bosch rates their system for 3k PSI and they claim it is fine for any worldwide fuel including E-85. The question is if indeed it is this system, what has Ford done to lock it down to 2150 PSI?
I don't care about running straight E-85 as I'm sure the law of diminishing returns is at play. Hell Fords collaboration with the "ethanol boosting" concept shows the biggest benefits being a tiny bit of E directly injected. Tiny bit being a meth size tank refilled at normal service intervals.
At 30% we are about 1.13 times straight fuel needed, not the almost 1.4 quoted in your chart. If the fuel system is that taxed stock, how is there ANY room for tuning...straight gas or otherwise? Ford has OK'd E-15 so taking that into account E-30 is only 1.065 above Fords rating.
After many months and a max of about 46% E-85 stock there were no CEL's, no DTC's, no warnings of any kind. (VIA IDS, Torque, Dashcommand, and OBDLink) Fuel trims were pushed beyond Fords stated limits in their OBD system operation summary yet...nothing. Fuel mileage was good, in fact at some blend percentages it was a bit better than stock. The only change with the data
I had available was that my 1/4 mile time dropped by 4/10ths (At 25% which was also where I saw the best MPGs), which incidentally, Torque indicated but I was skeptical about. Till i saw my time slips...It felt stronger but who trusts the butt dyno?
These are my experiences researching, using, and testing E-85, YMMV.
Flame suit engaged.
Quote from: bpd1151 on August 27, 2014, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 01:18:38 PMLet me just spell out some facts about us, our tuning, our products, and the results from it.
In 2009, before anyone had software, we were tuning the SHO and MKS.
In 2011, we were tuning the f150 Eco before other companies could even flash it. We were the first again
In 2012, we were tuning the 2013 SHO while other software wasn't out for 6-8 months later
In 2012, we were tuning the Explorer Sport, almost a full year and a half before anyone else.
First to tune the 2.0 fusion
First to tune the 1.5 fusion
First to tune the 1.6 fusion
First to tune the 2.0 escape
First to tune the 1.6 escape
First tune only 12 second SHO
First 11 second SHO
First 12 second F150
First 12 second Explorer Sport
First with upgraded turbo's
First with Downpipes
First with Methanol kits
First to offer 3-bar tuning
First 600whp EcoBoost Dyno captured on video
Highest HP EcoBoost Engine on the planet
Just take a minute to look at the fast list, read it over, and see where our tuned cars are at. I guess it's hard to argue with results.
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 08:35:37 PMIt's time to set the coolaid down and try a different flavor...
Looking over that LONG list of 1st's for LMS, and coupling it with the fact that LMS car's hold down the list of fastest cars etc......
(http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n82/mikejohns12/untitled_zps7166df14.png) (http://s110.photobucket.com/user/mikejohns12/media/untitled_zps7166df14.png.html)
Hold up, so are you saying that just by running 25% E you gained almost a 1/2 second in the quarter. That's only 15% more than the E10 available here? I just want to ensure that I get this right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't have any time slips but on stock tune with about 25% it feels like a lightly tuned car. It's very cool.
They changed the way the lift stop works. It has two different duty cycles now aka psi it supply fuel at.
Quote from: ShoBoat on August 27, 2014, 07:10:09 PM
Hold up, so are you saying that just by running 25% E you gained almost a 1/2 second in the quarter. That's only 15% more than the E10 available here? I just want to ensure that I get this right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is 100 % accurate.
And my time slips are posted.
Quote from: panther427 on August 27, 2014, 07:37:26 PM
I don't have any time slips but on stock tune with about 25% it feels like a lightly tuned car. It's very cool.
They changed the way the lift stop works. It has two different duty cycles now aka psi it supply fuel at.
Variable vs fixed
75 max PSI vs 65
Quote from: bpd1151 on August 27, 2014, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 01:18:38 PMLet me just spell out some facts about us, our tuning, our products, and the results from it.
In 2009, before anyone had software, we were tuning the SHO and MKS.
In 2011, we were tuning the f150 Eco before other companies could even flash it. We were the first again
In 2012, we were tuning the 2013 SHO while other software wasn't out for 6-8 months later
In 2012, we were tuning the Explorer Sport, almost a full year and a half before anyone else.
First to tune the 2.0 fusion
First to tune the 1.5 fusion
First to tune the 1.6 fusion
First to tune the 2.0 escape
First to tune the 1.6 escape
First tune only 12 second SHO
First 11 second SHO
First 12 second F150
First 12 second Explorer Sport
First with upgraded turbo's
First with Downpipes
First with Methanol kits
First to offer 3-bar tuning
First 600whp EcoBoost Dyno captured on video
Highest HP EcoBoost Engine on the planet
Just take a minute to look at the fast list, read it over, and see where our tuned cars are at. I guess it's hard to argue with results.
Quote from: wasinger3000 on August 26, 2014, 08:35:37 PMIt's time to set the coolaid down and try a different flavor...
Hhmmmm......
Looking over that LONG list of 1st's for LMS, and coupling it with the fact that LMS car's hold down the list of fastest cars etc......
I, and many others will be more than happy NOT trying out any different flavored Kool-Aid. :alkashi:
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee231/bpd1151/Miscellaneous/BambicFun_zps2b729b9b.jpg) (http://s229.photobucket.com/user/bpd1151/media/Miscellaneous/BambicFun_zps2b729b9b.jpg.html)
Why are you quoting that with my picture Mike?
You love the look of a big sexy wrestling coach?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 27, 2014, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: IHeartGroceries on August 27, 2014, 02:15:58 PM
There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.
But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
IHeartGroceries
Thanks for the reply
Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.
This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...
Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period
Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.
Here is a chart of GGE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent)
Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary
LME
The fuel pump number and specs come directly from a Ford dealership parts department. I had this researched when I had the fuel pump recall done as I was curious why no previous years were affected.
Isn't Ford using Bosch DI-Motronic for their system? Bosch says they are. More than a few publications have indicated this is correct also. The parts look exactly the same also. Bosch rates their system for 3k PSI and they claim it is fine for any worldwide fuel including E-85. The question is if indeed it is this system, what has Ford done to lock it down to 2150 PSI?
I don't care about running straight E-85 as I'm sure the law of diminishing returns is at play. Hell Fords collaboration with the "ethanol boosting" concept shows the biggest benefits being a tiny bit of E directly injected. Tiny bit being a meth size tank refilled at normal service intervals.
At 30% we are about 1.13 times straight fuel needed, not the almost 1.4 quoted in your chart. If the fuel system is that taxed stock, how is there ANY room for tuning...straight gas or otherwise? Ford has OK'd E-15 so taking that into account E-30 is only 1.065 above Fords rating.
After many months and a max of about 46% E-85 stock there were no CEL's, no DTC's, no warnings of any kind. (VIA IDS, Torque, Dashcommand, and OBDLink) Fuel trims were pushed beyond Fords stated limits in their OBD system operation summary yet...nothing. Fuel mileage was good, in fact at some blend percentages it was a bit better than stock. The only change with the data I had available was that my 1/4 mile time dropped by 4/10ths (At 25% which was also where I saw the best MPGs), which incidentally, Torque indicated but I was skeptical about. Till i saw my time slips...It felt stronger but who trusts the butt dyno?
These are my experiences researching, using, and testing E-85, YMMV.
Flame suit engaged.
I think people are confusing the Low Pressure Fuel Pump (LPFP) with the High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP). The Recall covered the LPFP on the 2013+ cars. While it does run a higher PSI than the 10-12 cars, the LPFP is not even close to hinderance on these cars. The HPFP is identical on every transverse 3.5 EcoBoost to date. MKS, SHO, Explorer, Flex, Etc. They all use the same 2010 engineering number and service part. Even when dropping to 500# in the rail, the LPFP doesn't skip a beat.
Now, circling back to a point that gets overlooked so often. This is as simple as we can make it. If a tune and bolt ons can max out the capability of the fuel system on E10, running ANYTHING higher than E10 will max out the system earlier, and since the GGE increases at a higher rate than the increase of power seen, you will be using E15, 20, 25, 30, etc to just make less power than you could being properly being tuned on E10.
And to answer the question on why these use 2175 when the pump theoretically can do 3000, research Euro standards vs. US standards for Gasoline. US Gasoline has too high of a PPM count of sulfur to run higher than 2175 reliably.
One of the rumors was that the LPFP didn't have the capacity to feed the high pressure system, so thank you for dispelling that myth.
Very interesting on the sulfer count being the issue, thanks for that info. i will definitely take a look.
What does GGE stand for?
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 27, 2014, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: IHeartGroceries on August 27, 2014, 02:15:58 PM
There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.
But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
IHeartGroceries
Thanks for the reply
Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.
This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...
Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period
Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.
Here is a chart of GGE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent)
Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary
LME
The fuel pump number and specs come directly from a Ford dealership parts department. I had this researched when I had the fuel pump recall done as I was curious why no previous years were affected.
Isn't Ford using Bosch DI-Motronic for their system? Bosch says they are. More than a few publications have indicated this is correct also. The parts look exactly the same also. Bosch rates their system for 3k PSI and they claim it is fine for any worldwide fuel including E-85. The question is if indeed it is this system, what has Ford done to lock it down to 2150 PSI?
I don't care about running straight E-85 as I'm sure the law of diminishing returns is at play. Hell Fords collaboration with the "ethanol boosting" concept shows the biggest benefits being a tiny bit of E directly injected. Tiny bit being a meth size tank refilled at normal service intervals.
At 30% we are about 1.13 times straight fuel needed, not the almost 1.4 quoted in your chart. If the fuel system is that taxed stock, how is there ANY room for tuning...straight gas or otherwise? Ford has OK'd E-15 so taking that into account E-30 is only 1.065 above Fords rating.
After many months and a max of about 46% E-85 stock there were no CEL's, no DTC's, no warnings of any kind. (VIA IDS, Torque, Dashcommand, and OBDLink) Fuel trims were pushed beyond Fords stated limits in their OBD system operation summary yet...nothing. Fuel mileage was good, in fact at some blend percentages it was a bit better than stock. The only change with the data I had available was that my 1/4 mile time dropped by 4/10ths (At 25% which was also where I saw the best MPGs), which incidentally, Torque indicated but I was skeptical about. Till i saw my time slips...It felt stronger but who trusts the butt dyno?
These are my experiences researching, using, and testing E-85, YMMV.
Flame suit engaged.
Not sure if you agree or disagree. But the HPFP are exactly the same between a 2010 and a 2013 SHO. If you order a pump for a 2010 car today the number will cross reference to a 2013. It has an updated number but ford does this on tons of parts. The flow, pressure and internals are identical. There is no upgrade for 2013
The pump may go to a higher PSI but it will not maintain proper pressure when pushed to the limits. If you want to use any blend of Ethanol thats totally up to you. What we know and have seen its not something that we will recommend. I would be happy to show you or anyone the issues when making more power. We have offered several times.
I promise you get your car tuned properly, put a bunch of Ethanol an most likely the throttle will shut more than (trying to save the engine) it did with straight gas. It may go faster but several things can happen including starving the engine of fuel for very short amounts of time potentially causing damage. Hey nothing may happen but again we can't recommend that.
Another note with more percentage ethanol getting better gas mileage goes against tons of math data and manufacturers research out there. If you drive exactly the same way and same atmospheric conditions are present MPG will be less
Anyway hope this helps explain some of the reasons why we don't recommend it.
Were not saying this just to be difficult, its facts and we are very willing to show anyone anytime. Heck its good education for the community.
DM
Pretty much all of me doesn't think any of these data loggers are doing repeated WOT pulls from 80 to 140 MPH. And if there are, please tell my it is being done at track or in at a place where the public safety is not being compromised.
Hmm my throttle did shut ALOT when I would forget to turn on the aux fuel system when running E50....
:D
Thank god the safety functions in the ECU saved my car over and over and over, one of the reasons I did the dual fuel pump setup instead of the separate fuel pump/cell setup.
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 08:49:04 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 27, 2014, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: IHeartGroceries on August 27, 2014, 02:15:58 PM
There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.
But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
IHeartGroceries
Thanks for the reply
Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.
This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...
Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period
Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.
Here is a chart of GGE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent)
Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary
LME
The fuel pump number and specs come directly from a Ford dealership parts department. I had this researched when I had the fuel pump recall done as I was curious why no previous years were affected.
Isn't Ford using Bosch DI-Motronic for their system? Bosch says they are. More than a few publications have indicated this is correct also. The parts look exactly the same also. Bosch rates their system for 3k PSI and they claim it is fine for any worldwide fuel including E-85. The question is if indeed it is this system, what has Ford done to lock it down to 2150 PSI?
I don't care about running straight E-85 as I'm sure the law of diminishing returns is at play. Hell Fords collaboration with the "ethanol boosting" concept shows the biggest benefits being a tiny bit of E directly injected. Tiny bit being a meth size tank refilled at normal service intervals.
At 30% we are about 1.13 times straight fuel needed, not the almost 1.4 quoted in your chart. If the fuel system is that taxed stock, how is there ANY room for tuning...straight gas or otherwise? Ford has OK'd E-15 so taking that into account E-30 is only 1.065 above Fords rating.
After many months and a max of about 46% E-85 stock there were no CEL's, no DTC's, no warnings of any kind. (VIA IDS, Torque, Dashcommand, and OBDLink) Fuel trims were pushed beyond Fords stated limits in their OBD system operation summary yet...nothing. Fuel mileage was good, in fact at some blend percentages it was a bit better than stock. The only change with the data I had available was that my 1/4 mile time dropped by 4/10ths (At 25% which was also where I saw the best MPGs), which incidentally, Torque indicated but I was skeptical about. Till i saw my time slips...It felt stronger but who trusts the butt dyno?
These are my experiences researching, using, and testing E-85, YMMV.
Flame suit engaged.
Not sure if you agree or disagree. But the HPFP are exactly the same between a 2010 and a 2013 SHO. If you order a pump for a 2010 car today the number will cross reference to a 2013. It has an updated number but ford does this on tons of parts. The flow, pressure and internals are identical. There is no upgrade for 2013
The pump may go to a higher PSI but it will not maintain proper pressure when pushed to the limits. If you want to use any blend of Ethanol thats totally up to you. What we know and have seen its not something that we will recommend. I would be happy to show you or anyone the issues when making more power. We have offered several times.
I promise you get your car tuned properly, put a bunch of Ethanol an most likely the throttle will shut more than (trying to save the engine) it did with straight gas. It may go faster but several things can happen including starving the engine of fuel for very short amounts of time potentially causing damage. Hey nothing may happen but again we can't recommend that.
Another note with more percentage ethanol getting better gas mileage goes against tons of math data and manufacturers research out there. If you drive exactly the same way and same atmospheric conditions are present MPG will be less
Anyway hope this helps explain some of the reasons why we don't recommend it.
Were not saying this just to be difficult, its facts and we are very willing to show anyone anytime. Heck its good education for the community.
DM
There is a study written by the engineering department at MIT that talks about why certain blends get better fuel mileage than straight gas. Its pretty complicated and probably a good topic of discussion....for another thread. It can be found in one of the e85 threads.
On my end there is no disagreement about the HPFP, only change in the system from gen 4.1 to 4.2 is the LPFP.
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 27, 2014, 10:08:02 PM
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 08:49:04 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 27, 2014, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on August 27, 2014, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: IHeartGroceries on August 27, 2014, 02:15:58 PM
There's no doubt that there are circumstances which can lead to skewed log data. Afterall, when you're logging, you're assuming you engine and all of its sensors are in perfect working condition.
This is why some engine tuners request you freshen up your O2S, after so many miles, before a tune can commence.
But, what still confuses me is if it is proven that the 13+ fueling system can sustain tubing for E, and Unleashed has had success doing so, what makes it different for LMS? I haven't seen anything but vehement refusal. LMS, have you tested E on a 13+? If so, why do your findings differ from others'?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
IHeartGroceries
Thanks for the reply
Ok your confused and so are we. I am completely confused why any tuner would want to tax a direct injection system thats already on the edge on gasoline and use any amount of E85. The High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) is the exact same part number on a 2013 as on a 2010 SHO. Not sure why people keep saying there was an upgrade? The problem is we can show anyone when you start pushing the limits of power, the HPFP CANNOT keep up with demand. We have tons of data that showing the commanded 2000+PSI falling to almost 500PSI with just gasoline. Add in any amount of E85 and that number gets worse.
This is some of the reason that these cars are not "Flex Fuel" from Ford. I am sure ford would gladly like to slap a Flex Fuel sticker on the SHO or other vehicles if it was something they think it could handle. E85 is getting better every year and recently we have seen some really good percentages right from the pump. Early on it was not good and the gov doesn't regulate it like gasoline. Notice the octane rating is gone from E85 pumps...
Don't take this as us saying E85 is no good, its not good for this car. Period
Now if you understand E100 you know it takes approximately 1.50 times more quantity of fuel to run your car and E85 takes 1.39 times more you would understand why I would not to recommend taxing a system thats already taxed.
Here is a chart of GGE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent)
Take a look at this. I know guys are mixing but in my opinion thats really scary
LME
The fuel pump number and specs come directly from a Ford dealership parts department. I had this researched when I had the fuel pump recall done as I was curious why no previous years were affected.
Isn't Ford using Bosch DI-Motronic for their system? Bosch says they are. More than a few publications have indicated this is correct also. The parts look exactly the same also. Bosch rates their system for 3k PSI and they claim it is fine for any worldwide fuel including E-85. The question is if indeed it is this system, what has Ford done to lock it down to 2150 PSI?
I don't care about running straight E-85 as I'm sure the law of diminishing returns is at play. Hell Fords collaboration with the "ethanol boosting" concept shows the biggest benefits being a tiny bit of E directly injected. Tiny bit being a meth size tank refilled at normal service intervals.
At 30% we are about 1.13 times straight fuel needed, not the almost 1.4 quoted in your chart. If the fuel system is that taxed stock, how is there ANY room for tuning...straight gas or otherwise? Ford has OK'd E-15 so taking that into account E-30 is only 1.065 above Fords rating.
After many months and a max of about 46% E-85 stock there were no CEL's, no DTC's, no warnings of any kind. (VIA IDS, Torque, Dashcommand, and OBDLink) Fuel trims were pushed beyond Fords stated limits in their OBD system operation summary yet...nothing. Fuel mileage was good, in fact at some blend percentages it was a bit better than stock. The only change with the data I had available was that my 1/4 mile time dropped by 4/10ths (At 25% which was also where I saw the best MPGs), which incidentally, Torque indicated but I was skeptical about. Till i saw my time slips...It felt stronger but who trusts the butt dyno?
These are my experiences researching, using, and testing E-85, YMMV.
Flame suit engaged.
Not sure if you agree or disagree. But the HPFP are exactly the same between a 2010 and a 2013 SHO. If you order a pump for a 2010 car today the number will cross reference to a 2013. It has an updated number but ford does this on tons of parts. The flow, pressure and internals are identical. There is no upgrade for 2013
The pump may go to a higher PSI but it will not maintain proper pressure when pushed to the limits. If you want to use any blend of Ethanol thats totally up to you. What we know and have seen its not something that we will recommend. I would be happy to show you or anyone the issues when making more power. We have offered several times.
I promise you get your car tuned properly, put a bunch of Ethanol an most likely the throttle will shut more than (trying to save the engine) it did with straight gas. It may go faster but several things can happen including starving the engine of fuel for very short amounts of time potentially causing damage. Hey nothing may happen but again we can't recommend that.
Another note with more percentage ethanol getting better gas mileage goes against tons of math data and manufacturers research out there. If you drive exactly the same way and same atmospheric conditions are present MPG will be less
Anyway hope this helps explain some of the reasons why we don't recommend it.
Were not saying this just to be difficult, its facts and we are very willing to show anyone anytime. Heck its good education for the community.
DM
There is a study written by the engineering department at MIT that talks about why certain blends get better fuel mileage than straight gas. Its pretty complicated and probably a good topic of discussion....for another thread. It can be found in one of the e85 threads.
On my end there is no disagreement about the HPFP, only change in the system from gen 4.1 to 4.2 is the LPFP.
I believe I know what document your talking about and I have read that. Its clearly a blend of more than just ethanol an gasoline, I believe it was three types of fuel.
What we were talking about was ethanol and gasoline by itself will not yield better MPG.
DM