Yea... my spark drops to 4 degrees.. feels super weird when it does it. still not used to the feeling of it.

Quote from: StealBlueSho on July 15, 2017, 11:45:55 PM

Quote from: hawkeye93 on July 15, 2017, 11:36:56 PM
I'm sure you guys know more about it than I do, but the LMS spark/boost differences could be due to the fuel used.  On that 93WM run, I was actually running 100 octane fuel.  So perhaps where you started to sense some knock, mine didn't, because of the high octane.  So mine might have added timing after yours stopped.  If I had been using 93 octane, they might have been more similar.

Sent from my OnePlus 5 using Tapatalk

I hear you and the answer is no, it wouldn't make any difference. You set desired boost and that is that... regardless of which octane fuel you use. You could be running 110 octane vs 93 and your desired boost will not change the way LMS sets up their tunes, or any tuner for that matter.

Spark is a bit different.. it will keep adding spark UNLESS you set a max spark value. This is usually seen as a constant 0 on your knock sensor.. so when you see your knock sensor go FLAT through an entire WOT run, you are getting the MAX spark value you can from that tune... regardless of octane. LMS sets the MAX spark value on mine at 23.. I CANNOT go over that value regardless of Octane...

Quote from: TopherSho on July 15, 2017, 11:34:37 PM
yeah i feel your confusion.   Brad has cars with my level of spark and timing making 12.8 and 12.7 ... and i cant get under 13.09.   and now that it is summer i cant get under 13.2 WITH 15/85 for TEMPS ... some cars are just different i guess.

I am not terribly concerned with my datalog times compared to actual ET's.. but if I can compare two datalogs with time values.. I can get an idea... and to Brads defense, I have not seen a real fair heads up ET against another tune... a lot of "Brads tune wasn't finished" or "This was unleashed with e20 and brads 93 octane" etc... etc...

But people have posted heads up ET with unleashed and LMS... Unleashed and BCB, and BCB with LMS... but if other peoples remote LMS MEth tune are pushing 2psi more of boost and more spark than my lms meth tune.. that would make sense why in my testing I am just not seeing how LMS is able to hold up...

I'll post up logs of torries 93 tune and brads 93 when I get home from work. Both are pretty much "finished" tunes. I Wil say looking at them brads 14psi with more spark is quicker to speed once moving. I don't compare the first part of the runs cause torries is at the track and I'm on the street for brads so it a huge difference in being able to launch. Hopefully I'll have some time slips here shortly for the 93 and an e30 we're just finishing up.

I know I LOVE my LMS dyno tune.

Top notch s*** and still THE RECORD holder for THE FASTEST SHO to date (since 2015)...... AND, that's on my LOWER 525AWHP file.

The 617 file is projected to be a 10.7-10.8 pass, and quite honestly, dipping into the 10's will cause me to cage the car, which is ABSOLUTELY something I am NOT interested in doing. Also, my confidence in the drivetrain at level is not all that great.

However, I will say that FMC has a this/close working relationship with LMS, & contrary to all the back n forth bickering over the years, LMS does have access to tables/parameters that NO OTHER TUNER HAS......

So take it FWIW, but the proof is in the time slips.

All the data logging in the world ain't gonna get you there, and I would even argue how accurate the data may actually be.

But alas I'll digress.

Good luck in your continued efforts there SBS. Seriously though.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Here's the logs. also have to take into account that all of Brads logs are with a full tank of gas, full size 18"spare where Torries track run was empty. Also included a AJP93 log with a little full throttle run through 4th and most of 5th from some guy that has the exact same mods as me . my track time with Torries was a 12.88 although I believe I could have went quicker given the opportunity to let it cool down some as that was the second of back to back runs. Hopefully the rain will stop here in central Fl on one of my weekends off and I can get to the track to run Brads tunes. Will do the 93 first then next trip will be the E30 tune and of course logs will follow.

Quote from: bpd1151 on July 16, 2017, 04:31:31 AM
I know I LOVE my LMS dyno tune.

Top notch s*** and still THE RECORD holder for THE FASTEST SHO to date (since 2015)...... AND, that's on my LOWER 525AWHP file.

The 617 file is projected to be a 10.7-10.8 pass, and quite honestly, dipping into the 10's will cause me to cage the car, which is ABSOLUTELY something I am NOT interested in doing. Also, my confidence in the drivetrain at level is not all that great.

However, I will say that FMC has a this/close working relationship with LMS, & contrary to all the back n forth bickering over the years, LMS does have access to tables/parameters that NO OTHER TUNER HAS......

So take it FWIW, but the proof is in the time slips.

All the data logging in the world ain't gonna get you there, and I would even argue how accurate the data may actually be.

But alas I'll digress.

Good luck in your continued efforts there SBS. Seriously though.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I have no doubt that your tune is top notch. I'm sure a dyno tune with your gear is awesome. And I'm sure with all the money and time you spend with LMS they don't cut any corners and take their time... as it stands you are their "look at what we can do with that platform" customer. I appreciate the good luck... and thank you for answering my PMs and the valuable input you do provide to the community.

I believe my clarification has been answered at least on the LMS side... I would love to see a remote LMS meth tunes datalog from a 2010 -2012 MY...

I did send an email last night to LMS asking them (yet again) to double check my tune to make sure nothing was accidentally over looked... maybe they will actually respond with a real answer...thus far they can't tell me at what psi they would me to start the meth at...

And I also hold my other tuners to the same standard.. Brad has gone 33 revisions on my car. Just like LMS, I verified with Brad he was willing to do a remote meth tune... and I already knew Torrie would. I verified Torrie would tune the Alky Control setup...

I'm not picking on LMS, Brad, or Unleashed... like I said... attempting to parse the data here vs what I have is frustrating... something doesn't add up...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bpd does indeed rep the LME platform very well!  And I hope you continue your quest, SBS, and find the answers, that is what this forum is all about   Always keeping in the back of the mind of course that the "secret sauce" is that way for a reason.  Keep diggin'!

Quote from: SHOdded on July 16, 2017, 07:08:45 AM
bpd does indeed rep the LME platform very well!  And I hope you continue your quest, SBS, and find the answers, that is what this forum is all about   Always keeping in the back of the mind of course that the "secret sauce" is that way for a reason.  Keep diggin'!

I am not asking for the secret sauce lol... I totally understand the reasons for that.... When I see remote meth tunes from Livernois Motorsports for other guys configured to run 2 more psi and more spark than mine, it makes sense why I am confused... thats A LOT on the table that they left off my tune for some reason or another. I am just hoping that it was an oversight... a mistake... which every tuner has done...

anyway... that pretty much answered my question in the original post... I can take it to the track and prove it out... but 2psi LESS and LESS spark would be why I was completely underwhelmed with their remote meth tune.. again... same spark and boost as my NON-Meth tune..

I am going to ping Brad to see if he can pull some more torque management out.. he already pulled about 20% which has made a difference..

As long as you stay outta jail, I guess I am good with that

FWIW need to get that Tune looked over with a "Fine Tooth comb" to verify it's up to par. Z

QuoteI am going to ping Brad to see if he can pull some more torque management out.. he already pulled about 20% which has made a difference..

In what way have you seen or fealt the difference from that? I've been thinking about requesting reduced TQ management for a race tune.

12.4 e30 tune 14psi... ajp... I'm very happy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: ZSHO on July 16, 2017, 09:04:55 AM
FWIW need to get that Tune looked over with a "Fine Tooth comb" to verify it's up to par. Z

I just wish I trusted them to actually do it...I feel as if the sales team just pushes people off... would be nice to talk a calibrator...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The way I understand it there is no need for a "close working relationship" with Ford to expose tables within a tune....A while back I talked to SCT about how the base tunes and strategies are added to the database and their origins.

I wondered how SCT can add thousands of strategies to make all the cars "tuneable" without actually having access to the cars to pull the actual strategies from the cars.

I was told that the strategies are basically a form of public knowledge and SCT when requested by consumers simply put some sort of request in on their end, whether it's to Ford or someone else.

It is not a form of hacking or reverse engineering. I guess the strategy is put into a format that is useable to their software and they can pick and choose what is displayed and sometimes they inadvertently leave out essential things that can be added if pinged enough.

But it's common for every tuning company to tout that they have features that others don't....They all do it....Until I have an example I would not accept it...Sometimes tunes can be better because of the tuner's skills or knowledge or philosophy but not because of software functionality.

Often it's not black magic...Tuning for these is similar to mustangs 15 years ago

FWIW Do a Google search of Rick LeBlanc formerly of LMS!! and his close affiliation with Ford. Z

Quote from: ZSHO on July 16, 2017, 02:04:48 PM
FWIW Do a Google search of Rick LeBlanc formerly of LMS!! and his close affiliation with Ford. Z

Never heard of him but FWIW nobody remotely close to Ford would be allowed to tune for people or divulge anything without getting into trouble.

Ask Greg Banish...He works directly with OEMS and has told me he is NOT allowed to offer any assistance whatsoever.

Really it's  just a matter that close affiliation is not required to develop tunes and the software needed to perform aftermarket tuning.