Why do you keep saying that the sensors are bad? How are they bad and what proof do you have to show your sensors vs the vehicle sensors and the differences?
You're not having to defend yourself I just put up the information that I have seen. LMS keeps referencing on different boards that the sensors don't work and you're getting bad data. I want proof of such statements, not just statements to that effect.
Are you saying the lambda values from the stock wideband O2 are not accurate? If so can you show a comparison between an NGK wideband in comparison to the stock wideband?
I want data, not statements without data, that's not bashing that's asking for information. When I post up things I take videos, dynos etc to back my statements. Real world testing with videos of said testing with values taken from the ECU which you say aren't correct.
Please please enlighten me as I'm very confused how the sensors don't work on our vehicles and provide bad data, wouldn't that cause the factory ECU safety systems to not work correctly?

If my statement about company B are incorrect update them, I only know what I read on the forums from your customers in what I'm seeing about the tuner/response times etc.

Quote from: crash712us on April 04, 2014, 01:17:58 AM

Quote from: Josephm on April 04, 2014, 12:01:45 AM
My issue when this topic comes up, comes straight from this post (^^^).

The fact that you say LMS is safer, is not a fact. Think about it, How would a tune, that is a off the shelf, one for all, be SAFER, than one where the individual records his OWN perimeters and sends it off to a tuner. Its just not possible.

The word 'Safe' is IRRELEVANT when it comes to Livernois. I know of only two failures from tuned vehicles, and one CAME from livernois after they did the upgraded turbo (Search for that if you really want filled in; That was my deciding factor on picking a tuner.) and the other was a admitted user error (Meth).

If anything 4DR should of blown his vehicle up numerous times running lean when he was self tuning. This vehicle is very adaptive and impressive needless to say.

What 2 failures? I can almost guarantee you don't have your facts straight. But if you want to spread rumors, I have them and there not pretty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am wondering this one as well, we have never had a car we installed turbos on have a failure. Maybe he's confused with some other shop? We had one with a probelm with the turbo seals, but it's alive and well. Never had an issue with any part of the driveline. Just some smoke which happens all the time on these cars, upgraded turbos or not.

Quote from: 4DRHTRD on April 04, 2014, 01:23:21 AM
Why do you keep saying that the sensors are bad? How are they bad and what proof do you have to show your sensors vs the vehicle sensors and the differences?
You're not having to defend yourself I just put up the information that I have seen. LMS keeps referencing on different boards that the sensors don't work and you're getting bad data. I want proof of such statements, not just statements to that effect.
Are you saying the lambda values from the stock wideband O2 are not accurate? If so can you show a comparison between an NGK wideband in comparison to the stock wideband?
I want data, not statements without data, that's not bashing that's asking for information. When I post up things I take videos, dynos etc to back my statements. Real world testing with videos of said testing with values taken from the ECU which you say aren't correct.
Please please enlighten me as I'm very confused how the sensors don't work on our vehicles and provide bad data, wouldn't that cause the factory ECU safety systems to not work correctly?

If my statement about company B are incorrect update them, I only know what I read on the forums from your customers in what I'm seeing about the tuner/response times etc.

No one said the sensors are bad. What we have said, keep saying, and will continue to keep saying is that the dataloggers people are using are not accurate. Plain and simple. If someone else other than us knew, really knew how these ecm's worked then they would know how incorrect these dataloggers are. Every one of them. The sensors aren't the problem, the software and hardware being used to read them is.

Wasn't there the upgrade turbos that were installed and tuned by livernois that failed and the car sat for months?

ecoboost bob came out and said He incorrectly mixed the meth and he did not update his tune because he figured it wouldn't change much.

No rumors, I read constantly, I read the thread about the livernois car before I bought my EB.

Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on April 04, 2014, 01:29:26 AM

Quote from: crash712us on April 04, 2014, 01:17:58 AM

Quote from: Josephm on April 04, 2014, 12:01:45 AM
My issue when this topic comes up, comes straight from this post (^^^).

The fact that you say LMS is safer, is not a fact. Think about it, How would a tune, that is a off the shelf, one for all, be SAFER, than one where the individual records his OWN perimeters and sends it off to a tuner. Its just not possible.

The word 'Safe' is IRRELEVANT when it comes to Livernois. I know of only two failures from tuned vehicles, and one CAME from livernois after they did the upgraded turbo (Search for that if you really want filled in; That was my deciding factor on picking a tuner.) and the other was a admitted user error (Meth).

If anything 4DR should of blown his vehicle up numerous times running lean when he was self tuning. This vehicle is very adaptive and impressive needless to say.

What 2 failures? I can almost guarantee you don't have your facts straight. But if you want to spread rumors, I have them and there not pretty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am wondering this one as well, we have never had a car we installed turbos on have a failure. Maybe he's confused with some other shop? We had one with a probelm with the turbo seals, but it's alive and well. Never had an issue with any part of the driveline. Just some smoke which happens all the time on these cars, upgraded turbos or not.

How long did it take to fix this issue? I remember the car being down for a significant amount of time

My point is because its said to be 'safe' and people regurgitate it's 'safe' doesn't make it any less safe than any other.

Quote from: Josephm on April 04, 2014, 01:43:40 AM
Wasn't there the upgrade turbos that were installed and tuned by livernois that failed and the car sat for months?

ecoboost bob came out and said He incorrectly mixed the meth and he did not update his tune because he figured it wouldn't change much.

No rumors, I read constantly, I read the thread about the livernois car before I bought my EB.

Eco brick bob was Torrie tuned. And I believe LMS answered the turbo issue. Which I am sure there plenty more information on. But that for those two parties to divulge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It wasn't a tune issue though. He(bob)came out and said he added more meth than water than he was tuned for.

So when it's said xxx is the safest, that's a false statement. Or subjective to what you call safe.

Eco brick bob used denatured alcohol instead of methanol. And that was the root of his failure. And no one blamed Torrie, but you just blame LMS for this. Maybe your just new, but it's so widely known that bob was torrie tuned I don't see how this could be confused.
And that's what really irks me, that there several of are early pioneers that had Torrie tunes that switch to LMS and not one them bash Torrie. Yet we have people here that haven't dealt with LMS and yet feel the need to bash them, or spread false information.
Why can't we afford LMS the same courtesy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think debate and opinions are good. That's what this forum is all about. That's why so many of us log in everyday to read and gain knowledge. I think enough as been said or better yet too much has been said. Too much negative energy on this thread!  Let's get back to learning and talking about our vehicles.  I will not be reading this thread anymore. It's become too heated and personal IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I second that

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Josephm on April 04, 2014, 12:01:45 AM
My issue when this topic comes up, comes straight from this post (^^^).

The fact that you say LMS is safer, is not a fact. Think about it, How would a tune, that is a off the shelf, one for all, be SAFER, than one where the individual records his OWN perimeters and sends it off to a tuner. Its just not possible.

The target settings are what makes a tune safe or not in either case.  An "off the shelf" tune can be "safer" just by being less aggressive in the tune.  From the sound of it Torrie's tunes are "off the shelf" too and then are tuned further (more aggressive or milder) based off customer supplied logs that LMS says contain incorrect data. 
Maybe LMS has pid's and more accurate formulas that are licensed then what are in Torque or other logging software.

Agreed

How come I just knew that this thread would get out of control?

Quote from: Livernois Motorsports on April 04, 2014, 01:32:22 AM

Quote from: 4DRHTRD on April 04, 2014, 01:23:21 AM
Why do you keep saying that the sensors are bad? How are they bad and what proof do you have to show your sensors vs the vehicle sensors and the differences?
You're not having to defend yourself I just put up the information that I have seen. LMS keeps referencing on different boards that the sensors don't work and you're getting bad data. I want proof of such statements, not just statements to that effect.
Are you saying the lambda values from the stock wideband O2 are not accurate? If so can you show a comparison between an NGK wideband in comparison to the stock wideband?
I want data, not statements without data, that's not bashing that's asking for information. When I post up things I take videos, dynos etc to back my statements. Real world testing with videos of said testing with values taken from the ECU which you say aren't correct.
Please please enlighten me as I'm very confused how the sensors don't work on our vehicles and provide bad data, wouldn't that cause the factory ECU safety systems to not work correctly?

If my statement about company B are incorrect update them, I only know what I read on the forums from your customers in what I'm seeing about the tuner/response times etc.

No one said the sensors are bad. What we have said, keep saying, and will continue to keep saying is that the dataloggers people are using are not accurate. Plain and simple. If someone else other than us knew, really knew how these ecm's worked then they would know how incorrect these dataloggers are. Every one of them. The sensors aren't the problem, the software and hardware being used to read them is.

I'm asking for you to prove this statement, show us how they are incorrect. Throw up a video with proof of how inaccurate the dataloggers are (which ones too).
For my sake I can't believe someone just cause they say so, especially with something as easy to show or prove as your statement is. If I were you I would have videos showing and proving your statements not just throwing them out there.

I agree, nothing to see here, let's keep moving.