When 526 is not Enough

[Livernois Motorsports]

Picked up 33whp from 93 octane tune only??

The tune only labeled run was just that, tune only ! We were pretty excited to see such a large gain from nothing but a tune as well!

I would take baseline dyno numbers with a grain of salt.

What makes you say that? If you do the math it all checks out. The car really had no more than factory and test miles on it when she came in. After the engine breaks in the car will make more power. We gave you 3 runs made by the same car, on the same dyno and on the same day. Those gains are going to be as accurate as can be.

Which headers? doesn't look like your getting much scavenging down low.

ARH headers and tune have shown 30hpish gains on I think 2 different dynos. both went over 500 to the wheels.

Considering they are showing the torque and hp drop from 3.5 to 4k I don't think they "worked" the dyno. Why do you think the baseline is suspect? 15 percent gets it to 522. if the car isn't fully broke in it seems pretty close to what others have seen.

This car has 1 7/8" ARH LTH & off-road connection pipes with a JLT CAI. Maybe the marketing was meant to be when the ARH headers are combined with a tune ~30 was the net gain. In that case our graph would be dead on. It very well could have been on separate dynos as well. This would also add to the obfuscation. Like I said, here you have 3 runs made by the same car, on the same dyno and on the same day. These gains are going to be as accurate as they can be.

Sponsored

 

[Johnb-5.0]

What makes you say that? If you do the math it all checks out. The car really had no more than factory and test miles on it when she came in. After the engine breaks in the car will make more power. We gave you 3 runs made by the same car, on the same dyno and on the same day. Those gains are going to be as accurate as can be.


http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39414

Joe Charles's GT350 made 466.72 on a dynojet, would you expect his car to pick up 33 rwhp just from a Livernoris 93 tune?

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

What makes you say that? If you do the math it all checks out. The car really had no more than factory and test miles on it when she came in. After the engine breaks in the car will make more power. We gave you 3 runs made by the same car, on the same dyno and on the same day. Those gains are going to be as accurate as can be.


http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39414

Joe Charles's GT350 made 466.72 on a dynojet, would you expect his car to pick up 33 rwhp just from a Livernois 93 tune?

The gains are the gains. The baseline is a reference point. I think that is where the graph is confusing you. If the baseline is 400 or 700 it doesn't matter if all things thereafter are measured equally. Your results are basically a constant.

 

[cosmo]

Any reason the baseline had low torque in the midrange? The peak power number is similar to others I've seen, but they usually have peak torque of around 380 wheel. This was 350 wheel.

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

Any reason the baseline had low torque in the midrange? The peak power number is similar to others I've seen, but they usually have peak torque of around 380 wheel. This was 350 wheel.

Working where you do, you know that as the car breaks in it will make more power. This car was quite literally off of the trailer. All of the GT350's that we have had here range from 348-371tq. So mileage does seem to play a large role in what the dyno reads, especially as weather has been extremely constant for a while now.

 

[Myshelby3425]

Which headers? doesn't look like your getting much scavenging down low.

ARH headers and tune have shown 30hpish gains on I think 2 different dynos. both went over 500 to the wheels.

Considering they are showing the torque and hp drop from 3.5 to 4k I don't think they "worked" the dyno. Why do you think the baseline is suspect? 15 percent gets it to 522. if the car isn't fully broke in it seems pretty close to what others have seen.

I'm just questioning the massive gains with tune only. There hasn't been any tuners to even hit 20whp tune only. These numbers are double what others have made.

Will these tunes be using the MyCalibrator tuner or would it be another tuner?

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

As we have noted prior, our custom tuning files can only be accommodated by our MyCalibrator tuners. We made the additional investment in our own proprietary tuning software so that we could enjoy the ability to address and alter tables that other companies do not have. Thus, gains that are not replicated.

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

2016 SHELBY GT350 5.2 TUNER
PRICE: $599.99
SKU: LPP631142

http://www.livernoismotorsports.com/product/LPP631142

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

We also have FF tuning support for the GT350/R!

 

[65sohc]

We also have FF tuning support for the GT350/R!

How much more power and torque do you get with e85 vs. 93?

 

[Myshelby3425]

This tuner is locked to you guys and there is no further tuning capabilities for future modifications unless it goes back to you guys correct? No remote tuning capabilities on a dyno?

 

[Trackaholic]

This was my stock dyno (with a coyote engine for comparison).

The shape actually matches the tuned curve very well, but your stock curve is much smoother than I would expect. My car was running 91 octane, which would account for some of the jitters, but the larger waves I believe would be due to intake and exhaust resonances and should be similarly present in the stock tune on your example as well. Your tune/intake/header curve is also much smoother, but those waves are still present to some extent. Could the smoothing be set differently in the different curves?

One thing I really like about your tune/intake/header curve is the smoothing of the torque increase @ 3000-3500 RPM. Do you have any idea which component is most responsible for that, or do you think it is an artifact of the dyno settings? I have always thought that the very sharp nature of the torque increase was due to some intentional behavior designed-in by Ford, maybe as part of the tune for emissions or protecting certain components (maybe trying to keep low end torque reduced due to the loose piston rings, shorter skirts, etc). Anyhow, curious if you had any thoughts on that.

Great gains overall, BTW!

-T

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

Gains on our FF tune VS just 93 will be 17-20hp.

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

This was my stock dyno (with a coyote engine for comparison).

The shape actually matches the tuned curve very well, but your stock curve is much smoother than I would expect. My car was running 91 octane, which would account for some of the jitters, but the larger waves I believe would be due to intake and exhaust resonances and should be similarly present in the stock tune on your example as well. Your tune/intake/header curve is also much smoother, but those waves are still present to some extent. Could the smoothing be set differently in the different curves?

One thing I really like about your tune/intake/header curve is the smoothing of the torque increase @ 3000-3500 RPM. Do you have any idea which component is most responsible for that, or do you think it is an artifact of the dyno settings? I have always thought that the very sharp nature of the torque increase was due to some intentional behavior designed-in by Ford, maybe as part of the tune for emissions or protecting certain components (maybe trying to keep low end torque reduced due to the loose piston rings, shorter skirts, etc). Anyhow, curious if you had any thoughts on that.

Great gains overall, BTW!

-T

The smoothing is the same for all of the runs. It's directly related to the intake/exhaust/cam timing. The control of resonance inside of the inlet tract, as well as scavenging in the exhaust tract during firing pulses has a direct impact on the power and how smooth it appears.

 

[VoodooThomas]

Has anyone had the chance to independently test this tune? How's the driveability? Is it possible to revert back to stock for warranty purposes?

Sponsored