2015 mustang tunes

[MrWolf]

Here is the dynograph for the 93 octane tune only vs. stock on a 2017 GT

Holy shit!

Sponsored

 

[Gibbo205]

Here is the dynograph for the 93 octane tune only vs. stock on a 2017 GT

The base un-tuned run seems to be not making claimed power as there is no way the transmission loss is 25% on these cars.

Be interesting to see datalogs of the two runs and what timing the car was making on each run.

 

[MoneyPit#53]

Someone should actually test these claims ;)

I might give them a try and compare them against my current Lund tune. Based on the reply I got back from them. We will see but I don't think they can fit my needs as of right now

 

[18psi]

Make sure to log ignition timing and knock correction.

 

[MoneyPit#53]

Make sure to log ignition timing and knock correction.

 

[Sasuketr]

So how is this possible? Can anyone explain this? The motor has its limits right? Even increasing the spark timing after a point shouldn't add anymore gains, or there is something im missing here?

 

[Gibbo205]

So how is this possible? Can anyone explain this? The motor has its limits right? Even increasing the spark timing after a point shouldn't add anymore gains, or there is something im missing here?

Stock car 435HP crank but on their dyno made 350WHP, suggesting a 25% transmission loss which is unheard of on a RWD car.

Tuned car made 400WHP, so that would mean 500HP crank taking the same transmission loss into consideration, that is simply not possible from just a tune.

I think the stock car was not running at its claimed 435HP, the ECU either pulled timing or the car had an issue.

 

[Terminator2]

Stock car 435HP crank but on their dyno made 350WHP, suggesting a 25% transmission loss which is unheard of on a RWD car.

Tuned car made 400WHP, so that would mean 500HP crank taking the same transmission loss into consideration, that is simply not possible from just a tune.

I think the stock car was not running at its claimed 435HP, the ECU either pulled timing or the car had an issue.

This. I've seen close to a hundred dynoes of these cars stock vs tuned and normally the manual trans cars make about 380-385whp SAE on a dynojet like that in 5th gear on 93 octane. Autos make about 10whp less. Even heartbreaker mustang dynoes on these cars are over 350whp usually and those read about 13% lower than a normal dynojet. Like you said the gains don't add up because that car would be at close to 500 crank hp based on baseline vs gains. Until some does an independent test I won't believe those kind of gains. The only way these are possible is going from 87 octane to E-85 could add close to 50whp.

 

[Gibbo205]

This. I've seen close to a hundred dynoes of these cars stock vs tuned and normally the manual trans cars make about 380-385whp SAE on a dynojet like that in 5th gear on 93 octane. Autos make about 10whp less. Even heartbreaker mustang dynoes on these cars are over 350whp usually and those read about 13% lower than a normal dynojet. Like you said the gains don't add up because that car would be at close to 500 crank hp based on baseline vs gains. Until some does an independent test I won't believe those kind of gains. The only way these are possible is going from 87 octane to E-85 could add close to 50whp.

Spot on!

The stock car was not making figures, so either Livernois made the stock car give a poor result on purpose and I really do hope that is not the case as that would be very sly or the stock run had a combination of bad 87 gas and the car was hot so a lot of timing was pulled.

Then on the tuned run the car also got good 93 gas and run conditions were ideal.

In short like you say the stock car run was not making book figures for whatever reason and then tuned it magically became fixed.

 

[18psi]

It's really sad what companies will do to make money.

 

[Terminator2]

Spot on!

The stock car was not making figures, so either Livernois made the stock car give a poor result on purpose and I really do hope that is not the case as that would be very sly or the stock run had a combination of bad 87 gas and the car was hot so a lot of timing was pulled.

Then on the tuned run the car also got good 93 gas and run conditions were ideal.

In short like you say the stock car run was not making book figures for whatever reason and then tuned it magically became fixed.

4th gear pull untuned on 87 vs 5th gear pull tuned on 93 is also possible.

 

[foghat]

Stock car 435HP crank but on their dyno made 350WHP, suggesting a 25% transmission loss which is unheard of on a RWD car.

Tuned car made 400WHP, so that would mean 500HP crank taking the same transmission loss into consideration, that is simply not possible from just a tune.

I think the stock car was not running at its claimed 435HP, the ECU either pulled timing or the car had an issue.

It is not suggesting a 25% drive train loss at all. Different dyno's (of even the same brand) can and do read drastically differently. On a different dyno that same car could have quite conceivably dyno'd at 380.

This. I've seen close to a hundred dynoes of these cars stock vs tuned and normally the manual trans cars make about 380-385whp SAE on a dynojet like that in 5th gear on 93 octane. Autos make about 10whp less. Even heartbreaker mustang dynoes on these cars are over 350whp usually and those read about 13% lower than a normal dynojet. Like you said the gains don't add up because that car would be at close to 500 crank hp based on baseline vs gains. Until some does an independent test I won't believe those kind of gains. The only way these are possible is going from 87 octane to E-85 could add close to 50whp.

So livernois' dyno doesn't read like the 100s of dyno you've seen. I guess neither does beefcake's dynojet - he has said on multiple occasions a stock auto coyote dyno's about 350 on his. With headers he is dynoing 385ish hp (auto). The 100's of dynos you've seen. Were they all on different dynos? If you are talking about a bunch of results from the same dyno, well there you go - I would expect they'd all be similar.

It's really sad what companies will do to make money.

You don't know that they've done anything. I don't know if the numbers presented are on the up and up, they do seem too good to be true, but at this point all we have is a bunch of speculation and nothing else. This said, I will admit, given beefcake is dyoning similar numbers on a stock car and only 385 with headers (not sure if tuned), 50whp jump from just a tune seems off.

 

[SpeedLu]

The Roush intake is a good performer. I wouldn't bother changing it out, but you can do better as far as the tune goes. Canned tunes are definitely stronger than the ultraconservative factory tune (I have a Roush tune) but a custom tune is what really makes these Coyote engines feel alive. Lund and Livernois are my two recommendations. I've seen people complain about both Lund's and Livernois' customer support but I've also seen people rave about it.

 

[Burkey]

It is not suggesting a 25% drive train loss at all. Different dyno's (of even the same brand) can and do read drastically differently. On a different dyno that same car could have quite conceivably dyno'd at 380.




So livernois' dyno doesn't read like the 100s of dyno you've seen. I guess neither does beefcake's dynojet - he has said on multiple occasions a stock auto coyote dyno's about 350 on his. With headers he is dynoing 385ish hp (auto). The 100's of dynos you've seen. Were they all on different dynos? If you are talking about a bunch of results from the same dyno, well there you go - I would expect they'd all be similar.



You don't know that they've done anything. I don't know if the numbers presented are on the up and up, they do seem too good to be true, but at this point all we have is a bunch of speculation and nothing else. This said, I will admit, given beefcake is dyoning similar numbers on a stock car and only 385 with headers (not sure if tuned), 50whp jump from just a tune seems off.

If the dyno is reading low, that 50Hp gain is actually more than 50 Hp..
Doesn't really matter how you look at it, the claim being made by that dyno is that the car now has an extra 13-14% Hp at the rear wheels.

 

[Terminator2]

It is not suggesting a 25% drive train loss at all. Different dyno's (of even the same brand) can and do read drastically differently. On a different dyno that same car could have quite conceivably dyno'd at 380.




So livernois' dyno doesn't read like the 100s of dyno you've seen. I guess neither does beefcake's dynojet - he has said on multiple occasions a stock auto coyote dyno's about 350 on his. With headers he is dynoing 385ish hp (auto). The 100's of dynos you've seen. Were they all on different dynos? If you are talking about a bunch of results from the same dyno, well there you go - I would expect they'd all be similar.



You don't know that they've done anything. I don't know if the numbers presented are on the up and up, they do seem too good to be true, but at this point all we have is a bunch of speculation and nothing else. This said, I will admit, given beefcake is dyoning similar numbers on a stock car and only 385 with headers (not sure if tuned), 50whp jump from just a tune seems off.

[ame]
The 350whp run is bogus there is no way. Baseline dyno 393 whp on their same dyno. 50whp gains with long tubes, cai, catback and tune which are normal gains.

Sponsored