Tickford S550 - 536 hp/466 lb/ft....from a tune!

[Burkey]

Yes people in this thread obviously do not know who they are

They aren’t an aftermarket tuner or a small shop with a dyno

I have spoken with them about it, yet I’ll still wait to see confirmed rwkw figures first before I book mine in

Please don’t book it in until they provide....
1. A dyno sheet showing RWKW comparison before and after. Nobody cares what they “think” it might make at the crank. I can invent bullshit numbers too if you’ll let me.
2. A slip from the strip showing MPH gains that indicate that the car is actually making anywhere near what they’re claiming (bearing in mind that you’d want to see a slip from a stock 18 for comparison, cos the 10speed kinda kills all the calculators)

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

And yet our Aussie 98 constantly proves itself to be inferior to your 93 in the real world..

 

[MexicanBatman]

how Have you personally compared out 98 to the US 93?

 

[Burkey]

how Have you personally compared out 98 to the US 93?

Every single Aussie who’s had a car tuned by Lund has found that our 98 seems to knock a little when we use their base 93 tune... nekminit we’re using octane booster to prove that the knock is real, not false.
It’s a known phenomenon. Not new by any measure.
On the flip side, our e85 (United brand) is typically higher than 85% ethanol. The Americans don’t have that consistency.

 

[MexicanBatman]

Why not use an Aussie tuner rather than a canned tune and tweak things remotely

 

[Burkey]

Why not use an Aussie tuner rather than a canned tune and tweak things remotely

Because not all tuners are created equal.
Experience matters.
Price is also a consideration.
There’s a whole lot more reasons, those are the major ones.
The Aussie tuners seem to be catching up lately but 2 years ago, it wasn’t even a competition.

 

[arghx7]

The only way they did some "magic" DI tuning is if the stock injection timing and quantity is severely limited by emissions or oil dilution, or bore washing concerns. Better start changing your oil more frequently, and look for scuffing on the bores.

Everything else is going to push components harder. Leaner will heat up the cats, more timing is more cylinder pressure and potential damage. Valve timing gains seem unlikely unless the stock timing was somehow knock or emissions limited. It's not like Ford doesn't have the resources to figure out how to make more power.

You don't get something for nothing. I mean most people here don't care if their cat lasts 20k fewer miles or whatever, but there is a big risk for damage from pushing components too hard, or changing things without checking for side effect (like major injection changes).

 

[3beeps]

Who cares about dyno numbers? We've all seen them manipulated wildly.

Bring it to the track. Run it with the stock tune. Flash the new tune and run it again. Very easy test to prove the gains.

 

[Mustang_Lou]

Who cares about dyno numbers? We've all seen them manipulated wildly.

Bring it to the track. Run it with the stock tune. Flash the new tune and run it again. Very easy test to prove the gains.

Assuming it doesn't blow before it gets to the end ... like someone said, you don't get something for nothing here. That much extra power has got to put a whole lotta extra stress somewhere.

 

[Nataphen]

Assuming it doesn't blow before it gets to the end ... like someone said, you don't get something for nothing here. That much extra power has got to put a whole lotta extra stress somewhere.

Not even close to what the power gain is from forced induction, and it’s similar to full bolt-on E85 cars we’ve already seen. There’s not going to be so much stress that the motor shouldn’t be able to make a few passes.

 

[Grimace427]

Not even close to what the power gain is from forced induction, and it’s similar to full bolt-on E85 cars we’ve already seen. There’s not going to be so much stress that the motor shouldn’t be able to make a few passes.

I would agree, but I think the idea of gaining all the power just from a tune instead of the typical airflow increasing bolt-ons is what would increase the risk of damage.

 

[arghx7]

If you're reducing restriction to make more power, that's one thing. If you're beating the crap out of the stock hardware to make the power then what is that doing for the owner of the vehicle?

 

[racingandfishing]

Every single Aussie who’s had a car tuned by Lund has found that our 98 seems to knock a little when we use their base 93 tune... nekminit we’re using octane booster to prove that the knock is real, not false.
It’s a known phenomenon. Not new by any measure.
On the flip side, our e85 (United brand) is typically higher than 85% ethanol. The Americans don’t have that consistency.

Per your post, sure is a difference!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

Anti-Knock Index (AKI) or (R+M)/2[edit]
In most countries in Europe (also in Australia and New Zealand) the "headline" octane rating shown on the pump is the RON, but in Canada, the United States, Brazil, and some other countries, the headline number is the average of the RON and the MON, called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI), and often written on pumps as (R+M)/2. It may also sometimes be called the Posted Octane Number (PON).

Difference between RON, MON, and AKI[edit]
Because of the 8 to 12 octane number difference between RON and MON noted above, the AKI shown in Canada and the United States is 4 to 6 octane numbers lower than elsewhere in the world for the same fuel. This difference between RON and MON is known as the fuel's Sensitivity,[5] and is not typically published for those countries that use the Anti-Knock Index labelling system.

See the table in the following section for a comparison.

Regular Gasoline/Petroleum in:
Australia 91-92 RON
New Zealand 82-83 MON
US 87 AKI or (R+M)/2

 

[sdiver68]

You don't get something for nothing. I mean most people here don't care if their cat lasts 20k fewer miles or whatever, but there is a big risk for damage from pushing components too hard, or changing things without checking for side effect (like major injection changes).

And this is different from other tunes how? Every single tune out there has these issues.

It's not uncommon these days for a manufacturer to build a new engine and electronically or otherwise limit power output. Then the engine can see revised this and better that for several years of power gains...while in reality all the engineering was done upfront. Look at all the people who actually think the Bullitt makes more power.

It's possible they've unlocked something. I've seen it before where NA engines gain 15% due to OEM restrictions.

The best street legal NA engines are pushing 125+ hp/L. With 5.0L that's a potential of 625+ hp.

 

[superman07]

So without any mechanical modification or changes they magically changed the fuel pressure or injector flow for DI? Did they magically change the time domain characteristics afforded to the DI system in which to inject the fuel? I don't care what they did to the OS, period. Unless they have a herd of rampaging unicorns that magically change the VE of the engine, this isn't happening. Air plus fuel plus spark = max cylinder pressure for max torque.

DI changes would likely just help fight off detonation. DI improves air mass due to cooling also however it is typically measured at 2 percent over port injection for the same fuel from a 6-7 theoretical maximum. Even if they somehow doubled it it would only result in a few 1-3 percent.

"The best street legal NA engines are pushing 125+ hp/L. With 5.0L that's a potential of 625+ hp."

What does a highly modified max effort NA engine have to do with a unmodified one? They said it was tune only.

Yep. From what I hear, they had to rewrite a significant portion of the ECU firmware to allow it. In reality, it's not just a tune, but an entirely new program on which the tune is based.

But pay no attention to the technical details, I think people on here are just pissed off because they already spent a boatload of money on another tune lol

Sponsored