Finally made a pass in the boost

[apx632]

Your presume too much and I think we went around this circle before (you and I that is), Livernois doesn't increase boost, nor does FP. They achieve their results via other means. Remember there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I've found forum posts, Cobb's own explanations etc. which illustrate this general trend. It is not a perfect rule of thumb which holds absolute, however it generally applies to within a couple of percent margin of error.

One example was a 700 HP super charged coyote V8 on a S197, guy bought it used from out of state (lived in Cali), so he had to have the car re-tuned to 91. Made 680 HP after adjusting for 91 octane.

680 / 700 is about a 3% difference. Cobb's web site provides the following illustration as well: https://cobbtuning.atlassian.net/wiki/display/PRS/Ford+Mustang+EcoBoost+Map+Notes

Your free to say whatever you want however untrue it may be, suggesting my engine is going to fail with no evidence is quite a leap, especially since Livernois has a 20+ year history and has to date not failed a customer car (yes we vetted out this claim before as well). You know nothing of me, of my car, how it's running etc...I would call that wild and outrageous speculation at best.

A value that isn't -1.00 isn't necessarily indicative of a bad dune. OAR is a scaling factor based on knock detection, its used by the PCM to optimize ignition timing tables which are scaled according to fuel quality if all other conditions remain the same. Mechanical malfunctions could certainly affect that, however assuming the engine is mechanically sound, then your at the mercy of the fuel available in your area regarding OAR. A value of -0.61 for a 93 tune and -0.74 for 91 tune is near the maximum permissible scaling factor which is -1.00. My car ran the same OAR values with the stock PCM software when I first started messing around with data logging, which is what it was at last time I checked. I have not checked since the temperatures drop, but intend to do so in the near future just for my own curiosity.

I would be willing to be you Livernois increases boost in their tune. Stock the cars are peaking somewhere between 18-20psi. On a tune I bet Livernois increases boost to 22psi peak and ignition timing. I can tell you I logged my Cobb Tune vs my Tune + tune (both on 93) and saw the vast differences. As far as OAR, the gas in your area must flat suck because my OAR has never strayed away from -1.00 on any of my tunes.

Sponsored

 

[TheLion]

why do keep bringing livernois into this ? I have been there done it and it sucked, (not much into supporting a company that at best misleads ) no matter i see the logic Your talking canned not custom tunes your 2-3% rule might hold true since they are so mild, i see that's what your comparing too so now i understand, same holds true for the oar discussion. But if you believe that liver doesn't increase boost in parts of the rpm range then there's no use discussing things.

I'm just telling you what they told me when I asked them why they do not change those parameters, because I see that Cobb and many others do and was curious as to why.

I have never seen values over 21.5 in any data logs or on the gauge, which is the same peak values I see when the car is stock. I cannot comment on weather they increase boost in certain RPM ranges relative to stock, for example lets say 50% throttle in 3rd gear produces 12 psi stock, but theirs might produce 14 psi (this is just a hypothetical example) as I don't know.

However their maximum values are what they are. Cobb will push 24.5 PSI peak values. I would think it's obvious why I bring LMS into this, because I have their software as do several others on this forum...this thread in particular is about the Ford Performance tune, which is architected in a very similar manner to LMS. Both companies have an OE like focus on reliability require reliable operation over a broad range of environments and conditions which is attractive to many of us. If it's not to you, then don't post on the darn thread or use their software...I'm not seeing the reason for the hostility or arrogant demeanor.

 

[TheLion]

I would be willing to be you Livernois increases boost in their tune. Stock the cars are peaking somewhere between 18-20psi. On a tune I bet Livernois increases boost to 22psi peak and ignition timing. I can tell you I logged my Cobb Tune vs my Tune + tune (both on 93) and saw the vast differences. As far as OAR, the gas in your area must flat suck because my OAR has never strayed away from -1.00 on any of my tunes.

I've seen 21.5 as the highest value since tuned, so you may be correct on the 22 PSI ceiling. However they are not relying on pushing much more boost than stock to achieve their performance which was my point.

I've never seen a -1.00 OAR stock or tuned. But I haven't checked recently so I'd be curious to see if winter blend changes anything to a measurable degree.

 

[apx632]

I'm just telling you what they told me when I asked them why they do not change those parameters, because I see that Cobb and many others do and was curious as to why.

I have never seen values over 21.5 in any data logs or on the gauge, which is the same peak values I see when the car is stock. I cannot comment on weather they increase boost in certain RPM ranges relative to stock, for example lets say 50% throttle in 3rd gear produces 12 psi stock, but theirs might produce 14 psi (this is just a hypothetical example) as I don't know.

However their maximum values are what they are. Cobb will push 24.5 PSI peak values. I would think it's obvious why I bring LMS into this, because I have their software as do several others on this forum...this thread in particular is about the Ford Performance tune, which is architected in a very similar manner to LMS. Both companies have an OE like focus on reliability require reliable operation over a broad range of environments and conditions which is attractive to many of us. If it's not to you, then don't post on the darn thread or use their software...I'm not seeing the reason for the hostility or arrogant demeanor.

This thread is about a guy who posted a time running a Cobb Stage 1 91 octane tune not the Ford performance tune.

 

[TheLion]

My bad, so many thread so little time. lol. :doh:

 

[tittermary]

I'm just telling you what they told me when I asked them why they do not change those parameters, because I see that Cobb and many others do and was curious as to why.

I have never seen values over 21.5 in any data logs or on the gauge, which is the same peak values I see when the car is stock. I cannot comment on weather they increase boost in certain RPM ranges relative to stock, for example lets say 50% throttle in 3rd gear produces 12 psi stock, but theirs might produce 14 psi (this is just a hypothetical example) as I don't know.

However their maximum values are what they are. Cobb will push 24.5 PSI peak values. I would think it's obvious why I bring LMS into this, because I have their software as do several others on this forum...this thread in particular is about the Ford Performance tune, which is architected in a very similar manner to LMS. Both companies have an OE like focus on reliability require reliable operation over a broad range of environments and conditions which is attractive to many of us. If it's not to you, then don't post on the darn thread or use their software...I'm not seeing the reason for the hostility or arrogant demeanor.

hostility and arrogant? shit you haven't even see that yet lol, my point was you assumptions on 91 vs 93 tunes only being 2-3% are wrong, maybe you mean peak to peak which with a canned tune might be the case, but assure you there more to it if you look at the area under the curve, especially in the lower and midrange area. Once more if your getting such bad oar numbers then your running gas not suitable for the tune, if you don't understand this the i'm sorry. I had the lms tune at one point so i have comparisons , you do not. Didnt you at one point crack a plug? how do think that happened ?

 

[TheLion]

If you ran their tune and had -1.00 OAR then you had better gas in your area, period. Not arguing about fuel quality affecting OAR, been pretty consistent on that point, but stating the tune is at fault, the car is at fault as you did before is pure speculation without any evidence, which seems to be a common recurring theme on forums in general...stating 93 octane isn't suitable for a 91 tune is also something I take issue with for the following reason:

The whole application of the OAR scaling factor is it ADJUSTS for fuel quality to make the most of power possible on the particular fuel in the tank and in that particular operating environment. Running a fuel not suitable to the tune would be running 89 or 87 octane on a 91 or 93 tune.

I have no control over the fuel quality here and you'd see the same results using the fuel in my area...it is what it is. A scaling factor that's doing what it's supposed to indicates it's working as it should...because it's not at the extreme doesn't necessarily indicate an issue, it just means the 93 fuel in my area with what ever additives it has allows for an OAR value of -0.74...which is better than the default assumed average of 0 (tune + I believe forces the value to restart at -1.00 each time you re-start the car and then adjusts down from there if needed, where FP, Ford OE and Livernois use a running average).

And yes, we've been over this, my 2-3% holds true for FP, Livernois, stock and other similar tunes. I never once stated anything about shop tuned cars running higher boost, my discussion has been in reference to Cobb, FP, Livernois and OE so why are we taking my rule of thumb and misapplying it outside of the its scope of use? I even provided a link above straight from Cobb to illustrate my point as well as an example of a supercharged coyote which saw similar results. It's not an absolute, you can take any "rule of thumb" and find situations in which they do not apply which is why I tend to avoid them in general. However I thought it a reasonable approximate in the context of this discussion. But say what you will, I suppose in the end it doesn't matter what anyone says, it matters what actually is.

 

[tittermary]

If you ran their tune and had -1.00 OAR then you had better gas in your area, period. Not arguing about fuel quality affecting OAR, been pretty consistent on that point, but stating the tune is at fault, the car is at fault as you did before is pure speculation without any evidence, which seems to be a common recurring theme on forums in general...stating 93 octane isn't suitable for a 91 tune is also something I take issue with for the following reason:

The whole application of the OAR scaling factor is it ADJUSTS for fuel quality to make the most of power possible on the particular fuel in the tank and in that particular operating environment. Running a fuel not suitable to the tune would be running 89 or 87 octane on a 91 or 93 tune.

I have no control over the fuel quality here and you'd see the same results using the fuel in my area...it is what it is. A scaling factor that's doing what it's supposed to indicates it's working as it should...because it's not at the extreme doesn't necessarily indicate an issue, it just means the 93 fuel in my area with what ever additives it has allows for an OAR value of -0.74...which is better than the default assumed average of 0 (tune + I believe forces the value to restart at -1.00 each time you re-start the car and then adjusts down from there if needed, where FP, Ford OE and Livernois use a running average).

And yes, we've been over this, my 2-3% holds true for FP, Livernois, stock and other similar tunes. I never once stated anything about shop tuned cars running higher boost, my discussion has been in reference to Cobb, FP, Livernois and OE so why are we taking my rule of thumb and misapplying it outside of the its scope of use? I even provided a link above straight from Cobb to illustrate my point as well as an example of a supercharged coyote which saw similar results. It's not an absolute, you can take any "rule of thumb" and find situations in which they do not apply which is why I tend to avoid them in general. However I thought it a reasonable approximate in the context of this discussion. But say what you will, I suppose in the end it doesn't matter what anyone says, it matters what actually is.

ok one more time then i give up for what ever tune your running the oar should be set for a -1 meaning you running the gas the tune was designed for be that 89-91--93-110 whatever, if you consistently get .6 or .7 oar then the gas isn't right for the tune in order for the oar to move that much the car must get ing corrections (knock) that fall outside the range deemed safe for the tune and gas, so it pulls timing and other stuff to protect the engine. you can run 87 in the car stock but you will loose 30-40 hp, same is true with your 91 tune if you getting the reduction in oar like you say then your loosing 15-25 or what ever hp. zero is not optimal on oar, anything .?? means it's pulling time because of excessive knock.

when ls1 motors first came out lot of people used to spray n20 dry and let the knock sensors and o2s reduce timing and add fuel , yeah it worked but everytime you sprayed you were running lean and having knock until the system corrected, same with the echoboost yep it's faster and more accurate in its corrections but it CAN still be hard on the engine until it selfs correct wouldn't it make more sense to be fairly close on the tune ? vs way off and having to make sure major corrections ? by your logic i could run a 100oct tune all the time and just let the car correct itself. maybe a little extreme example, better yet why do you think there is a 91 and a separate 93 ? it's only 2 points difference. you want the gas/tune to be as close to optimal as possible .6 oar is not close that's likely pulling 5-6 degrees and that's a lot of timing although that's tune dependent .

 

[apx632]

ok one more time then i give up for what ever tune your running the oar should be set for a -1 meaning you running the gas the tune was designed for be that 89-91--93-110 whatever, if you consistently get .6 or .7 oar then the gas isn't right for the tune in order for the oar to move that much the car must get ing corrections (knock) that fall outside the range deemed safe for the tune and gas, so it pulls timing and other stuff to protect the engine. you can run 87 in the car stock but you will loose 30-40 hp, same is true with your 91 tune if you getting the reduction in oar like you say then your loosing 15-25 or what ever hp. zero is not optimal on oar, anything .?? means it's pulling time because of excessive knock.

when ls1 motors first came out lot of people used to spray n20 dry and let the knock sensors and o2s reduce timing and add fuel , yeah it worked but everytime you sprayed you were running lean and having knock until the system corrected, same with the echoboost yep it's faster and more accurate in its corrections but it CAN still be hard on the engine until it selfs correct wouldn't it make more sense to be fairly close on the tune ? vs way off and having to make sure major corrections ? by your logic i could run a 100oct tune all the time and just let the car correct itself. maybe a little extreme example, better yet why do you think there is a 91 and a separate 93 ? it's only 2 points difference. you want the gas/tune to be as close to optimal as possible .6 oar is not close that's likely pulling 5-6 degrees and that's a lot of timing although that's tune dependent .

I think i see the miscommunication. He is running 91 octane for his 91 octane tune. I just don't think the gas he is using is very good hence the OAR reading.

 

[TheLion]

I think i see the miscommunication. He is running 91 octane for his 91 octane tune. I just don't think the gas he is using is very good hence the OAR reading.

Currently running 93 octane with 91 octane tune. I may flash back to stock just to see what the OAR ends up being and log KS1, boost and timing to see what the differences really are.

No one thus far has been able to tell me what values for KS1 (Raw Knock Sensor data) should be, all I know is what I normally see regarding that particular metric.

 

[TEXAS HEAT]

The tuner can manipulate the learned OAR value to increase or decrease how the value gets adjusted. In addition, the knock strategy can also be desensitized or over sensitized to achieve a desired result. Playing with the knock mitigation strategies is one of the ways to improve the performance characteristics of the tune. It seems that the stock tune is way more sensitive to knock events and is more aggressive at lowering the OAR as a response to those events. Having said that, I recently filled up with 93 octane at Valero and immediately noticed during an acceleration attempt to overtake another car, I experienced a buck and I noticed I was getting negative ignition corrections on all 4 cylinders varying from -4 to -8 and may OAR went from a -1 to a -.65 immediately. It took a little bit of driving time at different loads to get it back to -1, but anymore than 15 psi of boost and it would knock and lower my OAR. If your OAR isn't a -1, that means you are experiencing knock events that exceed your tune's threshold for maintaining a performance oriented OAR.

I knew immediately I had an octane issue because I was monitoring those parameters when the event occurred. Knowing this, I did not drive the car aggressively until I was able to get better fuel in the car. IDK if this was a winter blend issue with the fuel because this was the first time I had an issue with Valero 93.

I don't know exactly how LMS adjusts the OAR/Knock Relationship or if they do at all... perhaps a worthy question for them, but [MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION] driving around with an OAR that is less than optimized, you're losing more than 2-3% in torque. You need better fuel, especially if you're running 93 on a 91 tune and your OAR isn't a -1

 

[TheLion]

The tuner can manipulate the learned OAR value to increase or decrease how the value gets adjusted. In addition, the knock strategy can also be desensitized or over sensitized to achieve a desired result. Playing with the knock mitigation strategies is one of the ways to improve the performance characteristics of the tune. It seems that the stock tune is way more sensitive to knock events and is more aggressive at lowering the OAR as a response to those events. Having said that, I recently filled up with 93 octane at Valero and immediately noticed during an acceleration attempt to overtake another car, I experienced a buck and I noticed I was getting negative ignition corrections on all 4 cylinders varying from -4 to -8 and may OAR went from a -1 to a -.65 immediately. It took a little bit of driving time at different loads to get it back to -1, but anymore than 15 psi of boost and it would knock and lower my OAR. If your OAR isn't a -1, that means you are experiencing knock events that exceed your tune's threshold for maintaining a performance oriented OAR.

I knew immediately I had an octane issue because I was monitoring those parameters when the event occurred. Knowing this, I did not drive the car aggressively until I was able to get better fuel in the car. IDK if this was a winter blend issue with the fuel because this was the first time I had an issue with Valero 93.

I don't know exactly how LMS adjusts the OAR/Knock Relationship or if they do at all... perhaps a worthy question for them, but [MENTION=25093]TheLion[/MENTION] driving around with an OAR that is less than optimized, you're losing more than 2-3% in torque. You need better fuel, especially if you're running 93 on a 91 tune and your OAR isn't a -1

That's why I'm going back to stock for a few days until the FP tune arrives. If the fuel quality is that bad around here I may not be able to run LMS tunes if what your saying is true, but I still have a lot of doubts about interpreting OAR and from what I've read, I tink an OAR less than 0 is fine.

Yes, the car is making less power with a higher OAR number (aka less negative), however if the PCM software is architect-ed properly, it's running the maximum timing it can safely on the given fuel, you can tune all you want, but it's dependent on the actual fuel can provide. It doesn't mean the car is knocking more after the OAR adjusts, the OAR should scale back timing so its not knocking and causing damage, but you will as stated, make less power.

At the very least, for the short term, I'd like to see what the stock tune produces and then also what the FP tune produces. I could probably live with the FP tune if I had too.

The real question I have is, what does a KS1 value of 550 really indicate (highest value I've ever seen)? I've logged KS1 and KS2 raw data, scale is 0 to 32768, so a value of 550 is quite small on that scale. KR has always reported 0, which means it isn't pulling timing. Currently my OAR is also reporting 0 with 500 miles on this tune. Temps are down in 20's now. I'm guessing the colder air and winter blend fuel has forced the PCM to run more conservative timing.

 

[TheLion]

Never mind on the OAR, I don't trust this darn torque app. The actual spread sheet reports no value given at all (just a dash), yet the real time data showed 0...looks like OAR hasn't been determined yet.

I did a couple of 3rd gear pulls during a lunch drive, torque logged 100% load, at 4200 rpm, KS1 383, 21.47 PSI boost (highest value in the log), KR 0, but it's always 0...timing advance 2 deg. Looking at the log, the only time I see a negative timing advance (aka timing retard) is no boost / vacuum, 10% to 15% engine load mostly low RPM ranges below 4k.

I filtered by engine load, 50% and up, timing advance is always positive. Anyway, we'll see, maybe I need a better phone lol (get periodic data corruption messages).

 

[tittermary]

Never mind on the OAR, I don't trust this darn torque app. The actual spread sheet reports no value given at all (just a dash), yet the real time data showed 0...looks like OAR hasn't been determined yet.

I did a couple of 3rd gear pulls during a lunch drive, torque logged 100% load, at 4200 rpm, KS1 383, 21.47 PSI boost (highest value in the log), KR 0, but it's always 0...timing advance 2 deg. Looking at the log, the only time I see a negative timing advance (aka timing retard) is no boost / vacuum, 10% to 15% engine load mostly low RPM ranges below 4k.

I filtered by engine load, 50% and up, timing advance is always positive. Anyway, we'll see, maybe I need a better phone lol (get periodic data corruption messages).

ahh so now we have same more data, or maybe i just over looked your set up (most likely) yeah the tq app does not report oar correctly, you need to monitor the per cyl ignition corrections if you can, when i was running the lms tune and using tq app I pretty much gave up on any logging I couldn't trust the tq app. You need a better logging method, not a better phone

 

[Mustang Mikes Queen Creek]

My oar went from -099 to -096 this weekend after I filled back up with 91,I was trying to datalog for Adam and noticed after a couple of runs the octane learn went down,What does this mean in terms of logging for proper fuel octane.Is the lower number mean better fuel? which means more timing or the other way around,I've been running 91 the whole time other then a few weeks ago and that fuel has been long gone.

Sponsored