LMS vs Gearhead "Canned Tunes" Comparison

[SHOdded]

Wow that is great. Has the pcm finished relearning yet?

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

RESULTS ARE IN!

My business trip got canceled so I was able to jump on this project a lot sooner. *I want to start off by saying it is NOT my intentions to bad-mouth anyone or try to hurt a business - all I'm doing is providing real-word results and factual conditions regarding my car.

I have 2 results to provide: 1) Dyno Results and 2) Shifting Issues:

I loaded the canned tune from Gearhead (it's their automatic octane adjusting tune) and installed new 542 plugs gapped to .027. That's all I did.

Again, my mods are 3-bar, Windstorm CAI, 542 plugs, 160 thermostat, and Magnaflow Cat-Back.

Mustang Dyno Results:

1. LMS:
   • 333 WHP
   • 390 WTQ
2. Gearhead:
   • 347 WHP
   • 398 WTQ

Not a huge increase but it's more.

Shifting Issues:

LMS 93 V11 tune. My car would act like it pops out of gear into Neutral mostly from 2-3 shift under WOT and rev up to like 8k. Also, when cruising on the highway anywhere from 50mph+ and I floor it, the car goes but there's a minor hesitation / sputtering type issue going on. The car accelerates but you can feel a hesitation at same time. LMS has been excellent in communicating with me on this, however they said it's probably a fuel pump / module issue and there's some TSB about this, could be fuel pressure issue, etc. Well.....

Gearhead tune. BOTH shifting issues are now gone! I loaded my Gearhead tune 3 days ago and been running around town, I put about 40 easy miles on it then started some WOT runs. From a standstill, 10mph roll, 50mph roll, etc the shifting is flawless and no hesitation. And it seems weird but the shifts are lightning fast, not harsh, just instant.

*Last note: my performance shop said they really liked the new tune I installed (they didn't know what tunes I had or where they came from until after all these tests). My performance shop said the shift points are much better and that with the smaller turbos on these cars the rpms don't need to be high as that actually hurts the performance and a bunch of other real technical stuff I honestly didn't understand! I should've recorded them on video.

These are just my results and not intended otherwise. I appreciate all the feedback and discussions we're having on this tread - thanks to everyone. Good to luck to all !!!

unfortunately there is not enough information here to comment on the results, but we will try to respond with some generalized info.

1. Power - while that wasn't the point of your post, it's in there, so we need to address it. There is not magic in terms of power on any engine at WOT, so to make more power it either needs more timing, less fuel, or more boost. Any of these are easy to do, but they will, by design, remove safety

1a. which tune was done first? If these were NOT done on the same day, they results will differ as conditions vary too much. Especially on a Mustang Dyno since every part of the power calculation is done from user entered data.

2. studder - This is from lack of sufficient fuel pressure, which we have covered before. An EcoBoost vehicle, when tuned, is basically out of fuel in 60+ degree weather. when it get's colder, it's even more so out of fuel. The propwer way to address this is our upgraded HPFP, but others get around this by leaning out the commanded lambda so it uses less fuel. Again, I think we can all agree that, while it might mitigate the loss of pressure, a misfire is much easier to deal with than a failed piston.

3. transmission shifting - in all circumstances we have encountered in person, this only happens with traction control enabled. This is common on these cars, and any time we have encountered it, simply turning off traction control addresses all related issues.

Ultimately we would love the opportunity for it to be here on the dyno, but Nebraska isn't exactly right around the corner. This way we could show you the real differences, and the issues at large and why tuning around them can cause far more issues.

 

[OmaHahn]

Do you have the graphs?!

Btw: excellent comparison and associated data! Thank you!

And just to clarify the Auto Octane tune requires no datalogging?

So both the LMS and GH tunes were flash and go with datalogging required?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No data logging that's why I referenced to the "canned tune," term. Plug & Play.
I do have graphs and even have the 2 dyno sessions overlapping each other to compare. I'll upload that later.

 

[StealBlueSho]

No data logging that's why I referenced to the "canned tune," term. Plug & Play.
I do have graphs and even have the 2 dyno sessions overlapping each other to compare. I'll upload that later.

Sorry, left out the NO in my original post.

I think either way you go, both tunes are stout.

The graphs will be interesting as the curves have a lot to say


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StealBlueSho]

unfortunately there is not enough information here to comment on the results, but we will try to respond with some generalized info.

1. Power - while that wasn't the point of your post, it's in there, so we need to address it. There is not magic in terms of power on any engine at WOT, so to make more power it either needs more timing, less fuel, or more boost. Any of these are easy to do, but they will, by design, remove safety

1a. which tune was done first? If these were NOT done on the same day, they results will differ as conditions vary too much. Especially on a Mustang Dyno since every part of the power calculation is done from user entered data.

2. studder - This is from lack of sufficient fuel pressure, which we have covered before. An EcoBoost vehicle, when tuned, is basically out of fuel in 60+ degree weather. when it get's colder, it's even more so out of fuel. The propwer way to address this is our upgraded HPFP, but others get around this by leaning out the commanded lambda so it uses less fuel. Again, I think we can all agree that, while it might mitigate the loss of pressure, a misfire is much easier to deal with than a failed piston.

3. transmission shifting - in all circumstances we have encountered in person, this only happens with traction control enabled. This is common on these cars, and any time we have encountered it, simply turning off traction control addresses all related issues.

Ultimately we would love the opportunity for it to be here on the dyno, but Nebraska isn't exactly right around the corner. This way we could show you the real differences, and the issues at large and why tuning around them can cause far more issues.

So I agree with points 1a,2,3...

Point 1: Sparing the gory details of leaning out a mixture, adding sparking, or boost etc etc... what are you using as a baseline for “safe”?

I have always wondered but don’t have the data or means for something like AFRs... your tunes run richer than any tune I have had...I know where Gearhead targets and it’s leaner compared to your tunes. At what point with these cars do leaning out the mixture not net you much of any additional power? I have always been curious given the same spark/boost what leaning out the mixture on these get you?

There is a lot information about GDI motors being able to safely run leaner mixtures due to the nature of direct injection as apposed to port injection..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OmaHahn]

unfortunately there is not enough information here to comment on the results, but we will try to respond with some generalized info.

1. Power - while that wasn't the point of your post, it's in there, so we need to address it. There is not magic in terms of power on any engine at WOT, so to make more power it either needs more timing, less fuel, or more boost. Any of these are easy to do, but they will, by design, remove safety

1a. which tune was done first? If these were NOT done on the same day, they results will differ as conditions vary too much. Especially on a Mustang Dyno since every part of the power calculation is done from user entered data.

2. studder - This is from lack of sufficient fuel pressure, which we have covered before. An EcoBoost vehicle, when tuned, is basically out of fuel in 60+ degree weather. when it get's colder, it's even more so out of fuel. The propwer way to address this is our upgraded HPFP, but others get around this by leaning out the commanded lambda so it uses less fuel. Again, I think we can all agree that, while it might mitigate the loss of pressure, a misfire is much easier to deal with than a failed piston.

3. transmission shifting - in all circumstances we have encountered in person, this only happens with traction control enabled. This is common on these cars, and any time we have encountered it, simply turning off traction control addresses all related issues.

Ultimately we would love the opportunity for it to be here on the dyno, but Nebraska isn't exactly right around the corner. This way we could show you the real differences, and the issues at large and why tuning around them can cause far more issues.

Thanks LMS for replying and the detailed info. You mention my thread is not about power, but it is - my thread is all about comparing 2 "canned tunes," for the 3.5 ecoboost SHO.

I'll let more technical people respond to the variables involved but I find it very hard to believe that a dyno will produce dramatically different results - if they did, they would be deemed useless and not valuable. My first dyno session was last Wednesday with my LMS 93 V11 tune. The 2nd session was this afternoon with Gearhead installed. Same exact dyno, weather conditions were exactly the same, etc.

I don't understand your Point #2 or #3. I've been having shifting issues (missed shifts and hesitation) with my car for a while now in all weather conditions - this is not something that just happened recently - if needed I'll open my Gmail and look at the dates of all my emails to Anthony and other people at LMS. It's happened when it's warm out and cold out. Happens with TC turned off, on, an with the entire Advanced Trac shut off. I don't know what to say, but the Gearhead tune hasn't missed a shift in 3 days and it doesn't hesitate at WOT in highway passing. The LMS tune it missed a shift and had hesitation issues Wednesday morning - that afternoon I installed Gearhead and no transmission issues at all. I tested Thursday morning in exact same weather conditions, no issues. And today, no issues. I could always get the car to have tranny issues with LMS installed.

I wish I knew if it's related to certain versions of your updates - I don't know if it started with your V10 or V11 or V11.1... I don't think this happened when I first got my tune with the V8 version.

 

[OmaHahn]

Dyno graph comparing the 2 tunes attached. I've never uploaded a PDF doc before - is this possible? I just attached a pic for now. The brighter blue & red is Gearhead - LMS is the lines below those.

 

[StealBlueSho]

Thanks!!

I wonder if you were having an issue with fuel pressure on the LMS run, that torque curve and horsepower curve took a hit...twice.

Your HP curve is actually pretty impressive up top on the LMS tune, it didn’t just fall off after 6k rpms. This shows that even at the higher rpms LMS is still developing good power from the smaller turbos.

However the Gearhead tune pretty much is developing more power through the whole curve and not just at peak...

I wonder what the LMS run would look like if you were not having fueling issues.


Very nice data! Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[76FoMoCo]

I love it when the smart kits talk!!!! Thanks for putting this out for us semi motor heads! I fully understand the mechanical part but the tuning is a bigger step up.

 

[SHOdded]

Did I miss a datalog, OmaHahn? Since you have an SCT device you can log how your SHO runs on both tunes and compare. A fueling issue should be pretty obvious especially if you are running higher E blends.

 

[shoblock]

RESULTS ARE IN!

My business trip got canceled so I was able to jump on this project a lot sooner. *I want to start off by saying it is NOT my intentions to bad-mouth anyone or try to hurt a business - all I'm doing is providing real-word results and factual conditions regarding my car.

I have 2 results to provide: 1) Dyno Results and 2) Shifting Issues:

I loaded the canned tune from Gearhead (it's their automatic octane adjusting tune) and installed new 542 plugs gapped to .027. That's all I did.

Again, my mods are 3-bar, Windstorm CAI, 542 plugs, 160 thermostat, and Magnaflow Cat-Back.

Mustang Dyno Results:

1. LMS:
   • 333 WHP
   • 390 WTQ
2. Gearhead:
   • 347 WHP
   • 395 WTQ

Not a huge increase but it's more.

Shifting Issues:

LMS 93 V11 tune. My car would act like it pops out of gear into Neutral mostly from 2-3 shift under WOT and rev up to like 8k. Also, when cruising on the highway anywhere from 50mph+ and I floor it, the car goes but there's a minor hesitation / sputtering type issue going on. The car accelerates but you can feel a hesitation at same time. LMS has been excellent in communicating with me on this, however they said it's probably a fuel pump / module issue and there's some TSB about this, could be fuel pressure issue, etc. Well.....

Gearhead tune. BOTH shifting issues are now gone! I loaded my Gearhead tune 3 days ago and been running around town, I put about 40 easy miles on it then started some WOT runs. From a standstill, 10mph roll, 50mph roll, etc the shifting is flawless and no hesitation. And it seems weird but the shifts are lightning fast, not harsh, just instant.

*Last note: my performance shop said they really liked the new tune I installed (they didn't know what tunes I had or where they came from until after all these tests). My performance shop said the shift points are much better and that with the smaller turbos on these cars the rpms don't need to be high as that actually hurts the performance and a bunch of other real technical stuff I honestly didn't understand! I should've recorded them on video.

These are just my results and not intended otherwise. I appreciate all the feedback and discussions we're having on this tread - thanks to everyone. Good to luck to all !!!

Omahahn, YOU ROCK!!! Everything I've posted enforces your findings. There is a tune available that both keeps it simple and kicks butt. I shared you LMS frustrations, though I realize they are doing their best and responding quickly to try and fix the v11 issues. Your post keeps it simple and objective, no one could dispute this fact. Socrates was a famous philosopher who spent his life seeking truth, but they made him drink hemlock! We Socrates fans are aware of this, and proceed with respect and caution, as you have here. Thank you, thank you.
Shoblock

 

[StealBlueSho]

Did I miss a datalog, OmaHahn? Since you have an SCT device you can log how your SHO runs on both tunes and compare. A fueling issue should be pretty obvious especially if you are running higher E blends.

He has been complaining of stumbling in third gear under WOT with LMS...

If you look at the dyno run between 3700 and 4300 rpms the torque and hp take an unnatural dip... and then again after 4900 rpms.

In any event, it’s pretty clear that his car has a much better curve with the Gearhead tune and based on the dyno and feedback is a better tune for his car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brucelinc]

What impresses me most is that apparently the Gearhead tune solved the transmission issue that you had. Power is great but if the tranny doesn't behave, the power is useless.

 

[OmaHahn]

Did I miss a datalog, OmaHahn? Since you have an SCT device you can log how your SHO runs on both tunes and compare. A fueling issue should be pretty obvious especially if you are running higher E blends.

Hey SHOdded. Let me quote you from your post (#11) you made over in the "LMS 3 bar bounces off rev limiter," thread. You said, "Things should just WORK, right? Yeah, can be extremely frustrating sometimes...." You brought up a 3rd topic in this thread I created.

I didn't have time to datalog with getting my new tune loaded and my speed shop's schedule - I had to load Gearhead and get up their for the dyno pulls. Plus, I've never datalogged before, don't know how to do it to be honest.

Even though I live in a city of 1 million people, the nearest 1/4 mile track is 2 hours away. There is a 1/8 mile track across the river and they also do roll-racing. It's a great time, great people, but I really want to run 1/4 mile. Even if there was a 1/4 mile track I'm not concerned about shaving tenths or thousandths off my times! I know, I know, datalogs are the ultimate tool to develop a perfect, true custom tune for your car. But if a company claims they have a plug and play that works, then well.... it should work!

And I've been dealing with this shifting issue and the hesitation way too long - they've been blaming my fuel pressure, fuel pump, need to overfill the tranny (which I already did), everything but their tune. It took my thread and the other thread I just mentioned for them to actually do something about it. I'm not trying to be a **** but too late. I was beyond frustrated and already bought the Gearhead tune.

I don't want to datalog and do all that extra work - BUT, if anybody really wants this info I'll try and get this done to help out.

 

[OmaHahn]

He has been complaining of stumbling in third gear under WOT with LMS...

If you look at the dyno run between 3700 and 4300 rpms the torque and hp take an unnatural dip... and then again after 4900 rpms.

In any event, it’s pretty clear that his car has a much better curve with the Gearhead tune and based on the dyno and feedback is a better tune for his car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And a completely missed shift from 2-3...goes into Neutral and revs the living cr@p out of the motor!

 

[StealBlueSho]

Omahahn are you running v772 of the GH auto octane tune?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StealBlueSho]

I have datalogged the V11 tune and have commented on the hesitation. I am willing to bet the hesitation is certainly fuel pressure related. LMS runs rich and with this particular tune it causes the fuel pressure to drop significantly and not recover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SHOdded]

It is neither difficult nor unsafe to grab datalogs at those rpms, think of highway ramp merges on inclines for example. So if someone is willing to try and corrobotate, that would be cool. If not, it is what it is, I guess

Ford keeps making changes in production, some that are documented some not. In the process of solving a problem or using a new supplier, new issues can be created. Orbmaybe reached the limits of the intended design ... IDK.

Trying to cover the bases. We tend to look for flaws in software because that is the way the world works today. How much do we really understand about the hardware?

 

[mattr66]

That output looks low... Did you verify that the oar had reached maximum?

 

[StealBlueSho]

For those who are unaware, mattr66 is Matt from Gearhead who writes the tunes for the SHO EB platform over there.

@mattr66 these dyno runs were done on a Mustang dyno which reads lower than a dynojet.