LMS 3 bar V11 93 bounces off rev limiter

[OmaHahn]

SHRINKAGE. LOL.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

That's what she said! And this reminds me of a Seinfeld episode with George swimming in cold water.... SHRINKAGE!

 

[OmaHahn]

Actually, running a tune more rich produces less particulate matter than running a leaner mixture on these vehicles. This is why many new direct injection platforms are moving to a particulate filter system to capture the particulate matter that is produced on lean conditions.

12 anything is too lean on these for sure. Being as Ford uses a stoich value of 14.08 (E10) you'd be talking about a lambda of ~.86 or leaner. If there wasn't a power adder on it, that wouldn't be too bad. But this is absolutely too lean for boost. It's not even a question in our mind. The myth about being able to run things leaner because of DI is just that. Maybe .77 instead of .74, but not .1 anything.

This is exactly why so many EcoBoost vehicles break, people/tuners think just because something lasts during a logging or tuning session that it's good for life. Our info comes from running true certified durability cycles/tests rather than the approach of "well, it worked on the last car". To us, that approach has never, and will never be enough for us.

Hope Matt chimes in again!

 

[rubydist]

Actually, running a tune more rich produces less particulate matter than running a leaner mixture on these vehicles. This is why many new direct injection platforms are moving to a particulate filter system to capture the particulate matter that is produced on lean conditions.

Please explain how this can be, since your statement appears to contradict physics.

 

[mattr66]

Actually, running a tune more rich produces less particulate matter than running a leaner mixture on these vehicles. This is why many new direct injection platforms are moving to a particulate filter system to capture the particulate matter that is produced on lean conditions.



12 anything is too lean on these for sure.

We will have to just disagree on these points. On DI engines, particulate output has mostly to do with unburnt fuel or lack of fuel vaporization. More fuel via a richer mixture produces more soot at WOT. Leaning out the mix has less unburnt fuel until you start running into lean missfire situations but you have to be much leaner than 12:1. Spark blowout will cause major particulate output as you will have lots of unvaporized fuel in the chamber and on the top piston ring from the previous cycle. Ethanol has worse particulate emissions in some cases especially when cold because of slower vaporization and slower flame front velocity under some instances. I was having catalyst overheating issues with richer mixtures which is the exact opposite of what research has shown and what ford modeled in the calibration. Sometimes you just have to approach things with an open mind and see what the outcome is. I have driven an SHO 6 out of 7 days a week for the last three and a half years and beat on it mercilessly every time I do. I love the platform and hope you guys will see the value in the intercooler I had produced so that both of our camps can continue to help this platform evolve.

You guys have a good following for a reason. Respect:

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[yaycandy]

Please explain how this can be, since your statement appears to contradict physics.

Well it could be depending on how exactly the engine is running, 50/50 shot though. Im not sure how these engines run stock compared to tuned but chemistry is one of my better subjects. A lean mixture generally does not produce more CO2 than a rich one unless the rich one is either so rich or is so poorly combusted that the resulting products are CO or unburned hydrocarbons. Both a rich mixture and a lean mixture will result in less carbon dioxide than a stoichometric, or balanced, mixture. The lean mixture lacks enough carbon to form as much carbon dioxide and the rich mixture lacks sufficient oxygen, such that you get an increase in carbon monoxide. You can work out the ideal results by taking the formula of the reactants and taking into account their proportions, calculate out the resulting proportions of CO2 and H2O vapor, and then see that CO2 goes down as you move away from stoichometric; but only moving in the lean direction doesn’t give you oodles of toxic carbon monoxide to deal with as an incomplete reaction product.

 

[yaycandy]

Mostly came from my chemistry text book on my desk. I was curious so i made sure it was fact

 

[shoblock]

Well it could be depending on how exactly the engine is running, 50/50 shot though. Im not sure how these engines run stock compared to tuned but chemistry is one of my better subjects. A lean mixture generally does not produce more CO2 than a rich one unless the rich one is either so rich or is so poorly combusted that the resulting products are CO or unburned hydrocarbons. Both a rich mixture and a lean mixture will result in less carbon dioxide than a stoichometric, or balanced, mixture. The lean mixture lacks enough carbon to form as much carbon dioxide and the rich mixture lacks sufficient oxygen, such that you get an increase in carbon monoxide. You can work out the ideal results by taking the formula of the reactants and taking into account their proportions, calculate out the resulting proportions of CO2 and H2O vapor, and then see that CO2 goes down as you move away from stoichometric; but only moving in the lean direction doesn’t give you oodles of toxic carbon monoxide to deal with as an incomplete reaction product.

Yeah, but what happens to the excess iridium and rare earth???

 

[yaycandy]

Yeah, but what happens to the excess iridium and rare earth???

I never owned a vehicle with cats so id have to look into it

 

[SM105K]

Are you going to try the 2 wheel drive partway down the strip idea????? I know you will post facts if you do. It does seem intriguing. I know my 03 Expedition was quicker in 2wd than AWD, (forgive my comparison) and all of the hardware was still turning in both modes.
Shoblock

I will keep looking into it. From what I have researched, the Focus RS utilizes a very similar setup that turns off the rear for the dyno. However, they are not reporting hardly any gain in HP. I will keep looking into it, and will definitely experiment with it.

 

[yaycandy]

I will keep looking into it. From what I have researched, the Focus RS utilizes a very similar setup that turns off the rear for the dyno. However, they are not reporting hardly any gain in HP. I will keep looking into it, and will definitely experiment with it.

Simple physics, too bad people on here arnt opened minded. Lots of technology in cars now came from racing as an open minded idea that they beleived wouldnt of made a difference. Like aerodynamics of spoilers and splitters and fins, mag rims, ceramic brakes and many others
Even Porsche with their left handed ignition switch. Allowed for them to start the car and shift into first quicker than the competition

 

[yaycandy]

Major part of engineering is to always be open minded. No matter how crazy and impossible idea it may be. Thats why Matt said for you guys to be open minded. We as engineers know thats key. Why do you think i tryed all kinds of stuff with my sho, made it fwd, disabled esc, Disabled the electric steering. Disabled neutral rev limiter. Done tons of stuff to it to try to see what happens and what can be improved. Stuff breaks, buy new. Its part of the process for research

 

[SM105K]

Ok, I am going to address this once, and then I am done with this thread.

EVERY tuner has had a motor compromised for one reason or the other. Whether it be from the tune or the end user.

The gentleman on Facebook and I pm'ed several times. It was a brand new SHO, he loaded the tune, and threw a rod shortly after. Could it have been a faulty motor from the factory? Sure, could it have been the tune? Possibly. I was simply pointing out that LMS tuned cars have failed.

This history with AJPTurbo and I is pretty well documented on EBPF. I did run the gamut of tuners with the 2010 SHO, again, well documented on EBPF. Brad did a lot of "Lets see if this works" with my 2010.. I was the first tuned by Brad for Meth, the first besides his own with the boost regulator mod, and there were a lot of kinks he was working out in his own tuning methods that many are reaping the benefits of at this point. There were tunes he sent that had nothing to do with adding power but controlling power production that resulted in A LOT of "WTF happened" moments. The one where he removed ALL torque management, ended up commanding over 20psi of boost, and a slew of other "oops" in the same tune resulted in the bottom end knocking. I still have the logs. And to be quite frank SM105K you were and are still not privy to the conversations Brad and I had while we were working out the kinks. There is A LOT of information and data that I didn't post and don't feel it needs to be posted. Brad is a great guy, I still recommend him as a tuner, and still highly respect him.

What ultimately caused the injector to hang? I never had it diagnosed. I was offered a lot of money for the car on trade in. The list of codes generated were quite long but unfortunately I did not document them all as I was offloading the car. But to your point, that car was driven hard, but was always extremely well maintained.

I understand the inherit risks with tuning very well, and the risk you take asking a tuner to turn it up more. I never once asked Brad to turn it up more than he was willing, as a matter of fact, I asked him to turn it down over his objections. Also a fact is he commented on my LMS tune load stating it was pushing more than he was and to be careful as he knew I didn't want to push it that hard.

There are reasons why after that tune caused a mechanical issue, I didn't run around the forums "Brad compromised my motor!!!". And I still don't run around saying that all over the internet. What I did imply was that its foolish to make claims that a tuner has never had a compromised or nuked a motor running their tune. Every tuner has a story about a motor that went belly up under their tune, doesn't mean its the tuners fault.


This back and forth about LMS is getting stale. Is there a problem with the V11 tune? I think for a large majority of the SHO's it appears that there is. Is LMS aware? At this point, I am sure everyone at LMS is aware. Are they working on fixes? With out a doubt. Given their track record of solid EB SHO tuning since 2009 and this is the first tune that has received this much back lash, I would say that you can't be perfect all the time. Is it a reason to drag them through the mud? I think not. So far no one on this forum has posted that their SHO blew up on the V11 tune, running poorly sure, but no catastrophic failures. I have no doubt they are working on a solution and has been proven that they are sending out revisions for it.

SBS, I 100% get what you are saying. However, once again your statement is misleading. At no point have you directly correlated a tune (except SSI) to a complete engine failure IMO. SSI is well documented with logs and pictures. Can you honestly say that X tuner on your 2010 was the direct cause of hurting your motor? I can 100% with my 376. I am not defending Brad. There is always a learning curve, and there is always give and take.

That being said, I am not defending any tuner. I read numerous threads on both forums and did my due diligence. I actually thank you for many things. Your reviews on tuners are very well put together, thoughtful, and the logs speak for themselves. I don't want to cause animosity with you, because you have been a huge help for me personally.

 

[SM105K]

Major part of engineering is to always be open minded. No matter how crazy and impossible idea it may be. Thats why Matt said for you guys to be open minded. We as engineers know thats key. Why do you think i tryed all kinds of stuff with my sho, made it fwd, disabled esc, Disabled the electric steering. Disabled neutral rev limiter. Done tons of stuff to it to try to see what happens and what can be improved. Stuff breaks, buy new. Its part of the process for research

Yeah, I am definitely going to play with it. My brain says there has to be an increase. You are disengaging the whole rear. The PTU and drive shaft will spin regardless. However, everything from the electric coupler and back will disengage and that has to be worth something.

There is only one way to find out. Throw her on the dyno. Do a pull, then disengage the RDU and run her front wheel drive. Then do the same thing at the drag strip. If what you are saying is true, then it should go faster if you disengage the RDU after the launch. Kinda like a reverse GTR set up.

 

[yaycandy]

Yeah, I am definitely going to play with it. My brain says there has to be an increase. You are disengaging the whole rear. The PTU and drive shaft will spin regardless. However, everything from the electric coupler and back will disengage and that has to be worth something.

There is only one way to find out. Throw her on the dyno. Do a pull, then disengage the RDU and run her front wheel drive. Then do the same thing at the drag strip. If what you are saying is true, then it should go faster if you disengage the RDU after the launch. Kinda like a reverse GTR set up.

Ive been looking into a way to disengage the front and run the rears but i think the front is what it defaults too because of its tranverse setup. I hate fwd’s but top speed, quickness and mpg should have some gain even with normal highway driving in fwd only mode. The system defaults to fwd only mode in excess slip as the manual states and that it does not cause increased wear but thats under normal driving. . Even flipping the switch to lite the front up for grip should add to some of the awd launch or even just a fwd launch. I have many more “ideas” with the platform. The steering corrects for wind and roads being uneven which could cause some issues on a track. Tough to steer at low speeds of course but i had better control of my sho at highspeed with no steering assist as i am used to classic sport cars with no assists but your brain

 

[yaycandy]

I understand people bought there sho as a DD. I bought it as a toy and thats why i play around with it electronically to see “what would happen if”. Lots more to drag strip and racing than just peak hp. My miata has 91 rwhp and ran a 14 second with a rear upgrade to 4.30 diff. Header and cac. And a custom front bumper for the strip and hardtop

 

[yaycandy]

Im an open minded person. You can see it in all the threads im part of. Ive seen quick SHOs and similar types cars all over the US, even when i was based in Washington state. Thats why i bought one to play around with, to figure out some of the electronics. Im not a liar. I see what i see. I aint got nothing to prove. I even seen a 8 second honda fwd and i still dont understand. Yet i see its at 7 seconds now, and its beyond me

 

[rubydist]

Well it could be depending on how exactly the engine is running, 50/50 shot though. Im not sure how these engines run stock compared to tuned but chemistry is one of my better subjects. A lean mixture generally does not produce more CO2 than a rich one unless the rich one is either so rich or is so poorly combusted that the resulting products are CO or unburned hydrocarbons. Both a rich mixture and a lean mixture will result in less carbon dioxide than a stoichometric, or balanced, mixture. The lean mixture lacks enough carbon to form as much carbon dioxide and the rich mixture lacks sufficient oxygen, such that you get an increase in carbon monoxide. You can work out the ideal results by taking the formula of the reactants and taking into account their proportions, calculate out the resulting proportions of CO2 and H2O vapor, and then see that CO2 goes down as you move away from stoichometric; but only moving in the lean direction doesn’t give you oodles of toxic carbon monoxide to deal with as an incomplete reaction product.

Except that CO or CO2 is not a particulate, they are gasses. As Matt pointed out, particulates come from unburned fuel. Therefore, science says that running richer than 12:1 will result in more particulates since there will be more unburned fuel. Hence my question to LMS to explain why this engine is different from what science predicts.

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

We will have to just disagree on these points. On DI engines, particulate output has mostly to do with unburnt fuel or lack of fuel vaporization. More fuel via a richer mixture produces more soot at WOT. Leaning out the mix has less unburnt fuel until you start running into lean missfire situations but you have to be much leaner than 12:1. Spark blowout will cause major particulate output as you will have lots of unvaporized fuel in the chamber and on the top piston ring from the previous cycle. Ethanol has worse particulate emissions in some cases especially when cold because of slower vaporization and slower flame front velocity under some instances. I was having catalyst overheating issues with richer mixtures which is the exact opposite of what research has shown and what ford modeled in the calibration. Sometimes you just have to approach things with an open mind and see what the outcome is. I have driven an SHO 6 out of 7 days a week for the last three and a half years and beat on it mercilessly every time I do. I love the platform and hope you guys will see the value in the intercooler I had produced so that both of our camps can continue to help this platform evolve.

You guys have a good following for a reason. Respect:

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Basically it boils down to this. Soot has to do with aspects of the combustion process that are constant whether it's rich, or lean. This is but one type of PM. However, lean will increase PM due to how DI engines combust fuel at leaner mixtures. The proof here is the fact that they are putting particulate filters on cars. This is for emissions purposes. If anyone knows how an emissions test is ran (which we do since some of our offerings have gone through the CARB EO process, and we have a pre-certification dyno) it is not done at WOT, but a certain drive cycle. So, if there was not a problem at leaner mixtures, there would never be a need for this filter to be used at all.

There are only 2 situations where EGT would increase with a richer mixture, and neither are apples to apples.

1: lower spark do the combustion process is happening later, so more heat is beaing lost through the exhaust rather than being disappated into the cylinder head/block/piston compared to a leaner mixture with more timing (there is an area of overlap, but it's small)

2: you're so rich it's misfiring and actually combusting within the exhaust.

Additionally, you're talking about modeled catalyst temp, it's not like these cars have an EGT sensor. So you can also be in a range where the model is incorrect. Trust us, it happens.

We know what happens to EcoBoost engines at leaner mixtures. We've done the instrumented testing. That is why we would never do that to a customer's car. We've put out the warning, people can choose to listen, or ignore. But that doesn't change our stance on this.

It's a classic fix the symptom, or fix the disease scenario

 

[mattr66]

Basically it boils down to this. Soot has to do with aspects of the combustion process that are constant whether it's rich, or lean. This is but one type of PM. However, lean will increase PM due to how DI engines combust fuel at leaner mixtures. The proof here is the fact that they are putting particulate filters on cars. This is for emissions purposes. If anyone knows how an emissions test is ran (which we do since some of our offerings have gone through the CARB EO process, and we have a pre-certification dyno) it is not done at WOT, but a certain drive cycle. So, if there was not a problem at leaner mixtures, there would never be a need for this filter to be used at all.

Yes, but as you stated the typical drive cycle doesn't include WOT and leaner mixtures at part throttle are not what we are talking about here.

There are only 2 situations where EGT would increase with a richer mixture, and neither are apples to apples.

1: lower spark do to the combustion process happening later, so more heat is being lost through the exhaust rather than being dissipated into the cylinder head/block/piston compared to a leaner mixture with more timing (there is an area of overlap, but it's small)

You mean CA50/70 type criteria. Yep

2: you're so rich it's misfiring and actually combusting within the exhaust.

Popcorn Limit does this too because of not being able to run enough timing for the given manifold pressure (boost). This is the reason I limit load based on inferred octane.

Additionally, you're talking about modeled catalyst temp, it's not like these cars have an EGT sensor. So you can also be in a range where the model is incorrect. Trust us, it happens.

I said this very thing above. I actually measured catalyst bed temps compared to the stock calibration when things weren't "smelling" right and the cats were glowing.

We know what happens to EcoBoost engines at leaner mixtures. We've done the instrumented testing. That is why we would never do that to a customer's car. We've put out the warning, people can choose to listen, or ignore. But that doesn't change our stance on this.

It is a dance... there is also long term durability issues to contend when you have higher mileage stock tuned vehicles with so much carbon buildup that the top rings get butted and cause it to break the piston tops.[/QUOTE]

 

[Raging Bull]

Now I’m speaking for myself and maybe others as well ? To me this all sounds right it still boils down to a 50/50 shot whom ever u tune with u may have issues ? Then why do people say one tuner is better than the next tuner ? People who understand these comments please chime in and explain which makes more sense in having a tune on your car. Whichever claim has more people satisfied then we can all go from there. Idk