Livernois Motorsports Tune +18hp / +65tq

[fST]

I've tried tagging them to no avail. I've been chatting with them via email with almost immediate responses.

Maybe mention this thread has generated some questions and concerns over the last week?

By the way, I JUST purchased a used Livernois tuner for $100 shipped, so I'll have some experience of what all the hype is about soon enough.

 

[OffTheWall503]

Nice! Let me know how that goes so I don't feel like the only one that's crazy!

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

I think there might be some confusion on some data/info. so I will attempt to clear that up. First, and foremost we are fully aware of how to make maximum power while maintaining reliability and safety. Those capabilities are not limited if the tuning is done remotely or on our own dyno. There are so many aspects of what goes into a proper, oem style calibration, that if done right, it can absolutely account for every myriad of variables that one could encounter in their drives. However, one thing that people often underestimate is that all of these remote tunes do not take in for account all of the potential atmospheric variances, so often tuners are making adjustments based off of incorrect assumptions. Now, why we use STD correction, this isn't to inflate anything. If that were the case, we would be using SAE baselines, with STD final numbers. There is no shell game going on. We just happen to know how low our dyno reads, which is why when you look at our baselines done in STD, they are often the same, or even lower than other companies SAE numbers. Because of this, we use STD as the default. We could give you SAE numbers, but these would not impact the outcome of the gains, which is what we are showcasing. Using a smoothing factor of 5 is not to hide anything but for the graph to be completely legible, and to avoid artificial spikes. Most tuners use a less aggressive smoothing setup to take advantages of power spikes and get small blips in power to use for advertising, we, however, do not operate that way. Now, as far as the power curves not being linear, or nice and smooth. If you look at the OEM curves, the are often times worse, or no better than the ones we do. Now, many of you might, or might not be aware of this, but the EcoBoost platforms all have multiple methods of controlling power output, and boost levels to achieve an exacting power output from the engine. Because of this, you will see the car oscillate slightly in a run. this is by design, to protect the engine, and ensure that it is worry free. Want it on kill, and only care about max power? you can get it smoother, but those are trade-offs that we don't make without properly educating people on the why's behind what they are seeing. But, one thing it definitely does not reflect, is the quality, or as some are implying, lack-there-of in the tune. We spend a great deal of time working on our calibrations both on, and off the dyno as well, so the way the power comes on, and holds is blended of both to ensure it delivers exactly as intended under all situations, and this does include weather, and location/elevation based changes because we work with the OEM logic, not against it when we do tuning. And, because of this, it cooperates with our upgrades as well!

 

[Chrisklol]

I think there might be some confusion on some data/info. so I will attempt to clear that up. First, and foremost we are fully aware of how to make maximum power while maintaining reliability and safety. Those capabilities are not limited if the tuning is done remotely or on our own dyno. There are so many aspects of what goes into a proper, oem style calibration, that if done right, it can absolutely account for every myriad of variables that one could encounter in their drives. However, one thing that people often underestimate is that all of these remote tunes do not take in for account all of the potential atmospheric variances, so often tuners are making adjustments based off of incorrect assumptions. Now, why we use STD correction, this isn't to inflate anything. If that were the case, we would be using SAE baselines, with STD final numbers. There is no shell game going on. We just happen to know how low our dyno reads, which is why when you look at our baselines done in STD, they are often the same, or even lower than other companies SAE numbers. Because of this, we use STD as the default. We could give you SAE numbers, but these would not impact the outcome of the gains, which is what we are showcasing. Using a smoothing factor of 5 is not to hide anything but for the graph to be completely legible, and to avoid artificial spikes. Most tuners use a less aggressive smoothing setup to take advantages of power spikes and get small blips in power to use for advertising, we, however, do not operate that way. Now, as far as the power curves not being linear, or nice and smooth. If you look at the OEM curves, the are often times worse, or no better than the ones we do. Now, many of you might, or might not be aware of this, but the EcoBoost platforms all have multiple methods of controlling power output, and boost levels to achieve an exacting power output from the engine. Because of this, you will see the car oscillate slightly in a run. this is by design, to protect the engine, and ensure that it is worry free. Want it on kill, and only care about max power? you can get it smoother, but those are trade-offs that we don't make without properly educating people on the why's behind what they are seeing. But, one thing it definitely does not reflect, is the quality, or as some are implying, lack-there-of in the tune. We spend a great deal of time working on our calibrations both on, and off the dyno as well, so the way the power comes on, and holds is blended of both to ensure it delivers exactly as intended under all situations, and this does include weather, and location/elevation based changes because we work with the OEM logic, not against it when we do tuning. And, because of this, it cooperates with our upgrades as well!

. .

 

[stormcrow]

Firstly, let me thank you for making a presence and responding to the concerns of those purchasing your tune and those who might purchase your tune. I must say that I find the vast majority of your response as the typical ?smoke and mirrors? tactics used by tuners and shops who want to shy away from the truth, and instead, disseminate and propagate misinformation and outright false claims all for the sake of selling a product. Here are the words I have issue with:
When speaking of your e-tune you state ?

?First, and foremost we are fully aware of how to make maximum power while maintaining reliability and safety. Those capabilities are not limited if the tuning is done remotely or on our own dyno.?

The portion I will focus on is the fact that you stated that tuning capabilities are not limited when remote (e-tune). You?re stating that whether it?s an e-tune or an in-person tune, your tunes are the very same. While this may be true, (I will let the good people here figure out why this may be the case) you?re also insinuating that OTS e-tunes are as capable, safe, and reliable as a custom tune. This is categorically FALSE. ANY calibrator will tell you this. Do you still defend this stance? If so, please elaborate on how you can magically tune a car, from which you?ve never seen a single log, to the same level other calibrators do when sitting behind the wheel of the vehicle. We are all very interested.

?There are so many aspects of what goes into a proper, oem style calibration, that if done right, it can absolutely account for every myriad of variables that one could encounter in their drives. However, one thing that people often underestimate is that all of these remote tunes do not take in for account all of the potential atmospheric variances, so often tuners are making adjustments based off of incorrect assumptions.?

Instead of spewing drivel, please actually enlighten us on 1) what magic do you use to ?take in all potential atmospheric variances?? and 2) what are these ?incorrect assumptions? other tuners make? When I read these words, I see them as they are ? FUD and smoke and mirrors. The truth is, the ECU works within specific parameters and you?re simply changing those parameters to higher or lower values. As soon as you get outside of the tolerances that are built-in by the Ford programmers and coders, you are asking the ECU to ?best guess? on how to make corrections. This is very unsafe. As far as I know, zero calibrators are pushing beyond the stock ECU limits, so you are categorically doing nothing different than any other calibrator. That said, I?m sure everyone reading would appreciate answers to my questions above.

?Now, why we use STD correction, this isn't to inflate anything. If that were the case, we would be using SAE baselines, with STD final numbers. There is no shell game going on. We just happen to know how low our dyno reads, which is why when you look at our baselines done in STD, they are often the same, or even lower than other companies SAE numbers. Because of this, we use STD as the default. We could give you SAE numbers, but these would not impact the outcome of the gains, which is what we are showcasing.?

Do you actually believe the words you typed? You would use SAE baselines if you wanted to inflate numbers? No, you would use uncorrected baselines for the lowest number possible and then STD for final numbers for highest. Do you even understand the difference between the different correction types? I?m sure you do or you?re completely inept. No, the truth is, this is more smoke and mirrors hanging on the hopes that the good people of this forum do not know the difference between the correction types. Also, you contradict yourself by saying there is no shell game, yet you know how ?low? your dyno reads. You're using the highest possible correction because you're dyno reads "low". That's a shell game. Pro-tip: Want to know how to tell when to stay away from a tuning shop? When they tell you that their dyno reads ?low?. Your dyno reads low because your numbers are low. Dynos don?t lie. Shops and calibrators do. And to say that SAE would not impact the gains, it certainly would. SAE is more realistic and real-world, even though it would only be off by 2-3%. You post STD for a reason, yet you won?t own up to it.

? Using a smoothing factor of 5 is not to hide anything but for the graph to be completely legible, and to avoid artificial spikes. Most tuners use a less aggressive smoothing setup to take advantages of power spikes and get small blips in power to use for advertising, we, however, do not operate that way. Now, as far as the power curves not being linear, or nice and smooth. If you look at the OEM curves, the are often times worse, or no better than the ones we do. Now, many of you might, or might not be aware of this, but the EcoBoost platforms all have multiple methods of controlling power output, and boost levels to achieve an exacting power output from the engine. Because of this, you will see the car oscillate slightly in a run. this is by design, to protect the engine, and ensure that it is worry free. Want it on kill, and only care about max power? you can get it smoother, but those are trade-offs that we don't make without properly educating people on the why's behind what they are seeing. But, one thing it definitely does not reflect, is the quality, or as some are implying, lack-there-of in the tune.?

I simply do not even know where to start with this quote. There is so much wrong here that it would take pages to explain. My point on the smoothing factor being set at maximum was meant to showcase one thing ? your tune looks like a patient attached to a heart monitor as far as the curves are concerned; even with the highest smoothing factor being applied. Let me make it clear: This is NOT OK, nor is it a good tune. Yes, the OEM tunes are rough. But let me be clear about this, as well: This IS OK on a de-tuned stock vehicle. OEM tunes are mild, safe (beyond safe, really), and do not remotely push the envelope. Higher horsepower and torque tunes REQUIRE a smooth power-band as they are pushing the envelope. You can?t AMPLIFY the bad parts of the stock tune, which your tune actually does, and tout that you?ve given your clients a safe and reliable tune. Yet, this is exactly what you expect the members here to believe. Amazing. As far as saying that a jagged tune is by design and to protect the engine....well, I?m seriously left slack-jawed that any calibrator or shop would actually utter (let alone type) those words. In any forum where there?s an educated member-base, you would be laughed off of the boards.

You?ve also not remotely explained why there?s a nearly 25ftlb torque loss at 3000 RPMs in your graph after reaching full spool.

? We spend a great deal of time working on our calibrations both on, and off the dyno as well, so the way the power comes on, and holds is blended of both to ensure it delivers exactly as intended under all situations, and this does include weather, and location/elevation based changes because we work with the OEM logic, not against it when we do tuning.?

FINALLY, you admit that you work within the parameters of the stock ECU. So, I refer you back to my questions posed above. 1) what magic do you use to ?take in all potential atmospheric variances?? and 2) what are these ?incorrect assumptions? other tuners make?

Livernois Motorsports, you truthfully are one of the very reasons people eventually distrust and dislike tuning shops. You spew disinformation, FUD, and use smoke and mirrors when called out to try and cover your ass. You rely on people being uneducated and blindly sending you their hard-earned money based off of false and inflated claims. But, the worst part is, you put their vehicles at risk by sending them a tune that is, in all truth, worse than OEM as it is simply a higher horsepower, higher torque version of the already rough OE tune. I?m very hopeful that some of the people running your tune will post logs so that all can see what?s actually going on. Oh, wait, they can?t...because your tuning device isn?t capable of logging. Is that also by design?


TL;DR ? Smoke and mirrors from this tuner; do your research.

 

[OffTheWall503]

I think we need to step back and take a breath here. Please allow the company in question to defend themselves before you accuse them of shady practices.

 

[stormcrow]

I think we need to step back and take a breath here. Please allow the company in question to defend themselves before you accuse them of shady practices.

They did defend themselves. And with deceitful words and shady tactics. Hopefully I made that clear above.

 

[OffTheWall503]

I don't think you have any basis to call their tuning shady without seeing some numbers.

 

[Sam4]

Well, Livernois, you have a serious hater on your hands in the 10:09AM poster. This blog chain has now reached the "Are you still beating your wife?" level. Do you respond? Do you not? (i'd let it go...) All I can say is that I received my tuner yesterday after speaking with Jason Barna to place the order- very courteous and made sure I understood what I needed to do to get the process moving forward. I have read most all of the posts and am satisfied I'm dealing with a reputable vendor, who specializes in Ford Ecoboost technology. I submitted my requirements and am stoked to get going!

Sam

 

[stormcrow]

I don't think you have any basis to call their tuning shady without seeing some numbers.

Numbers? Aren't these posted in their graph, your graph, and the thread title? What numbers are you referencing? Preferably, we would be shown logs so that we may see what's going on with the cars running these tunes. But, that's not possible. You can dismiss the facts I've put before you. You can accept their lies and double-talk. This is your prerogative. I've posted in this thread because, not only have I personally been down this road with tuners before, but I continue to see unsuspecting people spend money with disreputable companies. At some point, it's on us as a community to help one another and share our knowledge and past mistakes. That's what I'm trying to do here.

Well, Livernois, you have a serious hater on your hands in the 10:09AM poster. This blog chain has now reached the "Are you still beating your wife?" level. Do you respond? Do you not? (i'd let it go...) All I can say is that I received my tuner yesterday after speaking with Jason Barna to place the order- very courteous and made sure I understood what I needed to do to get the process moving forward. I have read most all of the posts and am satisfied I'm dealing with a reputable vendor, who specializes in Ford Ecoboost technology. I submitted my requirements and am stoked to get going!

Sam

There is no hatred. If you wish to boil down the facts, dyno graphs, and issues with honesty that I've clearly pointed out in this thread, then it would seem that you're simply fan-boying for Livernois because they were courteous when selling you their product. Providing good customer service is what they are supposed to do. But, customer service doesn't change what tune you're about to put on your car; nor does it excuse them from their tactics to sell you said tune.

I've clearly defined the issues with their hardware and software, as well as, openly called them out on their half-truths, misinformation, and smoke and mirrors. Again, as a community, we have to share our knowledge and experience for the betterment of all. Having said that, I have brought attention to what I can and will let those who decide to read, research, and educate themselves make their own choices.

 

[fST]

...

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

Before I reply I want to note that the difference in font and font style is just so that this is easier to read. There is no malice or extra emphasis meant by it.

Firstly, let me thank you for making a presence and responding to the concerns of those purchasing your tune and those who might purchase your tune. I must say that I find the vast majority of your response as the typical ?smoke and mirrors? tactics used by tuners and shops who want to shy away from the truth, and instead, disseminate and propagate misinformation and outright false claims all for the sake of selling a product.

Not at all, we educate our customer, tell them what we do, why we do it, and let them make the call. People have a hard time believing us because we challenge the status quo that so many tuners have bamboozled people into believing over the years. Was there a time certain things were necessary with vehicles to tune them properly? yes. However, the EcoBoost line of vehicles breaks many "rules". (truthfully, they weren't the first car to do so, but it's true across the line)

Here are the words I have issue with:
When speaking of your e-tune you state ?
The portion I will focus on is the fact that you stated that tuning capabilities are not limited when remote (e-tune). You?re stating that whether it?s an e-tune or an in-person tune, your tunes are the very same. While this may be true, (I will let the good people here figure out why this may be the case) you?re also insinuating that OTS e-tunes are as capable, safe, and reliable as a custom tune.

What we are suggesting, and flat out stating is OUR custom tunes, delivered via our hardware and update client (note, we have no "OTS" offerings as our tuners are sent blank and we custom build the tunes every time) are as safe and reliable as a custom tune in person. Why is this? it's simple, we did our homework and all of the legwork first. I can't count the times we have ran an EcoBoost on our dyno with our tuning in it, and it's right where it is supposed to be. This is why doing things the proper way make such a difference. Since we are commanding everything to play along together, rather than forcing the computer to do something it does exactly what we ask of it.

This is categorically FALSE. ANY calibrator will tell you this. Do you still defend this stance? If so, please elaborate on how you can magically tune a car, from which you?ve never seen a single log, to the same level other calibrators do when sitting behind the wheel of the vehicle. We are all very interested.

We actually have all of the proof that this works. If you look at all of the EcoBoost records out there for everything short of dedicated race builds, we own more records than everyone else combined. I mean, this in and of itself is why so many other tuners feel the need to attack our methods and do their best to convince the customer that our way is wrong. But, how then do you explain such results? The truth is no one can, except for admitting one truth. That we do really have the EcoBoost line of vehicles figured out better than anyone else. Now, do we own every record? No, but if you do digging, almost everyone that has ever taken a record from us, you'll find out they are putting 1, or multiple engines in the vehicle down the line, while our record holders have had cars well past the 100k mile mark with no failures.

Instead of spewing drivel, please actually enlighten us on 1) what magic do you use to ?take in all potential atmospheric variances?? and 2) what are these ?incorrect assumptions? other tuners make? When I read these words, I see them as they are ? FUD and smoke and mirrors. The truth is, the ECU works within specific parameters and you?re simply changing those parameters to higher or lower values. As soon as you get outside of the tolerances that are built-in by the Ford programmers and coders, you are asking the ECU to ?best guess? on how to make corrections. This is very unsafe. As far as I know, zero calibrators are pushing beyond the stock ECU limits, so you are categorically doing nothing different than any other calibrator. That said, I?m sure everyone reading would appreciate answers to my questions above.

The simple magic is knowing how to tune these to get everything to cooperate, and by revamping all of the variables to play with our new calibrations. I am not going to go into details on what the specifics are, namely, because in nearly 8 years of the EcoBoost platform being out, we are still the only ones who understand how to do this, so, sorry, we aren't going to give any insight in this. Is that going to be off putting to some customers? I am sure that will be, but we don't seek nor want world domination, simply customers who understand an like our methodology. As for incorrect assumptions, there are far, far too many to list, even if we wanted to. But even the basics are all assumptions. what's the exacting weather conditions are, and of course other impacting aspects like altitude, grade, change in aero drag from added, removed, or damaged components on the car, or, often, tuning around improperly installed parts. I have seen countless times people chase their tails on the calibration side because there is a true mechanical issue. That is where datalogging and lack of understanding of how the car should respond is the biggest deficit.

Do you actually believe the words you typed? You would use SAE baselines if you wanted to inflate numbers? No, you would use uncorrected baselines for the lowest number possible and then STD for final numbers for highest. Do you even understand the difference between the different correction types? I?m sure you do or you?re completely inept. [/QUOTE]

See above, and reread what we wrote so you can fully understand what we wrote.

No, the truth is, this is more smoke and mirrors hanging on the hopes that the good people of this forum do not know the difference between the correction types. Also, you contradict yourself by saying there is no shell game, yet you know how ?low? your dyno reads.

This isn't a shell game. However, do you know what happens every time we post a baseline in SAE? we get lambasted for, you guessed it, low numbers. So, damned if we do, damned if we don't. We have always done STD numbers, and they always line up with other's SAE's. Time and time again. This isn't a shell game, this is us going out of our way to be consistant, and give people numbers they can understand and relate to other dynos. Again, having a lower SAE baseline with a lower SAE final number is going to net you the exact same gains, which is what we always discuss. We aren't out there just bragging final numbers without a base point to calculate the delta.

You're using the highest possible correction because you're dyno reads "low". That's a shell game. Pro-tip: Want to know how to tell when to stay away from a tuning shop? When they tell you that their dyno reads ?low?. Your dyno reads low because your numbers are low. Dynos don?t lie.

Unfortunately, this shows you don't have much actual knowledge on what a dyno is, nor how it functions. See, we have 3 dynojets, and used to have a mustang dyno as well. Our original dynojet is an old 248, and when I say old, I believe the serial number is around the 65 number. These dynos always read dramatically less than their newer versions. Because of that, when we got our 24, and 424xLC2 we gave them all of the info from our original dyno to ensure they were set up this same, old way. That way we don't get things confused from dyno, to dyno. However, by implying that dyno's don't lie, and that there are no such things as a low reading dyno is false. I personally have had my own car, before working here, on the dynojet at our facility, another dynojet, and a mustang dyno on the same day. Now, If you are going to make assumptions based on the internet (because everything is true there), you would likely say that the mustang dyno read the least. This is incorrect. I made 372 on a mustang dyno, 342 on the dynojet here (in STD mind you), and 365 on another dynojet (in SAE) I was quite perturbed because the shop who tuned the car on the mustang dyno assured me I would make 400+ on a dynojet, when I made less on 2 separate ones all within 4 hours of the first on their mustang dyno.

Why am I telling you this? Well, that's simple. It proves that not all dynos (even dynojets) are the same, and that dynos can lie. However, we do OEM testing here at our facility, and therefor know how to avoid games like forcing a car into cat temp protection to get a low number for a baseline.

Shops and calibrators do. And to say that SAE would not impact the gains, it certainly would. SAE is more realistic and real-world, even though it would only be off by 2-3%. You post STD for a reason, yet you won?t own up to it.

What you are talking about is a technicality. there is a fraction of a percent, if someone is worried about 2/10th of 1hp then they are going to go through life disappointed in everything as 15 runs in a row are going to vary more than the correction offset from STD vs. SAE. In case you were wondering, 2/10 (actually, .19) of 1hp is the difference in our first release dyno for STD vs SAE. none of that impacts the gains we discuss as we talk about it being above a certain number which remains true no matter the correction. So, for practical purposes, there is no difference. That's like arguing about the shade of blue when someone calls it blue. It's still blue, blue is not untrue, they didn't lie by saying it was the color blue, just like we didn't skew our results by using STD rather than SAE.

I simply do not even know where to start with this quote. There is so much wrong here that it would take pages to explain. My point on the smoothing factor being set at maximum was meant to showcase one thing ? your tune looks like a patient attached to a heart monitor as far as the curves are concerned;

Unfortunately, there just isn't a car at this power level that is going to naturally have that smooth of a run. Now, here is a secret, most of the time people will solve this by running the car in a lwoer gear, as it gets the acceleration rates to increase, and therefor smooths the graph. But, again, this is a game. Something we don't play. We put the real data out people need.

even with the highest smoothing factor being applied. Let me make it clear: This is NOT OK, nor is it a good tune. Yes, the OEM tunes are rough. But let me be clear about this, as well: This IS OK on a de-tuned stock vehicle. OEM tunes are mild, safe (beyond safe, really), and do not remotely push the envelope.

Unfortunately, this is only part of the truth, but I wil reiterate, there are things one must adhere to to ensure a long life from a car that is turned up, and I assure you, it can result in peaks and valleys on a turbo car. This is because the car is constantly varying items to achieve it's desired output. This means that the VCT, throttle, wastegate, and timing are all going to be in a continuous state of flux to do this while maintaining a safe cylinder pressure. Starts eliminating those things and dumbing it down, and you can smooth things out, but none of this is a positive beyond having some pretty looking lines.

Higher horsepower and torque tunes REQUIRE a smooth power-band as they are pushing the envelope. You can?t AMPLIFY the bad parts of the stock tune, which your tune actually does, and tout that you?ve given your clients a safe and reliable tune.

You are making an incorrect assumption that something about this is bad, when it's not.

Yet, this is exactly what you expect the members here to believe. Amazing. As far as saying that a jagged tune is by design and to protect the engine....well, I?m seriously left slack-jawed that any calibrator or shop would actually utter (let alone type) those words. In any forum where there?s an educated member-base, you would be laughed off of the boards.

You?ve also not remotely explained why there?s a nearly 25ftlb torque loss at 3000 RPMs in your graph after reaching full spool.

Simply put, this is the tune doing it's job, correcting when need be to achieve every target we are throwing at it, ensuring that blend of power, and durability. Can we tune it and get rid of that, yes, as alluded to a few times, removing things to protect an engine is easy. Shortsighted, but easy. However, we won't to those things. Safety is a close second behind power output, because quo cares if it made 5 more hp and 20 more # of torque if it's a pile of parts in 6-12 months?

FINALLY, you admit that you work within the parameters of the stock ECU. So, I refer you back to my questions posed above. 1) what magic do you use to ?take in all potential atmospheric variances?? and 2) what are these ?incorrect assumptions? other tuners make?

Asked and answered.
However, bear in mind that there are around 14,000 parameters inside this ECM. So saying we work within the constraints of the OEM computer is not exactly limiting. We can, however, change many aspects in how these respond. Tell me, how many parameters does the commercial suites people are using have? last I recall there was some bragging when sa company added number 1200. Then, explain how anyone can do the job right with less than 10% of the content? That's like trying to navigate the 48 contiguous states with only a map that covers 4.5 of them. Oh, but there is a catch, since you don't have the map, you can't go down a road that isn't on that map either.

Livernois Motorsports, you truthfully are one of the very reasons people eventually distrust and dislike tuning shops. You spew disinformation, FUD, and use smoke and mirrors when called out to try and cover your ass. You rely on people being uneducated and blindly sending you their hard-earned money based off of false and inflated claims. But, the worst part is, you put their vehicles at risk by sending them a tune that is, in all truth, worse than OEM as it is simply a higher horsepower, higher torque version of the already rough OE tune. I?m very hopeful that some of the people running your tune will post logs so that all can see what?s actually going on. Oh, wait, they can?t...because your tuning device isn?t capable of logging. Is that also by design?

Oddly, we don't do any of what you are implying, what we are doing is trying to get people to see that tuners are making them do their dirty work, while getting paid for it. Sending a tune that isn't properly developed fully, and then continually experimenting on their cars is a disservice to the customer. Especially when so many of those companies charge for every revision, just because it wasn't right in the first place. But the place that doesn't charge for such things is the bad guy? I don't quite follow that, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Now, you do bring up an interesting point on data-logging. There is a simple reason why we don't offer this in our device, and it boils down to developing hardware that supports what we would need for logging. See, the logger we use at our facility that ensures proper data rates and ability to log what we actually need, rather then generic info, or a limited list of specific info, is absurdly expensive. Until we are able to go through and have a device that actually logs what we need, in the fashion we need it, we excluded logging. Now, by knowing every aspect of the tune, and logic within the ECM, we are able to diagnose issues without ever seeing a log, namely because 99%+ of the time it's mechanical and we have seen it before because we do everything in person from the start, these are unrelated to the tune, and in those rare times it is in the calibration, we work on recreating it here to provide peace of mind to our customer that they aren't out there doing things in their car to gather us data. So, we create more difficult work for ourselves on purpose, and we are ok with that because that is our commitment to a customer. I mean, just look at the base thought process. a tuner is having you sort out a problem with your car by repeatedly going out and beating on it while there is a problem. How is that a service to any customer? How have customers been convinced that this is correct is the terrible part. The amount of stories we hear about situations like this gone bad are staggering, and while our engine build department appreciates the consistent flow of work that these types of failures can provide them with, people that only care about the sale in front of them rather than building a lasting trust with a customer don't realize how they can impact the hobby as a whole. Too many times people leave the hobby from a bad experience. But, with our name being synonymous with automotive engineering for going on 68 years, we have a level of insight and dedication that a someone new to the industry can never appreciate fully. This is why we don't get caught up in horsepower wars, and why we care about being consistent. Everyone thinks they want every last hp, until the price they paid for the last 1 was too much. We are here to guide people on proper, not to just do what is popular.

TL;DR ? Smoke and mirrors from this tuner; do your research.

Untrue, and unfounded. Just because you don't agree with our methods has no bearing on them being true or not.

 

[Seijou]

@ Livernois Motorsports -- Speaking from the perspective of a customer, I am very impressed by what you guys are offering and how you are doing it. Thank you for your professionalism.

 

[stormcrow]

Thank you, kindly, for your well-thought out response. It does leave me with a few questions, however.

Not at all, we educate our customer, tell them what we do, why we do it, and let them make the call. People have a hard time believing us because we challenge the status quo that so many tuners have bamboozled people into believing over the years. Was there a time certain things were necessary with vehicles to tune them properly? yes. However, the EcoBoost line of vehicles breaks many "rules". (truthfully, they weren't the first car to do so, but it's true across the line)

Here I will only ask that you clarify what ?certain things? used to be necessary (meaning, define ?things?) that are not longer required when putting out a proper tune? What ?rules?, exactly, does the EcoBoost engine break?

What we are suggesting, and flat out stating is OUR custom tunes, delivered via our hardware and update client (note, we have no "OTS" offerings as our tuners are sent blank and we custom build the tunes every time) are as safe and reliable as a custom tune in person. Why is this? it's simple, we did our homework and all of the legwork first. I can't count the times we have ran an EcoBoost on our dyno with our tuning in it, and it's right where it is supposed to be. This is why doing things the proper way make such a difference. Since we are commanding everything to play along together, rather than forcing the computer to do something it does exactly what we ask of it.

So, it seems I was/am a bit uneducated on the process you use to tune your client vehicles. Please explain to me how your clients go from a blank hardware tuner sent to them to having your custom tune on their vehicles?

We actually have all of the proof that this works. If you look at all of the EcoBoost records out there for everything short of dedicated race builds, we own more records than everyone else combined. I mean, this in and of itself is why so many other tuners feel the need to attack our methods and do their best to convince the customer that our way is wrong. But, how then do you explain such results? The truth is no one can, except for admitting one truth. That we do really have the EcoBoost line of vehicles figured out better than anyone else. Now, do we own every record? No, but if you do digging, almost everyone that has ever taken a record from us, you'll find out they are putting 1, or multiple engines in the vehicle down the line, while our record holders have had cars well past the 100k mile mark with no failures.

If this is true, I would love to speak with the customers who are record-holders and still running their original motors with 100k plus miles on them. Can you provide one single example? I?m not discounting you; I?m simply asking for someone who can back up this claim to come forward.

The simple magic is knowing how to tune these to get everything to cooperate, and by revamping all of the variables to play with our new calibrations. I am not going to go into details on what the specifics are, namely, because in nearly 8 years of the EcoBoost platform being out, we are still the only ones who understand how to do this, so, sorry, we aren't going to give any insight in this. Is that going to be off putting to some customers? I am sure that will be, but we don't seek nor want world domination, simply customers who understand an like our methodology. As for incorrect assumptions, there are far, far too many to list, even if we wanted to. But even the basics are all assumptions. what's the exacting weather conditions are, and of course other impacting aspects like altitude, grade, change in aero drag from added, removed, or damaged components on the car, or, often, tuning around improperly installed parts. I have seen countless times people chase their tails on the calibration side because there is a true mechanical issue. That is where datalogging and lack of understanding of how the car should respond is the biggest deficit.

How can customers understand your methodology if you will not go into details? I?m left to assume that this is more smoke and mirrors. I understand that you might not want to give away trade-secrets, but that?s not what you just stated. What you stated is that you feel no need to be transparent and only want to attract customers who willingly accept this.

This isn't a shell game. However, do you know what happens every time we post a baseline in SAE? we get lambasted for, you guessed it, low numbers. So, damned if we do, damned if we don't. We have always done STD numbers, and they always line up with other's SAE's. Time and time again. This isn't a shell game, this is us going out of our way to be consistant, and give people numbers they can understand and relate to other dynos. Again, having a lower SAE baseline with a lower SAE final number is going to net you the exact same gains, which is what we always discuss. We aren't out there just bragging final numbers without a base point to calculate the delta.

So let me get this straight ? further below you state that the difference between SAE and STD, with your dyno, is 2/10 of a horsepower yet you?re lambasted for low numbers? The amount of contradiction in some of the things you say is astounding. And yes, your STD numbers may line up with others? SAE numbers, but that only goes to show that you?re using STD numbers (higher by 2-3% on average) to match what other tuners are doing on SAE.

Unfortunately, this shows you don't have much actual knowledge on what a dyno is, nor how it functions. See, we have 3 dynojets, and used to have a mustang dyno as well. Our original dynojet is an old 248, and when I say old, I believe the serial number is around the 65 number. These dynos always read dramatically less than their newer versions. Because of that, when we got our 24, and 424xLC2 we gave them all of the info from our original dyno to ensure they were set up this same, old way. That way we don't get things confused from dyno, to dyno. However, by implying that dyno's don't lie, and that there are no such things as a low reading dyno is false. I personally have had my own car, before working here, on the dynojet at our facility, another dynojet, and a mustang dyno on the same day. Now, If you are going to make assumptions based on the internet (because everything is true there), you would likely say that the mustang dyno read the least. This is incorrect. I made 372 on a mustang dyno, 342 on the dynojet here (in STD mind you), and 365 on another dynojet (in SAE) I was quite perturbed because the shop who tuned the car on the mustang dyno assured me I would make 400+ on a dynojet, when I made less on 2 separate ones all within 4 hours of the first on their mustang dyno.

Why am I telling you this? Well, that's simple. It proves that not all dynos (even dynojets) are the same, and that dynos can lie. However, we do OEM testing here at our facility, and therefor know how to avoid games like forcing a car into cat temp protection to get a low number for a baseline.

I will reiterate that dynos do not lie. They give different numbers, yes. But each dyno reads the amount of power being put to its rollers. Period. Your story is anecdotal, at best. As a tuner/shop owner, you categorically know that may factors affect the readout of a dyno. Atmospheric conditions, how the vehicle is strapped, the load factor put on the rollers, etc. To use a story of having different numbers from different dynos in a single day to somehow show that dynos ?lie? is absurd.

What you are talking about is a technicality. there is a fraction of a percent, if someone is worried about 2/10th of 1hp then they are going to go through life disappointed in everything as 15 runs in a row are going to vary more than the correction offset from STD vs. SAE. In case you were wondering, 2/10 (actually, .19) of 1hp is the difference in our first release dyno for STD vs SAE. none of that impacts the gains we discuss as we talk about it being above a certain number which remains true no matter the correction. So, for practical purposes, there is no difference. That's like arguing about the shade of blue when someone calls it blue. It's still blue, blue is not untrue, they didn't lie by saying it was the color blue, just like we didn't skew our results by using STD rather than SAE.

As stated above, if the ?technicality? I?m speaking of is so miniscule and unwarranted, why are you ?lambasted? when you post up SAE numbers?

Unfortunately, there just isn't a car at this power level that is going to naturally have that smooth of a run. Now, here is a secret, most of the time people will solve this by running the car in a lwoer gear, as it gets the acceleration rates to increase, and therefor smooths the graph. But, again, this is a game. Something we don't play. We put the real data out people need.

This is absolutely untrue. A calibrator worth his salt can absolutely tune a Fiesta ST without a +/- 25ftlb dip in the torque in the low RPM range. Please note the graphs from my 2010 370Z Nismo that I posted earlier in this thread. These are from a normally-aspirated motor migrated to a forced-inducted twin-turbo motor. The tuning was done with a Cobb AP and the factory ECU. Are you telling me that you can?t tune a vehicle, that comes forced-inducted from the manufacturer, as smoothly as another calibrator can tune a normally-aspirated motor post twin-turbo installation? I can?t imagine the Nissan 370Z ECU any more capable than the Ford Fiesta ST ECU when it comes to turbo application.

Unfortunately, this is only part of the truth, but I wil reiterate, there are things one must adhere to to ensure a long life from a car that is turned up, and I assure you, it can result in peaks and valleys on a turbo car. This is because the car is constantly varying items to achieve it's desired output. This means that the VCT, throttle, wastegate, and timing are all going to be in a continuous state of flux to do this while maintaining a safe cylinder pressure. Starts eliminating those things and dumbing it down, and you can smooth things out, but none of this is a positive beyond having some pretty looking lines.

You?re looking at things backwards. It?s called a ?tune? for a reason. You ?tune? the calibration so that the vehicle doesn?t have to pull timing, boost, etc. Granted, changes in conditions are going to cause the tune to change. This is where the ECU comes into play. But, a tune that?s too aggressive and not properly calibrated is where you see jagged curves. I still can?t believe you?re saying otherwise.

You are making an incorrect assumption that something about this is bad, when it's not.

No assumption. Experience. Research. Knowledge.

Simply put, this is the tune doing it's job, correcting when need be to achieve every target we are throwing at it, ensuring that blend of power, and durability. Can we tune it and get rid of that, yes, as alluded to a few times, removing things to protect an engine is easy. Shortsighted, but easy. However, we won't to those things. Safety is a close second behind power output, because quo cares if it made 5 more hp and 20 more # of torque if it's a pile of parts in 6-12 months?

If the tune is ?doing it?s job? and pulling that much power and torque out of the curve down low, the tune is simply too aggressive and/or not calibrated well. There?s no way around this. That?s not showing a concern for safety.

Asked and answered.
However, bear in mind that there are around 14,000 parameters inside this ECM. So saying we work within the constraints of the OEM computer is not exactly limiting. We can, however, change many aspects in how these respond. Tell me, how many parameters does the commercial suites people are using have? last I recall there was some bragging when sa company added number 1200. Then, explain how anyone can do the job right with less than 10% of the content? That's like trying to navigate the 48 contiguous states with only a map that covers 4.5 of them. Oh, but there is a catch, since you don't have the map, you can't go down a road that isn't on that map either.

So are you stating your tunes manipulate all 14000 parameters in the Ford ECU? For that matter, do you even manipulate 1200?

Oddly, we don't do any of what you are implying, what we are doing is trying to get people to see that tuners are making them do their dirty work, while getting paid for it. Sending a tune that isn't properly developed fully, and then continually experimenting on their cars is a disservice to the customer. Especially when so many of those companies charge for every revision, just because it wasn't right in the first place. But the place that doesn't charge for such things is the bad guy? I don't quite follow that, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Now, you do bring up an interesting point on data-logging. There is a simple reason why we don't offer this in our device, and it boils down to developing hardware that supports what we would need for logging. See, the logger we use at our facility that ensures proper data rates and ability to log what we actually need, rather then generic info, or a limited list of specific info, is absurdly expensive. Until we are able to go through and have a device that actually logs what we need, in the fashion we need it, we excluded logging. Now, by knowing every aspect of the tune, and logic within the ECM, we are able to diagnose issues without ever seeing a log, namely because 99%+ of the time it's mechanical and we have seen it before because we do everything in person from the start, these are unrelated to the tune, and in those rare times it is in the calibration, we work on recreating it here to provide peace of mind to our customer that they aren't out there doing things in their car to gather us data. So, we create more difficult work for ourselves on purpose, and we are ok with that because that is our commitment to a customer. I mean, just look at the base thought process. a tuner is having you sort out a problem with your car by repeatedly going out and beating on it while there is a problem. How is that a service to any customer? How have customers been convinced that this is correct is the terrible part. The amount of stories we hear about situations like this gone bad are staggering, and while our engine build department appreciates the consistent flow of work that these types of failures can provide them with, people that only care about the sale in front of them rather than building a lasting trust with a customer don't realize how they can impact the hobby as a whole. Too many times people leave the hobby from a bad experience. But, with our name being synonymous with automotive engineering for going on 68 years, we have a level of insight and dedication that a someone new to the industry can never appreciate fully. This is why we don't get caught up in horsepower wars, and why we care about being consistent. Everyone thinks they want every last hp, until the price they paid for the last 1 was too much. We are here to guide people on proper, not to just do what is popular.

68 years? That?s pretty spectacular. I?m not new to the industry, yet I?ve never heard of you. Most likely because this is my first foray into the domestic platform. I'm more of an import guy by nature. But, I digress. Here?s where we will agree ? e-tunes suck. Even custom e-tunes. As you stated, the process leaves a lot to be desired and does open the door to issues and failures. Though there is still risk, a custom dyno/street tune is truly the only way to approach changing/calibrating the stock ECU (or even when dealing with stand-alone EMS).

 

[Seijou]

I?m not new to the industry, yet I?ve never heard of you.

To be completely transparent, and no disrespect meant, but what are YOUR credentials?

 

[stormcrow]

To be completely transparent, and no disrespect meant, but what are YOUR credentials?

Avid enthusiast and consumer just like (I assume) yourself. Nothing more. If you want me to list past builds/vehicles owned, I can certainly do so. I've not because it's mostly irrelevant and I would come off as a braggart; which I do not wish to do. I've simply been blessed in my ability to afford toys.

 

[Chrisklol]

To be completely transparent, and no disrespect meant, but what are YOUR credentials?

He built a 600hp 350z. Which is not even very impressive IMO.

I mean I have had an evo making over 550, the first turbocharged harley sportster 1200 and it made over 200 at the tire, the fastest stock turbo srt4 in the country at the time.
I have quite a bit of knowledge as well, enough to understand when a company knows what they are doing. Livernois is not messing around, they know more than anyone in the country when it comes to ecoboost engines. I would trust them over anyone in the WORLD with my car.

Smoke and mirrors he keeps mentioning are used at times to protect what they have built. They do things other companies wish they could. Why would they disclose all this to some random guy on a forum?

 

[OffTheWall503]

No need to directly insult anyone, let's please keep this civil. I'm enjoying the discussion we're having.

 

[stuntdoogie]

Shots fired *ducks*

 

[Chrisklol]

Edited my post to refrain from personal attacks.