Should I get a tune?

[Laurence Dunn]

Going to get it on a Dyno soon and see what I've got....

 

[whitmanink]

Going to get it on a Dyno soon and see what I've got....

if thats the case lets play youre whp,,
im gonna say 275-286 rwhp

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

Going to get it on a Dyno soon and see what I've got....

With long tubes, midpipe, and tune alone I'd expect something like 295rwhp & 315rwtq on a Dynojet. Might be more like 275rwhp & 295rwtq if it's a load type dyno.
These numbers are for a manual transmission. Subtract another 20 from those numbers if it's an automatic.

 

[whitmanink]

With long tubes, midpipe, and tune alone I'd expect something like 295rwhp & 315rwtq on a Dynojet.

with lito tune

 

[Squirrely]

Is it a stock automatic? Ill say 265

 

[GriffX]

with lito tune

No tune can change the volumetric efficiency of the engine so mass air flow in grams per second x 1.2 is the metric horse power as a good estimation.

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

No tune can change the volumetric efficiency of the engine

But it can improve the combustion efficiency of the engine and allow it to make more power with the same volume of air.

 

[whitmanink]

But it can improve the combustion efficiency of the engine and allow it to make more power with the same volume of air.

thank you for beating me to the punch brother

 

[whitmanink]

No tune can change the volumetric efficiency of the engine so mass air flow in grams per second x 1.2 is the metric horse power as a good estimation.

so wharts your guess on his rwhp?

 

[Kev555]

I think the Lito map is really more about the better driving experience for a nearly stock engine unless of course you have a lot of bolt on parts or a blower. I asked him out of curiosity what the expected change in BHP would be for mine and this is the answer I received which seems very honest- " Well.... that depends... everybody wants certainty on things like this and what makes it easy to lie about it, but the truth is that it depends... "

 

[GriffX]

so wharts your guess on his rwhp?

There are so many correction variables on a dyno, your guess is as good a mine, but with only long tube exhaust and no CAI, my guess is 315 +-3 HP crank. (262 g/s airflow)
In general I like more real values like 40-80 MPH in 4th gear or so.

 

[Kev555]

I think the Lito map for me is really more about the better driving experience for my nearly stock engine. I asked him out of curiosity what the expected change in BHP would be and this is the answer I received which seems very honest and makes perfect sense.
LITO-" Well.... that depends... everybody wants certainty on things like this and what makes it easy to lie about it, but the truth is that it depends... Drivability, yes, economy... not much and power, some. I know that me saying that I've sent you a +40HP tune would be better but it would not be true, what is true is that with data logs we can set it where it wants to be"

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

In general I like more real values like 40-80 MPH in 4th gear or so.

Mine has stock 3.55 (39/11) axle gears, 255/45R18 tires (770 revs/mile), and 60mph in 4th = 2730rpm (22.0mph/1000rpm). In 4th gear my times (two way average in opposite directions on same level stretch of road, corrected for vehicle weight with full tank of gas and SAE J1349 weather conditions to maintain consistency) are as follows using a GPS race timer app:

30-50mph 4.1 secs
40-60mph 4.1 secs
50-70mph 4.2 secs
60-80mph 4.3 secs
70-90mph 4.3 secs
80-100mph 4.4 secs
90-110mph 4.6 secs

From 1300rpm the engine just pulls and pulls with a very linear response. Exactly what I want from a grunty V8.

 

[Reddawg]

I think the Lito map for me is really more about the better driving experience… what is true is that with data logs we can set it where it wants to be

This is the part I think many mis-understand. The car (each car) has a preference or sweet spot of how it performs best. A good tune, finds this and highlights/enhances it.

I recently got my son a 2012 GT, 6sp. It was his first manual car and of course had many questions on how to drive it (beyong just the mechanics of how to use the clutch and go through the gears). He was frustrated at first because I’d tell him… “it depends.. the car will tell you how it wants to be driven” …and that didnt make sense to him. Now, after a couple months of learning and driving, he came to me and told me he gets it. His driving is much more smooth and confident now that he is working with the car, rather than against it.

 

[pass1over]

“it depends.. the car will tell you how it wants to be driven” …and it that didnt make sense to him. Now, after a couple months of learning and driving, he came to me and told me he gets it. His driving is much more smooth and confident now that he is working with the car, rather than against it.

I've been teaching my g/f how to drive a manual on my '12 GT and have been telling her the same thing. She hates that reply, lol

 

[Laurence Dunn]

Is it a stock automatic? Ill say 265

Stick 5 speed

 

[whitmanink]

I mean tbh a failing cop or weak spark plug could have numbers lower than expected..

Well anything really
But it's a guessing game and that's what we are playing ..

And since he said he might get a dyno,, that's why we are playing ..

Now that said .. obviously the dyno corrections would vary

 

[GlassTop09]

No tune can change the volumetric efficiency of the engine so mass air flow in grams per second x 1.2 is the metric horse power as a good estimation.

GriffX, I understand what you meant here, but you left 1 word off that would clear this up.......the word is "ideal" in front of volumetric efficiency as noted using the total swept volume of a cylinder based off bore & stroke AND the CC volume which also includes the top of a piston using a reference airmass equation as a base function.......this is what you've referred to when citing the total mass air flow in grams\sec x 1.2 to get the calc'd 100% ideal metric HP. This ideal volumetric efficiency cannot be changed by any tune calibration as it is NOT determined by it, but a tune calibration is USING IT to then calc the actual volumetric efficiency against this ideal model...ie, for Ford, this is the airload% number (.40, .60, .70, etc that Ford uses to represent actual engine VE......is why most Ford calibrations pre 2020 don't have an actual VE map present......) that is the actual calc'd % of the IDEAL or 100%. This ideal number can be changed in the tune calibration......ie, Ford--for all ECU's up to Spanish Oaks & variants using a SBE 4.6L V8 whether 2V, 3V or 4V--using the calc ideal 100% volumetric efficiency based off the engine's total swept volume per cyl of .00155 lbs (or .70 grams if preferred...)....calc'd using the airmass reference model @ SAE J607 or what is referred to as STD or International airmass reference model......based off 60*F, 29.92" Hg--14.696 psia--& RH (relative humidity) @ 0% referencing to 100% dry air @ sea level. Ford does this due to them realizing that MAF has a very direct relationship to MAP, ie as MAF increases, MAP also increases--vice versa--in step thus the model of using a MAF offset in SD to then calc the corresponding MAP slope in SD to then convert this to actual airload% or VE........all done under SD, thus SD is the actual airmass driver model of this Ford ECU by virtue of the calibrated MAF transfer table.........not the MAF sensor itself (why you should be able to unplug the MAF sensor & the car continues to run fine......if base tune calibration is done well....). The MAF sensor itself is now only providing any measured environmental airmass changes at the same MAF sensor voltage scale of the MAF transfer table that differs from the calibrated MAF transfer table for base MAF correction--thus base fueling correction--purposes only--corrections are set in KAM for storage, so ECU has them to fall back on (this is the learned stuff\values kept in the ECU in volatile memory so the ECU doesn't have to "relearn" this again........until the volatile mem is erased......then the ECU has to relearn all over again starting from the base tune calibration that is stored in non-volatile mem.....). This is why these ECUs don't need a MAP sensor (or a VE map....) to calc airload% or VE..........is also a good way of determining how well a base tune calibration has been done by simply resetting the ECU's KAM after a period of time post tuning then see how the car behaves\drives afterwards off a base tune calibration prior ECU relearn.........good base tune calibration will exhibit little to no behavioral differences pre-learn vs post-learn........a poor base tune calibration will exhibit very noticeable behavioral differences--usually worse at the beginning--due to the LOSS of the learned values stored in KAM that made corrections to it over time.......if left in service long enough for the ECU to do this, that is. The opposite can be true if the stock tune cal is reloaded after a canned tune cal & the engine behaves better\cleaner on the base stock tune vs the base canned tune......meaning\proving the canned tune was poorly done thus shouldn't be used.

So, if 1 is gonna change this ideal number in the tune calibration, all of the supporting maps, scalars & switches that were set up by Ford based off this ideal number under SD to achieve the actual calc'd engine airload% will also NEED to be corrected to match the changed ideal number or all of this WILL BE OFF thus skewing the ECU calibration actual calc'd engine airload% in kind............this is FACT. For example: SAE J1349 is the std airmass reference model now used in all modern US OEM ECU's since 2014 AND all dyno stacks since 2008 (the 4th iteration.......) which is based off 77*F, 29.234" Hg--14.2 psia or 641' std elevation instead of sea level & RH @ 0% for 100% dry air.......for this SBE 4.6L V8's swept volume per cyl comes out to .00150 lbs per cyl.......not .00155 lbs per cyl. So, if a dyno is using SAE J1349 (referred to as "SAE") & an ECU is using SAE J607 (referred to as "STD"), the resulting numbers will not be relevant to each other, no matter how much correction factor you apply.............this is why dyno numbers need to be taken w\ a grain of salt......unless it can be verified that the ECU AND dyno stack are both using the SAME airmass reference model......thus are referencing to the SAME AIR model, thus the calc'd airload% or VE% is now relevant in both, thus calc'd airmass model corrections in both are relevant, thus the calc'd HP\TQ outputs are also close to relevant (dynos use the James Watt TQ equation to measure engine TQ per engine RPM at the wheels using a 1:1 driveline ratio + final gear ratio + tire revs per mi to then calc engine HP output, Ford ECU's use the IPC Wheel TQ equation model looking at the ABS system to determine wheel traction to eliminate wheel spin errors off the drive wheels rotation speed vs the driven wheels rotation speed using the mechanical trans gear ratios + final gear ratio + tire revs\mi per engine RPM off CKP to convert ideal airload% or VE into ideal TQ using the base MBT Spark Advance\MBT Spark Corrections maps timing tables (Desired TQ Output using the calibrated MAF transfer table & any applied MAF corrections in KAM alone....), then compare these to the actual airload% or VE using the base BKT Spark Advance\BKT Spark Corrections maps timing tables + Knock Retard Spark Advance\Retard timing map tables converted into TQ (ETC TQ Request using the SD MAF to MAP model based off the same MAF transfer table along w\ any SD map airmass modeling--includes ETC TB PTA\EA mapping + Dynamic Airmass IM inner air volume capacity--corrections applied along w\ any MAF applied corrections in KAM using the same trans gear ratios + final gear ratio + tire revs\mi...) for agreement THEN calc the actual EBTQ (engine brake TQ) that the engine is actually putting out (using the ETC TQ Request airmass\spark advance modeling based off the TM DD--driver demand--TQ Request map actually requested by driver thru the APP according to engine RPM & APP applied A\D counts converted into TB TPS% thus TBA* (the DBW system....TB can be moved independently of the APP....), reverse calc'd to the engine's flywheel TQ output off RPM (same as RPM off the CKP sensor) to compare this to the prior 2 equations to determine if the engine is meeting the combined Desired TQ Output\ETC TQ requested TQ outputs......this is the essence of how Ford's Torque Management control operates & what tuners, IMHO, are\should be using to tune off of thru the ECU (what the datalogs are graphing\recording---if setup in the graphing software to graph\record the data that is....I myself do graph\record & use all of this as noted above in my HPTuners VCM Scanner datalogs along w\ user defined math parameter calculations to measure actual engine TQ acceleration\deceleration using the VSS in MPH +\- vs actual vehicle MPH in real time--a direct function of actual engine TQ output to the wheels\ground.......thus a dyno becomes much less relevant to achieving real engine HP\TQ optimization remotely--note I didn't say irrelevant.......) ........so, even if the dyno stack & ECU are using the same airmass reference modeling, the TQ measurements\equations thus calcs used are slightly different between the 2......so will be the calc'd HP as well. The better method IMHO is to NOT use the dyno stack's airmass model at all w\ a vehicle's ECU (this was intended to be used w\ carburetors to measure the airmass flow thruput thru engine using an air vane metering stack while on a dyno.........) OR use the ECU's calc'd airmass modeling data to POPULATE the dyno stack's airmass model software so only the dyno roller's TQ output measurement converted to engine HP is actually used.........then the resulting numbers will become much more relevant as no offsetting airmass referencing modeling will be used between the 2..........ie, true observed HP\TQ using some limited smoothing to the graph traces based off using only 1 identical airmass reference model for BOTH the ECU & dyno stack.

The truth is that this ECU's OEM calibrated airmass modeling can get so skewed by a lot of tuners trying to squeeze out HP\TQ under less-than-ideal or inaccurately calc'd air\fuel (racers\tuners trying to "squeeze blood out of a turnip".......) that it can't be trusted thus they HAVE to rely on the dyno stack's airmass modeling to compensate for this (I know this 1st hand from actually having to revert a lot of this back to OEM in my car's tune calibration over the 1st 2 1\2 yrs of my tuning "career" to correct it from the way my prior tuner had it setup as it was found\proven to either 1. not be warranted for use under an NA configuration and\or 2. not necessary to make good, full WOT HP\TQ under OL PE thus costing drivability, MPG gains & emissions control capability under CL part throttle operations where ALL of this IS IMPORTANT regardless of the camshafts being used & 3. actually causing airmass calc errors while under WOT OL PE that get used by routinely blaming the ECU making "false LTFT miscalculations" & NB O2 sensor inaccuracies......not understanding that a LOT of the maps X-axis\components are using\scaling to the same TB TPS sensor's 0v-5v scaling range, ie, MAF transfer table, LWFM table, SD TB PTA\EA mapping, Transient Fueling Accel\Decel mapping, LTFT application range, TM DD TQ Request mapping, etc...to be used in synch w\ each other......) ........which can also be manipulated to read\say what 1 wants it to........... This is also why the only usable truest measurement in the end is datalogged timed ET runs at a drag strip or datalogged timed lap runs at your local HPDE\road course track to determine the engine HP output associated w\ them for performance purposes, which accounts for EVERYTHING seen\not seen that can't be fully accounted for on ANY dyno...........the SAME as the OEM's do after all in-house engine dyno development is done\completed to tune calibration (datalogged under real time environmental\geographical conditions that you drive in\under, using the same fuel bought from the same fuel pumps\stations in the same manner that you use, driven in as many driving styles\methods that the public does\uses, thru full year round seasonal changes, etc.....for final corrections to tune calibration\calibration coding...) the last 2-3 yrs prior EPA CoC signoff releasing to public sale. If full clean performance is desired, similar tuning regimens will also need to be applied......tuned under bad air density (summer) then rechecked under best air density (winter) to then properly balance tune calibration between the 2 air density extreme conditions..........

Take all this FWIW to you.........doesn't change the accuracy of what I've posted.

LITO-" Well.... that depends... everybody wants certainty on things like this and what makes it easy to lie about it, but the truth is that it depends... Drivability, yes, economy... not much and power, some. I know that me saying that I've sent you a +40HP tune would be better but it would not be true, what is true is that with data logs we can set it where it wants to be"

I wholeheartedly agree w\ all of this................I have actual recorded datalog records\proof as well to backup AND disprove a lot of things that gets said\reported on this forum as absolute truths..........just as Lito does. He just has a lot more of them than I do ATM that cover a much wider application range simply due to him doing this a lot longer than I have across more variety of engine combinations\setups ..........but the recorded datalog data that comes direct from the ECU is what tells\reveals the true story, not a dyno sheet..........as long as ENOUGH of the ECU's data that reveals all is actually RECORDED & USED.......not speculated about.

Also, a good tuner will not have any issues taking the time to explain any of this to laymen--just as I have typed in far more detail than I really should have due to the complexity of the coding used thus taxes a layman's ability to fully understanding it thus opens up the real possibility of misrepresentation or incorrect layman analysis on public forums & Lito has laid out in more simple terms to you that gets to the crux of all this.........a dyno is NOT the main tool that gets this done........it's the capability of the graphing\datalogging software being used to capture\record & show all of the needed engine\systems operational data from the ECU to then TS\reset the tune calibration in the ECU to properly achieve all what Lito has stated......also the tuner's ability to understand & accurately interpret the datalogged data then execute based off of it.......can't leave this out either.

As stated earlier, take all this FWIW to you...........doesn't change the accuracy of what I've posted here either.

It's late & got to go grocery shopping in AM w\ the missus............enjoy.

 

[GriffX]

@GlassTop09 You know much much more about engines than I do, from a practical viewpoint, I did many mechanical changes at my supercharged Mercedes, charger, intercooler, pipes, porting, and the measured HP came always into a 5 HP range to the calculated from mass air flow. Like dyno was 205 HP, MAF 209 and WOT on Autobahn was 203 HP and in the end it is not important which method is right.

 

[Kev555]

Experience with these cars is everything if you want to achieve the perfect result. It reminds me of the story of a guy called to fix an engine on a ship that other mechanics had failed to fix and he only had a small hammer in his tool bag to which the captain laughed at and scoffed. The little old man walked around the engine for a few hours inspecting it and eventually tapped a few places with the small hammer much to the captains surprise the engine started. The little old mechanic presented the captain with a bill for 20K. The captain was dumbfounded and said he wanted a breakdown of the bill.
The Mechanic said 5 hrs labour at $1000 per hour and the captain said what about the rest? The little old man said $16000 was the for the knowledge to know where to tap with the hammer.