Livernois 412whp/452 wtq on stock turbo 93 pump

[Slow89]

Is it possible? Yea of course it is. How long it will last on that octane is the bigger question

Sponsored

 

[Maggneto]

What I'm saying is that LMS isn't saying that. Look at their numbers they offer with a kit like that, it's substantially less power. Those are the same guys (not Livernois) that were claiming huge power gains with the JMS boost and pedal max devices...

It is my understand that dyno tests are notoriously unreliable because of the many factors that can influence the results. Is it possible they saw 412 on the dyno? Sure it is possible but that doesn't really mean they have consistently 412 at the wheels it only means the dyno showed 412 during a test.

In order to obtain 412 at the wheels one would need X at the crank or something right because of a calculated loss in power? So is it possible to obtain X with the stated mods?

For instance, If you needed 462 HP at the crank for 412 at the wheels:

462 - 310 = 152 HP needed from mods.

At peak power the standard LMS tune provides a max 109.

152 - 109 = 43 HP needed from mods

Gibson claims 30 HP from a catback so lets just say 30 for a catback.

43 -30 = 13 HP needed

K&N air charge system shows 15.72 HP@ 4224 RPM

13 - 15.72 = 2.72 HP to spare.

 

[Phil@JDM]

Lol I dont car what any part manufacture claims because they are wrong 99% of the time. Case in Point, absolutely no one gains 30 hp from a catback, your lucky to gain 3. Also your comparing curve gain power numbers to peak power numbers.

 

[Maggneto]

Lol I dont car what any part manufacture claims because they are wrong 99% of the time. Case in Point, absolutely no one gains 30 hp from a catback, your lucky to gain 3. Also your comparing curve gain power numbers to peak power numbers.

K&N, Gibson, and LMS all claim HP gains, I guess they are all lying? We all know that sales people are full of shit right? The point is, anything is possible on a dyno because there are so many factors correct? Who is to say that your dyno results are more accurate than K&N, Livernois, or Gibson?

 

[jcj240]

Lots of people worry about dyno numbers too much and not drive-ability and race-ability. More times than not it is the complete tune and function of said tune that matters. You could have a tune that makes 400 hp and 400 ft/lb but a car with 380hp and 400 ft/lb whips it all day long at the track with the tune being the only item different.....

 

[Phil@JDM]

I didnt say tunes i said parts, especially meaning bolt on parts not supercharger add ons. LMS themselves straight up stated that they had nothing to do with this test and don't back it. No where does a catback gain you 30 hp or a no tune required intake 15 especially on the ecoboost car. There is plenty of actual customers who have brought their cars to a dyno and not seen anything close to those gains. And again you are comparing curve gains to peak. That test claimed 412 at the wheels. k&N claims 15 at 4000 rpm which is not where the peak power is at anyway. So even if the k&n gains 15 through the curve it can start to fall off and maybe gain you 5 at the top end peak which would not add up to his 412. You cant compare a max curve gain then just take that number and add it to your max horsepower. And our dyno results are accurate because they are base line dyno'd then modified and re dyno'd. We can see exactly what is gained and we have done ecoboost cars here with bolts and the gains are negligible.

 

[Maggneto]

I didnt say tunes i said parts, especially meaning bolt on parts not supercharger add ons. LMS themselves straight up stated that they had nothing to do with this test and don't back it. No where does a catback gain you 30 hp or a no tune required intake 15 especially on the ecoboost car. There is plenty of actual customers who have brought their cars to a dyno and not seen anything close to those gains. And again you are comparing curve gains to peak. That test claimed 412 at the wheels. k&N claims 15 at 4000 rpm which is not where the peak power is at anyway. So even if the k&n gains 15 through the curve it can start to fall off and maybe gain you 5 at the top end peak which would not add up to his 412. You cant compare a max curve gain then just take that number and add it to your max horsepower. And our dyno results are accurate because they are base line dyno'd then modified and re dyno'd. We can see exactly what is gained and we have done ecoboost cars here with bolts and the gains are negligible.

So dyno results are bullshit unless done by Phil is that right? I mean you are flat out calling everyone out without providing any testing of your own.

 

[jbailer]

It is my understand that dyno tests are notoriously unreliable because of the many factors that can influence the results. Is it possible they saw 412 on the dyno? Sure it is possible but that doesn't really mean they have consistently 412 at the wheels it only means the dyno showed 412 during a test.

In order to obtain 412 at the wheels one would need X at the crank or something right because of a calculated loss in power? So is it possible to obtain X with the stated mods?

For instance, If you needed 462 HP at the crank for 412 at the wheels:

462 - 310 = 152 HP needed from mods.

At peak power the standard LMS tune provides a max 109.

152 - 109 = 43 HP needed from mods

Gibson claims 30 HP from a catback so lets just say 30 for a catback.

43 -30 = 13 HP needed

K&N air charge system shows 15.72 HP@ 4224 RPM

13 - 15.72 = 2.72 HP to spare.

There's lots of problems with what you wrote, that's some wonky math. So first of all the power you're looking for would be the difference of 462 - (about) 270. They were talking power to the wheels and you're using the EB 310 hp flywheel number. Multiply that time .87 to account for the 13% (roughly) drivetrain loss and you get about 270 to the wheels which has been verified by many people putting their stock Mustangs on the dyno in the past. Now you're looking at making 192 hp from an exhaust, an intake and a tune according to the article.

Everyone knows (or should know) you can't take part manufacturers dyno numbers and add them up to get combined power. When vendor A says they got 15 whp from a part, what you have to understand is that is most likely combined with tuning or some other variable to make it look the best. If you believe you can add all those numbers together and figure out your new whp, you should buy a bunch of parts and slap them on your car and do yourself a favor and NEVER visit a dyno! You would be sorely disappointed. I can promise you nobody is getting 30 whp from ANY catback on the EB, not even from tuning. They actually added an O/R DP and catback though which with tuning could probably get to 30 whp. I seriously doubt 15 whp from any intake too but going ahead and giving that to them, that would be 192 - 45 = 147 whp from the tune and that's way above what Livernois themselves says they get from their tune.

I'm just saying it's BS. Either they are leaving a lot of details out or are just lying.

Correction: I just noticed you were trying to add in the drivetrain loss and use flywheel numbers so not so wonky but the rest of what I was saying stands except for my math lol. It would be 412-270 = 142. Then if you believe the 45 whp from parts is still 97 whp from the tune alone. I don't see it happening. Like said, if Livernois could get over 400 whp from a turbo-back exhaust, intake and tune, they'd be selling that like hotcakes! Those numbers are what I really wanted out of the car when I bought it and ran into dead end after dead end realizing that there was no way to get there without octane and they specifically say on 93 octane.

 

[5.0yote]

Peak gains and curve gains are not to be conflated. I would take 30HP gains on the curve every day of the week over peak gains. On my shorty headers on my 3.7 I gained peak 8HP and everyone shat on that number for the cost of the headers but I gained 45+HP along the curve where it was sorely needed and some areas I gained 60+lb-ft, although I only gained a peak 10TQ. I would take a look at the manufactures gains and what RPM they are at before totaling numbers like this, they are not cumulative either you cannot break down part for part like that, like it is all going to account for every HP/TQ number.

It greatly appears that some people are not fully aware of how modding works and how you get gross and net gains.

 

[Juben]

Why argue about dyno sheets? This is so ridiculous around here anymore because some of you do nothing but argue and contest everything.

First off, dyno sheets are worthless for dick measuring. They're only really good for comparing before/after results as you install mods or are doing some tuning. You can go to 10 different dynos and get 10 different results. Some will be nill and some will be huge. It can depend on any multiple number of factors, most of which can be manipulated.

Second, time slips are what matters. It shows what the car is capable of and what you're capable of. Nothing more, nothing less.

Third, what's funny to me is, some people will question and debate things to no end and want proof for everything yet accept some things, like all companies as being honest with testing results, as being concrete and unable to be challenged. What's wrong with people questioning what we're all told? I mean, if we can debate the validity of the stock airbox being a great piece and the best for power production up to a certain level, then can we not also question the validity of someone claiming 30 whp from an intake?

I try to stay away from this non-sense, but yet here we are again and you've pulled me in. With that said, I'm done. Enjoy your extra 40 whp from an intake resistor and Spectre filter.

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

[MENTION=11090]Livernois Motorsports[/MENTION] Thank you for the reply, do you mind informing us specifically what is required to run your XV1 Race Gas tune? I believe there is some confusion on whether you can run a mixture of 93 and 100 octane race gas, but I have yet to see any specifics on mixture ratios and what overall octane is needed to support that tune...

The 93 Xv1 tune requires a bare minimum of 93, but is recommended to be used with higher than 93, and preferably close to 100 octane for optimal performance.

 

[Maggneto]

I appreciate everyone responses and schooling me on dyno results, mods and the like. I was simply illustrating that 412 at the wheels is possible on paper by using the HP numbers advertised by vendors Ford, K&N, Gibson, and LMS and using known power loss % to calculate WHP. Do we believe the guys from MTV are lying about the dyno results or the fluctuation in dyno results is to blame?

When K&N says 15.72 HP gains on the EB are they lying or is it a result of fluctuations in dyno results? I can tell you the first time my rear end broke loose was after installing the K&N filter so I do believe there are gains as stated by vendors, but how much gain is debatable.

I clearly state that dyno results are unreliable and anything is possible. I don't think MTV are flat out lying so I put together some not so wonky math to calculate paper HP. If MTV claims 412 at the wheels, what HP would be needed at the crank?

"It is my understand that dyno tests are notoriously unreliable because of the many factors that can influence the results. Is it possible they saw 412 on the dyno? Sure it is possible but that doesn't really mean they have consistently 412 at the wheels it only means the dyno showed 412 during a test.

In order to obtain 412 at the wheels one would need X at the crank or something right because of a calculated loss in power? So is it possible to obtain X with the stated mods?"

@jbailer you are correct, the correct calculation is 270 and not 310 but that makes it easier to hit 412 WHP.

412 WHP- 270 WHP = 142 WHP needed from mods.

At peak power the standard LMS tune provides a max 109.

142 WHP - 109 WHP = 33 WHP needed from mods

Gibson claims 30 HP from a catback so lets just say 30 for a catback.

33 WHP-30 WHP = 3 WHP needed

K&N air charge system shows 15.72 HP@ 4224 RPM

3 WHP - 15.72 WHP = 12.72 WHP to spare.

 

[ForYourOwnGood]

I appreciate everyone responses and schooling me on dyno results, mods and the like. I was simply illustrating that 412 at the wheels is possible on paper by using the HP numbers advertised by vendors Ford, K&N, Gibson, and LMS and using known power loss % to calculate WHP. Do we believe the guys from MTV are lying about the dyno results or the fluctuation in dyno results is to blame?

When K&N says 15.72 HP gains on the EB are they lying or is it a result of fluctuations in dyno results? I can tell you the first time my rear end broke loose was after installing the K&N filter so I do believe there are gains as stated by vendors, but how much gain is debatable.

I clearly state that dyno results are unreliable and anything is possible. I don't think MTV are flat out lying so I put together some not so wonky math to calculate paper HP. If MTV claims 412 at the wheels, what HP would be needed at the crank?

"It is my understand that dyno tests are notoriously unreliable because of the many factors that can influence the results. Is it possible they saw 412 on the dyno? Sure it is possible but that doesn't really mean they have consistently 412 at the wheels it only means the dyno showed 412 during a test.

In order to obtain 412 at the wheels one would need X at the crank or something right because of a calculated loss in power? So is it possible to obtain X with the stated mods?"

@jbailer you are correct, the correct calculation is 270 and not 310 but that makes it easier to hit 412 WHP.

412 WHP- 270 WHP = 142 WHP needed from mods.

At peak power the standard LMS tune provides a max 109.

142 WHP - 109 WHP = 33 WHP needed from mods

Gibson claims 30 HP from a catback so lets just say 30 for a catback.

33 WHP-30 WHP = 3 WHP needed

K&N air charge system shows 15.72 HP@ 4224 RPM

3 WHP - 15.72 WHP = 12.72 WHP to spare.

Try with the correct numbers and it gets a lot harder, 100+hp over stock is where the stock tune falls on its face after 4500rpm, not peak:

Livernois Motorsports, already established as a leader for firsts and performance in the EcoBoost world, is proud to announce the release of our custom tuning for the 2015 2.3L EcoBoost Mustang. Utilizing our 93 octane performance tuning, you can see peak vs. peak gains up to 62 wheel horsepower over stock, and 90 additional Ft. Lbs of torque, with maximum gains of a staggering 109hp and 100 Ft. lbs of torque.

Dyno results should really only be compared with the same car and on the same dyno so you can see your own progress.

 

[Dirty-EB-Chicago]

So dyno results are bullshit unless done by Phil is that right? I mean you are flat out calling everyone out without providing any testing of your own.

Yeah Phil, how dare you do exactly what Magnetto does every single time he posts. :headbonk:

 

[PJB]

Yeah Phil, how dare you do exactly what Magnetto does every single time he posts. :headbonk:

Sponsored