LS Performance Chip?

This is all pretty simple really. Basic formula is HP = fuel consumption.

Hardware (from air intake to exhaust tips) determines what rpm and load the engine performs best. Software and tuning just maximizes what the hardware can put out.

I don't think the manufacturers leave a lot on the table for tuners to find power anymore. Timing and fueling curves are probably tighter and I'd bet the knock sensor get hit more often than back in the day.
 
Ranchero50 said:
This is all pretty simple really. Basic formula is HP = fuel consumption.

Hardware (from air intake to exhaust tips) determines what rpm and load the engine performs best. Software and tuning just maximizes what the hardware can put out.

I don't think the manufacturers leave a lot on the table for tuners to find power anymore. Timing and fueling curves are probably tighter and I'd bet the knock sensor get hit more often than back in the day.
Click to expand...

If the manufacturer can get .02 MPG at the sacrifice of 1 (or 5) HP (although torque is more important. Want more HP? Just raise the red-line) they'll do it every time. Ask this; whom does the manufacturer HAVE to please more, the buyer who cares more about horsepower over mileage or the gummint agency that will fine them BIG dollars for not meeting their draconian regulations?
 
Ranchero50 said:
This is all pretty simple really. Basic formula is HP = fuel consumption.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. Basic formula for HP is AIR + Fuel. You can achieve more HP with an increase of either, hence turbos/superchargers etc. Plenty of engines that are the same size that have MORE HP and are MORE fuel efficient with turbos.
 
TorquE said:
Not true at all. Basic formula for HP is AIR + Fuel. You can achieve more HP with an increase of either, hence turbos/superchargers etc. Plenty of engines that are the same size that have MORE HP and are MORE fuel efficient with turbos.
Click to expand...

Add all the air you want. Without the added fuel you'll most likely find out what an exploding engine looks and sounds like. Adding any kind of forced induction requires higher flow injectors and fuel pump. They don't do that just to sell extra, unnecessary parts!
 
This might've been true for older engines/cars, but modern engines and modern cars are totally different. An example would be an intake (for most cars) increases HP without decreasing MPG. It's the way the air is forced into the engine. This is also the same reason several car companies have since scrapped v8 engines and some have even gone so far to drop v6s in several models because you can place a 4 cylinder turbo in the vehicle, get more hp and better MPG.
 
LS4me said:
If the manufacturer can get .02 MPG at the sacrifice of 1 (or 5) HP (although torque is more important. Want more HP? Just raise the red-line) they'll do it every time. Ask this; whom does the manufacturer HAVE to please more, the buyer who cares more about horsepower over mileage or the gummint agency that will fine them BIG dollars for not meeting their draconian regulations?
Click to expand...

I agree with you LS4me. The manufacturers today have gotten to the point where they've basically gotten everything they can within the restrictions presented by displacement, intake, and exhaust flow. Ford added variable valve timing for intake and exhaust for the 2nd gen LS which was enough to increase HP and TQ. Its already been discussed adding mods like intake and exhaust to the 2nd gen hasn't the same effect as it did for the 1st gen. I don't know if anyone has actually done research for the entire power band after Gen 2 mods. I do know, as LS4me said, increasing rpms will increase horsepower and that is proven in theory and practice. That is why there are so many regulations in racing that restrict engine rpm. Unfortunately, I don't know if the 3.9 is built as well as the original SHO engine. I wish it had that safety built in. (I think)
 
Robot said:
Its already been discussed adding mods like intake and exhaust to the 2nd gen hasn't the same effect as it did for the 1st gen.
Click to expand...

Magnaflow could only manage 3 HP on the '03 vs. the 12 they managed on the 1st gen. Yes, those were dynoed numbers. They also said (remember they used my '00 for prototyping) that Ford already used high flow cats and replacing them would be a waste of money.
 
Not trying to argue, but fuel = heat = compression = power.

You can only get as much power as your hardware can efficiently process at WOT. Yes, you can play with timing curves at cruise to maybe eek out a small gain but it will cost you somewhere. Going too advanced with timing will also remove power. And last but not least, the engine and tune has to be based off of available fuel. Run the 'best' fresh high octane and you may be able to get away with the extra timing on a lean burn, but get a tank of garbage and your engine will not be happy.

Work towards making your air pump more efficient at the RPM you use it most and you will see gains. Make it efficient at the top of the red line and you will just see losses during normal driving. I'm pretty sure a 2.5" exhaust is too large for a 3.9l engine.
 
Ranchero50 said:
I don't think the manufacturers leave a lot on the table for tuners to find power anymore.
Click to expand...
How do you explain the rapid increase in diesel performance popularity? I took a 350HP 6.4L and with a programmer modifying stock ecu parameters, it now achieves 650HP, and 1200 TQ, sure there are other bolt on and removal mods i did to achieve that #, but the truck also sees, nearly a 50% MPG gain, because power choking emission parts were removed.

The goverment required them to choke the power potential out of the motor, for emission reasons, to spew less Co2, yet in reality, the engine working at less than peak efficency results in less mpg which actual makes the emission output higher over the life of the engine.
For exactly 2K I nearly doubled the TQ & HP output, and get better fuel mileage. So i dont agree that the Manuf's are using the engines output to the best they can, they are arriving at a good compromise between, power, and least emissions output.

Think about what your saying, they will always leave a bit more power to be found in a car, why? because they also benefit from the aftermarket, thru licensing and other areas, because if they were to ever try to kill the aftermarket, by making an engine that can not be modified for more HP, thru even simple tuners, they would be cutting their own throat, and taking money out of their own pockets at the same time
 
Robot said:
Telco? You introduced the vette into the conversation. Did you actually mean to write maximum power for cruising?
Click to expand...

I introduced it as an example of what programming can do, but people are thinking that the power plus fuel economy is a product of aerodynamics and weight. The 2014 Stingray has a 0-60 of 3.8 seconds, a 12 second quarter mile, and 30MPG. Think it could do that with the same engine and a carb? Not at all. Pull the computer and carb that engine and you can either have that 12 second quarter with about 8MPG or you can have a 14 second quarter with 15MPG. The point I'm trying to make here is that with programming you can maximize fuel economy WITHOUT sacrificing WOT power.

And yes, I meant to write that. You can do that with a programmer. I also said "Of course your mileage would suck in the short time before the engine blows up because you'd be running pig rich at cruise and too lean at WOT and maximum fuel economy at WOT isn't going to be great to begin with... "
 
TorquE said:
This might've been true for older engines/cars, but modern engines and modern cars are totally different. An example would be an intake (for most cars) increases HP without decreasing MPG. It's the way the air is forced into the engine. This is also the same reason several car companies have since scrapped v8 engines and some have even gone so far to drop v6s in several models because you can place a 4 cylinder turbo in the vehicle, get more hp and better MPG.
Click to expand...
The "Eco-boost' motors by Ford are a great example of that. They are sellling better than the V8's in f-150's I read the other day
 
One of my 'other cars' is a 1996 Lexus LS400. At the time, it was the worlds' lowest drag coefficient at Cd 0.28) Combine that with a properly geared trans and I get almost 27mpg on the highway at 70mph. with the 4.7 V-8. I drive this car to Biloxi from Orlando at least once every 6 weeks or so, so I know the mpg pretty well. I got 485 miles out of one tankful.So there is a huge connection between drag and mpg for sure BTW- I know the irony of owning two "LS's" The Lincoln and the Lexus
s
 
05LSV8GUY said:
Think about what your saying, they will always leave a bit more power to be found in a car, why? because they also benefit from the aftermarket, thru licensing and other areas, because if they were to ever try to kill the aftermarket, by making an engine that can not be modified for more HP, thru even simple tuners, they would be cutting their own throat, and taking money out of their own pockets at the same time
Click to expand...

Diesels are a whole 'nother animal on many different levels so we'll leave them out of the LS tune thread. Per the quoted section, the manufacturer do not see much if any gain from the 'automotive aftermarket segment'. I wonder what the percentage of new car buyers who are going to go to the dealer for their performance parts? The Mustang is probably the exception between OEM support for the aftermarket that I am familiar with. Now read the current copy of MMFF and see what HP gains per $ folks are getting on the new stuff? There just isn't a lot left on the table with how developed the engines are or we would be seeing 225 hp 5.0's again that you could do a 15 minute tune up and gain 25 hp with by bumping the timing to 15` initial and removing the air silencer.
 
Rick1 said:
One of my 'other cars' is a 1996 Lexus LS400. At the time, it was the worlds' lowest drag coefficient at Cd 0.28) Combine that with a properly geared trans and I get almost 27mpg on the highway at 70mph. with the 4.7 V-8. I drive this car to Biloxi from Orlando at least once every 6 weeks or so, so I know the mpg pretty well. I got 485 miles out of one tankful.So there is a huge connection between drag and mpg for sure BTW- I know the irony of owning two "LS's" The Lincoln and the Lexus
s
Click to expand...

Rick1, how did you come by this Lexus swap?
 
Ranchero50 said:
Diesels are a whole 'nother animal on many different levels so we'll leave them out of the LS tune thread. Per the quoted section, the manufacturer do not see much if any gain from the 'automotive aftermarket segment'. I wonder what the percentage of new car buyers who are going to go to the dealer for their performance parts? The Mustang is probably the exception between OEM support for the aftermarket that I am familiar with. Now read the current copy of MMFF and see what HP gains per $ folks are getting on the new stuff? There just isn't a lot left on the table with how developed the engines are or we would be seeing 225 hp 5.0's again that you could do a 15 minute tune up and gain 25 hp with by bumping the timing to 15` initial and removing the air silencer.
Click to expand...

Lack of aftermarket support, was what according to many magazines at the time, along with poor sales number helped kill the camaro back in the early 2k's, the mustang was out selling the camaro and firebird, 3 to 1 or something like that, and im sure the ford racing parts division sees a good share of cash in the aftermarket.
Look at the Mustang and the corvette, they are heritage nameplates, and long running servivors, do u think that would be if they couldnt be modded? sure comps have been a more recent thing rather than hard parts like manifolds etc., but they still help sell the car.

I was using diesels as a representation of how tunable engines can be thru stock ecu parameters, if on a gas engine, you change a few hard parts, the computer can still be tuned to handle the additional HP within its parameters

The new 2014's, after looking up a few tuners can squeeze 30hp out of the coyote, without changing hard parts, That if u do the dirty math is what a 10% gain in HP?
10% is a ton of HP considering they are only changing things within the comp with stock parts.

Think about The LS, and how if it had the reliable 4.6L engine rather than the vulnerable 3.9L, even tho it would be a hell of a sweet car, it might have also survived alot longer if they would have kept the reliability up, and sure most New Lincoln owners arent tuners, but the LS wasnt aimed at the normal lincoln crowd, it was aimed at the former mustang owners that now had a family, and might have been looking at a comparable BMW or Audi, and if they knew they could have luxury and maybe tweak the family sedan a bit with some aftermarket parts it may have been a longer run than 6 years.
 
I don't know, honestly I left my MMFF subscription run out after 15 years once I realized I didn't fit in the damn '13 nearly as well as I did my '93 (which is why I own an LS). The cost per HP ratio was also getting stupid since every mod seemed to need tuning to gain minimal amounts of performance.
 
Yes, the OEMs are getting pretty good on the tunes. You still have to consider that the OEMs don't have the same parameters in mind when tuning that we would. I could care less about emissions, for example, because I feel that an engine tuned to get the maximum performance out of a gallon of gasoline will have less noxious emissions overall while the OEMs have to pass an emissions test that most likely does not match real world usage. If it means giving up some power or fuel efficiency to meet that one size fits all gummit test, then we lose the power and fuel efficiency.

And I STILL say that the OEMs consider insurance costs when deciding what lb/Hp ratio to use. They are in business to sell cars, and people won't buy cars they can't insure. At least they used to, no telling these days.
 
05LSV8GUY said:
Lack of aftermarket support, was what according to many magazines at the time, along with poor sales number helped kill the camaro back in the early 2k's, the mustang was out selling the camaro and firebird, 3 to 1 or something like that, and im sure the ford racing parts division sees a good share of cash in the aftermarket.
Look at the Mustang and the corvette, they are heritage nameplates, and long running servivors, do u think that would be if they couldnt be modded? sure comps have been a more recent thing rather than hard parts like manifolds etc., but they still help sell the car.

I was using diesels as a representation of how tunable engines can be thru stock ecu parameters, if on a gas engine, you change a few hard parts, the computer can still be tuned to handle the additional HP within its parameters

The new 2014's, after looking up a few tuners can squeeze 30hp out of the coyote, without changing hard parts, That if u do the dirty math is what a 10% gain in HP?
10% is a ton of HP considering they are only changing things within the comp with stock parts.

Think about The LS, and how if it had the reliable 4.6L engine rather than the vulnerable 3.9L, even tho it would be a hell of a sweet car, it might have also survived alot longer if they would have kept the reliability up, and sure most New Lincoln owners arent tuners, but the LS wasnt aimed at the normal lincoln crowd, it was aimed at the former mustang owners that now had a family, and might have been looking at a comparable BMW or Audi, and if they knew they could have luxury and maybe tweak the family sedan a bit with some aftermarket parts it may have been a longer run than 6 years.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking about the LS and what it would have been like if it had kept stride with the Jag. Did it not have the same reliability as the Jags? The S Type hung around until 2008 & was replaced by the XF using the same platform. What does that tell us? That tells me the perceived reliability problem was rooted in the Lincoln service support structure. Something just seems wrong when I can go to the dealer and get the full oil change, lube, brake inspection, tire rotation, and all filters checked for $26. Yes, of course they expect to find something wrong with the car so they can charge me an arm and a leg for something I can do at home. I'd rather have them be honest and charge me $150 & give me full synthetic oil and not use impact wrenches to tighten my lug nuts to 300 lbs too. I'm wondering if the so called reliability issues stem from the lack of quality service technicians in the service bay. That's why I don't let those gorillas touch my car anymore. If I need something done that I can't do myself, I take it to the Jaguar shop around the corner from me or another shop that specializes in European cars. As for after market support, it is somewhat difficult to find. However, if you go to your local book store like Borders, you might find a magazine that caters to Jaguar S Type owners which has all sorts of resources for the after market for that car. That's where I look for ideas for the future of my car. Its out there and finding it is all part of the fun.
 
Robot said:
Rick1, how did you come by this Lexus swap?
Click to expand...
Hi- I didn't swap anything-I own 4 cars and one of them is a 1996 Lexus LS 400. I've had this car for 13 years and it's got 225k on it. lol- did a catback exhaust,( 3 resonators!) fabricated a cold air intake and bammo! This old girl does 0-60 in the 6's ( as best as I can clock) and surprises the crap out of everybody. I don't know how much hp I gained by doing this but it was a substantial gain. This is another car that doesn't have very much at in 'aftermarket mods' even though the 4.7 is used in multiple toyota/lexus product. I think the difference is factory tweaking and at the time the LS was produced, it bragged that it had the quietest cabin on the planet, lowest drag and highest crash test ranking. It's a good story, the beginnings of Lexus, they lost a $ billion '1990' dollars before they sold the first car. They Ran out of money, took a Camry and made it a ES 250 as an example. My LS was clogged up with 3 resonators,a cat and muffler-smokes the tires now and the 1st gear kickdown is to be feared ;-)
 
i didnt read the whole thread, but something to consider when chipping/modding computers/buying newer vehicles is the security of the system... computerized cars can be hacked just as easy as pc's tablets and phones... pretty much like an electronic carjacking. google 'michael hastings'. its an extreme example, but worth looking into. to a person or team of persons with the means, it would be quite easy to hijack a modern car, follow it onto to a straight road and force it to accelerate to some astronomical speed in order to murder the driver in a completely untraceable fashion. bomb the car to destroy the evidence. fwiw, the motor on michael's benz was ejected some 60 yards from the accident scene...
 
Rick1 said:
Hi- I didn't swap anything-I own 4 cars and one of them is a 1996 Lexus LS 400. I've had this car for 13 years and it's got 225k on it. lol- did a catback exhaust,( 3 resonators!) fabricated a cold air intake and bammo! This old girl does 0-60 in the 6's ( as best as I can clock) and surprises the crap out of everybody. I don't know how much hp I gained by doing this but it was a substantial gain. This is another car that doesn't have very much at in 'aftermarket mods' even though the 4.7 is used in multiple toyota/lexus product. I think the difference is factory tweaking and at the time the LS was produced, it bragged that it had the quietest cabin on the planet, lowest drag and highest crash test ranking. It's a good story, the beginnings of Lexus, they lost a $ billion '1990' dollars before they sold the first car. They Ran out of money, took a Camry and made it a ES 250 as an example. My LS was clogged up with 3 resonators,a cat and muffler-smokes the tires now and the 1st gear kickdown is to be feared ;-)
Click to expand...

So..... Everything I read says the '96 LS400 had a 4.0 (actually, 3969cc) engine. That would mean a 4.7 would be a transplant.
 
LS4me said:
So..... Everything I read says the '96 LS400 had a 4.0 (actually, 3969cc) engine. That would mean a 4.7 would be a transplant.
Click to expand...

That's why I asked where he came by that swap but he still said it was a 4.7.
 
LS4me said:
So..... Everything I read says the '96 LS400 had a 4.0 (actually, 3969cc) engine. That would mean a 4.7 would be a transplant.
Click to expand...

Robot said:
That's why I asked where he came by that swap but he still said it was a 4.7.
Click to expand...

I figured you knew and were being subtle. I was just posting the actual displacement. I believe the 4.7L is their truck engine.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 277 (members: 0, guests: 277)
Back
Top