Jump to content
Denny Gaughan

Livernois ST Tune

Recommended Posts

Is the ST tune livernois has still only good for gains of "28WHP and 25WTQ, with maximum gains of over 59WHP and 59WTQ", or is there a new version available that brings power figures up to were the edge sport's figures were and livernois hadn't updated their website with updates values yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tunes are being revised gradually. It is unknown what the new trans and ptu can handle. The ST also has a different engine management system so has to be tuned different. If you compare the 2 dyno charts though the ST is down in hp but puts out more torque with the current tune over the sport, so it may never see the gains the sport gained with a tune it'll be amazing if it does though with nothing blowing up and if they can relax the torque management in 1st and 2nd.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. You also have to remember that the ST starts out with slightly higher numbers stock then the Sport so you need to add those to the gains to compare the two.  The Sport also was around a few years so their tune would be more refined and they would know what the trans and PTU could handle.  Obviously the 2.7TT can produce more power and torque than it does in the ST so I would like to think it is a work in progress.  Unless of course someone asks LMS or Unleashed to just see what they can produce using their brand new vehicle as a test mule and push it until it pops.  I would personally be happy with improved shifting and more power but no need to go overboard as I want safe as well, and the torque to come on in 1st and 2nd and not be limited.  I have never driven a Sport so I do not know how they are off the line but the ST limits boost in 1st and 2nd as to either prevent wheelspin or prevent damage to the drivetrain(probably both).  The Focus ST also limited 1st and 2nd gear so you did not spin the crap out of the tires, because it could do it even limited let alone full boost(I had to tuned FoST that I did not have the boost limited in 2nd and it would light them up even more).  Anyway it really is not all about the max peak gains I also want more power across the whole rev band since I am not really at redline all day long. Which these tunes seem to have. 

Edited by jamie1073

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Perblue said:

The tunes are being revised gradually. It is unknown what the new trans and ptu can handle. The ST also has a different engine management system so has to be tuned different. If you compare the 2 dyno charts though the ST is down in hp but puts out more torque with the current tune over the sport, so it may never see the gains the sport gained with a tune it'll be amazing if it does though with nothing blowing up and if they can relax the torque management in 1st and 2nd.

 

 

How do you know the tunes are being revised? We have not heard anything from Livernois? They seem to have no updates on the ST tune. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have missed it, but do not see which version of tune you may have?  I have version 3 and when I checked with LMS about two weeks ago, that was the latest version.  I started with their first tune and have seen an improvement from each version.  As stated, they are making small changes as more is learned on the new trans, etc..

 

Now for for those that state, without proof of improvement how do you know.  I will never track my ST/go to a drag strip, there is not any AWD dyno in my area and I do not need any of those to feel the change/gains.  

Edited by Sage
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, blitz118 said:

How do you know the tunes are being revised? We have not heard anything from Livernois? They seem to have no updates on the ST tune. 

 

From reading the forum. Members like Sage and others above are on the 3rd revision. The ST has only been available to drive for about 7 months due to all the delays and stuff. So being on a 3rd revision over that amount of time seems reasonable to me. You can't test a tune for reliability by just slapping it on the dyno and saying yeah! We made more power send it out. They have thier test mule/clients willing to take the risk as Guinea pigs like all companies. If you want to be one, contact them and risk blowing things up for the rest of us. ?

 

I wasn't on the forum to see how long it took took them to get the results out of the sport they did but would be surprised if it happened in 2015. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sage said:

I may have missed it, but do not see which version of tune you may have?  I have version 3 and when I checked with LMS about two weeks ago, that was the latest version.  I started with their first tune and have seen an improvement from each version.  As stated, they are making small changes as more is learned on the new trans, etc..

 

Now for for those that state, without proof of improvement how do you know.  I will never track my ST/go to a drag strip, there is not any AWD dyno in my area and I do not need any of those to feel the change/gains.  

 

It would be interesting of some people could at least do a 0-60 test if they have an OBDII adapter and an app.  I checked mine stock and actually get 5.8 seconds pretty much every way I try it.  I mean at some point I will get the tune just was hoping to get someone to see what they can do.  I like those kinds of numbers just as a comparison over the power numbers.  But even with LMS Dyno of the tune and the gains of around 60hp and torque in other parts of the power band it seems like a great tune. Maybe that would make people more happy.  Lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took a lot of whining from myself and couple dozen people in my Facebook group to help kick LMS from v2 to v3 tune in the Sport, this was about 2 years into the cycle. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find strange is the 2.7 in a F150 makes if I understand correctly 400ft-lbs  so wonder why ford didn't just give us the extra 20ft-lbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, vmaxbaby said:

What I find strange is the 2.7 in a F150 makes if I understand correctly 400ft-lbs  so wonder why ford didn't just give us the extra 20ft-lbs

 

That's technical a different engine. In the years the F150 had the same engine as us, gen 1, it made 375ft-lbs. Now the f150 has the gen 2 which makes more and we still have the gen 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also big difference in the intake and exhaust due to FWD vs RWD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Perblue said:

 

That's technical a different engine. In the years the F150 had the same engine as us, gen 1, it made 375ft-lbs. Now the f150 has the gen 2 which makes more and we still have the gen 1.

I’m betting the torque is limited due to the 8F57 trans. They wanted to maintain the safe operating margin for reliability. Also the ford performance team may have decided whatever sacrifice required for the extra 20lbs torque might not have been worth it while operating within whatever emissions/EPA requirements ford set. Extra 10hp might be that torque production was a bit higher in the RPM band allowing a faster corner exit speed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fingernip said:

I’m betting the torque is limited due to the 8F57 trans. They wanted to maintain the safe operating margin for reliability. Also the ford performance team may have decided whatever sacrifice required for the extra 20lbs torque might not have been worth it while operating within whatever emissions/EPA requirements ford set. Extra 10hp might be that torque production was a bit higher in the RPM band allowing a faster corner exit speed. 

 

I assume you are correct with the lower torque.  They want to make sure the trans lasts at least the warranty period and it is new so they probably tuned it down a bit.  Sure the engine can produce more power but if you look at the downpipes alone compared to what the F-150 layout allows you would see they have to squeeze that stuff in on the Transverse layout.  On a Longitudinal you get a heck of a lot more room for that stuff, allowing for better flow and more power.  Not to mention the transmissions in a Longitudinal layout can handle more torque/power that the Transverse in most cases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamie1073 said:

 

They want to make sure the trans lasts at least the warranty period

 

That's a ridiculous statement.   All Ford engines are tested for at least 150K miles, some even longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, akirby said:

 

That's a ridiculous statement.   All Ford engines are tested for at least 150K miles, some even longer.

 

I am sure they do as they would want them to last longer than the warranty.  I was being a wise ass, although partially serious because they want them to last at least the warranty period so they would not need to replace them on their dime.  That is just good business.  I am not saying they do not want them to last longer, since that failure at that milestone would be bad for business as well.  Either way they are not going to run the engine on the ragged edge of blowing up or put to much power down to explode the tans the first time someone floors it.  They leave wiggle room, but being a new transmission no one knows how much wiggle room there is.  In regards to why the F-150 has more power, it is because the transmission can handle more power as most RWD based transmissions can due to the fact that they can be made larger and built stronger.  Also the 10 speed has been around longer and put in vehicles with more power and more stress on them.  The 8F57 trans is new and so far only in two vehicles so its limits are not known as of yet by anyone except the Ford Engineers. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far more likely that it's due to intake and exhaust routing differences between transverse and longitudinal since the 8F57 was designed specifically for the 2.7LEB and has a higher torque rating than the 6F55 that was used with the 3.5LEB in the Explorer, Taurus, Flex, MKT and MKS. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, akirby said:

Far more likely that it's due to intake and exhaust routing differences between transverse and longitudinal since the 8F57 was designed specifically for the 2.7LEB and has a higher torque rating than the 6F55 that was used with the 3.5LEB in the Explorer, Taurus, Flex, MKT and MKS. 

 

Ford does have a history of under rating some Engines for unknown (to us/me) reasons. The same transverse 2.7L 6F55 combo has been available on the MKX since 2016 on 335hp/380lb.ft rating & Fusion since 2017 with 325hp/380lb.ft . The same 6F55 transmission has been used with the 3.0L MKZ/Continental with 400/400 hp-lb.ft (and heavier curb weight on the continental).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, akirby said:

Far more likely that it's due to intake and exhaust routing differences between transverse and longitudinal since the 8F57 was designed specifically for the 2.7LEB and has a higher torque rating than the 6F55 that was used with the 3.5LEB in the Explorer, Taurus, Flex, MKT and MKS. 

Another thing to consider is heat. It was designed to be track run and take all day abuse. They may not have been able to get the consistency they wanted with a hotter tune without upgrading airflow/cooling system. Ford likely designated a budget for development and production. The ford performance team was given a completely pre-designed and finished vehicle to go back and re-invent. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, akirby said:

Far more likely that it's due to intake and exhaust routing differences between transverse and longitudinal since the 8F57 was designed specifically for the 2.7LEB and has a higher torque rating than the 6F55 that was used with the 3.5LEB in the Explorer, Taurus, Flex, MKT and MKS. 

 

Yeah after looking at just the front downpipe I would think that is a huge restriction there.  They have so much more room on the FD-150 for the downpipes and of course to upgrade them.  The front one looks like a nighmare just to get off or and out of the engine compartment.  A lot of the routing for the charge pipes sucks as well.  And I see there is a thread about even intake/airbox as being a bottleneck.  Heck on the FoST the bottleneck is the small K03 turbo, but boy does it give boost right off the bat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just ordered my Livernois MyCalibrator Touch on Thursday.  Should be here Monday to get me started on my ST tune.  I am going to leave the rest stock for now since it is a lease and get at least a 91 and 93 tune and maybe a tow tune since you get 4.  I have recorded a 5.8 0-60 times using my wifi OBDII adapter and the Car Scanner App on my iPhone, it is around 5.81.  Did basically the same in both normal and sport mode and trying to brake torque.  I will test again before I update the tune and then test on the 91 and again on the 93 tune files.  No one seems to post any numbers so I figure I will do that.  I know it does not tell us the power increase but I feel it is more useful since it will show what they can do with the trans as well as increased power to hopefully net a nice gain.  I picked them since I like the increased mid range torque on the dyno they have posted and the fact they will give you up to 4 tunes that you can change at anytime, like if there is a new revision, for free.  Anyway we shall see I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 1:02 PM, omar302 said:

 

 

Ford does have a history of under rating some Engines for unknown (to us/me) reasons. The same transverse 2.7L 6F55 combo has been available on the MKX since 2016 on 335hp/380lb.ft rating & Fusion since 2017 with 325hp/380lb.ft . The same 6F55 transmission has been used with the 3.0L MKZ/Continental with 400/400 hp-lb.ft (and heavier curb weight on the continental).

 

After some major fidgeting we have gotten the 6F55 to put down some consistent quick shifts in back to back runs.  Also, the launches are pretty aggressive.  0-60 sub 4.5 anyone???

 

On 6/17/2019 at 1:02 PM, omar302 said:

 

 

Ford does have a history of under rating some Engines for unknown (to us/me) reasons. The same transverse 2.7L 6F55 combo has been available on the MKX since 2016 on 335hp/380lb.ft rating & Fusion since 2017 with 325hp/380lb.ft . The same 6F55 transmission has been used with the 3.0L MKZ/Continental with 400/400 hp-lb.ft (and heavier curb weight on the continental).

 

With the tuning that BCB and i Have been doing and about 6 back to back 130 mph runs we never saw over 245 degree temps in the trans,  the OEM trans cooler is phenomenal. 

 

On 6/17/2019 at 1:08 PM, Fingernip said:

Another thing to consider is heat. It was designed to be track run and take all day abuse. They may not have been able to get the consistency they wanted with a hotter tune without upgrading airflow/cooling system. Ford likely designated a budget for development and production. The ford performance team was given a completely pre-designed and finished vehicle to go back and re-invent. 

 

That is currently what we are fighting, the size turbo they put on the 2.7 is not conducive to making high-end power, its effective range is from 1800 to 4000 and produces plenty torque.  The 3.0L/3.5L have a larger body turbo that is far easier to mod and make a hybrid out of.

 

On 6/17/2019 at 5:28 PM, jamie1073 said:

 

Yeah after looking at just the front downpipe I would think that is a huge restriction there.  They have so much more room on the FD-150 for the downpipes and of course to upgrade them.  The front one looks like a nighmare just to get off or and out of the engine compartment.  A lot of the routing for the charge pipes sucks as well.  And I see there is a thread about even intake/airbox as being a bottleneck.  Heck on the FoST the bottleneck is the small K03 turbo, but boy does it give boost right off the bat. 

 

We already have downpipes and im about 80% sure they will fit the st since the engine bay is the same and the oil pan is....the pipes dont come near the trans so if the trans layout changes it fine.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2019 at 10:48 AM, Special_K said:

 

We already have downpipes and im about 80% sure they will fit the st since the engine bay is the same and the oil pan is....the pipes dont come near the trans so if the trans layout changes it fine.

 

I have seen the downpipes.  I was referring to why the F150 is rated higher from the factory, most likely because they have more room to put stuff.  Also just stating that the factory downpipes are a bottlekneck.  After market of course would allow better flow so less restictions and allow more power to be produced.  I compared to the Focus ST because that downpipe has two 90 degree bends in it stock and if replaced and tuned for it gains 10-15hp, on top of what can already be gained with just the tune alone.  Also just looks like a pain to get at the front DP on the Edge since it looks pretty tight in there.  😁

 

On a side note, got my tuner yesterday.  Sent in the info they requested, minus the stock tune since it would not pull that and said unsupported vehicle.  I assume they need to update the tune device with my info so the vehicle is supported or something, at least I hope.  The instruction made it sound like I should just have been able to plug it in and get my stock tune to send to them for safe keeping or something.  I come from the FoST tuning world where you give them your VIN and mods when ordering and they tie the tune to that and you just upload it to the device and you are all set.  With LMS they just asked for the year, make and model.  No worries though I am not in a hurry.  Lol

Edited by jamie1073

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jamie1073 said:

 

I have seen the downpipes.  I was referring to why the F150 is rated higher from the factory, most likely because they have more room to put stuff.  Also just stating that the factory downpipes are a bottlekneck.  After market of course would allow better flow so less restictions and allow more power to be produced.  I compared to the Focus ST because that downpipe has two 90 degree bends in it stock and if replaced and tuned for it gains 10-15hp, on top of what can already be gained with just the tune alone.  Also just looks like a pain to get at the front DP on the Edge since it looks pretty tight in there.  😁

 

On a side note, got my tuner yesterday.  Sent in the info they requested, minus the stock tune since it would not pull that and said unsupported vehicle.  I assume they need to update the tune device with my info so the vehicle is supported or something, at least I hope.  The instruction made it sound like I should just have been able to plug it in and get my stock tune to send to them for safe keeping or something.  I come from the FoST tuning world where you give them your VIN and mods when ordering and they tie the tune to that and you just upload it to the device and you are all set.  With LMS they just asked for the year, make and model.  No worries though I am not in a hurry.  Lol

I really would be surprised if that was the case. The F150 is rated for more torque, as it should being a truck with a towing capacity of 8000+lbs. The F150 makes peak torque at under 2700 rpm while the Edge makes peak torque at 3200 rpm. the F150 likely has a torque curve better suited for towing and hauling than racing on an autocross track. The engineers at Ford likely could easily tune an extra 20 f/lbs torque into the edge but might sacrifice power in the usable rpm range for its intended purpose. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fingernip said:

I really would be surprised if that was the case. The F150 is rated for more torque, as it should being a truck with a towing capacity of 8000+lbs. The F150 makes peak torque at under 2700 rpm while the Edge makes peak torque at 3200 rpm. the F150 likely has a torque curve better suited for towing and hauling than racing on an autocross track. The engineers at Ford likely could easily tune an extra 20 f/lbs torque into the edge but might sacrifice power in the usable rpm range for its intended purpose. 

 

Why would you be surprised that I suggest the F-150 DP's may be better flowing than the Edge Sport/ST factory ones?  The F-150 has more room to not need to be squeezes in a smaller area and has less dramatic bends.  And of course it is tuned to be a truck and not a 'Sporty' SUV.  Probably the reason it has a much larger intercooler than the Sport/ST to keep the charge air temps down when towing.  I just wish our stock exhaust sounded as good as theirs. 

 

And the Engineers at Ford most likely tuned it for safety of the engine/trans and to not push it to the absolute limits. Or maybe they just did not want it to have the same torque numbers as the Explorer ST or to be as quick off the line.  They have already admitted in auto magazine articles that they wanted the 8 speed trans to shift better and quicker than it does.  That was their plan at least but whoops.  I am sure there are plenty of reasons they set the power levels where they did.  I mean they could probably have pushed the HP number up above 350 if the wanted to and keep the power band where it is needed.  But like the FoST they seemed to have tuned it for power delivery for daily driving in the city and on the highway.  It really does shine there, I just wish the manually shifting was quicker, from paddle input to actual shift, so you could keep it in the power band.  When you time those shifts properly it really moves nicely shifting before 5500 RPM.  Hopefully the LMS tunes help in the area, I shall find out shortly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jamie1073 said:

 

Why would you be surprised that I suggest the F-150 DP's may be better flowing than the Edge Sport/ST factory ones?  The F-150 has more room to not need to be squeezes in a smaller area and has less dramatic bends.  And of course it is tuned to be a truck and not a 'Sporty' SUV.  Probably the reason it has a much larger intercooler than the Sport/ST to keep the charge air temps down when towing.  I just wish our stock exhaust sounded as good as theirs. 

 

And the Engineers at Ford most likely tuned it for safety of the engine/trans and to not push it to the absolute limits. Or maybe they just did not want it to have the same torque numbers as the Explorer ST or to be as quick off the line.  They have already admitted in auto magazine articles that they wanted the 8 speed trans to shift better and quicker than it does.  That was their plan at least but whoops.  I am sure there are plenty of reasons they set the power levels where they did.  I mean they could probably have pushed the HP number up above 350 if the wanted to and keep the power band where it is needed.  But like the FoST they seemed to have tuned it for power delivery for daily driving in the city and on the highway.  It really does shine there, I just wish the manually shifting was quicker, from paddle input to actual shift, so you could keep it in the power band.  When you time those shifts properly it really moves nicely shifting before 5500 RPM.  Hopefully the LMS tunes help in the area, I shall find out shortly. 

I would doubt that is the reason for the power difference. I don't think the system is operating at the threshold where exhaust flow is the largest factor in power produced. Livernoise is easily increasing power without exhaust mods  but likely at the expense of Fords target fuel economy numbers, emissions or safety factor for reliability. Sure a more free flowing exhaust would make the turbo more efficient but eliminating that 1 bend would be the hardest and likely the last place to start. At stock boost levels and a margin beyond the system breathes just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×