Hey Stuart..

One more thing...do you have before and after data/dyno sheets for the V6?

 

Only on the basic 1st torque limit steps on the V6S, before we adjusted timing & fuel. We're working on something with a base XF 3.0 though, same engine so results will be available soon.

 

Little more indepth info...The test car we're waiting on is a 2016 XF-S 3.0L AWD, owner is having some issues with the iTouch system not remote starting..just waiting for this to be resolved by dealer before going ahead with the tune/dyno(if they update the PCM, I'll have to make a new file all over again). To help reduce any more downtime once we start, it's a vehicle that I have access to locally so I will be able to monitor everything in person.

Unfortunately we don't have an eta on when the clients iTouch issue will be resolved...although appointment at dealer is scheduled for concern/repair.

 

thank you for the update Sir.

 

Velocity, I have a V8 tune on order from you... What is the HP/torque gain from the tune alone vs the HP/torque gain from the pulley and tune?

 

great question. If you have it for the S I would like that difference as well. I'm torn between the two, but think the lower pulley and tune would be best and could get me in the number ranges I'm looking for. Thank you

 

I'm also waiting for this (separately, have been waiting on Eurocharged for 2 years now and they still haven't posted a sheet).

Stuart, this might be a good thing to get out for the V6, because I suspect a lot of owners will be interested in a tune to get closer to V6-S level performance.

The V6 and V6-S share the same engine so it should be lower risk to tune the V6. When do you think a dyno sheet will be available?

thanks!

 

Agree completely

See post 123 above.

 

Stuart,

Perhaps you missed my comments posted above, or didn't care to comment at this point. I'm most interested in getting a little more than the OEM V6S, but most importantly getting a flatter torque curve than the rather peaky OEM V6 and V6S curves.

At any rate, also very much looking forward to seeing some V6 data.

 

@Stuart:
Two more lingering questions...at this point it sounds like your tuning will be based off of a 16MY XF. Granted its the same engine and same power output, but are there are other factors that need to be considered? Example would be the gearing of the transmissions in the XF/F-Type maybe different which can potentially impact A/F, RPM, etc. So what may work on a XF may not necessarily be optimal for an F-Type despite their similarities.

Will any development occur with an actual F-Type V6 in hand? Unless you've confirmed the factory tunes are identical side by side then I'm hesitant to use a tune that was optimized for an XF on my F Type

Second question: You mentioned that you are able to provide the OEM V6S tune..has anyone actually done this (or yourself) and post results?

 

+1 to above and last observation.

It seems that the majority of effort is going into V8 performance enhancements. It seems to me that there is likely a much bigger market and demand for V6 upgrades.

V8s already have crazy power, there are many more V6 cars sold, and getting to 400 HP w/ about 360 ft lbs. would really put the V6 in a sweet spot. Many us feel we already have a sweeter soundtrack, and a little extra kick in the butt would be wonderful.

 

yeah, I'd be willing to order any day, if I'd see some proof for V6 3.0 f-type. And since the new programmer can save few set ups I'd like:

For 93 octane

1) Original tune from my car
2) Tune without Pulley
3) Tune with lower pulley

To start with...

 

The OEM file is "peaky" because the tune has torque limiters that dramatically pull power. A tune helps limit these limiters, as a result create a flatter curve..

As Stuart mentioned, post #123 describes about us getting a vehicle for hands on testing and tuning, not another remote tune to diagnose and send additions for datalog data received...I have setup dyno sessions remotely with 5 different 3.0L's on more than 10 different occasions. Every occasion we ran into a road block, from no wifi at the dyno, no datalogging equipment, no wideband for tail pipe, datalogging but with incorrect pids monitored..even places taking 2 days to give me the results of the dyno run for me to do any editing. We even had a dyno shop want to remove the front prop shaft on a awd F-type.on there awd dyno*Shakeshead*...we have been putting the time and effort for the 3.0L..I've personnelly lost track of the time into the 3.0, which is why I've stopped all testing for remote data until I get a car locally...please don't think you 3.0L guys are being pushed to the curb, it's actually the other way around.

In order to get you that file your asking for, I need a car to tune in person because remote tuning/diagnosing has put this project way behind... its not like there are hundreds of 5.0L/3.0L driving around in Canadian winters unless awd, and then when we find one..are they willing to deal with the manufacture not covering this tune(just like any manufacture) again reducing the crowd of volunteers ..so really red tape upon more red tape has let us to months delay.

As post #123 mentioned, we're waiting for this client car locally, so the testing and dyno can be performed.. Which all the correct data can be recorded and printed off to post online for the public to see what we are selling...you guys asked, we're doing everything to supply it.

Afr is not going to be different from a XF to a F-type.. The Afr is based of load/rpm.. Even the lambda protection tables are the same.

Transmission gear ratios or axle ratios is just going to give you a higher/lower base torque and a higher/lower modified torque run...it would be like running the car in 4th gear for the base and mod, then run the same car in 5th gear for the base and MOD run...afr doesn't change, it's the same car and same load scale, just you changed the speed of the rollers vs rpm. You won't gain more power, the difference in percentage gained will be the same in 4th gear and in 5th gear when comparing the same gear base/mod run...BUT dyno in 4th and run the mod in 5the will show a fake value..this can be seen by monitoring.the rpm vs mph of wheels...although not every dyno machine does this. I'm trying to setup a session with the XF on a dynapack which I've seen the rpm vs mph I speak of..again useless information for someone that doesn't know, but it's us going the extra step to give you every once of information that we can...aka nothing to hide.

Why are we using a XF and not a Ftype...because it's the only one locally availible for this testing..I'd be happy to grab a F-type if it was available locally..if I get one on the dyno, you can be sure I'm going to post the data..but we're trying to get data to show ppl what we can do, I don't see any data being any different between the 2 vehicles... Land Rover runs the same file data for there 3.0L...

Our present file for the 3.0L and 5.0L creates the nice power and keeps afr safe to not cook the catalysts or create any hot spots. Its nice to see a 12.2:1 afr for 8psi..but what if catalyst temp was 1,800F at that 12.2:1..would it still be a great afr?..Answer is No, that file "should" be running rich like crazy to lower the catalyst temps before you blow them into pieces and suck the catalyst cell right back to the air filters on decoast (Seen it done on other tunes)..so seeing a great afr on a dyno sheet is only half the battle, just 98% of ppl don't realize it. What we're trying to do is more than just making a dyno sheet look awesome.

 

Great answer, thanks! I'll be patient now. :-)

 

Who is this guy

 

I'm Batman!

 

Thank you very much for the update and as Foosh said we'll patiently be waiting the results. Do you have a goal regarding numbers you want to hit regarding HP or TQ? Or is it more about flattening the curve?

Thank you

 

If I was tuning a series car or even something running flat out..I'd be looking for as much power that I can create in the upper rpm's(even raising rpm limiter to max) and wouldn't pay too much attention to the low rpm range. Being these cars will see the odd track day and want the best Low-mid range, that's what I will be shooting for first then I'll worry about creating more power up top if everything permits...although if an owner wants the opposite, I can edit the file as needed, just that's not the intention of the file I will be dynoing.

 

excellent. thank you for the prompt response. Just looking to raise the numbers get the performance at it's peak without putting any of the instrumental parts in jeopardy.

Thank you

 

Batman,
Why has the manufacturer done this? The peak torque is what will destroy drive train parts, not continuous torque. For what other reason are they limiting the torque below peak across the rpm range?