Hey Bruce! (DFI Gen 7+ Info)

[aDFIguy]

Bruce, I didn't want to hijack the other thread, but this is worth talking about...

The Accel VII sure is lacking as far as table size goes in my opinion, by the time you crank it up for 3 bar applications there are way too few steps in the fuel table.

What you probably don't know is that the load axis is programmable, just like the RPM axis. If you are running a 3-bar sensor, and want the last 4 rows of your table to function between 25 and 28 PSI, just put numbers between 25 and 28 in the last 4 rows. The resolution is only dependent on the A/D that is reading the sensor voltage.

I seriously doubt you could get the fueling as good as Steve has with the latest ME's.

A DFI on the same engine would kick the crap out of that car. Literally, you'd be able to tune multiple 10ths off the time. We just did it with our LS1 kit. Replace the stock PCM, retune with the DFI, and ET .3 - .5 seconds quicker with NO OTHER Modifications. Here is one example, there are more than just this.

(Following is taken rom here...)

update...beta test 346 cam/heads car
base line before install : 11.5 avg, 117mph
this past saturday : 11.06@122 with a 3.73 gear 28 tall tire ..Car never made a good sticking pass,was observing atleast two revolutions before it left the line..definately has 10.8 or better with traction .Geared properly 10.6's are possible..and to think this car has a pro fogger sitting on top that we havnt gotten to yet
--------------------
Joe Overton
" The underdog "
94' Trans Am -388 ci. Lt1
9.86@134.5 1.35 60 ft. (All motor,footbrake)

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by aDFIguy
Bruce, I didn't want to hijack the other thread, but this is worth talking about...

What you probably don't know is that the load axis is programmable, just like the RPM axis. If you are running a 3-bar sensor, and want the last 4 rows of your table to function between 25 and 28 PSI, just put numbers between 25 and 28 in the last 4 rows. The resolution is only dependent on the A/D that is reading the sensor voltage.


A DFI on the same engine would kick the crap out of that car. Literally, you'd be able to tune multiple 10ths off the time. We just did it with our LS1 kit. Replace the stock PCM, retune with the DFI, and ET .3 - .5 seconds quicker with NO OTHER Modifications. Here is one example, there are more than just this.

(Following is taken rom here...)

Since you sought me out, and had to comment the way you did, here are my opinions.

As far as secret or hidden programming then yes, I didn't see that, in the one I looked at the steps were like 20 K/Pa per step, which like I originally said, were poor, IMO, so I'll stick to that opinion, thank you. And incrementing them as low as 5 had definite advantages, this is how I run my stuff, and have played alot with 5/10 K/Pa setps, etc., and for getting the most in the way of drivibility out of a car it is necessary. Again, my opinion based on actual time and useage.

Gimme a 34 by 17 VE and spark table and we'll start talking, less then that, and your, setup is crude at best, IMO. Thou, a 17x17 with a boost multiplier for VE seems to work out really well. BUt, it still needs the 34x17 to get the drivibility really nice, IMO. And the 34x17 for spark is a given, IMO.

As for you generalization, about what's best that is some what laughable, IMO. 99% of tuning is knowing what to do, for the new guy, or less then experienced tuner the ME knocks the socks off of everything out there other then the Translator stuff.

I don't use the ME, Translator, or aftermarket stuff on my car, so I have no vested interest in anything I report, can you say the same?.

Gee, you picked up over a stock pcm?. Ugh, OK, that's hardly claiming much. Does your tune still meet all the fed EPA stuff, and durability reguirements?. I'll wager I picked up several seconds with my stock 91 PCM'd GM pickup, and I expect a big so what over that, LOL. The stock cals as you well know are about saving the converter at WOT. Improving that, is hardly noteworthy, IMO. If someone is just worring about WOT the resolution issue becomes somewhat moot, but for anyone that likes having things really correct, I fail to see where any of the resonably priced aftermarkets offer that. I will admit to not having seen what Motec, and Emerald currently are offering, but they're not really part of this conversation anyway.

How come the aftermarkets, don't give a 100K mile warranty?
How come they cleverly lock the WB into just WBs they sell?.

So far, all I've seen is the aftermarkets offer nice eye candy tuning, and marketing in a slick enough way to seperate folks from their hard earned money, again IMO.

While maybe you can tune tenths off of his setup, I'd venture that I can also, and for alot less then your asking him to spend.

For the average guy running static injectors, there is little to no difference to be gained in spending $2K for an aftermarket ecm, all they're going to lose is the restriciton of the MAF sensor. For cars that actually have enough injector, to need a actual fuel curve, the ME, and Translators fill that gap. If the car is fast enough to really gain something by going MAP only, then MAFless ME does that. And it keeps you within acceptable safety limits.

The for the true experimenter there are things like the 749 project mentioned here.
http://home.woh.rr.com/brucesgn/
That allows for actually modifing the source code.

At one time the aftermarkets, had the advantage of being easier to tune, because they were simplier, but the down side was poor drivibility, and they're abandoning that, and getting more and more complex, because they realized it takes a given amount of complexity to get a decent calibration.
The aftermarkets are fine, for those that have the money to spend on them. And expecially for those that want a somewhat easy solution. But for the knowledgible, the stock ecm will run into the 9s, and there's a rumor about an even faster stock ecm'd car in the works.

Not arguing, but just trying to enlighting you and the innocent reader. And like I've said several times, IMO.

Seems like you might investigate more about what the stock
ecm(s) can do. And given the extra outputs, updated injector drivers and source code, of the 749, I humbly suggest that the aftermarkets are way behind what that offers.

And just being premptive, the WB self tuning in my opinion is a falisy. The tuner still has to figure out what AFR he wants to run. While in the N/A it MIGHT be a help, in the faster turbo cars, just monitoring it serves just as much function. Plus there is one thing less to go wrong, by monitoring it, rather then using it for feedback.

In closing,
From here, none of the aftermarkets offer anything that being clever with a junkyard ecm can't do.
Alot of it is just a matter if you have more time then money, or money then time.
For the not so well versed, there is also a distinct advantage of being limited to given knowns.

YMMV,

 

[Pro Stock John]

An aftermarket system addresses a few issues for my LS1 setup...

-I can use low impedance Siemen's 83's
-I can use a 3 bar map sensor
-I don't have to tune with a MAF, and avoid needing to get a $600 custom MAF solution
-Low impedance converter boxes are $300 and don't work well on cars like mine

So all in all I'd have to spend about a grand to run a Pro-M custom MAF, and a Lo-Z converter box, and the car would have tuning obstacles from the big injectors and the stock pcm.

So I would disagree.

 

[aDFIguy]

Bruce,

Don't like being called out? Sorry, I didn't really mean it like that.

You brought a lot of stuff up, I'd like to cover all of it, but most of it would best be suited to discuss over a beer somewhere.

About the LS1 car. It had the stock PCM, but not the stock calibration -- by any means. It had been "LS1 Edited" to death, and they simply couldn't get any more out of the car by tuning on the stock PCM. The tuner currently owns the (record holding) fastest N/A LT1 car in the country, so he does know what he is doing. Due to the strategic differences between the OEM code and the aftermarket code, the car idled differently, ran better, made more HP, and had a significantly faster ET with the aftermarket module. I believe that this will continue to be true until you start modding the oem source code. That is another plane altogether. I see the stuff that you are doing, and it's very cool. Your ECM bench looks similar to my office. If I didn't do what I do for a living, I'd probably have something just like it at home. You have a cool hobby.

However, show me where it makes a difference. Take your 17x34 maps that are hacked into the duct tape and band aided OEM PCM that has low impedance injectors stapled to the side of it, and put it on the track. Design your own stickers and put them on your car if you think that will make you even faster. Get beat by cars that have less than 8 hours of tuning in them and then maybe you'll realize how much time you have wasted trying to do something the hard way. Your stuff probably has more R&D time than some of the weaker aftermarket systems. But if it were worth doing, the people who run performance cars for a living would be doing it. But they aren't. And they won't. They don't have the time, inclination, or the aptitude. Again, YOU HAVE A COOL HOBBY.

Ok, that was maybe a little harsh. But I can't think of any better way to make the point. It's cool that you can do the things you do with the stock hardware. Even better that you can edit the source code and create your own I/O and new functionality. However, for most people, your methods would be impractical, if not impossible, for them to use. I don't see too many people being interested in making source code changes between rounds at the races so they don't get knocked out early.

I'd say only about 90% of tuning is knowing what to do. The other 10% is how you do it, or what your tool allows you to do and how easy your tool is to use. How quickly you can get the task accomplished. It's tough to pound a nail with a rubber mallet. Yeah, technically it's a hammer, and it's possible. But the steel ones perform better because they were designed for the intended application.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Pro Stock John
An aftermarket system addresses a few issues for my LS1 setup...
-I can use low impedance Siemen's 83's
-I can use a 3 bar map sensor
-I don't have to tune with a MAF, and avoid needing to get a $600 custom MAF solution
-Low impedance converter boxes are $300 and don't work well on cars like mine
So all in all I'd have to spend about a grand to run a Pro-M custom MAF, and a Lo-Z converter box, and the car would have tuning obstacles from the big injectors and the stock pcm.
So I would disagree.

Disagree with what?.
You not even talking about the original thread.

The original topic is GN ECM vs FAST.
Not LS1 PCM vs FAST.

It sounds like in your case that a FAST is the better answer, but again your in the wrong thread.

 

[ijames]

adfiguy, I've never looked at the gen7+ stuff in any detail. Does it use a table of ve's and then a table of afr targets like the fast, or what? Can it do closed loop wot with the wb o2 (I disagree about how good this is - to me it's THE reason to step past a gm ecm)? What are the limits on fueling correction in closed loop? What are the ve and spark table dimensions, while I'm asking? When you data log, can you log everything or just a short list of sensors? What is the time resolution of the data log? Someone mentioned that you could log within the unit, then download to a laptop later. Can you give some more details here? Thanks.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by aDFIguy


About the LS1 car. It had the stock PCM, but not the stock calibration -- by any means. It had been "LS1 Edited" to death, and they simply couldn't get any more out of the car by tuning on the stock PCM. The tuner currently owns the (record holding) fastest N/A LT1 car in the country, so he does know what he is doing. Due to the strategic differences between the OEM code and the aftermarket code, the car idled differently, ran better, made more HP, and had a significantly faster ET with the aftermarket module. I believe that this will continue to be true until you start modding the oem source code. That is another plane altogether. I see the stuff that you are doing, and it's very cool. Your ECM bench looks similar to my office. If I didn't do what I do for a living, I'd probably have something just like it at home. You have a cool hobby.

However, show me where it makes a difference. Take your 17x34 maps that are hacked into the duct tape and band aided OEM PCM that has low impedance injectors stapled to the side of it, and put it on the track. Design your own stickers and put them on your car if you think that will make you even faster. Get beat by cars that have less than 8 hours of tuning in them and then maybe you'll realize how much time you have wasted trying to do something the hard way. Your stuff probably has more R&D time than some of the weaker aftermarket systems. But if it were worth doing, the people who run performance cars for a living would be doing it. But they aren't. And they won't. They don't have the time, inclination, or the aptitude. Again, YOU HAVE A COOL HOBBY.

Ok, that was maybe a little harsh. But I can't think of any better way to make the point. It's cool that you can do the things you do with the stock hardware. Even better that you can edit the source code and create your own I/O and new functionality. However, for most people, your methods would be impractical, if not impossible, for them to use. I don't see too many people being interested in making source code changes between rounds at the races so they don't get knocked out early.

I'd say only about 90% of tuning is knowing what to do. The other 10% is how you do it, or what your tool allows you to do and how easy your tool is to use. How quickly you can get the task accomplished. It's tough to pound a nail with a rubber mallet. Yeah, technically it's a hammer, and it's possible. But the steel ones perform better because they were designed for the intended application.

LS1 aside, since you just wanting to use it to justify your cause, which isn't what started this thread. I'm not going to belabor the point about what LS1 edit can or cannot do. Or what other's can or can't do tune wise.

The nonsensical advoidance of addressing what I mentioned is bewildering. In my response to you I answered and said what it is that I found to be true, and your silliness in your answer shows your not willing to answer anything but rather state opinion as fact, which is laughable.

There is NOTHING HACed and taped about writting code, if your code is so good, POST IT, LOL. Lets see what you claim is so good. This TRUST ME, stuff might work for advertising, but we got a dialog, that YOU started. Being from Missouri, show me what's so good. Not with platitudes, let's put the cards on the table. OK? or are you going to again hide and make some lamb excuse?
You want to hide the truth of the matter and jab away at hoping to confuse the ill informed, well sorry pal, that ain't working, show me your code and we'll talk until then I'd be more suspect of the aftermarkets running a mismosh of oem code. GM has alot more resources to develope code then any aftermarket co. I know of. So if anyone has it right it would be the oems. As old as the GM GN code is it still will put a GN into the 9s. Granted that's modified code, but the majority of the code is for making it tunable. So we're talking a $500 system vs $2,000 where do you justify the addition $1,500.

Feel free to also resond to the guestions from the first reply to you.

Why did you tie the WB to the ecm?, just part of seperating the customer from his money, with only profit as a motive.

You statement about stapling the drivers in just proves you have no concept as to what your talking about. Maybe your's is epoxied solid for vibration, but that ONLY since you use it UNIVERSALLY, ie high vibration applications, which isn't as much as a concern for a GN. To date I have 10's of thousands of miles running Bailey modified ecms without a hitch. Seems like the STAPLED stuff works just fine.


Design your own decals, what a diaper full of nonsense that statement is. I try to spend the time educating you a little about what really works and get nonsense like that in reply.

Tell me how you can get 5 K/Pa resolution in stock form with your set-up. Please. Failing that 10 K/Pa. In case you don't know, you get that, to get the overrun fuel trim correct. Not to mention good drivibility manners.

If you want to open a dialog, then do that, just blowing off and making false to flat inappropriate statements ain't the way to do it.

So you want to post your code so that I can study it and see where your's is any batter?. Or are we supposed to just blindly go with your TRUST ME?.

How about showing some logic for that WB deal?.

PLEASE feel free to support your claims with actual documentation!. If you are going to stick with your claim of a better fuel calculation, post the code that you say does that.

GOING DOWN THE TRACK, past say the 330 ft, if the injector Duty Cycle is 90%, and the timing is 24d, it don't matter what system is generating the numbers.

At less then the 330 ft mark then real tuning raises it's ugly head.
LOL

Have you read up on the ME's?.
It seems from your response your don't even have an understanding about how it works.

And I happen to enjoy this, and find it educational so for me it's NOT A WASTE OF TIME. I tend to value education, and encourage others to learn how things work. Belittling something educational is just childish, IMO.

Oh and I again ask do you have any commercial interest in any of this?.

 

[aDFIguy]

Bruce,

From dictionary.com:

sar·casm __
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.

Oh my! Lighten up. You need to take yourself way less seriously.

Honestly. You're a hobbyist. And from the looks of your efforts, a pretty knowledgable one. I commend your quest for continuing education. However, if your code was so good, you wouldn't be doing it in your spare time. Really, you should give up the tuning hobby for golf or something a little more relaxing. Sounds like you could use it.

I'll not post any proprietary information here for obvious reasons.

Show me some speed/ET records that reside in the hands of owners of hacked oem PCMs (other than for the "hacked oem pcm" class, if there is such a thing). I can show you plenty that reside in the hands of cars using aftermarket controllers. All as a result of better performance achieved by aftermarket code.

Here's a good one, from your vaunted GM developers of code:
(from here)

GM Racing bolted a factory-stock Ecotec to an engine dyno and wired up a DFI/Accel programmable engine management system to control it via a data link connected to a laptop computer with Windows-based graphical user interface.

Here are the records. Note PRO FWD speed and both for Hot Rod.
I count 3 records held by DFI cars, with the others being held by cars running Fast, motec...etc. Gee I don't see any cars running the stock PCM. Guess it's own designers didn't feel a junkyard piece was up to the task.

Details of source code don't matter. Tangible results do. No need to "trust me" when the facts speak so loudly.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by aDFIguy

Oh my! Lighten up. You need to take yourself way less seriously.
Honestly. You're a hobbyist. And from the looks of your efforts, a pretty knowledgable one. I commend your quest for continuing education. However, if your code was so good, you wouldn't be doing it in your spare time. Really, you should give up the tuning hobby for golf or something a little more relaxing. Sounds like you could use it.
I'll not post any proprietary information here for obvious reasons.
Show me some speed/ET records that reside in the hands of owners of hacked oem PCMs (other than for the "hacked oem pcm" class, if there is such a thing). I can show you plenty that reside in the hands of cars using aftermarket controllers. All as a result of better performance achieved by aftermarket code.
Here's a good one, from your vaunted GM developers of code:
(from here)

Here are the records. Note PRO FWD speed and both for Hot Rod.
I count 3 records held by DFI cars, with the others being held by cars running Fast, motec...etc. Gee I don't see any cars running the stock PCM. Guess it's own designers didn't feel a junkyard piece was up to the task.

Details of source code don't matter. Tangible results do. No need to "trust me" when the facts speak so loudly.

More trust me nonsense. Thanks for dodging things so well. I notice you still haven't addressed any questions I've asked other then to just give some phoney answers. If you say your stuff is better open it up for public review. Repeating trust me, may cut it on some threads, but you've made claims, and it's time to back them up. Results can be skewed. Who's to say these alledged record setters are truely legal?. Lots of clever things can be done, and golly sometimes it gets past inspectors.

If your stuff is so good why do you have to do new and improved, when the improvements were available the first time around?.
Sounds like planned obsolesence to me. And again aimed at just seperating customers from there cash.

Are you going to start answering with facts or just continue with slurs?. So much for fast with class.

3 records with all the units you've sold, wow, I'm totally impressed. Guess maybe you need to work more on more new and improved.

Oh, and try looking at the Delco ECMs used at Indy. They won often. At the Indy speed museum they have one on display, interesting, devise. Looks very similiar to what the oems look like. Hmmm

Can explain away that at 4K RPM to 6K RPM going down the track the difference between your 90% DC, and the 148's 90% DC?. Please explain that if you will.

And if your unit is sooooo supperior why does it use GM sensors?. Please an answer on that also.

Odd you'd be the first to toss out the hac comment and stapled statements, it'd be interesting to disect one of your's. Now, you make me wonder what your hiding by your first strikes.

I used to at least have a tolerance for the aftermarkets, but since you've taken me to task for trying to intially trying to enlighten folks, that's disappered.

Now please, if you reply try sticking to the original issues without the smoke and mirror stuff.

 

[HighPSI]

Well.... Now I'm going to jump in and probably regret it

If you are talking about racing only. I have yet to install a FAST or Gen7 on a car and have it go slower in the 1/4 vs the stock ecm. Is it the aftermarket box that makes it go quicker? No, it's the ability of the tuner to get the most out of it.
IMO: The problem is that most people don't have the ability or want to invest the time to get the most out of the stock ecm.

Once again IMO, the farther from stock the engine is, the harder it is to maximize with a stock ecm.

 

[aDFIguy]

IMO: The problem is that most people don't have the ability or want to invest the time to get the most out of the stock ecm.
Once again IMO, the farther from stock the engine is, the harder it is to maximize with a stock ecm.

I guess that's not a foreign concept to everyone but me. I was getting worried there for a while.

Records = cheating?
Product revisions and updates = a bad thing?
Using GM sensors = a bad thing?
Planned obselecence = wtf?

Are you kidding me? If you really believe that, you're beginning to exceed the limits of your credibility.

Do you honestly think there is anything to be gained by posting source code here? Just because you changed 6 lines in the OEM code do you now think that it's your own creation?

Who said only 3 records? Those are just the ones I listed. It's 3 more than can be attributed to your design skills. Proving anything further to you is not worth the time it would take to gather up any more references.

From 4K to 6K RPM...
the injector duty cycle wouldn't be constant if the engine speed is accelerating. Maybe the internal target a:f ratio would be adjusted as a function of engine load, airflow, and Manifold Surface temperature to correct the actual a:f ratio closer to the target. With or without a WB O2 sensor installed. Given various known parameters and a good mathematical model, it's very easy to predict the behavior of unmeasured parameters.

Ask some reasonable questions and you may get some answers. Keep asking childish questions and making outlandish accusations and you will continue to be ignored.

I haven't seen any mirrors around here, but there must be smoke in the air in Mizzou. Try not to inhale so deeply next time. It's affecting your perspective on things -- and your credibility.

 

[ijames]

Oh, never mind, guys. I'll ask again later.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by aDFIguy
Keep asking childish questions and making outlandish accusations and you will continue to be ignored.

LOL,
Your really a piece of work.

All you've posted is nonsense, not one answer to anything posed to you.

Talk about credibility, LOL

While I thought you had something on the ball, you've shown how little you really want to contribute.

What a concept, lurk, and in your way advertise, and stay with advertising hype.

You started this thread, so feel free to actually contribute to it.
That is, if you can.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by HighPSI
Well.... Now I'm going to jump in and probably regret it

If you are talking about racing only. I have yet to install a FAST or Gen7 on a car and have it go slower in the 1/4 vs the stock ecm. Is it the aftermarket box that makes it go quicker? No, it's the ability of the tuner to get the most out of it.
IMO: The problem is that most people don't have the ability or want to invest the time to get the most out of the stock ecm.

Once again IMO, the farther from stock the engine is, the harder it is to maximize with a stock ecm.

Would you guarantee the every car that gets a XX aftermarket ecm will be faster?.

Would you say that every car is a piece of cake to tune with the aftermarkets?.

Would you say that given X engine combination that you can match the drivibility with XX ecm, as well as what CAN be done with an oem one?.

Given the same PWs (or DCs) at every rpm level, and timing at those same steps can you see where an aftermarket ecm would be any faster?.

Seriously, if there is some magic in the aftermarkets, I'd really like to know about it, is all.

 

[HighPSI]

Originally posted by bruce
Would you guarantee the every car that gets a XX aftermarket ecm will be faster?.

I wouldn't guarantee it. But on several occaisions, I have told the customer "if the car doesn't run like you expect I will remove the system".

Originally posted by bruce
Would you say that every car is a piece of cake to tune with the aftermarkets?.

I will say it is easier for most people to tune than the stock ecm.

Originally posted by bruce
Would you say that given X engine combination that you can match the drivibility with XX ecm, as well as what CAN be done with an oem one?.

Not always, depends on the combination and how well tuned it was with the stock ecm.

Originally posted by bruce
Given the same PWs (or DCs) at every rpm level, and timing at those same steps can you see where an aftermarket ecm would be any faster?.

As I posted above: "Is it the aftermarket box that makes it go quicker? No, it's the ability of the tuner to get the most out of it".

Originally posted by bruce
Seriously, if there is some magic in the aftermarkets, I'd really like to know about it, is all.

I suppose you could call it "magic" that, so far, I have always gone faster with the FAST over a stock ecm. More than likely, it's my limited abilty with the stock ecm and not wanting to invest all the hours it would take me to get the same results. Obviously, you would be able to match my FAST results much quicker.

 

[1320]

Hey Cal, Jon in vegas here, I did the vegas race, I also held the light when you were playing with the opel. Anyways, I posted a question regarding the stock ecm...its about 5 or so beneath this topic, posted by 1320 (thats me) do you have any of those answers?

BTW, I m totally in agreement with cal on this one. I would have a fast or gen7 , but I have about 15 cars, and could not possibly afford it since I d have to buy 7 dfi's.....so I m stuck with what I can do with the oem stuff....

If I had a dfi and could possibly get to Hartline Performance I would do anything to have Cal tune it too...

From what I saw at the wcn event he is by far the most talented tuner I ve ever seen with a dfi, and I ve been around a lot of hotrods for awhile .

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by HighPSI
I wouldn't guarantee it. But on several occaisions, I have told the customer "if the car doesn't run like you expect I will remove the system".

I will say it is easier for most people to tune than the stock ecm.

Not always, depends on the combination and how well tuned it was with the stock ecm.

As I posted above: "Is it the aftermarket box that makes it go quicker? No, it's the ability of the tuner to get the most out of it".

I suppose you could call it "magic" that, so far, I have always gone faster with the FAST over a stock ecm. More than likely, it's my limited abilty with the stock ecm and not wanting to invest all the hours it would take me to get the same results. Obviously, you would be able to match my FAST results much quicker.

A) cause you happen to be a stand up guy, who's word counts to himself. That's about Cal, which is a good thing in my book.

B) at one time I would have agreed with you. But, with R_T tuning and software like Tunercat, it's blurring as to what you NEED to know. Go with a T+ or ME and then things get as easy as an aftermarket to tune.

C+D+E) Those were some of my points all along.

Trouble with the GNs and just doing chips, is so many were miserable, and when you try to use enough injector that just wasn't static, they were miserable. So folks ASSUMED the it took a FAST to get it right, when the normal methods failed.
But, with the resent advances in the ME, and T+, they've gotten things to work where the normal chips have failed in the pass. Not to mention that the data that's been available for study in data logs has been a real eye opener.
Hense, my guestion about is there some magic in all this that I've missed.

 

[Night Train]

Bruce, I don't think I've noticed it in these threads on tuning, but have you tried to tune a car with a F.A.S.T or similar aftermarket system? Better yet, tried to get a car that 'isn't running to potential' on the stock ECM with either system? All I know is that when my new motor wasn't running well with a new 8 pos chip, it's replacement with a F.A.S.T. made the car run so much smoother and faster with NO problems in less than 10 minutes of tuning during a few quick blasts on the street. BTW, if you take the cost of the DFI and subtract what you can sell that you no longer need, it cuts the cost almost in half. Just an observation.

 

[quickt]

Originally posted by bruce
Trouble with the GNs and just doing chips, is so many were miserable, and when you try to use enough injector that just wasn't static, they were miserable. So folks ASSUMED the it took a FAST to get it right, when the normal methods failed.
But, with the resent advances in the ME, and T+, they've gotten things to work where the normal chips have failed in the pass. Not to mention that the data that's been available for study in data logs has been a real eye opener.
Hense, my guestion about is there some magic in all this that I've missed.

Bruce I was so damn tired of dicking around with Chip tuners years ago I bought my first Gen6 Batchfire and never looked back. I did not need to kiss anyones a#! or make any phone calls. I just installed it learned how to tune it and the car picked up .7. Today its the same thing. Guys bring thier car in trying to use translators thumb wheels Mafs smoke and mirrors and all kinds of other crap. Some cars run well and others just dont. If the customer cant afford new I find an old Batchfire DFI for around $300 (how much $$ are ME or T+) install it and problems are over. If the owner wants to take the time I show them how to tune thier own car. The bottom line is they choose not to dick with the ECM stuff ever again. I agree with Cal. I have never seen a car not pick up after going to one of the aftermarket ECU's.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by quickt
Bruce I was so damn tired of dicking around with Chip tuners years ago I bought my first Gen6 Batchfire and never looked back. I did not need to kiss anyones a#! or make any phone calls. I just installed it learned how to tune it and the car picked up .7. Today its the same thing. Guys bring thier car in trying to use translators thumb wheels Mafs smoke and mirrors and all kinds of other crap. Some cars run well and others just dont. If the customer cant afford new I find an old Batchfire DFI for around $300 (how much $$ are ME or T+) install it and problems are over. If the owner wants to take the time I show them how to tune thier own car. The bottom line is they choose not to dick with the ECM stuff ever again. I agree with Cal. I have never seen a car not pick up after going to one of the aftermarket ECU's.

That was years ago.
Things have changed ALOT since then.

Real time, MAFless, all can be done with the oem ecm. You can get bargains on used MEs and Translators too.

Of course going aftermarket and well tuned, will beat using a generic off the self chip, that goes without saying.