OFT Openflash V4 tunes released for 2017+ with Launch/FFS

[Lincoln Logs]

Originally Posted by solidONE

Too bad the cam angles were not logged. Aside from the nice lump of torque from 4000-5000 its looks nearly identical everywhere else. With the cat removed and assumedly larger runner diameters, I would have expected more power everywhere. Then again... they were using the exact same tune. I would think that the optimal cam timing for each of these 2 headers should look a bit different as well. UEL vs Catted EL.

I'll make sure to log cam angles next time. The gains everywhere else were much smaller and definitely a little less than I expected. By the numbers it went up about 4whp everywhere else in the curve.

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Interested on such comparison and if possible some logs.

Will do, this will probably happen next month.

[smg1138]

I still don t get how there may be only one map for both EL/UEL... it sounds like a compromise

Yeah, I don't get that either. Previously the EL and UEL tunes were separate.

[timmydatooth]

will these new V4 tunes benefit my 2013 Scion FRS AT? or are these new tunes only for the 2017+ models? I have the (v2.076) stage 2 tune installed now.

[BFIFE22]

I’m having issues with my OFT at the moment. When trying to upload data, after a while my OFT will disconnect then reconnect again with the “identifying device” message popping up again before it has even loaded the tunes on openflash manager

EDIT: Tried it on my old labtop I used to use, and OF manager seems to run much faster on it for some reason compared to on my new labtop. Was able to upload the tune and can finally test it

[stlgrym3]

Has the fix in yet for 2017 auto with push button?

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by steve99

their are some cam timing and fueling adjustments as well between v2 and v4

the v4 is best on 93/94

if you want a dedicated 91 tune then log the v4 on 91 and pull some timing in problem load/rpm areas (where flkc exceeds -1 enough to keep iam at 1.

then you can set iam initial to 1 in your 93 tune and your 91 tune
if you want to go to that trouble

Is there any downside to leaving the iam base at .7 really? It seems like it is already compensating safely and then if I run better fuel I can get more power without reflashing to a different map. Sounds perfect for when I add 100oct at the track to get into that 93-94oct range.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by finch1750

Is there any downside to leaving the iam base at .7 really? It seems like it is already compensating safely and then if I run better fuel I can get more power without reflashing to a different map. Sounds perfect for when I add 100oct at the track to get into that 93-94oct range.

only downside is time taken after each startup for iam to get to 1 and max timing/power available when running good fuel.


on low quality fuel your always getting a little knock that keep iam lower than 1


but Subaru seem happy with that as that's how stock cars are tuned with iam initial at 0.7 and get a little knock on 91




IAM lower than 1 does alter fueling as well see the Cloased loop fueling additive table, it will richen fueling slightly as iam falls below 1, so you may notice slightly worse fuel economy with low iam, again this is how stock tunes work

[Jasonb]

Originally Posted by finch1750

Is there any downside to leaving the iam base at .7 really? It seems like it is already compensating safely and then if I run better fuel I can get more power without reflashing to a different map. Sounds perfect for when I add 100oct at the track to get into that 93-94oct range.

I always have 93 available so I set my advance multiplier on startup to .9 instead of the default .7. I could have it start at 1, but I'd figured it's just slightly safer to have it start at .9 and have it work it's way up to 1. So far every drive whether it be 5 minutes or 30 minutes or more its gotten to 1 every time. Only have about 100 miles on this tune so far though. The stage 2+ with a catless JDL UEL pulls nice and strong though. I like it.

[bababooey]

Originally Posted by elBarto

There are some bugs with the added V4 defs.
I opened the B01C rom with included def and this was the result:


On top the original V4 tune with def, on the bottom is how it should be

Since they are based upon Euro CalId's it was a easy fix (for me), but others aren't that involved with editing tunes.
As Steve99 said, be carefull when editing, when you see weird stuff like in the red part, do not touch it!

Also, I made a quick (not WOT due to traffic and roadworks, max 5000rpm) log on my Belgium GT86 (98ron).

Datazap elBarto

opening the unmodified file from the v2 series shows the same values. ive been running this for 2 years now with no noticed affects. can anyone else chime in if these new v4-B01C files are a-okay to use. im like guybo, impatient with new toys.

[ermax]

Originally Posted by bababooey

opening the unmodified file from the v2 series shows the same values. ive been running this for 2 years now with no noticed affects. can anyone else chime in if these new v4-B01C files are a-okay to use. im like guybo, impatient with new toys.

Seems like those values would have no impact as you're never going to run 25,984RPM much less 25984...RPM. Hahaha

[steve99]

Originally Posted by bababooey

opening the unmodified file from the v2 series shows the same values. ive been running this for 2 years now with no noticed affects. can anyone else chime in if these new v4-B01C files are a-okay to use. im like guybo, impatient with new toys.

Originally Posted by ermax

Seems like those values would have no impact as you're never going to run 25,984RPM much less 25984...RPM. Hahaha

Ok it important to understand whats going on


1. the tunes/rom is fine
2. the V4 manual tunes 2012-2016 cars are all actually A01G roms
3. the problem is in the definition it got an error
4. don't alter that table with the supplied definition as bad stuff may happen including bricked ecu. as the def is not accessing the correct area in the rom for that table.




If someone needs to access that table I can post up a correct def

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ermax

Seems like those values would have no impact as you're never going to run 25,984RPM much less 25984...RPM. Hahaha

Well you may do it once. Very briefly!

[H1C]

I tried v4 stage 2+ for two days and went back to v2.076 EL 93 stage 2. The main reason is v4 seemed to make my car too quiet. The exhaust note became very smooth, muted and even nasally sounding. I have catless Tomei EL headers, HFC Motiv FP, Ark Design N1-style dual canister exhaust.

Whereas with v2.076 it's rorty, crackling and sometimes too loud, with pops on the overrun. Also the throttle response is noticeably more immediate on v2.076 even just switching back, without the ECU having time to learn.

Maybe I didn't give v4 enough time. If I hear a bunch of you guys saying how much stronger v4 is, I'll give it another try.

[bababooey]

Originally Posted by steve99

Ok it important to understand whats going on

4. don't alter that table with the supplied definition as bad stuff may happen including bricked ecu. as the def is not accessing the correct area in the rom for that table.

Thank You Sir, from my previous tune adjustments, I dont believe i ever made changes to those cells so I wont be missing anything not modifying them.