OFT v2.076|Wayne Rom v130|OFT v4.01 Dynos

[tomm.brz]

i wasnt saying that it s a good thing to have, i was just talking about this thread, and saying that the correct way to compare v2 and v4 is with putting IAM on v4 at 1
anyway for smaller knock under -0.7, i think is even better to let the Ecu manage that



Also, they warned people that v4 is more aggressive than v2, therefore needs a better fuel to have the best performance with it


Also, nobody is buying or paying a canned tune, OFT maps are free. If you pay them, they will make you a suited rom for your car which will not knock with the fuel you use


Also, are you aware that the stock map start at 0.7 IAM at every start, and knock like crazy very easily?


the fact they put 0.7 IAM as standard on the new v4 roms, is just a comodity for the users, they can use whatever fuel they want and never worry.
Before, if one had stage2 93oct for example, he was forced to use always 93oct fuel, or flash another rom to use a lower octane fuel

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Yes of course, it is done by the OEM tunes too. Who said they are not cheating? They certify an engine thats had plenty of time on the test bed to be fully run in, on the thinnest hottest oil they dare, with the coolant as cold as they dare and the best available fuel, with the oil level as low as they dare. So, they promise an engine output that most customers will never get. At least not without the best fuel quality on earth and all these special conditions.

Anyway, my point was that you cannot constantly revise a tune after so many years. It doesn't make any sense if your car is essentially the same (no new hardware) and even promise new gains. So, I am waiting for the new features ...

First of all, the standard that Subaru uses for testing power output is not the topic of debate. If you want to be taken seriously, you should avoid bringing in off topic information without explicitly stating why it's relevant.

The topic was whether using an IAM of .7 is unethical on the part of the tuner, and gives false impressions as to what actual users will experience. As far as I can tell, you believe it is unethical because it provides an uneven playing field where it's up to the consumer to provide the tune the best gas to get the most out of it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I disagree because, as I have explained, there is a perfectly valid technical reason for it. Because the technical and logistic arguments are valid, I believe Openflash made the .7 decision in good faith to provide the consumer with the best possible product.

Note that the IAM on the dyno runs the OP posted was still set to .7 and is relatively, if marginally, better than the earlier version. A well running engine with good gas will improve on that even further after a short period of time.



As to your last paragraph, tuning an engine for maximum output is quite tricky and there are many strategies one can use to improve that output. In fact, what strategy is best in one section of the rev range might not be optimal in another. And the changeover point is not well defined. I can go on, but you get the idea.

The point is, these aren't billionaires with supercomputers and a team of engineers to model the engine and airflow through it. Hell, Subaru has all that, but software changes can make quite a bit more power with no hardware changes. It's all in the trade-offs the tuner is willing to make.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

No, this is not right and it should be fixed by the tuner. The customer should do a logging and if knock is detected, it should be fixed without any extra cost. Buying a canned tune doesn't mean that we should have bs in our cars. Otherwise, the tuner should have left a bigger safety interval in order the tune to work correctly even with the non-best fuel quality.

I have a canned tune too and my tuner was willing to check for free the logs, because I had some non-standard hardware. He wasn't obliged to this, but with such attitude you'll get the good reputation and respect from your customers or not.

How much did that tune cost you? And then hardware and license costs?

Openflash has a fundamentally different business model than the tuner you bought your tune from. As such, there will be differences in cost, service, etc.

From a business perspective, it's usually more profitable to make your profit on software. Reproduction costs damn near nothing, and you need less infrastructure to support it, particularly if it's limited to running on one type of hardware. This is why the Openflash model is unusual.

We get it, you don't like the business model they operate on.

[steve99]

IAM is a little tricky


IAM initial set to 0.7 in tune/rom


If you set IAM initial to 0.7 then at each start-up the ECU will use IAM initial as 0.7, Unless the IAM had fallen Below the IAM initial value set in tune.


If IAM initial set to 0.7 in Tune and during last drive your IAM increased to above IAM initial value for example it climbed to 1. then On next start-up IAM will revert to IAM initial as set in tune 0.7


however if IAM on last drive had fallen below IAM initial , to say 0.5 then the ECU will remember this and use 0.5 as the start IAM not 0.7




IAM initial set to 1 in tune/rom


In this case IAM cannot rise any more it can only fall if sufficient knock detected


If you set IAM initial to 1 then at each start-up the ECU will use IAM initial as 1, Unless the IAM had fallen Below the IAM initial value set in tune during the last drive.


however if IAM on last drive had fallen below IAM initial , to say 0.5 then the ECU will remember this and use 0.5 as the start IAM not 1.






the IAM will only rise if the ECU sees little or no knock in the rpm/load ranges it has previously detected knock in see video below








You can reset IAM to initial value by resetting or reflashing ECU.


Or if you have good enough fuel to avoid knock at light loads, if you do two or three light steady throttle runs in second gear from 2000-6000 it usually resets IAM to 1 assuming little or no knock at light loads


IAM and DAM are essentially the same


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7oa-EFUIfE"]DAM and Fine Knock Learn explanation Subaru, Cobb, Ecutek, ECU - YouTube[/ame]

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Spuds

First of all, the standard that Subaru uses for testing power output is not the topic of debate. If you want to be taken seriously, you should avoid bringing in off topic information without explicitly stating why it's relevant.

The topic was whether using an IAM of .7 is unethical on the part of the tuner, and gives false impressions as to what actual users will experience. As far as I can tell, you believe it is unethical because it provides an uneven playing field where it's up to the consumer to provide the tune the best gas to get the most out of it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I disagree because, as I have explained, there is a perfectly valid technical reason for it. Because the technical and logistic arguments are valid, I believe Openflash made the .7 decision in good faith to provide the consumer with the best possible product.

Note that the IAM on the dyno runs the OP posted was still set to .7 and is relatively, if marginally, better than the earlier version. A well running engine with good gas will improve on that even further after a short period of time.

As to your last paragraph, tuning an engine for maximum output is quite tricky and there are many strategies one can use to improve that output. In fact, what strategy is best in one section of the rev range might not be optimal in another. And the changeover point is not well defined. I can go on, but you get the idea.

The point is, these aren't billionaires with supercomputers and a team of engineers to model the engine and airflow through it. Hell, Subaru has all that, but software changes can make quite a bit more power with no hardware changes. It's all in the trade-offs the tuner is willing to make.

Originally Posted by Spuds

How much did that tune cost you? And then hardware and license costs?

Openflash has a fundamentally different business model than the tuner you bought your tune from. As such, there will be differences in cost, service, etc.

From a business perspective, it's usually more profitable to make your profit on software. Reproduction costs damn near nothing, and you need less infrastructure to support it, particularly if it's limited to running on one type of hardware. This is why the Openflash model is unusual.

We get it, you don't like the business model they operate on.

I don't want to start a debate and you wrote too many things. From my point, I tried the OFT a long time ago and then I tried something else. I believe that I can have a fairly objective opinion about the device and the included tunes. You mentioned about billionaires with supercomputers and a team of engineers to model the engine. These are all irrelevant. A single professional with the right tools and some persistence can do a very good work. Shiv is also very known to the Subaru community decades ago and if you do a search in Nasioc you can find what they think about him. On the other hand, I can understand that this platform is considered in some countries as low cost (it is not like this everywhere), so people are looking for the cheapest available options. Just try to understand that you get what you pay. Of course, it is your own car and if you are happy with the result it is fine with me.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by tomm.brz

Also, are you aware that the stock map start at 0.7 IAM at every start, and knock like crazy very easily?

Of course I am aware. Who said that the factory tune is perfect? I mentioned some common practice above. No one is perfect and especially a factory that has to meet emissions, regulations rules per different countries and on the other side a marketing dept. that might dictate to achieve the magic 200 number. Of course, if you mention such things then people will start saying that you should not be taken seriously.

[tomm.brz]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

I don't want to start a debate and you wrote too many things. From my point, I tried the OFT a long time ago and then I tried something else. I believe that I can have a fairly objective opinion about the device and the included tunes. You mentioned about billionaires with supercomputers and a team of engineers to model the engine. These are all irrelevant. A single professional with the right tools and some persistence can do a very good work. Shiv is also very known to the Subaru community decades ago and if you do a search in Nasioc you can find what they think about him. On the other hand, I can understand that this platform is considered in some countries as low cost (it is not like this everywhere), so people are looking for the cheapest available options. Just try to understand that you get what you pay. Of course, it is your own car and if you are happy with the result it is fine with me.

well OFT is definitely a lot cheaper than Ecutek, and even if Ecutek is more powerfull than the oft, they are really not different from each other. You can reach the same identical results with both tune system


i dont understand though why you keep talking about costs like to say that OFT is cheaper, then it must be worse
Also, again, the tunes from shiv are FREE. for everybody, you and me with ecutek can use his free tunes any time


Ecutek kit + license is a lot more expensive like I was saying before, and you still are only able to do 1 single map, so if you could only run 1 map and you want to use different fuels, you should do like the v4 tunes and put IAM at 0.7
If you want more maps, you must pay another additional license to ecutek.. or buy a tune from a tuner


but if you pay for a tuner using ecutek, you can also pay a tuner using openflash tablet, and there is no differences in performance other than Ecutek having 4 maps (and you avoid IAM at 0.7) and his fancy "special features"

[tomm.brz]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Of course I am aware. Who said that the factory tune is perfect? I mentioned some common practice above. No one is perfect and especially a factory that has to meet emissions, regulations rules per different countries and on the other side a marketing dept. that might dictate to achieve the magic 200 number. Of course, if you mention such things then people will start saying that you should not be taken seriously.

The tune is not perfect of course, but the IAM at 0.7 is NOT a cheat like you said
If you are stuck with a single map, how could you run different octane fuels?
i mean you can, but you can t then have the best performance for every fuel you put in, in relatively short time also since the ecu is constantly trying to rise Advance multiplier

i do not understand, would you prefer the method of v2 tunes, having different roms for different fuels? the lower IAM is a superb comodity to people who have no Ecutek, and is no cheat at all

[H1C]

Originally Posted by tomm.brz

I'm no "one of the experts" but the IAM at 1 simply adds 100% of the values in the Knock Correction A table (Ignition Advance in Ecutek) to the Ignition base map B
at 0.7, like the stock on the OFT v4 then adds only 70%

Of course for a dyno pull you should force it to 1 like on the v2 and wayne roms to compare them, since the latter two run at maximul potential power since the first starting after the flash, the v4 is not maxed out if you leave IAM 0.7

Originally Posted by steve99

If IAM initial set to 0.7 in Tune and during last drive your IAM increased to above IAM initial value for example it climbed to 1. then On next start-up IAM will revert to IAM initial as set in tune 0.7

however if IAM on last drive had fallen below IAM initial , to say 0.5 then the ECU will remember this and use 0.5 as the start IAM not 0.7

IAM initial set to 1 in tune/rom

In this case IAM cannot rise any more it can only fall if sufficient knock detected

If you set IAM initial to 1 then at each start-up the ECU will use IAM initial as 1, Unless the IAM had fallen Below the IAM initial value set in tune during the last drive.

however if IAM on last drive had fallen below IAM initial , to say 0.5 then the ECU will remember this and use 0.5 as the start IAM not 1.

the IAM will only rise if the ECU sees little or no knock in the rpm/load ranges it has previously detected knock in see video below

You can reset IAM to initial value by resetting or reflashing ECU.

Or if you have good enough fuel to avoid knock at light loads, if you do two or three light steady throttle runs in second gear from 2000-6000 it usually resets IAM to 1 assuming little or no knock at light loads

Thank you both for the explanation of initial IAM.

Can anyone make an educated guess as to how much v4.01's dyno pulls would have improved by setting its initial IAM to 1? Would it have made 200 hp? 190? 187? Would it have made more hp and tq than the other two tunes everywhere in the rev range? Or only in certain areas?

I don't have log files for the dyno runs. But the car felt like it was running fine on all of the tunes once it got the dyno rollers moving and revs were above 2000 or so. v4.01 was the trickiest to get started on the dyno because of its dead spot at the top of throttle pedal travel. Its idle was also less stable than those of the other two tunes.

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by H1C

Can anyone make an educated guess as to how much v4.01's dyno pulls would have improved by setting its initial IAM to 1? Would it have made 200 hp? 190? 187? Would it have made more hp and tq than the other two tunes everywhere in the rev range? Or only in certain areas?

If you did more than one ramp run per flash then the IAM will more than likely hit 1, but if not you're really only looking at a 5hp peak increase max and that as a percentage over the range, generically speaking.

[tomm.brz]

at 6800rpm full load the ignition timing advance with Advance Multiplier at 1 would be 1.37 more, not much.. but not irrelevant
30% more (from 0.7 to 1 of AM) is around 1 to 2 degrees more depending on the load and the rpm


but it's also about the same difference from identical tunes but one for 91oct and one for 93oct... about 2 degrees of ign timing
so if in the log on the OP's first post AM was 0.7 also during the pull, it's almost like he run a 91oct map

[H1C]

Originally Posted by Kodename47

If you did more than one ramp run per flash then the IAM will more than likely hit 1, but if not you're really only looking at a 5hp peak increase max and that as a percentage over the range, generically speaking.

I did 3 pulls per tune (4 for Wayne v130 but only because the fan was left off by mistake for one of them). The pattern was to do two pulls nearly back to back, then let the car rest for a few minutes and do a final pull. Each tune had very little variation across each of its pulls with regard to results achieved.

[tomm.brz]

Originally Posted by H1C

I did 3 pulls per tune (4 for Wayne v130 but only because the fan was left off by mistake for one of them). The pattern was to do two pulls nearly back to back, then let the car rest for a few minutes and do a final pull. Each tune had very little variation across each of its pulls with regard to results achieved.

ok then as Kodename said, advance multiplier likely was 1... but without a log hard to say I guess

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by tomm.brz

well OFT is definitely a lot cheaper than Ecutek, and even if Ecutek is more powerfull than the oft, they are really not different from each other. You can reach the same identical results with both tune system

...
but if you pay for a tuner using ecutek, you can also pay a tuner using openflash tablet, and there is no differences in performance other than Ecutek having 4 maps (and you avoid IAM at 0.7) and his fancy "special features"

Even if you throw out of the window the tunes of Shiv, the OFT device does not support a 100% all the available ROMs. I could not log even the IAM parameter in my ROM (=zero). I could calculate it with some other parameters, but lets be real over here. This is not professional support. Additionally, not many tuners outside the open source community will accept to make a tune with a device which is open. Do you have any idea about intellectual property? I don't have anything else to say and you cannot convince me the other way around.