Damn sorry i missed the argument, but i'll throw a couple points out anyway:
in response to @
shiv stating that sd works for BMW and Merc because they can run full-time closed loop fuel control: you can run full-time closed loop fuel control with ecutek racerom. i do this for tuning purposes sometimes (then turn it off after, though you don't have to), made a screencast on it showing others how to do it, and it works just fine. the only downside is there is no long term trimming mechanism, but it works and will keep you on fueling targets reasonably well.
in response to @
DeliciousTuning stating that racerom extends the usable range of the stock injectors, i would ask for an explanation as to how that is possible. i've used racerom and custom maps more extensively than most 'master tuners', and haven't seen anything that would allow that. if it's a map definition that would enable it, that's kind of a moot point being that with romraider, you can define any map you want and use it (not the case with ecutek). the only thing i could imagine that you are referring to is port/di ratio or di fuel pressure targets, both of which are defined in all three of the software packages i've tuned 86s with iirc. i'm very curious to know what you mean by that statement.
as for the whole sd vs. maf debate, i find it comical that the someone arguing that a large maf housing is a solution to maf reading limits would simultaneously argue that speed density has bad low speed drivability. large maf housings introduce problems with low speed drivability as intake velocity drops, and i'm sure you're aware of this. the only way to have your cake and eat it too is a hybrid setup, which can only be done with racerom.
speed density is just like a maf in that if you want good drivability you just have to take the damn time to achieve it. unfortunately, even with maf systems in my experience it seems that very, very few tuners actually do this (and none that etune that i'm aware of, unless there is some way to do it properly without process separation which is logically impossible given two separate, interoperating fuel systems). so as always, it's more about who you go with than any other detail of the implementation.
i agree with @
nelsmar that it really seems as though @
shiv has what we call 'not invented here syndrome' in the software world. of course i still have mad respect, it just is what it is and that's how it comes off.
if there's anywhere on this forum that we should be focused on sharing information and advancing the state of the system rather than selling things, it's here in the software tuning sub, and that's not just directed at shiv. i understand that this is a marketing opportunity for you all but it's where we come to learn, and these irrational arguments don't help anyone learn anything. it only serves to muddy the waters and discourage people from participating.