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

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by tomm.brz

The tune is not perfect of course, but the IAM at 0.7 is NOT a cheat like you said

I said a combination of IAM equal to 0.7 and of an aggressive mapping that works well only with the best quality fuel. If this is not the case with v4, then it is fine.

[Pointmutation]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

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.

Shit, can we not have this thread turn into an ecutek vs oft thread please? I thought the purpose of this thread was a comparison of 3 different versions of OFT roms. 2 popular previous ones vs the current v4.

Have you used these roms? Can you help compare them more than the 0.7 vs 1.0 IAM issue that's been beaten to death already? If not and you just have a problem with OFT or v4, maybe throw it in the v4 thread instead of this one or make a new one.

[Pointmutation]

Originally Posted by Tor

The difference in exhaust note is probably because of the Exhaust AVCS. The 40 deg retard at low rpm gives it a raspy sound when getting on the throttle at low rpm, which is where most accelerations will begin when driven on the street:

I've been running Wayno's stg2 EL rom prior to the new OFT stg2 v4.01. Like others, I've noticed v4 sounds much more subdued. I like the sound of Wayno's rom in the lower RPMs and the butt dyno feel of the v4 rom >6k RPMs. But the v4 has too much drone for my setup up to 4k.

I'm gonna try changing the AVCS values in the v4 rom to match my previous Wayno rom, maybe up to 4k RPMs, and see how I like it and how it logs. If it's weird I'll just go back to the Wayno rom.

[H1C]

Originally Posted by Pointmutation

I've been running Wayno's stg2 EL rom prior to the new OFT stg2 v4.01. Like others, I've noticed v4 sounds much more subdued. I like the sound of Wayno's rom in the lower RPMs and the butt dyno feel of the v4 rom >6k RPMs. But the v4 has too much drone for my setup up to 4k.

I'm gonna try changing the AVCS values in the v4 rom to match my previous Wayno rom, maybe up to 4k RPMs, and see how I like it and how it logs. If it's weird I'll just go back to the Wayno rom.

Please give an update on how v4.01 runs and sounds with those changes.

I might revisit v4.01 if its exhaust tone can be improved, its rough edges ironed out, and if someone else produces a dyno that demonstrates that it's stronger than the other OFT tunes.

But for the forseeable future I'm very happy with Wayne v130 EL 93: it's smooth, idles rock steady, has no dead spot in the throttle pedal off of a fresh flash, sounds good and hangs right with v4.01 (if v4.01's IAM did indeed hit 1 during my dyno runs). It's clear Wayne spent a lot of time and effort polishing and perfecting the tune.

[tomm.brz]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

I said a combination of IAM equal to 0.7 and of an aggressive mapping that works well only with the best quality fuel. If this is not the case with v4, then it is fine.

If your "works well" means IAM = 1, you re still thinking wrong about what the IAM does and why Shiv put it at 0.7, not gonna spend any extra word about it because we already covered it in the past pages... but since you are basically saying you aren't reading nor responding to replies with "too many things said", I guess you skipped on that
v4 IS an aggressive map, and its IAM at 0.7 is NOT a way to cheat


you can find PDFs explaining how the tunes work directly on your ProEcu software, "Help" section

[tomm.brz]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

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.

i m with you in saying Ecutek is better than OFT, I also have it, but purely for the commodities and easiness of use, a professional tuner would find the perfect definitions for your map and extrapolates the same exact performance from an OFT than with Ecutek on a NA car... if you think you could have problems doing that, your choice of buying Ecutek was good

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Pointmutation

Shit, can we not have this thread turn into an ecutek vs oft thread please? I thought the purpose of this thread was a comparison of 3 different versions of OFT roms. 2 popular previous ones vs the current v4.

Have you used these roms? Can you help compare them more than the 0.7 vs 1.0 IAM issue that's been beaten to death already? If not and you just have a problem with OFT or v4, maybe throw it in the v4 thread instead of this one or make a new one.

Yes I 've used v2 in the past. Wayno's tune is also based on v2 so not that much different. I didn't like it because it was focusing too much on the middle range and the car was feeling a bit breathless at high rpms. Here is how you can do it. You advance ignition timing a bit too much to compensate to the weak power in the mid range and then as you build peak cylinder pressure and engine would start detonate you retard timing a little bit and then as it loses power you advance timing a little bit again. This is when you are designing your power curves and the purpose is to shift a bit the power band.

Overall, shifting the power is about preference and you cannot really compare it with other tune methodologies where you can leave the middle area as is and focus on the higher rpms. It is like trying to compare McDonalds with Sushi and I never criticized this too much in the past. People will always like different things and for some the torque dip is the beast that they need to fight. So it is ok. But v4 looks to be something different with a more aggressive timing and trying to compromise 91 and 93 fuel in a single map. This means that the car will knock more than often, because the ECU will constantly try to raise the IAM and then see knocking events and retard again. For me this is NOT ok. Even the factory is not doing this. They are saying your car is target for this particular fuel, but it is ok to drive it with a lower octane fuel for a short period of time.

Here is a picture from the manual. It says may be used, it doesn't say can be used. And only if 93 fuel is not available:




You cannot really have a map that will work correct with both fuels and there was a reason that v2 had different maps per fuel.


Of course, if you want to compare v2 with v4 ONLY on power curves levels and nothing else then it is fine with me. I thought you were open to a more general discussion of v2 vs. v4.

[tomm.brz]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

But v4 looks to be something different with a more aggressive timing and trying to compromise 91 and 93 oct fuel in a single map. This means that the car will knock more than often, because the ECU will constantly try to raise the IAM and then see knocking events and retard again. For me this is NOT ok. Even the factory is not doing this. They are saying your car is target for this particular fuel, but it is ok to drive it with a lower octane fuel for a short period of time.

Here is a picture from the manual. It says may be used, it doesn't say can be used. And only if 93 oct is not available:




You cannot really have a map that will work correct with both fuels and there was a reason that v2 had different maps per fuel.

the stock tune is exactly doing that. Totally the same.

It starts at 0.7 of AM, and try constantly to raise it, untill knock events, and then stop the rising, or even lower AM if knock is really relevant


Stock tune knocks A LOT, I got even -3°CA with 100Ron fuel. and they write "with no detriment to engine durability". Are you even opening a stock tune and check his timing? they are super aggressive even for 93oct
still, "no detriment to engine"



you CAN have a single map for different fuel. Subaru makes it for our BRZ. V4 tunes make it with no problem, same exact procedure as stock factory tune


also, the knock the car will find, when it is at 0.7 and is tryng to make it higher and then is stopping because of that knock, is really no harmfull to the engine.. most of the time it doesnt even roll back timings, it just not raise IAM


also, im italian and shouldnt say that. but "may be" states a permission. We are permitted to use lower octane fuel without harm to the engine
Stop putting shit over those v4 tunes, please.
Dont use them and enjoy your canned ecutek tune (why you have a canned tune with ecutek anyway? you are the first one I ve even seen that doesnt run a dedicated tune with Ecutek)
Many people enjoy them and still.. they are free

[nikitopo]

Yes it is permitted a lower octane fuel in the asterisk :b

Btw., I live in Germany so we are not far away. We can have a beer if you ever come here.

[tomm.brz]

I lived in Koeln for a while, my work in Italy requires a good amount of Deutsch sprechen :-)
the asterisk doesnt mean a thing.. and you re wrong saying that it s only allowed for a short time. It s not written, you made it up from .. nothing?
You could run 200k km with 95Ron Fuel


Try to log a pull from 2000 to 5000 rpm stock tune with 95 (but actually also 98 and 100Ron) fuel.. and see the amount of knock around mid area.. Subaru thinks that those crazy amount of knock are not harmfull, since they are not fixing it
v4 tunes knocks A LOT less than stock tune, while being more aggressive in high rpm than stock tunes

[nikitopo]

You confuse knocking in mid area with knocking after 5000 rpm. Do you think they are the same? Fine. Do you think that you can run 200k km with 95Ron/93aki fuel? Fine.

I don't have to say anything else. It looks that you have a strange perception of how things work in reality.

[tomm.brz]

at least I logged my car very much with the stock tune... stock tune knocks a lot midrange and less on higher rpm, even with 95Ron
Can you argument your theories? why should be bad 95Ron other than reduced performance because of lower timings, and some more incrostations on the valves that you could fix with running some 100ron with cleaning properties or some cleaning additives?
yes i think those things. Glad you re fine with that

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by tomm.brz

at least I logged my car very much with the stock tune... stock tune knocks a lot midrange and less on higher rpm, even with 95Ron
Can you argument your theories? why should be bad 95Ron other than reduced performance because of lower timings, and some more incrostations on the valves that you could fix with running some 100ron with cleaning properties or some cleaning additives?
yes i think those things. Glad you re fine with that

What theories? What are you talking about? Do you know to read? Manual says clearly "If you cannot find 98RON/93AKI fuel, then a lower quality fuel may be used". How often you cannot find the higher octane fuel? For a period of 200k km? Give me a break!

[tomm.brz]

You are over evaluating certain zones of italy then, it s not unusual to not find any distributor of 100Ron/98Ron, I have JUST ONE in a ray of 75km and it s also far from where I live and also if you find, sometimes it s really old or dirty fuel which causes more knocks than 95Ron... it s not a news Germany is better than Italy in many things
I m able to read yes, i m talking about you saying about different knock from mid to up range.. with stock tune i get no knock on high rpm , and very large knocks on mid range between 2200 to 4200 rpm, what'd I say to you? i flashed mu ecu over 148 times, and the stock maps counts for at least 25 of them, and logged every time
And about using 95Ron all the time.. what do you think are the long term side effects of it? other than a less clean engine? Because the knocks are obviously not damaging the engine, since this is exactly why IAM and base ignition map and base cam timing map exist.