Borla UEL Header installed = CEL!

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by jordanrw260

I'll have to check locally in St . Louis and see if anyone could tune using ECUTek on a dyno.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

A dyno tune should definitely give you the best overall result. What I'm really saying here is that you should at least plan on having any base tune reviewed and revised by either a reputable tuner or yourself (if you feel confident enough). OFT is not necessarily a bad option but before taking the plunge I recommend figuring out who is going to review and revise the "free" base tune. I just asked Shiv and his answer was to email him for a case by case quote on e-tuning. I'd do that before making any final decision between OFT and Ecutek.

Originally Posted by Malt

My Bias is no more strong than yours. I don't like paying for something then not having access to it. What if I want to switch tuners or want to just add a simple change, do I have to go back to square one? Without buying the cable how do you do any data logging to ensure that the tune you paid for is actually safe? Are you going to just take the tuners word for it? Without naming names, I'm sure you've seen examples on these forums of accidents that have happened. That can happen with ANY tuner, which is why you want the ability to log your car to see if what you have is safe or not.

The OP should find a reputable local tuner to tune his car if an off the shelf map isn't satisfactory to him. If those options are not available, Shiv offers remote tunes just like ECUtek tuners do, which basically brings me back to the crux of the conversation. ECUtek and OFT are equivalent to each other for the OP's purpose. Headers and exhaust doesn't require a massive amount of dyno time or MAP based tuning. So tell me again why OFT isn't a valid option?

So you recommend to the OP that he can safely run OFT's generic base tune without concern but now tell me that any tune requires constant data logging and review? While I agree that any base tune needs to be logged, reviewed and adjusted as necessary, I fail to see why the end user needs to continually data log and review his tuner's finished work or what even qualifies him to do that. My tuner already corrected the open loop AFR and verified acceptable knock correction during the dyno tuning session. The ECU handles closed loop operation and will adjust for changes in altitude, temperature, fuel grade, etc. Why would anyone even use a tuner if they didn't trust him? I wouldn't.


I never said that OFT wasn't a valid option. I simply said that Ecutek is a better option overall IMO. I think the main point here is that base tunes should never be blindly trusted without the need for review and revision. If you feel confident enough to do this yourself then OFT looks like a very good option. If however you prefer to let a professional tuner handle this for you, that support is already included with an Ecutek tune and some unknown extra cost with OFT. If you want to change tuners with Ecutek you just buy another tune for ~$300. Changing tuners with OFT should cost about the same.

Originally Posted by s2d4

Suddenly you are not tuned by visconti? yet the same figures?

btw, you still can't log with that 650 but OFT has logging.

Same tune as before. Remotely tuned at Pure Automotive by John Visconti.


True but with OFT I'd only have 60% of the whp gain, possibly be running lean and waiting for a quote from Shiv for the cost of e-tuning to fix it.


Why does everyone insist that end-users must continuously and constantly data log their finished tunes? What is it that you expect to change so drastically that the ECU can't adjust for it?

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

True but with OFT I'd only have 60% of the whp gain, possibly be running lean and waiting for a quote from Shiv for the cost of e-tuning to fix it.

What nonsense

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

What nonsense

Don't take it out of context. I was merely comparing your generic base tune to my Ecutek base tune and finished dyno tune. I doubt that any generic base tune is going to match perfectly with the myriad possible combinations of aftermarket intake and exhaust parts available.

You're not claiming that your generic base tune is as good as an Ecutek tuner can do with a 1 hour dyno tuning session? If so then I call


BTW, I read a post today from an OFT user who is logging 11:1 AFR with your base stage 2 tune. That's not your target AFR is it?




.

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

Don't take it out of context. I was merely suggesting that your generic base tune is not as good as a custom dyno tune.


You're not claiming that your generic base tune is as good as an Ecutek tuner can do with a 1 hour dyno tuning session? If so then I call

Why would you, I (or anyone else) compare a off-the-shelf tune to a custom dyno tune?

Also, I've been in this business for far too long to make claims about anything. But IMHO, 80% of it depends on the tuner. The remaining 20% on if it's custom dyno tuned or not. Still not sure how a 1hr custom dyno tune is guaranteed to be a better tune in all cases. My job here isn't to convince you of anything. I've learned that forums aren't the best place to change a mind that is already made up.

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Why would you, I (or anyone else) compare a off-the-shelf tune to a custom dyno tune?

Also, I've been in this business for far too long to make claims about anything. But IMHO, 80% of it depends on the tuner. The remaining 20% on if it's custom dyno tuned or not. Still not sure how a 1hr custom dyno tune is guaranteed to be a better tune in all cases.

This is what happens when you drop into a thread without reading the previous posts.


My point was simply that a tune that has been adjusted based on data log feedback will (in general) perform better than a generic base tune. Obviously there are again many variables here.


* BTW, I edited my previous post to make things more clear.

[utekineir]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

My base tune made 10whp, 5ft lbs and was too lean. After remotely revising the tune it made 17whp and 10ft lbs with perfect AFR. My tune was done in only 1 hour.

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

with OFT I'd only have 60% of the whp gain, possibly be running lean and waiting for a quote from Shiv for the cost of e-tuning to fix it.

Considering the inconsistencies across base maps from all tuners and the ecutek model of fine tuning doesn't it seem kind of stupid applying the results of your experience with one tuners base map on one platform to all tuners base maps on all tuning platforms?

Obviously an ots tune is not as good as a custom tune except in the case of tuner incompetence. But to apply your findings of your base tune ratio to a different product, on a different tuning platform, by a different tuner.

That's real retarded sir

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

All I see above are incorrect "facts", heavily biased comparisons and opinion!

Oh I agree, I agree so much

I don't have a dog in the fight, I want to see evolution of the platform as a whole.

but your posts are typically subjective biased horseshit


will be forum hired gun for free oft

[Malt]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

Don't take it out of context. I was merely comparing your generic base tune to my Ecutek base tune and finished dyno tune. I doubt that any generic base tune is going to match perfectly with the myriad possible combinations of aftermarket intake and exhaust parts available.

You're not claiming that your generic base tune is as good as an Ecutek tuner can do with a 1 hour dyno tuning session? If so then I call


BTW, I read a post today from an OFT user who is logging 11:1 AFR with your base stage 2 tune. That's not your target AFR is it?

You continue to try and compare apples to oranges... No one is saying that an off the shelf tune is comparable to a custom dyno tune but your 60% claim is ridiculous.

If you actually bothered to read the rest of those posts you'll see someone else having the same issue and its the result of an exhaust leak at the header.

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by utekineir

Considering the inconsistencies across base maps from all tuners and the ecutek model of fine tuning doesn't it seem kind of stupid applying the results of your experience with one tuners base map on one platform to all tuners base maps on all tuning platforms?

Obviously an ots tune is not as good as a custom tune except in the case of tuner incompetence. But to apply your findings of your base tune ratio to a different product, on a different tuning platform, by a different tuner.

That's real retarded sir



Oh I agree, I agree so much

I don't have a dog in the fight, I want to see evolution of the platform as a whole.

but your posts are typically subjective biased horseshit


will be forum hired gun for free oft

You may be an obnoxious blowhard but at least you're smart enough to understand where the "60%" came from. Who knows what the actual difference might be? There are so many variables to consider that it's impossible to do more than make general guesses. I assumed, probably incorrectly, that the reader would be smart enough to figure that part out.


Better make it real simple: When I said 60% it was meant to be an example of one possible outcome based upon my own experience and not a general prediction of what would actually occur in every case.




Jeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzz...........

Originally Posted by Malt

You continue to try and compare apples to oranges... No one is saying that an off the shelf tune is comparable to a custom dyno tune but your 60% claim is ridiculous.

If you actually bothered to read the rest of those posts you'll see someone else having the same issue and its the result of an exhaust leak at the header.

See above and are you sure that @Burn has an exhaust leak?

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

You may be an obnoxious blowhard but at least you're smart enough to understand where the "60%" came from. Who knows what the actual difference might be? There are so many variables to consider that it's impossible to do more than make general guesses. I assumed, probably incorrectly, that the reader would be smart enough to figure that part out.


Better make it real simple: When I said 60% it was meant to be an example of one possible outcome based upon my own experience and not a general prediction of what would actually occur in every case.




Jeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzz...........




See above and are you sure that @Burn has an exhaust leak?

Are you sure that Burn was running 11.1:1 AFR? Here is a log from him:
http://www.datazap.me/u/burn/first-3-gear-pull?1-2-9-11

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Are you sure that Burn was running 11.1:1 AFR? Here is a log from him:
http://www.datazap.me/u/burn/first-3-gear-pull?1-2-9-11

Not at all but I believe I typed "11:1" when I mentioned this before which was intended to convey 11:1-ish or ranging between 11.0:1 and 11.99:1 or at least as accurately as is possible to measure with a Denso AFR sensor and it's reduced accuracy and range on the rich side of stoich. Apparently 11.37 is as rich as the oem Denso reads per your linked data log.


Below is the post I referred to earlier:

Originally Posted by Burn

Hi Shiv,

Thanks for the prompt reply. I was hoping for some revisions on the AFR as I've done some WOT logging on 1.34B and AFR was showing like 11+, which was a bit too rich imo. I wonder if this should be the correct AFR expected for stage 2 ROM ?

Thanks for the data log link. Isn't 11.37:1 still kind of rich for just a header?

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

Not at all. Below is all I know of the subject.





Thanks for the data log link. Isn't 11.37:1 still kind of rich for just a header?

I think your post above is a good example of why people are giving you a hard time. You mention 11.37:2. But that the richest individual sample (during a post-shift fuel enrichment in 2nd gear). The other hundreds of samples, during WOT, are in the 11.7 to 12.0:1 range. In fact, it only runs slightly richer than desired above 6000rpm and by no alarming degree. Keep in mind that the car is also in Australia, has completely different fuel and is presumably operating in very hot summer temps. So perhaps those AFRs aren't too far off from being where they should be. I think it's doing quite well for an OTS map considering these differences. The nice thing is that he can make changes to his hearts content without costing him a penny. And he can also see exactly what is going done to his $40k investment (import cars are a lot more $$ down under!) This is my last post in this thread. If you are happy with your Visconti tune, good for you. No need to justify your purchase so vehemently so often.
Shiv

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I think your post above is a good example of why people are giving you a hard time. You mention 11.37:2. But that the richest individual sample (during a post-shift fuel enrichment in 2nd gear). The other hundreds of samples, during WOT, are in the 11.7 to 12.0:1 range. In fact, it only runs slightly richer than desired above 6000rpm and by no alarming degree. Keep in mind that the car is also in Australia, has completely different fuel and is presumably operating in very hot summer temps. So perhaps those AFRs aren't too far off from being where they should be. I think it's doing quite well for an OTS map considering these differences. The nice thing is that he can make changes to his hearts content without costing him a penny. And he can also see exactly what is going done to his $40k investment (import cars are a lot more $$ down under!) This is my last post in this thread. If you are happy with your Visconti tune, good for you. No need to justify your purchase so vehemently so often.
Shiv

Actually the AFR bottoms out rich a few places in all gears but I agree that the average AFR is high 11's. Even that seems overly rich to me for a N/A header tune but you're the tuner here. It's easier to see if you enhance the AFR resolution.





I didn't realize that I was vehemently justifying my Visconti tune purchase so often. LOL! I thought that I was simply debating some of the pros and cons between Ecutek and OFT after being vehemently attacked by OFT fans for expressing my opinion that a custom Ecutek tune is generally better than a generic, canned, off-the-shelf, one-size-fits-all, OFT base tune.

[hunter3232792]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I think your post above is a good example of why people are giving you a hard time. You mention 11.37:2. But that the richest individual sample (during a post-shift fuel enrichment in 2nd gear). The other hundreds of samples, during WOT, are in the 11.7 to 12.0:1 range. In fact, it only runs slightly richer than desired above 6000rpm and by no alarming degree. Keep in mind that the car is also in Australia, has completely different fuel and is presumably operating in very hot summer temps. So perhaps those AFRs aren't too far off from being where they should be. I think it's doing quite well for an OTS map considering these differences. The nice thing is that he can make changes to his hearts content without costing him a penny. And he can also see exactly what is going done to his $40k investment (import cars are a lot more $$ down under!) This is my last post in this thread. If you are happy with your Visconti tune, good for you. No need to justify your purchase so vehemently so often.
Shiv

best thing to do is ignore the post and continue with what you are doing

this guy is opening doors for many things and some people like me

appreciate that

[s2d4]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

Actually the AFR bottoms out rich a few places in all gears but I agree that the average AFR is high 11's. Even that seems overly rich to me for a N/A header tune but you're the tuner here.

For all the logs that you are talking about, you are not even logging and that is on a visconti tune! Which you tried to hide it as a pure items until found out. Either stupid or just trolling is probably the best description here.

I thought you had learnt something from everyone telling you that you need to do logs before you can claim your tune is safe, but apparently your ears are better than pros and det cans but that is only looking at knock.

Blind faith/loyalty, that sums up most of the stupid fanboys.