Does the tune architecture (diablo, SCT, etc) matter?

[32vfromhell]

This was talked about recently at a GTG, and I wanted to know some opinions.

Will one tuning architecture be superior than the others? I know as tuning software evolves, there is a far better understanding of the EEC-IV computer.


Currently, I have a diablo chip installed and have a few drivability issues from my tune that I finally am growing tired of.

[turbostang]

I can't answer specifically to your question - but I can provide some food for thought.

The code in the ECU can only do so much - you can't add anything to it (for the most part) without adding devices. For example, on your car - if it's not an OE boosted car, you can't have boost sensitive timing without adding something....

So, in that respect, the tuners will be the "same" - they can only change the variables in the ECU that are already there. The only difference between them should be the interface.

Now, there are exceptions - Like the Anderson PMS, it's a piggyback that goes in the service port, but it ADDS a MAP sensor, and is changeable on the fly and depending on hardware, gives you added ability like a MAP sensor etc...

outside of that, I'd think personal preference.

[ceyko]

Back several years ago I had a Diablo Predator and without naming names I called 3 different popular Mustang tuners in the area. They all whined about the Predator and preferred the SCT (SCT 2 at the time).

Now, I understand this is partially to push product most likely. Also though I switched to the SCT 2 since I was barely out any money after selling the Predator and then had full support of my tuner w/o them having any excuses.

So, ASSUMING you're talking about a Mustang (guess it really does not matter) - you may want to consider the preference of your tuner. Unless you talking about tuning yourself - then ignore my whole damn post.

[Jonny00GT]

I had similar questions back when my addiction first started. I called around before deciding on who to tweak my car. Everyone I talked to said the diablo stuff was quirky and they preferred the SCT stuff. That was some years ago, so I can't speak to any changes diablo may have made since.

[JETFAST]

with A chip or flash programmer, the only real noticeable difference, user interface. It doesn't matter if its a chip, or a hand held tunner. As the definition of specific strategies have become more defined over the years, The hand held tunners evolved. They all handle the same binary code, regardless off make or brand.

[LS1Goat]

I can tell you this much. I have tested a canned 93 tune on Predator U7146 vs. SCT XCal2 canned 93 tune for a CHH3 strategy code auto Mustang....The SCT embarrasses the Predator in regards to mid range torque, shift timing, shift pressure, and where the a/f is set. I dynoed the same car and the Predator had too much timing up top and a WOT 14:1 a/f ratio. The XCal2 had the timing tables dialed in pretty good from 2k - 4k and 4k - 6k. And the XCal2 tune WOT a/f ratio was 13:1. Both canned tunes. Same car. Same dyno. Same computer code and modification information provided to the tuner(s).

Think about this. If the Predator tune was 14:1 on the dyno, can you imagine how lean it was running on the street??

Again, I'm talking about canned tunes, not custom dyno tuning. The only thing worth a shit about my old Predator was the end user option to disable catalyst MIL, auto disabling traction control at engine on, and the large viewing screen. I had to request SCT to disable the downstream 02s in the tune file. Regarding data logging: Diablosport Predator data logging wasn't that great. SCT LiveLink latest edition allows you to monitor a ton of PIDs with a much better user interface. And you can "in theory" data log a sensor in real time. I usually leave the sampling time set to normal when logging multiple PIDs.

The car runs like a scalded ape on my SCT tunes I get through SCT/Bamachips. Yea, after I put in a fresh set of plugs after running the lean ass Predator tunes, I might add. And when they redid all my tunes for my new 3,800 stall torque converter, it hauls the mail. A little tweaking on the lock up strategy and I'm good to go for now. And now I run a wideband and SCT has it running 12.8:1 on the street, which it seems to like the best. I just lost some shift feel due to the higher stall/higher torque multiplication converter. However, I'm rectifying that issue with a Dirty Dog valve body kit. I digress....

[The King]

I have been running a custom Predator tune (via handheld) since 2004 or 2005 and have never had any reason to switch to SCT. The skill of the tuner matters more than the interface through which it's delivered.

[Andy@PrimeTuning]

Will one tuning architecture be superior than the others? I know as tuning software evolves, there is a far better understanding of the EEC-IV computer.

Do you have an EEC-IV(87-95) Computer or a EEC-V? (96-04)

As posted before most of the problems with different styles of software is the interface. That is why most tuners prefer a certain brand. Yet there is also the tables and definitions provided from different companies. Some tuning software companies have access to better info or spend more time decoding the stock computer than others. You will be using one software and switch to the other and something you are used to changing will be missing. That is one of the frustrating things about not using your preferred software company.

For the past few years everyone has given up on the older mustang computers. So everything that is available now won't be worked on and bettered.

Explain some of your driveabliltiy problems, more than likely they will be a fairly simple fix. Depending on modifications and setup of the car.

I prefer SCT - In my opinion it is the most defined and streamline when compared to all the others.

Andy

[Andy@PrimeTuning]

The code in the ECU can only do so much - you can't add anything to it (for the most part) without adding devices. For example, on your car - if it's not an OE boosted car, you can't have boost sensitive timing without adding something....

While this is partially true.

In 94+ Mustangs you can change the load normalizers in all of the sparktables to allow you to see up to 200% load. This allows you to control timing under boost and while in boost.

Also in 87-93 Cars they have a WOT Timing table so whenever you are WOT you have a RPM vs Commanded Timing - This also allows you to adjust timing according to the boost curve.


I would also stay away from the PMS - as some can get it to work. It really is a just a piggyback and leaves a lot to be desired in many aspects of the full tune.

[turbostang]

While this is partially true.

In 94+ Mustangs you can change the load normalizers in all of the sparktables to allow you to see up to 200% load. This allows you to control timing under boost and while in boost.

Also in 87-93 Cars they have a WOT Timing table so whenever you are WOT you have a RPM vs Commanded Timing - This also allows you to adjust timing according to the boost curve.


I would also stay away from the PMS - as some can get it to work. It really is a just a piggyback and leaves a lot to be desired in many aspects of the full tune.

No, If you are tuning via load - you are tricking the computer into doing something that it's not designed to do. Does it work, yes - does it work GOOD? No. Your load vs. boost is not a linear curve and doesn't match proportionately - This is especially true on a turbo car, where you can have HIGH boost and LOW RPM. Blower cars mimick a "higher HP" N/A car, and are much easier to tune in this respect.

Specifically to the 87-93 cars, if you are tuning to RPM via a WOT_Timing table, it's not to boost now, is it? If you tune to BOOST, the timing is adjusted regardless of RPM. See blower vs. turbo example above. (one will only have peak boost at peak RPM, the other can have peak boost at 3,000)

PMS, stay away from it? I've seen MANY cars do fine with them, in fact - I can't think of ONE single problem. If a guy gets a custom chip for his car, then he has to pay a shop to put it back on the rollers, beat the hell out of it for several pulls, and change the tune every time?.. or he can have the ability to change it on his own. (assuming he has the ability and resources, if not, then he should have a "custom tune")

[JETFAST]

While this is partially true.

In 94+ Mustangs you can change the load normalizers in all of the sparktables to allow you to see up to 200% load. This allows you to control timing under boost and while in boost.

You can rescale the load tables in any GUFB or CBAZA definitions. These tables are load vs rpm only. There are only 80 cells to work with. you rescale to pic up resolution, so that you have control past 100% load @ 4k.

There is no boost reference map.

Also in 87-93 Cars they have a WOT Timing table so whenever you are WOT you have a RPM vs Commanded Timing - This also allows you to adjust timing according to the boost curve.

There is no "rpm vs Commanded Timing table" in the GUFB definition.

There are 3 tables, spark altitude, sea level, & base. The "rpm vs Commanded Timing table" you speak of is actually a function. The input is wot engine speed and rpm ( not boost), and the output of the function is spark advance @ WOT ONLY.

Boost has nothing to do with the calculation of this function.

I would also stay away from the PMS - as some can get it to work. It really is a just a piggyback and leaves a lot to be desired in many aspects of the full tune.

That's Easy to say with no PMS experience. A piggy back chip on the J3 port is where all this started. Most template tuners don't know the difference between a table, function, or scalars, because sct gives you the sct cookie cutter version with a template where all the work has been done for you, all you do is up load, and flash. Basic generic drive threw tune up stuff.

A flash tune template is much easier then picking threw binary code and writing the program from scratch. The reason why cookie cutter tunes are so cheap these days. Someone, somewhere, @SCT, did all the work for The Tuner. It maybe right on, and It maybe close enough.....to melt a piston. Then whose fault is it? Who takes the blame? Who's accountable for the burnt up motor?

The customers of Course!

I see most issues or problems are with The SCT Dealer, then I actually see come from the templates direct from SCT. Dealers more or less Hacking up tunes to get them to work on the dyno, tuning around other mechanical problems and/or issues. The Tuner try's to tune around it causing more problems and drive-ability issues, striving for some magical number to impress the customer & make the 350.00 sale on the cookie cutter tune. Instead of fixing the real issues at hand, and actually tuning the car. Real world issues that every tuner and dyno facility should foresee before a tune is ever initiated in the first place. If you don't pay for that kind of knowledge and foresight, you get half assed by a half assed tuner, and sent down the road, to pay someone else to fix your problems.

So after the car rolls of the dyno and down the street, The feeling of excitement over the money saved on that 300 dollar tune up, goes out the window. Now drive ability, stalling, bucking, & ect, are now all real world concerns that never got addressed during WOT pulls on the dyno! mechanical/ wiring issues, shotty half ass install work, are all issues and concerns that were never addressed. Just tuned around. As the realization of the fucking he just got rises to the top of his list of concerns, the deal on the tune up, wasn't so much of a deal in the end.

You get what you pay for.

[71chevellejohn]

Sounds like the OP needs a MS2 setup. That way he can go through all of the joys of learning to tune every individual parameter.... I just happen to have one for sale

[32vfromhell]

Oops, you are correct, its EEC-V . I knew EEC-IV didnt sound right.Thanks!

Jet, you pretty much covered all the problems I am having and just growing tired of. I just "got used to it" when I drove the cobra daily. Now that I drive the Mazdaspeed 98% of the time, when I get into the cobra and it fails to hold idle, stalls, has a high idle when it holds it, bucks at 2300 rpm, and whatnot, it just isnt acceptable any more.

I know its never going to drive like a stock car. I dont mind a higher idle, or the occasional stall, or a bit of quirks. Thats just part of the game. However, there are tolerance limits ,and right now I think i'm past em.

To ChevelleJohn, it just so happens years ago I fiddled around with a TwEECer and gave that up . I figure i'll leave this up to experts! =P

Jet, you have a PM! =)

[Andy@PrimeTuning]

No, If you are tuning via load - you are tricking the computer into doing something that it's not designed to do. Does it work, yes - does it work GOOD? No. Your load vs. boost is not a linear curve and doesn't match proportionately - This is especially true on a turbo car, where you can have HIGH boost and LOW RPM. Blower cars mimick a "higher HP" N/A car, and are much easier to tune in this respect.

Tricking the computer? I wouldn't say that at all. What you are doing is rescaling the table to adjust timing based on a diffirent amount of airflow then the factory designed it for. Load is basically ford's calculation of VE. Load is continuously calculated based on actual air mass registered by the MAF.

On a Turbo car if you do have low rpms and high boost, load will be very high, and you should have the table setup for this condition.

[Andy@PrimeTuning]

There is no boost reference map.



There is no "rpm vs Commanded Timing table" in the GUFB definition.

There are 3 tables, spark altitude, sea level, & base. The "rpm vs Commanded Timing table" you speak of is actually a function. The input is wot engine speed and rpm ( not boost), and the output of the function is spark advance @ WOT ONLY.

Boost has nothing to do with the calculation of this function.

A flash tune template is much easier then picking threw binary code and writing the program from scratch. The reason why cookie cutter tunes are so cheap these days. Someone, somewhere, @SCT, did all the work for The Tuner. It maybe right on, and It maybe close enough.....to melt a piston. Then whose fault is it? Who takes the blame? Who's accountable for the burnt up motor?

The customers of Course!

I never said there was a boost dependent map. With a lot of blower applications and turbo setups the boost is fairly predictable.

I'm sorry I misspoke and called it a table. You are correct - It is a function. Most people don't actually know the difference between a Scaler, Function, Table so I made sure not to get too specific.

The reason I like SCT software is not because they offer these preloaded tunes you speak of. It is because it is the most defined. I've been using it for 6+ years and it works very well.

Not saying I don't use anything else. I definietly have other software to work with as well.

The driveability aspect of things is what I really focus on. Everything from Cold Start - Cold Drivability - Idle - Idledown - Part Throttle - Gas Mileage etc.

WOT Power and Air Fuel is fairly simple and most can figure it out. Its the other 70% of the Tune that really separates a quality and an amateur tune .