| RE:E-Prom Chips A Thing of The Past ???? |
Subject: RE:E-Prom Chips A Thing of The Past ???? by xtrememotorsports on 2008/2/13 0:31:30 Hey man, I’m still waiting to hear you agree to the challenge that you extended. I will pay for your gas on the return trip home if it doesn't work. But, I promise to put you up in a professional environment and provide your meals. I hope you understand that I’m not interested in spending a few hours trying to improve on a tune you have doubtlessly spent countless hours and many dyno pulls working out. That is why I offered the ’91 Vette instead. Although I’ve done countless LS tunes, this will be exactly my second TPI tune. The car currently has a Hypertech chip, 180 degree thermostat, and a K&N Filter. Otherwise it is a 100K mile 6-speed virgin. That customer has already committed to our new kit but is willing to allow testing new chips first. We were even entertaining the idea of inviting someone like Corvette Fever to the event. CFTech – there is your invitation. I’ll find a place to house you also. Seriously, I suspect we would agree in general the peak HP and Torque is going to be more dependent on the skill and perseverance of the tuner than in where the PCM or ECM memory lives. When I was approached about tuning “chip†cars, I looked into the cost of the hardware and software. In the end I liked this approach for several reasons. One being that once the car is tuned, the owner will have the option of modifying the tune further down the road if they modify the car. The kit will include a licensed copy of Tuner Cat and scanning software (brand TBD). Our customer would also be strongly encouraged to add a WBO2 sensor before adjusting the tune. On the other hand your customers are tied at the hip to you forever. I think that independence is worth something to today’s DIY, point and click generation. And if our customer gets into trouble, he can send a scan log and we can send an updated file by email instead of snail mail (sorry USPS). Where we might not agree is the area of tuning points (that is why I asked about cells). I have never seen “chip†programming tables. The flash tables appear to offer 0.1 degree and 0.1% adjustments. The flash tables offer tuning points from 400 to 4000 RPM in either 200 or 400 RPM increments and 4000 to 7000 RPM in 500 RPM increments from 25 to 100 KPA (ignition) and 20 to 100 KPA (VE). (Like we will ever see 7000 RPM in a TPI motor!) That is a total of 330 cells (ignition) and 352 cells (VE) that can be tuned. The more tuning points available, the better the ability to get the AFR / timing right on. While only a few of these cells are concerned with maximum power, most of the cells do affect drivability. The General did not add sequential injection just to make the car more complicated. How many ignition and VE cells are available in a “chip†memory? Where we expect our kit to make the most gain is in lower RPM torque. That is where the benefit of sequential injection will come into play. This is demonstrated in the fat torque gain in our first ever TPI tune. At higher RPM things are happening so fast in the intake tract that I seriously doubt injector timing matters very much. I would say that at higher RPM, the tuner is going to have more impact than where memory lives in the PCM or ECM. Torque is what the customer feels and torque rules the street. This kit will require an O2 sensor in each bank. Observing the respective long term fuel trim numbers will enable the individual injector tuning that is not available in batch fire. Again, probably not a max power issue; but, instead a drivability solution. This kit also offers the customer the ability to use either SD or MAF. While the “chip†ECM can operate in either mode, such a change requires a new chip. With our kit, the owner can make that decision after the fact. Especially after an engine modification where the MAF would be more self adaptive. And we will be using the more tunable LT1 style frequency driven MAF. While it may take longer to flash a PCM than program a chip, I think you would agree that loading the program is insignificant compared to working on the VE tables and ignition tables. Regarding the possibility the flash can crash; yes, that can happen. I have had it happen once after tuning countless cars. It was a pain to fix; but, it was not a traumatic experience for me or the customer. As for the MPG display in the Y Body cars, I remain hopeful that that capability will be retained in the ’90 to newer instrument panels. Using an oscilloscope I’ve scanned the serial data stream found in the ’91 and a ’94. The data streams appear similar in frequency and byte content. I do not know if the data streams contain the same information or same information sequence. It does seem unlikely the General would change the data stream, Instrument Panel workings, and Central Control Module just because of the PCM change. That is one reason for doing the ’91 next. I do not have much hope for the ’89 and older cars. As for those that have asked about adapting this to existing LT1 / Optispark cars to eliminate the front mount: There are people that modify LT1 intakes to allow use of a distributor. A modified intake will work if enough space for our distributor is available with the machined LT1 intake. I’ll have to look into that after the ’91 is done. CFTech makes a great point – “do you need it?†I think the independence that the upgrade offers to car owners makes it worth the change. I think we need to include any increase in power whether it be in HP or Torque Cause as we both know a L98 is a torque engine and thats what you feel in the seat of your pants,and when this is proven to work not only would I like your initial order of 10 and you selling and installing this at your shop I want a public endorsement of my product posted on this forum by you. So, what do your think? I’d really like to have you as a customer. It was a very pleasant 70 degrees here today and the beach is not far away. How is the weather up there? |
