Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What happened with this tune?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
    I am looking forward to this discussion and I will do what I can to keep it factual and on track.

    John, (TorkMe) when you showed up here, you made the following statement:



    I was looking forward to hearing you tell us about the "question/reason for the power drop off" but I feel you shifted the subject a bit and didn't offer an explanation, but still, I'll be happy to respond



    This one is easy. I know the car behaves differently on a 2wd dyno for several reasons. First of all, I can easily observe it and I have video evidence of this, which I posted some time ago. Here is it again.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGAkZctWtto

    Second of all, when dynoing in 2wd mode, on a higher powered car, we typically see a significant drop off above about 5500rpm. I can tell you, and so can our customers that just doesn't happen on the actual road with a Phase 2 Fiat 124.. Furthermore, other methods of measuring power, like Auterra show a power curve with essentially the same shape that we see when running on the HLS dyno with all rollers engaged. You don't have to take my word for it, we have customer results on our website, and they have been there for years.

    Those two things alone should easily be enough (actually, just the first one should be enough) but we also have 1/4 mile data. Now I know these 1/4 mile power calculators are at best rough guesses. They are typically not set up for 124s in terms of gear ratios, traction, average driver, etc. but they at least give a clue.

    in the case of a Phase 2 124 it's darn close to the power shown by this online calculator.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	124WhlPwr.JPG
Views:	140
Size:	28.7 KB
ID:	2282

    Click image for larger version

Name:	RWPCalc.JPG
Views:	163
Size:	21.9 KB
ID:	2281

    I hope that answers your first question.



    There is no way I will be baited into giving you ECU information that apparently, you don't have. Even if I did post the maps, I don't think a bunch of code would prove anything to the average viewer since it's meaningless to most people. It would only benefit you or other tuners.



    You want me to "pretend" .Forgive me John, but that seems a big crazy to me. I'm dealing in facts and verifiable evidence. That's what we do on this forum. I am not going to "pretend"




    You mention this a lot. I think if the evidence was remotely solid you would have posted it by now. You have been attacking me on this subject from the safety of your closed facebook groups for years. I think if you really had something solid you would have posted the evidence. I suspect that when you do we will all see that it's either a big ball of nothing, or it's something that's easily dis-proven.



    Really John? Do you really want to claim that you are a victim of harassment? If you want to have that discussion, please do it in another thread and I'll be happy to entertain your comments on that subject.

    Greg
    Yet... we have conflicting results from our dyno's. My dynos show your tune falling off power wise, my tune on my dyno doesn't. Why would that be?

    For now, we are going to ignore the dyno data because the FCA engineer clearly stated that a dyno 2WD or AWD doesn't matter in the results that are generated from the car. We will wait for that to drop when Eddie posts the video

    As far as ECU data or values you are simply going to have to trust that we have more of it that you. I have have transfer areas all mapped now, and have live emulation.

    The problem being with your facts Greg, you don't have all the data. The fact being, FCA engineers disagree with you about the dyno evidence.

    The only way I am able to "prove you wrong" will be to have a local come to my shop with his phase 1 and 2 tunes on our dyno, and post the logs from said runs. Then, run the car on the street, post said logs. Then go to a linked dyno, and repeat said runs and post the data logs. Would you be OK with that?

    Comment


    • bsd103
      bsd103 commented
      Editing a comment
      I also think a simple test could be to run both a Tork tuned car and EC tuned car on the linked dyno (ideally with both "parties" present). FWIW if FCA had any intentions to outsmart the emissions dyno test program, I feel it would be unlikely an FCA engineer would admit they behave differently under these conditions. Just my 2c.

  • #92
    Originally posted by bsd103 View Post
    I'll also start on the conversation by saying that I think it's very likely if you're tuning these cars on a 2wd dyno you're not necessarily manipulating the correct maps that are used on the road under normal driving conditions. You may be able to make more power on the 2wd dyno, but what are the real world results (i.e. on a road or track) of a car tuned on a linked dyno vs 2wd? Prove me wrong (seriously not trying to sound like a jerk, I'd just like to see some proof - I'm an engineer and don't believe anything on hearsay).
    What would be the correct maps then? There are 1000's of maps inside the ECU and very, very few of them have anything to do with acceleration curves or distance travelled over time.

    Our 2WD dyno developed tunes are proven performers in the 1/4 mile and on several autox tracks across the nation. I do not believe that an AWD linked dyno would make the tune, any better or worse.

    Comment


    • #93
      Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
      Brodey, I really want to stay focused on the talk between John and I so I'll probably ignore some of your post just to keep this on track, but I'll address some of your comments here.



      That's false, just think it through a bit farther. Plus the idea that if you don't understand how something works, then it can't be real, is a bit strange.



      This isn't a dyno building thread. This car on the dyno shows different numbers when in 2wd mode vs 4 wheel. The only variable is that we link or unlink the other set of rollers. That's it. I'm not sure what calculations you are asking to see or how it's relevant to this topic. I think I have put up far more dyno information than anyone else in the Fiat market. What other vendor this market put up the "calculations"? I'm honestly not even sure what calculations you are talking about.



      There are so many variables there, I'm not sure it's that meaningful. Gear Ratios, driver and so on. Plus I have no idea how the ST behaves on the dyno. We know from govt. lawsuits that FCA isn't the only one who has built cars that behave differently when on a 2wd dyno. I'm not saying that the ST does, I have no idea either way.

      Greg
      I think Brodey's unbiased posts should be taken very serious. He has compiled more logging and data than anyone in this community and not just your tune and my tune. He has damn near ran all of them.

      I wouldn't make the mistake of dismissing his data, because he has done a fantastic job of being honest and delivering the facts. Data, doesn't lie.

      There are variable, for sure. But, Brodey has refused to add any additional part to his car or change fuel types for fear that it will skew any values of this comparison. Greg, he could be your greatest value in this discussion with me.

      Comment


      • #94
        Originally posted by [email protected] View Post

        Regardless of what Chris may have told him (about a tune made for that turbo), no other maps were given to him or made for him in regards to the turbo upgrade. None.
        So, you and Chris are not communicating about customers? Also, before you guys changed up the site, it stated that the "phase 2" was compatible with turbo upgrades. I believe Chris states that in his reply to Kevin. I am working on getting those screen shots for you.

        Comment


        • #95
          Originally posted by doverosx View Post
          As for dynos, I would like to be proven wrong because that would be good for everyone; if that’s the truth. I’ll have to check my multiair logs but what would I want to see?

          Your hypothesis is that the car pulls power. You claimed that I measured air mass, I didn’t nor have you Greg. I DID log what multiair is doing and I don’t see any behaviour that is unique on road and off road.

          So what are the test conditions and variables that I need to be looking for to prove you correct?

          This is how I see it and why I’m digging my heels in here - probably to the detriment of friendships but are you really my friends? You have a reasonable hypothesis. You presented an observation but did not show the mechanism by which the results may have changed. The Greek guys described how accurately the MM ECU is able to measure torque, so I looked at the various dynos and the results on them vs what the ECU calculated. That led me to take the red pill and start some black box testing on and off the dyno which...replicating environment variables is a pain and takes a lot of patience. Unfortunately, I have not been able to replicate or observe any mechanism by which power is reduced under the same load and environment inputs. I believe I have done my due diligence for the tests and gone beyond most owners here or otherwise to prove you correct.

          I can go to a 4 wheel linked dyno in Toronto or Montreal but I’d prefer to hop on a dimsport dyno because I think the goal posts will be moved and actions to assume what I have and haven’t done, to discredit me will continue.
          What are you logging with right now? Are the dyno's local to you have a dyno cell (loading unit to simulate different loads)?.

          Best to message me on Facebook about this, I am concerned about the access that EC has to this forum due to the fact that they own it.

          Message me over on our FB business page and we will get some logging performed for you and see if there are any problems (both street and dyno logging).

          Comment


          • #96
            Originally posted by TorkMe View Post

            So, you and Chris are not communicating about customers? Also, before you guys changed up the site, it stated that the "phase 2" was compatible with turbo upgrades. I believe Chris states that in his reply to Kevin. I am working on getting those screen shots for you.
            Phase 2 will work with some larger Turbos, including the larger turbo that was supplied to Kevin. It will not take full advantage of said turbo. Its compatible, Yes, optimal No.

            Larger Turbo upgrade such as the 1752 and 1146+ will work with Phase 2 Tuning, its still what I recommend to people to start off with.
            Last edited by [email protected]; 02-12-2019, 09:16 PM. Reason: Added: Larger Turbo upgrade such as the 1752 and 1146+ will work with Phase 2 Tuning, its still what I recommend to people to start off with.
            EUROCOMPULSION - PERFORMANCE ABARTH, FIAT & ALFA PARTS

            Comment


            • #97
              Originally posted by aelfwyne View Post

              That seems about correct.

              The fighting right now is tearing apart the community. There are several issues both myself and people I know are working on with our cars, and nobody's posting publicly anymore because it always invites a fight if it is anything to do with a tune or certain vendor's parts.

              Yes, EC and Tork are competitors, we get that.

              Jumping into every thread, every forum, into instragram, facebook, etc, with broad declarations that this or that tuner is ripping people off and lying to everyone does zero to win real business, but has a real chilling effect on discussion within the community.

              Personally, I've talked to pretty much 98% of the players involved in this whole fight privately, and there's a lot of personal axes people have to grind. Know what I say? Tough shit. Your own personal axes to grind aren't worth tearing the community apart. People have gotten their feelings hurt when things didn't go their own way, when other people lashed out in anger, when their cars didn't run like they expected, when someone didn't smile right on facebook, when this or that person threatens to sue that other person, blah blah fucking blah. Some people, it seems cannot be happy saying "Hey I'm John Q. Public and here's what I believe" without having to also say "My opponent, John Q. Smith, is a lying sack of shit who wants to eat your babies".

              It's total and utter BULL SHIT. Most of the community couldn't give 2 shits about the personal arguments between "community leaders", right or wrong.

              What does happen though is that people quit participating. People quit contributing. People quit taking risks. People stop admitting publicly when something on their cars breaks. People stop trusting anybody in the community. The community falls apart.

              I guess for some that doesn't really matter. They would rather see the world burn.
              Here is the problem, I left the Fiat community 2 years ago. We didn't advertise, didn't care. I was done, because the constant harrassment from member of this community was not worth my time.

              Then, old customers of ours were looking to upgrade their 124. I essentially got drug back into this ugly debate of who's e-club is bigger. EC obviously has a far greater customer base, so we had to overcome the hate filled attacks by people like Neuman (sp) and redred.

              Consumer confidence is at an all time low inside the Fiat community because of a few people and the vendor wars. Greg himself has made cheap shots about our MA spring upgrade, on this forum. Sadly, human nature makes us react, so... we now have a very sad state of affairs inside the Fiat community.

              I am here to clean up that lacking level of consumer confidence by bringing testing, data and facts back to the community. The problem being, these facts are going to be a polar opposite of what the community has been told by another person. So, members of the community will have to sort through the data given and come to their own conclusions.

              Comment


              • #98
                Oh this is rich...

                Do you and your entire cohort think the community is this stupid? Do you think that people don't see the things you say on Facebook and the forums you haven't been banned from yet? Do you really think you're just going to swing in here, play the victim and suddenly everyone will see you've simply been an innocent, misunderstood angel in all of this? How about coming down off that cross. We need the lumber.

                On one thing we can agree, the community can definitely make its own conclusions based on a looooong history of behavior.

                On another note, can you please stop sending Alex in here to make fake accounts to stir up shit? His efforts to conceal his real identity are laughable at best. You'd think ya'll would have gotten better at this by now.

                Comment


                • #99
                  Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
                  There is a lot to cover from the short time I've been off line. The thread has gone in at least three different directions, so I'll have to make separate post to deal with them.

                  First of all, I will address the Dart tune that was actually the subject mentioned in the title of this thread. This video is essentially a commercial for Tork. Although he presents himself as an independent observer, I would argue that by any reasonable definition Eddie works for Tork and this video is an advertisement.

                  On to the substance of the video. First of all, the EC tune on that Dart was an off the shelf Phase 2 tune. I have no way of knowing that it was put on correctly as it's clear in the video that they made a copy of the EC tune, sold the handheld and put it on with John's hardware. There are a lot of variables right there, but lets assume that it's legit and that was our Phase 2 tune.

                  Well,, so what? We have said over an over that it will pull power on a 2wd dyno at the high end, which is exactly what it looks like it's doing. It puts down around 195whp before it gets pulled back, which is about in harmony with numerous customer dyno pulls on 2wd dyno jets. There is nothing earth shattering here. Their claim that this was some special modified big turbo tune is simply incorrect. I don't know anything about an email that John says he has, but I've seen the files for that Dart, and the hottest tune we ever made for that car was our standard Phase 2 tune.

                  As for John's "standard" Dart tune putting out 212, it's hard to know if that's legit or not. It's pretty easy to manipulate results on a Dynojet especially with all the cuts in the video. I will say this, I haven't seen a tune from John put out that much on Dart using any dyno other than his, which is strange since 2wd Dynojets are super common and the Dart has been around since 2012. Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps there are dozens of high powered Dart dyno results out there for his tune and I'm just missing them.

                  In either case, I see no evidence that the Tork tune (assuming that's what it was) was more powerful as I know ours pulls back in these conditions and I have no idea how theirs behaves.

                  In short, I don't know if it's legit, I do know that our tune isn't made for the 2wd dyno, it's made to put down power on a real road and has to be measured via one of the methods I have described. We know with relative certainty that they tune specifically for a 2wd dyno and if it is higher on a 2wd dyno, I don't think it matters.

                  Now, let's discuss John's custom tune. Taking a competitor's tune, and increasing the power is something any amateur can do. It's incredibly simple. No reputable tuner sends out a tune that's on the ragged edge of destruction. So increasing the power is simply a matter of taking the competitor's tune and cranking up the boost and or ignition timing. For example adding 8 degrees of ignition timing (over the stock curve) by itself will add about 30 horsepower in this case. Nobody sends out tunes that way because it's a bit of a risky way to do it, fuel quality, air temps, etc. become too critical. The point is that simply cranking up the heat on a competitor's tune to show more power is child's play. I'm not saying that's what John did, obviously I wasn't there.

                  It's also easier to get more power from a car that's in your shop. If we had that Dart in our shop,, or even if we didn't we could bump the power up into the 230s, we didn't because that's not what the customer bought.

                  As for Eddies claim that his Spider has 247rwhp, well, maybe. I don't know what it had on the dyno on that day, but I do know that it didn't have that at the Dragon. Toby drove it and reported back to me. It was decently quick, but not in that range, at least not on that day, and not on real roads. It also lost 2 out of 3 drag races (or maybe it was 3 out of 4) to a 500 Abarth running an EC Phase 2 tune, also with the same 1752 turbo. Of course that single race it did win is the only one they want to talk about.

                  That was a year ago, where are all the customer 247whp 124s out there? Could it be that they don't exist?

                  John's listing of various maps, and insinuating that we don't know how to tune is just laughable. Our tunes have been successfully competing on and off the track for years, and usually winning. We are not the ones who try desperately to get copies of our competitor's tunes so we can look at them and any copies our competitor's do manage to get tend to be older versions, so they can't keep up with us by simply copying.

                  In short, it's just a commercial, and not a very convincing one at that.

                  Greg
                  Wrong, and this is where we are going to have a problem.

                  Eddie, does not and I will repeat that with CAPS LOCKED, DOES NOT WORK FOR ME OR COLLECT AN INCOME OR WAGE FROM US. He, pays for the work that gets performed on his car (can provide invoices if needed) pays for all his parts that are not sponsored by our suppliers and, is not given any "special" treatment. He is however, a good friend of mine but he clearly knows the line between friend, and business.

                  If this were a "commercial" for Tork, it would have been blogged on my Youtube channel, not Eddies. Eddie asked if he could blog the time spent during this tune for his channel, and I agreed. He does have a very popular Fiat channel and uses my shop for filming some of his content. I have my own channel, that focuses more on the tech side of things for the different communities I am involved with.

                  Now, that we have that out of the way.

                  So, you agree that the tune is yours and that the Phase 2 tune falls off on a 2WD dyno. Why doesn't our tune fall off on the 2WD dyno?

                  If you want, you can watch the unedited 6 hour session on Youtube to see if we "manipulated" any of the settings. Moving along... you make the accusation that we change settings or that we "manipulate" the Dyno, but do you have any idea how hard it is to do that with a Dynojet dyno? Now, since we started to cast stones of a questionable nature... who's to say you don't do the same thing with your dyno results? I have no idea how your dyno works, so I wouldn't have the slightest idea on how to manipulate it, but... the great thing about a Dynojet dyno, is they have what is called a WinPep file. Where you can go download free software from Dynojet and look at all the run data in the dyno jet software. I have zero issues posting a WinPep file for people to scrutinize and look for where I made or attempted to manipulate the runs.

                  Not 100% sure how we got on the 247 WHP Fiat 124, but its even more insulting to this community to assume that Tolby's ass dyno can tell that it wasn't 247 horsepower. Is that really the direction you wish to take this discussion? Ass dyno results? Really?

                  My listing of the maps and addressing the live emulation and transfer data mean, I am much further into the ECU than EC is. How do I know that? Because several of the maps I listed, have not been addressed inside the EC tunes. Not only that, but all of the torque vectoring for ramp rates inside the EC tune have not been touched (this is the only bone I am going to give EC). Using a state of the art dyno, but not utilizing the full potential of the maps inside the ECU on that dyno... very concerning.

                  I saved the best for last...

                  Out of the 100's of Dodge Darts we have tuned not very many have managed to break 200 HP, on any dyno. A few larger turbo cars were able to break 210 and one even made 221 wheel horsepower (can all be found on the Dart forums in the archive). What I do find very interesting... the 3 fastest 1.4T Darts in the 1/4 mile, all run our tune. So... if we are going to turn this into a who's better at tuning the Dart contest, I win

                  I don't think that was your intention Greg, so lets stick with the very basic facts.

                  Phase 2 looses power on the 2WD dyno, which you claim is correct. How is it then, our tune doesn't loose power? If its the 2WD dyno that causes this phenomenon? How did we manage to get around that?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
                    On the subject of goal post moving. I have never moved the goal post on this. I pointed this out in 2013 which was before Diesel Gate, at which point the phenomenon became almost common knowledge.

                    I have maintained and still maintain that above a certain power level and usually at or around 5000rpm a tuned MM Fiat will pull power if the wheel speed sensors don't see what the ECU interprets as normal conditions. In practical terms, that means that to measure power reliably you need a dyno with linked and monitored rollers for all four wheels or some sort of road dyno software that measures the rate of increase in engine RPM and takes into account other factors like weight, gear ratios, tires sizes, etc.

                    Now, you may be able to find a place where for brevity I said 4wd dyno and later clarified exactly what I meant, as I don't really feel like typing "hydraulically linked and monitored rollers" every single time I mention this. My position on this subject has been consistent.

                    So far in this thread, I haven't even seen John put down a goal post. I don't know if he agrees this is real or not. Hopefully he clarifies that soon so we can move forward.

                    Greg
                    FCA engineer stated that an AWD dyno is not relevant or needed. Not sure how much more of a goal post you want me to put down.

                    Next... if you had a map showing wheel speed reference values for front to rear relation to torque monitoring/function. Then, I would be a little more impressed. Even better, give me the hex address of the calibration file where this map resides, and I will post it from my DAMOS and if I am feeling very friendly, I will give you the transfer priority level of said map. See, this way you have to post nothing, no maps, no data... just a calibration number and hex address and I will share the map with the community.

                    As far as measuring the acceleration curve of said vehicle mass, they have load cells and dyno brakes that allow for said curve to be determined. Again, Brodey has covered this in detail in his posts and in his thread about dynoing his car.

                    I have maintained that an AWD is not needed since 2012 for the Fiat MM ECU. We have shown 100's of dyno charts on different 2WD dynos where stock and tuned 1.4T MA engines do not fall off power wise, 100's of them.

                    So, my "goal post" has been in place just as long as yours. Problem being, stock cars do not fall off at 5000 ish RPM on 2WD dynos, so if it were a true issue with front and rear wheel speed sensors, the modification level wouldn't matter. The power curve would still fall off, which it sadly doesn't happen.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mneuman916 View Post
                      Oh this is rich...

                      Do you and your entire cohort think the community is this stupid? Do you think that people don't see the things you say on Facebook and the forums you haven't been banned from yet? Do you really think you're just going to swing in here, play the victim and suddenly everyone will see you've simply been an innocent, misunderstood angel in all of this? How about coming down off that cross. We need the lumber.

                      On one thing we can agree, the community can definitely make its own conclusions based on a looooong history of behavior.

                      On another note, can you please stop sending Alex in here to make fake accounts to stir up shit? His efforts to conceal his real identity are laughable at best. You'd think ya'll would have gotten better at this by now.
                      You have nothing of value to offer this conversation, with that being said, I am sorry you feel this way.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by mneuman916 View Post

                        On another note, can you please stop sending Alex in here to make fake accounts to stir up shit? His efforts to conceal his real identity are laughable at best. You'd think ya'll would have gotten better at this by now.
                        What are you talking abou Matt? Sorry to break it to you but, this is me....just look at the join date and my 2 prior posts to this one. When I realized how biased this site is, I found it pointless to post but to watch some of the stupidity ensue. Apparently from what I have read in other threads I should disclose where I am at, I am sitting on the shitter in a room at a Holiday Inn, in Chicago.
                        Last edited by nightowlracing; 02-12-2019, 11:26 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by nightowlracing View Post

                          What are you talking abou Matt? Sorry to break it to you but, this is me....just look at the join date and my 2 prior posts to this one. When I realized how biased this site is, I found it pointless to post but to watch some of the stupidity ensue. Apparently from what I have read in other threads I should disclose where I am at, I am sitting on the shitter in a room at a Holiday Inn, in Chicago.
                          Well, since you have a provable history of creating and posting under a fake account in order to support your agenda, mneuman's point is relevant.

                          Greg

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TorkMe View Post

                            Wrong, and this is where we are going to have a problem.

                            Eddie, does not and I will repeat that with CAPS LOCKED, DOES NOT WORK FOR ME OR COLLECT AN INCOME OR WAGE FROM US. He, pays for the work that gets performed on his car (can provide invoices if needed) pays for all his parts that are not sponsored by our suppliers and, is not given any "special" treatment. He is however, a good friend of mine but he clearly knows the line between friend, and business.

                            If this were a "commercial" for Tork, it would have been blogged on my Youtube channel, not Eddies. Eddie asked if he could blog the time spent during this tune for his channel, and I agreed. He does have a very popular Fiat channel and uses my shop for filming some of his content. I have my own channel, that focuses more on the tech side of things for the different communities I am involved with.

                            Now, that we have that out of the way.
                            I see it very differently. To avoid clogging up this thread, I'll start another one on this subject, present my thoughts, and people can choose for themselves. Fair?

                            Originally posted by TorkMe View Post
                            So, you agree that the tune is yours and that the Phase 2 tune falls off on a 2WD dyno. Why doesn't our tune fall off on the 2WD dyno?
                            I am not sure if it's ours or not, I am willing to have this discussion under the assumption that it is. What I do know is that you are misinforming people by telling them that it's anything other than an off the shelf Phase 2, and an older one at that. So my main objection to that video is that the entire thing is built upon a false premise, and I think you know it. You have claimed to have evidence that it is special big turbo tune, well if so, let's see it! If you have that, then I'll happy retract my statement.

                            Originally posted by TorkMe View Post
                            If you want, you can watch the unedited 6 hour session on Youtube to see if we "manipulated" any of the settings. Moving along... you make the accusation that we change settings or that we "manipulate" the Dyno, but do you have any idea how hard it is to do that with a Dynojet dyno? Now, since we started to cast stones of a questionable nature... who's to say you don't do the same thing with your dyno results? I have no idea how your dyno works, so I wouldn't have the slightest idea on how to manipulate it, but... the great thing about a Dynojet dyno, is they have what is called a WinPep file. Where you can go download free software from Dynojet and look at all the run data in the dyno jet software. I have zero issues posting a WinPep file for people to scrutinize and look for where I made or attempted to manipulate the runs.
                            I'm not saying that you rigged the data, I wasn't there. I am saying that the entire video was built upon the false premise that you were comparing a special EC tune made for that turbo. The way I see it, that discredits the entire video.

                            Originally posted by TorkMe View Post
                            Not 100% sure how we got on the 247 WHP Fiat 124, but its even more insulting to this community to assume that Tolby's ass dyno can tell that it wasn't 247 horsepower. Is that really the direction you wish to take this discussion? Ass dyno results? Really?
                            Well, we got on the 247whp topic because YOU brought it up, not me. I am mostly responding to you in this thread, and I'm trying not to introduce new topics. As for Toby's butt dyno, I think it's accurate enough to tell the difference between 200whp and 247whp in a car he is very familiar with. I also listed two other reasons why I don't think the car had that much at the dragon.

                            Originally posted by TorkMe View Post
                            My listing of the maps and addressing the live emulation and transfer data mean, I am much further into the ECU than EC is. How do I know that? Because several of the maps I listed, have not been addressed inside the EC tunes. Not only that, but all of the torque vectoring for ramp rates inside the EC tune have not been touched (this is the only bone I am going to give EC). Using a state of the art dyno, but not utilizing the full potential of the maps inside the ECU on that dyno... very concerning.
                            Another big statement with no proof.


                            Originally posted by TorkMe View Post
                            I saved the best for last...

                            Out of the 100's of Dodge Darts we have tuned not very many have managed to break 200 HP, on any dyno. A few larger turbo cars were able to break 210 and one even made 221 wheel horsepower (can all be found on the Dart forums in the archive). What I do find very interesting... the 3 fastest 1.4T Darts in the 1/4 mile, all run our tune. So... if we are going to turn this into a who's better at tuning the Dart contest, I win
                            It would help if you would provide links when you make claims like this. As for the 1/4 mile, I honestly don't know of any of our Dart customers that went to the 1/4 mile, so I don't have a valid comparison for you.

                            However I do have a valid comparison in the 124 market. On gasoline it's not even close. Your best customer time is 14.7x our is 14.3x.


                            Originally posted by TorkMe View Post
                            Phase 2 looses power on the 2WD dyno, which you claim is correct. How is it then, our tune doesn't loose power? If its the 2WD dyno that causes this phenomenon? How did we manage to get around that?
                            Ahh, we are getting somewhere. Let me make SURE I understand what you just said. The way I read that:

                            A. You now agree that our Phase 2 tune pulls power back on a 2wd dyno "looses power on a 2WD dyno" to use your words.
                            B. Your tune or tunes do NOT pull back power on a 2wd dyno.

                            Is that correct?


                            To avoid confusion I'll forgo responding to the other post you made prior to this one, as I feel we are almost at a point where we can move forward.
                            Last edited by [email protected]; 02-13-2019, 01:31 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Just be mindful:

                              4. Foul language and disrespect to other members will not be tolerated. These will be grounds for removal from the forum, and moderators/admins reserve this right to use at their discretion upon discussion and review .

                              5. Keep your photos and content on topic, and about the cars or other automotive subjects. No inappropriate stuff. This also applies to the Off Topic section. No politics, religion, or other abrasive discussion.
                              These will be strictly enforced for everyone. Stay on topic. Stick to facts, make your argument clear and concise.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X