Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What happened with this tune?

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

  • 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.
    Is that so? Could I be wrong? Let's let the evidence speak for itself.

    Here's "JustBob's" registration email. You don't have a problem with me posting this right? It's not you, after all.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	User.png Views:	0 Size:	17.4 KB ID:	2414

    Let's google search that email address, shall we? Click the link if you'd like to play along at home, kids. http://bfy.tw/MHQm

    Check out those search results. The second one is a profile on a MINI forum. Hmm, a MINI forum? Alex owns a Mini. Let's take a look...

    https://www.mini2.com/forum/members/...ab=miniprofile

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Mini.png Views:	0 Size:	18.6 KB ID:	2415



    Kansas? Why, Alex once lived in Kansas! The plot doth thicken.... let's google that Aim/Yahoo name now. Again, if you'd like to play along at home. http://bfy.tw/MHRe

    The first result is a Flikr account. https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

    What do we find in that Flikr account? Why, it's a picture of YOU Alex!

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9085055211/

    As you have broken the forum rules under your JustBob account, which resulted in your ban, you'll not be allowed to skirt that ban with another account. You're banned. Again.

    Alex, you are not part of this community. You are part of the problem. You have zero credibility and absolutely no integrity. Please find something more fruitful to do with your time.

    As an aside, I apologize for this veering off topic. I think we can move on now that we can plainly see Alex's ulterior motives.
    Last edited by mneuman916; 02-13-2019, 08:20 AM.

    Comment


    • Please do not use multiple accounts. Its not cool and against the rules. This person has been warned prior, this has been a reoccurring phenomenon on other forums as well.

      Back on topic please.

      Comment


      • 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.
        Lol you're grasping at straws (and of course we do). Yes, you can run Phase 2 with a bigger turbo. We don't have any kind of performance data for the said combination, and make no claims for it either.

        What you're obviously avoiding (the primary point), you (your company) and your buddies have been circulating both in written word and by video on many occasions that the tune on his car was a custom tune, or a custom big turbo tune (I'll let the screenshot do the talking):


        Yes, yes you are.

        I have my own proof that shows nothing but a standard Phase 2 map was given to him, and initially long before he ever had our turbo. What you may not know, I also have a saved email chain with this particular customer, spanning from the time he was given the turbo, all the way up to the end of November 2018. In as late as November, I have written proof of this customer acknowledging I have not given him any kind of custom tune, or tune for this turbo, or any tune outside of the original Phase 2 that was given to him before he received the turbo (outside of adding pops and bangs to his P2). Nothing has been given to him after this date as well.

        So, either you were lied to, or you knew or didn't. You can ignore this, or post your saved messages, continue arguing about dynos or tuning, whatever. I could really care less.

        We've had to suffer your nonsense for years (as has the rest of the community), and to be honest I'm quite fed up with it. You have gone out of your way to willingly circulate, regurgitate, and disseminate false information in an effort to either damage our reputation, or puff up your own business and reputation. It's disgusting, and the consequences should be serious.

        So by all means, please continue.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TorkMe View Post
          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.
          Funny you say that, I've spoken to many of your past customers about this. They typically never see the results you claim, as most of these dyno charts you post (hundreds of them you say), all come from your dyno. If there are no variables with dyno configuration, and since supposedly Dynojets are the "industry standard" (which you have), then the margin for error should be in the ballpark of your results, but they rarely are. But again, what you're stating:

          - Our Phase 2 tune pulls power back on a 2wd dyno "looses power on a 2WD dyno" to use your words.
          - Your tune or tunes do NOT pull back power on a 2wd dyno.


          I can point to 5-6 places in DAMOS where plant testing and surrogate maps activate for exactly this scenario. The ECU can calculate resistance to determine whether or not it's on a dyno as well (something you cannot determine without a load bearing unit). I have spoken with a chief powertrain engineer at FCA (yes, actually a current employee who works in the actual testing plant, running and supervising the tests), and concurs with this information. So do many other software engineers familiar with this ECU file. If I was so concerned with proving this to you before (which I'm not), I would have.

          I'm not giving you this information lol. That ship has sailed. I'm actually interested to hear this FCA engineer's technical explanation in support of your view, key word, a technical explanation, and not some black screen babbling leading to vague conclusions like I've seen previewed or posted before.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FCACHATADMIN View Post
            Please do not use multiple accounts. Its not cool and against the rules. This person has been warned prior, this has been a reoccurring phenomenon on other forums as well.

            Back on topic please.
            Here is the problem, I have a shop. We have free wifi, people try to log in or create an account from my shops wifi, and then... we get accused of using multiple login's.

            Please remember this, next time one of your admin accuse us of using false or different accounts.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post

              Lol you're grasping at straws (and of course we do). Yes, you can run Phase 2 with a bigger turbo. We don't have any kind of performance data for the said combination, and make no claims for it either.

              What you're obviously avoiding (the primary point), you (your company) and your buddies have been circulating both in written word and by video on many occasions that the tune on his car was a custom tune, or a custom big turbo tune (I'll let the screenshot do the talking):


              Yes, yes you are.

              I have my own proof that shows nothing but a standard Phase 2 map was given to him, and initially long before he ever had our turbo. What you may not know, I also have a saved email chain with this particular customer, spanning from the time he was given the turbo, all the way up to the end of November 2018. In as late as November, I have written proof of this customer acknowledging I have not given him any kind of custom tune, or tune for this turbo, or any tune outside of the original Phase 2 that was given to him before he received the turbo (outside of adding pops and bangs to his P2). Nothing has been given to him after this date as well.

              So, either you were lied to, or you knew or didn't. You can ignore this, or post your saved messages, continue arguing about dynos or tuning, whatever. I could really care less.

              We've had to suffer your nonsense for years (as has the rest of the community), and to be honest I'm quite fed up with it. You have gone out of your way to willingly circulate, regurgitate, and disseminate false information in an effort to either damage our reputation, or puff up your own business and reputation. It's disgusting, and the consequences should be serious.

              So by all means, please continue.
              How many tune revisions were sent to the Dart owner?

              My only complaint about the EC claim, is that an AND dyno has to be used, which is false and we have the engineer from FCA claiming that. So, either the FCA engineer lied to us, or... you are lying.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post

                Funny you say that, I've spoken to many of your past customers about this. They typically never see the results you claim, as most of these dyno charts you post (hundreds of them you say), all come from your dyno. If there are no variables with dyno configuration, and since supposedly Dynojets are the "industry standard" (which you have), then the margin for error should be in the ballpark of your results, but they rarely are. But again, what you're stating:

                - Our Phase 2 tune pulls power back on a 2wd dyno "looses power on a 2WD dyno" to use your words.
                - Your tune or tunes do NOT pull back power on a 2wd dyno.


                I can point to 5-6 places in DAMOS where plant testing and surrogate maps activate for exactly this scenario. The ECU can calculate resistance to determine whether or not it's on a dyno as well (something you cannot determine without a load bearing unit). I have spoken with a chief powertrain engineer at FCA (yes, actually a current employee who works in the actual testing plant, running and supervising the tests), and concurs with this information. So do many other software engineers familiar with this ECU file. If I was so concerned with proving this to you before (which I'm not), I would have.

                I'm not giving you this information lol. That ship has sailed. I'm actually interested to hear this FCA engineer's technical explanation in support of your view, key word, a technical explanation, and not some black screen babbling leading to vague conclusions like I've seen previewed or posted before.
                Actually, several of our customers dyno results come from different dyno's. If needed I can go find them for you? I will list a few:

                Brodey
                Kevin
                Biaggo
                Andrea

                All these people were previous EC tune customers, and all of them have independent dyno results outside our shop, both with our tune, and your tune. This, however will be for a different thread.

                See, this is what you don't understand about the ECU. Plant testing and surrogate maps have a priority level. Do you know what "transfer data" is? If you don't, then you do not know the priority level of those plant maps and surrogate maps that eventually time out, based on mileage or key on time. So, those maps you are pointing out to me, have no value if they have been disabled.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post

                  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?



                  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.



                  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.



                  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.



                  Another big statement with no proof.




                  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.




                  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.
                  Eddie is not part of this forum, so making a new thread about him or his results, moot.

                  I will get Kevin to answer a few questions for me, but I was under the impression he got "tune revisions" for his turbo. If he can comment in here and post those communications, that would make it better coming from the horses mouth

                  Well, if you were not there and have not watch all 6 hours of the video... then your claim of false premises is unfounded. The fact being, you were not there, and you don't know what was said to us about the tune or how we addressed the tune on our dyno. You can make assumptions and if you are assuming that the video was built false premises, then that if your right to share.

                  Not even going to entertain someone's opinion on what their ass dyno determines as "valid" and its insulting, for you to even make that assumption. You are a facts and data type of person, so assuming that Tolby's "ass dyno" is good enough to pick apart those numbers, is easily dismissed using you online logic. So, don't be "that guy".

                  I am going to take from your play book and ask you to post links to all your claims refuting my mine? In one reply you went from Tolby's ass dyno being a valid enough measuring device, to asking me to post links... you are kidding me, right??? If you want to discredit my claim, then get a Dart to the 1/4 mile and post those results, because a quick Google search showed all the fastest Darts and the 1/4 forum post about it. I don't have to show you how to Google, do I?

                  Ah... the 1/4 mile debate.

                  This should be in a different thread, but... anyone who reads the 1/4 slips that are posted, can see that our Stage 1 Tune is faster.

                  Let me explain...

                  60 ft times tell everything. A 2.0 sixty foot with a 14.3 time, vs a 2.2 sixty foot with a 14.7 are the same. Now, I don't know how much drag racing you do, but... rule of thumb is every .1 taken off the sixty foot is .2 off the 1/4 mile. Now, if you really want to see which car is faster, look at the 1/8 mile to 1/4 mile time and MPH gains. These will tell everything when you know what you are looking at. If we wish to dig deeper into this, we can start a new thread. And to be clear, our fastest 124 is 14.1 and our fastest 500 on the stock turbo is 13.9, both of those times you have not been able to beat. Yes, the 124 did have a bigger turbo, so hopefully you will have some bigger turbo 124 times to post soon.

                  Comment


                  • I am curious, I have asked multiple times about why the stock cars, when on a 2WD dyno do not fall off in the dyno curve. Why has this question not been addressed?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TorkMe View Post

                      See, this is what you don't understand about the ECU. Plant testing and surrogate maps have a priority level. Do you know what "transfer data" is? If you don't, then you do not know the priority level of those plant maps and surrogate maps that eventually time out, based on mileage or key on time. So, those maps you are pointing out to me, have no value if they have been disabled.
                      You spend a lot of time telling people what they don't know. I do understand transfer data, but you're looking in the wrong place (or looking at this logic incorrectly). It's priority level lies in dynamic ram, which is why sometimes you don't see it, it doesn't store long term information. Those tables exist for a reason, they have to be externally activated (by key or code) for certain testing scenarios (exact scenarios we are talking about). The existence of such things points heavily to our theory of operation, and others experienced in this field concur. You can't view them or edit them. They're not definable X/Y axis tables. As such, you have no way to determine their priority level, or whether or not they're enabled or disabled.

                      You not giving any value to it is precisely the problem, it's not like you're interested in being convinced.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TorkMe View Post

                        How many tune revisions were sent to the Dart owner?

                        My only complaint about the EC claim, is that an AND dyno has to be used, which is false and we have the engineer from FCA claiming that. So, either the FCA engineer lied to us, or... you are lying.
                        No revisions were sent. P2 first (that's what he flashed), and P2 pops and bangs a few months later (pops and bangs added to the existing P2). Still grasping, I see.

                        We've put a lot of time into researching and understanding something, just to be lying about it.

                        You can debate with Greg (seeing as you can't even spell my name correctly). I'm not going to waste anymore of my time talking with you. Based on what I've posted above in regards to this Dart, you have repeatedly lied about the conditions of the testing, and spread it in an effort to damage our reputation, or improve your own. You can continue on about whatever it is you're digging for, but it's not going to be allowed to pass this time.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post

                          You spend a lot of time telling people what they don't know. I do understand transfer data, but you're looking in the wrong place (or looking at this logic incorrectly). It's priority level lies in dynamic ram, which is why sometimes you don't see it, it doesn't store long term information. Those tables exist for a reason, they have to be externally activated (by key or code) for certain testing scenarios (exact scenarios we are talking about). The existence of such things points heavily to our theory of operation, and others experienced in this field concur. You can't view them or edit them. They're not definable X/Y axis tables. As such, you have no way to determine their priority level, or whether or not they're enabled or disabled.

                          You not giving any value to it is precisely the problem, it's not like you're interested in being convinced.
                          Then, why don't the stock cars fall off on a 2WD dyno?

                          You type up a lot of good tech, but I have yet to see any reason given why the stock cars don't fall off on all the 2WD dyno charts?

                          Who am I talking to to? Is this Tolby?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by [email protected] View Post

                            No revisions were sent. P2 first (that's what he flashed), and P2 pops and bangs a few months later (pops and bangs added to the existing P2). Still grasping, I see.

                            We've put a lot of time into researching and understanding something, just to be lying about it.

                            You can debate with Greg (seeing as you can't even spell my name correctly). I'm not going to waste anymore of my time talking with you. Based on what I've posted above in regards to this Dart, you have repeatedly lied about the conditions of the testing, and spread it in an effort to damage our reputation, or improve your own. You can continue on about whatever it is you're digging for, but it's not going to be allowed to pass this time.
                            Sorry, I barely remembered you name so, apologies if it was misspelled. I lied about the conditions for testing? That is news to me. I didn't do anything of the sort. I put a car on the dyno. First with your tune, then with my tune. Then decided to refine my tune for the bigger turbo.

                            I have no reason to continue anything, lol. Our results speak volumes, considering you claim I have essentially no idea whats happening inside the ECU

                            Comment


                            • Also, lets be very clear on something. I spend very little time on telling people anything. Lately, its been a lot of your past tune customers that switched over to my tune telling people about their experiences and the positive from our tune. I think your frustration is miss guided, and sadly directed at me.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TorkMe View Post
                                Also, lets be very clear on something. I spend very little time on telling people anything. Lately, its been a lot of your past tune customers that switched over to my tune telling people about their experiences and the positive from our tune. I think your frustration is miss guided, and sadly directed at me.
                                *misguided
                                Last edited by FCACHATADMIN(2); 02-13-2019, 01:40 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X