The power of that stock ECU is also the problem of the piggyback. It's too damn smart and learns around piggy systems. Tunes get lost too quickly and too often. Things get too limited and too complicated because of it. It works, but not ideally... damn thing is too smart.
Why not try this piggyback?
- Thread starter PR5Matt
- Start date
The reason the ECU "strikes back" is because it sees things out of safe variance levels. Yes, it may be annoying, and the tuning might require more of a razors edge precision in some areas, but the result is that when tuned correctly - it will be dead on. I think the problem with the ECU "re-learning" is that people are tuning to aggressively. If you throw something at the ECU that is going to be recognized as improper - it's going to do it's job and compensate.TurfBurn said:
then again, I'm just a geek - and I don't tune
I don't want to comment too directly as I think Nick has a good product that people should consider and buy. It's perfect for the price range. But I know cars will hold tunes for weeks, months etc... and then due to certain conditions lose parts of the tunes. A car I helped on was retuned 3 times before it held a tune for a while and then faded out again.
The tunes work, and they work very well. The MPI does it's job very very well. BUT, the tune can be damaged slightly by the intelligence of the ECU that's all.
The tunes work, and they work very well. The MPI does it's job very very well. BUT, the tune can be damaged slightly by the intelligence of the ECU that's all.
Yeah, but if you checked codes on it with an OBDII reader I bet you would see multiple code instances that are related to the problem that suddenly pops up.
i.e. - Not always - but sometimes under partial accelleration car is running slightly rich (ok, bad example since the car already does), make that more rich than normal - but other than some slightly high AFR's the car runs great. Under WOT, idle and cruise the car is fine. Eventually you are going to throw enough fuel at the ECU that is decides it's time to "relearn" - it adjusts the fuel - and now you are running very lean because the ECU has made changes to a large portion of the fuel map.
Arrrg, talking about cars while driving completely stock n/a is really frustrating. I swear - if my family and friends hadn't read me the riot act I would do it again, this time forged, with a t28 running maybe 5psi. Of course I would get greedy just like I did with the t3 and soon be up to 11psi spikes.
House // Condo // new car // keep my ES and buy the Merkur - these are constantly spinning in my head
$6205.74 left to pay off - a few more months
i.e. - Not always - but sometimes under partial accelleration car is running slightly rich (ok, bad example since the car already does), make that more rich than normal - but other than some slightly high AFR's the car runs great. Under WOT, idle and cruise the car is fine. Eventually you are going to throw enough fuel at the ECU that is decides it's time to "relearn" - it adjusts the fuel - and now you are running very lean because the ECU has made changes to a large portion of the fuel map.
Arrrg, talking about cars while driving completely stock n/a is really frustrating. I swear - if my family and friends hadn't read me the riot act I would do it again, this time forged, with a t28 running maybe 5psi. Of course I would get greedy just like I did with the t3 and soon be up to 11psi spikes.
House // Condo // new car // keep my ES and buy the Merkur - these are constantly spinning in my head
$6205.74 left to pay off - a few more months
Nope. Clean of codes and pending codes at the time I believe. 
But I certainly follow what you are saying. And that's the hitch to a piggy. They work great, but if the stock ECU decides to throw it's weight around for one reason or another... the piggy is SOL.
BUT they also cost 1/2-1/3-1/4 of a standalone
But I certainly follow what you are saying. And that's the hitch to a piggy. They work great, but if the stock ECU decides to throw it's weight around for one reason or another... the piggy is SOL. BUT they also cost 1/2-1/3-1/4 of a standalone
I do not think you would retune the piggy back anymore then a standalone. Big Tim had the same tune for months in his car, then he made changes for boost. I think that people will always make small changes anyway. Everyone is always trying to get the most out of their car. If you are only going to run low boost all of the time it will not be a problem.
The NA car has not codes as far as I know. That has been on his car for over a month. His car will never lose the tune or have it learned and change by the PCM because of how it is tuned. I guess some piggyback work better then others, the MPI seems to work very well when tuned right.
The NA car has not codes as far as I know. That has been on his car for over a month. His car will never lose the tune or have it learned and change by the PCM because of how it is tuned. I guess some piggyback work better then others, the MPI seems to work very well when tuned right.
Hell, I'm making 296 whp right now and the car is not even tuned right. Just for laughs I called nick today and told him wait a sec. Got in to the car which hasn't been started in two weeks and it fired right up!!!TurfBurn said:
Yes I do get a consistent CEL: MAP out of range. Annoying and it always happens when I go over 15 psi boost.
Very good point Nick. You always end up tweaking and playing anyway and thus you need to redo maps and so forth. I agree with that for sure. I do try to tune my car through a wider range than I need typically and then pull it back to "safer" areas for driving more often etc. But yeah, very good point.MPNick said:
I think the MPI is a great piggy. If someone wants something cheaper than the Microtech for their tuning I'd certainly point them that way.
. TurfBurn said:
These statements are absolutly not true when it comes to the MPI. I had ZERO issues with my maps from the time I did them at the dyno day, until I changed my wiring around to test out different things. I only changed a little timing because I'm a wimp and wanted to keep it safe at the end of the summer because the 94 octane gas isn't availble here anymore. I did no fuel changes and the car ran the same then as it does now. I have never lost any maps or settings, nor has my ECU learned the tune once it was done!TurfBurn said:
My car ran completely like stock the whole time, just like it is now that I have it setup to run like stock. The TM keeps the ECU from learning anything that I do. So why spend the extra money on a fuel standalone, that you use in parralel, when you can get it done right for a fraction of the cost.
Not to say that Terry's 253whp is a joke, but he dynoed at 5 more psi then me, with a standalone, and only made 25 more whp. I understand the clutch was slipping, but that isn't that impressing now that there are more and more high powered cars out there. I would expect a standalone, with all the talk about them, to be a much better performing system and put down more power. I may have a larger turbo, but I'm not even in it's efficiency range yet, so that's no reason to use.
I've been running the same psi since day 1 (16months) with no problems. I would say I've been in the same neighborhod of power the whole time, so the MPI is a very reliable unit to work with. I can't see how much easier it can get, you add or subtract numbers and have 3 tabs of maps to tune, if using the xtra injectors. I'm sure the other EMS are great, but this is by far the most bang for the buck!
dissconnect the hose going to the stock MAP sensor and plug it offFocus said:
the vaccume valve I guess opens and it can see boost, and since its only a 1bar map it wil wig out, if you connect the stock map sensor directly to the manifold it will go nuts and throw a code just as you hit 1psi
You can not say they are not true. There are people who have repeatedly had that problem. I'd bet you money if you drive 3,000 miles across the country, through a good portion of mountains etc... you WILL lean out portions of your map. There are multiple people who have tuned their car and had the tune fade out or disappear. I have personally first hand witnessed it occur repeatedly. So while it may not happen every time it DOES happen and your statement that it is "absolutely not true" is absolutely false.Bigg Tim said:
i've said repeatedly, and you seem to miss the point, that the MPI is a great unit and I do recommend that people buy it.
Also, Terry's dyno was well before anyone was doing jack with these cars. You also completely forget that the CLUTCH WAS SLIPPING, and they couldn't dyno it further. So you don't know what it can or can't do or what it would do. Also, if you look at his AFR's he appears to have went past peak efficiency. Also, I have his maps from when he did that and the timing seemed conservative to what I mapped with the JandS. So there was plenty of power to be had.
My point is that my car drives BETTER than stock when fully tuned. So if your car drives as good as stock... well then
. (Just giving you s*** with the well then, but the car did drive better than stock once tuned). ALSO, I believe you have a bigger turbo for sure. This car runs a 16G which is not that large of a turbo, quite a bit smaller and less efficient than the T3 I believe, (and you have the T4 hybrid correct?), although I'd have to check maps to be sure.
I've never said the MPI wasn't the most bang for the buck. Eas up a little Tim. I'm a fan of the MPI, and always will be. It does the most for the cost of anything out there. But it is NOT perfect (nore is an EMS). So don't try to pass it off as the cure all to end all to elminate all EMS's. It's an AWESOME unit, but it HAS lost maps, that's the ONLY complaint or statement I'm putting forward amidst a heavy set of praise.
You can tune the Microtech with one hand while driving... also, you don't need a laptop and can program it with the hand adapter that can be purchased instead of the laptop kit. There are OTHER options basically with the situation. There ARE things you can do with a standalone that the MPI is likely to be more limited on.
But Nick also made a GREAT point in this thread or another... why use a standalone to control boost, when they make boost controllers that do a better job.
This isn't a war for EMS's and I will NOT get involved in some inane pissing match like perfworks use to love. If you can't understand and appreciate that I think the MPI is a great unit and that I have seen a particular problem show up a few times and accept that at face value rather than seen as an attack then there is no point in trying to continue an educated discussion of EMS units. They ALL have flaws, and if you try to maintain that the MPI will not come upon shortcomings from time to time then this is not an honest exchange.
GO MPI, GO MICROTECH, GO AEM, GO HALTECH.
There was no "before fuel cut". I had it the whole time. Even at 11psi on the T3. It's just that we didn't realize what the problem was until we boosted more and it became more obvious.MPNick said:
Again, my main reason for not putting out more than 251whp on the dyno that day was FUEL CUT, period. Once that was fixed, the car was faster. Why else would I be beating him by 2 seconds in the quarter mile?
That's also true.TurfBurn said:
Plus, let's not forget that Dean ran C16 fuel on his best pulls. I THINK he had pump gas for his lower psi pulls, in which I think he was making 280whp or so (anyone have the dyno handy?).
Point is, comparing his 328whp to everyone else's dynos isn't apples to apples, since he had 116 octane race gas. That's 22 or 23 octane points above everyone else. It goes a long way.
"and there goes kooldino - sailing right past my point"Kooldino said:
Yes, I'm fully aware that HP doesn't come cheap, I've watched my friends 10 second Camaro spend thousands just to keep the front end down and pick up 2 tenths in the qtr. But, when one person spends half the money, and ends up with the same performance increase - that's something worth thinking about.
My point was that he is spending alot of money in time/research and I'm curious to see how much the finished product ends up costing and what the actual gains are. Then you can take that and vs. it against other accepted solutions such as the MPI Tuner.
well to some degree doing things cost effectively is short sighted also...Micah said:
say if I make only 210 with a built block and someone else does it on a stock block. I've spent atleast 3000 more than they did. should they get more props because they did it cheaper? no, they are sitting on a time bomb (relatively)
cost to power ratio isn't everything. a large portion of the money spent on my setup will be towards reliability and longevity. short term power goals vs. cost only really work for racing applications.
New Posts and Comments
-
- Sticky
- Article
