Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
I'm pretty sure the "Ed/street tuning bashing" is pretty non-existant in this thread. In fact I specifically stated that I'm *not* bashing Ed.
|
Stating it doesn't make it true. Your entire premise is that the extra time Ed spent on Cody's tune was unnecessary. How else would you frame your comments?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
1) My comments about time spent on the dyno at ESX were not bragging about the quality of my tune, they were bragging about how much ESX was willing to spend on my sponsorship.
|
My point is, why weren't you done in an hour or two? You must have been wasting time by your premise.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
2) For about the 100th time this month: Hypocrisy is not a logical falacy. Even if I had in the past said that time=quality, it doesn't make my argument today false. I swear to god this is the #1 thing people on the internet seem not to understand about logical arguments, although it usually seems to come up in street racing threads rather than tuning threads.
|
These are directly correlated discussions about tuning IMHO and all I'm saying is that from my logical perspective, you have conflicting points. ESX many hours of tuning/dyno time = value, Cody's hours of tuning/street dyno = no value... The hypocrisy is only a added benefit.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
You're not understanding my argument. If a tuner gets all the necessary maps where they need to be, then the tuning is done. Now I'm not a tuner, but I have to believe there is a point where "fine-tuning" isn't going to gain you anything. Hell, the consistancy on a dyno is +/- 5hp or so between back to back runs, right? If that's the case, how can you tune for that last 2hp or whatever? Anything you're doing at that granularity is going to result in fighting the ECU's learning ability. I'm not saying a tuner should rely on the ECU to finish tuning the car w/ knock sensors, etc, I'm just pointing out that once the car is "done", there's nothing really left to do that won't be undone by changing conditions. If a tuner can get the car running acceptably (hits target boost, AFRs, hp/tq, etc.) during the tuning session, spending another 2 hours to make it "perfect" is a waste of two hours because it's only "perfect" for that last pull.
|
There are hundreds of individual numbers in the tables we are talking about. Yes, there are tools to allow you to "smooth" the numbers and manipulate many at a time, but in my limited experienced the scale of what we are talking about could easily take hours optimize. I am not talking about tuning for the last .1 HP. this is about optimizing the base maps so that all the entries in the dynamic maps remain as close to zero as possible, and the car is drivable, and response is smooth and predictable under all conditions.
The slight differences between intake 1, and intake 2, even the same model from the same manufacturer might have enough difference that in an ideal base maps, 10% of the numbers might be off by single digit numbers. Making these minor adjustments is not fighting the ECU, it is allowing it the most accurate starting point to learn from, and give it the maximum ability to adjust as needed. If your base map is off by 3%, and the maximum dynamic adjustment is 5%, you may end up in conditions in which the remaining 2% does not permit the ECU to dynamically correct enough. And again, a significant number of these numbers do not necessarily change from pull to pull, so dyno consistency in meaningless. I would bet that to really do a good job, you need to change how the dyno is loading the car between runs so you actually exercise a significant portion of the maps, and not just a WOT line across them.
It's entirely possibly I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, or I might be blowing this out of proportion, but I believe more time tweaking has at least some merit.