I see a lot of folks running PDX maps recently and wonder how safe their maps are in terms of engine reliability and longetivity.

I am more concerned about potential premature engine seal failure (oil leaking, etc). Won't engine be put to more stress with more aggressive PDX map (with mobil1 oil)? With proper engine tuning, will engine run as safe as stock engine?

You are basically asking to have your cake and eat it too. If tuning was as safe as stock, why wouldn't Subaru give you that extra power? Basically, cars break. If your car breaks and you can't imagine being able to: a) fix it yourself, or b) pay to have it fixed, my advice is don't mod your car.

That being said, there are lots of good tuners and I'd personally trust PDX with my car, but one of those reasons is that they are local to me and tune all their local cars on approximately the same gas. If I lived in another state, I'd research my local tuners much more closely. Do your research.

why wouldn't Subaru give you that extra power?

Because of insurance costs for the consumer and the fact that consumer cars with more HP basically equals more wrecks and a safety hazzard because American's can't drive for isht.

Do you honestly believe the new 06 WRX 2.5L engine can only muster 230hp? If you do, I have some prime swamp realestate to sell you. You can safely run a stock 205 to about 260hp (flywheel) with only raising the boost to 14.5 psi on a tune. The car is otherwise stock and makes good power. This could have been the stock tune on a WRX off the lot, but it would cost more to insure it and it might not be as safe to drive for grandma.

let's go state!

and IMHO a properly tuned car can be ever MORE reliable than stock. The stock exhausts on these cars are very restrictive causing lots of back pressure. Go with a custom tune if you can. If you choose to go with an agressive mail order reflash, i would be monitoring the health of the tune with logs monitoring KC DAM etc etc.

Good points Civic, but remember the 06 wrx's have the same TD04 turbo as previous years, so the free power may come at the expense of the turbo working harder. I don't think Stage 2 or even higher is actually that risky, but when people ask "Is it gonna be as reliable as stock" they seem to be asking for a promise that their car won't break. That's a guarantee no tuner should make, even if they're the best.

It is really hard to assign a value to how safe a tune is. We feel that our tuning method is very safe and provides the best balance of safety and power. We definatley feel that our maps are safer than stock maps. Our tuning method is a bit different that Cobb's, obviously we think ours is the right way. I am sure that Cobb feels the same way. When you select your tuner you are choosing the method that tuner uses. You have to make the best decision you can, and the only way to do that is to talk to other people who have used them, and ask questions about their method. We have posted data from many of our tunes here on NASIOC, so you should be able to see what we do, and how we do it. Cobb has not posted data directly, that I know of, but there are some users who have posted their data. I know of a couple people who have done direct comparisons of our base maps to Cobb's.

Jarrad

Keep in mind that Subaru has a lot of requirements that we are willing to forgo. For example, the tune they choose has to work at sea level and mile high. It has to work between 115 and -40 Fahrenheit. It has to run on 87 crap gas without blowing up. It has to last when a idiot floors it out of gear. It has to satisfy the EPA.

We, on the other hand, don't often go from sea level to mile high. Our temperature doesn't have as big a spread. (Some even have summer and winter maps) None of us care about the EPA mandated 2 second enrichment delay. We are able to sacrifice things the manufacture could not. A good tune can be safer and more efficient than stock, until you move from Houston to Denver. :D

As to who is safer, talk to those around you. I would chose Jarrad over Cobb any day. But he knows Houston, and how to tune for it. If I lived in Denver, I might choose differently.

Care to elaborate on your tuning method vs Cobb's? Going from stock to stg 1 has given me a small sense of Cobb's methodology & direction.

I'm going to be running Stg 2 in the coming weeks (I just ordered my APS tbe), and have also ordered some supporting mods that Cobb's tune doesn't account for (APS tmic, lightweight pulley, turbo inlet pipe, etc). I know you can't really answer this without badmouthing the competition, but how would your method be different?

I'm with Hondaeater. Read, Reversion. I've just received my PDX Maps, and a lengthy discussion with Jarrad convinced me that i am in good hands. I run an EGT Guage and a Knock Link at all times. I intend to Data Log, and will post my impression of the PDX Maps. Additionally, I ran a Cobb Stage 2 for about 6 months. Granted I'm running a 2 liter but I feel that the Bang for the Buck was a bargain.

Generically speaking we run richer AFRs, and a bit more boost. I do not have anything bad to say about Cobb's maps, it is really more a matter of a difference of opinion. Take a look at the dyno plots of the 04 WRX S2. That has AFR plotted along with the dyno plot, which shows you a good comparison of our standard AFR curve, and what I assume to be Cobb's.

Jarrad

From what I have seen in Cobb map logs, Cobb tends to run higher base timing with leaner A/F ratios in hopes of building boost quicker. The bad part about this is generally speaking even with a maxed IAM value the Cobb maps generally run 4-7 positive KC values rather then 7-10 positive KC values which seems to be where the "sweet spot" is for good power. Because of the lower KC values (even though IAM seems to be at 16 most of the time) there is some minor det, but definatly not major since the IAM stays high, but from time to time you run into engines that don't like this and this is why you see some people with Cobb OTS maps that have det issues. From my point of view (and you don't have to share it) if I had to make a choice I'd pay the money for PDX's maps. This doesn't constitute a selling point on my part because I don't use an AP for my EM, it just means that from all the logs that I have seen from various people... the PDX maps are the closest I've seen to the logs I'm generating from my car... which has been running strong for 30k miles on it's current tuned state. Only difference is mine's EcuTek and it's from Dynocomp.

So, with the current info out there, Dynocomp and PDX = Thumbs Up in my book for their respective maps on the respective EM solutions.

No, more wear and tear from increased performance.... How safe? It is all subjective......
I see a lot of folks running PDX maps recently and wonder how safe their maps are in terms of engine reliability and longetivity.

I am more concerned about potential premature engine seal failure (oil leaking, etc). Won't engine be put to more stress with more aggressive PDX map (with mobil1 oil)? With proper engine tuning, will engine run as safe as stock engine?

Well, in the aspect of an 04+ WRX (which stock has the OL/CL fueling problems and det issues because of this) I'd rather throw on a Stage .5 or 1 tune and it will be way safer then it is stock... (if the tune comes from a good tuner). There have been quite a few engines of 04+ WRX give out even in stock form when driven hard... because of this EPA bs issue.

I would chose Jarrad over Cobb any day. But he knows Houston, and how to tune for it.Yeah, Trey Cobb has no clue about conditions in Texas or how to tune for them. :rolleyes:

']Yeah, Trey Cobb has no clue about conditions in Texas or how to tune for them. :rolleyes:
Yep. A Yankee that has never been to Texas. Hell, my Town is bigger than some of y'alls States. :D Seriously, Dallas and Houston are very different environments. Something I am sure both Jarrad and Trey will agree on. Actually, Texas has all four climatic types found in the US.

I just went to the PDXTuning web site and am somewhat confused. I bought an AP for $645.00 about a year ago and am very pleased with it. I was surprised to see that PDXTuning sells them for $800.00 ($799.00). So I figured the price must've gone up, and I was glad I got mine when I did. So I checked Cobb's web site, and nope, they're still $645.00 for my car.

If you read the description of the AP on PDXTuning's web site it's the same description you get on Cobb's web site. So I thought well, they must include their tuning maps. But no, it doesn't say that anywhere. In fact it DOES say you can buy their upgrade maps for an extra $150.00 on top of the $800.00 you paid for the AP.

So my confusion is this, why would you want to buy an AP from PDXTuning instead of any of the other vendors that sell them for $155.00 less. On the surface, it looks like they're screwing people out of $155.00. Am I missing something here? :huh:

For 799 you get our maps on it. If you take the 645 you paid for yours and add 150 you will get 795. If you want one without our maps we sell them for $645, all you have to do is ask.

Jarrad

That's what I assumed, but I didn't see anywhere it said that on your web site...

For 799 you get our maps on it. If you take the 645 you paid for yours and add 150 you will get 795.

Oh yeah! Where's that extra $4.00 going huh!?!? huh?!?! huh?!?! :p

J/K <- for people who don't have a sense of humor.

I highly recommend PDXTuning maps. Low boost map feels as strong as Cobb's OTS map while high boost map feels noticeably stronger. I'm installing a STi TMIC tomorrow and can't wait to test out a new map that Jarrad has promised to email me for a free of charge since I got the stage 2 map just 2 weeks ago. These guys are great!

We are using that $4 to take over the world!!!!

Oh yeah! Where's that extra $4.00 going huh!?!? huh?!?! huh?!?! :p

J/K <- for people who don't have a sense of humor.

Hopefully I can get a PDX guy to answer this, or anyone else who got thier maps.

I recieved the maps from PDXT and tried to down load the base map. The AP keeps telling me to turn car off then back on, when I do, it tells me the same thing. Any ideas?

Are you following the correct procedure? go to Cobb tuning website and download the manual. Don't forget about blue connectors...

From what I have seen in Cobb map logs, Cobb tends to run higher base timing with leaner A/F ratios in hopes of building boost quicker. The bad part about this is generally speaking even with a maxed IAM value the Cobb maps generally run 4-7 positive KC values rather then 7-10 positive KC values which seems to be where the "sweet spot" is for good power.

This makes no sense.

The KC values don't matter- what matters is the overall spark advance. If you get 14 degrees under certain conditions with 10 degrees coming from base timing and 4 degrees of knock correction or 7 degrees of base timing and 7 degrees of knock correction, are you saying that the overall spark advance is different.

I have Spearco TMIC i want to install on my 02 WRX. How much power would a custom PDX map add over the Cobb ots stage 2 map?




Jeremy

I have Spearco TMIC i want to install on my 02 WRX. How much power would a custom PDX map add over the Cobb ots stage 2 map?




Jeremy

I would also like to know... I am getting a STi TMIC tomorrow.

This makes no sense.

The KC values don't matter- what matters is the overall spark advance. If you get 14 degrees under certain conditions with 10 degrees coming from base timing and 4 degrees of knock correction or 7 degrees of base timing and 7 degrees of knock correction, are you saying that the overall spark advance is different.

Did I say anything about timing? No, you assumed I was talking about timing because you immediately think of that when someone says KC. What I'm talking about is the overall difference between an ECU/Engine combination that's running a lower KC value vs one that's running a higher KC value. While timing can be WHATEVER it may be... strickly speaking of KC values reported while loging a car, one that's reporting 7-10 is a much better map (stronger and safer) then one that's only running 4-5 for KC values. The overall timing is not in question here... it's the overall tune of the map. There's tuners that mod the KC values and the base timing and then there's tuners that just mod the base timing. Trust me on this one... higher KC values tend to indicate a much stronger running engine then one that's running lower ones. It's just what I have seen. Maybe you haven't been looking. It's not always black and white you know...

THAN not THEN ;)

Thanks Mrs. Tingle. :p

Did I say anything about timing? No, you assumed I was talking about timing because you immediately think of that when someone says KC. What I'm talking about is the overall difference between an ECU/Engine combination that's running a lower KC value vs one that's running a higher KC value. While timing can be WHATEVER it may be... strickly speaking of KC values reported while loging a car, one that's reporting 7-10 is a much better map (stronger and safer) then one that's only running 4-5 for KC values. The overall timing is not in question here... it's the overall tune of the map. There's tuners that mod the KC values and the base timing and then there's tuners that just mod the base timing. Trust me on this one... higher KC values tend to indicate a much stronger running engine then one that's running lower ones. It's just what I have seen. Maybe you haven't been looking. It's not always black and white you know...

KC is the amount of authority the ECU has to adjust timing, so talking about KC without talking about timing is somewhat meaningless unless you are talking about the same exact tune on two different cars. Then I suppose you could look at the KC values the two cars are running and compare them to see which car is running a more aggressive spark advance.

The bottom line is, depending on how the car was mapped, KC is not the endall. KC is just one component of the overall spark advance. If a car was mapped to never run more than 4 degrees of KC, it will give you more consistency, but less of a window for the car to adjust in. If you allow the car to run up to 10 degrees of KC, there is more of a range for the car to optimize itself over. Still, if both cars are mapped well, there should be no difference in the car running 4 degrees of KC vs the car running 10 degrees of KC.

There are different styles of mapping the cars so there is not a simple answer. In the eyes of some people, if you aren't running the most KC the car is mapped for, then there is something wrong. Some people subscribe to the idea of allowing extra KC over what the car can run to allow for higher grade/variences in fuel.

Here is a good thread about this:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=845616


Mike

Look man, I've seen logs from cars that rock and have been rocking for a long time on their current tune and I've seen logs from cars that just run. (Like my friend with a VF34 and a Cobb OTS tune.) Cobb's maps just plain suck when you log them in terms of what they display. You should know this. Not only that but they also don't work very well for a very large diverse groups of cars... some people have issues with their maps. Below is EXACTLY why this is... and I didn't even have to push you to say it.

If a car was mapped to never run more than 4 degrees of KC, it will give you more consistency, but less of a window for the car to adjust in. If you allow the car to run up to 10 degrees of KC, there is more of a range for the car to optimize itself over.

It's just how the logic of the ECU works. I'm not making this stuff up. When you give the ECU that extra room to self adjust itself is when everything works really well.

I know this is a little off topic, but remember when Vishnu used to put their starting IAM value at 16. Their logic was that that way they could control what the max timing was going to ever be at and tune for that. Well, some people started having det issues and the problem with a very high IAM starting point and knock is that it'll take more agressive knock for the IAM to back itself back down when it's that high, but that's another point.

Anyway, bottom line really is that if you have a map that has a very large "self adjust" variance on it's parameters it's going to be a way better map then one that doesn't have as much variance... and with this said, a map that usually exhibits high KC values when it's logged is usually characteristic of one of these kinds of maps. There... is that clearer?

I would like to hear what Cobb says about there tuning methods v. PDX. There must be a reason why Cobb prefers their method over others. This seems to be a hot topic now that PDX is doing these custom maps. There is also a thread in Cobbs webforum where people are talking about the safety of PDXs maps. So far Cobb just reccomends data logging to make sure everything is ok which is smart to do with any map.

http://www.wrxforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002314

While timing can be WHATEVER it may be... strickly speaking of KC values reported while loging a car, one that's reporting 7-10 is a much better map (stronger and safer) then one that's only running 4-5 for KC values. The overall timing is not in question here... it's the overall tune of the map. There's tuners that mod the KC values and the base timing and then there's tuners that just mod the base timing. Trust me on this one... higher KC values tend to indicate a much stronger running engine then one that's running lower ones. It's just what I have seen. Maybe you haven't been looking. It's not always black and white you know...
JRSCCivic98, I am not bashing nor am I picking on you. Although, what you stated above is not how the OEM ECU works. I will write up a description of Dynamic Advance and how it works in an effort to assist you in the understanding of how the factory ECU works. What KC or DA value is output from the ECU has nothing to do with the quality of the tune (being that value is positive).

Dynamic Advance & Dynamic Advance Multiplier Explained

I would like to start out with some initial table definitions. These tables are in the factory Engine Control Module (ECM, also known as the ECU) and are used to tune the motor.

Primary Ignition -
This is the primary ignition table which uses engine RPM for the vertical (Y) axis and calculated load for the horizontal (X) axis. All, if any, corrections made to ignition timing will be based on the values looked up originally in this table. These values are in degrees BTDC (before top dead center); the higher value the more ignition advance, the lower value, the lower the ignition advance.
Tuning Tips = Variables such as octane rating, spark plug temperature & gap, intake air temperature, and application (street driving, road racing, rally racing, drag racing, etc.) must be taken into account when tuning this timing table. When tuning Ignition Advance, keep in mind that your final actual ignition advance value will also include a portion of the Dynamic Advance table, as well as any corrections. If your boost and fuel table adjustments are ideal for your configuration, you can datalog your Dynamic Advance, Dynamic Advance and DAM values to determine if you are using too much (or too little) timing accordingly. There are two popular schools of thought with regards to Dynamic Advance tables, one which utilizes the Dynamic Advance table to add in a majority of the ignition timing and the other philosophy of reducing the dynamics of the Dynamic Advance table by reducing its values and adding them instead into this main Ignition Advance table. Use whichever philosophy best meets your goals and comfort level. It is advised you make small adjustments when tuning your Primary Ignition advance table. Keep in mind you will need less Ignition Advance as the engine's Volumetric Efficiency increases. This means you will typically use less ignition advance near or at peak torque. After your torque peak, you typically will want an increasing ignition advance. Best power typically is found near the threshold of knock, so use care when tuning. However, it is also possible to make less power with more ignition advance without actually reaching the knock threshold. This is where tuning on a load-based dyno with realtime feedback can be very beneficial.

Dynamic Advance -
This is a dynamic ignition advancing table which uses engine RPM for the y-axis and calculated load for the x-axis. This table is a closed-loop ignition advance table that allows the ECU to advance ignition timing beyond the main ignition table values as long as the engine “noise” heard by the knock sensor is not too high for that RPM & load point, as determined by the ECU. In other words, as long as the engine is happy the ECU will allow the ignition to advance beyond the main Primary Ignition table values. The freedom for the ECU to add additional degrees of ignition timing is determined by the values in this table. Even if additional ignition timing could be added the ECU will not advance ignition timing beyond these values. If the ECU hears noise which it finds unacceptable, the ECU will not allow any additional ignition advance. If the ECU hears too much noise through the knock sensor and determines that detonation is occurring or is about to occur then the ECU will pull timing until it is satisfied with the engine noise for that RPM & load point. If the Primary Ignition table has a timing value which is too high for the current conditions the ECU will get pissed off and try to pull timing until it is happy again. All values are in degrees BTDC (before top dead center). The amount of timing to be added to the Primary Ignition table is determined by the values in this table along with the Dynamic Advance Multiplier value. The ECU will take the looked up value from this table and then use a percentage of that value based on the value in the Dynamic Advance Multiplier.
Tuning Tips = We suggest you tune this dynamic timing table so that the ECU is not given too much authority to change (or add) timing. We also suggest that this dynamic timing curve is mapped for consistency and smoothness. If know correction is always adding the maximum allowable additional ignition advance from this table then timing needs to be added to the Primary Ignition table.

Dynamic Advance Multiplier -
Singular value used to determine the value for the Dynamic Advance Multiplier that the ECU will start with upon resetting the ECU. The higher the value, the greater the proportion of the Dynamic Advance values will be added to the Primary Ignition. The total of these two values will be the total ignition advance for the motor.


Dynamic Advance Multiplier (DAM) is a measurement of how happy the ECU is:
WRX is rated from 0 to 16, measured in increments of 1.
STi, Forester, & Legacy are rated from 0 to 1.0, measured in increments of .05.

The factory ECU looks up the value in the Primary Ignition table for that particular RPM and load point, then it will use the DAM to determine the proportion of additional ignition advance it will add to the Primary Ignition value to create the total ignition for the motor. The ECU is constantly listening to the motor through the knock sensor and crankshaft fluctuation. If the ECU does not hear too much engine noise for that given RPM and load point, then it will allow the DAM to grow. If too much noise is heard, then the DAM will move down or stay steady...depending on how much excessive noise is heard. It will stay constant on some poorer gases or if you have tuned close to threshold.

When you reset the ECU the DAM will be reset to whatever is dictated in the AccessECU software through the Dynamic Advance Multiplier table. The ECU will use the ignition advance value in the Primary Ignition table's cell, according to the RPM and load point it is in. The ECU will then reference the DAM, if the DAM for an STi is .8, then the STi ECU will use the timing value in the Primary Ignition table (for that load and RPM point) and add 80% (.8 divided by 1.0) of the value in the DA table (for the same load and RPM point) as the total ignition timing.

Total ignition timing = Primary Ignition table value + (DAM percentage * DA table value)

Make sense?

To tune timing I usually tune boost first, then fuel, then I allow much more authority in the DA A table (if it is a Realtime table) so that the ECU will show me if the motor wants more ignition timing. If it does then the DA value will be higher in the datalog, as well as total ignition timing. This would indicate to me that the value in the Primary Ignition table is not aggressive enough. Be cautious when tuning timing. If the DA is recorded as 12 degrees, that does not mean that you can add 12 degrees more ignition advance to the Primary Ignition table for that particular load and RPM cell. I would add about 3-5 degrees for that point. Run the car again, then look at the datalog for DA at that load and RPM point and it should have gone down to 4 to 7. Make sense?

I would be satisfied if while at WOT for several runs, hot ones even, the DA is a positive value across the RPM range and the ignition is a smooth predictable curve. This is not the only way to tune, just another perspective. Hope this helps.

Now it is time to get complicated. The ECM does all of the above and it also has a hidden “Learned Ignition” table where it will store a final correction value that is made to total ignition advance for a given load and RPM point. If the ECU hears detonation it has the authority to immediately remove timing for a particular load and RPM point so that event does not occur again. The rate at which the ECM can make adjustments to DAM and the load range it can look at can all be edited in the ECM using the AccessECU software. In other words, the ECM is doing everything it can to constantly fine tune the motor and assist in the consistency of the motor’s performance. I hope this helps.

Take care,
Christian.

^^^ Streight from the Cobb Tuning "Tuning Philosophy" book. :p

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. Like you stated above... different people like to tune/have different values reported back based on what they consider is a solid way of tuning. That being said, what works for you may not work for another tuner in their perspective. I can only speak for what I have personally seen in terms of the logs generated by Cobb mapped cars vs others (in this case Dynocomp for EcuTek and PDX for Cobb AP). I personally like to see high KC values (to me it indicates a much more broad range the ECU has for corrections to make more power). Another thing I like to see when I log is that the KC curve (when graphed out) should be a very close mirror image of what the base timing curve is. In certain cases I've seen spikes or variances in the KC curve vs base timing curve on Cobb maps. To me this is not a smooth transition and while the values may still be positive and no knock events were seen I just don't prefer to see these.

I guess only time will tell in terms of how reliable the PDX maps will be, but from the immediate datalogs available and the "personal perspective" of the user's input when it comes to gained power and driveability characteristics of the PDX maps, what I am seeing is "in my eyes" better then the OTS maps that Cobb is currently providing. That's all... nothing different, nothing earth-shattering. Just my perspective on what I constitute a "better" tune.

It took me a long time to find a tuner that I could agree with on their tuning philosophy. I went through Cobb's and Vishnu's strategies in tuning their respective EM solutions and in the end I went with Dynocomp's, because I felt is better suited the the "street driven"/"multi-environmental" conditions that tend to apply to 99% of the cars out there when it comes to reliablility and power. In the end, as far as I'm concerned, on the street it's longevity that counts... not how much power you put down before your engine let go. I've seen and heard too many horror stories of how people put down lots of power for their mod level and then had issues within a month or so.

I really don't know what else to say... a lot of these folks that get the EM solutions will log their cars and won't really know what they are looking at. Maybe I'm being a bit biased on what I'm looking for in terms of logs because I like my car's current state of tune, but as I've said repeatedly in this post... the PDX map logs just look a little better then the Cobb ones do. In the end the "My tuner is better then yours" war will still continue, but that's just how I feel.

It took me a long time to find a tuner that I could agree with on their tuning philosophy. I went through Cobb's and Vishnu's strategies in tuning their respective EM solutions and in the end I went with Dynocomp's, because I felt is better suited the the "street driven"/"multi-environmental" conditions that tend to apply to 99% of the cars out there when it comes to reliablility and power. In the end, as far as I'm concerned, on the street it's longevity that counts... not how much power you put down before your engine let go. I've seen and heard too many horror stories of how people put down lots of power for their mod level and then had issues within a month or so.


Love to bring up the old days. APS/Cobb and Vishnu on tuning. :lol: This thread had to be cleaned up alot and the nice stuff went missing but it does give their view on how they tune.

For your viewing pleasure
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203388&page=1&pp=25&highlight=Trey+shiv

i'm running TDC tuning's maps and they definitely feel better thant COBB's OTS maps.

For those that are getting PDX maps are you guys stage 2? I'm wondering if it's worth getting a Stage 1 PDX map or just spend the money toward a DP and use the Cobb stage 2 map. I'm currently Cobb stage 1 with a catless uppipe and catback to be installed this spring.

Also, how much boost are the PDX maps running compared to Cobb.

Go with stage 2. You won't regret it. You get two maps - low and high boost maps. You specify target boost level to PDX. They create the maps per your need.

Go with stage 2. You won't regret it. You get two maps - low and high boost maps. You specify target boost level to PDX. They create the maps per your need. Yeah, I just got my stage 2 maps from PDX, even the low boost map seems to pull harder than the Cobb OTS. I didn't specify the target boost level though, they just created everything based on my mods. I think $150 is really cheap for what they offer, you can't go wrong with a custom PDX map.

I'm currently running Cobb stage 2, only mod besides the TBE I have is the up-pipe. Would a PDX stg 2 map really give that much more performance?

JRSCCivic98, i hope you've learned something from mike and christian, because they're telling you how it is.

I'm currently running Cobb stage 2, only mod besides the TBE I have is the up-pipe. Would a PDX stg 2 map really give that much more performance?

Def YES!!! I just got my PDX maps. . Im Stg 2-93 with a K&N Typhoon. OMG. . its 10X smoother then the Cobb OTS. Everything happens quicker now. Feels more lively ..quieter. . much more refined. One thing I noticed is when in 4th @ 40mph . . well below 4000RPM is that it pulls much nicer. .harder with very little gas applied.
Def got more low end. . seems tighter and now pulls harder to 6000+ RPM. Much more violent.. front end now seems to be all over the place under WOT now!!! Which is cool as hell.Being you have a WRX. . youll def get more low end which is always nice. Very satisifed:banana:

They didnt ask what boost level I wanted. Like JamesR said. .you fill out this form and based on that they make them. . .the emailing seems to be really good. I told them in my notes that im running Cobb STG 2 ver1.10 as Base and LWG realtime. They know by 93 oct rating what boost they can get away with. I even told them im app 500ft above sea level.

^For those with stage 2 PDX maps can you pull the boost readings from your AP for us. Cobbs stage 2 target is 15.8 +/-.5 , just wondering what PDX is running. Also, anyone know what is considered safe for the stock tubro so your not killing your turbo.

JRSCCivic98, i hope you've learned something from mike and christian, because they're telling you how it is.

Well, they have their opinions on what a good tune is and I have mine. I know what I see in the PDX logs and I know what I see in the Cobb logs... in the end the "Proof is in the Pudding" sort of speak... everyone seems to like the PDX maps and rave about their power and drivability when compared to the Cobb OTS maps. Mike and Christian can explain and defend their ideas all they want... when I saw the first log off a PDX map I knew immediately the car would drive better then with the Cobb maps. We can stay in the pissing match all day long if you want and you know I'm not a person that backs down when I know I'm right about something, but instead I'll just let everyone else's experiences with the PDX maps speak for themselves.

Well, they have their opinions on what a good tune is and I have mine.

ok, is this opinion, or fact?

The bad part about this is generally speaking even with a maxed IAM value the Cobb maps generally run 4-7 positive KC values rather then 7-10 positive KC values which seems to be where the "sweet spot" is for good power.

how about this?

strickly speaking of KC values reported while loging a car, one that's reporting 7-10 is a much better map (stronger and safer) then one that's only running 4-5 for KC values.

or this?

Trust me on this one... higher KC values tend to indicate a much stronger running engine then one that's running lower ones.

again, fact or opinion?

Anyway, bottom line really is that if you have a map that has a very large "self adjust" variance on it's parameters it's going to be a way better map then one that doesn't have as much variance...

when two people who know FAR more about the inner workings of the oem ecu address your posts and correct you, you don't find this any indication of the fact that you just might not know what you're talking about?

We can stay in the pissing match all day long if you want and you know I'm not a person that backs down when I know I'm right about something,

ummm... you're not a person that backs down when you think you know it all, and it's apparent you actually do not, and other folks try to enlighten you.

that's pretty much what you've demonstrated time and time again.

See, the black and white of KC vs IAM vs base timing is what people like Mike and Christian keep harping on. No schit... really... we all know how the ecu uses those in a formula to calculate the final ignition timing. No big news there and no one (even me) is arguing that they are wrong in that respect. What I am arguing is that the OVERALL DYNAMICS OF A MAP that shows higher KC values then one that doesn't tends to be better tailored to dynamic variations in how that ECU map acclimates itself to the running condition of an engine. Everyone wants to argue that if you tell the ECU to only run a certain amount of timing and KC that it will run just as well as if you gave it higher KC values as an option for self adjustment.

OK, if you guys belive this, then someone try and make a map that runs base timing at whatever you feel the final timing should be and then 0 (not even sure if that's possible since I haven't treid it) out the KC maps and max your IAM. Tell me if the ECU's "internal logic" is happy enough with that to make the engine produce as much power and have the same drivability as one that's given larger ranges for self adjustment.

You show me that on paper with proof and I'll shut up. BTW, UTEC owners don't apply here (not because you own one, but because that system is not being discussed here)... I'm strickly speaking for EM solutions that allow the ECU's internal logic to still be in use when it comes to timing/fuel adjustments.

Tell me if the ECU's "internal logic" is happy enough with that to make the engine produce as much power ... as one that's given larger ranges for self adjustment.

Are you here? Serioiusly - are you? Timing is timing in terms of Power. I can agree with you on the driveability part. But power? Give me a break. If the car produces best power using 25d at 6500rpms and 2.75 load then it doesn't matter whether that 25d comes from Base + DA or simply just base. Dude - timing is timing. You are making no sense. 25d is 25d. Period. Yes, I do tune my own car and have been doing it ever since StreetTUNER came out AND for 4 years prior to that. How long have you been tuning and what EM are you currently using to interface with the stock ECU??????

Funny thing is, I am agruing with you even though I am a firm believer in giving more authority to the DA maps. However, this has nothing to do with power. It has everything to do with room for the ECU to self adjust. Maybe you are missing the fact that you should NEVER give the DA A map more than MBT. If you do ... ping city. The only thing that giving extra room in the DA maps will do is to give the stock ECU room to expand DOWN (DA A consideration only - not DA B). When you tune you put the max DA A at a value that when it is added to the base timing that MBT will be achieved. Anything more than that is unsafe and will give the potential for pinging. This is where DA B comes in to play. Add some extra there if you want ... but, chances are, you will never see this extra utilized (been there, done that, and still doing it).

A) Learn to tune
B) Learn what Ignition Timing is
C) Learn how the DA maps work

Mike, Christian, and Ride are all saying the same things that you need to listen to. Now I have said it again. Listen. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who believes in giving the DA maps more authority.

t

Ehh, forget it... no one will ever understand what I'm trying to say. Where do you get the idea that I said anything about timing being different if you have a higher KC value? The freaking total timing is the same... I'm not arguing against that.

Maybe I should have worded it as such... those maps that have more authority in the KC maps (like you said) "generally" will generate higher KC values then those that aren't tuned as such. Maps such as these tend to run better then those that don't.

If that's still not clear then let's just end it here and put it to bed... we're starting to go off base from the thread subject anyway.

Bottom line... PDX Custom OTS > Cobb OTS. Of course only more time will tell, but from the looks of things... they look good so far. Yipee!

Maybe I should have worded it as such... those maps that have more authority in the KC maps (like you said) "generally" will generate higher KC values then those that aren't tuned as such. Maps such as these tend to run better then those that don't.

If that's still not clear then let's just end it here and put it to bed... we're starting to go off base from the thread subject anyway.

Bottom line... PDX Custom OTS > Cobb OTS. Of course only more time will tell, but from the looks of things... they look good so far. Yipee!

I am reallly trying to understand what you are saying-

I agree with the first statement- assuming everything on a car is running well, a car will run the full KC values it is programmed to. The part I don't get is why you think that just because the car has more authority, it runs better.

That latter part of the statement just doesn't make sense- " Maps such as these tend to run better then those that don't."

I would agree that a car with more authority COULD work better over a wider range of cars, however, I think it really comes down to one bit question- How much does MBT vary from car to car? You would need to make sure you account for this and give the maps enough authority to optimize for different vehicles/car part combinations.

Is PDX asking people what parts combinations they are running? I thought I remember reading this somewhere. This would allow them to calibrate things that Cobb doesn't- for example MAF calibration for intakes, modifications for headers, etc. For this reason, I think it only makes sense that PDX maps are better if they are tailored to different setups.

Thanks,
Mike


Edit- After talking to someone else who evidently doesn't sleep- there is one potential benefit to running higher KC values. If you experience severe enough problems to have the IAM decreased, the amount of timing that is pulled out across the board would be higher. For example, if your KC values were all 16 and your IAM was pulled back from 16 to 12, you would lose 4 degrees of timing across the board. If your KC values were all 8 and your IAM went from 16 to 12, you would lose only 2 degrees of timing across the board. This may be considered safer.

Still, as far as performance goes, as long as you have enough of an adjust ment range to allow the car to achieve MBT, I can't see why there would be a difference.

taken to a logical conclusion, why don't we just set all the base timing maps to 0*, and give the fine learning map 40* of authority?

according to some posts in this thread, this would be the "best" map of all...

taken to a logical conclusion, why don't we just set all the base timing maps to 0*, and give the fine learning map 40* of authority?

according to some posts in this thread, this would be the "best" map of all...

In all seriousness, I think you would see three things happen- the car wouldn't be very smooth at all. Your timing would jump around since each site would 'optimize.' For example, at WOT, you timing may look like:
14, 14, 15, 15, 16, 17, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 20, 22, 24, 25

Sites would wait until they encounter det, then pull out 2 degrees (at least with the stock settings). The stock mapping does this, as do OTS maps I've seen, at this is one reason why a properly-tuned car can feel smoother.

Also, you'd get something which was really inconsistent- the ECU constantly tries to optimize, so it will advance timing until it encounters noise (detonation) and then pull it. Your whole map would be in a constant cycle of advance-det-retard, advance-det-retard.

Of course, both of these can be avoided by ensuring that the car's overall spark advance is never pushed past a certain point.

Finally, since the IAM would probably retard, you would end up losing timing in areas where you'd really want it. 40* isn't unreasonable for some areas of the map, however, for others, it's a tad much ;) It's kind of like that global ignition adjustment feature of Delta Dash- kind of worthless for tuning, but maybe helpful in the case of bad gas or something. You just don't have enough granularity for it to be effective. Allowing the ECU to optimize timing like this could cost you power.

Mike

so based on your post, the base timing number should really make up more of the total percentage of desired advance in areas where you pretty much know for a fact that the car won't be knocking. in this way you can be sure that even if the car does encounter det in other areas, the global IAM retard will not affect every load site.

does the amount of fine ignition learning (ie authority range) have an effect on the granularity of the learning? you said for example that it will pull 2 degrees if it gets too noisy. is that 2 degrees a discreet value that can be changed, or is it based upon the total KC authority?

so based on your post, the base timing number should really make up more of the total percentage of desired advance in areas where you pretty much know for a fact that the car won't be knocking. in this way you can be sure that even if the car does encounter det in other areas, the global IAM retard will not affect every load site.


In my opinion, yes.


does the amount of fine ignition learning (ie authority range) have an effect on the granularity of the learning? you said for example that it will pull 2 degrees if it gets too noisy. is that 2 degrees a discreet value that can be changed, or is it based upon the total KC authority?

Be careful- fine ignition learning (as Christian described above) isn't the same as the knock correction. The only relationship that exists like you described is the percentage that the IAM drops back vs the percentage of the total KC that you are able to run. So as the IAM drops, so does the maximum additional advance and authority.

The 2 degree retard increment when knock is encountered is a discreet value that I think can be changed. You can't do it with StreetTuner, but I think it's possible with ProTuner or EcuTek reflashes.

so mike, i went back and reread christian's post. he said:

Total ignition timing = Primary Ignition table value + (DAM percentage * DA table value)

as a more complete equation, should it read:

Total ignition timing = Primary Ignition table value + (DAM percentage * DA table value) - Learned Ignition

?

That's my understanding. I think the learned ignition is the 'mystery' table he talked about.

The learned igntion tabled seems to take a longer time to populate than any of the others. Where knock correction may move around from run to run, learned ignition will move slowly. It makes sense, though since it affects a wider range of cells. The grid for learned ignition is smaller, so it makes changes that are much less granular than the knock correction.

Mike

Learned Ignition values can be positive or negative.

Learned Ignition values can be positive or negative.

Can it be positive even after your IAM has reached 16 (or 1 in the case for the DBW folks)?

If it can, how do you cap the total spark advance the car can run?


Thanks
Mike

Can it be positive even after your IAM has reached 16 (or 1 in the case for the DBW folks)?

If it can, how do you cap the total spark advance the car can run?


Thanks
Mike

Yes, the ECU can add advance even if the multiplier is maxed. The total amount of added or subtracted "learned" advance is set by the tuner.

In addition to the advance multiplier there are 2d tables (load, RPM) for learned ignition correction. You can't see these values in any consumer logging software that i know of.

If i can find a screen shot of one of these tables i'll post it.

Tim

... learn something every day.

Yes, the ECU can add advance even if the multiplier is maxed. The total amount of added or subtracted "learned" advance is set by the tuner.

In addition to the advance multiplier there are 2d tables (load, RPM) for learned ignition correction. You can't see these values in any consumer logging software that i know of.

If i can find a screen shot of one of these tables i'll post it.

Tim

You can see the 2d learned ignition tables in StreetTuner now.

Let me clarify my question a bit- assume the multiplier is maxxed out and you are running the maximum knock correction values that are programmed in map. Can you have positive values in the 2d learned ignition tables? This would imply that the ECU could advance timing past the values programmed in the maps.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,
Mike