LS1edit
TECH Addict
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,551
Likes: 0
From: St Louis, MO
Re: LS1edit LS1Edit is a piece of software, with a cable that you use to download the program from your pcm. You can then adjust the tables to tune the engine, and upload it back to the pcm.
Now that this capability is available to everyone, I dont see the need for the MAFT, its more a hack than real tuning.
Eric
Now that this capability is available to everyone, I dont see the need for the MAFT, its more a hack than real tuning.
Eric
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
From: Godspeed
Re: LS1edit Well it's not exactly like the Hypertech. The Hypertech does let you change a few paremeters, but LS1 Edit is many times more adjustable and allows you the ability to truly tune the PCM for max performance - which a Hypertech does not. I would check out the programming forum for more details on LS1 Edit.
-Jeremy
-Jeremy
Staging Lane
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth
Re: LS1edit From what I've heard it's around $550 and even though the LS1 Edit is used to reprogram your PCM, you still have to use AutoTap to run the diagnostics to make sure you're running everything they way you should be...
Teching In
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Arizona
Re: LS1edit Well, heres my 02C worth... and sorry for the windage...Dwayne had a good question and Jeremy has provided an equal response. Let me begin to dig in a little deeper.
LS1 edit sounds like an industrial strength cleaner to me. In otherwords, you have alot of power but also have the potiential to wipe out alot of stuff.
Heres where Im comming from. Look at the history of PCM tuning, it takes a while to reverse engineer the operating code in an embedded control system (new car computer(s). Now the "custom chips", programs etc. typically start out modifying background stuff, like health status DTC's, turning off that warning light etc. Then they move on to things like rev limits, tire diameter changes, gear changes, top speeds, fan turn on times, etc. In other words single events with few variables, easy to isolate/modify and yet not mess with the EPA.
But now your talking big performance mods when the A/F ratio tuning (EPA) gets into the picture. In general you start getting involved with not one or two tables, but a matrix of hundreds of tables of data that the current PCMs look at to make decisions. then you had better watch out as to what your doing.
A final note, and no flame on the MAFT KNOCK but you might want to know... many of the modifications made to embedded control systems are made in "HARDWARE" because its usually very expensive, time consuming etc. to do it in SOFTWARE ( kind off see the age old argument here).
Anyway, If I want to use MAFT to provide an offset into the PCM, I have no problem using that device Vs paying some programmer to provide the same outcome in software. And heck, if that programmer is not even affiated with the owner of the source code, then he is no better or wiser than me...
Bottom line, its fun to generalize and opinionate, Im a hardware engineer with some software experience and most of this stuff is still "Greek" to me.
On a serious note, Ive have had head work done (excellent stage one porting), GM hot cam, Z06 intake, UD pulley and cold air installed on a 99 C5 FRC and the overall speed performance results are incrediable, 108 to ~116mph in the QM. but I have been constantly going back an forth between my MAFT and the PCM to optimize the A/F ratio in both the LTFT's tables, and basic open loop (power enrichment) O2 data. All of this at WOT while trying to keep the car fully "streetable" at IDLE. My results are so.so, and I am beginning to think that I may need a custom tuner (the programmers that I have been knocking) to make the final fix ??
Later
Rick <img src="gr_eek2.gif" border="0"> <img src="gr_eek2.gif" border="0">
LS1 edit sounds like an industrial strength cleaner to me. In otherwords, you have alot of power but also have the potiential to wipe out alot of stuff.
Heres where Im comming from. Look at the history of PCM tuning, it takes a while to reverse engineer the operating code in an embedded control system (new car computer(s). Now the "custom chips", programs etc. typically start out modifying background stuff, like health status DTC's, turning off that warning light etc. Then they move on to things like rev limits, tire diameter changes, gear changes, top speeds, fan turn on times, etc. In other words single events with few variables, easy to isolate/modify and yet not mess with the EPA.
But now your talking big performance mods when the A/F ratio tuning (EPA) gets into the picture. In general you start getting involved with not one or two tables, but a matrix of hundreds of tables of data that the current PCMs look at to make decisions. then you had better watch out as to what your doing.
A final note, and no flame on the MAFT KNOCK but you might want to know... many of the modifications made to embedded control systems are made in "HARDWARE" because its usually very expensive, time consuming etc. to do it in SOFTWARE ( kind off see the age old argument here).
Anyway, If I want to use MAFT to provide an offset into the PCM, I have no problem using that device Vs paying some programmer to provide the same outcome in software. And heck, if that programmer is not even affiated with the owner of the source code, then he is no better or wiser than me...
Bottom line, its fun to generalize and opinionate, Im a hardware engineer with some software experience and most of this stuff is still "Greek" to me.
On a serious note, Ive have had head work done (excellent stage one porting), GM hot cam, Z06 intake, UD pulley and cold air installed on a 99 C5 FRC and the overall speed performance results are incrediable, 108 to ~116mph in the QM. but I have been constantly going back an forth between my MAFT and the PCM to optimize the A/F ratio in both the LTFT's tables, and basic open loop (power enrichment) O2 data. All of this at WOT while trying to keep the car fully "streetable" at IDLE. My results are so.so, and I am beginning to think that I may need a custom tuner (the programmers that I have been knocking) to make the final fix ??
Later
Rick <img src="gr_eek2.gif" border="0"> <img src="gr_eek2.gif" border="0">
