anyways, i think i understand this setup. It's not a standalone, it's more comparable to a e-manage or SAFC setup that the imports use - they keep everything in existing fashion, just scale the injector outputs...

it could work *ok*. It will still be a bandaid of running a full standalone setup with wideband 02 IMO.

-I will be tuning off the MAP sensor at WOT, it has a built in 2 bar map sensor good to 22 lbs of boost (I can switch over to GM 3 bar map if I needed to)
-I will be retaining the MAF but only for part throttle.
-I will be focusing on 110-112 unleaded gas so I can keep the o2 sensors.

it has a built in 2 bar map sensor good to 22 lbs of boost

-I will be focusing on 110-112 unleaded gas so I can keep the o2 sensors.

But since PSJ would be using the MAF for non-WOT then resolution of the MAF sensor isn't as much of an issue - since at WOT it (resolution) isn't that much of an issue, and at part throttle it isn't used?

I guess the piggyback would effectively be doing alpha-n to compensate for air above it's cutoff? (tuning vs TPS/RPM) - or does it support a table that would work for this also?

But regardless, if you can get away with 5psi of boost at WOT that you can't even read (20psi w/ 2bar), then resolution can't be that critical - so I would use the 3 bar. If the MAP were used for p/t tuning then I definitely see the resolution issue, but not really in a WOT only context?

Pro Stock John wrote:
>
> B-
> anyways, i think i understand this setup. It's not a standalone, it's more
> comparable to a e-manage or SAFC setup that the imports use - they keep
> everything in existing fashion, just scale the injector outputs...

the TSI is most similiar to the e-manage with the biggest exception
being that:

- the emanage cannot decrease the injector pulse by a percentage (in its
tuning table). Instead you must tune the MAF to do this. Ofcourse most
cars require a decrease in a/f for the best power tune. We believe this
is a major disadvantage compared to the TSI which can decrease or
increase the fuel injector pulse at any point. Also by using the MAF to
tune you also affect ignition timing in that tuning area and also as we
have seen this make the engine stay in closed loop control longer (which
definitely isn't good for aftermarket turbo/supercharged cars when your
on boost and the factory computer is trying to make the a/f 14:7!).

- the emanage by default uses the MAF as its tuning load reference, and
requires an expensive MAP sensor option when the MAF is saturated. Also
by the time you add up everything required as an option its not that
cheap a unit.

- the emanage cannot drive low resistance injectors.

- the emanage uses the igniter signals to do ignition timing changes
which isn't the most accurate method (they even say so in their manual)
whereas the TSI uses the crank sensor which can accurately do ignition
timing change.

- and finally the emanage doesn't support the LS1 or alot of American
cars.

- SAFC only tunes by altering the MAF signal (as explained above this
isn't the best way to tune).

> it could work *ok*. It will still be a bandaid of running a full standalone
> setup with wideband 02 IMO.

Any standalone uses the O2 for closed loop control during cruise to make
the cat converter work to its optimum, the O2's are not used when you
above 75% throttle anyhow. See the first email why the TSI is better in
most cases than a standalone.

Pro Stock John wrote:
>
> Questions from friend:

I have 3 emails and this is the first one. I'm not sure if by the 3rd
email you guys figured the system out properly so I'll answer each email
but make this one contain the most explanation.

> MAF isn't used at all??

MAF is used still by factory ECU, TSI doesn't use alter MAF signal.

> I have some concerns, I see no provision for accel or decel fueling, air
> temp or coolant temp scaling of fuel or timing, and about 8 dozen other
> things.

Accel/Decel and all correction factors are still handled by the standard
PCM, the TSI tracks these changes all ratiometrically.

> Is it a true speed density system?

The TSI uses the onboard MAP sensor as its tuning reference, the factory
PCM still uses the MAF to perform its fuel/ignition calculations. The
functionality of the PCM is not altered.

> How well can it interpolate on the map?

Very well: 3D interpolation (same as the standalone systems). You will
see when you finally have it running live you can make very fine
alterations, eg if input injector pluse is 4ms the 1% change to this is
0.04ms.

> The datalogger is very simple, doesn't look like there is any graphing.

Yes no graphing for now, its simple still with the only really important
data being RPM, Manifold pressure, Air:Fuel, Duty cycle of the injectors
(so you know when your runing out), and the fuel/ignition corrections.
The TSI does write to a datalog.txt file in the same directory where you
are running the program. You can then import that data into Microsoft
Excell and do graphing there instead. The best advantage in using the
datalogger is when a UEGO air/fuel meter is hooked up to the TSI. The
UEGO is the most accurate of air/fuel meters, (forget wide band), check
out http://www.mwignitions.com/uego.htm An example is you can do a TSI
datalog and see an air:fuel of 12.2:1 at 4679rpm and 10.2psi and make
corrections to the fuel map (ofcourse all in real time)

> Sorry, this is gonna be buried when DFI comes out with their LS1 system, or
> whenever someone else comes out with a halfway decent LS1 aftermarket
> computer.

There will always be new competitors to the market, and we wouldn't
expect otherwise. Also we haven't stopped development of our system and
probably never will. End of the day the tuner will use the product that
works and is easy to use.

> I just think this will be a bandaid setup, and will compromise safety in
> many ways.

On the contrary:
- the TSI has inbuilt fuel cut in an overboost situation that you can
set.

- by having the onboard MAP sensor and knowing exactly what boost your
engine is running you can tune most accurately how much ignition retard
and extra fuelling you need compared to a saturated MAF which in my
opinion is compromising your engines safety.

- By retaining the factory PCM knock control this is a backup failsafe.

- with the TSI you can use low resistance injectors (which are more
common in larger injector sizing). Since this is a hardware feature no
PCM reprogrammer can do this.

- Auxiliary outputs: 3 in total (1 dedicated turbo boost control), and
2 outputs. The outputs can be simple as a rpm activated shiftlight or
nitrous control. Nitrous functionality allowing the use of a dry system
(and the TSI mapping the extra fuel required) to a wet system that is
rpm, load, tps activated. Both activations can retard ignition timing
aswell.

- Real time tuning means you don't have to do as many dyno runs as
systems requiring the PCM to be reprogrammed.

> You need to look over a FAST setup, or DFI, or AEM, or just compared to LS1
> Edit. Any of these are very powerful, and much comparison is still on a
> level playing field. What you have is pretty much on par with DFI version 6,
> which came out in the early 90s....

All the ones you mention are powerfully featured, however FAST and the
others are standalone engine management systems. I tried to do a quick
search on AEM (did you mean AEMS?) if so that too is a standalone.

After seeing many stanalone ECU cars, and being involved with a major
standalone engine management system that you definitely would know of,
what I see in the lastest vehicles today is that you cannot simply put
in a standalone system. There are far too many dependant submodules for
a complete replacement. That and some gearbox controllers are getting
more complex, fly by wire throttle is becoming more popular aswell. Yes
it is possible to piggy back any high end engine management system, but
like you guys know: getting the tune to the point of it being as good as
a factory one (interms of idle, cold/hot start and cruising) is a very
expensive exercise in terms of tuning time required.

After reading through the ls1tech forums from what I can see LS1edit is
very powerful but also very complicated to use. Ofcourse in the right
tuners hands its an excellent package, and the same goes for any system
- if the tuner gets it wrong you will always hear person x blaming the
system. I believe that using the combination of LS1Edit and the TSI is
probably the best solution.

> Thoughts?

Basically my main thought is: use the TSI first. You will see how well
it performs and I think you'll change your opinion of the product.
Ofcourse if your not happy with the results then continue to use
whatever is currently available. Either way I believe that unless you
try whats on the market you will never know if its truly good - think of
any good tuning product when it first came out.

Anyhow I'll answer the next two emails, also I'm sending you a firmware
update along with a PC software update.

I will check on whether I should be upgrading to a GM 3 bar MAP I was told I was good up to 22 psi let me see.

Darren in NZ, are you using a TSI box they said someone in NZ is using LS1 Edit and their controller...