Sunset01

I just got it and am having some difficulty getting good performance out of the recordings. (frequency of parameter updates) I have version 1 software; they have delayed version 2 shipment as the fix some issues. If someone has Ease and is willing to do a simple test for me, I'd appreciate it.. I want to confirm whether I've got it working as good as it should or not. Please email if you can help.

Thanks,

Dean

C_Williams

Got help from nitrousc5(scroll down a few messages) and so far I am learning and doing OK.

I am also getting info from and working with JR at team z - http://teamzr1.com/cgi-bin/ultimateb...ubb=forum&f=18

ktm520

i just recently got it also. what are you having problems with?

Sunset01

The problem I'm having is simply that I don't think I'm getting as many updates to parameters as I should. I switched from autotap, as I heard such good things about Ease's stability, features and performance. I look back at my old autotap logs and I get updates to parameters every .11 seconds, and this was the old version 1 autotap-- this was with two parameters, rpm and mass air flow g/sec. With Ease, I get updates more like only every .3sec when doing rpm and MAF... I get update lines every .12 to .16 sec, but I see the rpm or maf repeat the same value 2 rows in a row... If I try to log 8 or so parameters, I'll get repeats around 6+ times, so only getting updates toward only every second. When I do test Ease with only 1-2 parameters, I do see better performance with fastpackets off- there must be some overhead too it (fastpackets is supposed group the requests/receipt of params from the pcm). I was told by Susan at their tech support to look at the graph in the program to see if there are more datapoints on screen, as version 1 has some kind of bugs with the playback/export file, but I don't see anything better there.. No doubt is easy to use, stable and full featured, but I had heard that it outperformed autotap, certainly v1 autotap. I'd think my com port settings could be affecting it, but autotap was run through the same com1 port. Any experience or insight?

JAS

I'm sure Team-ZR1 will read this and clear everything up for you. He's the resident net UBB EASE "expert" with all the answers about scanners.

<small>[ October 11, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: JAS ]</small>

Sunset01

I did actually buy mine from JR. I did express this exact concern to him, but I ended up annoying him with too many emails. Sorry JR. Anyway, I like the product a lot, but I want to satisfy my concern on the performance, JR discouraged me from doing so, I'm 'taking it to the streets' here and asking my fellow users to see if they have the same performance I am experiencing.

JAS

Wait, you purchased and EASE unit from JR an now he is annoyed with providing the support for it? Wasn't he the one that goes around claiming free support for his EASE customers over and over ALL over the net?

That's strange, he's ALWAYS been ULTRA quick to jump into OTHER scanner threads from OTHER MANUFACTURERS and point out THEIR flaws and yet when it comes to the product HE so much PRAISES, HE is missing in action???

Tell me that doesn't sound like JR!!! <img border="0" alt="[barf]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_barf.gif" />

Well, I would definitely call up the makers of EASE then and ask them for their support of their product!!! I know OTHER scanner manufacturers BEND OVER BACKWARDS and even post on these boards, so I'm sure EASE won't have a problem answering a simple concern like this.

Best of luck to you and tsk tsk tsk to Team-ZR1.

Team-ZR1 - WOW, I guess the ALMIGHTY EASE does have some issues to eh? Why was release of software 2.0 delayed also?

<small>[ October 11, 2002, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: JAS ]</small>

Richard@WCCH

iTrader: (3)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> No doubt is easy to use, stable and full featured, but I had heard that it outperformed autotap, certainly v1 autotap. I'd think my com port settings could be affecting it, but autotap was run through the same com1 port. Any experience or insight? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I just started using my Ease today and noticed the slow frame update. Then I looked at my terminal settings and quickly found the reason. With a baud rate of 9600bps it WILL be slow. As for the dos version of Autotap being faster, it has less data to transfer and therfore will appear to be faster. Seems to me that Ease has much more data to transfer in real time that places a demand on the terminal connection. Try changing the baud rate to 115000bps and see if you notice any difference.
Good luck,
Richard <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Sunset01

I did the switch from 9600 to 115,200 already. Did you see a big improvement? I didn't. Can you quantify the frame updates you are getting with 2 parameters to compare to mine? My reference to autotap performance was with WIndows version.

Dean

JAS

Maybe the issue is that EASE ONLY works perfect on TEAM=ZR1's Corvette, using the same logic as NO other scanner he ever tested besides EASE works or works well on his car! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Sorry, guys, but it pisses me off that JR (Team-ZR1) is ULTRA QUICK to jump into threads to RANT how bad autotap and EFILive are, but when there is a question about EASE he is MIA!

Sorry to hear you are having problems, but even EFILive doesn't have a problem of capturing 16 PIDS at 5 frames a second WITH the OLD autotap cable communitcating at 19.2K (yes, the SAME cable that JR is ALWAYS crying about NOT working on his car).

Copy and paste one of your logs time referenced so that we can see what your issue is exactly.

Team ZR-1

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JAS:
<strong>Maybe the issue is that EASE ONLY works perfect on TEAM=ZR1's Corvette, using the same logic as NO other scanner he ever tested besides EASE works or works well on his car! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Sorry, guys, but it pisses me off that JR (Team-ZR1) is ULTRA QUICK to jump into threads to RANT how bad autotap and EFILive are, but when there is a question about EASE he is MIA!

Sorry to hear you are having problems, but even EFILive doesn't have a problem of capturing 16 PIDS at 5 frames a second WITH the OLD autotap cable communitcating at 19.2K (yes, the SAME cable that JR is ALWAYS crying about NOT working on his car).

Copy and paste one of your logs time referenced so that we can see what your issue is exactly.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your full of it JAS, nor do you know what your talking about.
I spent now only a great anmount of time on the phone multi times with him but also analyzed and showed examples of what he is misunderstanding.

When someone is not listening to what your saying even when you spend your time on multi phone calls, then it means you'll never meet his views.

So not going to spend too much time on this but again clear proof that Ease functions much quicker then Autotap.

Last weekend, 20 cars are dyno'd, with the Ease scanner recording during the pulls (not my C5):

<img src="http://teamzr1.com/temp/good.gif" alt=" - " />

Now that is with 21 Functions begin recorded,
210 PCM recorded cycles from 2,000 RPMS to redline
with as much as 11 responded frames a second even while engine is at high load and being a C5, lots of other traffic on class B bus.

Using same laptop, switch to Autotap during a pull of a F-body which has less modules on class B bus and 1/3 LESS functions being recorded and ONLY 37 recorded PCM cycles:

<img src="http://teamzr1.com/temp/bad.gif" alt=" - " />

Clearly seen is the autotap under far less load produced far less data then the Ease did. For every ONE Autotap recorded cycle, Ease produced 5.67 recorded cycles with several more functions to boot.

You cannot blame the scanner when it requests OBD-II data from the PCM and scanner is reporting WHAT the PCM gave the scanner.

Your Eltra quick to flame people but clearly know zip about what your talking about and if those results from autotap are to your liking, I suggest you stay with it but I'll take the performance of the Ease and the raw data proofs it.

Interesting people treat a scanner like high performance of an engine when the PCM is only a 16.7 Mhz processor using only a 10.4K baud serial link and expect the PCM to update OBD-II at a faster rate then the link is or rather have PCM spend it's clock time on OBD-II rather then use that clock time managing the powertrain, that is real lack of understanding purpose of OBD-II versus main task of PCM to manage the realworld functions.

<small>[ October 12, 2002, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Team ZR-1 ]</small>

Sunset01

Ok, first here's an autotap log- two parameters, rpm and MAF:

Time Stamp(Seconds) Mass Air Flow(lb/min) Mass Air Flow(g/s) Time Stamp(Seconds) Engine Speed(RPM)

73599.94 19.744 149.24 73599.99 3375.8
73600.05 23.369 176.64 73600.05 3493
73600.1 21.917 165.66 73600.16 3620.8
73600.21 22.41 169.39 73600.27 3723.3
73600.32 26.456 199.97 73600.38 3829.3
73600.43 26.017 196.65 73600.49 3962.8
73600.54 26.504 200.33 73600.54 4084.8
73600.6 26.695 201.78 73600.65 4195.5
73600.71 27.259 206.04 73600.76 4314.5
73600.82 28.093 212.34 73600.87 4441
73600.92 31.647 239.21 73600.98 4568
73601.03 31.188 235.74 73601.03 4685.8
73601.09 31.173 235.62 73601.14 4807.5
73601.2 32.616 246.53 73601.25 4914.5
73601.31 33.647 254.32 73601.36 5040
73601.42 36.019 272.25 73601.47 5163.3
73601.53 36.438 275.42 73601.58 5275
73601.58 37.908 286.53 73601.64 5384.8
73601.69 37.499 283.44 73601.75 5493.3
73601.8 38.175 288.55 73601.86 5589.5
73601.91 35.74 270.14 73601.97 5700
73602.02 39.216 296.42 73602.08 5792.5
73602.08 37.582 284.07 73602.13 5883.3
73602.19 37.309 282 73602.24 5962.8
73602.3 38.347 289.85 73602.35 6031.3

Here's the same two parameters in Ease. Again, I found fastpackets off was fastest with only 2 params:

Frame Time MAF RPM
Frame Number Elapsed Time Air Flow Rate MAF Sensor Engine RPM
# Sec gm/s_ RPM

771 111.65 22.64 1204
772 111.66 23.28 1204
773 111.81 23.28 1233
774 111.99 28.78 1233
775 112.18 28.78 1296
776 112.2 43.1 1296
777 112.36 43.1 1521
778 112.55 78.14 1521
779 112.73 78.14 2051
780 112.75 82.99 2051
781 112.91 82.99 2146
782 113.08 89.42 2146
783 113.29 89.42 2254
784 113.31 89.12 2254
785 113.48 89.12 2423
786 113.63 114.28 2423
787 113.82 114.28 3108
788 113.85 143.83 3108
789 114.04 143.83 4053
790 114.18 214.38 4053
791 114.37 214.38 4620
792 114.4 235.74 4620
793 114.56 235.74 4996
794 114.73 251.73 4996
795 114.94 251.73 5598
796 114.96 247.43 5598
797 115.13 247.43 5829
798 115.28 257.6 5829
799 115.49 257.6 6029
800 115.53 278.39 6029
801 115.67 278.39 4671
802 115.83 197.92 4671
803 116.05 197.92 3807
804 116.06 192.09 3807
805 116.21 192.09 3948
806 116.38 209.6 3948
807 116.58 209.6 4175
808 116.62 201.78 4175
809 116.76 201.78 4288
810 116.98 223.22 4288
811 117.17 223.22 4536
812 117.23 232.62 4536
813 117.37 232.62 4658
814 117.53 239.21 4658
815 117.73 239.21 4875
816 117.75 242.85 4875
817 117.92 242.85 5000
818 118.08 247.43 5000
819 118.27 247.43 5230
820 118.31 264.3 5230
821 118.46 264.3 4995
822 118.64 14.69 4995
823 118.85 14.69 4363
824 118.86 10.57 4363
825 119.02 10.57 3978
826 119.2 9.76 3978
827 119.4 9.76 3336

And, lastly, an Ease log using 12 params- granted, a lot, but many look to updating about every 1.5 seconds (check MAF, for example):

Frame Time RPM TP FUEL_TRIM_CELL SPARKADV LONGFT1 HO2B1S1 LONGFT2 VSS HO2B2S1 MAF CURR_GEAR
Frame Number Elapsed Time Engine RPM Absolute Throttle Position Fuel Trim Cell (BLM Cell) Ignition Timing Adv - #1 Cyl Long Term Fuel Trim B1 HO2 B1 Sensor 1 Voltage Long Term Fuel Trim B2 Vehicle Speed HO2 B2 Sensor 1 Voltage Air Flow Rate MAF Sensor Current Gear
# Sec RPM % Deg % V % MPH V gm/s_
1386 207.83 677 0 4 23 0 0.16 0 19.3 0.19 6.61 4
1387 208 677 0 4 22.5 0 0.16 0 19.3 0.19 6.61 4
1388 208.18 677 0 4 22.5 0 0.16 0 19.3 0.19 6.53 4
1389 208.34 677 0 4 22.5 0 0.16 0 19.3 0.19 6.53 4
1390 208.5 677 0 4 22.5 0 0.08 0 19.3 0.19 6.53 4
1391 208.67 677 0 4 22.5 0 0.08 0 19.3 0.66 6.53 4
1392 208.83 677 0 4 22.5 0 0.08 0 19.3 0.66 6.53 4
1393 209 677 0 4 22.5 0 0.08 0 19.3 0.66 6.53 3
1394 209.17 677 0 4 22.5 2.3 0.08 0 19.3 0.66 6.53 3
1395 209.33 677 0 4 22.5 2.3 0.08 3.1 19.3 0.66 6.53 3
1396 209.5 2376 0 4 22.5 2.3 0.08 3.1 19.3 0.66 6.53 3
1397 209.67 2376 0 4 22.5 2.3 0.08 3.1 21.7 0.66 6.53 3
1398 209.87 3632 0 4 17.5 0 0.08 0 24.9 0.66 6.53 3
1399 209.88 3632 0 4 17.5 0 0.08 0 24.9 0.66 167.52 3
1400 209.91 3632 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 24.9 0.87 167.52 1
1401 210.04 3632 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 24.9 0.87 167.52 1
1402 210.21 3632 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 24.9 0.87 210.43 1
1403 210.38 3632 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 24.9 0.87 210.43 1
1404 210.54 3632 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 24.9 0.87 210.43 1
1405 210.7 3632 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 24.9 0.9 210.43 1
1406 210.87 3632 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 24.9 0.9 210.43 1
1407 211.04 3632 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 24.9 0.9 210.43 2
1408 211.2 3632 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 24.9 0.9 210.43 2
1409 211.36 3632 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 24.9 0.9 210.43 2
1410 211.53 5956 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 24.9 0.9 210.43 2
1411 211.69 5956 100 22 17.5 0 0.91 0 46.6 0.9 210.43 2
1412 211.9 5849 100 22 25.5 0 0.91 0 49.7 0.9 210.43 2
1413 211.93 5849 100 22 25.5 0 0.91 0 49.7 0.9 280.13 2
1414 211.96 5849 100 22 25.5 0 0.86 0 49.7 0.86 280.13 2
1415 212.13 5849 100 22 20 0 0.86 0 49.7 0.86 280.13 2
1416 212.31 5849 100 22 20 0 0.86 0 49.7 0.86 229.4 2
1417 212.46 5849 100 22 20 0 0.86 0 49.7 0.86 229.4 2
1418 212.63 5849 100 22 20 0 0.92 0 49.7 0.86 229.4 2
1419 212.8 5849 100 22 20 0 0.92 0 49.7 0.9 229.4 2
1420 212.96 5849 100 22 20 0 0.92 0 49.7 0.9 229.4 2
1421 213.13 5849 100 22 20 0 0.92 0 49.7 0.9 229.4 2
1422 213.3 5849 100 22 20 0 0.92 0 49.7 0.9 229.4 2

Thanks all.

Sunset01

Here's my problem: I think the scan that JR posted is excellent performance-- if you look at when the MAF or RPM actually change, you are getting new updates at about every 1/2 second.. (is this version 1 or version 2 ??).. I would LOVE that performance, as you can see with only 2 parameters, I get updates about every .3 seconds.. & from my log with about 10 parameters, I only update about every 1.5 seconds.... 1/2 the parameters with 1/2 the pids and on an F-body which should be faster..... (fastpackets on)... I have all along wondered whether I have been seeing performance indicative of EASE in general or whether I have a problem peculiar to my setup... And, again, If JR is using the unreleased version 2, maybe that's all of the difference? So, with all this confusion, that is why I asked for my fellow enthusiast's performance on their EASE instalation.

As to my communication problems with JR, I THINK I understand all he was telling me... it may have broken down with the fact that my particular performance is below what I EASE should be doing and he thought I was criticizing the performance HE was getting and demonstrating... I don't know. I thought I was making it clear what I was getting, but maybe my fault...

JAS

Figure 1 - Team-ZR1 supplied log 1 SECOND clip 21 function
<img src="http://www.tech-ls1.com/extras/easefalselog.jpg" alt=" - " />

Figure 2 - EFILive log using 5 frame per second mode with OLD AUTOTAP cable - 1 SECOND clip 22 PID used
<img src="http://www.tech-ls1.com/extras/EFILiveslowlog.jpg" alt=" - " />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now that is with 21 Functions begin recorded,
210 PCM recorded cycles from 2,000 RPMS to redline
with as much as 11 responded frames a second even while engine is at high load and being a C5, lots of other traffic on class B bus. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1 - It is PAINFULLY obvious if you look at YOUR supplied log (Figure 1 above) that EASE's FRAME count is generated when at least 1 PID gets updated.
2 - It is PAINFULLY obvious by the repitition in the data captured that no more than 3 unique "Frames" [all 21 "functions"] are only updated during 1 second. You can see this by the highlighted areas in Figure 1 above.
3 - It is PAINFULLY obvious that you are NOT recording 210 pieces of PCM generated DATA in 1 second.

What this means is that EASE is excellent at recording repeated data but in fact is SLOWER than even EFILive is using the autotap OLD cable in 5 frame per second mode. [Figure 2 above]

THAT log above is NO WHERE CLOSE TO 10 FRAMES A SECOND. Well, it is. According to EASES "definition" of what a frame should be, I guess. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your full of it JAS, nor do you know what your talking about.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) It PISSES ME OFF completely that you THINK everyone on the net is stupid and NO ONE will question you!
2) It PISSES ME OFF that you tell me I'm full of it when you don't even know who I am or what I know.
3) It PISSES ME OFF that you have been on the net so long and STILL don't know how to resize a picture to 640x480 for people who surf the net in 800x600 mode! You might as well be typing in CAPS!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your Eltra quick to flame people but clearly know zip about what your talking about and if those results from autotap are to your liking, I suggest you stay with it but I'll take the performance of the Ease and the raw data proofs it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hehe, yeah, you keep your repeat data of Ease and "believe" your getting maximum data out of the PCM per a "FRAME" haha <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="gr_tounge.gif" />
I just feel sorry for the people who FALL for your online BS DESPITE you putting proof right in front of their face.

Actually, John, for someone who claims to have YEARS of diagnostic equipment testing, I'm SHOCKED by the above.

I'll see you at SEMA so that you can explain EASE to me. You are going right?

<small>[ October 13, 2002, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: JAS ]</small>

JAS

4) It PISSES ME OFF when someone uses SCAN TOOL torque output of their car and thinks that's the ACTUAL power it makes and then USES it in their internet online UBB signature!

Actually, #4 doesn't **** me off <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> , it's just funnier then hell that a self proclaimed "expert" would do this. <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" />

Team ZR-1

It is pretty clear you do not even know the basics of OBD-II, VPW and PCM clock rates.

You have no clue to the OBD-II protocol which means when a request is made, a response has to be received before another request can be made, thus the timestamps and frame counts would show if the scanner was reporting the same frame of data multi times or not.
You also do not understand GM's fast data packet structure, but Ease does since they are the only vendor that works directly with GM engineering and in fact produces scanner tools for GM BECAUSE they comply with GM's protocols and were given inside information on how it works whereas your scanner guesses and backward engineers.

You need to get smarter, the PCM does NOT refresh OBD-II as fast as requests are made, car functions have hgher priority then OBD-II is and it is the PCM that is sending values as responds to the scanner requests
BUT the PCM has NOT gotten new values from the functions that SUPPLY the values in that timeframe.
You really cannot believe that rhe PCM would ignore the functions in the car just to put responses to a scanner first, for if you are what your saying is the PCM will fill the bus with OBD-II data and thus allow functions like airbags, magnasteer, drive by wire, ABS or even a turn signal to be ignored just so a diag frame could be sent to a read only scanner when the cpu is 100 times slower then your laptop is to a small serial link while all dara has to be enclosed in a frame and the clock time to strip the frame off the data ?

If EPA wanted steady stream of OBD-II data then the PCM CPU would function at much higher clock rate, be multi tasking, using multi threads, the serial link would have been at least 115K baud and PCM buffers would also be much larger and they would not have used a low level CANs network to serial flow.

Where it proves you wrong is the VPW protocol and
what the scanner reports is taken from that protocol and the scanner is ONLY reporting what the PCM put into those frames and thus if data for a function is the same that MEANS the PCM has NOT received new values between scanner requests and if you want slower scanner streams turn OFF fast data packets mode.

If you really understood HS300 you would know that autotap is so slow and late, that of course it would mean each frame has differnet contents BECAUSE the PCM has gone more cycles on refresh then atap is and by the time atap requests the refresh of values is really missing PCM cycles.

It's rather stupid to attempt to prove something by showing the other vendor doing 1/2 the Fps and PIDS and thinking it is an appple to apple compare, interesting how you made it look like both raw data screens had the same PIDs by shrinking down the 21 functions of Ease and expanding the screen size of the autocrap data.

Ease has won 21 awards for the speed of their scanner, autotap, none, efilive, none,
Ease is recommended by EPA as a compliant IM 240 scanner, autotap and efilive are NOT.

As the the torque I hate to inform you that the scanner is not making the torque numbers, the PCM is and what your saying is that GM produces false delivered torque values so that the TM, TCC, active handlng,TAC, could screw up, crash the car and kill people because bogus delivered torque values are used.
I can see why you think that since your scanner reports values like 1200 ft/lbs so in your lack of understanding think All scanners do the same thing but countless dyno runs have been done and the delivered torque values compared to what the dyno produced and are backed up with the times these cars run at the drags and the values equal what GM says their cars produce, so your talking nonsense.

So I suggest you start learning OBD-II, find out why there is not only is a interframe spacing delay, SOH, EOH, SOD, EOD, and a 100 mSec delay between OBD-II frames and then add header, mode, and CRC bytes, and compute bit time on a 10.4K serial link.

Then link that to the PCM CPU at 16.7 Mhz, and add the arbitration that functions in car MUST have PRIORTY over responding to OBD-II and then you'll understand why being too slow like your scanner is that it is seeing data not in realtime so I suggest you spend less time pissing on your leg since its clear you like doing that and learn the basics of what is the PCM's role is to OBD-II and what a READ only scanner is about.

In the end you could not answer why the autotap had far fewer frames per second then the Ease even when it had to request 50% less functions then the Ease did. Nor answer why in that autotap dyno trace why one frame says RPM is 4159
and 100 msecs later is 4473 or engine load is 89% and 100 msecs later engine load reported at [b100%[/b].

Your attempt to blame the scanner for the contents of 11 fps the scanner received, as the scanner at fault, rather simple understanding the PCM just has not gotten newer values from the functions giving the values.

Don't make me laugh for it is clear if you do not understand the importance of PCM calculating valid delivered torque, you clearly can not understand a good scanner from a bad one.

Team ZR-1

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JAS:
<strong>4) It PISSES ME OFF when someone uses SCAN TOOL torque output of their car and thinks that's the ACTUAL power it makes and then USES it in their internet online UBB signature!

Actually, #4 doesn't **** me off <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> , it's just funnier then hell that a self proclaimed "expert" would do this. <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What should **** you off John is shops like one in the IL area that zooms around in a customer's car looking at the meters screen of autotap and then making PCM tuning changes from what they saw for a monent of time and calls rhemselves a "Super or Pro tuner".
You may not understand how a PCM can calculate the torque, but if you cannot then you also cannot understand the basic math to compute the brake or flywheel horsepower from torque or why tuners are changing the TM value in the PCM if it cannot compute torque correctly in the 1st place.

JAS

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is pretty clear you do not even know the basics of OBD-II, VPW and PCM clock rates...
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And it is OBVIOUS to me that that time and time again your replies default to what EASE has told you and attacking over and over other manufactures scan products.

I do find it VERY funny that you NO LONGER attack the AutoTap hardware, instead autotap itself. I will admit the software isn't perfect, but OBVIOUSLY so isn't EASE V2.0 software since it was once again delayed.

TeamZR1 - You ALWAYS hide behind the OBD-II technical stuff because you know the average user doesn't understand you. Obviously, this tactic must impress all those guys you sell Ease too and make you feel good.

Yet you AVOID the PROOF. Geez, John, I look at your 10 frame data capture and see for example RPM change ONLY 3 times. I look at the EFILive capture and see RPM change 5 times in 5 frames along with the REST of the data being logged.
How the hell can you sit there and ARGUE that EASE is faster when the data YOU supplied shows it is NOT!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> The ONLY thing this tells me is that EASE is FILLING IN historic data for the rest of the frame when one of the PIDS in that frame changes. IT'S OBVIOUS and OTHERS BESIDES ME CAN SEE THIS BY YOUR SUPPLIED CAPTURE!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ease has won 21 awards for the speed of their scanner, autotap, none, efilive, none,
Ease is recommended by EPA as a compliant IM 240 scanner, autotap and efilive are NOT.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I sure the hell hope Ease wins awards, that's the companies ONLY lively hood. Just because they won awards doesn't mean they "ARE" the best out there. Come on JOHN, you've been in the technology industry TOO long! Hell, NOVELL used to win awards too, OBVIOUSLY they were the best too, where are they now? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="gr_tounge.gif" /> (What happened, did they have you arguing their point for them?) <img border="0" alt="[hail]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_hail.gif" /> Any case, awards are a dime a dozen, look around, I'm sure even YOU know of products that DO NOT DESERVE awards. Hell, doesn't O.J. have a bunch of awards??? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As the the torque I hate to inform you that the scanner is not making the torque numbers, the PCM is and what your saying is that GM produces false delivered torque values </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sheesh, I CAN NOT BELIEVE that with all the TECHNICAL CRAP you "know" from reading that you think the torque value is accurate. Your definition of accurate must be W I D E... well, I guess that makes sense since you ALSO think your log above achieved 10 frames a second or worst yet, 210 pieces of PCM generated DATA.
John - Listen closely, THE FRICKEN TORQUE VALUE IS CALCULATED BASED ON DATA FROM SENSORS LIKE THE MAF!!! Did you even REALIZE that a cone filter on the end of a MAF can CHANGE the values to be inaccurate???? OF COURSE YOU DIDN'T, because like most, you THOUGHT by your SCANTOOL readout you GAINED POWER! hahahahahaha
Please quit trying to be stubborn by your so called "book smarts" and DO the field work. Just because GM uses it, as a reference calculation for a STOCK car, it doesn't mean that the calculation are percisely dialed in. It doesn't mean it will REMAIN that way after mods, etc. So, YES, your SIG is bullshit! Show me the dyno sheet from the dyno.

Don't make me laugh for it is clear if you do not understand the importance of PCM calculating valid delivered torque, you clearly can not understand a good scanner from a bad one. And you sir, please QUIT making me laugh with you REHASH of what EASE TELLS YOU and what you read. My God sir, LOOK AT THE FRICKEN DATA YOU supplied!!!!!!! HOW...HOW can you argue the OBVIOUS???? You CAN NOT, that is why you try to miss direct with mention of awards and other bullshit, just like a 3 year old child!

I KNOW you are NOT a 3 year old child and you seem semi-intelligent, so WHY can't you see that YOUR log is only updating a PID 3 TIMES in 1 second or 10 frames while EFILIVE is doing it 5-6 times. Or almost TWICE as FAST!

<img border="0" alt="[barf]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_barf.gif" />

<small>[ October 14, 2002, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: JAS ]</small>

JAS

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What should **** you off John is shops like one in the IL area that zooms around in a customer's car looking at the meters screen of autotap and then making PCM tuning changes from what they saw for a monent of time and calls rhemselves a "Super or Pro tuner".
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sheesh, again with the 3-year old child like misdirection tactics. So sad. And yes, I agree, but this isn't even remotely on topic!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You may not understand how a PCM can calculate the torque, but if you cannot then you also cannot understand the basic math to compute the brake or flywheel horsepower from torque or why tuners are changing the TM value in the PCM if it cannot compute torque correctly in the 1st place.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">More assumptions. Didn't I already TELL YOU it pisses me off because you don't even KNOW who I am or what I know! Let me ask you this.. do you know the guy who designed/wrote the routines for the PCM?

ALL this DOESN'T MATTER.

The ONLY thing that matters is that YOU provided the PROOF that their IS scanner software out there that is FASTER then EASE and on top of it, it does the FASTER scanning using the OLD AUTOTAP hardware. Hardware which you have called CRAP MANY MANY MANY times over on these forums! If this OLD hardware is CRAP, what whould you call EASE hardware that is slower??? Oh wait, its the software...

Fact is, LOOK at the PROOF, stop spitting out what EASE tells you and QUIT trying to pull the wool over on the F-body guys here! I can't help that the poor Corvette guys fall for your BS, and it's a shame they do since they pay out the nose as is.

Sunset01

Can anyone go back to the original point of my starting this thread ? Can anyone post the performance they are getting with ease, especially with two Pids, like I was ....? Or even the 10-12 that I did... Again, I'd be very happy to get the performance that Jr even showed with 21 pids.. I'm not getting anywhere close with my Ease setup... Is it because you are still using version 2 JR?