Interesting read starting with post #7. I know what everyones opinion is of JR, but what about what the other poster is saying?

http://www.monodax.com/forums/tunerc...ning-help.html

 

Good read, alot of good information in there in reality, much of it true...also much of it false.

 

Some good, some bad.

I thought the most interesting comment was 'Widebands don't work in closed loop' comment.

I can't speak for onboards because mine is onboard open loop, but for the countless hours that I have spent on a dyno with a car I can say that the great majority of cars running closed loop you can stick a sniffer in the exhaust and get 14.7 for most steady state operation...... seems pretty close to me.

 

I used my LC1 to dial in my friend's car in open loop (sensor in header bung). Switched over to CL and LTFT's stayed close to 0 (+/- 1.6%).

 

efilive and road runner will even let you run a kind of wideband based closed loop for any commanded fueling as it will self adjust. (Just need a laptop to control the changes)

 

I guess my car is one of JR's "5%".

Bottom line- Air, Fuel and Timing.
Nothing in the link really new...but alot of old.

 

Hey Bink. Glad to see you are still on the boards.

As usual, you are correct - in the end it is all air-fuel-spark......no matter how you get it there.

 

a sniffer will register the average airfuel. What the comment was stating, part of, was a good wideband, will have issues with the closed loop rich/lean over the stoich point to get accurate data.

Most of the internet tooners equipment is not going to pick up this kind of variance.

Ryan

 

I've personally read more interesting articles in Good Housekeeping.

About the only point I saw that I would consider to be a valid concern would be buying a used car that had been tuned in SD that now needed to be smogged. If I ever sold my car, I'd put my narrowband O2 sensors back in as well as the MAF sensor just to save on the grief. Then THEY could replace the narrowbands every year when they die (probably sooner), and have fun with their K&N air filter (that people will inevitably put in because of their marketing hype) getting oil spatter all over the wires.

While the PCM was never designed to be used the way I do, it most certainly works, and works quite well (open loop, SD). Considering I'm an enthusiast, I don't mind spending some extra time tweaking my tune every now and again to keep it running its best.

 

There was a lot of clutter added to that thread after I started this one. I guess the one post there I was wanting comments on was #10.

 

It's a simple concept that some people believe (and I guess some don't). Whether it's correct or not, I don't know for sure. I do know (thanks to RHS) what an injector flows at a given FRP based on it's specs. I do know that I can get my VE table dialed in +/-2% for any RPM and/or MAP that I see during my driving styles. And, I do know that when I turn my MAF back on, the stock calibration will lean out the progress I just made and therefore the values need to be adjusted (increased) to add more fuel. All of that can be done in less than 48 hours and remain consistent until my next mod. The trick, IMO, is getting the spark table right for my mods.

Yes, I could jig-rig the VE for idle, distort the IFR table, and get the desired AFR in probably 1/10th the time it would take me to do it the other way. But, I like having my WBO2 AFR match the PCM commanded AFR (again, within +/- 2%). I choose to run open-loop because (as stated above) I don't want the anual expense of replacing NBO2's. I like the MAF and don't fall into the full-time SD hype - especially with the weather changes we see here in Michigan.

As for the whole PCM debate...I'm typing this message on-site at a major OEM right now and deal with some of the people that buy & engineer the ECM's in all of their vehicles. I have yet to hear about design complaints. The bigger complaint is cost, how it can be done for less, and who's technically qualified to do it....just like any company producing any product.

In the end, I don't know what my tune will look like. But, I know the AFR's will be where I want them, the spark will be where it's making some good power without detonation, and I WILL be happy with it. And the best part is I will know that I acheived my goal of tuning my car on my own based on what I've managed to learn over the past year and a half tinkering with my copy of EFI Live.

 

I'm new to whomever JR is, but he certainly contradicts himself often; an awful lot of "GM did it so that is the best way" followed by "well, they had to tune for every possible variance". He seems to completely ignore the fact that GM's requirement to generically tune for every scenario is specifically why adjusting things down to a vehicle/locale specific design nets a great increase in power AND drivability (assuming a fair level of modification from your factory components).

I'm a tuning newbie, and that's not a hard concept for me to grasp.

 

If I'm not mistaken, JR hails from the days of old when LS1Edit was king ****, and scaling your IFR table was the preferred method to get your fuel trims in line. After HPTuners and EFILive came to market, there was a great rift...he went one way (and still holds to his values), and most of us went the other.

 

he dont even understand why the o2 sensors are switched from rich to lean.. lol Also, how is it that EFILive is forcing people to buy speed density programs if they dont even charge for them? They where given away always for free. lol

 

He certainly knows how to turn someones thread into a shitfight without even answering any of the questions.

 

I'm to tired for a long drawn out post so i'll sum it, JR aka Team-zr(retarded)1 makes baby Jesus cry.