I think you missed the point buddy
A large majority of modern performance cars have adaptive timing systems. Let's review here:
-Most modern cars have load vs RPM timing tables.
-The N54 has a load vs RPM timing table (I added it to the first post if you care to take another look
-Most modern cars have knock induced timing correction (Subaru's refer to this as IAM).
-The N54 also corrects timing based on knock.
-Most modern cars have compensation tables for a variety of environmental conditions (IAT, Baro, ect).
-The N54 has compensation tables for a variety of environmental conditions.
^^^I understand that you're having some difficulty understanding this, but the N54's timing system is not that different from every other modern performance car out there. It simply has a slightly faster DME and more sensitive knock sensors (thank goodness!!). The principles are the same. I've seen plenty of cars that knock from the factory (especially at my elevation- 5200 ft on 91 octane piss water), this is never optimum, and any tuner worth their salt will work to ensure no knock is present at any point if at all possible.
We've all seen enough logs to know that yes, in fact these cars do knock, many from the factory, and many more when tuned. This is never optimum, under any condition, regardless of how fast the DME is at pulling timing to avoid major catastrophic failure. I would agree that many OTS maps/tunes knock (this much is true in many communities, N54/N55's are not alone in this regard), which is why I'm not advocating OTS maps, and am a firm believer in custom tuning (always have been).
Those massive drops in timing seen in numerous logs (caused by knock, regardless of the severity), those translate to dips seen in torque curves, and in the real world, not only do they have the potential to increase normal wear, they also lead to reduced consistency.
I would also respectfully disagree that "no one does this", as many respected tuners attempt to adjust timing in regards to load (i.e. Shiv). While an OTS map often does not hit this target, it is attempted nonetheless. You will find as user adjustability increases, and these cars become tuned by a larger number of professional tuners, they will follow the same strategy. As a matter of fact, it might not be a bad idea to consult the guys at Cobb for their thoughts on the matter (I already have
). If a tune is happy, you should be seeing maximum/base timing values (most professional tuners would agree with me on this).
Have you ever taken a political science or critical thinking course? If so, you would know that the argument in your last paragraph is what can be referred to as an argumentum ad populum, which is appealing to popularity as opposed to logic. It's a nice move in order to appeal to people that have poor critical thinking skills, and are not used to wading through rhetoric. This holds a considerable amount of sway over the uneducated population, that is not familiar with the more basic (as well as advanced) theories of tuning. However on individuals that have a bit more experience in this realm than yourself, this type of fallacy holds little sway.
Last I heard (and correct me if I heard wrong), Terry was working on a "Proboard" for "more advanced users", and this unit will supposedly have the ability to alter timing. Is this true, sir? Or have I been misinformed? If so, based on your beliefs about playing with timing tables being a waste (not a view shared by most reputable tuners), why would your benefactor be working on a system that addresses these shortcomings? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to, you can allow it to be rhetorical, but it's just food for thought friend
I respect that you have a difficult, demanding job, and from what I understand, you are phenomenal in the realm of customer service, so please don't take any of this personal, as it is not meant to be. This is merely a technical discussion, one that I believe benefits all the members of this community.