Quote:
Originally Posted by vasillalov
Guys,
Hasn't it occurred to you that Mike/Terry could be exploiting this whole deal and acquiring more know-how on how to "improve" the next JB variant?
I mean, at what point do you guys stop educating them? Let them figure this stuff out for once. All we need is for the mods to create a sticky thread at the top with a few selected informational and technical posts and call it a day. ...that or AltecBX needs to add a few columns to the Tune Comparison Chart and put that stuff in there, so that all the new members have a way of learning what's what.
|
In truth, this thread was in no way, shape or form intended to slander their respective businesses. After reading much of the other thread, when creating this one, my sole intention was to attempt to share knowledge I've found over the years playing with/tuning cars, in order for more of this community to gain a greater understanding of some of these hot topic debates that pop up frequently around here.
I've emailed back and forth with Terry, and I don't have a problem with him, his business or his ability to make a profit. We both agree that avoiding detonation is the ultimate goal, and he shared his experiences with me over the years. As such, I also shared my points of view/experiences, and belief that by building a custom map could increase consistency and improve the look/feel of the torque curve.
Terry informed me that about an endeavor he had a year ago, attempting to develop a flash based program for these cars, and that the timing tables he played with seemed to have little bearing on the actual timing limits the car would impose, but admitted that there was some difficulty in using and identifying tables, or at least getting the desired results on this car, also mentioning that Cobb might have access to more tables than he was able to uncover (he even sent me a screen shot of the interface he was using). I have however also spoken with Rob at Cobb, who seemed pretty clear on as long as the tune is happy, the base timing figures should be what you're seeing, confirming everything I've learned about timing tables in the past.
I will say this about Terry, he has always been cordial and fairly explanatory (without attempting to lecture) about his reasoning in our conversations, more so than many would expect when having a conversation with someone who has creating a large thread that could have a negative impact on one of your products (albeit not intentionally). I have no problems with him as a person, and like I've mentioned before, when it comes to customer service, I would give him top marks on responsiveness (regardless of the time of day) as well as effort in attempting to resolve issues.
With that said, I'm a firm believer in the term "put your money where your mouth is". As such, that's exactly what I plan on doing. I've dyno'd a JB4 on my car (map 1 on 1/1/2011 firmware/sent the dyno to Terry as well), logged it as well for a couple days. I was less than impressed and it has not been on the car for a while (dyno'd on 1/29/11, removed 1/30/11). When the AP comes out for '07's, I fully intend on purchasing one (have the cash now if anyone at Cobb wants to allow me to "test" a beta haha! I have to stop hassling those guys
). At that time, I'm also going to throw the JB4 back in the car, update firmware, set it to autotune/autoPID make another pull or two on the dyno, gather a few logs for comparison and remove it. I'm going to perform the same process for the AP, comparing logs & dyno curves... and ultimately, when released, I'm going to tune the car via ATR software and compare it (dyno curves & logs) to the OTS maps from both the JB4, as well as the AP's OTS stage 1 map.
Ultimately, my goal is to let the numbers and shape of the curves speak for themselves. However, along with this data, I plan on posting my own personal impressions along with them, and I will attempt to do this in an unbiased manner. Hey, if I can't create a smoother curve, more consistent power and cleaner logs, I'm not selling anything, I have no problem saying so/admitting I was wrong... but I have a feeling that won't be a problem
Again, I'm a "put your money where your mouth is" kind of guy, and the combination of dyno time and purchasing another tuning device (Cobb AP) isn't exactly free haha!
I've informed Terry of my intentions to test my basic tuning theories (based on tuning cars in the past), document them and share them openly, to which he had no problem.
Based on playing with these motors for the past few years, I'm sure there's a few things Terry can teach me about them (he's more specialized on this platform/whereas my experience is with several other platforms), and I'm an open minded enough individual to listen, even if I don't fully agree with something. As such, I hope he's the same way. If he implements a new feature set in his future products that could improve overall performance and consistency, the way I see it, it's win/win for everyone. If we can all grow as a community and become more knowledgeable, with a greater number of tools at our disposal, I'm all for it.
With that said, Terry was working on the PRO board which utilizes CPS offsetting (timing control) LONG before I ever thought about making this thread... so the reality of the whole thing is that this thread isn't really teaching him much (if anything), that he didn't already know.
At least that's my $.02
-Brandon