[Jake@MOTIV]

Its not a "lean spool" table. Its titled fuel (spool). It is a mode the car enters under certain conditions. I may have said lean spool as someone said that earlier and i misspoke by repeating it.

Im not trying to argue. You continue take a defensive with me while I've said you've done a great job. I willl simply stop replying as you simply can't have a discussion without feeling as though someone is attacking you. I konw how the tables work. I've been in the industry doing this a very long time with cobb, aem, haltech, proefi, megasquirt and open sources on mazdas, bmw, subaru, toyota, mitsubishi...I just don't have a sales position to defend so I am a bit more open and not arguementative.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by FlyLow335i

Its not a "lean spool" table. Its titled fuel (spool). It is a mode the car enters under certain conditions. I may have said lean spool as someone said that earlier and i misspoke by repeating it.

Im not trying to argue. You continue take a defensive with me while I've said you've done a great job. I willl simply stop replying as you simply can't have a discussion without feeling as though someone is attacking you. I konw how the tables work. I've been in the industry doing this a very long time with cobb, aem, haltech, proefi, megasquirt and open sources on mazdas, bmw, subaru, toyota, mitsubishi...I just don't have a sales position to defend so I am a bit more open and not arguementative.

Please re-read my posts. I am not being argumentative or defensive. Nor do I feel I'm being attacked by you or anyone else. I'm merely providing information that I've gathered that others may find useful. And part of that information is informing you that you've made some unfair assumptions about what tables we have access to and understand. I also think you are overreacting a bit. Let's stick to talking tech.

Shiv

[Lulz_M3]

So shiv, you are saying that different fuel modes do not exist for the MSD80?

[Dave W.]

wow we're still walking on eggshells around here.

Rant warning!
FYI most of the members who would choose to argue and insult instead of discussing raw technical topics have been banned from this forum. Good riddance. I think we're past the point where we need to worry about how our tech info taken.

This platform needs to move forward, and one way to do that is for members to share their experience and observations. We need an open forum where we're free to talk without fear of repercussions. Of course we also need to behave with civility. I think we're on the right track.

[Dave W.]

Originally Posted by Lulz_M3

So shiv, you are saying that different fuel modes do not exist for the MSD80?

Just looking at the number of fuel tables listed in the screenshot of the Cobb software (thanks for sharing that) seems to show several fuel tables. Based on my experience, I'd say that the tables are used at different time based on engine needs. So I'd say 'yes' there are different fuel modes, but I haven't seen a stock ROM yet.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Lulz_M3

So shiv, you are saying that different fuel modes do not exist for the MSD80?

Of course they do. No where did I say that they don't exist. The fuel modes change based upon operational conditions (both normal conditions and fault conditions). Most of those fuel maps correspond to different fuel modes (just as Dave W so eloquently put it).

As an aside, it seems like a few people on this forum are trying to stir up drama and controversy on this and other forums.

[Lulz_M3]

I hate to say it but there's no point in continuing this conversation on this forum. If anything, people will see the light once ATR is released. Flylow is extremely limited in how much info he can provide at this time.

[onesuperboi]

Maybe it will not become an issue soon? From my understanding, Shiv is flashing some base map to raise the rev limiter. I have a feeling that some other things are being modified as well that the PROcede can't do or he doesn't want the PROcede to do which could free up the PROcede to do other things.

[Lulz_M3]

Originally Posted by onesuperboi

Maybe it will not become an issue soon? From my understanding, Shiv is flashing some base map to raise the rev limiter. I have a feeling that some other things are being modified as well that the PROcede can't do or he doesn't want the PROcede to do which could free up the PROcede to do other things.

I suspect that stacking a piggy on top of ATR will be the only way to safely fuel turbo upgrades in the future. I could be wrong about this, but from my understanding Cobb is limited by the DME logic in which it targets load, and Piggys are limited in the manner in which they try to provide enough fuel. And yes Shiv, i know, the PROcede has no problem hitting AFR targets.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by onesuperboi

Maybe it will not become an issue soon? From my understanding, Shiv is flashing some base map to raise the rev limiter. I have a feeling that some other things are being modified as well that the PROcede can't do or he doesn't want the PROcede to do which could free up the PROcede to do other things.

I wasn't aware that there is currently an issue with FBIS's single turbo tune.

[Jake@MOTIV]

The AP will have no problem with larger turbos. If someone has informed they would - they were misspoken. Being able to change logic however they want to allows the AP to control a WG solenoid in the traditional boost instead of vacuum source signal. This is cobbs 1000th rodeo...they are well ahead of the curve.

[Jake@MOTIV]

Originally Posted by Lulz_M3

I suspect that stacking a piggy on top of ATR will be the only way to safely fuel turbo upgrades in the future. I could be wrong about this, but from my understanding Cobb is limited by the DME logic in which it targets load, and Piggys are limited in the manner in which they try to provide enough fuel. And yes Shiv, i know, the PROcede has no problem hitting AFR targets.

The AP alone will have no problem with larger turbos, single turbos, etc. If someone has informed that they would - they were misspoken. Being able to change logic however they want to allows the AP to control a WG solenoid in the traditional boost instead of vacuum source signal. This is cobbs 1000th rodeo...they are well ahead of the curve.

[Lulz_M3]

Originally Posted by FlyLow335i

The AP alone will have no problem with larger turbos, single turbos, etc. If someone has informed that they would - they were misspoken. Being able to change logic however they want to allows the AP to control a WG solenoid in the traditional boost instead of vacuum source signal. This is cobbs 1000th rodeo...they are well ahead of the curve.

FlyLow - The assumption about ATR not being able to handle larger turbos was one of my own, but one i have also heard mentioned before. I guess i'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how Cobb can get past the load targets? Sorry to bring the thread OT, but can you provide any info without "spilling the beans?"

[Jake@MOTIV]

Originally Posted by Lulz_M3

FlyLow - The assumption about ATR not being able to handle larger turbos was one of my own, but one i have also heard mentioned before. I guess i'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how Cobb can get past the load targets? Sorry to bring the thread OT, but can you provide any info without "spilling the beans?"

Cobb can write custom code. I can target whatever load I want at whatever RPM I want. In my current hardware setup I just can't hit higher loads because I don't flow enough from the stock twins. I guess I am missing what your confusion is stemming from.

[cstavaru]

Originally Posted by Lulz_M3

I guess i'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how Cobb can get past the load targets?

Since they are in control of the ECU software, they can set whatever load targets they want. This is a non-issue.

[Lulz_M3]

Originally Posted by FlyLow335i

Cobb can write custom code. I can target whatever load I want at whatever RPM I want. In my current hardware setup I just can't hit higher loads because I don't flow enough from the stock twins. I guess I am missing what your confusion is stemming from.

Originally Posted by cstavaru

Since they are in control of the ECU software, they can set whatever load targets they want. This is a non-issue.

I was under the impression that the best performance would come from a tune without load targets, but more specifically targeting x psi. From my limited understanding of load based tuning, i set my load for x amount, and if the DME achieves the target load it will not attempt to run more boost/timing. An example would be you tune the car for warm weather, as the weather begins to cool off the DME is hitting its load targets much easier and runs less boost. In all actuality, would prefer the DME to increase boost/timing to take advantage of the lower temps.

I guess its possible with load based tuning, but just requires you to retune frequently to take advantage of these changes?

[A418t81]

Originally Posted by Lulz_M3

FlyLow - The assumption about ATR not being able to handle larger turbos was one of my own, but one i have also heard mentioned before. I guess i'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how Cobb can get past the load targets? Sorry to bring the thread OT, but can you provide any info without "spilling the beans?"

Just like in openECU tuning land, once the ECU code has been decompiled, custom code can be written and uploaded. Getting around vac vs boost actuated wastegates is relatively trivial. In the case of the GTR, cobb completely rewrote the boost control routine which now functions much better than the original code did. There are actually multiple ignition control strategies that can be implemented as well.