stock ecu vs. s-squared tune
05-03-2005, 12:22 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: fresno, where there are NO Subies.
Posts: 165
Car Info: XCALABR
stock ecu vs. s-squared tune
To get all the facts out: I was tuned by S-Squared with extended dyno time, after which I did a data log, at the bbq Ed held in Davis, to see how everything looked. What I saw surprised me with fright: Knock correction was pulling negative numbers as well as in the fine learning table ( a good 3/4ths of the numbers on the fine learning table were pulling negative numbers; as much as –9.5). Also, at around 4000RPM’s there was a bad knock, to the point where timing was being pulled, causing a substantial drop in power ( you can see it on the tq curve of the dyno graph right around 4000RPM’s). The Advanced Multiplier was still at 16. It was also running 11.3-11.6:1 a/f ratios from 3600RPM to 6100RPM. Boost levels reached 16.3 PSI.
Info seen here: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/finelearning.jpg http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune1.csv http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune2.csv
Mods include uppipe, invidia downpipe, and HKS carbon-ti cat back. All were installed before the tune on a 2003 WRX.
After seeing this information on the data logs I took my car back to S-Squared to have them look at it and to correct any issues. They did a data log and said everything looked how it should; there were no problems. So I went back home and did some more data logs to check, but everything was still how I saw it before bringing back in for S-Squared to check out.
That’s when I took it back a second time and I got the ECU set back to stock. I then did some data logs with the stock ECU. No knocks, no negative numbers on the knock correction, and no negative numbers on the fine learning table other than a single one at –0.4, the rest at zeros. Everything was how it should be stock, no problems with anything (boost levels, a/f ratios, timing, etc.).
Info seen here: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock1.csv http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock2.csv
Here are the graphs. Take this for what you want, but I was speechless when I saw the results.
Graphs: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune.png http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock.png
Info seen here: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/finelearning.jpg http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune1.csv http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune2.csv
Mods include uppipe, invidia downpipe, and HKS carbon-ti cat back. All were installed before the tune on a 2003 WRX.
After seeing this information on the data logs I took my car back to S-Squared to have them look at it and to correct any issues. They did a data log and said everything looked how it should; there were no problems. So I went back home and did some more data logs to check, but everything was still how I saw it before bringing back in for S-Squared to check out.
That’s when I took it back a second time and I got the ECU set back to stock. I then did some data logs with the stock ECU. No knocks, no negative numbers on the knock correction, and no negative numbers on the fine learning table other than a single one at –0.4, the rest at zeros. Everything was how it should be stock, no problems with anything (boost levels, a/f ratios, timing, etc.).
Info seen here: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock1.csv http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock2.csv
Here are the graphs. Take this for what you want, but I was speechless when I saw the results.
Graphs: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune.png http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock.png
05-03-2005, 08:01 AM
#3
Warm Fuzzy Admin
iTrader: (45)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 13,799
Car Info: 97 LOB, 05 FXT, 03 Tundra
What's done is done at this point. Keegan, I'm sorry you weren't happy, but you also didn't give us a chance to make it right and retune the car as we offered (as I understand it). From what we understood, the car had been logged once and displayed the correction numbers you're referring to, we logged it using the same software and did not see that information. On good faith, we offered to go through the car, which you declined; it's most definitely your decision, but we would have appreciated a chance to correct any issues, as we make a point of ensuring each and every customer is happy with their tune.
I'm sorry we weren't able to come to a better resolution, and wish you the best of luck moving forward, stock, or with the tuner who's assisting you with the logging and data-gathering. I'd like to also note that we did issue you a partial refund (given that your ECU is still licensed), just to keep all the cards on the table.
I'm sorry we weren't able to come to a better resolution, and wish you the best of luck moving forward, stock, or with the tuner who's assisting you with the logging and data-gathering. I'd like to also note that we did issue you a partial refund (given that your ECU is still licensed), just to keep all the cards on the table.
05-03-2005, 08:18 AM
#4
Just out of curiousity, where did you get the stock vs. sstune graphs from? Those don't look like printouts from the S-S Mustang dyno.
I'm mainly curious since your stock numbers seem quite high (like 30-40hp) over what I've normally seen from Stock WRXs on the S-S dyno.
I'm mainly curious since your stock numbers seem quite high (like 30-40hp) over what I've normally seen from Stock WRXs on the S-S dyno.
05-03-2005, 08:27 AM
#5
Token Toyota Mod
iTrader: (50)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 52,306
Car Info: Something german
Originally Posted by nKoan
Just out of curiousity, where did you get the stock vs. sstune graphs from? Those don't look like printouts from the S-S Mustang dyno.
I'm mainly curious since your stock numbers seem quite high (like 30-40hp) over what I've normally seen from Stock WRXs on the S-S dyno.
I'm mainly curious since your stock numbers seem quite high (like 30-40hp) over what I've normally seen from Stock WRXs on the S-S dyno.
I'm having a hard time believing your car "stock" has that much power.
05-03-2005, 08:39 AM
#6
Troll
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pimpin' tards
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by calibredwrx
To get all the facts out: I was tuned by S-Squared with extended dyno time, after which I did a data log, at the bbq Ed held in Davis, to see how everything looked. What I saw surprised me with fright: Knock correction was pulling negative numbers as well as in the fine learning table ( a good 3/4ths of the numbers on the fine learning table were pulling negative numbers; as much as –9.5). Also, at around 4000RPM’s there was a bad knock, to the point where timing was being pulled, causing a substantial drop in power ( you can see it on the tq curve of the dyno graph right around 4000RPM’s). The Advanced Multiplier was still at 16. It was also running 11.3-11.6:1 a/f ratios from 3600RPM to 6100RPM. Boost levels reached 16.3 PSI.
Info seen here: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/finelearning.jpg http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune1.csv http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune2.csv
Mods include uppipe, invidia downpipe, and HKS carbon-ti cat back. All were installed before the tune on a 2003 WRX.
After seeing this information on the data logs I took my car back to S-Squared to have them look at it and to correct any issues. They did a data log and said everything looked how it should; there were no problems. So I went back home and did some more data logs to check, but everything was still how I saw it before bringing back in for S-Squared to check out.
That’s when I took it back a second time and I got the ECU set back to stock. I then did some data logs with the stock ECU. No knocks, no negative numbers on the knock correction, and no negative numbers on the fine learning table other than a single one at –0.4, the rest at zeros. Everything was how it should be stock, no problems with anything (boost levels, a/f ratios, timing, etc.).
Info seen here: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock1.csv http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock2.csv
Here are the graphs. Take this for what you want, but I was speechless when I saw the results.
Graphs: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune.png http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock.png
Info seen here: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/finelearning.jpg http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune1.csv http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune2.csv
Mods include uppipe, invidia downpipe, and HKS carbon-ti cat back. All were installed before the tune on a 2003 WRX.
After seeing this information on the data logs I took my car back to S-Squared to have them look at it and to correct any issues. They did a data log and said everything looked how it should; there were no problems. So I went back home and did some more data logs to check, but everything was still how I saw it before bringing back in for S-Squared to check out.
That’s when I took it back a second time and I got the ECU set back to stock. I then did some data logs with the stock ECU. No knocks, no negative numbers on the knock correction, and no negative numbers on the fine learning table other than a single one at –0.4, the rest at zeros. Everything was how it should be stock, no problems with anything (boost levels, a/f ratios, timing, etc.).
Info seen here: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock1.csv http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock2.csv
Here are the graphs. Take this for what you want, but I was speechless when I saw the results.
Graphs: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune.png http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock.png
I have seen my KC drop when I got a bad tank of gas but tha advance multiplier also dropped until I was through that tank of gas. I also had an issue at one point where I was seeing low KC and low AM and it turned out to be a failing battery on my car that caused my car to be in constant aggressive learn mode - I am guessing that the ECU was resetting itself from time to time. I spent countless hours on the dyno with Nate and nothing we did short of a conservative tune would help with the issue. As soon as I figured out that the battery was going I was able to run an additional 3 degrees if timing through user tune with no hint of detonation at all.
My guess is that there is something else going on with your car that is causing the tune to not be accepted by the car. And I also expect that you will figure out in the near future what that issue was/is and that you will never admit that you dragged Nate and SS through the mud because your car has an issue that was out of their control.
The fact that you even went public with this without allowing SS to attempt to make this right for you or figure out what was going on with the car is the lowest blow a low budget street *****/rod huffer like you could deal. Personally I am glad that you will not be back at the shop, and I am going to laugh my *** off when your POS blows up and sprays assorted automotive fluids all over the "Davis Road Dyno".
Last edited by Ali G; 05-03-2005 at 10:56 AM.
05-03-2005, 08:52 AM
#7
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Funtown
Posts: 25,095
Car Info: A limousine with a chauffer
Originally Posted by Ali G
The fact that you even went public with this without allowing SS to attempt to make this right for you or figure out what was going on with the car is the lowest blow a low budget street *****/rod huffer like you could deal.
IMO, Nate and S-S have proven that they are an excellent shop, with top customer service and knowledgable staff. They still have my 100% support.
05-03-2005, 09:20 AM
#8
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: fresno, where there are NO Subies.
Posts: 165
Car Info: XCALABR
I don't doubt their knowledge and mechanical abilities, however, from my experience the tune was not worth it. Seeing as the stock ecu performed at basically the same level the tune did, and there were no knocks with the stock ecu.
And I did give him the chance to correct the issue, but he didn't so when I went in the second time he said he would put it at a more conservative tune for me. But if the stock ecu was getting almost the same numbers with still all the same mods on the car, then what would the conservative tune been like. The stock ecu was getting me the same things the tune was.
The logs we pulled showed the knock and the multiplier was still at 16, even though the learning table was then pulling the -9.5. isn't the advance multiplier suppoose to adjust so the fine learning table only does "fine" adjustments? -9.5 is not a fine adjustment
.
And I did give him the chance to correct the issue, but he didn't so when I went in the second time he said he would put it at a more conservative tune for me. But if the stock ecu was getting almost the same numbers with still all the same mods on the car, then what would the conservative tune been like. The stock ecu was getting me the same things the tune was.
The logs we pulled showed the knock and the multiplier was still at 16, even though the learning table was then pulling the -9.5. isn't the advance multiplier suppoose to adjust so the fine learning table only does "fine" adjustments? -9.5 is not a fine adjustment
.
05-03-2005, 09:22 AM
#9
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,451
Car Info: 1996 Mustang GT/2013 Outback Limited
Originally Posted by calibredwrx
To get all the facts out:
Here are the graphs. Take this for what you want, but I was speechless when I saw the results.
Graphs: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune.png http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock.png
Here are the graphs. Take this for what you want, but I was speechless when I saw the results.
Graphs: http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/sstune.png http://eqtuning.com/dynos/keegan/stock.png
Hey look, I can fake a dyno graph also...
http://www.dzstoys.com/temp/dyno.pdf
Nice how you only got out the "facts" you wanted out...
05-03-2005, 09:25 AM
#11
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: pompous douchebag
Posts: 9,351
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
i'm no tuner, but i've spent a lot of time logging my own car before and after being tuned, and at various states of tune...
your tuned logs are in fact showing lower timing, but they're also showing considerably more boost (especially on the upper rpm range) and what's likely a bit leaner afr. your injectors are running about 5~10% lower duty cycles on the tuned logs. does it look safe? sure it does... the IAM is still at 16. even a hint of bad gas or knock will knock that down considerably. the knock correction is a touch low in areas, but that could be any number of things. it doesn't necessarily mean that there's knock, it just means the ecu couldn't add additional timing.
AFAIK, the SS reflashes start with a default IAM of 8 just like the stock ecu. if it's not happy, it won't advance to 16. if it's really unhappy, it will drop.
those dyno plots... what program are they from? they sure aren't from the mustang dyno, and i know they're not from delta dash.
your tuned logs are in fact showing lower timing, but they're also showing considerably more boost (especially on the upper rpm range) and what's likely a bit leaner afr. your injectors are running about 5~10% lower duty cycles on the tuned logs. does it look safe? sure it does... the IAM is still at 16. even a hint of bad gas or knock will knock that down considerably. the knock correction is a touch low in areas, but that could be any number of things. it doesn't necessarily mean that there's knock, it just means the ecu couldn't add additional timing.
AFAIK, the SS reflashes start with a default IAM of 8 just like the stock ecu. if it's not happy, it won't advance to 16. if it's really unhappy, it will drop.
those dyno plots... what program are they from? they sure aren't from the mustang dyno, and i know they're not from delta dash.
05-03-2005, 09:28 AM
#12
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: fresno, where there are NO Subies.
Posts: 165
Car Info: XCALABR
did i not say in the post that i took it back for them to look at and fix if they found anything wrong once before? they logged it just like i did yet they didn't see anything. that was their chance. nothing came from that and i still had the problem.
05-03-2005, 09:34 AM
#14
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: pompous douchebag
Posts: 9,351
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
i guess it really comes down to who you're more comfortable with tuning your car...
did you set up an appointment and give the guy some time to check out your car or just drop in while they're busy?
did you set up an appointment and give the guy some time to check out your car or just drop in while they're busy?
05-03-2005, 09:34 AM
#15
Troll
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pimpin' tards
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by calibredwrx
the programs used were both delta dash and the ecutek flash software to get all the info from the ecu.
Did both of those "dyno" graphs come from the same exact stretch of road under the same exact weather conditions with the same exact amount of weight in the car?
Try this for me, do a HP run up a hill then do another run down a hill. Even the slightest hill will do, I bet you get some screwed up numbers.
You are too stupid to have a modified car and as I said before I am glad SS will no longer have do deal with a bath house felcher like you any more.