Originally Posted by JohnBradley

This is entirely terminology.

You accused someone of not knowing what they were talking about when they said how the factory launch control functioned and that they "needed to read up". It was ironic because you didnt know how it worked at that time, that it did in fact retard the timing some.

Jean its really quite simple as far as I am concerned. The US Evo doesnt have anti lag, though it can build boost by bouncing off the rev limiter. All most all rev limiter will cut spark and/or fuel to limit rpm. That doesnt mean that its antilag just because it does this. If you change the rpm points in the US map for start/stop rpm of anti lag it in NO way affects the launch control function. I pointed out that I had tried this and it didnt affect anything. I then pointed out that it was only a left over for controlling absent hardware (which you dont feel corresponds) that is needed to have antilag.

If you have never used or experienced true electronic antilag control (or hardware antilag for that matter), use of that term should be limited. True Antilag is always off throttle (never WOT) wheras the launch control has to be WOT. The launch control doesnt retard timing to the point where the fuel is ignited in the exhaust manifold rather than the cylinder. Antilag ignites fuel in the exhaust manifold. The launch control and Antilag both retard timing so in that they are similar but far from the same. Antilag is more akin to a Jacobs brake in operation (I am not going to argue about this, its purely an analogy) than the launch control is to antilag. Launch control is limited by VSS signal and clutch microswitch, antilag would never have such a limitation.

I have owned a car equipped with an Autronic, played around with one equipped with a Link, and am an active Rally nut. I can name 3 cars that I have been near or under that are equipped with some form of antilag. I know of what I speak in this matter. No feelings have to be hurt here, but your use of the term and understanding of how the factory ECU works was initially or possibly still incorrect.

John

Originally Posted by codgi

Well said and this was the point I was trying to get across .

EFicker in response to your post...in one of his earlier posts Jean says this:

If something is "not true" then its really "false" but I just exaggerated and ran with it and called it "un true" just to make fun of the situation. Irrelevant now that everyone is hopefully happy

And what Andy said is dead on...I'm old enough to still feel a grating in my ears whenever the media calls someone a "Hacker". Looks like the horse is already out of the gate with this term but even if a few have learnt something from this thread and use it correctly from now on then so be it