Truth Squad: AEM v. Xede at 530 whp
hey people I always had the following questions
1)
for those people that says stock maf can handle upto 500WHP
IF your engine management is capable of using both SPEED DESITY or MAF
which one will you run and why
2)
for thosE people that r running AEM EMS in speed density mode
why did you pick that over the MAF MODE?
3)
anyone one running AEM EMS on MAF MODE ????
1)
for those people that says stock maf can handle upto 500WHP
IF your engine management is capable of using both SPEED DESITY or MAF
which one will you run and why
2)
for thosE people that r running AEM EMS in speed density mode
why did you pick that over the MAF MODE?
3)
anyone one running AEM EMS on MAF MODE ????
Originally Posted by superman105
hey people I always had the following questions
1)
for those people that says stock maf can handle upto 500WHP
IF your engine management is capable of using both SPEED DESITY or MAF
which one will you run and why
2)
for thosE people that r running AEM EMS in speed density mode
why did you pick that over the MAF MODE?
3)
anyone one running AEM EMS on MAF MODE ????
1)
for those people that says stock maf can handle upto 500WHP
IF your engine management is capable of using both SPEED DESITY or MAF
which one will you run and why
2)
for thosE people that r running AEM EMS in speed density mode
why did you pick that over the MAF MODE?
3)
anyone one running AEM EMS on MAF MODE ????
Keith
I guarantee you if it has something to do with an 4g63 powered vehicle we have probably done it, broke it, rebuilt it, ruined it, caught it on fire, crashed it, drove it, slid it, dyno'd it, tried it three times and just plain thrashed on it.
Originally Posted by silverEVO8
???? I said that I don't believe that people who know even a little bit believe that the AEM must be used with a MAP sensor....I don't understand what you disagree with...
Originally Posted by Richard Sierra
Sorry man, We agree to agree then
Account Disabled
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey
This is a great thread but I am confused as each vendor has their own opinion as to which way of management is best. I think it was Shiv who stated that removing the MAF would be a step down as you are replacing a meter that reads air flow for one that estimates it. Also there would be no benefit of power just money lost on an expensive unit.
Then we have other Vendors stating that the EMS is the way to go. I remember reading a magazine where they had an article on Turbo Trixx and Jeff had stated that the EMS was the way to go off the bat.
Here is another vendor who went into detail on why the MAF is inferior...
Here is our latest tune logged on a Full-Works Zeitronix ZT2. With the MAFTPro, we can tune in a way that MAF based tuning cannot be. Typically we find that if an a/f ratio is 11.7 in 3rd gear, it may be 11.4 in 4th gear and 10.8-10.9 in 5th gear. There is really no way around it with a unit utilizing the stock MAF.
With the MAFTPro, we can finally pick up the lost trap speed with the same target a/f in each gear which is great. So far we have gained over 2mph in the 1/4 and counting. Our next stop is 11.6 @ 118mph on the stock turbo.
As to head off CBRE discussions at the pass... Our goal is not to contend with CBRE. We are as enthusiastic about his records as the rest. He is a great driver and had a nicely setup car. We are just having fun.
And then this was also posted...
What I stated was, that you CAN tune for the same A/F in each gear, which is what you DO want for maximum power. With a MAF sensor, it will richen it up in each gear based on load. There is no way around it.
See now I am confused again, which system is best to go in terms of engine management? One thing I find consistent is that each Vendor is confident that their system is the best, be it XEDE, ECUTEC, Dynoflash, Stand Alone, which is fine. You want your vendors to be confident in their products, but by simple rules of elimination, only ONE of you is right.
To be perfectly honest with you this is why the Truth Squad Exists, to bring out a pure user opinion based on facts and experience. The only people I see against the Truth Squad are the Vendors, stating that it will spread misinformation and flame fests. But then they have good reason to be here too, they see it as Vendors are simply in business to make money, which is true, but then each vendor states their system is the best and others are inferior, so why not have an organization that can help this out?
Help?
Then we have other Vendors stating that the EMS is the way to go. I remember reading a magazine where they had an article on Turbo Trixx and Jeff had stated that the EMS was the way to go off the bat.
Here is another vendor who went into detail on why the MAF is inferior...
Originally Posted by TTP Engineering
Here is our latest tune logged on a Full-Works Zeitronix ZT2. With the MAFTPro, we can tune in a way that MAF based tuning cannot be. Typically we find that if an a/f ratio is 11.7 in 3rd gear, it may be 11.4 in 4th gear and 10.8-10.9 in 5th gear. There is really no way around it with a unit utilizing the stock MAF.
With the MAFTPro, we can finally pick up the lost trap speed with the same target a/f in each gear which is great. So far we have gained over 2mph in the 1/4 and counting. Our next stop is 11.6 @ 118mph on the stock turbo.
As to head off CBRE discussions at the pass... Our goal is not to contend with CBRE. We are as enthusiastic about his records as the rest. He is a great driver and had a nicely setup car. We are just having fun.
And then this was also posted...
Originally Posted by TTP Engineering
What I stated was, that you CAN tune for the same A/F in each gear, which is what you DO want for maximum power. With a MAF sensor, it will richen it up in each gear based on load. There is no way around it.
See now I am confused again, which system is best to go in terms of engine management? One thing I find consistent is that each Vendor is confident that their system is the best, be it XEDE, ECUTEC, Dynoflash, Stand Alone, which is fine. You want your vendors to be confident in their products, but by simple rules of elimination, only ONE of you is right.
To be perfectly honest with you this is why the Truth Squad Exists, to bring out a pure user opinion based on facts and experience. The only people I see against the Truth Squad are the Vendors, stating that it will spread misinformation and flame fests. But then they have good reason to be here too, they see it as Vendors are simply in business to make money, which is true, but then each vendor states their system is the best and others are inferior, so why not have an organization that can help this out?
Help?
Last edited by The New Edition; Dec 11, 2005 at 03:06 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
From: Burbank
Originally Posted by The New Edition
This is a great thread but I am confused as each vendor has their own opinion as to which way of management is best. I think it was Shiv who stated that removing the MAF would be a step down as you are replacing a meter that reads air flow for one that estimates it. Also there would be no benefit of power just money lost on an expensive unit.
Then we have other Vendors stating that the EMS is the way to go. I remember reading a magazine where they had an article on Turbo Trixx and Jeff had stated that the EMS was the way to go off the bat.
See now I am confused again, which system is best to go in terms of engine management? One thing I find consistent is that each Vendor is confident that their system is the best, be it XEDE, ECUTEC, Dynoflash, Stand Alone, which is fine. You want your vendors to be confident in their products, but by simple rules of elimination, only ONE of you is right.
To be perfectly honest with you this is why the Truth Squad Exists, to bring out a pure user opinion based on facts and experience. The only people I see against the Truth Squad are the Vendors, stating that it will spread misinformation and flame fests. But then they have good reason to be here too, they see it as Vendors are simply in business to make money, which is true, but then each vendor states their system is the best and others are inferior, so why not have an organization that can help this out?
Help?
Then we have other Vendors stating that the EMS is the way to go. I remember reading a magazine where they had an article on Turbo Trixx and Jeff had stated that the EMS was the way to go off the bat.
See now I am confused again, which system is best to go in terms of engine management? One thing I find consistent is that each Vendor is confident that their system is the best, be it XEDE, ECUTEC, Dynoflash, Stand Alone, which is fine. You want your vendors to be confident in their products, but by simple rules of elimination, only ONE of you is right.
To be perfectly honest with you this is why the Truth Squad Exists, to bring out a pure user opinion based on facts and experience. The only people I see against the Truth Squad are the Vendors, stating that it will spread misinformation and flame fests. But then they have good reason to be here too, they see it as Vendors are simply in business to make money, which is true, but then each vendor states their system is the best and others are inferior, so why not have an organization that can help this out?
Help?
The best advice I can give you, is go with the system that has the greatest support network.
For what you risk in the difference in the costs of the various ECU enhancements is miniscule compared to what you have to pay for a rebuild, or even a re-tune, so the cost of the unit is incosequential; $1500 for an Xede SMART, $1650 for an AEM. Yeah there's the smog aspect, but doesn't seem to matter once you bend a rod a or your engine becomes a fireball.
So what's not being said here? Who gives you the best support with their unit; which unit is used the most on our cars and which one has the most satisfied owners? Afterall what good is it your car doesn't run as promissed?
Smoggy, there's your next poll
Originally Posted by The New Edition
See now I am confused again, which system is best to go in terms of engine management? One thing I find consistent is that each Vendor is confident that their system is the best, be it XEDE, ECUTEC, Dynoflash, Stand Alone, which is fine. You want your vendors to be confident in their products, but by simple rules of elimination, only ONE of you is right.
I submit that the only real thing that we can do is list a pro/con list for each system and perhaps discuss how much of a difference each factor makes or give a rating for each aspect.
Which one is RIGHT for you or me can be different - and that doesn't make one of us WRONG.
Again, this is just an opinon!
Adam
Originally Posted by adam5743
Sorry sir, but I disagree. Different people have different goals and value certain aspects of each system in different ways. There can NOT be one right answer because people evaluate them on each person's own subjective scale.
I submit that the only real thing that we can do is list a pro/con list for each system and perhaps discuss how much of a difference each factor makes or give a rating for each aspect.
Which one is RIGHT for you or me can be different - and that doesn't make one of us WRONG.
Again, this is just an opinon!
Adam
I submit that the only real thing that we can do is list a pro/con list for each system and perhaps discuss how much of a difference each factor makes or give a rating for each aspect.
Which one is RIGHT for you or me can be different - and that doesn't make one of us WRONG.
Again, this is just an opinon!
Adam
Last edited by silverEVO8; Dec 12, 2005 at 12:12 PM.
Originally Posted by adam5743
Sorry sir, but I disagree. Different people have different goals and value certain aspects of each system in different ways. There can NOT be one right answer because people evaluate them on each person's own subjective scale.
I submit that the only real thing that we can do is list a pro/con list for each system and perhaps discuss how much of a difference each factor makes or give a rating for each aspect.
Which one is RIGHT for you or me can be different - and that doesn't make one of us WRONG.
Again, this is just an opinon!
Adam
I submit that the only real thing that we can do is list a pro/con list for each system and perhaps discuss how much of a difference each factor makes or give a rating for each aspect.
Which one is RIGHT for you or me can be different - and that doesn't make one of us WRONG.
Again, this is just an opinon!
Adam
The only thing I will say on the posted subject is this:
- IMO, putting a standalone EMS on a car that still retains the stock turbo setup is complete overkill. A flash or piggyback is a better choice in this case because it is cheaper, easier to tune, retains OBD2, and 9 times out of 10 will give you better overall driveability.
- Once you go with an aftermarket turbo and start delving into larger injectors, perhaps an intake manifold, etc., then a standalone may start to become more attractive. Although a lot of that will also come down to which tuner(s) are in your area and the ultimate goal of the car (drag vs road race vs street car).
l8r)
Originally Posted by SaabTuner
I agree. But, even in school, what you read is extremely inaccurate. It eventually comes down to how much evidence you require for conviction and how usefull the result you've chosen. Let my try to explain what I mean ...
Warning: LARGE RANT IMMINENT! Please move on to the next post and ignore all usefull information for a happier and more well-rounded lifestyle.
--- Ever heard in a physics class that a baseball thrown in a vacuum makes a parabolic trajectory? Sure. It's taught in almost all introductory, and even some more advanced, physics courses. Unfortunately, it's wrong. A bright student will immediately see that it's wrong. The angular motion around the body will alter the direction in which the ball is being pulled.
--- Then this bright student will reason that it follows the shape of an elipse, just like falling bodies in space and that this elipse is approximated as a parabola if the foci of the elipse are sufficiently far apart. However, while an eliptical trajectory is slightly more accurate, it too is wrong. Because of the effects of General Relativity, the space-time curve is skewed away from infinite density creating infinite gravitation.
--- So then an even more advanced student realizes that you must make a calculation which takes into account the Swartzchild radius of the body around which the baseball is moving and the Swartzchild Radius of the baseball itself. This effectively biases the curvature of space-time in a manner which works with GR. Unfortunately this STILL isn't completely correct. GR also requires that a body accellerating within a gravitation field emit gravitational radiation.
--- So now you take into account the gravitational radiation et al and you think you FINALLY have it down perfect. Unfortunately, just as before, there's STILL something wrong. Bodies do not have uniform densities and shapes. To truly get an accurate measurement, you'd have to know the EXACT density and shape of the object about which the baseball is moving AND the same for the baseball itself. You'd integrate the force, essentially, from EVERY mass-bearing particle in both the baseball and the object it moves about.
Then, taking everything else into account ... you can only barelly calculate the precession in the orbit of Mercury to some, rather large, degree of error.
Because, after all that, you didn't calculate the effects of all the other mass-bearing bodies in the universe ... all of which slightly affect the movement of everything ... everywhere.
</end rant>
Conclusion? At the end of the day, whatever works ... works ... but don't EVER treat ANYTHING as gospel.
-Adrian
Warning: LARGE RANT IMMINENT! Please move on to the next post and ignore all usefull information for a happier and more well-rounded lifestyle.
--- Ever heard in a physics class that a baseball thrown in a vacuum makes a parabolic trajectory? Sure. It's taught in almost all introductory, and even some more advanced, physics courses. Unfortunately, it's wrong. A bright student will immediately see that it's wrong. The angular motion around the body will alter the direction in which the ball is being pulled.
--- Then this bright student will reason that it follows the shape of an elipse, just like falling bodies in space and that this elipse is approximated as a parabola if the foci of the elipse are sufficiently far apart. However, while an eliptical trajectory is slightly more accurate, it too is wrong. Because of the effects of General Relativity, the space-time curve is skewed away from infinite density creating infinite gravitation.
--- So then an even more advanced student realizes that you must make a calculation which takes into account the Swartzchild radius of the body around which the baseball is moving and the Swartzchild Radius of the baseball itself. This effectively biases the curvature of space-time in a manner which works with GR. Unfortunately this STILL isn't completely correct. GR also requires that a body accellerating within a gravitation field emit gravitational radiation.
--- So now you take into account the gravitational radiation et al and you think you FINALLY have it down perfect. Unfortunately, just as before, there's STILL something wrong. Bodies do not have uniform densities and shapes. To truly get an accurate measurement, you'd have to know the EXACT density and shape of the object about which the baseball is moving AND the same for the baseball itself. You'd integrate the force, essentially, from EVERY mass-bearing particle in both the baseball and the object it moves about.
Then, taking everything else into account ... you can only barelly calculate the precession in the orbit of Mercury to some, rather large, degree of error.
Because, after all that, you didn't calculate the effects of all the other mass-bearing bodies in the universe ... all of which slightly affect the movement of everything ... everywhere.
</end rant>
Conclusion? At the end of the day, whatever works ... works ... but don't EVER treat ANYTHING as gospel.
-Adrian
Originally Posted by broddey
I wonder what it is like to have this kind of $hit going through your mind while explaining simple tuning techniques. Could I borrow your brain for a day?
Ignorance is bliss, ain't it??
the only best thing about aem is not the speed density tuning but the fact that it gives you ultimate control over everything that you have control over. you can do ANYTHING WITH IT.
i fyou wanna retard ignition timing 30 degrees only during low load closed throttle situations... you can do that. if you want to tune ONLY your idle conditions to a point where you make the perfect amount of vacuum for a lump free worry free stall free idle... you gottit. if you want to modify every little incriment of timing in several different load settings and have some peace of mind that the ecu will pull xxxx amount if something nasty happens. it's done.
does anyone know how to use it all? few.... few few few.
i fyou wanna retard ignition timing 30 degrees only during low load closed throttle situations... you can do that. if you want to tune ONLY your idle conditions to a point where you make the perfect amount of vacuum for a lump free worry free stall free idle... you gottit. if you want to modify every little incriment of timing in several different load settings and have some peace of mind that the ecu will pull xxxx amount if something nasty happens. it's done.
does anyone know how to use it all? few.... few few few.
Originally Posted by SaabTuner
I agree. But, even in school, what you read is extremely inaccurate. It eventually comes down to how much evidence you require for conviction and how usefull the result you've chosen. Let my try to explain what I mean ...
Warning: LARGE RANT IMMINENT! Please move on to the next post and ignore all usefull information for a happier and more well-rounded lifestyle.
--- Ever heard in a physics class that a baseball thrown in a vacuum makes a parabolic trajectory? Sure. It's taught in almost all introductory, and even some more advanced, physics courses. Unfortunately, it's wrong. A bright student will immediately see that it's wrong. The angular motion around the body will alter the direction in which the ball is being pulled.
--- Then this bright student will reason that it follows the shape of an elipse, just like falling bodies in space and that this elipse is approximated as a parabola if the foci of the elipse are sufficiently far apart. However, while an eliptical trajectory is slightly more accurate, it too is wrong. Because of the effects of General Relativity, the space-time curve is skewed away from infinite density creating infinite gravitation.
--- So then an even more advanced student realizes that you must make a calculation which takes into account the Swartzchild radius of the body around which the baseball is moving and the Swartzchild Radius of the baseball itself. This effectively biases the curvature of space-time in a manner which works with GR. Unfortunately this STILL isn't completely correct. GR also requires that a body accellerating within a gravitation field emit gravitational radiation.
--- So now you take into account the gravitational radiation et al and you think you FINALLY have it down perfect. Unfortunately, just as before, there's STILL something wrong. Bodies do not have uniform densities and shapes. To truly get an accurate measurement, you'd have to know the EXACT density and shape of the object about which the baseball is moving AND the same for the baseball itself. You'd integrate the force, essentially, from EVERY mass-bearing particle in both the baseball and the object it moves about.
Then, taking everything else into account ... you can only barelly calculate the precession in the orbit of Mercury to some, rather large, degree of error.
Because, after all that, you didn't calculate the effects of all the other mass-bearing bodies in the universe ... all of which slightly affect the movement of everything ... everywhere.
</end rant>
Conclusion? At the end of the day, whatever works ... works ... but don't EVER treat ANYTHING as gospel.
-Adrian
Warning: LARGE RANT IMMINENT! Please move on to the next post and ignore all usefull information for a happier and more well-rounded lifestyle.
--- Ever heard in a physics class that a baseball thrown in a vacuum makes a parabolic trajectory? Sure. It's taught in almost all introductory, and even some more advanced, physics courses. Unfortunately, it's wrong. A bright student will immediately see that it's wrong. The angular motion around the body will alter the direction in which the ball is being pulled.
--- Then this bright student will reason that it follows the shape of an elipse, just like falling bodies in space and that this elipse is approximated as a parabola if the foci of the elipse are sufficiently far apart. However, while an eliptical trajectory is slightly more accurate, it too is wrong. Because of the effects of General Relativity, the space-time curve is skewed away from infinite density creating infinite gravitation.
--- So then an even more advanced student realizes that you must make a calculation which takes into account the Swartzchild radius of the body around which the baseball is moving and the Swartzchild Radius of the baseball itself. This effectively biases the curvature of space-time in a manner which works with GR. Unfortunately this STILL isn't completely correct. GR also requires that a body accellerating within a gravitation field emit gravitational radiation.
--- So now you take into account the gravitational radiation et al and you think you FINALLY have it down perfect. Unfortunately, just as before, there's STILL something wrong. Bodies do not have uniform densities and shapes. To truly get an accurate measurement, you'd have to know the EXACT density and shape of the object about which the baseball is moving AND the same for the baseball itself. You'd integrate the force, essentially, from EVERY mass-bearing particle in both the baseball and the object it moves about.
Then, taking everything else into account ... you can only barelly calculate the precession in the orbit of Mercury to some, rather large, degree of error.
Because, after all that, you didn't calculate the effects of all the other mass-bearing bodies in the universe ... all of which slightly affect the movement of everything ... everywhere.
</end rant>
Conclusion? At the end of the day, whatever works ... works ... but don't EVER treat ANYTHING as gospel.
-Adrian
your technicalities about hte baseball are right... but the approximation is also totally sound. also it is the nature of education to learn the stuff backwards. you learn what a triangle is in like 2nd grade and then you learn that it has some other meanings in 7th grade and then later on you find out that there's a whole field of mathmatics devoted to discussing this triagle, or worse... circles.
also... since there is no infinite source of gravity spacetime is not distorted away from it. also gravitational field which is a direct consequence of space time distortion always points towards the source of spacetime distortion (mass). the discrepency you're referring to regards the approximation of the source of gravitation as a 1/r potential that blows up at infinity, while this discrepency is resolved with delta functions it's also a non issue in real life because the source of gravity is not only not infinite at the origin of a particle but also for the fact that you cannot reside in the particle and the nuances of what this suggests is probably what will be explained by quantum mechanics some day, if it is not already explained.
i really don't understand the purpose of this discussion tho, because even when applying general relativity (the gravitational radiation doesn't have anything to do with anything regarding this, it's just MORE information, it's not a technicality of any sort when you throw the baseball, unless you are takling about the correction factors that go along with the hamiltonian to account for ignorable corrections to energy). if the idea is to write out the ultimate hamiltonian to a ball thrown in vacuum (which is already an idealized case in and of itself) why bother? you're already making approximations with the vacuum... why not throw in the thermal corrections, the quantum mechanical corrections and the thermodynamic and statistical mechnical corrections? totally pointless....
at this point it's not as if what you've learned is incorrect because what is correct? you wanna get into metaphysics? science is the ultimate case of NOT proving, not... proving...
Originally Posted by superman105
hey people I always had the following questions
1)
for those people that says stock maf can handle upto 500WHP
IF your engine management is capable of using both SPEED DESITY or MAF
which one will you run and why
2)
for thosE people that r running AEM EMS in speed density mode
why did you pick that over the MAF MODE?
3)
anyone one running AEM EMS on MAF MODE ????
1)
for those people that says stock maf can handle upto 500WHP
IF your engine management is capable of using both SPEED DESITY or MAF
which one will you run and why
2)
for thosE people that r running AEM EMS in speed density mode
why did you pick that over the MAF MODE?
3)
anyone one running AEM EMS on MAF MODE ????
this way you get the most SAFE afr... it won't be consistem with all tehse parameters running around... but it will be safe... and it will be MAXIMUM (up to your limit of safety of course)
then in addition to that i would want options to ultimately control, fuel, timing, a seperate tuning bracket for idle. i would also want a TON of analog inputs and outputs to log stuff like all the above mentioned ****, plus more of course, and also to control things like a throttle kicking plate or any ot he other lil goodies you can have when you're running something insane.
so waht is this? it's a hybrid of aem and xede plus a lil flavor from stuff that is not yet available to the scene. but this would of course due away with most tuners and it would also be the best thing out there, so it'd cost a ton. and the installation and buy in components to run it would be VERY high. but it would be the best... that IS the best actually... everyone else's thots on "their products" is just THEIR best.