Just installed Vishniu Stage O Mods!
Evolving Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
From: Portland, OR
Originally posted by DavidV@WORKS
The Xede and Emanage are both piggyback units that intercept and alter the signals your EVO's ECU relies on to do everything from idle when cold to accelerating under full throttle -- and a host of other functions in between.
The primary disadvantages inherent in any such unit are as follows:
1) The inherent delay that occurs between the intercepting device's recieving and re-sending the altered signal
and
2) The fact that the ECU has no idea it is being fed an altered signal. Since the EVO ECU has adaptive learning capability, this means that the ECU is reacting and building maps on a false premise.
More details on interceptors/black boxes and piggybacks can be found at http://www.worksrally.com under "Engine Upgrades: Why get the 'Brain' reflash?"
-- DavidV
The Xede and Emanage are both piggyback units that intercept and alter the signals your EVO's ECU relies on to do everything from idle when cold to accelerating under full throttle -- and a host of other functions in between.
The primary disadvantages inherent in any such unit are as follows:
1) The inherent delay that occurs between the intercepting device's recieving and re-sending the altered signal
and
2) The fact that the ECU has no idea it is being fed an altered signal. Since the EVO ECU has adaptive learning capability, this means that the ECU is reacting and building maps on a false premise.
More details on interceptors/black boxes and piggybacks can be found at http://www.worksrally.com under "Engine Upgrades: Why get the 'Brain' reflash?"
-- DavidV
2) If the first sentence is true, then the second sentence may or may not be true. If the ECU has no awareness of the modified signal, how would it adapt to a specific signal any differently than it would without something intercepting the signal? Wouldn't signal X still represent X to the CPU whether it came directly from the cars equipment or from something that intercepted Y and modified it to be X? I am assuming this is a gross oversimplification, but logically it would seem hold true for much more complex interactions and dependencies as well. If the interceptor were allowing a larger performance envelope (say, greater latitude in timing and A/F mixture) than the stock ECU while at the same time presenting that same set of parameters to the stock ECU within its expected performance envelope, how would it react to that any differently than if those same set of parameters came back without going through the interceptor?
I didn't find any details on your website concerning interceptors/blackboxes, etc. There was some advertising copy under the link you posted, but no technical details.
Originally posted by bigd
If the ECU has no awareness of the modified signal, how would it adapt to a specific signal any differently than it would without something intercepting the signal? Wouldn't signal X still represent X to the CPU whether it came directly from the cars equipment or from something that intercepted Y and modified it to be X?
If the ECU has no awareness of the modified signal, how would it adapt to a specific signal any differently than it would without something intercepting the signal? Wouldn't signal X still represent X to the CPU whether it came directly from the cars equipment or from something that intercepted Y and modified it to be X?
Think of it this way. On the dyno, the tuner sets the interceptor up with as much ignition advance and as lean an air/fuel ratio as possible to strike what he/she believes is the safest amount of power the car can make based on what the car is doing on the dyno on that particular day. This is done by telling the interceptor to add a static factor of "X" percentage to the ignition and fuel, but to make it look to the ECU like nothing has changed.
So far so good. The ECU makes the power the tuner is hoping to see on the dyno, and perhaps the next day, and all is well.
Or so it seems. However, the ECU begins making adjustments for changed parameters. Maybe the car has been driven at higher altitude. Maybe the octane of the next tank is gas is a little lower. Regardless of the event, the ECU begins to compensate for different running conditions. So what does it do? It pulls back a some of the ignition timing and/or richens up the air/fuel ratio to compensate. And what does the interceptor do? It keeps adding "X" percentage back into the ignition advance and/or air/fuel ratio. The ECU has no idea it is doing this. It keeps trying to pull out timing or fuel to make the pinging or knock it is seeing go away and the interceptor keeps adding it back in.
At this point, the ECU has no clear reference point as to what is going on. It thinks it is running one set of ignition and fuel correction factors, when in reality, it is running set "A" with a fixed factor of "X" being added back in. The ECU is trying to dynamically remap the car for altered running conditions and the interceptor box has no way to allow for this by at the same time, pulling back the corresponding percentage of signal correction it is feeding the ECU by the appropriate correction factor (i.e. "I see the ECU doing this, so I now need to adjust the percentage of advance I am feeding it in my altered signal").
Whereas the ECU is inherently reactive (dynamic) and listens to what is happening through various factory sensors and make adjustments accordingly, the interceptor/piggy-back is a dumb junction box and can only feed fixed signals in one direction (static). Since the ECU has no idea it is being fed an altered signal (it can't see the junction box) and the junction box can't alter its feed based on what it sees the ECU trying to do, the maps the tuner built on the dyno just days earlier get thrown way out of whack.
I'm not saying that piggybacks don't work or are inherently "bad," I just would be reluctant to use one myself on a car with an adaptive ECU. WORKS beleives that the cleanest way to get the most performance out of the EVO's ECU is to change the tuning at its source -- directly inside the car's "Brain."
-- DavidV
Last edited by DavidV@WORKS; May 10, 2003 at 12:35 PM.
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,941
Likes: 0
From: Danville/Blackhawk, California
Originally posted by limey
I am sure someone else has asked this already...but I must have missed it in my search..
Shiv, if I were to purchase the stage 0 from you.....would I be able to upgrade to stage 1 when you release it with the equipment I own (stage 0), or would I need to start from scratch again?
You say on your site the stage 0 can give 15% increase over stock, which equates to 310 flywheel horsepower...is this a conservative figure obtained on 91 gas.....if so will there be an improvement on this figure if 93 is used?....would I need to specify what gas I use when ordering?
Do you have a pic of your catback yet?
I am sure someone else has asked this already...but I must have missed it in my search..
Shiv, if I were to purchase the stage 0 from you.....would I be able to upgrade to stage 1 when you release it with the equipment I own (stage 0), or would I need to start from scratch again?
You say on your site the stage 0 can give 15% increase over stock, which equates to 310 flywheel horsepower...is this a conservative figure obtained on 91 gas.....if so will there be an improvement on this figure if 93 is used?....would I need to specify what gas I use when ordering?
Do you have a pic of your catback yet?
As with our WRX offerings, upgrading from a lower stage to a higher one is easy. No need to start from scratch. Usually works out costing the difference between the retail pricing of the two kits. The new appropriate XEDE map can be downloaded off the internet.
The 15% gains we saw with Stage Zero was indeed on 91 octane. With 93 octane, we saw nearly 20% gain at the wheels. The better gas allowed 2-3 more degrees of advance from the midrange on up. There's a very big torque output difference between running ~7-10 degrees of advance (which the car tends to run from 4000rpm to 6000rpm at WOT) and 10-13 deg. of advance. We get great weather and pretty girls. I guess that kind makes up for the horrific gas
No pics of the cat-back yet. There are on a few cars now but we've never had enough forsight to take pics before installation. And even if we did, they would be of pre-production versions which were made JDM-style with many individual 3" pieces welded together. For production (which should be ready to ship the week after next), the entire exhaust is made out of 2 mandrel bent sections. Pics of this will be up as soon as we get delivery from the pipe bender. We're making a few cat-backs, preproduction-style, this upcoming week for a few East Coasters in time for the Dyno Day in MD. The design took a bit longer to finalize due to another associated product that needs to share the same space as it under the car
gtr-- Our plug-in harness will not be available for some time. Unfortunately, the lead time for one of the connectors is very long from the manufacturer. So far, perhaps the best alternative is to use the Field harness adapter that some people are talking about. At under $100, it won't be that much more expensive than what we come up with. There is another option we are working on (right after we get done preparing for and competing in a C&D mag shootout next week). More on that later, of course.
Cheers,
Shiv
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,941
Likes: 0
From: Danville/Blackhawk, California
You're still wrong. I'm not sure if you chose to misunderstand how the factory ECU works with the XEDE or if you just don't understand engine control fundamentals.
shiv
shiv
Originally posted by DavidV@WORKS
Simple answer: Because the correction factors the piggyback is feeding the ECU are static, whereas the ECU's adaptive learning is dynamic.
Think of it this way. On the dyno, the tuner sets the interceptor up with as much ignition advance and as lean an air/fuel ratio as possible to strike what he/she believes is the safest amount of power the car can make based on what the car is doing on the dyno on that particular day. This is done by telling the interceptor to add a static factor of "X" percentage to the ignition and fuel, but to make it look to the ECU like nothing has changed.
So far so good. The ECU makes the power the tuner is hoping to see on the dyno, and perhaps the next day, and all is well.
Or so it seems. A week later, however, the ECU begins making adjustments for changed parameters. Maybe the car has been driven at higher altitude. Maybe the octane of the next tank is gas is a little lower. Regardless of the event, the ECU begins to compensate for different running conditions. So what does it do? It pulls back a some of the ignition timing and/or richens up the air/fuel ratio to compensate. And what does the interceptor do? It keeps adding "X" percentage back into the ignition advance and/or air/fuel ratio. The ECU has no idea it is doing this. It keeps trying to pull out timing or fuel to make the pinging or knock it is seeing go away and the interceptor keeps adding it back in.
At this point, the ECU has no clear reference point as to what is going on. It thinks it is running one set of ignition and fuel correction factors, when in reality, it is running set "A" with a fixed factor of "X" being added back in. The ECU is trying to dynamically remap the car for altered running conditions and the interceptor box has no way to allow for this by at the same time, pulling back the corresponding percentage of signal correction it is feeding the ECU by the appropriate correction factor (i.e. "I see the ECU doing this, so I now need to adjust the percentage of advance I am feeding it in my altered signal").
Whereas the ECU is inherently reactive (dynamic) and can listen to what is happening through the factory O2 sensor and knock sensor and make adjustments accordingly, the interceptor/piggy-back is a dumb junction box and can only feed fixed signals in one direction (static). Since the ECU has no idea it is being fed an altered signal (it can't see the junction box) and the junction box can't alter its feed based on what it sees the ECU trying to do, the maps the tuner built on the dyno just days earlier get thrown way out of whack.
I'm not saying that piggybacks don't work or are inherently "bad," I just would be reluctant to use one myself on a car with an adaptive ECU. WORKS beleives that the cleanest way to get the most performance out of the EVO's ECU is to change the tuning at its source -- directly inside the car's "Brain."
-- DavidV
Simple answer: Because the correction factors the piggyback is feeding the ECU are static, whereas the ECU's adaptive learning is dynamic.
Think of it this way. On the dyno, the tuner sets the interceptor up with as much ignition advance and as lean an air/fuel ratio as possible to strike what he/she believes is the safest amount of power the car can make based on what the car is doing on the dyno on that particular day. This is done by telling the interceptor to add a static factor of "X" percentage to the ignition and fuel, but to make it look to the ECU like nothing has changed.
So far so good. The ECU makes the power the tuner is hoping to see on the dyno, and perhaps the next day, and all is well.
Or so it seems. A week later, however, the ECU begins making adjustments for changed parameters. Maybe the car has been driven at higher altitude. Maybe the octane of the next tank is gas is a little lower. Regardless of the event, the ECU begins to compensate for different running conditions. So what does it do? It pulls back a some of the ignition timing and/or richens up the air/fuel ratio to compensate. And what does the interceptor do? It keeps adding "X" percentage back into the ignition advance and/or air/fuel ratio. The ECU has no idea it is doing this. It keeps trying to pull out timing or fuel to make the pinging or knock it is seeing go away and the interceptor keeps adding it back in.
At this point, the ECU has no clear reference point as to what is going on. It thinks it is running one set of ignition and fuel correction factors, when in reality, it is running set "A" with a fixed factor of "X" being added back in. The ECU is trying to dynamically remap the car for altered running conditions and the interceptor box has no way to allow for this by at the same time, pulling back the corresponding percentage of signal correction it is feeding the ECU by the appropriate correction factor (i.e. "I see the ECU doing this, so I now need to adjust the percentage of advance I am feeding it in my altered signal").
Whereas the ECU is inherently reactive (dynamic) and can listen to what is happening through the factory O2 sensor and knock sensor and make adjustments accordingly, the interceptor/piggy-back is a dumb junction box and can only feed fixed signals in one direction (static). Since the ECU has no idea it is being fed an altered signal (it can't see the junction box) and the junction box can't alter its feed based on what it sees the ECU trying to do, the maps the tuner built on the dyno just days earlier get thrown way out of whack.
I'm not saying that piggybacks don't work or are inherently "bad," I just would be reluctant to use one myself on a car with an adaptive ECU. WORKS beleives that the cleanest way to get the most performance out of the EVO's ECU is to change the tuning at its source -- directly inside the car's "Brain."
-- DavidV
Last edited by shiv@vishnu; May 10, 2003 at 12:05 PM.
So far - with my SAFC "piggy back" on my Evo VIII - it has held the tune perfectly - - I set it - and went back to the dyno two times now after driving many hundreds of miles and my A/F curve reamains a flat 11.4 / 1 all the way from 3500 - red line just as I originally set it
I have doubts in what the works guys are saying - - - - and a big disatvantge of what they are promoting is you have to go back to them everytime you change something on the car
I greatly prefer somthing that is end user adjustable
I have doubts in what the works guys are saying - - - - and a big disatvantge of what they are promoting is you have to go back to them everytime you change something on the car
I greatly prefer somthing that is end user adjustable
Evolving Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
From: Portland, OR
Originally posted by Alfriedesq
So far - with my SAFC "piggy back" on my Evo VIII - it has held the tune perfectly - - I set it - and went back to the dyno two times now after driving many hundreds of miles and my A/F curve reamains a flat 11.4 / 1 all the way from 3500 - red line just as I originally set it
I have doubts in what the works guys are saying - - - - and a big disatvantge of what they are promoting is you have to go back to them everytime you change something on the car
I greatly prefer somthing that is end user adjustable
So far - with my SAFC "piggy back" on my Evo VIII - it has held the tune perfectly - - I set it - and went back to the dyno two times now after driving many hundreds of miles and my A/F curve reamains a flat 11.4 / 1 all the way from 3500 - red line just as I originally set it
I have doubts in what the works guys are saying - - - - and a big disatvantge of what they are promoting is you have to go back to them everytime you change something on the car
I greatly prefer somthing that is end user adjustable
Originally posted by Alfriedesq
So far - with my SAFC "piggy back" on my Evo VIII - it has held the tune perfectly - - I set it - and went back to the dyno two times now after driving many hundreds of miles and my A/F curve reamains a flat 11.4 / 1 all the way from 3500 - red line just as I originally set it
I have doubts in what the works guys are saying - - - - and a big disatvantge of what they are promoting is you have to go back to them everytime you change something on the car
I greatly prefer somthing that is end user adjustable
So far - with my SAFC "piggy back" on my Evo VIII - it has held the tune perfectly - - I set it - and went back to the dyno two times now after driving many hundreds of miles and my A/F curve reamains a flat 11.4 / 1 all the way from 3500 - red line just as I originally set it
I have doubts in what the works guys are saying - - - - and a big disatvantge of what they are promoting is you have to go back to them everytime you change something on the car
I greatly prefer somthing that is end user adjustable
, Although I really did enjoy driving that puppy. The AWD is really nice and all.... My EVo is more satisfying to me than the WRX was. I think it's much superior in every respect. I was thinking of adding a SAFC or the like and perhaps an exhaust. Did you consider using the e-manage? or the XEDE? I wonder why you decided to go with the SAFC....
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Thanks for the reply Shiv....I appreciate you taking the time to answer...that speaks volumes to me about who to trust when it comes to tuning....
What torque figures did you see on the 93 gas? was it approx 330 ft/lb's?
is this increase on the stock intake?
What torque figures did you see on the 93 gas? was it approx 330 ft/lb's?
is this increase on the stock intake?
Originally posted by silverEVO8
Hey Alfriedesq, overall, hows the EVO comparing so far to your WRX? it seems you had one of the fastest WRXs around. I never got mine to really go as fast as my superchaged Integra GSR , Although I really did enjoy driving that puppy. The AWD is really nice and all.... My EVo is more satisfying to me than the WRX was. I think it's much superior in every respect.
I was thinking of adding a SAFC or the like and perhaps an exhaust. Did you consider using the e-manage? or the XEDE? I wonder why you decided to go with the SAFC....
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Hey Alfriedesq, overall, hows the EVO comparing so far to your WRX? it seems you had one of the fastest WRXs around. I never got mine to really go as fast as my superchaged Integra GSR
, Although I really did enjoy driving that puppy. The AWD is really nice and all.... My EVo is more satisfying to me than the WRX was. I think it's much superior in every respect. I was thinking of adding a SAFC or the like and perhaps an exhaust. Did you consider using the e-manage? or the XEDE? I wonder why you decided to go with the SAFC....
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
So far I am up to 317 at the wheels and I am not even starting to scratch the surface
The evo is just a better car
As for the SAFC - it was just a easy 1st step - I will be changing it shortly
Maybe I will try and get an Xede IF Shiv will sell me one - it looks like a nice product - certainly much better than the unichip which I thought sucked the big one - I'll have to see what Shiv says if I can get one - anyway I will give it a try and see how I like tuning with it
Ulimately - of course the AEM is what i want - they say up to 6 months on that bad boy and I think that is going to be the answer to all my questions right in one box
Originally posted by Alfriedesq
I LOVE the evo - it handles better - stops better and has more room inside - I think it will also make more HP on street gas than a 2.0 WRX can (that remains to be determimed but inital indiactions look good) - - by way of explanation - on the WRX there was a definite limit to how much HP you could make on street gas with the stock heads
So far I am up to 317 at the wheels and I am not even starting to scratch the surface
The evo is just a better car
As for the SAFC - it was just a easy 1st step - I will be changing it shortly
Maybe I will try and get an Xede IF Shiv will sell me one - it looks like a nice product - certainly much better than the unichip which I thought sucked the big one - I'll have to see what Shiv says if I can get one - anyway I will give it a try and see how I like tuning with it
Ulimately - of course the AEM is what i want - they say up to 6 months on that bad boy and I think that is going to be the answer to all my questions right in one box
I LOVE the evo - it handles better - stops better and has more room inside - I think it will also make more HP on street gas than a 2.0 WRX can (that remains to be determimed but inital indiactions look good) - - by way of explanation - on the WRX there was a definite limit to how much HP you could make on street gas with the stock heads
So far I am up to 317 at the wheels and I am not even starting to scratch the surface
The evo is just a better car
As for the SAFC - it was just a easy 1st step - I will be changing it shortly
Maybe I will try and get an Xede IF Shiv will sell me one - it looks like a nice product - certainly much better than the unichip which I thought sucked the big one - I'll have to see what Shiv says if I can get one - anyway I will give it a try and see how I like tuning with it
Ulimately - of course the AEM is what i want - they say up to 6 months on that bad boy and I think that is going to be the answer to all my questions right in one box
Evolving Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
From: Sydney, Australia
No don't PM him!
Share the wealth of information! Information wants to be free! Stop oppressing information now!
Seriously, I'm sure we'd all like to hear what you have to say on various fuel/ignition controller.s
Share the wealth of information! Information wants to be free! Stop oppressing information now!
Seriously, I'm sure we'd all like to hear what you have to say on various fuel/ignition controller.s
[QUOTE]Originally posted by silverEVO8
I'm also considering the XEDE or a similar product....maybe we can compare notes?... I PM'd you.... [/QUOTEI will report more next week
I'm also considering the XEDE or a similar product....maybe we can compare notes?... I PM'd you.... [/QUOTEI will report more next week
Last edited by Alfriedesq; May 11, 2003 at 12:55 PM.
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,941
Likes: 0
From: Danville/Blackhawk, California
Originally posted by Alfriedesq
Maybe I will try and get an Xede IF Shiv will sell me one - it looks like a nice product - certainly much better than the unichip which I thought sucked the big one - I'll have to see what Shiv says if I can get one
Maybe I will try and get an Xede IF Shiv will sell me one - it looks like a nice product - certainly much better than the unichip which I thought sucked the big one - I'll have to see what Shiv says if I can get one
Yes, you are more than welcome to use it. Just give us a call.
Cheers
Shiv
Originally posted by shiv@vishnu
Al,
Yes, you are more than welcome to use it. Just give us a call.
Cheers
Shiv
Al,
Yes, you are more than welcome to use it. Just give us a call.
Cheers
Shiv