I was waiting in line.... now I'm a very, very happy man.

The only downside to owning an evo, is no other car i get into now feels/handles/turns/grips to same. Every car feels like utter garbage to me now...

 

We are spoiled by EVO's performance. The standards are raised. Its gonna be hard shopping for a car after the EVO, maybe the Elise????

 

Yea.

Seriously though, my friends S2k even feels like it dips and dives more than the EVO.

My other friends M3 feels as big as a boat and turns like a sloth compared to the EVO. What ever am I going to do?

 

Simple guys EVO IX,X, XI,XII

 

LOL. Correct. The only car I see replacing my VIII, is another EVO

 

 

I'm not sure what's funnier - your inability to spell simple words correctly, your use of "jew" that is sure to offend anyone Jewish here, your considering anyone who didn't over-pay for their Evo a "poser", or your attempting to label me a troll because you said something silly, I pointed it out, and it touched a nerve with you.

You silly child!

 

If i can get back on topic here for a second. I have a question for MP5 or anyone that will take the time to answer. .. . .
It is about the Xede. I am not aware of how it wires in so will infer it like any other piggy i have used assuming that it will manipulate input sensor voltage to the stock ecu. Is this correct?
If so then i would like clarification , I guess in lamens terms, how this effects the stock ECU resolution concidering the it will compute and output the commands to the various drivers.
I can understand a previous post made by ez76. Very informative. But in my opinion not very clear.
Like any piggyback system you are "manipulating" actuall events to get a desired result. How acurate is the Xede or any piggy for that matter when it comes to timing advance or retard? How much room for compensation do you have in the MAF signal to vary the fueling the engine recieves. ? Is it only good for open loop operation? How about in closed loop? Do you have control over the O2 signal to the ecu?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

 

Good questions ! Piggy backs are band aides - they can bearly get the job done if you learn enough about robbing peter to pay paul you can get a decent tune with one - hardly optimal however

The piggy back can only move you from one cell to another in the stock map - its the stock ecu which controlls the timing or fuel based upon all the sensor input - - the piggy back attempts to move the ecu from one cell to aother but in this attempt can only manipulate two or three of many multiple sensor inputs

A big time compromise

 

If, compared to a reflash, the XEDE can support more power, offer user-tunability, better knock control and better boost control without sacrificing drivability or safety margin, what exactly makes it "barely able to get the job done."

Or conversely, if the XEDE can "barely get the job done", does that mean that a reflash doesn't do the job at all?

Come on, Al. You can only spread your bs so far. After that, you just start to annoy people and insult their intelligence.

Shiv

 

Shiv, i would really appreciate if you were touch upon the subject i posted earlier. I dont want to hear about limitations and such. Just facts regarding the Xede and what it can and cannot do. Please start with the questions i posed then i will go from there. Thanks in advance for your comments.

 

Unlike several other piggy-back timing control devices we've used and tested, the XEDE regenerates the CAS (crank angle sensor) signal nearly perfectly. Not just peaks and valleys (which is all that is really necessary for basic timing control) but that entire waveform which results in ideal coil charging, coil longevity, resistance to misfire, OBD-II tripping, and an other operational issues that have inflicted systems such as the Emanage, Unichip, ITC, etc,. Also unlike other piggy-backs, the XEDE offers a full 20x20 map resolution for all the tuning tables (MAF, TPS, CAS, Knock, MAP, Additional injector, water spray/boost control, etc,.) More importantly, these breakpoints can be placed at any engine speed/load point which can match (and offset) the odd dips and valleys in the factory ECU mapping. It also allows the user to chose between TPS, MAP or MAF for load referencing (Y-axis) Without this flexibility, one would indeed need, to quote Al, rob Peter to pay Paul.

As with the XEDE for the WRX, the EVO XEDE is capable of close loop fuel and ignition control. However, the factory o2 feedback system will try to maintain a stoich AFR while closed loop is enabled. However, we can induce open-loop earlier (as we do with the WRX through the TPS tables) but have found that doing so is unnecessary for the EVO which transitions to open loop with little or no provocation. Likewise, it is also theoretically possible to feed the 02 signal INTO the XEDE and modify it to make adjustments for closed loop fueling. But that would only make sense if it didn't run lean or rich enough under closed loop conditions which isn't the case with the EVO or any other modern fuel injected car I've ever seen or tested.l

The XEDE and a Reflash offer TWO profoundly difference ways to tune your car. I find it amusing that AL, who has never used one of them (or has even tuned a car before a few months ago) feels comfortable making such sweeping statements.

My 2c,
shiv

 

Shiv,

I know the unichip was a problem for rexes as it tried to fool the ecu. It changed values the ecu was seeing in order to control it.

How is XEDE different from the unichip in this sence? Does the XEDE fool the ecu as the unichip did?

Also, what is the differences between your XEDE and UTEC?

 

The problem with the Unichip is/was three-fold. First, it didn't replicate the CAS waveform properly. This induced chronic misfire CELs. The other problem was that the WRX necessitated 60% TPS and a certain amount of MAF load to transition over to open loop fuel control. This meant that, most of the time, the Unichip was manipulating MAF and timing while the factory ECU was still insisting to dither around stoich. This often resulted in the now infamous partial throttle full boost problem where boost would shoot to max while AFRs were still 14.7:1. The other problem with the Unichip was more an issue of the tuner. Back in the days when Unichips were used, very few had (and appearantly still have) a good understanding of the factory engine control parameters. Few new that the WRX had two fuel maps, a constantly learning ignition advance multiplier, a knock correction table, etc,. Without holding the foundation stable and constant, tuning on top of the ECU was bound to result in long term issues where the factory computer would "detune" itself out of self-preservation. As with all computer programming, one needs to understand the foundation code before adding additional logic on top of it. This applies with the EVO ECU as well-- albeit to a far lesser extent. Without understanding of the factory ECU code, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to acheive tuning longevity and stability that the XEDE'd cars are exhibiliting on the dyno and on the road.

As for XEDE vs. UTEC, I'm not the best person to ask since my theoretical understanding of the UTEC is pretty topical. We've tuned several of them on the dyno but that's not enough to make any sweeping conclusions with respects to its strengths/weaknesses in relation to the XEDE.

My 2c,
shiv

 

Come on shiv - you know thats not true !!! I've been tuning cars for the past 25 years

I have more success with Turbo cars over the past three years that you

I was prob tuning my ole '66 Corvair with 4 carbs when you werent even born yet !

BTW since the Exede is such an amazing force in car tuning - I fully expect to see The ferrari F1 team adopt its piggy back stylings on next year's F1 cars

Tell me - if the Exede is so great - why are you going to sell reflashes also ?