I’m no longer with WORKS, but still browse from time to time. I would like to add my thoughts.

For those of you who under the impression that the flash technology is identical, read on:

First, let's clear up some misconceptions.

(1) The majority of this board knows a good dyno plot when they see one.

This is a misconception. Reading a dyno plot is a learned skill, like learning to read in another language. I had to learn it and those of you who do not already understand how to extrapolate what a car will feel like based on the shape of a curve will need to learn it too. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: look past the peak HP number. Look at the area under the curve. Look closer at the torque curve than HP. Look at the boost curve (of all the hundreds of dyno plots that you have seen posted here on this board, how many have shown this?). Look at the correction and/or smoothing factor if any. Do not fixate on a peak HP number and a dramatic peak. This isn't a finance curve from your office. Don't try to read it like one.

(2) Richer is safer.

This is a gross oversimplification. Overly rich is arguably safer than overly lean, but both are dangerous and undesirable. Running a super rich air fuel ratio is not healthy and will harm your motor. It is also an indication that your tuner does not know what he/she is doing with boost and/or timing. Healthy combustion requires the right ratio of air to fuel being ignited at the right time for optimum burn. You may not realize this, but fuel is an anti-detonant. If you see a very rich mixture (fuel dumping) it is the hallmark of a tuner trying to cope with inappropriate timing and or boost mapping. Don’t think rich is dangerous? Too rich and carbon will begin to build up in the cylinder head causing pre-ignition, sparkplugs will begin fouling and misfiring, your catalytic converter will clog up, and the long term health of your engine will be compromised. Matter of fact, if you go too rich, you can cause fuel preignition, which goes hand in hand with detonation, which triggers the knock sensor, which the ECU sees, and then the ECU retards the timing, and the EGTs go up. And so begins the vicious cycle to medium and long term engine damage. It won't be the sudden and catastrophic failure one might see with a sudden lean condition, but will do great harm in the long run.

Bottom line. You want efficient combustion, not overly rich and not overly lean.

(3) They all deal with timing the same way

As important as AF/R the timing of when the mixture is lit off makes a huge difference in the optimization of the combustion cycle. If you are not sure whether your tuner relies on the factory knock sensor to either pull timing back based on knock, or prevents timing from being pulled where knock might otherwise exist, learn to understand how and why this matters before choosing which flash to buy or assuming that they are all identical.

(4) Higher peaks boost is better.

Not if it involves pulling timing, tapering off boost, or running overly rich. The true test is the tuner's ability to hit the desire boost level and maintain it.

This leads me to one area in which I can illustrate how different these products all are.

XFlash pulls a restrictor pill from the factory line.

Dynoflash sends a false 10 minute delay signal to the ECU.

WORKS P2 replaces the factory boost tube with a new boost tube (note, the number of pills remains the same) and the functionality is like stock.

Believe it or not, those Mitsubishi engineers are a clever bunch and neither Pete (WORKS), nor Shiv (XFlash), nor Al (Dynoflash/Buschurflash/Etc), is smart enough to single-handedly second guess them.

People need to take the time to understand what it is they are buying, and how it works. Is the $199 product the same as the $599 product because they both use flash technology? Are they the same if they hit similar peak HP numbers?

As Shiv correctly pointed out, take the same car and put each of the three products on it and you will get dramatic enough results that you could tell instantly that the tune is not the same – even if the peak HP numbers are very close.

However, whatever flash approach you end up choosing, at least take the time to become an educated consumer. You don’t need to understand all the hyper technical babble that the tuners know, but at least understand the fundamentals of how the products differ in what they do and why. Learn to read a dyno plot. Learn to look at and evaluate boost plots. Learn to interpret AFRs. etc. Bottom line, if you have a $30k+ car, and are making a choice on how the ECU is tuned based on an assumption that each product is the same except for a few hundred bucks here or there in price, then best of luck to you. Some products (intakes, exhausts, ground wire kits, etc.) are more alike than they are different – ECU tuning isn’t one of them.

-- DavidV

 

I don't think brains are the issue here. Mitsubishi has significantly different priorities than an aftermarket tuner and what you call "second-guessing" seems more like tuning to reflect those priorities. For example, for Mitsubishi it was a no-brainer to run the Evo insanely rich in the mid-RPM's. On the surface that doesn't seem very "clever" but apparently it was part of a greater plan which reflected their overall priorities.

 

Let's draw a clear distinction between tuning a system (optimizing it within its factory operating parameters) and changing its functionality (altering the way it was designed to work).

None of the three tuners go about controlling boost the same way. One uses a delay, one removes a pill, and one provides a new tube. They are each necessary to that tuner's approach in an effort to raise and maintain boost, but they each go about achieving that objective very differently.

It is not for me to say which tuner is "right" only that (1) I don't think any of them are qualified to second guess Mitsubishi's ECU engineers beyond optimizing what it already there and (2) the flash approaches are far from identical. In fact, with respect to handling boost, they couldn't be more different.

-- DavidV

 

Sorry David, I heavily edited my post because I did not think the original was on-topic enough.

To get back on topic, what authoritative reference is WORKS using as the bible of the Evo's "operating parameters" and how does WORKS draw lines between "optimizing" the Evo and "altering" it? (I think this would be good information for prospective customers to have).

 

I'd rather not advocate on WORKS' behalf. That would only take away from what I think my broader message in this thread was.

Suffice it to say, a programmed delay tells the ECU that the built-in grace period for spiking is now extended. Normally, the ECU allows a momentary spike and then regains control over boost and bleeds it off. The 10 minute delay isn't a method of controlling boost, it is a big, long and uncontrolled spike.

Removing a pill does not allow the ECU to control boost. It still bleeds and tapers, even though it peaks higher. When WORKS tried this exact approach, even with the solenoid set at 100% duty cycle, the boost continued to drop off and would not hold steady.

The WORKS method allows a momentary spike to 19psi or higher, just like factory approach, but once the boost hits 19 psi, it holds rock steady until the driver lifts off the throttle. This is because the ECU has regained control over boost after the momentary spike (the built-in grace period) and can hold it to whatever pressure WORKS chooses to set it at (at the moment, only a 19 psi version exists, although theoretically this could be set anywhere).

The reason that I draw a distinction between optimizing and altering is that each tuner believes that they are optimizing what is already there. However, with respect to boost, only one has allowed the ECU to control boost. Hence, only one is allowing the ECU to work as it was designed to work.

-- DavidV

 

You sure about that?

Shiv

 

Based on what I know of WORKS' testing, yes. Of course, your mileage may vary and I wish to take nothing away from Shiv or his approach. I wasn't there when Shiv was implementing this method, but I was there when WORKS was.

In any event, it really doesn't matter which approach I think is best. What matters is that people understand that when you look beneath the surface, these are all very different products.

Those that are deciding based on price and a cursory understanding of what "features" they are paying for, are doing themselves a disservice by not educating themselves about how fundamentally different each of these tuners' approach is from one another.

-- DavidV

 

Yes, our mileage does vary

Shiv

 

I am not sure how it would be advocating on WORKS' behalf to tell us what WORKS' authoritative source for the Evo's operating parameters is. As you stated it, the claim of "WORKS optimizes the Evo within its intended operating parameters" is just an opinion yeah?

 

You hold Mitsubishi engineers high, but you contradict that with your statement above. We all know with the numerous dyno plots that a bone stock Evo runs extremely rich from the get go. By your definition stock motors are doomed.

 

In the instance of Dynoflash which on average yields afrs in the 10s, wouldnt it be fair to say that this method of tuning through ign timing advance in a rich condition running less boost is more in line with the factory parameters then the leaner mixtures present in both the Works and Vishnu offerings. Looking at the stock timing/fuel curve in comparison to what the mail in Dynoflash gives you shows very similar trends. Less boost, more advance and rich AFRs.

Couldn't much of the reason why East Coast Evos make more power then their West Coast counterparts be explained by the ecu advancing timing on 93 octane running the same rich afr. So doesnt a mild Dynoflash tune pulling a slight amount of fuel and allowing the onset presence of a more advanced timing condition effectively create a 93 octane baseline similar to how Mitsubishi would have if not for the presence of 91 octane only on the west coast.

Also, if the tuner creates a detonation free condition, dictated by the stock knock correction, is this not a safe condition in lieu of "fuel dumping", a condition overtly present stock.

I had questioned the ability of the stock FBC to adequately control boost when altered previously and of the three methods I would have to say that effectively eliminating the taper function retaining the stock solenoid pill seems to be the simplest and most direct approach for maintaining a given boost pressure. I've read about people attempting to drill out the pills on an individual basis to raise boost so how exactly is this any more effective then retaining the stock pill other then that it will allow for higher overall boost values? And isn't the fuel cut function in place to protect from extreme overboosting? Also, from what I've seen there has been less instance of boost spike usingg the stock solenoid pill. I've seen spikes ranging from 21-26 with the Works flash and 21-24 with Vishnu's offering.


Thanks for chiming in on this I'm interested to see what you and the other experts have to say on this.

 

Supercharged GTZ's car on this board. At the Pruven dyno day, he came in with a Works P2. He was spiking to 26 psi with the Works boost line, so he took it out and used an mbc to control boost. The car dynoed in the mid 280's I believe. After getting tuned with the DynoFlash, that number rose to 310 whp. Ask him to post the dyno sheets if you don't believe it. I can't comment on the XFlash, but from what I've seen at dyno days like the one at Pruven, the DynoFlash makes more power than Works flash.

So I guess Mitsu tech's have no clue what they're doing? Running in the 9's A/F ratio on stock cars?

Which explains why the Works boost line has spiked to 26 psi on customers cars right? And that the XFlash and DynoFlash methods to boost control do exactly as promised, which is keep the boost from tapering as much in the case of DynoFlash and have the boost taper to 19 psi in the case of XFlash? From what I've seen, the Works flash doesn't have "functionality like stock".

Not according to you they aren't.

I know this post reads like I'm bashing the Works flash, but I'm just trying to post what I've seen on flashed Evos firsthand.

 

As this issue has come up at least four times since I posted, apparently I was not clear. From my post above:

"Let's draw a clear distinction between tuning a system (optimizing it within its factory operating parameters) and changing its functionality (altering the way it was designed to work)."

A good analogy is a company that makes a musical instrument. They first design and build the product, and then tune it before they send it out.

It is one thing to design the functionality of a system, and another to tune it the way a performance minded enthusiast would want it tuned. So they get an "A" for a very capable ECU that can map boost for load and rpm using the factory solenoid to precisely and efficently modulate the wastegate and a "C-" for a tune that accounts for the lowest common denominator among U.S. owners and is not ideal for the long-term health of the car.

Keep in mind too that Mitsubishi's factory levels of performance on their tune are, relatively speaking, not all demanding. But if you are trying to squeeze even more power out of the Evo, and are running it as rich or more so than stock, one has to wonder what is going on. The Mitsubishi engineers designed a very capable set-up, but had to tune it with enough fudge room for the average bonehead -- including the guy who is going fill his car up with 87 octane by mistake.

The way the system is engineered to function (how the ECU interfaces with the solenoid), and the final state of tune (where the AFR was set), are two very different projects. If your tuner is not distinguishing between the two, question them about it, not me.

-- DavidV

 

I'm glad you bring this up. It's pretty good evidence of the virtues of Dynoflash ... However, what I meant to say is that there have been no tests or side by side comparos of each of the mail order reflashes done to the same car. I have a custom Dynoflash done in my car and I'm very impressed with it but still I've not seen an apples to apples comparo yet.

Now, David says that very rich A/Fs are a bad thing not in keeping with the clever ways of thinking of the engineers From what I've seen first hand and read about the stock EVOs, they seem to run pig rich at certain rpms..... How can this be if these guys are so smart; and rich A/Fs are bad??

By the way, I don't know what Al's or any of the other mail reflashes do, but when Al tuned my car, he definitely tried to stay with safely mapped A/Fs in the neighborhood of 11:1 or 11.5:1 while mapping the ignition timing as advanced as the knock sensor allowed without pulling timing. This seems to be exactly what all these gurus and experts are advocating. It seems to me that Al tunes cars (at least he did mine) in a manner consistent with the best recognized practices. Another bit of info here is that after the reflash my boost was perfectly steady and did not spike at all with an improved ramping curve. After that, I installed an AMS MBC and after it was done properly and adjusted to suit me, it also hold boost without spikes of any kind.

 

Factory fuel cut is an important last-ditch safety feature to prevent engine damage. I'm not sure I understand where this comes into the analysis of engine tuning, other than "don't mess with it" for stock and relatively stock cars.

-- DavidV