# ECUTEK OR COBB AC



## MARKEER35 (Jul 25, 2011)

Hi
I have a MY09 and looking to mod with either Ecutek or cobb ac ,currently only have milltek y pipe and k and n filters.
What are the pro and cons of both?? I take it you can buy a second hand cobb and install yourself and resell again where a ecutek once installed stays with the car.
I see there are 05 and 06 versions of cobb ,whats the difference??

Are there any problems buying a cobb that has been on another car??

Bottom line which is best??


----------



## enshiu (Aug 20, 2010)

I got a cobb but, the ECUtek seems cheaper than the COBB. 

COBB is easy to remove and if it had been on another car ask the seller to uninstall from his/her car. 005 version has no Transmission functions and the 006 has.


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

My advise is go with a UK Company. Having worked in the tuning industry for many years it pays to go with a product which has a full support and sales team here in the UK. If you ever have any issues with the cobb AP you will have to wait to a time where Cobb usa is open and i seriously struggled to get any reply from them via e-mail.

With an ecutek you only pay for a licence and then a custom map.

With the cobb you need to pay £1000 + for the AP, then for a custom tune £350+. Dont settle for a custom tune which is done over the internet as the engine will be pushed into areas of knock to find peak power as it wont be on a dyno where torque values can be monitored for calibration changes. It needs to be setup on a Dyno with a calibrator who is monitoring the live values from the ecu like a hawk for any un-expected issues , also using a external lambda value and using det cans as the knock control low down on the GTR engine i can ensure you is not perfect.

For a third of the cost of a Cobb installation with custom tune you can get the same end result with a full custom tune on a dyno!

I have same spec as yourself using just a 76mm intake kit and a Whifbitz Race y Pipe on stock backbox and downpipes and got this at 1.1bar dropping to 1bar.


----------



## charles charlie (May 3, 2008)

MARKEER35 said:


> Hi
> I have a MY09 and looking to mod with either Ecutek or cobb ac ,currently only have milltek y pipe and k and n filters.
> What are the pro and cons of both?? I take it you can buy a second hand cobb and install yourself and resell again where a ecutek once installed stays with the car.
> I see there are 05 and 06 versions of cobb ,whats the difference??
> ...


Both are dependent upon the tuner involved, but the end results should be very similar.

Cobb is more expensive as you buy a physical device which has a standard set of improved tunes. A custom tune will set you back some more but is tailored to your car.

The Cobb unit adds in extra features which the Ecutek system doe not have at present, such as error code clearing, datalogging, uninstall/install without visinting your tuner. The NIS006 version also has transmission support which allows you to adjust the clutch/capacities, install newer gearbox software and do a clutch relearn.

Ecutek can do this as well but until they release the OBD cable (which has been mooted for 6 months or so with no units shipped as far as I'm aware) you will have to return to your tuner for any of these features.

So in summary, Cobb and Ecutek allow you to do the same thing, except at present Cobb allows more end-user flexibility as you yourself have the device in hand.

Of course that also allows you to sell the unit if you no longer wish to keep it.

And that means if you buy a second hand Cobb it must have been uninstalled from the car (by that I mean removing the software from the car so that Cobb unit is "unmarried").

If you do get one and that hasnt been, Cobb can unlock it for you but taht require sending to the US and a cost involved.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

charles charlie said:


> Both are dependent upon the tuner involved, but the end results should be very similar.
> 
> Cobb is more expensive as you buy a physical device which has a standard set of improved tunes. A custom tune will set you back some more but is tailored to your car.
> 
> ...


+1. I had the same situation last year & after much investigation opted for the CoBB. For me the reason was simplicity as i didn't like the idea of visiting a tuner every time something needed doing. The Custom tune on my car is V15 i think as it's been tweeked each time i've upgraded a component. I'd not have fancied 15 return trips down South just to do that.

The end results are very similar but currently one offers more flexibility & functionality, however it is the more expensive option.


----------



## charles charlie (May 3, 2008)

Ryan.g said:


> My advise is go with a UK Company. Having worked in the tuning industry for many years it pays to go with a product which has a full support and sales team here in the UK. If you ever have any issues with the cobb AP you will have to wait to a time where Cobb usa is open and i seriously struggled to get any reply from them via e-mail


Not a fair point Ryan.

End users here in the UK get full support from their UK supplier, in the same way if you buy an Apple device, you dont ring up Apple in the US for support.

Many of us Cobb users bought our units from Ben at GTC who has answered my emails or phone calls, night time, daytime, weekends. I have never had any dealings with Cobb in the US and dont expect to.

The issues you had with Cobb are from a tuner perspective and not related to our end user units as far as I read from your posts on the matter.

Also to suggest that only tunes done on a dyno are safe is also misleading since it is down to the tuners skill and experience with the platform that gives a safe tune. Either way can give rise to a bad tune so lets be balanced here.

As with Paul above I have had many incarnations of tune as my mods have progressed and I certainly would not have had the time to travel to and fro getting each change tuned.

To the OP, there are many satisfied GTR owners who have both Cobb and Ecutek.

Each system has its relative merits, it's up to each person to balance cost/benefit and decide which route suits them best


----------



## Stevie76 (Dec 17, 2009)

charles charlie said:


> Not a fair point Ryan.
> 
> End users here in the UK get full support from their UK supplier, in the same way if you buy an Apple device, you dont ring up Apple in the US for support.
> 
> ...


+1 and I can vouch for Cobb as had to mail them a couple of times re an issue I had with my AP which they were first class with....almost immediate responses and faultless service.:thumbsup:


----------



## MARKEER35 (Jul 25, 2011)

Thanks guys, like the idea if Cobb but am looking to have car serviced at Lichfields and whilst speaking to Ian Ecutek seems his perferred choice although he sells both.I understand that once Nissan release there warranty price he will release his which will include any upgrades installed.
Just wondered if anyone had fitted either then on speaking driving another car with the other device fitted thought they made the wrong choice.


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

I believe the issues Ryan experienced in trying to purchase the tuning product (after my near instant responses in good depth to his technical queries) were isolated and should not be repeated. Scott was difficult to contact as he was moving house between states at the time. Cover should have been arranged and it seems it wasn't, but end user and tuner support is via different and responsive routes.


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

I've always been told it is better to do your final map tweaking on the road rather than on the dyno, as the dyno does not completely accurately replicate road conditions (especially airflow)?


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Age old debate, which cynically you would say is populated by dyno owners on one side of the fence trying to recoup their investment, and non-dyno owners trying to save a quick buck on the other side, with every gradation in between, with a smattering of racer's excuses, black dyno, track results, opinion and argument in between! Few are polarised so much that they can't see the benefit of both approaches, and I think personally more people should hire tracks to tune on to add to the mix. I stopped tuning commercially quite a few years ago, but I mainly road tuned, and with cars with half the power of many now it was getting scary.


----------



## lawsy (Feb 25, 2009)

Also worth bearing in mind that the cars will make more boost on the road than on a dyno.


----------



## DRAGON (Nov 12, 2003)

Good reply's thistle. Tuner 'views' have always been fogged by what ecu they choose for whatever reason, which is a shame for certain customers to be clouded by this.
Personally I go on results and facts. Cobb have been leading the way, and are simply ahead of Ecutek, the results speak for themselves, look around the net, you also benefit from the hand controller is worth the money alone, especially when you can get used ones for £500 now.
The dyno versus road debate as thistle pointed out is very drawn out, personally coming from a rotary mapping back ground, which are the most sensitive to det engines, I have always chosen to map on the road.


----------



## sumo69 (Mar 31, 2008)

Litchfields do their custom mapping on road - held his laptop several times in the passenger seat whilst Iain drives the car to get data.

D


----------



## enshiu (Aug 20, 2010)

charles charlie said:


> Not a fair point Ryan.
> 
> End users here in the UK get full support from their UK supplier, in the same way if you buy an Apple device, you dont ring up Apple in the US for support.
> 
> ...


Ben's services are awesome.

Ian also 

choose and see


----------



## Chris956 (Apr 11, 2010)

Road or Dyno - Live Realtime mapping has got to be preferable has it not for obvious reasons ?


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

charles charlie said:


> Both are dependent upon the tuner involved, but the end results should be very similar.
> 
> Cobb is more expensive as you buy a physical device which has a standard set of improved tunes. A custom tune will set you back some more but is tailored to your car.
> 
> ...


The Above are fair points but most of my customer wants the car to be done and dusted when it leaves the dyno and just enjoy the car. Most of the above features are pointless also as if the owners say wants to remove the AP because its going to the dealer then they will know that the ecu has just been programmed via the almighty black box. If there is an error code its either that the appropiate code options are not turned off in the ROM or there is a problem in which it needs to be looked at by a trader or nissan anyway.

The only plus i see is the clutch learning but that needs to be done only after wear of the clutches so again a nissan dealer or trader can do this with there consult software. Also the map swap to limp 

But what happens if a Rom flash fails half way through as you would be surprised what the interference of a mobile phone can do or you pull cable out accidently.... Who fault would that be and who would have to pay for the ecu to be unlocked.


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

charles charlie said:


> Not a fair point Ryan.
> 
> End users here in the UK get full support from their UK supplier, in the same way if you buy an Apple device, you dont ring up Apple in the US for support.
> 
> ...


Im only giving my View on the service i recieved from a tuners point and end customer. 

Although i must add again John Banks who i believe is linked with cobb was very helpful in answering the technical questions which others couldn't :thumbs:

Thanks Again John and i would have used the Cobb software for the R&D im doing for a few companies at the moment if only Someone had got back to me within3 weeks.


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

As I said before in the other thread, the reason somebody might want to uninstall a Cobb before servicing, is not to deceive the dealer about it being remapped, but to enable the dealer to do any ECU updates that Nissan have released without it being applied inadvertently to a non-OEM map.

Having followed R35 tuning since its start, I would estimate that over 95% of the world's most powerful tuned GT-Rs are running Cobbs. They can't all be wrong.


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

thistle said:


> I believe the issues Ryan experienced in trying to purchase the tuning product (after my near instant responses in good depth to his technical queries) were isolated and should not be repeated. Scott was difficult to contact as he was moving house between states at the time. Cover should have been arranged and it seems it wasn't, but end user and tuner support is via different and responsive routes.


:thumbsup: You were Spot on John

Plus i will have some nice info on the Emap for you soon after the downpipe swap.


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Not that I would encourage it but the AP can recover the vast majority of failed flashes unless it happens at some very unfortunate points early in the flash. But that is another advantage to realtime tuning of course 

Ryan, I think you will struggle to beat 10.01 on stock turbos without nitrous no matter what your dyno says


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

With Regards to the Road and Dyno tuning info.

I do not own a dyno i just hire the best setup cells around the world for every job i do to ensure i am safe. Considering most of the engines i work with, road mapping is not an option and what caused a friend who was a well known tuner to leave us. 

Would not want to road map any of these!!

Current Work

The problem is with Road tuning is that you cant see that the changes you have made are actually useful. Its impossible to tune ignition timing and cam timing on the road! Hence why having the dyno available i have been able to monitor and setup the ignition timing and cam timing perfectly to achieve 611bhp from a stage 1/2 car with no knock correction at all or even near it. If road mapping the only way a tuner can get an indication of if they are near MBT (search google for meaning) on a Turbo charged engine on Road fuel is by taken the car to the point of knock. If its on race fuel it can not be road mapped properly i assure you!

Of course after any dyno session the drivability stuff needs to be done on the road and a check of the tune in a safe environment is choosen for this where the owner can drive the car and datalogging becomes the key. But only needs to be check once or twice not like 30 hard pulls on the road not knowing if you are going forward or backwards on the tuning.


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

thistle said:


> Not that I would encourage it but the AP can recover the vast majority of failed flashes unless it happens at some very unfortunate points early in the flash. But that is another advantage to realtime tuning of course
> 
> Ryan, I think you will struggle to beat 10.01 on stock turbos without nitrous no matter what your dyno says


You are right as im not interested in trying plus i never have free time to do that kind of stuff anymore. But you know the toys i play with and a few of my customers will go for them all at some point.

At the moment they are more focused on the world record of fastest road legal car.


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Ryan.g said:


> With Regards to the Road and Dyno tuning info.
> 
> I do not own a dyno i just hire the best setup cells around the world for every job i do to ensure i am safe. Considering most of the engines i work with, road mapping is not an option and what caused a friend who was a well known tuner to leave us.
> 
> ...


All depends if you are tuning to best dyno figures or best acceleration. So far I've seen more situations than not where the two do not coincide despite many claims to the contrary. Sometimes the situation is reversed so that a car of similar weight but lower power and torque on dyno readings (plus a load of dyno induced knock for good measure) completely outclasses a dyno tuned car. Andy Forrest generally wipes the floor with the competition in terms of results and reliability and his cars go nowhere near dynos if he can help it. When I last spoke to him I don't think he'd found a dyno that replicated the airflow, cooling, loading, traction, knock thresholds he finds on tarmac.

That is why in a friendly way I suggest that no matter what exciting figures you get from the dyno on stock turbos, the 10.01 is more important. The guy ran it as a daily driver and is was very reliable. However, I'm not especially a fan of wringing the necks of a turbo too far, and certainly not of quarter mile tunes that can't be thrashed around a circuit for more than a few laps.


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

David.Yu said:


> As I said before in the other thread, the reason somebody might want to uninstall a Cobb before servicing, is not to deceive the dealer about it being remapped, but to enable the dealer to do any ECU updates that Nissan have released without it being applied inadvertently to a non-OEM map.
> 
> Having followed R35 tuning since its start, I would estimate that over 95% of the world's most powerful tuned GT-Rs are running Cobbs. They can't all be wrong.


I replied on the subject also David

Im not trying to get across that a cobb is no good as like the ecutek its a great product, im just trying to support a Uk business who have put alot of hard work into there product when it will do exactly the same as a cobb for the end result but a third of the price! 

The main reason i am using the ecutek is it makes my job easier to datalog all the gearbox and CAN info as a product alot bigger than ecutek and cobb is being worked on at present for GTRs used in Motorsport and drag racing but along the way it would be rude not to see what can be done with the engine tuning by someone who does it everyday.


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

thistle said:


> All depends if you are tuning to best dyno figures or best acceleration. So far I've seen more situations than not where the two do not coincide despite many claims to the contrary. Sometimes the situation is reversed so that a car of similar weight but lower power and torque on dyno readings (plus a load of dyno induced knock for good measure) completely outclasses a dyno tuned car. Andy Forrest generally wipes the floor with the competition in terms of results and reliability and his cars go nowhere near dynos if he can help it. When I last spoke to him I don't think he'd found a dyno that replicated the airflow, cooling, loading, traction, knock thresholds he finds on tarmac.
> 
> That is why in a friendly way I suggest that no matter what exciting figures you get from the dyno on stock turbos, the 10.01 is more important. The guy ran it as a daily driver and is was very reliable. However, I'm not especially a fan of wringing the necks of a turbo too far, and certainly not of quarter mile tunes that can't be thrashed around a circuit for more than a few laps.


Im hardly surprised Andy cant up in scotland  He is coming around though since he is now using one of our ecu's (Syvecs) and not 2 powerfc's LOL

I aim for the biggest area of torque possibly within the engine operating revs on the dyno as it should be done and then tune the gear dependant maps and throttle maps to maximise accel. Proper way

Will show you next year and sort you out some tickets to come watch it live


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

I chose to use EcuTek purely because for me the risk of mucking around with a car I paid over £60k for was too much for me, I felt having the person in the know having the car there in front of them was the safest route.

As it turned out my car had a version of the Nismo ECU that at the time Iain had not encountered, rather than take any risks Iain downloaded the map and sent it off to EcuTek for review. After a couple of weeks it came back fully fettled and was installed on the car, I retained all of the benefits of the nismo stock tune along with the stage 2 mods.


----------



## mct (Oct 13, 2010)

Personally these mods are very similar but the majority of people use Cobb and like the flexibility of taking the mod out when sell it etc. So not much different in price

I have a custom cobb from Ben at GTC and love it, its the best cash I have spent on Modding a car, I have come from a rotary engine and the modding for those power gains were 10X the price of a cobb tune.

However I just used Litchfields for my service and can vouch (like many people on here) that they are a top class outfit, you couldnt be in better hands. 

This thread has been back an forth so much, so you will hear majority of people with Cobb, however you wont be dissapointed with either.......


----------



## Stevie76 (Dec 17, 2009)

AndyBrew said:


> I chose to use EcuTek purely because for me the risk of mucking around with a car I paid over £60k for was too much for me, I felt having the person in the know having the car there in front of them was the safest route.
> 
> As it turned out my car had a version of the Nismo ECU that at the time Iain had not encountered, rather than take any risks Iain downloaded the map and sent it off to EcuTek for review. After a couple of weeks it came back fully fettled and was installed on the car, I retained all of the benefits of the nismo stock tune along with the stage 2 mods.



Nice one Andy...never knew you had succumb to the temptation of tuning:thumbsup:

Back to topic I think whatever way you decide to go you will not be disappointed with the results. Never seen anyone with an Ecutec tune complain about it and likewise for owners running a Cobb solution...either one will transform your car!


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Ryan.g said:


> Im hardly surprised Andy cant up in scotland  He is coming around though since he is now using one of our ecu's (Syvecs) and not 2 powerfc's LOL
> 
> I aim for the biggest area of torque possibly within the engine operating revs on the dyno as it should be done and then tune the gear dependant maps and throttle maps to maximise accel. Proper way
> 
> Will show you next year and sort you out some tickets to come watch it live


All very good, unless your dyno is telling you lies and making your car accelerate slower in the pursuit of the best dyno curves. Why run a simulation when you can run the real thing? The gold standard is best acceleration since no one races on a dyno. I'd rather have 10% less power and outdrag the opposition. It happens to me any time I go near a dyno, even those who say "It won't happen on our dyno." Not just in Scotland either.

I'm just arguing about dyno vs tarmac tuning because I don't want to argue about Ecutek vs Cobb again 

For the sake of argument I'm taking up a position, but agree on race fuel and dynos, although I bet you £5 that Andy Forrest doesn't agree.


----------



## Stevie76 (Dec 17, 2009)

AndyBrew said:


> I chose to use EcuTek purely because for me the risk of mucking around with a car I paid over £60k for was too much for me, I felt having the person in the know having the car there in front of them was the safest route.
> 
> As it turned out my car had a version of the Nismo ECU that at the time Iain had not encountered, rather than take any risks Iain downloaded the map and sent it off to EcuTek for review. After a couple of weeks it came back fully fettled and was installed on the car, I retained all of the benefits of the nismo stock tune along with the stage 2 mods.



Nice one Andy...never knew you had succumb to the temptation of tuning:thumbsup:

Back to topic I think whatever way you decide to go you will not be disappointed with the results. Never seen anyone with an Ecutec tune complain about it and likewise for owners running a Cobb solution...either one will transform your car!


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

thistle said:


> All very good, unless your dyno is telling you lies and making your car accelerate slower in the pursuit of the best dyno curves. Why run a simulation when you can run the real thing? The gold standard is best acceleration since no one races on a dyno. I'd rather have 10% less power and outdrag the opposition. It happens to me any time I go near a dyno, even those who say "It won't happen on our dyno." Not just in Scotland either.
> 
> I'm just arguing about dyno vs tarmac tuning because I don't want to argue about Ecutek vs Cobb again
> 
> For the sake of argument I'm taking up a position, but agree on race fuel and dynos, although I bet you £5 that Andy Forrest doesn't agree.


Sims are there for Safety and allows any problems to be spotted instantly. With all these big power builds on here with new products being tested none of them seem to hit the dyno, what if the products has an issue or an oil line lets go while your moving! 

To get any decent data and repeatable logs on Accel rate to see if the changes you are making on the tune are to an improvement with something over 500hp, means a minimum of a 4th gear pull to have a "run time" which is not going to be over in around 3 seconds! !

So lets get this right... a customers pride and joy is took up the road to do a 4th gear pull up above 100mph each time to get repeatable data and then the map is tweaked to get a tune which makes the acceleration improved based on either Longitude G or Ground speed vs RPM... and you can see a difference after changing say 1 degree of timing or a change in cam angle?? I very much doubt it!


What happens if the road you are using runs out and you have to turn back into the wind. The Gtr is not exactly shaped to favor this!... or are only certain days available for tuning 

Andy's own cars certainly do shift but i assure you they could be better if he used an engine dyno or good setup dyno cell to properly setup the engines first to ensure the VE is 100% correct.

The tuning scene at present for the GTR is on the way up and having a cracking engine design and Gearbox setup from the factory is making them very fast when tuned to any level but honestly reading the way they are setup at present is surprising to say the least to anyone who calibrates engines for a living. Maybe John you should post your views on the EFI101 Forum 

The Supra scene was very the same back in 2007 but look where it is now

Onwards and upwards though


----------



## NITO (Nov 19, 2003)

In my opinion, high speed running, as in top speed can only really be done on the road, every dyno tuned car I've had has had a poor top end map. 

Of course you can only really do this safely on an airstrip. Gone are the days of charging down the M3 late at night!! 

I also found my car would hit different load sites on a dyno to on the road, the dyno's are a good guide but I'm a believer of setting up on the dyno and finishing in real conditions, albeit roads are not really the place to do it. 

Dyno mapped cars often seem to have too conservative timing and too much fuel, probably because of the effect of heat and poorer cooling/airflow on the dyno. End result, high EGT's at top speed running, poorer fuel economy and slower :flame:


----------



## Litchfield (Feb 26, 2008)

thistle said:


> I'm just arguing about dyno vs tarmac tuning because I don't want to argue about Ecutek vs Cobb again
> 
> 
> > To add my 2 pence, we use both methods in our tunes. Our initial R&D and map development is done on the dyno (including Charlie's excellent RR :thumbsup: ) and then fine tuning is done on the road. We also use private test centres. This week I'm off to MIRA to tune some GTR engines
> ...


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

That should be effective, fun and safe Iain. Enjoy.

Ryan, it is all practicality and compromise. Since I am aiming for best safe acceleration, then let's measure acceleration. Your criticism of the method is simplistic, and overestimating the accuracy, precision, repeatability and validity of chassis dyno tuning. Funnily enough, I had a debate with an EFI "university" instructor before and they had a rather narrow perspective where they constantly bashed the chassis dyno tuning drum and clearly didn't debate like academics from a "university". It came across more as a method (staged dogmatically with circular arguments  ) without the usual debate a proper academic institution would encourage about evidence and the scientific method. Interestingly they wouldn't be allowed to call themselves a university in the UK because they are not approved by Royal Charter or the Privy Council and are actually a self appointed training company. If the standard of debate I witnessed from this instructor is anything to go by than thank goodness we have laws to protect academic integrity in this country.


----------



## Anders_R35 (Jul 20, 2011)

Off topic slightly as I'm talking about my Scoob, but it spent many hours on the dyno followed by tweaking on the road for real world conditions to get it's 471bhp from 2 litres.

A few things I noticed as someone who took interest in the tuning:

1) My car was originally dyno tuned by company X. The car had a FMIC and cold air kit fitted. I asked if the MAF was going to be re-scaled and was told it was ok because the volts weren't maxing out (max 5V).

Over the next year or so, I wasn't totally happy as the the car was detting now and again on the road. No explanation, I was putting it down to bad batches of fuel now and again.

In the end, I decided to change mapper to Pat Herborn, he found that on the road the MAF was maxing out and he said quite possible that enough fuel wasn't being injected causing a lean mix and the odd Det.

2) A couple of years later I upgraded to the Syvecs ECU which is speed density, MAP based. As part of that upgrade I added a Cosworth ACT probe on the throttle body (located after front mount intercooler). The difference is ACT's between dyno and road...9C! 

For the above two reason alone (in my laymans terms), dyno tuning is not a perfect solution. But I think it has it's place, I wouldn't like to see a mapper creating a base map from scratch on the road...dyno far better for this scenario.

Anders


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Anders_R35 said:


> I wouldn't like to see a mapper creating a base map from scratch on the road...dyno far better for this scenario.
> 
> Anders


Isn't it the case though that there have been so many R35s mapped (especially on Cobbs) that a tuner is never truly "creating a base map from scratch"? They are at the most making very minor tweaks to a well tried and tested base map of which there are already a vast catalogue to suit most bolt on mods, e.g. Y-pipe, catback exhaust, 76mm intakes, 80mm intakes, 1000cc/min injectors etc.

Individual cars surely can't vary by that much with the same mods; the tuner is simply doing the very last bit of fine tuning to suit the slight variations of that particular car.


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Most standalone, speed density or open loop approaches are quite different to OEM strategies, although the better standalones converge the situation.

For fuelling, with a known calibration of MAF sensor and full time closed loop lambda control that you just set the AFR targets and that is what you get. Intakes depending on type and installation can need more tweakage of the MAF curves, but the idea is still to have the intake measure the air mass accurately and follow through the ECU's physics model.

Ignition timing at full load is knock limited on the VR38 on normal fuel. You can tune to knock threshold whilst running less knock than some cars run stock. Part load ignition timing (especially from scratch) is a dyno's forte, but on many VR38 you're actually trying to make it not have too much torque at part throttle to help driveability.


----------



## vanos (Mar 8, 2008)

thistle said:


> For fuelling, with a known calibration of MAF sensor and full time closed loop lambda control that you just set the AFR targets and that is what you get. Intakes depending on type and installation can need more tweakage of the MAF curves, but the idea is still to have the intake measure the air mass accurately and follow through the ECU's physics model.


*scratching my head* 
You are correct and all but I wonder, why do we need to tweak the MAF when going for bigger intakes? If we get more air than the MAF has registered, surely the lambda feedback will call it and the ECU adjusts accordingly?


----------



## Anders_R35 (Jul 20, 2011)

David.Yu said:


> Isn't it the case though that there have been so many R35s mapped (especially on Cobbs) that a tuner is never truly "creating a base map from scratch"? They are at the most making very minor tweaks to a well tried and tested base map of which there are already a vast catalogue to suit most bolt on mods, e.g. Y-pipe, catback exhaust, 76mm intakes, 80mm intakes, 1000cc/min injectors etc.
> 
> Individual cars surely can't vary by that much with the same mods; the tuner is simply doing the very last bit of fine tuning to suit the slight variations of that particular car.


That's correct, they are tweaks to existing maps and not starting from scratch. With Cobb there must be a loads of tunes out there now and Ben's hard drive must be full of custom tunes with various mods.

But if someone was having a 4.0 stroker with wild cams I would say safer to tune initially on a dyno.

Anders


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

vanos said:


> *scratching my head*
> You are correct and all but I wonder, why do we need to tweak the MAF when going for bigger intakes? If we get more air than the MAF has registered, surely the lambda feedback will call it and the ECU adjusts accordingly?


Yes it would correct, but depending on the difference in the MAF tube size the fuel trims could be quite large. Things work best when the fuel trims are near to neutral. There is another problem - the engine load would under-read making the ignition calculations incorrect. The knock control would attempt to catch it (in the knock limited areas, and in the non-knock limited areas you'd go beyond MBT) but again it isn't ideal as you want to minimise the amount of knock control required and just save it as a safety mechanism, taking out the odd bit here and there.


----------



## NITO (Nov 19, 2003)

Vanos,

I don't know about the GTR but most cars used to only run closed loop O2 feedback at low revs/light throttle openings mainly for good emission control. Narrow band O2 sensors wouldn't have enough range to properly control fuelling anyway from a performance aspect.

Most cars revert to open loop which is using the MAF or MAP sensor to determine what value from the ECU look up table to apply in order to provide the relevant fuelling.

If say for example a stock gtr maf was 60mm (I'm guessing here) a 76mm Maf would be 26% larger, therefore you'd end up under fuelling as the air flow meter is not calibrated to the larger intake and hence underfuelling by a similar degree so the airflow going through the sensor at 5v at say max power would now be around 3.7v or something and be providing the fuel that the lookup calibration tables would be dictating at 3.7v which would have been at a significantly lower power level than the fuel it would be providing at 5v.

The MAF sensor plays an important role in determining the vehicle load, which is used for fuelling and ignition timing and therefore an unscaled MAF will knock all of these out.

With aftermarket ECU's and wideband Lambda sensors I guess the game is changed slightly, I don't know if the GTR is wideband nowadays, I guess it probably is and I can't comment on how it runs as I have no expeience with the R35 ecu, others here will be able to give you more details.


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

Litchfield said:


> To add my 2 pence, we use both methods in our tunes. Our initial R&D and map development is done on the dyno (including Charlie's excellent RR :thumbsup: ) and then fine tuning is done on the road. We also use private test centres. This week I'm off to MIRA to tune some GTR engines
> 
> Iain


It certainly shows after looking the other day at the calibrations you have done at SRR. 

:thumbsup:


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

thistle said:


> That should be effective, fun and safe Iain. Enjoy.
> 
> Ryan, it is all practicality and compromise. Since I am aiming for best safe acceleration, then let's measure acceleration. Your criticism of the method is simplistic, and overestimating the accuracy, precision, repeatability and validity of chassis dyno tuning. Funnily enough, I had a debate with an EFI "university" instructor before and they had a rather narrow perspective where they constantly bashed the chassis dyno tuning drum and clearly didn't debate like academics from a "university". It came across more as a method (staged dogmatically with circular arguments  ) without the usual debate a proper academic institution would encourage about evidence and the scientific method. Interestingly they wouldn't be allowed to call themselves a university in the UK because they are not approved by Royal Charter or the Privy Council and are actually a self appointed training company. If the standard of debate I witnessed from this instructor is anything to go by than thank goodness we have laws to protect academic integrity in this country.



Ive not had the joys of there courses but if its anything like you state above i cant see it being popular but the forum is a good place to bounce views and idea's. 

Im not sure you could ever win me over for the accuracy of the methods when it comes to setting the engine VE up on the road but fine tuning after its done is fine. Surely all the big power builds that yourself and ben do for SVM have gone on the Dyno for intial setup though? 

Have you seen on all the extra stuff ecutek have done for boost control with the turbine dynamics maps, PID Adjustment, up shift spike 3d map vs time as a few guys have e-mail me about it as they have had issues with Boost spike on gear changes with bigger turbos on the Cobb.


----------



## Ryan.g (Jul 27, 2007)

Anders_R35 said:


> Off topic slightly as I'm talking about my Scoob, but it spent many hours on the dyno followed by tweaking on the road for real world conditions to get it's 471bhp from 2 litres.
> 
> A few things I noticed as someone who took interest in the tuning:
> 
> ...


Good to hear. Im a business partner with Pat @ Syvecs and he baffles me daily with the way his mind works!


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Ryan.g said:


> Ive not had the joys of there courses but if its anything like you state above i cant see it being popular but the forum is a good place to bounce views and idea's.
> 
> Im not sure you could ever win me over for the accuracy of the methods when it comes to setting the engine VE up on the road but fine tuning after its done is fine. Surely all the big power builds that yourself and ben do for SVM have gone on the Dyno for intial setup though?
> 
> Have you seen on all the extra stuff ecutek have done for boost control with the turbine dynamics maps, PID Adjustment, up shift spike 3d map vs time as a few guys have e-mail me about it as they have had issues with Boost spike on gear changes with bigger turbos on the Cobb.


I don't do the tuning, but they use a mixture of dyno and tarmac.

Sounds like Ecutek are working around a flawed boost control system if they need all those compensations. I binned the factory system in August 2009 and designed a new setup to run the solenoid with my own logic, and I've had no issues with boost spikes reported during support of tuners running 8s and 9s, which run the same tunes as daily drivers with silky manners, using 4 or 5 bar MAP sensors running speed density. If there were issues, since it is my code rather than modifying factory code it is easy to rewrite. The stuff I'm not happy with is some of the changes on the 2011/12 cars since I don't have access to a suitable car to develop on, and a few trim niggles on injectors that empty the fuel tank in 5 minutes, but other than that I've scaled right back to focus on other things for the last six months. The tuners have appreciated the stability, some were struggling to keep up with all the updates in 2009/10, but our stuff has been pretty mature since then.


----------



## vanos (Mar 8, 2008)

thistle said:


> Yes it would correct, but depending on the difference in the MAF tube size the fuel trims could be quite large. Things work best when the fuel trims are near to neutral. There is another problem - the engine load would under-read making the ignition calculations incorrect. The knock control would attempt to catch it (in the knock limited areas, and in the non-knock limited areas you'd go beyond MBT) but again it isn't ideal as you want to minimise the amount of knock control required and just save it as a safety mechanism, taking out the odd bit here and there.


i totally forgot about ignition tables been accessed in the wrong load area...


----------



## vanos (Mar 8, 2008)

NITO said:


> Vanos,
> 
> I don't know about the GTR but most cars used to only run closed loop O2 feedback at low revs/light throttle openings mainly for good emission control. Narrow band O2 sensors wouldn't have enough range to properly control fuelling anyway from a performance aspect.
> 
> ...


yes i know about other cars but gtr has widebands and runs closed loop all the time, even under wot. so i thought the ecu would handle it but thistle clarified it now


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

It has saved a few engines too. A few times I've seen logs go to 160+% fuel trims when new fuel pumps have been fitted and one of them isn't installed correctly, or someone fits a massive intake and then boosts their car without tuning it. They used some fairly heroic injector times to try to keep up the fuelling and then went into limp. Someone else filled with E85 (untuned) and somehow it didn't blow up.

I wouldn't encourage either though :chairshot


----------



## vanos (Mar 8, 2008)

thistle said:


> It has saved a few engines too. A few times I've seen logs go to 160+% fuel trims when new fuel pumps have been fitted and one of them isn't installed correctly, or someone fits a massive intake and then boosts their car without tuning it. They used some fairly heroic injector times to try to keep up the fuelling and then went into limp. Someone else filled with E85 (untuned) and somehow it didn't blow up.
> 
> I wouldn't encourage either though :chairshot


lol that is heroic indeed.. 160%!!! i thought it could only adjust -+25% like old nissan ecu's...


----------



## johnhanton57 (May 2, 2009)

thistle said:


> It has saved a few engines too. A few times I've seen logs go to 160+% fuel trims when new fuel pumps have been fitted and one of them isn't installed correctly, or someone fits a massive intake and then boosts their car without tuning it. They used some fairly heroic injector times to try to keep up the fuelling and then went into limp. Someone else filled with E85 (untuned) and somehow it didn't blow up.
> 
> I wouldn't encourage either though :chairshot


Hands up on the fuel pumps was ME! Also had fualty injectors so this also caused small confusion but Ben and co was there at late oclock to save the day:thumbsup:


----------



## FearMatty (Nov 17, 2011)

there is no best, it all depends on how much money you want to spend and what you're willing to do with the car.


----------



## enshiu (Aug 20, 2010)

FearMatty said:


> there is no best, it all depends on how much money you want to spend and what you're willing to do with the car.


+1,000 :thumbsup: best answer to this topic.


----------

