why are you trying to reinvent the wheel? lol. like my buddy said over on 8thcivic. don't group everyone together. there are people out there who know what they're just as much as there are those who don't.

i know you're trying to help people out with this software but it's not the end all to tuning and you know it. it'll work well with simple bolt-on setups and i don't mind street tuning one because i've done it countless times on the dyno and have a good set of basemaps to work off of. but it doesn't mean it's going to be perfect either.

and with forced induction setups, forget it. you're playing with fire. what if you're just spinning on the road? it'll throw off the datalog. you won't have 2 consistent pulls back to back on the street. ever. not to mention speeding down the road isn't safe and you're risking getting pulled over.

 

I think it's been acknowledged several times by myself and others in this thread that this is not the "end all to tuning", and isn't perfect. However, it is a great tool for people like myself with mild NA builds to do a great tune without a dyno.

 

I'm tired of people that dyno tune cars to make money trying to discredit these edynos. They output numbers that are pretty damn accurate and you are capable of tuning off the engine sensors. This isn't a razdyno deal. Well gernsby's kinda is, but vit's is not.

The ecu trusts the sensors, that's good enough for me.

I don't need a $1300 wideband to tune i/h/e Why is this so hard to comprehend. Dyno tunes are not a need. They are a want. But tuning your vehicle is a need, and this gives you some tools to actually check if you gained some power from what you have done.

and gernsby, it's repeatable, but not to the extent that a dyno is. It's a mixed bag of results even on the same road. I'm sorry but it is. I don't feel that it's accurate enough to get perfect or even within 1-2 degrees of perfect ignition timing.

 

LOL. it’s not to make more money. dyno rental costs money hence bringing up the cost of the tune but it’s a tool that’s needed. if you’re going to be relying on the oem knock sensor and the oem wideband to dial in these tables to the tee you’re doing it wrong. those sensors will only tell you so much.

what happens if you’re tuning a high hp turbo setup on pump gas and the gap between the knock level and the knock threshold starts to rapidly diminish as you increase the boost? are you still going to be relying on the knock sensor to pick up knock? you’ll get to a point where you may be a hair away from making peak hp before getting it to knock on pump gas and you’re going to rely on the oem knock sensor 100%? why not read the plugs? oh wait you’re hundreds of miles away and so you can’t.

 

A post was created a few minutes ago, but was quickly deleted. Here is my response to the questions raised in that post.

First off, this is NOT my first software dyno, and is absolutely not a copy of anyone else's ideas. Whatever technical similarities my software dyno has to any other is absolutely coincidental. You can read a bit about my first software dyno from 2006 here. I didn't develop it as far as this one, but the primary approach is the same.

IMHO, the "pros" for my software dyno compared to the Infamous eDyno are (based on the last time I used it):
1) It's not web based, so you don't need internet connectivity to use it (ie. on the side of the road).
2) It's simple, and allows the user to manipulate whatever they want in order to make whatever comparisons they want. For example, if you want to raise or lower the red line to see where the shape differs from another plot, just move the slider bar. There are several slider bars that you can use to manipulate the graphs for better comparisons.
3) You can compare 3 graphs.
4) It calculates suggested fuel corrections
5) It shows the MAP curve, which helps identify clogged air filters, and helps compare different intakes.
6) Using IAT and MAP for SAE correction helps eliminate heat soak and incorrect barometer readings as an issue during tuning. Using MAP also eliminates the need for altitude in the SAE calculation. If you want to manually enter those values instead of using the IAT and MAP (ie. for comparing 2 different intakes), then you can manually enter them.
7) It plots the fuel curve next to the torque curve, which I believe helps find optimal ignition timing. If the cuves don't follow each other, try playing with timing until they do.
8) It allows you to adjust for gearing changes (tire sizes, etc.).
9) The smoothing functionality is less confusing.

I see the pros for the Infamous eDyno to be:
1) It's very impressive as an app, which will give it more credibility
2) The graphs are beautiful
3) The smoothing algorithm is superior, if you can figure out how to control it.
4) The actual numbers are based on vehicle weight and gearing, which makes it somewhat usefull for comparing 2 different cars, and eliminates the need to keep contents and fuel levels constant between runs.


Side note: When I was researching the SAE calculations, it was clear that the goal for the corrections was to standardize the numbers so that 2 different vehicles tested on different days in different climates and altitudes could be compared with somewhat standardized results. However, that doesn't really matter as much for tuning. For tuning, you want to know the humidity, temp, and pressure of the air in the cylinders. The best you can do for that is IAT and MAP and an alternate source for humidity.

 

It sounds like you're getting this thread confused with another thread. This thread is NOT about eTuning. It's about having a software based dyno on your laptop while you tune it yourself on the street. If you want to check the plugs, check them! If you feel or hear knock, back off timing

 

BTW, here is the plot of Spectacle's very low sample rate KPro log with smoothing turned down to the lowest setting. I'd say he's making more than 150 ft-lbs, but less than 1,000 ft-lbs.

 

ROFL

 

I want the average of that curve

 

3