Mighty Shilling

that's correct. no cats.

User 52121

Ding ding ding!

I tend to think of it like a curve. When people really get involved in the car, they start to learn about tuning, etc. and want to do it all themselves. They spend hours/years learning it and some even get good at it. Then they start to see how much of a PITA it can be and how much time they've invested and eventually fall over to the other side of the curve - they just want something that works.

I've tuned many cars over the years, in many different capacities - from basic stuff to writing software strategies for a manufactuer. In the end - I just want to drive my damn car. Let someone else work out all the headaches... it's NOT easy.

I've put a few more miles on my A-Tune the last 2 days... friggin' fantastic. Sooooo smooth. Honestly the car doesn't FEEL as fast as it used to because the power comes on so much smoother and in a much more linear fashion. Bumped up the boost to ~13psi or so (tune is good to 15psi on pump fuel) and the power and torque curves feel wide and flat, much less peaky than they used to be. Very, very nice. Feels like a factory tune - the car should have come this way from the get-go!

adwolfe12

Hey Omni,

You are an AutoX'er right? How do you think auto crossing is going to be with the A-tune?

racerxrick

I was thinking the same thing...I bet it will help him quite a bit! Smooth transition and linear power, should be a big improvement for him.

User 52121

First AX isn't for another month or so but it I suspect it should help out quite a bit! The real noticeable gains in performance are in lower RPM, lower boost situations. Where the car used to be flat until 3000rpm or so and then get a huge RUSH of power, the car now pulls cleanly from idle and builds smoothly. There's still the "whoosh" of power when boost comes up but it's not as abrupt.

Slower corners shouldn't be nearly as painful as they used to be waiting for power to come in.

67King

It will be the single biggest improvement you can make for spool. When I did mine on my old turbo Ford, I had a stupid-big cam that made it almost undrivable. The MAF made it quite drivable despite the super short 111 degree lobe separation angle. Probably went from 4,000 RPM to full boost to 3,000 RPM. MAF conversions had a very bad name in the Ford community for a while because vendors were selling junk conversions that didn't change the underlying strategy in the EEC (Ford's name for a DME), and Ford's were more succeptible to problems than 944's appear to be. When it was done the right way, it became the most popular mod out there.

No one who buys one from either Rogue or Vitesse will be disappointed.

User 52121

No MAF on my car. A-Tune uses the stock AFM That's where the "A" in "A-Tune" comes from I think: "AFM"

I absolutely don't doubt there are some performance benefits to the hardware change to MAF from AFM... but I'm willing to bet that most of the gains most people see when switching over to one of these "true MAF" setups come from the software, not the MAF sensor itself.

I'll consider stepping into the Rogue MAF setup if/when my AFM dies. For now my car is everything I want it to be, the A-Tune has already met my expectations.

pole position

True but he did not re write it.......someone else is/did......still.......he is the "Marketeer".

67King

The changes I describe were with no changes OTHER than the MAF. I eventually dialed in a little bit more by tweaking the A/F curve, but otherwise, it was the same calibration I had been running. The flapper door is a HUGE restriction. Shoot, I had been fine with 35# injectors, but ran out of fuel before 5,000 RPM (7,000 RPM engine) when I changed to the MAF.

Trust me, a good MAF is a HUGE benefit.

User 52121

Huh. Well I would certainly love to be proven wrong!

Maybe I can convince Rogue to send me a MAF setup and in exchange I'll pay for the dyno time and will run some A-B comparisons on my car - A-Tune w/AFM vs. M-Tune w/MAF... whaddya say, Rogue?

fast951

Thank you for sharing such valuable information with us. It's so nice to see someone who is so familiar with how things are done and who does what! As always, based on facts....
Apparently the different phases of a development life cycle remain unknown to many.

Unfortunately, in addition to many other duties, someone must be the "marketeer" as well.

reno808

I thought it was "TT" the originator

fast951

TT and I work together... Each has a role in the development life cycle..

That's no secret! This was even published in a a national magazine.. See Here.

For some reason a few are trying to derail this thread!

Sorry for the OT.

scarceller

I want to share some facts/findings from the 911 3.2L side of the house. I run a WBO2 setup that logs all the following signals:
AFR
RPM
AirFlow (signal from the air meter calibrated to l/sec for AFM and g/sec MAF)
CHT
MPH
Time (elapse time in milliseconds)

I also have re-written the code to support MAF and compared this tune to a very Well done tune for the AFM device. I then have 2nd gear WOT runs from both setups and the bottom line is the MAF device does no better 30-60MPH time on same stretch of road same given day. Both setups dialed in same AFR and ign timing. Also the AirFlow monitor shows the AFM is NOT a restriction in the 3.2L car. What is the restriction is the exhaust (SSIs 2in2out pipe) I clearly can see AirFlow drop off after 5800RPMs in both setups.

Now the MAF does have noticeably better throttle response and much better fueling control at PT Loads. Both setups have been dialed in for best torque across the board on a load dyno.

I'm sharing this for those speculating a AFM properly tuned is close to equal to a MAF properly tuned. My tests and runs seem to indicate this is true for the most part.

But please keep in mind that the factory AFM with factory maps can really be improved. I'm not saying don't use a MAF I for one like the MAF setup and most MAF systems that are properly done do offer better driveability and stability with environmental changes such as AirTemp and Altitude. Then the also better throttle response makes the MAF worth while. But in the end unless you seriously can alter how much air an engine ingests with any solution you really can't make any wild claims. You simply need more air entering the engine to make more HP and the MAF really does not help all that much here.

Even with turbo charged engines you really need a solution to alter the intake air equation to make big differences.

My suggestion to any testing is to monitor air flow into the engine along with all other parameters as this is yet another aspect to comparing 2 systems.

My approach for comparing is simple: pull 2nd gear WOT and look at times from 30mph to 60mph with no shift points on same stretch of road. You really have very little error with this type of test as driver ability does not really matter. If 1 tune/setup gets better time then you got your answer. In my repeated tests with both setups all runs are within 0.05seconds about 3.1seconds total time!

racerxrick

what a great thread!