lemonorlime

According to their website, no

catdog2

M-engineering were very nice to me and kindly accepted return after exhausting avenues to resolve issues with different files to remedy issue. Next step without have been for me to start changing disk plugs and coils etc, which I didn't think I had to do on a 2-year old car with less than 5k miles which ran flawlessly on stock tune.

lemonorlime

In all fairness I didn't request them for a refund. They have been helpful enough during the past 18 months in analyzing logs and sending me updated maps that I felt they went beyond what they sold me. I'd still recommend M-Engineering, but preferably to someone who can physically visit them or one of their US partners. Unfortunately I'm halfway across the world where they don't have any partners to help me diagnose more closely.

911Gr8tness

I was just about to give up on this tune given the stutter/stumbling that would not go away despite 10-15 revisions over the last year and a half. Some were better than others but I’d periodically experience a power cut / stuttering when going hard above 5-6k Rpms.

I started researching cobb/APR as alternatives because a tune is so much more fun than without, even upto 5k rpms with all that extra torque on tap.

I figured I’d try the GTS map which is more tame than the stage 2 I’d been running, yet even that produced a bad stutter on full throttle over 5k RPMs. That was a surprise.

Credit to Scott who made a number of revisions and sent me map v310. For the 1st time, this tune it runs like it should. I’m waiting to hear back on what the the logs say and what specific changes finally eliminated the issue but am appreciative of the team continuing to work on it. This car is fast!

Hope a few others who have had similar issues get similar fixes on theirs.

Purekoryo

Would be great if @M Engineering can chime in on what resolved the issue so we can put this to bed and gain the confidence of prospective buyers.

Purekoryo

Also for those with hesitation issues, can you provide year of your car, mods, etc. to see if there are any patterns? Seems like a lot of folks are running fine and some are not.

lemonorlime

MY21 992S, no mods. Occasional stutter at low RPM (800-1200), unable to reproduce faithfully, comes and goes at random.

991.1 Guy

I think it depends if you are actually going full throttle to redline. Many people never do that so the tune is fine at rpm and partial throttle settings under 5k.

22992

It’s been a while since I’ve checked this thread, anyone know if M has figured out the transmission slipping/error for excessive torque? Or is the PDK tune required to deal with the errors and slipping?

911Gr8tness

That's one way to reduce occurrence, but I expect those who tune don't drive this way.

M Engineering

In regards to the trans light, this is popping up from a torque comparison against a model and not actually a power issue. If you are having that issue, shoot us an email to info@m-engineering.us and we can send you an update.

If you are actually experiencing real trans slip due to higher power numbers (this usually doesn't appear until big turbo upgrades after doing Stage 4), a PDK2 tune is required. The PDK2 tune increases clutch clamping forces and line pressures to avoid this and allows for bigger power with supporting mods.

This specific car had a unique ROM ID / Box Code / CALID with a specific torque limiter that is not normally used in other ROMs. An update to that ROM has been made that eliminates that issue.

-Charles@M

Scott P

You guys at M-Engineering are on this stuff like white on rice. Kudos to you all.

911Gr8tness

Charles, @M Engineering ,
Mitch highlighted the ROM version on my car back in May, 2023. At the time he said "the Bosch ecu in you car and in the Porsche's all use pretty similar control strategies for common things, ignition timing, lambda control, boost control, torque control etc. Now out of all of these roms there have been 2 out of close to probably the 60 we have to support that have been outliers, unfortunately yours is one. Using the same method of boost control that we use on hundreds of other cars, your car runs over the target load via the actual load and thus it hits these cylinder cuts to bring the load request down to more appropriate levels. This is unusual as we didn't change the way this gets done, nor the way it gets reported. So we have had to dig in to try and figure out what the deal was, hence the revisions. We were trying to get the car to accept and change the load reporting while keeping it safe and making power. We don't want to just move things out of the way, we want to use the factory methods to keep safeties in place as they are important."

What has been done differently to hit the desired boost/torque targets as expected? Were the factory safety measures mentioned above moved out of the way?

Purekoryo

I wonder if folks are getting the same fault with other tunes.

M Engineering

When we create calibrations, safety comes first, and power comes after. There are plenty of aftermarket tunes out there, even some well known ones, that use generic "server files" that they get from European server farms. Sometimes, not always, these server farm tunes can have knock safeties turned down or off, lambda targets wonky lean to make power, or simply just try and jam lots of boost in there without managing torque properly. They do this because they may not understand the strategy, or take the correct time to do it right. These cars and ECU's do not behave like a standalone ECU or older ECU type by VE tuning, there is a lot of torque modeling happening. There are hundreds, no, thousands of maps within the ROMs that Porsche has, and they all do a dance of referencing and jiving with eachother. We like to make sure that factory strategy is in place so that the cars drive well and as intended. It's pretty wild how many ROMs and operating systems Porsche has in place, and they all can behave differently or have maps in different locations.

-Charles@M