Drinaldis

My car ('03) came with a 93 Softronics tune which wouldn't work with the 91 craptane available in CA. Softronics told me to **** myself so I had the dealer flash back to stock. Later, I got an appropriate tune for my local.

Atrox

I thought even with 93 tune the engine will still adapt to 91 with flash program.

manimal

Wait, you have other cars?

FRUNKenstein

Very good to know. Thanks for sharing that info. Most stations around here sell ethanol gas, but my regular station has ethanol-free 91 octane. Good to know I don't need to worry about using only ethanol free 91 octane.

wross996tt

I will start by saying I actually don't know as I personally have no data, but there is a hypothesis that 91 octane (R+M/2) at high altitude is "better" than at low altitude. Air is thinner the higher above sea level you go. Less air going into the cylinders means less pressure at top dead center when things go bang. Cars may run just fine on lower-octane fuel when they're well above sea level.

champignon

I didn't say anything about the obligation of a tuner to support another buyer of the car after the original sale.

People have been posting in this thread, and Scott from Softronics also said, that a 996 TT running their tune on 91 octane gas risks damaging the engine.

My point is not that it is Softronics' or any other tuner's responsibility to give anything to the next buyers of a car that they tuned. It is however, in my opinion, their responsibility NOT to sell a product designed for and put into a consumer street automobile that can or will "damage" the car if operated by another owner using the best gas that they can buy where they operate the vehicle. 93 octane gas is not universally available in the USA, period. Many states and locations in the country do not have this grade of gasoline for sale.

So I do think it is their responsibility, those who would sell tunes for street automobiles, to design those tunes so that the cars won't be "damaged" when operated within normal and acceptable parameters that exist throughout the country, such as the absence of 93 octane fuel. So the tune should be able to either disable itself or ratchet itself back so that the engine is not "damaged" when operated by a normal individual on a normal road as above.

If what has been written in this thread about possible damage to the engine from operating on 91 octane gas, then there is liability on the part of the seller, that someone (not me) may test in court one of these days. I don't know how many of these tuned automobiles are out there with tunes like this, but there weren't really all that many IMS bearing destroyed cars, either, and Porsche took in the shorts , ultimately.

champignon

This contradicts what others have posted on this thread and what I was told by Scott from Softronics.

It is however, entirely logical, and would not surprise me in the least, otherwise the tuners are exposing themselves to real liability, and there are enough sharky lawyers out there available to test the theory if car engines start imploding.

champignon

1 week rental from Hertz :-)

dprantl

Sure, on a stock program from an auto manufacturer that has been tested to death, it's probably okay. On an aftermarket tune that is most probably geared towards more performance, maybe not so much. It could very well be perfectly safe though. Are you feeling lucky?

Dan

dprantl

I see, so you are suggesting that tuners not sell 93 octane-only tunes because in some parts of the country 93 octane gas is not available and a lower octane gas could damage the engine. Any tuner worth their salt will inform the car owner with what type of gas a specific tune can be used. A 93 octane-only tune will of course provide better performance and since that is the goal of the tuning purchase, many go with that option if they have 93 octane gas available to them. Why should it be the responsibility of the tuner to protect a potential future car owner from this, while automatically assuming they will not keep the car for long? Should tirerack stop selling max performance summer tires because they perform extremely poorly in snow which can cause a serious accident in some parts of the country for a future owner that lives in an area with such a climate?

You make it sound like this is some kind of permanent modification, but it only takes a 1 hour trip to the dealer and under $200 to revert the ECU to the stock program. It takes longer and costs much more to change tires. This is really not a big deal.

Dan

champignon

This is all well and good, assuming that the multiple prior owner of our 12+ year old cars were even aware of potentially "silent" mods made on their cars. Unlike, for example, exhaust and other physical mods, a software tune isn't necessarily obvious to a buyer, and likely would not show up on most or all PPIs.

In my particular case, as but an example, the person who had the tune done was 2 owners ago. He was responsible enough to notify the buyer, who was my seller, that the car had been tuned and even gave him a USB key with the tune and supposed original files on it, as well as the accompanying Durametric device. My seller was kind enough to transfer those materials to me, however he never did anything with them himself and clearly was unaware that the tune done was for 93 octane gas, and not for the 91 octane gas he was able to purchase in California. So he ran the car on CA 91 gas for 1.5 years not knowing there was any potential issue. The tune file on the USB key, according to Softronics, was renamed without "93" in the name to simply "tune" with the VIN # and no reference to the octane of the tune. And who knows who did that, or what else might have been done to the files on the key?

My seller was unbelievably straightforward and honest, and I have no doubt whatsoever that if he knew it was a 93 octane tune, he would have either flashed the car back to stock or would have gotten a new tune.

But the bottom line is this exposes the unfortunate under-belly of buying used cars, especially used performance cars. I'd imagine that a LOT of used Porsches and BMWs, just to name 2 brands, have tunes on them that their buyers are unaware of. Do you think this is a desirable situation? Is there no responsibility on the part of those doing tuning, or is this totally a free for all and f*ck whomever gets stuck with a hack job that damages their car, in a silent way, that would be very difficult for the buyer to even know was present when he bought the car, even after inspecting it?

Personally speaking, and I'm no fan of the government, it seems to me like all of this flaunts emissions rules and presents potential safety and other risks to buyers who are just trying to buy a used vehicle. I don't think it is right, even if people selling this stuff can get away with it. There ought to be some ethical guidelines that providers of these tunes follow, and that buyers of these services use before patronizing the providers of these services.

manimal

You must be trolling.

The irony of suggesting gov't intervention here, whilst being "no fan of the government" -- and simultaneously waxing poetic in every post you make about how much due diligence you did on your car, is too much.

Kevinmacd

I would not make the statement that tuners take into account car owners running outside the parameters of the octane tuned for. It all depends on how the tune reacts to the knock sensor input!

champignon

Fine, then since you think I am trolling, do not read my posts.

champignon

People should be able to do due diligence on this stuff when buying a used car. The fact that these cars, and other vintage performance cars, change hands frequently means that the trail gets cold and quickly.

It's one thing if someone is tuning a non-street legal race car, and quite another when dealing with a car registered to operate on public roadways, that will get resold to a member of the general public.

This tuning stuff is for 99.999% of the people reading this, just a bunch of Voodoo. How many people here really understand what these tuners do? Probably almost no one. The tune sold could do absolutely nothing whatsoever, and at least 25-50% of people buying them would think they car is now all revved up. That's the "power of suggestion."

I have no doubt that those posting about the risks of "detonation" are correct, assuming that this is actually at risk of happening with a given tune. But who can know what these people writing this code actually do? I sure don't.