YOU'LL READY FOR THIS??????????
06-17-2013, 04:51 AM
#51
Senior Member
Your statement isn't incorrect, it's just out of place.
The reason you'ld want a standalone on these cars isn't to make more power. Well, it kind of is in the sense that you'll be making more power then 0, which is what you have when it blows up
The tune is the reason behind just about everyone of these things that has failed IMO. And I don't really blame the tuners, either. They do the best they can with what they have to work with,which isn't much. It's like asking somebody to assemble an F35 with a Vise Grips and a universal ratcheting screwdriver with magnetic interchangeable bits.
The reason you'ld want a standalone on these cars isn't to make more power. Well, it kind of is in the sense that you'll be making more power then 0, which is what you have when it blows up
The tune is the reason behind just about everyone of these things that has failed IMO. And I don't really blame the tuners, either. They do the best they can with what they have to work with,which isn't much. It's like asking somebody to assemble an F35 with a Vise Grips and a universal ratcheting screwdriver with magnetic interchangeable bits.
Groove's logic is essentially correct on paper (and practice sometimes) but you can make the right power with a carb and jets if you work at it. (or a hole, a combustible, and a flint.)
But the idea is control--the ability to make changes any time, anywhere. You get a faster ECU with a tuning facility in ENGLISH that has a HUMAN interface (not hex code), with more tuning capabilities, that can look at widebands, has almost infinite ability to tune (including auto-tune based on AFR's) and the logging capabilities are also exponentially better, not to mention not being crammed into an archaic bus like OBDII.
