Piggyback system_ not cr*pping a thread

[Mark@Abbey m/s]

Just a few pointers on what the Uprev can do , I dont like things being quoted when the quotes are wrong.

 

i suspect they run out of resolution as they are limited by the OEM ECU drivers

 

Nope you can stretch the map both ways RPM and base fuel schedule can be adjusted for more rpm and more fuel that is required for more BHP

 

We can run 700+ bhp on a single airflow meter car and 1200+ bhp on a twin airflow meter car after fitting a larger flowing( measuring air flow meter) using the stock ECU remapped with Uprev.

 

I have spoken about piggy back systems on 350 cars before and you can in my eyes run a piggyback system on a 350z system.

 

search is your friend.

[spursmaddave]

[GT4 Zed]

Mark, i hope you have not taken this out of context mate. I have never said anything bad about the Uprev and in fact have lauded its capabilities.

i even said i may have got it if i was arouns when i needed tuning which is why i went for UTEC.

 

But the argument is why should the impression in the forum be that there is no other way to tune cars apart from Uprev? I know you are a business man but for our benefit to enable choice we also need objective assssments from people like yourself.

 

You have said this before that you don't think piggyback works on the zed so how do you explain all the cars running on them and making reliable gains. i think you need to clarify this in the interest of objectivity.

 

There are many things you have said in the past eg about tests you have made about bolt-on mods gains which i have agreed upon and found similar results will testing with the UTEC and shared in the forum you can't say i am biased.

 

i will keep the same high esteem for you or abbey and will never hesitate to use your service or recommend it.

cheers

[Mark@Abbey m/s]

GT4 ,

 

that why I didnt cr*p your thread.

 

But you have said things in your post that makes it look like Uprev cant run big BHP.

 

All i can say is just look at the popularity of the UTEC/ e-manage/unichip etc in the states and how often they are used to make big FI power as opposed to reflash eg Uprev and Technosquare which are more popular in optimising bolt-on NA tunes. This is because i suspect they run out of resolution as they are limited by the OEM ECU drivers. The OEM ecu is very good but was not designed for high Hp applications

 

I think your find a lot of people have removed Utec and tuned with Uprev , but people quote this and that bhp but do we know if they drive nice , cold start well , give reliable BHP , people like to talk BIG BHP it makes them feel good, but a good tuner and ECU is more about driveability , cold starting/hot starting etc etc I feel than full throttle BHP.

 

I dont like to sound big headed and rude ( people have mentioned that to me ) but I have seen modern cars including 350Z with piggy back system and full throttle open loop it will work , but closed throttle closed loop it doesnt work.

 

You could run the UTEC in open loop by running with the front Lambda,s connected but then the car will requir e xtensive dyno time to make it drive real nice on part throttle.

 

Hope I havent upset you , we have some awesome stuff soming up soon for track 350Z,s keep an eye out for new posts on here.

 

Mark

[GT4 Zed]

No probs Mark In the heat of argument you write down things differently from your thoughts, i did not mean to say that but rather that piggyback can do a reliable job and have been doing so for ages.

Reflash is getting more and more popular and are an alternative. IMO i think that is the future of tuning.

 

However I don't understand what you mean exactly as you should be aware that the UTEC does not intefere with cold start ie open loop control and other functions eg TC, cruise control and lets the OEM ECU do its job but take over by it lets you control fuel and ignition timing, also because it has its own injector and coil drivers you have direct control as oposed to signal trickery employed by simpler piggy back systems like unichip.

 

In moddest NA tune the fuel control is by MAF Pull Up/Down. MAF signal are intercepted and added or subtracted up to 50% to the signal and ignition timing is referenced by RPM vs MAF and resolvable in 250rpm increments with 10+ load sites on the whole rev range from 500rpm making for very accurate control combined with injector scaling. There is also knock control features and retard capability safety.

 

So because the OEM ECU controls open loop fueling on start up there is no issues and on closed loop the UTEC goes about its business as above via maf and references from the OEM sensors.

 

There better close loop control as in FI applications there is the option to use speed density fuelling via MAP for high loads while lower loads are still covered by MAF.

 

other features include

- spare drivers to run water injection, meth, N20 etc.

- datalogging

- remote map switch

- adjust rev limit

- and upgrade the software when new upgrade are available

 

so i have no doubts that the UTEC is capable and i have not had any issues with it and my dynos support this.

Just like UPrev reflash is a very good option in your hands which was want i wanted to stress.

 

I would look out for your track upgrades and maybe paying a visit next year to get full bushes and bracing kit fitted and possibly a quaife LSD and 3.9 FD but will not order anything yet as i suspect you maybe offering a full one stop service on these .

thanks for you clarifications.

[Tricky-Ricky]

Interesting comments, ( i have commented on this in the "Dyno results chat thread ", but GT4 Zed, your perception of how the Utec works is fundamentally flawed (no offense) any piggyback device no matter how clever, usually falls down when trying to fudge the closed loop fueling (IE with lambda feedback control) and timing areas of the std ECU closed loop control, which is what Mark is saying.

 

Also cold start is very much a pre mapped temperature controlled area, and nothing to do with open loop.

 

And in the case of the 350 ECU because it has a lot of reference parameters, and can check just how much adjustment it has made in order to adjust fueling and timing, and should this fall outside set amount's, it will re adjust or throw a CEL, thats if my research and my understanding of Marks past comments are correct.

 

A lot of older and in particular turbo ECUs are a lot more friendly to being piggybacked, as they are either not so sophisticated, or in the case of turbo, spend far more time in open loop, and so are far more easily fooled, due to the open loop not relying on lambda feedback, so the ECU does not try to pull fueling etc back to the inbuilt preset maps.

 

The DE/HR ECU spends most of its time in closed loop (IE lambda feedback/control) and so makes tweaking the signals far harder, now you say ahh! but the Utec tweaks the signals after they leave the ECU, but due to the DE/HR ECUs degree of self monitoring, it will negate any outside adjustments made, or throw a CEL as i mentioned in the previous paragraph.

 

I have had a fair bit of experience with piggybacks, and i know how they accomplish the signal tweaks, and as i said in the other thread, unless the Utec is capable of also intercepting the lambda signal and fooling the ECU with a readjusted signal, it has no chance of making more than a very little change to the fueling or timing before the std ECU twig's something is no right.

 

I have yet to find a piggyback that can do this, but as i said it can be done with the right electricary