Originally Posted by GMP - Matthew

TTDude and To whom else this may concern,

Because our dyno graph's hp and tq values don't cross at 5250rpms literally have nothing to do with the validity of the dyno results from this morning. The software that older dynos that were made ten years ago or older would always cross at 5250 and it had nothing to do with the car or the shops that owned these dynos and the fact that it was the software that they were running on and how they created the charts. The question of why 3sx's 4 year old machine doesn't make the values cross at 5250rpms should be directed to the manufacture of Superflow Dynos and their software engineers that they run on. I seriously just found out about 3sx yesterday, they had an appointment open for today, I called my client last night and we drove up there this morning. I'm not sure what else I can do at this point besides book a flight to every 6speedmembers city and flash their cars on the spot so they can try it for free right then and there.

If your seriously interested enough in ARP's software to doubt their claims and my independent results, how about you let me send you our laptop free of charge, you can try the software for 6 hours free of charge or pay $2500 for the software and try it risk free for 30days and you can do your own testing. I have several laptops standing by ready to be sent out so everyone can try it. At the end of the 30 day trial if you dont like it I will give you your money back or buy you software from any brand of your choice and credit you any difference in price.


I will continue to run whatever tests anyone wants me to but at the end of the day you need to get behind the wheel of an APR Flashed 997T to really feel the difference between theirs and everyone elses. We have even gone to great lengths to offer a special group rate price on the software as long as we can get 5 cars flashed. I already have one lined up so we actually only need 4 more.

This car we have lined up next week is running a speedART exhaust and runs primarily 93 octane. We will be putting this car on the dyno as well.

Anyone else that wishes to purchase the software for $2500 as part of the group rate I will also offer to credit you the difference up to $150 if you have your car dyno tested by your local dyno of your choice.

Just don't question the brand or my independent results until you've tried it and tested it yourself. There isn't a sponsor on this forum that has been in business longer than GMP so if you can trust anyone its us

Originally Posted by leousm

Oh and as another aside, I was part of the VW/Audi community for a number of years and APR always had a great reputation and was considered a high-end tuner. Although their products tended to be on the expensive side, the people that ran their products were always very satisfied. Unfortunately I went with GIAC for a tune prior to even knowing much about APR so I never had a chance to test their software.

I would like to tip my hat off to GMP though for the effort they're going through to provide the 6speed community with data and answer questions, even in the face of much skepticism. Keep at it guys, I love these threads filled with actual data and real world results.

Originally Posted by leousm

Just wanted to comment that 3SX Performance is a well respected vendor and tuner in the Mitsubishi 3000GT / Dodge Stealth community.

Throwing this out there in case anyone thought this was some sketchy shop they dyno'ed at

Originally Posted by TTdude

The problem so far is that for every question they attempt to answer several more are raised. How about just getting some performance times, like 60-130?

Originally Posted by TTdude

Please don't take it personally. When you post data that show obvious problems with it, do you really expect someone not to question it, especially on this forum? I was just questioning why the lines never cross in the right place in all the dyno's you post. Is it not calibrated correctly, operator error, etc... I'm sorry but if I was an owner of a dyno shop, I would not post anything that is incorrectly done. That's is just sloppy in my opinion.

Originally Posted by TTdude

Please don't take it personally. When you post data that show obvious problems with it, do you really expect someone not to question it, especially on this forum? I was just questioning why the lines never cross in the right place in all the dyno's you post. Is it not calibrated correctly, operator error, etc... I'm sorry but if I was an owner of a dyno shop, I would not post anything that is incorrectly done. That's is just sloppy in my opinion.

Originally Posted by GMP - Matthew

Originally Posted by bbywu

Matt, can you confirm that you are dyno'ing high 400s to 500whp with the stock ECU program and a Tubi exhaust?

bob

Originally Posted by GMP - Matthew

6speed 997T Owners,

speed21 questions:
9) You quote in your letter and website that you calibrate aproximately 250 maps per octane setting compared to an average of 6 to 25 different map changes amongst our competition so:

a) Why "approximately 250 maps"? Dont mean to offend but this does sound a bit made up and designed to confuse the unknowing masses (ie:marketing BS). If you calibrated each map surely you must have to record the specific number of maps and their individual calibration settings? And if not why not?

APR's Response
a. A typical APR motronic calibration is anywhere from 220-300 changes depending on car. I was merely generalizing in the same manner I generalized what our competition does.

Thats fine but we are only talking about your one and only motronic tune for the 997tt so surely you must be able to be state exactly how many maps you actually calibrated rather than revert to generalising?

b) How do you keep informed of what map numbers the other tuners are calibrating vs your own?

APR's Response
b. Like any software, once you have the source code, in this case the OEM code, you can look at whatever anyone else did to make different software for that same source code.


OK, as you say, the OEM code is the source code which all tuners base their tune/changes including yourselves. Thats obvious. Its unlikely any tuner is going to start a tune from a blank piece of paper when the OEM has already done all the r and d and provided the framework etc. Its whats done from the base OEM code/tune that really counts so how do you know what you have done is really any better than the next tuner given you have your methods and they have theirs.


I guess someone might say that's dishonest or whatever but it's a simple fact that every tuner looks at other tuner's code, pepsi would be stupid to not chemically analyze coke, it's the same situation. The difference is the lengths some tuners go to to protect their code. The more hoops you make someone else jump through, the more time consuming, so you hope they eventually give up. The dishonesty comes in if you copy what they do and use it as your own. APR does not copy other tuner's work.


As you say APR has done, i'm sure all the tuners have also looked at one anothers tunes including your own and if they havent they probably will now.

In your case, once you established what the other tuner/s have done then improving your own tune upon theirs is not taking advantage? So really, again there would be nothing stopping the other/next tuner/s doing the same thing with your own tune and making their tune better again? That of course is depending upon whether they see your changes as an improvement over their own or being worthy of spending the time. So where does it all stop? Its obviously an ever present situation and is again dependant upon the tuner deciding whether there is any real merit or advantage by spending the additional time you may have spent to make their changes and/or improvements. And, in this regard its a tough argument to say one is never going to be better than yours and vice versa.


We do look at what they've done in order to help some of our clients in technical support situations whereas they relay to us they think their tuner has made a mistake and want to know if our calibrations will fix their issues. More often than not, our reply is that "the changes your tuner has made wouldn't create the issues you are describing so we suggest you look for a hardware failure." It's the same reason Ford's R&D departments own Audi Rs4's and several other makes of vehicles. It's the same reason any OEM's different technology groups buy different cars of different makes to tear them apart and see what makes them tick. It's also why patents were invented. Those who do not patent their technologies are very naïve to think others won't prey upon their accomplishments. APR has been burned in this regard in the past and we vehemently hate that this is the way the world works, and we are aware that Tuner A will try to copy our code. If they get it, it's our fault for not protecting it with encryption or patents as unfortunately, a lot of people in this world are dishonest.


As above and, again, any tuner that has a had a look at what makes your tune tick is hardly likely to exactly replicate what you have done so to avoid legal entanglements so, would always add their own improvements as and when they see fit to do so (as you also would do) thus making things not identical as such. Ie: not worse...but always better in the eyes of the beholding tuner.


Did I mention we were the first company in the world to flash the 997T through the OBD2 port?


No, but is there a point you would like to make here? If so feel free to elaborate.

c) How do you know what other tuners are acheiving in their map calibration number rates to actually know how many they are calibrating vs your own methods?

APR's Response

c. The process is accomplished by an internal tool APR developed that we call Cal Compare. Cal Compare automatically takes 2 binaries and compares them at the most finite levels for changes and reports the changes in a summary once the process is complete. The Cal Compare tool was developed for use by our Engineering Teams to determine if a new ECU/DME part number or software version from the OEM is compatible with a calibration we've developed for a very similar ECU/DME part number or software version.


OK and as above again. Whilst you may have your own tool you may not be "unique" with having a tool as such as certain others would also undoubtedly be operating with something equally effective.


d) How do you know by using your claimed higher map numbers you are actually acheiving anything beyond those tuners that arent?

APR's Response

It's almost always related to drivability, reliability and fuel economy. Operating modes such as part throttle and cold start, etc. require completely different changes that are connected to the primary WOT load maps. To make power, you have to raise the requested load levels and many tuners stop at that. To make consistent power, you have to dial in other maps that take effect as say EGT's rise to a predetermined spec set by Porsche in the DME. There are multiple fueling surfaces for example that are active dependent upon knock and EGT's.


Accepted that is the objective of all tuners and granted...some just happen to do it all better than others. Some tunes have had complaints with smoothness, driveabilty etc...some havent. You cant claim to be the only tuner unique in being able to provide this. This is an area where user feedback is so important. I recall doing my own due diligence when selecting a tune and found some had received complaints, some had received nothing but praise and extreme satistafction. This is an area where APR has failed itself miserably. Zero user feedback virtually on a global scale and the only passionate user (Skandalis) is to the belief this very dat that all of his horsepower and torque is being generated from using only 1 bar of boost. How do you answer for that????

With such a monumental discrepancy and conflict between your own agent, yourselves, and your only point of user feedback (skandalis), this is hardly confidence inspiring. Placing dyno charts, performance times to one side you really need to clear this boost mystery up for your own sake. Its a major blight on APR's credibility and imo one of the key reasons behind the direction of this entire thread. Someone really needs to fess up on this max 1 bar boost fantasy.


Many tuners will merely calibrate the primary map and turn those other maps off.


Well you cant say that happens across the board surely. As you say there are a number of tuners out there and what may have applied when you looked at theirs last time may not necessarily be the case today. Most tuners are always seeking to improve. Thats evolution.

And unlike APR that is evidently spending the majority of its time and resorces on the huge Audi and Vw product line ups, many of the other tuners are purely "Porsche only tuners" and live and breath that product so it would be undoubtedly in their best interst to keep ahead of the game and, your 997tt tuning game i would imagine.



The ecu has the ability to extrapolate other operating modes from those WOT load maps through calculations and algorithms inherent to the ecu but if your change is outside of the range of those abilities to adapt, you need to change a lot more maps for those other operating modes. It's easy to ignore them or to merely set the operation modes very similar to that of WOT but you lose a lot of ecu's ability to adapt to different operating modes. Some tuners do it by changing the location of where maps are called upon. For example, some tuners will lock the ecu into only the use of a single timing map, when there may be 30+, by changing the identifier or pointer in the code of where the ecu should look for different timing maps in different locations to the one map they've calibrated. This means you are operating in the same timing range for all conditions as WOT which is very 1990's as far as ECU technology goes and it affects drivability, fuel economy and adaptation more than some people realize. It's just a less time consuming way of doing it than we or the OEM's do.


As above...

10) If you "know" you have the best tune out there then why is it that 2 years on you have failed to obtain a decent share of the 997tt tune market? And, what are your plans to correct that

APR's Response

10. Its lack of marketing commitment. We are a small to medium size business with several OEM commitments at this point and we are constantly developing new technologies. We often rely on our dealer network to spread the word and we simply aren't that strong in Porsche car speed shops at this time. It's my primary responsibility to determine our marketing direction and the lower hanging fruit have been through existing channels where our brand is considered the strongest and we are maximizing the investment in doing so. There will be a time when we go full force into the P car world and I'm sure we'll enjoy a bigger piece of the pie at that time. The P car world is also very saturated as far as the number of tuners is concerned and as you can see form this exercise, re-education of the marketplace is difficult. Look at Mac. Took them awhile for their products to catch on in the mainstream but they are now enjoying everything they brand becoming gold. We have that in the VW group of marques and we will add the same for Porsche in the future as I've said. We are learning the marketplace, getting our feet wet if you will and we'll devote more marketing effort to it in the future.

I wish you well but whilst your hands remain well and truly full with the VW and Audi products (which are evidently your main bread and butter ranges) it is undertstandable that is where your main focus will be. In the interim perhaps some consideration should be given toward at least competing with the immediate competition especially as your marketing resouces are stretched in addition to the fact you have not manged to really convince any p owner your tune is any better than the next and, may never be able to do so.


11) Why is your tune currently priced beyond all of the competition. (putting to one side the bells and whistles of the programme switching which most may not place any value on anyway).


APR's Response

11. Part of the difficult re-education process is helping people to understand the "bells and whistles" as our competition calls it (you must have been talking to EVOMS as that is one of their favorite lines regarding our products)

No, you are jumping shadows there. That saying is common in the motor trade.

are a display of advanced mastery over the Bosch Motronic EMS and have a significant value to those that travel, participate in HPDE's and like to perform some of their own maintenance or valet their car, would like to keep their OEM warranty or are concerned about vehicle theft. It's an all inclusive suite that may or may not be right for you. It's the responsibility again, of our dealer network to help their clients understand the value of our added features. I like that my car has them. So does my Mom.

Your bells and whistles feature is "unique". That you may certainly claim at this stage in the game. A nice feature, sure, but worthy of paying 500.00 for?....hmmm..i dont know. I wouldnt personally but thats me. On the other hand others may well do...each to their own.

Someone also mentioned about 997TT being ME7.8.1 and not 7.1.1 as I mentioned. As I stated, I wasn't going to bother the engineers for specifics and have some technical nomenclature incorrect. The reason I listed the 997T as 7.1.1 is because 7.1.1 was the first ecu on a can network as opposed to a k-line which began the new generation of ME7 ecu's on a can bus. ME9 is on a can bus. ME7 traditionally was k-line. Internally, we refer to everything ME7 on a can bus as ME7.1.1 in conversation so those like myself understand it's that flavor of EMS. 7.8.1 in the 997T marks the introduction of dual processors which is very similar to ME9 dual ECU's as found in the RS4, R8, etc. For us, its about flashing technologies and base level coding architecture and embedded systems levels changes. That's how we communicate internally.

No problem. Good to clear that up and, see below.

Regarding the part about me saying 997.2 was ME9, the production line at Porsche was switched to SIMOS very late in the production cycle and our information at the time it was relayed to me was that it was ME9. That changed and our Engineering Team didn't communicate that detail to me as I had no reason to know. Again, I mentioned that some of my technical nomenclature might be incorrect as I wasn't going to consume the time necessary to get a full report and update from the Engineering Team before I wrote my email.

No offense but in all honesty if it were me i would have got my facts well and truly in order first rather than shooting from the hip on a forum such as 6speed. That is fraught with danger.

Originally Posted by GMP - Matthew

Speed21

Keith emailed me again in response to the questions I could not answer. I will post these first and then the Dyno graph from this morning at the same time.

Needless to say our car made over 200 ft pounds of torque over the stock programming and 100+ horsepower.

This was all done in just third gear!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by leousm

Stock ECU file + Tubi exhaust + 100 octane as per his earlier post

I'm curious to see what the base hp is on 93 octane on the same 3SX dyno, hopefully Matt can get it for us on Monday

Originally Posted by Chris Green@USP

I think you've been misinformed here.. APR has a staff of engineers and tuners probably as big as all of those companies you just mentioned combined. Do a little research on them first.. http://www.goapr.com/company/ . The reason you may think this is because they are not very active in the Porsche community.. this is because most of their efforts and time is taken by the VW and Audi community, where they are the largest tuner in that industry.

Youve hit the nail right on the head with that statement Chris so let's put things into the correct perspecive here.

As big as APR are in comparison to the other porsche tuners the greater majority of APR's "larger" resources are flat strap frying Audi and VW fish.

So, taking that fact into consideration APR may not "in real time" be spending any where near the same amount of time as the smaller porsche tuners who do nothing but develop and live and breathe that product.

Again, Porsche owners dont care too much for the Audi and vw products....just Porsche.


Make no mistake though, their development team did not cut corners on this 997 tune. More on APR.. http://www.goapr.com/race/