You keep saying this, or versions of this when you're promoting the Eurocharged product. I'm interested why they don't come on here as a sponsor and promote it themselves.

Could you be more specific please? Which ECU tunes are just rebranded from the same 'base' tune? Who is doing the 'base' tune?

I ask because Velocity & our partner Top Gear UK do all of our own file-writing in house. This is how we developed the map drivers for the exhaust valve changes, as well as a number of other tables which were not available using the Alientech hardware/software package we use.

When you make statements like this on behalf of Eurocharged, it certainly comes across like you're trying to trash everyone else, and I feel that I therefore need to defend our reputation and business practices.

 

I'm not promoting anything, just telling my amazing experience of a fantastic product Stu, don't take it personal. Don't hate, elevate .

Nobody else has been able to produce their gains, that's just a fact, if it offends you I am sorry but the facts are the facts, I will not shy away from them. If you one day are able to produce more gains than them I will do the same for your products!

Stop taking every post personal, this has nothing to do with your company, I am just providing valuable scientific data from my exact modding experience.

 

Hey Telum,

There was a drastic improvement in AFRs. Here are the other two AFR charts comparing RPI only, & final runsl



Stock vs. final AFRs

 

I'm not going to comment on the gains or anything, but there is no 'hate' here. However, you have posted ambiguous statements about 'off the shelf' and 'most of the other tuners out there' a few times. I think if you are going to make statements like that they should be pointed & not general. If you believe there are unscrupulous practices out there, please point them out. But if you make a general statement that seems to tar & feather everyone else with that brush, yes, I'm going to feel the need to point out that it is not applicable.

No harm done.

 

I postively encourage debate and dont see 007 Vantages comments as tarring everyone with the same brush. I think most people here are intelligent enough to not take comments at face value, expecially on an internet forum. This forum I hope does not exist for sponsors only to market their products. I like to hear what the world has to offer.

I spoke to my ECU tuner and showed him some of these results. He has risen to the challenge to do the best ECU tune aiming for similar results and which will require my car for a whole day. Will be interesting to see the results.

 

Yep, everyone should know to take what they read on the internet with a grain of salt.



I'm definitely looking forward to the next couple power mods to my car. I'm focusing on the catch can kit I'm putting together because I think it will sort out a lot of issues that I'm having. I *might* have a bad MAF to deal with, too, though. Once it's sorted out, I'm going to be looking into an X-pipe and tune. And I'm calling a shop today about porting my throttle body, just for ***** n' giggles.

Something everyone needs to keep in mind is that there isn't one right way to modify a car. And trying something new, like attacking the intake manifold with a hack saw and welder might be worthwhile, if not at least interesting.

 

"We've been offering the service because our customers want it. In theory, it should smooth out the airflow, but we haven't been able to show any noticeable difference on a flowbench."

 

Haha, copious amounts of salt recommended!

 

Having spent many hours studying the Aston Martin ECU, it is my opinion that there are only limited gains to be made on this naturally aspirated car with Ford's EEC6 ECU.
The base open loop fuel table runs a lambda of 0.72 at the upper end and there is certainly some horsepower to be gained by leaning that out.
Ford's algorithm for Spark advance runs the car off the borderline Knock table and it will advance Spark, within limits, to the knock limit. Unless you are willing to run racing fuel, advancing the timing in that table will not do anything.
You can certainly make the car feel faster by modifying the driver demand torque table but you are just changing the throttle mapping and not gaining power.
In my opinion that is really about it. If you want more power you need forced induction or seriously improved airflow into and out of the engine. Headers cats and exhaust are great. Intake wise, dual throttle bodies sound sexy but in my opinion it would be a programming nightmare. You would require independent torque based electronic throttle programming and Equizzer checks for each throttle body to be safe. It is not clear to me if such programming could be duplicated on the single ECU of the AMV8. You would likely have to run 2 ECUs or go to a completely aftermarket system.

 

Has Has anyone just thought about addressing the bottle neck inside the manifold not the inlet? Use velocity stacks VS the pipe method. Stuart thoughts?

Example


VS

 

$$$$$$$$$$$

 

You beat me to the punch...

The 80/20 rule always applies. There are some good, well proven routes to good gains on these cars that don't cost a ridiculous amount of money, and will give you some good weight reductions and sound benefits. Of course I would say that, I sell them, I'm not neutral... full disclosure.

However, think about the process of re-engineering the intake manifold. If you get it wrong, you just wrecked a several thousand dollar part. If you get it right and want to replicate it for other people use, then you're talking about a casting. That probably has at LEAST a 30-part payback on the tooling costs, if not 50....

 

I've always wondered, how do you prevent debris from entering the engine when you use trumpets like this?

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that could restrict airflow a bit while the engine is in use. What about then? Are there filters below the trumpets?