[California Saab Tuner]

I think in order for it to be slanderous I would need to have left out the "even if they tell the truth in every case" ...

I'm simply trying to be objective. Trusting someone because they have experience and factory backing is wise. But it is not the measure of the putative truth.

Suffice to say had I the money, they would be my tuner of choice. But that doesn't mean I believe they are incapable of mistakes. They can "tell the truth in every case" and still be wrong about what they believe the truth is, even with experience, and even with factory backing.

I'm not saying that they are wrong. They may very well be right.

The ENTIRE point of my message, was to bring forth evidence to support claims either way. Not to discredit any particular tuner and anything they've said.

Like I said, I may be rocking the boat a bit. But that's a far cry from slander.

Then again, Gallileo died for "rocking the boat". Maybe I should re-think my past-times.

Remember, I LIKE Hirsch, I just want something more scientific than "we say so". That's all.

Dubbya~

 

[philip hs]

Originally posted by Adrian W:
[qb]If the stock ECU learns down, maybe sometime someone could get Hirsch to give an explanation to why.  
[/qb][/b]

I think I did so multiple times - see the other thread. But I will repeat what I wrote for you once again:

In theory, Trionic will adapt to your driving style. So if you perform the famous adaptation run, it should adapt up. If you use better fuel, it should adapt up, too.

But the stock software was calibrated for the stock hardware. If you change the hardware without changing the software, calibration will be off, the engine´s sensors will read different values from what the ECU expects and therefore it will adapt down in most of the cases (to protect the engine). If the readings are too far off, the CEL will light.

Sounds convincing, doesn´t it?

Yours,

Philip

P.S. The first step in good (custom) chip tuning is calibrating the ECU to the modified hardware. This will already yield huge increases in power, without putting any additional strain on the hardware - in fact it will even reduce strain. From that point, you can start playing with ignition advance and boost control.

 

[California Saab Tuner]

Originally posted by philip hs:
[qb] QUOTE

Originally posted by Adrian W:
[qb]If the stock ECU learns down, maybe sometime someone could get Hirsch to give an explanation to why.  
[/qb][/b]

the engine´s sensors will read different values from what the ECU expects and therefore it will adapt down in most of the cases (to protect the engine)[/qb][/b][/quote]Now that sounds more like what I wanted to hear. But then it begs the question, why not in all cases?

In some it clearly adapts up. There must be some difference involved. And why doesn't T5 adapt down? Or does it? ERP ran for quite some time on the stock software, and while his modified software gave more power still, he certainly didn't lose power on the stock software. T5 also adapts.

Is there a concrete and qualitative difference between T5 and T7 adaptation which Hirsch quoted? Could the reason the same reason that some adapt up, and some down. Some perhaps not at all?

And Phillip I certainly understood what you said. It was quite well written.

But it does leave serious gaps. Adaptation is not unique to trionic 7. Sometimes it adapts up. The explanation isn't quite complete.

Given the exorbatant cost of a software upgrade, it would certainly be nice to know which hardware modifications T7 will tolerate, which it will like, and which will harm it. Suffice to say it's impossible for every hardware mod to hurt it. Otherwise it would adapt down every time variables changed due to wear, engine age, climate etc ... and this does not happen.

I can see T7 adapting down to stock despite hardware modifications. That would make sense. But your dyno charts indicate adapting down below stock. (Or did I miss something?)

Perhaps we can find out where the boundary lies, and be careful not to cross it. It'd certainly be nice to know, and I believe it was the intent of this thread to find out. (Though at least partly my fault for getting off topic. All apologies!)

Dubbya~ (Painfully earning the nickname, err ... again I mean.)

 

[burre]

I am not entirely sure on the reference, but I do know that the T7 cars will adapt to a manual boost control on the stock software. Everybody who has tried a mbc on a T7 reported that the T7 would notice the extra boost and then use the electronic throttle to control the amount of air going through the MAF and engine to match it's expected values. This is a well documented case of the T7 adapting down.

As for adapting up, most likely, when it does adapt up, it was probably from settings that it had adapted down to from bad gas and such.

So as far as I know, there is not much to be gained on a T7 Saab until the software is modified to fix this MAF value the Trionic looks for. I believe I saw this on Alldata. I'll do some further research and get back to this.

Oh, by the way, the T5 doesn't have the MAF and the torque control feature that I described on about the T7 in this post. That is why the T5 can respond quite well to a mbc and gain more power from other hardware mods that increase flow. The T5 is happy provided there is no detonation and the set boost/fuel cut level is not reached.

 

[Vigge]

When comparing the T5 and 7 we need to remember that the other (T5) is a speed density system and the other an airmass controlled one. The T7 will "boost" to target airmass asked by the ECU.
Airmass is cotrolled by throttle mainly and turbo control, which takes ower when throttle control can no longer do the job. So, no matter what you do the airmass cant be added with out touching the SW also. Well some benfit can be gained through un correct operation of the airmass control. On the other hand mods might as well have the opposite affect, when the system operation is no longer optimal, thinking from the ECU's side.
The speed density system on the other hand will boost to a set boost value asked by the ECU. It does not take very long to figure out what a better IC will do on a car like this one. Same boost lower intake temp = more airmass = more power.

 

[philip hs]

Great! I was preparing an answer for Adrian, but Vigge, you said it all. One might add that a Trionic 5 car has 3 maps, while Trionic 7 has over thousand. Trionic 5 does not take advantage of lower outside temperatures or higher air pressure, max boost (by SW) is always the same. T7 has different maps for all working conditions. That´s why a T7 car offers much more reliable (and smoother) power.

Yours,

Philip

 

[Vigge]

Dont forget the emission part. An airmass controlled car is much much more accurate when thinking about A/F control.

Edit,
and this applies only to closed loop conditions. MAF systems aren't reliable under heady change of conditons like gear change under WOT aso.
But T7 will use MAP and intake temp to takle these problems.

 

[California Saab Tuner]

Very good Vigge.

Interesting bit about the thousand maps as well.

Not all horsepower gains are due to airmass though. In a 3" exhaust, and in an intercooler, some amount of gains are had be reducing pumping losses.

There is also an argument for ignition timing. At roughly 15 psi and 9.3:1 compression, the B235R in particular is probably not running anywhere near M.B.T. on most grades of fuel.

It did not take me long to notice a significant increase in power during warm weather due to ignition advance when I increased my octane rating.

The same could easily happen if the volumetric efficiency were changed through proper exhaust scavenging. Several people who've had the opportunity to play with T7 noticed that a better intercooler actually reduced EGT as much as an exhaust.

Lower EGT means less exhaust is staying stuck in the cyllinder, which means cyllinder temps are lower, and the car may well run more ignition advance.

As I said before, I can certainly see the car learning down in some cases. I just see it learning up in others.

Now it would be pretty cool if we could figure out when it would learn up, and when down.

Or at least not be so pessimistic about it.

Some people may live in conditions (like So Cal in the summer) that are so harsh that the engine is nowhere near full stock potential. Hardware modifications like better intercooling might bring the car at least up to stock power on warmer days where it would not oridinarily get there.

Any extra

is good

...

Dubbya~

 

[Hanm]

Thank you all for your great posts on this topic!!

This weekend I checked how the adaptation has changed since I changed the intake pipe for a big one from Hirsch and the exhaust for a 3inch JT catback. I remember that before I installed the pipe the T7's additive adaptation of fuel injection was almost zero, just slightly positive, while the multiplicative adaptation was about 2%. The boost was adapted up by 1.5%. Now after about 1000 km's of driving with the big intake pipe, adaptation has changed a lot:
additive adaptation: slightly below zero instead of above, multiplicative adaptation has increased to more than 8% (

) while the boost is adapted down, by about 1.5%

..... The latter adaptation is also seen on the boostgauge and felt by a slightly reduced "kick in the back".... So it seems that the small mod I did forced T7 to adapt down unfortunately This week I will proceed by installing the Hirsch stainless steel exhaust, but I'm very reserved about continuing this proces of buying mods part by part.... Probably I should better save my money until I can buy the Hirsch intercooler, sports catalyst and stage three ECU all at once

 

[California Saab Tuner]

You should note also, that even if the boost adapts downward, the torque and power may remain the same. You might have just made the air more dense, and thus would not need as much pressure to reach the same mass of air per RPM.

Now I'm really wondering how Nick T got such nice numbers with the stock ECU. Hmmm ...

Dubbya~