just curious ---> what is AWE's thoughts on using TCDs and/or MBC with GIAC software...
01-11-2005, 02:00 PM
#93
Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 4,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Files are not interchangeable between with and without screen,
so if someone was swapping either the file or screen and not both at the same time, things get all screwed up, and we have endless warnings about that in the paperwork that comes with the update.
As far as the car being slower with the latest file, I have heard that from two or three people, but several dozen people have told us the opposite, and every car that we have dynoed and tested here with the latest file as an upgrade has posted gains.
There is just too many assumptions out there, which is somewhat our fault from having various software and hardware updates. I know that it can get confusing to the casual observer, but our focus is to improve our products, not correct our critics.
As far as the car being slower with the latest file, I have heard that from two or three people, but several dozen people have told us the opposite, and every car that we have dynoed and tested here with the latest file as an upgrade has posted gains.
There is just too many assumptions out there, which is somewhat our fault from having various software and hardware updates. I know that it can get confusing to the casual observer, but our focus is to improve our products, not correct our critics.
01-11-2005, 02:02 PM
#94
Elder Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 30,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone I am referring to swapped the software and screen.
There has not been one single person I've talked to that said the power has stayed the same or increased with the revision of software and addition of the screen. On the other hand, I've heard almost the exact same thing about power loss from at least 5 people.
01-11-2005, 02:04 PM
#95
Not your fault at all, how many complex products out there work perfectly on the first revision?
I applaud the fact that you guys have been making revisions to accommodate your customers!
01-11-2005, 02:07 PM
#97
Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 4,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a reduction in localized turbulence at the sensor is all I can guess.
It is getting a cleaner feed of air.
What is the point you are trying to make referring to g/s?
It is apparent to me that you have a need to criticize our MAF, despite very solid empirical proof that the step is not causing any issues.
What is the point you are trying to make referring to g/s?
It is apparent to me that you have a need to criticize our MAF, despite very solid empirical proof that the step is not causing any issues.
01-11-2005, 02:07 PM
#98
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand what you are saying to some degree, your MAF may not be "defective" [EDIT]
as a single part BUT when combined with the stock airbox I believe it's less than adequate, at least in my case. Pre flow straightner, just to clarify.
I just think a better solution could have simplified the entire evolution of this product.
I just think a better solution could have simplified the entire evolution of this product.
01-11-2005, 02:10 PM
#100
Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 4,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a bold statement, and I have to say I do not believe it.
We have seen too many cars before and after first hand, and not just from hearsay.
E-mail some names, please, and I will be inclined to believe such a statement.
We have tested the screen effects so many ways it is not funny, from logging, to pressure drops, to power tests, to acceleration tests.
E-mail some names, please, and I will be inclined to believe such a statement.
We have tested the screen effects so many ways it is not funny, from logging, to pressure drops, to power tests, to acceleration tests.