S4mig@PEB tuning

have 2 different pump gas files, 1 for 91 octane **** water with a lower peak torque (boost spike) and another for 93/94 octane pump gas with a higher peak torque (boost spike). Either way, I think 22 PSI at redline is too much with K04s.

If I was tuning the files, I would say 20 PSI flat across the board for 91 octane and 22 PSI spike gradually tapering to 20-21 PSI by redline on 93/94 octane.

S4mig@PEB tuning

I applaud the fact that the code was revised. My problem is with how you've treated people...

S4mig@PEB tuning

Maybe you should re-assess your own past actions instead of thinking anyone unhappy must be a troll.

S4mig@PEB tuning

And nobody can argue with the fact that AWE does not tune cars (write software). I'm not sure why people consider that to be offensive. Lots of shops out there don't write code.

Todd/A.W.E.

I suppose the MEs I have on staff working with CAD and CAM suites all day to design performance parts, as well as the CNC machines we have on site making performance parts, as well as the countless hours we spend on the street, track, and dyno testing these parts is all nullified by the fact that someone else does the actual software tuning used in conjunction with these parts.

Forget the fact too that we collect a lot of data used to create the software, and also prescribe the form that we want the software to take (as far as boost, ignition, fueling, and throttle profiles).

So writing code is all that makes a tuner?

Todd/A.W.E.

Or a larger set of VTG turbos to a 997TT?

Or a GT2871R to a 2.0T?

None of the hard parts and all their manufacturing processes count as tuning the cars?

Or is that something a monkey could do?

I am not discounting the exceptional talent of GIAC and what it takes to program. Hell, that is why I partnered up with Garrett in my own shop 13 years ago, before most of the current "tuners" even existed. The fact that I chose to keep using his programming skills instead of reinventing the wheel means that we should be relegated to reseller status?

And what about the "tuners" out there with bad code? Are they "bad" tuners, but still better than us?

Your view is very narrow.

S4mig@PEB tuning

I agree my view of a "tuner" is extremely narrow. If you're not tuning a car via software, you're really not tuning it IMO. Instead, you're making parts that can increase perforamnce with proper tuning. I give you guys credit for fabricating stuff in house, a lot more than most "tuners" (resellers!) do. Whatever. It's semantics really. I mostly just dislike when resellers portray themselves as tuners. It's total BS. Obviously, you guys aren't quite in that boat.

S4mig@PEB tuning

I also don't consider you simply a reseller. And I applaud you for not simply writing code that is total crap just to say you write code. And yes there are some crap tuners out there and they are no better than you in my book.

Todd/A.W.E.

All that takes is some money and time to burn.


No, we do not tune cars with software alone.

Nor do we write the software that works with the performance kits we make.

However, even the best software cannot emulate an perfectly installed GT series turbo on a 2.0T.

Nor can the best installed GT series turbo make a car more powerful with bad software.

Bad hardware means bad performance. Bad software means bad performance. Both are methods of tuning cars for more power.

You see, a "kit" takes "tuning" prowess from software *and* hardware components.



That is why the GIAC *and* AWE name are on our kits, but only the GIAC name is on the software we sell for otherwise stock cars.

S4mig@PEB tuning

pretty embarassing, IMO, and a clear sign that you're not doing the software and/or overly involved with the process

And let's not forget about all the AWE/GIAC issues that existed for *years* which is really what spurred the homebrew movement which seemed to teach you guys some things and advance your own stuff.