Re: RE: RE: RE: Sport truck article

From: Shane Moseley (smoseley@datastar.net)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 23:38:28 EDT


Interesting point of view - typical of those who have experienced some
of the "tools" avail. for GM and Ford systems. Don't get me wrong - I'm
not trying to dis this point of view but rather hear pretty much the
exact same thing from one of my buddies at work. He is in the ricer
crowd - a former DSM street racer. His "tools" are more along the lines
of little hardware "boxes" that modify MAF (and other sensor) signals
claiming to allow "fully programmable fuel and spark curves". He too
believes that DC is far behind the curve as far as providing methods of
modifying the fuel and spark management systems. What really sends him
off thinking is when I ask him what "tools" are available to program
fuel and spark curves on say a Mercedes, or a BMW, or a late-model
Harley-Davidson EFI bike. He is also a major fan of MAF systems and
hates MAP systems as he believes they are so inferior when compared to
MAF. I then ask him to explain to me why all the high-end (both OEM and
aftermarket) systems are all MAP-based systems and then the followup
question is why all the low-end (Jap and cheap) systems are all MAF-based.

He really hates the fact that he cannot find the answer to those
questions...

Shane

Bernd D. Ratsch wrote:

>Have you looked at the latest GM and Ford (and Import) programming
>utilities lately (even covering the '03+ models)? Where can I download
>the programming utility for a Dodge? Where can I call to alter settings
>on my PCM with easily obtainable software (shareware in some cases)?
>
>FAST and Accel are way above what Superchips can do with their
>programmer...you of all people should know that. That's not a
>comparison.
>
>You're right, there's nothing wrong with SD...as long as you can tune it
>properly, but Mass Air is much easier to tune for the daily driver with
>bolt-ons (S/C, Injectors, Cam, Heads, Intake) than SD. Look at how many
>tuning problems you've had with your setup.
>
>Compare the tools available to the public (and not the $1000+
>programmable systems) and you'll find huge differences in between DC and
>the other Domestics. I guess DC/Dodge is too proud, or ignorant/blind,
>or they need to work with their vehicle owners (like GM and Ford do).
>Call up GM Motorsports (or FMS) and they'll talk your ears off...does
>Mopar Performance do that? Nope - 1/2 the time they tell you "you can't
>do that" and the other times they just read the catalogs over the phone.
>Don't get me wrong...I love my Mopars, but the end-user tools available
>aren't up to snuff with their competitions.
>
>- Bernd
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
>[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Bob Mankin
>Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1:48 AM
>To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
>Subject: DML: RE: RE: Sport truck article
>
>
>
>Where ya been, Bernd. Code was released last year. What do you think
>Superchips is using to develop their new Dodge tuner?
>
>Nothing wrong with speed density either. The popular FAST and Accel
>stand alone systems do just fine and both are speed density based for
>the Dodge.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:46:36 EST