[turbo_jimbo]

Sounds interesting, if I'm understanding correctly how it works. I guess I'm stuck with the concern that there needs to be some adaptive learning built in to the ECU. The VVE just seems to be more akin to a mashup of VE and SD with many more variables and preset acceptable ranges to attain whatever accuracy range it's trying to accommodate. I mean adaptive in respect to fuel quality, air density, MAT, IAT, and many more variables not unlikely to be seen in normal operation of a motor vehicle under highway use. So there may be some conditions that allow the engine to operate more freely within the expected normal of the parameters set.

I'm not saying there isn't hard information the ECU is depending on to ensure operation is how it's intended to be, I'm suggesting there should be a small window to allow for some alterations to be accommodated for within the flexible parameters. If not, reflash software is much cheaper and easier to comply with smog standards than a stand alone. Results are what matter most. Not my ideologies for what an ECU should do.

[turbo_jimbo]

In any case, this has been an fun and enlightening conversation.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by turbo_jimbo

In any case, this has been an fun and enlightening conversation.

I'm not contradicting anything you're say, really. I agree. But - it seems like there is a range where they will learn. I imagine that range is what you'd expect the difference in air conditions (density - temperature, humidity, etc.) from the top of the Rockies to Death Valley. I suspect if it's much outside of that spectrum, the calibration might need some massaging. I also know that we don't have access to all aspects of the ECM, so there seem to be times we have to work with what we have (or know how to use what we do have available to us) to model what we can. I wouldn't know if we have enough, as I'm really just learning and tinkering with a few cars.

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by radz28

I know this brand, LOL. However - I'll say, that because I over-ported an LT5 in the past, the tune was already modified with the torque modification you're talking about, so when we installed the "107", when we went through the relearn procedure, it was totally fine. I couldn't say if I didn't already deal with the over-ported LT5 that the 107 wouldn't have been as easy, but all I know is we have 10* at idle, and could command more if we wanted, and it's just fine. I read about some of the stuff I think you're talking about though. Oof. No problems for me though (not because I'm a good tooner or something - just ?probably? because of that LT5-experience).

That TB was worth it for that car's combination though. It lowered inlet vacuum 4-5 kPa at WOT, surprisingly. And that was coming from a less-over-ported LT5.

My brother put one on his C7Z coming from a Katech 103 and the timing went from 23 degrees at idle to negative timing. I said yank it off I am not tuning around that. Lol

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

My brother put one on his C7Z coming from a Katech 103 and the timing went from 23 degrees at idle to negative timing. I said yank it off I am not tuning around that. Lol

I bought one of those “107 effective” TBs as well back when I had a Katech 103 and the 112 was not quite available yet. Same thing happened to me, timing got worse at idle and had some really creepy drivability issues. I sent it back ASAP and got my money back.

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by Joshinator99

I bought one of those “107 effective” TBs as well back when I had a Katech 103 and the 112 was not quite available yet. Same thing happened to me, timing got worse at idle and had some really creepy drivability issues. I sent it back ASAP and got my money back.

Are you going to try the 120 next since your Whipple is ported?

[radz28]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

My brother put one on his C7Z coming from a Katech 103 and the timing went from 23 degrees at idle to negative timing. I said yank it off I am not tuning around that. Lol

Yeah - it wasn't a deal at all for me, but it seems like there's some sort of lack of consistency out there. Maybe it was because I already farted around with my 95.

Originally Posted by Joshinator99

I bought one of those “107 effective” TBs as well back when I had a Katech 103 and the 112 was not quite available yet. Same thing happened to me, timing got worse at idle and had some really creepy drivability issues. I sent it back ASAP and got my money back.

It sounds like I'm a lucky one, for now...

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

Are you going to try the 120 next since your Whipple is ported?

I'm running the 112 now and feel like it was a very minimal improvement over the 103 at this level, even with the 2.9 ported. I will be doing either a Whipple 3.0 or Maggie 2650 this winter and will look at doing a 120 then. But getting the 112 on my 2.9 was a enough of a pain in the butt already...the 112 is huge and pretty close to the upper pulley! No way a 120 is going on a 2.9 lol.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Joshinator99

I'm running the 112 now and feel like it was a very minimal improvement over the 103 at this level, even with the 2.9 ported. I will be doing either a Whipple 3.0 or Maggie 2650 this winter and will look at doing a 120 then. But getting the 112 on my 2.9 was a enough of a pain in the butt already...the 112 is huge and pretty close to the upper pulley! No way a 120 is going on a 2.9 lol.

JEEZ!!! I can't wait to see where you go! Nice!!!