stock ecu vs. s-squared tune
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,228
From: 631 Railroad Ave. Fairfield, CA
Car Info: A Laptop
Ok guys, let me clear some things up here.
Keegan came to my BBQ and road dyno day on April 24th and along with many other people, got their cars datalogged with deltadash and wideband and got a couple road dyno plots from the new proprietary road dyno software I developed with a friend. FYI: the software looks at the change in RPM over time and using configuration data such as gearing, tire size, vehicle weight, frontal area, and drag coefficient, it calculates the actual acceleration of the vehicle and from that derives the torque and hp curves. From much testing and comparisson, I found that when used on a very flat road (which are in abundance out in the fields of davis) and with consistant configuration data of course, the road dyno provides very consistant results that are generally within 2-3% of mustang dyno readings. I fully understand people's skepticism about road dyno numbers because they can obviously be "fudged" by changing the configuration data, using a road with a grade, or even with a little left foot braking during the pull. This is, however, no different from what can be done on an actual chassis dyno such as the mustang. Numbers can be inflated or deflated on just about any dyno by messing with the parameters, but most of us tend to trust that dyno operators have a little more moral sense than to do such a thing. If anyone is indeed skeptical of the graphs Keegan posted, I'd be happy to post screen shots of the entire road dyno software window that will show that all of the parameters were held constant throughout the testing. That being said, there was actually another car tuned by S^2 that made a couple pulls at the BBQ and was actually the highest HP car of the day... you can refer to the road dyno results thread here: https://www.i-club.com/forums/bay-area-15/eq-tuning-road-dyno-day-results-97077/. So I hope everyone can see that these road dynos were indeed conducted in a fair and honest manner.
Now on to the actual car/tune in question. After making the pull with Keegan, I reviewed the logs just as I did with everyone else and noticed a couple things that worried me. First of all, I noticed that Keegan's knock correction was going negative up top while the IAM was pegged at 16. I then decided to investigate a bit further by looking at the ECU's fine ignition learning table which stores fine timing adjustments that are made to a specific RPM/load range. I saw that the ECU had learned an alarming amount of negative correction in this table... as much as -9.5 degrees. The only way the ECU learns this type of negative correction is through feedback from the knock sensor, which means that the car had experienced some pretty severe knock since the tune. Looking at this data and also at the relatively low numbers from the road dyno plot, I suggested to Keegan that there may be a mechanical issue with his car and to have S^2 check it out. Note here that I never once blamed the tune. Instead I gave the tuner the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that a mechanical problem was causing the unusually high amount of knock. Also note that I didn't posted Keegan's dyno chart in the results thread as I thought it would be unfair to the tuner to post it assuming there was a mechanical issue.
After seeing this, Keegan took the car to S^2 to get it checked out as I suggested. From what I heard, Nate took the car for a drive with his laptop, came back and told Keegan that everything looked as it should be, and sent him home. After hearing this, I again tried to give the tuner the benefit of the doubt, thinking of possible reasons for the bahaviour of the car at the BBQ such as a bad tank of gas, heatsoak, etc. Which may explain why the problems I saw could have cleared up by the time he took it back to S^2. So Keegan and I went for another pull to confirm that the issues had cleared up, only to find that nothing had changed at all. Knock correction was still going negative up top, the fine learning table was still full of negative values as much as -9.5 degrees, while the IAM was still stuck at 16, and the car was still making the same, unusually low power. The only difference was that this time, we actually heard the car knock during the pull right around 4000RPM, felt the flat spot caused by the ECU pulling timing to stop the knock which is all evident from the log and the dip in power on the dyno plot. After trying to get S^2 to fix the issue and being sent on his way with claims that everything is fine, and finally seeing that nothing had changed at all, Keegan understandably started to get frustrated and decided to ask them to reflash his ECU back to stock and ask for a partial refund.
He recieved a partial refund of $200, and got his ECU flashed back to stock as requested. He then came back to do a couple more logs with me to make sure that the stock ECU wasn't showing any issues of possible mechanical problems. After a couple of pulls, I reviewed the logs which looked completely normal with very safe knock correction values, an IAM of 16 and no sign of knock. What was really surprising to both of us were the dyno plots from these pulls which showed almost identical curves and numbers as his tuned ECU, even though the stock ECU was running approximately 2.5psi less boost, much richer a/f ratios, and much safer considering there was no sign of knock. After seeing these results Keegan decided that this was something the general public should be aware of and decided to post the results and all of the data to support it. We both expected a lot of flaming, but Keegan chose to post the info despite that to try to benefit the community.
I hope this clears up some things and I'll try to answer any questions you guys may have.
Thanks
Keegan came to my BBQ and road dyno day on April 24th and along with many other people, got their cars datalogged with deltadash and wideband and got a couple road dyno plots from the new proprietary road dyno software I developed with a friend. FYI: the software looks at the change in RPM over time and using configuration data such as gearing, tire size, vehicle weight, frontal area, and drag coefficient, it calculates the actual acceleration of the vehicle and from that derives the torque and hp curves. From much testing and comparisson, I found that when used on a very flat road (which are in abundance out in the fields of davis) and with consistant configuration data of course, the road dyno provides very consistant results that are generally within 2-3% of mustang dyno readings. I fully understand people's skepticism about road dyno numbers because they can obviously be "fudged" by changing the configuration data, using a road with a grade, or even with a little left foot braking during the pull. This is, however, no different from what can be done on an actual chassis dyno such as the mustang. Numbers can be inflated or deflated on just about any dyno by messing with the parameters, but most of us tend to trust that dyno operators have a little more moral sense than to do such a thing. If anyone is indeed skeptical of the graphs Keegan posted, I'd be happy to post screen shots of the entire road dyno software window that will show that all of the parameters were held constant throughout the testing. That being said, there was actually another car tuned by S^2 that made a couple pulls at the BBQ and was actually the highest HP car of the day... you can refer to the road dyno results thread here: https://www.i-club.com/forums/bay-area-15/eq-tuning-road-dyno-day-results-97077/. So I hope everyone can see that these road dynos were indeed conducted in a fair and honest manner.
Now on to the actual car/tune in question. After making the pull with Keegan, I reviewed the logs just as I did with everyone else and noticed a couple things that worried me. First of all, I noticed that Keegan's knock correction was going negative up top while the IAM was pegged at 16. I then decided to investigate a bit further by looking at the ECU's fine ignition learning table which stores fine timing adjustments that are made to a specific RPM/load range. I saw that the ECU had learned an alarming amount of negative correction in this table... as much as -9.5 degrees. The only way the ECU learns this type of negative correction is through feedback from the knock sensor, which means that the car had experienced some pretty severe knock since the tune. Looking at this data and also at the relatively low numbers from the road dyno plot, I suggested to Keegan that there may be a mechanical issue with his car and to have S^2 check it out. Note here that I never once blamed the tune. Instead I gave the tuner the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that a mechanical problem was causing the unusually high amount of knock. Also note that I didn't posted Keegan's dyno chart in the results thread as I thought it would be unfair to the tuner to post it assuming there was a mechanical issue.
After seeing this, Keegan took the car to S^2 to get it checked out as I suggested. From what I heard, Nate took the car for a drive with his laptop, came back and told Keegan that everything looked as it should be, and sent him home. After hearing this, I again tried to give the tuner the benefit of the doubt, thinking of possible reasons for the bahaviour of the car at the BBQ such as a bad tank of gas, heatsoak, etc. Which may explain why the problems I saw could have cleared up by the time he took it back to S^2. So Keegan and I went for another pull to confirm that the issues had cleared up, only to find that nothing had changed at all. Knock correction was still going negative up top, the fine learning table was still full of negative values as much as -9.5 degrees, while the IAM was still stuck at 16, and the car was still making the same, unusually low power. The only difference was that this time, we actually heard the car knock during the pull right around 4000RPM, felt the flat spot caused by the ECU pulling timing to stop the knock which is all evident from the log and the dip in power on the dyno plot. After trying to get S^2 to fix the issue and being sent on his way with claims that everything is fine, and finally seeing that nothing had changed at all, Keegan understandably started to get frustrated and decided to ask them to reflash his ECU back to stock and ask for a partial refund.
He recieved a partial refund of $200, and got his ECU flashed back to stock as requested. He then came back to do a couple more logs with me to make sure that the stock ECU wasn't showing any issues of possible mechanical problems. After a couple of pulls, I reviewed the logs which looked completely normal with very safe knock correction values, an IAM of 16 and no sign of knock. What was really surprising to both of us were the dyno plots from these pulls which showed almost identical curves and numbers as his tuned ECU, even though the stock ECU was running approximately 2.5psi less boost, much richer a/f ratios, and much safer considering there was no sign of knock. After seeing these results Keegan decided that this was something the general public should be aware of and decided to post the results and all of the data to support it. We both expected a lot of flaming, but Keegan chose to post the info despite that to try to benefit the community.
I hope this clears up some things and I'll try to answer any questions you guys may have.
Thanks
Troll
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 895
From: Pimpin' tards
There has got to be more to this story than we are all being told.
If the car was experiencing serious knock there is no way the AM would have been pegged at 16. There must be something else electrical or mechanical going on with this car.
And when did 200whp become low on a car with a stock turbo/fuel system on a Mustang dyno?
If the car was experiencing serious knock there is no way the AM would have been pegged at 16. There must be something else electrical or mechanical going on with this car.
And when did 200whp become low on a car with a stock turbo/fuel system on a Mustang dyno?
Last edited by Ali G; May 3, 2005 at 01:39 PM.
MILF Hunter
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,242
From: Sacramento
Car Info: 2005 Legacy GT
hey SS guys.... I kept a good eye on this conversation and dispite some "bad press" here, I am still planning on getting tuned from you. This topic is all I really needed to understand how much you stand behind your services. And I also see you want what is best for your customers by givin dude a parcial refund and a flash back to stock. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about cars... or tuning and whatnot. But seeing how much support you have from your past customers and the loyalty both ways has futher made my decision concrete that I will being going to you guys.
Sorry if it went a little off topic. But someone said that it was something that the general public should know. I'm just giving my opinion because it is in the public forum. Seems to me, as a member of the general public here, that this was meant to slam SS and to future customers of SS to get scared and look else where. I for one am not being fooled into it.
Sorry if it went a little off topic. But someone said that it was something that the general public should know. I'm just giving my opinion because it is in the public forum. Seems to me, as a member of the general public here, that this was meant to slam SS and to future customers of SS to get scared and look else where. I for one am not being fooled into it.
Troll
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 895
From: Pimpin' tards
Originally Posted by code3conley
hey SS guys.... I kept a good eye on this conversation and dispite some "bad press" here, I am still planning on getting tuned from you. This topic is all I really needed to understand how much you stand behind your services. And I also see you want what is best for your customers by givin dude a parcial refund and a flash back to stock. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about cars... or tuning and whatnot. But seeing how much support you have from your past customers and the loyalty both ways has futher made my decision concrete that I will being going to you guys.
Sorry if it went a little off topic. But someone said that it was something that the general public should know. I'm just giving my opinion because it is in the public forum. Seems to me, as a member of the general public here, that this was meant to slam SS and to future customers of SS to get scared and look else where. I for one am not being fooled into it.
Sorry if it went a little off topic. But someone said that it was something that the general public should know. I'm just giving my opinion because it is in the public forum. Seems to me, as a member of the general public here, that this was meant to slam SS and to future customers of SS to get scared and look else where. I for one am not being fooled into it.
This entire thing appears to be a (perhaps not so) cafefully orchestrated ploy to suck customers away from a real shop and in to road dyno hell. I can not think of any other reason that the images/files were hosted where they were.
There is no doubt that SS will stand behind their work and their customers. My car spent countless hours on the dyno trying to resolve issues that later turned out to be a battery that was going south (with less than 12 months and 12K miles on it). My car went through hours of custom tuning and extra time that I was only charged for a fraction of.
My car is not even close to the normal situation and not once did Nate back down from the task. If there is an issue, they will make it right if they are given the chance to do so.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,447
From: Just when I find the key to success, someone goes and changes the locks.
Car Info: "Why Warthog sir?"
Originally Posted by Ali G
I think we have a winner - and I am not talking about candy...
This entire thing appears to be a (perhaps not so) cafefully orchestrated ploy to suck customers away from a real shop and in to road dyno hell. I can not think of any other reason that the images/files were hosted where they were.
There is no doubt that SS will stand behind their work and their customers. My car spent countless hours on the dyno trying to resolve issues that later turned out to be a battery that was going south (with less than 12 months and 12K miles on it). My car went through hours of custom tuning and extra time that I was only charged for a fraction of.
My car is not even close to the normal situation and not once did Nate back down from the task. If there is an issue, they will make it right if they are given the chance to do so.
This entire thing appears to be a (perhaps not so) cafefully orchestrated ploy to suck customers away from a real shop and in to road dyno hell. I can not think of any other reason that the images/files were hosted where they were.
There is no doubt that SS will stand behind their work and their customers. My car spent countless hours on the dyno trying to resolve issues that later turned out to be a battery that was going south (with less than 12 months and 12K miles on it). My car went through hours of custom tuning and extra time that I was only charged for a fraction of.
My car is not even close to the normal situation and not once did Nate back down from the task. If there is an issue, they will make it right if they are given the chance to do so.
*applauds*
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,228
From: 631 Railroad Ave. Fairfield, CA
Car Info: A Laptop
Originally Posted by Ali G
There has got to be more to this story than we are all being told.
If the car was experiencing serious knock there is no way the AM would have been pegged at 16. There must be something else electrical or mechanical going on with this car.
And when did 200whp become low on a car with a stock turbo/fuel system on a Mustang dyno?
If the car was experiencing serious knock there is no way the AM would have been pegged at 16. There must be something else electrical or mechanical going on with this car.
And when did 200whp become low on a car with a stock turbo/fuel system on a Mustang dyno?
My post describes everything exactly as it happened. I'm not sure what else you want from the story.
As far as the IAM, that all depends on the tune. Ecutek software allows the tuner to adjust parameters that define under which conditions the IAM is learned and a set of separate conditions for fine ingition learning. Its very possible that the car knocked outside of the defined range of IAM learning, causing it to stick at 16 while leaving it up to the fine learning to pull enough timing to stop the knock.
200whp is approximately what a Cobb stage 2 car puts down on a mustang dyno. Custom tunes with similar mods as Keegan's regularly put down over 210whp on mustangs as well as on my road dyno.
That being said, I really have no problem with a custom tuned car that puts down 10whp less than other similar cars. These cars certainly vary in power output and response to mods and tuning as we all have seen. The thing that worried me was the excessive amount of knock that this car had experienced and as I said before, it made me suspect that there was a mechanical or electrical problem outside of the tune. The main point that most of you guys seem to be missing here is that when Keegan took the car back to S^2 with this data of ridiculous amounts of negative ignition learning, they looked over the car and told him that there was no problem at all... mechanical, electrical, or tuning. And proceeded to send him home with his ECU in the same state. They never even made an attempt to diagnose a possible issue. Ignoring any power figures for those of you who are still skeptical about the dyno graphs, the simple fact that the ECU had pulled this much timing in response to knock should have allerted any good tuner to an issue either with the tune or with the car. The fact that S^2 chose to ignore this issue was what both Keegan and I were very surprised about.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,228
From: 631 Railroad Ave. Fairfield, CA
Car Info: A Laptop
Originally Posted by Ali G
I think we have a winner - and I am not talking about candy...
This entire thing appears to be a (perhaps not so) cafefully orchestrated ploy to suck customers away from a real shop and in to road dyno hell. I can not think of any other reason that the images/files were hosted where they were.
This entire thing appears to be a (perhaps not so) cafefully orchestrated ploy to suck customers away from a real shop and in to road dyno hell. I can not think of any other reason that the images/files were hosted where they were.
BTW, if you think road dyno and road tuning is such hell, I invite you to take a ride in any of the cars I've tuned or come by and check out how the road dyno software works and try to hold your judgement untill you see it first hand.
Thanks
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,228
From: 631 Railroad Ave. Fairfield, CA
Car Info: A Laptop
Originally Posted by nKoan
Ed, were there any tests done to make sure the knock sensor was working properly? Something does seem quite odd here about the car or perchance the tune.
As far as the knock sensor, I would think if that was the problem, it would act up with the stock ECU as well as with the tune. The fact that with the stock map there was no sign of knock at all and everything appeared compeltely normal, makes me think that the knock sensor is not the issue here.
Thanks
Troll
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 895
From: Pimpin' tards
Originally Posted by EQ Tuning
My post describes everything exactly as it happened. I'm not sure what else you want from the story.
As far as the IAM, that all depends on the tune. Ecutek software allows the tuner to adjust parameters that define under which conditions the IAM is learned and a set of separate conditions for fine ingition learning. Its very possible that the car knocked outside of the defined range of IAM learning, causing it to stick at 16 while leaving it up to the fine learning to pull enough timing to stop the knock.
200whp is approximately what a Cobb stage 2 car puts down on a mustang dyno. Custom tunes with similar mods as Keegan's regularly put down over 210whp on mustangs as well as on my road dyno.
That being said, I really have no problem with a custom tuned car that puts down 10whp less than other similar cars. These cars certainly vary in power output and response to mods and tuning as we all have seen. The thing that worried me was the excessive amount of knock that this car had experienced and as I said before, it made me suspect that there was a mechanical or electrical problem outside of the tune. The main point that most of you guys seem to be missing here is that when Keegan took the car back to S^2 with this data of ridiculous amounts of negative ignition learning, they looked over the car and told him that there was no problem at all... mechanical, electrical, or tuning. And proceeded to send him home with his ECU in the same state. They never even made an attempt to diagnose a possible issue. Ignoring any power figures for those of you who are still skeptical about the dyno graphs, the simple fact that the ECU had pulled this much timing in response to knock should have allerted any good tuner to an issue either with the tune or with the car. The fact that S^2 chose to ignore this issue was what both Keegan and I were very surprised about.
As far as the IAM, that all depends on the tune. Ecutek software allows the tuner to adjust parameters that define under which conditions the IAM is learned and a set of separate conditions for fine ingition learning. Its very possible that the car knocked outside of the defined range of IAM learning, causing it to stick at 16 while leaving it up to the fine learning to pull enough timing to stop the knock.
200whp is approximately what a Cobb stage 2 car puts down on a mustang dyno. Custom tunes with similar mods as Keegan's regularly put down over 210whp on mustangs as well as on my road dyno.
That being said, I really have no problem with a custom tuned car that puts down 10whp less than other similar cars. These cars certainly vary in power output and response to mods and tuning as we all have seen. The thing that worried me was the excessive amount of knock that this car had experienced and as I said before, it made me suspect that there was a mechanical or electrical problem outside of the tune. The main point that most of you guys seem to be missing here is that when Keegan took the car back to S^2 with this data of ridiculous amounts of negative ignition learning, they looked over the car and told him that there was no problem at all... mechanical, electrical, or tuning. And proceeded to send him home with his ECU in the same state. They never even made an attempt to diagnose a possible issue. Ignoring any power figures for those of you who are still skeptical about the dyno graphs, the simple fact that the ECU had pulled this much timing in response to knock should have allerted any good tuner to an issue either with the tune or with the car. The fact that S^2 chose to ignore this issue was what both Keegan and I were very surprised about.
Nate does not remove any safeguards with regards to the AM learning he has no interest in blowing up any cars since he has a business at stake here.
I could make any one of your tunes provide poor numbers with a little user tuning. Now I am not saying that you did this but you have to admit that any DD owner could make any tune look bad if they have access to the user tune functions.
Even you have to admit that something is up with the stock tune numbers if in fact they are accurate. There is no way the car should or would read that high if the ecu and all sensors had a stock calibration.
I do not know anything about your tuning abilities or lack there of but I would go to a brick and mortar shop that had a reputation long before I would go to a dorm room to have my car tuned. Do you have a business license and insurance to do business? Do you know that ECUTEK has strict controls on what their tuners must charge for the tune? Do you care that you have offered and/or tunes below this amount?
Troll
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 895
From: Pimpin' tards
Originally Posted by EQ Tuning
That's quite a conclusion to jump to here, Ali. The images/files were hosted on my website because I did Keegan a favor by putting them up there. I personally don't mind competition, and am on good terms with several other tuners in the area. Tuning is something I currently do on the side because I enjoy making cars run smoothly and quickly and because it comes naturally with my computer science background. I'm not looking to "suck customers away" from anyone as I'm currently not focussing all of my time on this bussines. In this case, I'm simply trying to help out a fellow subaru enthusiast and the subaru community as a whole.
BTW, if you think road dyno and road tuning is such hell, I invite you to take a ride in any of the cars I've tuned or come by and check out how the road dyno software works and try to hold your judgement untill you see it first hand.
Thanks
BTW, if you think road dyno and road tuning is such hell, I invite you to take a ride in any of the cars I've tuned or come by and check out how the road dyno software works and try to hold your judgement untill you see it first hand.
Thanks
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,228
From: 631 Railroad Ave. Fairfield, CA
Car Info: A Laptop
Originally Posted by Ali G
So did he call SS and make make an appointment or did he just swing by and expect them to drop everything? My guess based on past experience is that Nate offered to put a de-tuned safe map on the car until both parties could find the time to spend on the car. From what I have read this was refused by the customer and the shop did exactly what he asked of them.
Nate does not remove any safeguards with regards to the AM learning he has no interest in blowing up any cars since he has a business at stake here.
I could make any one of your tunes provide poor numbers with a little user tuning. Now I am not saying that you did this but you have to admit that any DD owner could make any tune look bad if they have access to the user tune functions.
Even you have to admit that something is up with the stock tune numbers if in fact they are accurate. There is no way the car should or would read that high if the ecu and all sensors had a stock calibration.
I do not know anything about your tuning abilities or lack there of but I would go to a brick and mortar shop that had a reputation long before I would go to a dorm room to have my car tuned. Do you have a business license and insurance to do business? Do you know that ECUTEK has strict controls on what their tuners must charge for the tune? Do you care that you have offered and/or tunes below this amount?
Nate does not remove any safeguards with regards to the AM learning he has no interest in blowing up any cars since he has a business at stake here.
I could make any one of your tunes provide poor numbers with a little user tuning. Now I am not saying that you did this but you have to admit that any DD owner could make any tune look bad if they have access to the user tune functions.
Even you have to admit that something is up with the stock tune numbers if in fact they are accurate. There is no way the car should or would read that high if the ecu and all sensors had a stock calibration.
I do not know anything about your tuning abilities or lack there of but I would go to a brick and mortar shop that had a reputation long before I would go to a dorm room to have my car tuned. Do you have a business license and insurance to do business? Do you know that ECUTEK has strict controls on what their tuners must charge for the tune? Do you care that you have offered and/or tunes below this amount?
I'm not sure if he called them or just went there. But the car was checked out by Nate who told keegan that everything looks fine and no offer to investigate further was made. Nate offered to tune it more conservatively when Keegan went back to S^2 the second time.
Agreed, any tune could be severely crippled with user tune functionality. This is why I don't include that functionality in my own reflashes unless I'm confident that the customer understands enough to make safe modifications. I don't even know if Nate uses the user tunable maps as I never even checked on Keegan's car. I would never want to mess with another tuner's map especially in the case when I think there is a mechanical problem behind the issues. If you're suggesting that I messed with the tune, you better bring some real evidence to the table because that is a fairly serious accusation. And let me bring your attention again to the highest reading car from my BBQ that was also an S^2 tune... I could have just as easily messed with his ECU as well no?
The stock tune numbers are actually pretty much on par for a cars with similar modifications running the stock ECU (anywhere from 185-195whp is normal for a catless car).
The fact that you would choose a tuner simply because they have a physical shop is completely up to you and I have no problem with that. Like I said, this is something I do on the side because it has always been a big interest of mine and I enjoy giving people quality tunes and making their cars safe and fun to drive. I do have a business license and I'm well aware of Ecutek's pricing policy and abide by their rules. Their policy only applies to the sale of the original tune/license and I'm free to charge whatever I want for my time when re-tuning a car with a license already on it.
Warm Fuzzy Admin
iTrader: (45)
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,799
From: Sacramento, CA
Car Info: 97 LOB, 05 FXT, 03 Tundra
I want to interject here a little bit.
First, thank you to the people that know how much we care about customer service and making sure our customers are happy.
We are not contesting the issue that there was a problem with Keegan's car, or tune. It seems very likely that there's something affecting that car in a way we haven't seen on similar setups.
What we are lamenting is that we were not given a proper chance to resolve the issue. Now, it's a customer's perogative to take his money and business where he'd like, when he likes. Because we're a busy shop, doing repair work as well as tuning, there's not always time to squeeze everybody in when they drop by; that's why we have an appointment book. The first time Keegan dropped by, on a busy day; he told us he was concerned about the tune based on Ed's logs, Nate grabbed his laptop, hopped in the car and took it around the block a few times (we're in downtown Sac, there aren't a whole lot of road-dyno-suitable thoroughfares.) Nate did not at that time see the knock correction parameters being way out of wack; believe me, there's no way he'd dismiss what Ed logged as a minor issue, but he couldn't replicate it. We told Keegan at that point that it may have been bad gas, etc; since we couldn't duplicate what had been shown in only one log, we requested that he keep an eye on it, log it, do whatever, and if he noticed any problems, then please let us know so we could get him scheduled for a retune, on us, to fix any issues.
The next time we heard from Keegan was yesterday morning, when he once again dropped by, this time requesting a refund, after Ed had logged his car again and seen the issue. We offered at that point, having some free time, to retune the car, which Keegan was not interested in.
Again, I'm not posting to call anyone out, and I'm certainly not harboring any ill will towards Ed or Keegan. If Keegan felt he had "given us our chance" and we'd failed him, that's his right. Having the issue dragged out and knocked down, and Ed effectively questioning Nate's legitimacy as a tuner is what I, as an employee and a friend, and many of our happy customers, are objecting to.
I don't really want to see this thread dragged down into a worse spectacle than it already is.
We regret that Keegan was unhappy, we made attempts to make things right, and wish him well in the future. Ed, we appreciate that you're looking out for the community, and I'm sure the local Davis guys appreciate having a resource who can tune and log their cars. Please let me know if you have an issue with the shop, so that we can address it and move on.
First, thank you to the people that know how much we care about customer service and making sure our customers are happy.
We are not contesting the issue that there was a problem with Keegan's car, or tune. It seems very likely that there's something affecting that car in a way we haven't seen on similar setups.
What we are lamenting is that we were not given a proper chance to resolve the issue. Now, it's a customer's perogative to take his money and business where he'd like, when he likes. Because we're a busy shop, doing repair work as well as tuning, there's not always time to squeeze everybody in when they drop by; that's why we have an appointment book. The first time Keegan dropped by, on a busy day; he told us he was concerned about the tune based on Ed's logs, Nate grabbed his laptop, hopped in the car and took it around the block a few times (we're in downtown Sac, there aren't a whole lot of road-dyno-suitable thoroughfares.) Nate did not at that time see the knock correction parameters being way out of wack; believe me, there's no way he'd dismiss what Ed logged as a minor issue, but he couldn't replicate it. We told Keegan at that point that it may have been bad gas, etc; since we couldn't duplicate what had been shown in only one log, we requested that he keep an eye on it, log it, do whatever, and if he noticed any problems, then please let us know so we could get him scheduled for a retune, on us, to fix any issues.
The next time we heard from Keegan was yesterday morning, when he once again dropped by, this time requesting a refund, after Ed had logged his car again and seen the issue. We offered at that point, having some free time, to retune the car, which Keegan was not interested in.
Again, I'm not posting to call anyone out, and I'm certainly not harboring any ill will towards Ed or Keegan. If Keegan felt he had "given us our chance" and we'd failed him, that's his right. Having the issue dragged out and knocked down, and Ed effectively questioning Nate's legitimacy as a tuner is what I, as an employee and a friend, and many of our happy customers, are objecting to.
I don't really want to see this thread dragged down into a worse spectacle than it already is.
We regret that Keegan was unhappy, we made attempts to make things right, and wish him well in the future. Ed, we appreciate that you're looking out for the community, and I'm sure the local Davis guys appreciate having a resource who can tune and log their cars. Please let me know if you have an issue with the shop, so that we can address it and move on.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,228
From: 631 Railroad Ave. Fairfield, CA
Car Info: A Laptop
Originally Posted by Ali G
Simply getting involved in this is shady to begin with. Any involvement you have leads to thoughts and questions as to why you would do such a thing and generally makes you look bad. I do not trust you at all based on your involvement in this.
Thanks
Last edited by MethodBuilt; May 3, 2005 at 04:41 PM.
Troll
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 895
From: Pimpin' tards
Originally Posted by EQ Tuning
I'm not sure if he called them or just went there. But the car was checked out by Nate who told keegan that everything looks fine and no offer to investigate further was made. Nate offered to tune it more conservatively when Keegan went back to S^2 the second time.
Agreed, any tune could be severely crippled with user tune functionality. This is why I don't include that functionality in my own reflashes
unless I'm confident that the customer understands enough to make safe modifications.
I don't even know if Nate uses the user tunable maps as I never even checked on Keegan's car.
I would never want to mess with another tuner's map especially in the case when I think there is a mechanical problem behind the issues.
If you're suggesting that I messed with the tune, you better bring some real evidence to the table because that is a fairly serious accusation.
And let me bring your attention again to the highest reading car from my BBQ that was also an S^2 tune... I could have just as easily messed with his ECU as well no?
The stock tune numbers are actually pretty much on par for a cars with similar modifications running the stock ECU (anywhere from 185-195whp is normal for a catless car).
The fact that you would choose a tuner simply because they have a physical shop is completely up to you and I have no problem with that. Like I said, this is something I do on the side because it has always been a big interest of mine and I enjoy giving people quality tunes and making their cars safe and fun to drive. I do have a business license and I'm well aware of Ecutek's pricing policy and abide by their rules. Their policy only applies to the sale of the original tune/license and I'm free to charge whatever I want for my time when re-tuning a car with a license already on it.