Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]  All

Author Topic: ThunderMax With Autotune Versus SERT  (Read 2812 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SBB

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16404
  • Go fast or go home! EBCM member # 2.36 .01%
    • CVO2: 2011.5 SEUC
    • CVO3: 2012 SERG
Re: ThunderMax With Autotune Versus SERT
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2007, 06:55:43 AM »


I'm impressed!

Rhino threw down on the PC.

GRC ( Jerry) clarified the operation of the PC.

Rhino didn't argue.

As someone that has been here for a while, I can say GRC is the man!

Thanks Jerry for your impute!

S
  /
    B
Logged

2012      SERG  "Nu Blue"
2018      Goldwing   
2003      HD Electra Glide Classic Silver and Black, of course!                
2 2012   Suzuki Burgmans
2018      Shelby GT350, 963 crank hp, 825 rear wheel hp

rednectum

  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 834
Re: ThunderMax With Autotune Versus SERT
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2007, 07:14:17 AM »

Rhino,

The PC is an add-on tuning device as you noted, as opposed to a total ECM replacement.  However, it has been many, many years since it operated by "tricking" the ECM, or was "mostly a fuel adder".  Early EFI tuning devices basically took sensor readings and modified them to richen the mixture, for instance by making the ECM think the engine was running cooler than actual (back in the day, we used to just add a resister into the circuit from the coolant temp sensor to the ECM on our cars to richen the mixture across the board). That is not how the PCIII works; it takes the output signal from the ECM and modifies it based on rpm and throttle positions in a look-up table (map).  The current technology allows for reducing fuel as well as adding fuel, changing the fuel settings for starting, an accelerator pump feature, resetting the rev limiter, advancing or retarding ignition timing, etc. 

Since all the alternatives work best with individual dyno tuning, as opposed to one size fits all "canned" maps, the PC remains the most cost effective of the three tuning devices mentioned.  It has the lowest initial cost, and generally requires much less time to tune than a SERT or T-Max.  It also has by far the largest base of qualified tuners.  The SERT and T-Max are more sophisticated and can ultimately control more parameters, but for most folks the PC is more than sufficient.

Jerry

allow me to add this concerning the pc3usb: when in advanced mode, you can tune front/rear independently both fuel and timing!
Logged

miker

  • 5k CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8710

    • CVO1: 2009FLHTCUSE4
Re: ThunderMax With Autotune Versus SERT
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2007, 07:31:53 AM »

Excellent thread lads, thanks for the edu.
I have dyno tuned sert but not futzed with it since it was tuned.



Miker
Logged

Rhino

  • Guest
Re: ThunderMax With Autotune Versus SERT
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2007, 10:35:30 AM »

Hey I am not surrendering, but GRC explained it very well, and he explained clearly and presented good options. Personal preferences, ease of this and that. Expenditure, expected results, etc. therefore I remain biased, but I do like seeing a good thought-out comparison once in a while too ya know.

Rhino(pssstchoosetmax)


I'm impressed!

Rhino threw down on the PC.

GRC ( Jerry) clarified the operation of the PC.

Rhino didn't argue.

As someone that has been here for a while, I can say GRC is the man!

Thanks Jerry for your impute!

S
  /
    B
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.133 seconds with 21 queries.