PCIII or Harley Race Tuner??

[ToBeFrank]

to see just how close you got to the best available performance (smoothness, throttle response, fuel mileage, and power) by the SOP method.

Not glens, but I can speak to this. I have a mild 95, 10:1 build. I used the SERT with a TwinScan II+. The VE tables were tuned from the TwinScan data logs using my own software. After riding it a while with my SOP tune, including a 3000 mile Sturgis trip where I got 45mpg doing 80+ mph and 40mpg doing 90+ mph, I "had to know" and got a full dyno done. I was within 4/4 of the dyno tune, and I don't notice any difference when riding between the dyno tune and my tune. One disclaimer I should make is I did not SOP tune the timing. I was using the timing as supplied by the company that provided the parts for my build. The dyno tune included tuning of the timing.

Let's face it, the SOP is OK, and may get you 85-90%

In my case, I got to 96% of the dyno.

[apendejo]

 Now this is what I call a good thread, seriously!
AP

[crossbonz]

bob and glens,
thanks for all the info, it is very informative and interesting. i have been trying to decide which way to go as well, being locked in indecision, having found exactly some of the same "discussions" that have clouded my decision as you mention. it is the ability to discuss issues based on experience and knowledge without the hate and discern between members that make this site so valued. thanks guys, you're awesome!

johnny

[glens]

Preface:  This is not antagonist argument.  Just take it as if it were friendly discussion over a beer and some darts or something.

... the PC simply adds or subracts fuel from the VE tables, which is "Alpha-N-ly" (TP/RPM) just like the PC. Take a moment to look at your VE tables and imagine those values being modified by a PC. The speed-density (AFR table) still remains intact.

Well, yes and no.  What the PC, et al, does isn't completely the equivalent of native VE table modification.  At the particular combination of factors (from VE, PE,  AFR, etc. tables) in play when the PC fuel table adjustment is finalized, it could be a fair comparison to make, but there are other places in the AFR tables which (may) differ in AFR at that same location in the VE table.  At any such point, the comparison falls short (or tall).  Power enrichment, if in effect, will also be magnified (either direction) by whichever PC factor is in play.  Now, granted, I acknowledge that I'm getting closer to theoretical than may really be necessary here.

And I'm definitely not saying a good tune can't be achieved with a PC-*.  My main point is that even with both ways used to their best, the piggyback tune will only be an approximation of what can be done natively.  That's just the reality of it all.  Now it may well be the percentage difference has only a zero to the left of the decimal and zero or more zeros immediately to the right.  But the difference exists.

... you can end up with just as happy an engine with just as good a fuel mileage with the PCIII/PC-V as with SERT, etal. ... for mild builds (low compression <10.5:1) the PCIII will do just as good a job, with more mapping resolution. Compare the SERT, etal fuel mapping and you will see after 3000, the PCIII still is every 250rpms whereby the SERT, etal goes to every 500rpms. Granted the resolution with the SERT,etal in the lower rpms has more tune points, that is for emission compliance and virtually no advantage as to actual running and performance.

Oh, I hear what you're saying.  Don't get me wrong.  But, really?  I haven't looked at any of my datalogs lately, but I seem to recall that I spend a great deal of time at or below 20% throttle.  I sure don't mind having the resolution biased toward that area.  Were I (especially) roadracing, my preference that way might be different, I guess.

The PC-V has greater-sized tables than the PC-III, but I don't recall off hand just how the distribution changes.  I've seen different breakpoints in various SERT, etc. maps, too.

Let's make sure to include in our discussion the Delphi's closed-loop capabilities and what impact their sidelining might have for a typical rider if (s)he goes with a PC-*.  Sure, the engine may be happy with the PC on the day it leaves the dyno with its custom map, but what happens when you're away from home visiting a big city where they only sell oxygenated fuel and that's not what you tuned with?  Or maybe your fuel pressure regulator or one or both injectors decide to work a little differently for a while, or something like that.  With all the closed-loop goodies turned off because you've defeated the O2 sensors, you're leaving a lot of potential "happy engine" on the table.

Because I do this for a living ... I like to believe I have a good understanding ... and hopefully have become a bit more proficient than a 1 time, SOP tuner. You must admit it is a definite advantage to have a dyno to dynamically measure/quantify results from a given tuning effort. I strive for 100% efficiency every time and I believe my customers (some here) speak to my results.

Okay. 

Yes, I acknowledge the advantages of good test equipment.  Some of that other came over as if it had a defensive posture.  Were that the case, it needn't have been so.  I'd meant no negative connotation to my "tuner-for-hire" statement; whatsoever.  It was meant to be "someone who does it for a living".

[dyno accolades, &c.]

The above I feel, gives an experienced, qualified tuner a huge advantage over a bike owner/rider who has virtually no hands on technical experience with tuning systems nor a dyno to measure dynamic results to quantify changes made.

The SERT,etal are very complex by design and have so many traps to fall into for the inexperienced they can and often do, make a relatively simple tune requirement for a basically stock engine a real PITA....regardless of the stated capabilities and claims from sideline advocates and ads for these systems.

You know, I agree with all of that.  Since I'm new around here I guess there'd be no way you could know I know and believe it as well.  (I don't quite know how to take that last phrase, as to whether you'd consider(ed) me a "sideline advocate", and/or if it was meant to be an offensive remark.  Not that I'd cry about something like that, but you should know I'll generally meet that sort of stuff head-on.)

... I would like to extend an  offer for a free dyno session to see just how close you got to the best available performance ...  I will actually go one step further ... if you would be willing to honestly post the quantified results and findings.

That's a cool offer, to be sure.  I'd be honest about posting the results anyway.  I'll keep the offer in the back of my mind and discuss it further with you some time.

Again, hoping this will be taken in the spirit in which it was intended,
Bob Lobenberg

Ditto.

I feel that anybody with adequate care and understanding can achieve a much better tune, on average, going solo with a TTS kit than they can with a canned map for a Power Commander.  I agree that a professionally-tuned PC, especially on an open-loop-only EFI, can be quite good.  I don't know just how I'd classify the comparison if the PC were installed on a closed-loop EFI system.  My gut instinct is that over time, the home-brewed TTS tune would still be the better option.  Naturally, the king of the pile would be the professionally-tuned TTS closed-loop combination, but for most purposes, if enough care were taken, the home-brew might not be far enough behind to warrant the additional expense for most folks.

I look forward to further discussion with you, Bob.

[FLTRI]

The problem with the Internet is words cannot reflect actual feelings, consequently there are times when what people say can and do get misconstrued.
That said, all the theories and statements of possible deviations to what actually occurs mean very little if, in the end the rider is happy and experiences significant improvements in the performance of the bike as defined by throttle response, smoothness, power output, and fuel mileage.

I started to address your individual points however I'm going to sum up my points by saying: While it is the engineer's job to split hairs, it is the tuner's job to provide a vehicle that runs to it potential in any way that will produce best performance with the tools provided, and in the case of street riders: put smiles on faces.

I have had the pleasure, and sometimes, frustration of working with many engineers (racing and OEM) over the past 35 years and can certainly understand how their education leaves them rigid, without deviation and the ability to accept being very close is sometime just as good as being absolute.
Your statement illustrate my point: "Now it may well be the percentage difference has only a zero to the left of the decimal and zero or more zeros immediately to the right.  But the difference exists."

I do respect your tenacious and tedious accountability but it is the end result (performance) IMO, that makes the difference not how it was arrived at.

PS - I do agree the TTS is, in the end the best available tuning tool, just there seems to be very few qualified, experienced tuners who can use properly, or at least to its fullest potential. I also believe if a rider wants his bike to run well, find a good tuner and use the device he is most adept at rather than what someone advises is best.

I use them all to their potential and believe the Holy Grail has not been achieved which would be a TTS Mastertune that could be tuned on the fly (ala Power Commander), but also realize that can't happen with the current ECM as it does not allow changes while reading sensor outputs.

Personally I have met very few riders, tech forums aside, who are willing to dedicate the required hours of valuable riding time to learning a new software package and its inherent idiosyncrasies, as well as the time necessary to ride, record, and develop mapping for VE, warm-up enrichment, ignition timing, and etc, then repeat for a 2-4 iterations until they are, based on their SOP evaluation, satisfied with the results.

Most of the riders I have had contact with over the years want to get their bike running to its fullest potential and spend the least time to get there.
This has been my observations and I respect yours are different, and that's what makes our country so wonderful,
Bob Lobenberg

[glens]

The problem with the Internet is words cannot reflect actual feelings, consequently there are times when what people say can and do get misconstrued.

So true.

That said, all the theories and statements of possible deviations to what actually occurs mean very little if, in the end the rider is happy and experiences significant improvements in the performance of the bike as defined by throttle response, smoothness, power output, and fuel mileage.

Agreed.

I started to address your individual points however I'm going to sum up my points by saying: While it is the engineer's job to split hairs, it is the tuner's job to provide a vehicle that runs to it potential in any way that will produce best performance with the tools provided, and in the case of street riders: put smiles on faces.

I look forward to discussing those individual points if you'd consider to do so at some time.  It might not be the engineer's job so much as his/her nature to split hairs. 

I agree that the tuner should provide smiles.  When a tuner is employed.  Not saying they never should be employed, merely that they don't always need to be.  In terms of this thread's base question, "SERT or PC?", both can be installed with canned maps and work well-enough.  Both can be bettered from that condition with a professional dyno tune.  So argument centered on any assumptions about whether the purchase will be dyno-tuned, or not, don't really get to the meat of the answer(s).  I feel the merits of how what gets done by the respective devices should receive the primary focus.

... it is the end result (performance) IMO, that makes the difference not how it was arrived at.

Racing roots show via that statement.  Ultimately, it's true anyway, but most especially so when the "how it's arrived at" is achieved with some complete solution version some other complete solution.  What's being contemplated in this thread is basically "is it better to natively modify the system or modify the system's results with a second system?"  Additionally, "what are the ramifications, even if only possible, of taking each route?"

PS - I do agree the TTS is, in the end the best available tuning tool, just there seems to be very few qualified, experienced tuners who can use properly, or at least to its fullest potential. I also believe if a rider wants his bike to run well, find a good tuner and use the device he is most adept at rather than what someone advises is best.

Who can argue with any of that?  I certainly can't.  But you are omitting a middle ground of somewhere between a canned map and a (good) dyno tune.  To be fair, you're omitting two of the three considerations.  Both of which are viable real-world options (though admittedly the two lesser options from a "purist's" standpoint).

Most of the riders I have had contact with over the years want to get their bike running to its fullest potential and spend the least time to get there.
This has been my observations and I respect yours are different, and that's what makes our country so wonderful,
Bob Lobenberg

Oh, I agree.  Most folks would rather spend a couple hundred and start their years of just riding and cleaning their bikes immediately.  I guess I need to quit assuming that folks who visit tech forums might fall outside that group?  I'll tinker with mine sooner than I'd clean it (and I actually use it as my primary means of transportation except during winter here by Indy).  Go figure...

I've enjoyed "talking" with you so far, Bob.  I hope others find the conversation useful in at least some way.

Let's discuss some time the issues I've brought up in this thread, okay?

[FLTRI]

I think we are on the same page with one rather large exception, which I believe could bring us together in our thinking if you end up agreeing.
I have yet to find a "canned" map be close enough for anyone who has had their bike tuned after riding with that canned map.
The most prevalent reason is elementary by nature: No 2 injectors put out the same amount of fuel. Production injectors are not calibrated to a 0% tolerance. In fact they are only accurate to +/- 10% output. Some will say even more.

Now let's take the extreme to illustrate this point: A front injector is +10% output while the rear is -10% output.
That said OEM/SERT, etc mapping is based on 0% deviance, unless of course the mapping was done on a production motorcycle (ie: typical customer bike), then who knows what the variances would have been when the "canned" mapping was developed?
Based on the above alone you can just imagine what a "canned" map represents with just "normal" production injector output variation.

Once the injector variances have been considered, let's toss in the rest of the story or variances:
No 2 heads flow exactly the same.
No 2 compression ratios are exactly the same.
No 2 exhaust systems flow exactly the same.
No 2 intake systems flow exactly the same.
No 2 valve trains work exactly the same.

Stack up all those variables and it is virtually impossible to expect a "canned" map to work, better than reasonably well, especially when there are significant builds involving cams, port work, high compression, or even terribly designed exhaust.

Of course stock to stage 1 bikes are easier to get close with "canned" maps, but even they commonly show significant improvement in low rpm running, smoothness (less vibration) and throttle response as well.

So my whole point of this thread can be summed up by saying: You can use whatever you desire that allows you to adjust the injector output to closely balance the front and rear cylinders for best performance @ each TP/RPM range. IMO what device chosen is not the key, it is how it is used (S.O.P. vs precise measurement and tuning) that makes the difference between a "good enough" and a great running bike.

I also believe there is good info here for those looking for it,
Bob Lobenberg

[glens]

I got through your post with nary a single hackle raising.  How's that for you? 

About the time you were working on it, I was working on one somewhere else around here where the guy asked about falling VE numbers over a couple of vtune sessions.  I said some stuff very similar to some of what you just said here.  Certainly similar on principle.  I didn't mention anything about a dyno, though, hahaha!

Anyway, Bob, it's been a good discussion.

[edit:  Oh, I forgot to add to your discussion about injector variance.  They aren't completely like snowflakes, I'd guess, but even finding two that max-flowed the same and didn't still vary within the response curve would be quite an investment in time.  And since they change with age, I feel it's in my best interest to maintain closed-loop operation and some of the self-healing goodies our current Delphis throw in for/with it.

Now, if you'd wanted to painstakingly dyno-tune the PC to provide the right amount of fuel throughout so that the stock ECU closed-looped contentedly, why, that'd be the way to do it, but I guess you'd need a pair of IEDs if you wanted to effectively modify the bias tables.   I can't begin to guess at the comparative dyno time to do that between the SERT-esque stuff and a PC; but if IEDs were used with the PC, the equipment cost wouldn't be very different.  And that's not including "installation" time/labor costs between them.

Don't forget to set the AFVs at 100% before the tune and have it so they stay there just after.   :-)

Actually, I mention all that as a friendly jab, but it would be a good trick; or a least a fun exercise on an off day, right?

Oh, and let's make sure it gets mentioned in this thread that the argument for the PC being portable as opposed to the "SERTly" wedlock should really be moot.  If one gets rid of a bike, it should be tuned properly as it changes hands, IMO.]

[FLTRI]

"Actually, I mention all that as a friendly jab, but it would be a good trick; or a least a fun exercise on an off day, right?"
Just couldn't let the discussion die without a jab eh? LOL!
Hopefully whoever reads and digests this thread will take away the valid points and disregard the assumptions that cast a negative reflection on the subjects at hand.
Nothing is perfect and to assume there are aged variances is proof of that. ;-)

[iclick]

It seems Fuelmoto doesn't like being asked pointed questions.  At least that's what's been suggested to me.  They're a sponsor at the other forum and are evidently making quite a business there hawking the new PC-V and their (tuned for the previous touring exhaust) mufflers.  I look forward to this type of discussion here, if that's possible.

I'm not sure who could make such a statement about Fuel Moto.  I communicate with them frequently--primarily Jamie--and they've never dodged a question or minced words with me.  He sells most of the EFI controllers on the market (e.g., TTS, T-Max, and PCIII/PCV) and will sell you what you want, but will not mince his words when confronted with questions.  That's my experience, anyway.  From those who say differently I would like to hear some specifics.  BTW, Fuel Moto is renowned for their dyno-tuning and providing accurate canned maps for the PCIII and PCV, and for <$300 I don't know of a better way to go for most riders, especially with their Power Package. 

If the PCV isn't enough there's always the new wide-band Auto-Tune module.  I have the PCV-AT running on my '07 SG and it is just what the doctor ordered for me.  I can specify AFR's for 250 areas within the map, tune by gear, engine temperature, speed, manifold pressure, and analog input (allows user to install any 0-5 volt sensor and build an adjustment table based on its input such as boost or temperature), accel-pump utility, etc.  You can also connect any on-off switch and toggle on the fly between two maps (PCV alone) or the base map and Auto-Tune (AT).  You can rig one map for cooling, another for mileage and switch between them on the fly.  Or, add the LCD display unit and switch between multiple maps stored on an SD card.

[Blackbaggr]

It seems Fuelmoto doesn't like being asked pointed questions.  At least that's what's been suggested to me.  They're a sponsor at the other forum and are evidently making quite a business there hawking the new PC-V and their (tuned for the previous touring exhaust) mufflers.  I look forward to this type of discussion here, if that's possible.

I'm not sure who could make such a statement about Fuel Moto.  I communicate with them frequently--primarily Jamie--and they've never dodged a question or minced words with me.  He sells most of the EFI controllers on the market (e.g., TTS, T-Max, and PCIII/PCV) and will sell you what you want, but will not mince his words when confronted with questions.  That's my experience, anyway.  From those who say differently I would like to hear some specifics.  BTW, Fuel Moto is renowned for their dyno-tuning and providing accurate canned maps for the PCIII and PCV, and for <$300 I don't know of a better way to go for most riders, especially with their Power Package. 

If the PCV isn't enough there's always the new wide-band Auto-Tune module.  I have the PCV-AT running on my '07 SG and it is just what the doctor ordered for me.  I can specify AFR's for 250 areas within the map, tune by gear, engine temperature, speed, manifold pressure, and analog input (allows user to install any 0-5 volt sensor and build an adjustment table based on its input such as boost or temperature), accel-pump utility, etc.  You can also connect any on-off switch and toggle on the fly between two maps (PCV alone) or the base map and Auto-Tune (AT).  You can rig one map for cooling, another for mileage and switch between them on the fly.  Or, add the LCD display unit and switch between multiple maps stored on an SD card.

Not to split hairs or offend anyone but... by accurate...do you mean "close" ? No two engines  (head flow, cams, injectors, etc) are exactly alike which is why running a canned map might get ya close but it is never "accurate" unless its tuned correctly for the bike it is intended for.

[iclick]

Not to split hairs or offend anyone but... by accurate...do you mean "close" ? No two engines  (head flow, cams, injectors, etc) are exactly alike which is why running a canned map might get ya close but it is never "accurate" unless its tuned correctly for the bike it is intended for.

I do mean "close" based on two bikes configured alike (i.e., same engine, pipes, cams, AC, etc.), as unless you are running wide-band closed-loop you won't be truly "accurate" even if the dyno tune is on your own bike.  What it may do the next day in 20° colder temperatures and higher humidity may not resemble the day of the dyno tune.  Sure, the MAP and other sensors do compensate well enough for most, but they aren't perfect either.  Fuel Moto dynos hundreds of bikes per year and they tell me there is little difference in dyno charts between two bikes of the same configuration.  They tune using heat cycles to make sure engine temperature is uniform and consistent from bike to bike, which is the right way to do it.  Most riders won't notice or care about a small percentage of deviation from optimal, and if anyone did and wanted a custom tune it may not be ideal at all times anyway.

[FLTRI]

iclick,
"Sure, the MAP and other sensors do compensate well enough for most"
Just curious......who needs/wants better compensation? Do you feel the system can't compensate adequately for altitude and climate changes?
If so can you give us some examples? Many riders get great performance from their tuned bikes whether @ sea level or in the mountains and hot days or cold days.
If you are saying a wide band system can judge the fuels for ethanol content and decide what to do about the AFR accordingly, I believe you are mistaken as the program can only pick a number and that is based on gasoline not a blend of gas and ethanol which takes a richer AFR to produse the best results.
Just trying to keep the wide band systems in perspective. They are not the "Holy Grail" some would assume.
Just saying and not trying to start an auto-tune war,
Bob

[fxrp]

. . . based on gasoline not a blend of gas and ethanol which takes a richer AFR to produse the best results.

OK so now flip that around. What happens to the open loop (or even the Delphi narrow band closed loop) when the tune was done with 92 octane gas and on a trip across the Navajo Reservation all he could get was 84 octane w/10% ethanol?

Paul

[FLTRI]

Makes no difference how you flip it. Crappy gas is crappy gas and there is no system that can make it good gas. Engines like good quality fuel and no add-on or replacement system has the ability to change that, at least not that I know of.
Some of the more sofisticated sytems like the Delphi management system is a bit more forgiving but cannot change the quality of fuel.
Bob

[fxrp]

My point was you can't throw a side issue (ethanol) into the mix, like you said bad gas is bad gas.

But IMO a wide band system would compensate far better than a narrow band system.

Paul

[Steve Cole]

Not so at all. The wide band as you call it has a limited range as well. Then what is the tolerance on them as this has to be added into the mix. Add to that the short life span most of these cheap type sensors last and what have you got? Yes, it can help but as Bob point out they are not near the "Holy Grail" people want your to believe.

Fuel runs a stoichmetic value of 14.28 - 14.68 these days and you do not know which one your getting at the pump most of the time. The sensor cannot tell the difference so what fuel are you setting it up on as it's going to be wrong on any other fuel. The same issues for the stock switching sensors happens with the so called wide band sensors too.

[fxrp]

For one thing todays wide band sensors are not limited, they read from straight air to pure gas. Unlike the Bosch 1976 narrow band sensors in use on the Delphi system. And the modern Bosch 5 wire, heated wide band sensors are hardly cheap, nor do they have a short life span; you do know why HD went with the 1976 unheated Bosch sensor don't you?

Second, Bob threw in ethanol which he says "requires a higher AFR to produce the best results." That may be but slight differences in gas quality should have no effect on the wide band sensors ability to read the exhaust gases and adjust to achieve the desired AFR.

Paul

[Vforme]

 "you do know why HD went with the 1976 unheated Bosch sensor don't you?"

I don't know.. PLEASE enlighten.. 

[fxrp]

"you do know why HD went with the 1976 unheated Bosch sensor don't you?"

I don't know.. PLEASE enlighten.. 

They're damn cheap.

[FLTRI]

"you do know why HD went with the 1976 unheated Bosch sensor don't you?"

I don't know.. PLEASE enlighten.. 

They're damn cheap.

Not trying to start anything here but you are simply wrong, but to argue with you will not enlighten you just enrage you, so I for one will step out of this before I say something you might take in the wrong spirit. But some advice would be to do a bit more research before making statements that are categorically incorrect.
I'm out,
Bob
PS - Ever counted the wires on a HD sensor. What are the 2 extras for?

[Vforme]

"PS - Ever counted the wires on a HD sensor. What are the 2 extras for?'

I give up...   Uncle, uncle, uncle...

[Bakon]

I read all this and still only got a couple things from it.
Pick what your tuner wants to use
Someone turned down a free dyno from Bob

Does that sum it up?

[fxstdavew]

OK. Bob and Steve and the rest of the engine management pros . What is going to provide the best engine management provided all tuning devices/downloads were dyno tuned for the individual bike with 02 sensors?
Harley tuner, pc, or the TTS or any of the others that are out there ? 

[FLTRI]

OK. Bob and Steve and the rest of the engine management pros . What is going to provide the best engine management provided all tuning devices/downloads were dyno tuned for the individual bike with 02 sensors?
Harley tuner, pc, or the TTS or any of the others that are out there ? 

Easy answer: Delphi/TTS Mastertune utilizes the best of controllers available with the most comprehensive software package for adjustability.
Disclaimer: I only know Steve Cole as the producer of the Mastertune software package and do not receive benefit, product or any other means of advantage from TTS.

That said, the Power Commander does a great job of getting a bike to run fine, just give up a few mpg on '07 bikes with closed loop EFI, however the new PCV looks to be a viable solution to retaining the superior Delphi system and retaining the closed loop feature but that will need to play out for a bit longer as it is a new approach and has not been on the market long enough to make a proper judgement on my part. I have tuner a couple bikes with the PCV and so far like it but have not done one in closed loop....yet.

Hope this helps,
Bob Lobenberg