yefferys50

Maybe you should have done a bit more testing before posting what you originally did.

t-ray

And why is that? He did some testing, and posted the results of the testing. He is now going to do more testing. I don't see the problem at all.

And I've been around cars enough to know that an ecu reset will do squat. It *might* pick up a little power, but it won't pick up 20hp+. Also, MMR's response referenced similar behavior when this piece was tested on a 5 speed. MMR then suggested that resetting the ecu alleviated the problems(smoothed out the curve and bumped up power).

5 speed is a different car with a different ecu.

yefferys50

I said that because he posted results from an incomplete test and that made a product look very bad. It would be the same with throwing on a supercharger and posting results of an un-tuned car. Also, he posted results where the computer was partially closing the throttle and someone from Diablo even pointed that out.

Please tell me how posting results from a dyno pull where the throttle was getting partially closed is a complete and fair test?

BLKCLOUD

He did exactly what the instructions told him to do, then posted the results - good, bad, or otherwise. The vendor then came in with more information/recommendations, and based on those recommendations, more/updated results will follow. We all win. I don't see what the issue is.

Maybe you should have done a bit more thinking before posting what you originally did.

yefferys50

I'll ask you the same question: Please tell me how posting results from a dyno pull where the throttle was getting partially closed is a complete and fair test?

yefferys50

I'm not trying to bash WMS, I'm simply pointing out how he should have done a more comprehensive test prior to posting results because we all know how forum junkies will jump on or off bandwagons because of the first results they ever see.

Ltngdrvr

He was working with what MMR gave as initial instructions for installing the kit. If MMR had included the instructions about re-setting the ECU then he would have done that before the dyno pull and maybe the results would have been better. So basically, the fault was with MMR and they seem to be working that out.

PTRocks

Simple, because JJ was trying to see if the mod would work AS ADVERTISED. Since it didn't, the manufacturer has made clarifications which were not in the instructions that came with the kit.

If JJ hadn't done the test and published the results, the fix may not have come for a while, if at all. This is a WIN for EVERYONE: customers, who now have a better chance of buying a kit that performs as expected; MMR, who may now be able to ship product that works as intended, reducing callbacks and which doesn't ruin their reputation; and JJ for demonstrating that people who deal with him will get the straight goods.

BLKCLOUD

The kit was installed per the instructions - no doubt exactly how I would have done it, and he had results (based on that installation with those instructions) that were likely similar to what I would have seen. He posted the results. Based on his posts, more work, vendor input, etc, we now know a lot more about not only this product, but things like the throttle closing, too. The Vendor will now make sure that their instructions are clear on what needs to be done. We all win - at least partially because he posted his results as they were.

I see no fault on the part of the OP, and I commend MMR for apparently doing the things necessary to make it right.

If you disagree, ok.

JJ@WMS

All I did was exactly what a customer would have done himself which is purchase the part, wait for it to show up and then install it per the instructions. It was the first one tested by the general public, and as a matter of fact the dyno sheets I posted were the first ones ever posted for the product, not even MMR had released dyno sheets for the product at the time I installed it.

I paid full price for the kit because I wanted to test it as advertised and I posted the results "as advertised". Now that the manufacturer is aware of the issue and has taken steps to update their instructions everyone after me will be better off because of my testing. For the money that we all spend on these performance upgrades the suppliers and manufactureres should make sure they have done their best to provide a product that performs "as advertised" and I am of the mindset to hold them to those claims.

The car will hit the dyno this week with the MMR CAI reinstalled and with adaptive learning turned off in a stock tune so we wont get any kind of throttle closing events during the dyno pulls. I drove the car yesterday with one of our custom tunes and the MMR CAI installed and the car sounded great and pulled pretty hard.

JJ

todd03blown

I think this is great communication being posted which in the end benefits the consumer and the vendor.

I posted the link to this thread over at SVTP for MMR to see, glad they came over and chimed in

Ltngdrvr

Are you saying that the adaptive learning will have to be turned off in any tune to keep the computer from undoing changes made or to keep it fom misinterpreting the changes made in the tune?

Is it that you think that re-setting the ECM won't be the fix for the MMR CAI?

t-ray

The posting of the results has yielded this discussion in which we are all participating. The veracity of the vendor's claims is being scrutinized. Without this discussion, each reader would only have a snapshot view into this product and how its integration with the ecu produces results. One the one hand, we have dubious claims by the vendor. In another discussion, we have information on how the stock ecu behaves in certain situations. The combination of these topics produces a potential explanation, which benefits us all.

I don't understand the problem.

PS - I'm still skeptical that an ecu reset fixes things. That's like computer tech support telling you to reboot windows. Anything that the ecu has done to reach its current state is likely to happen again. It's treating a symptom, and not correcting the root problem.

JJ@WMS

No what I am saying is that turning off adaptive learning is doing the same thing that resetting the ECM is doing. Its clearing out any long term fuel trims. Actually turning it off in the tune is turning off long term fuel trims altogether and that seems to fix this throttle closing issue for good.

I also think that if anyone installs an MMR CAI and follows the new instructions to reset the ECM they will be just fine and wont experience the problem. In the next few days I will do exactly that kind of test and report back.

JJ

RedCandy5.0

This is no different than when running a no tune CAI on the 05-10. No matter S&B, C&L, Airaid ect. Once installed most said to disconnect battery terminal. They all added 15-20 rwhp but you wonder not if it was peak and the rest of the band looked like crap.

t-ray

Let me see if I follow...

1) You observed odd behavior exhibited in your dyno graphs.
2) You hypothesize that this behavior might be caused by a "throttle closing event"
3) You hypothesize that the "throttle closing event" might be due to the long term fuel trims stored by the ECU
4) Disabling adaptive learning instructs the ecu to basically ignore the stored fuel trims, or clears out the fuel trims altogether
5) You are assuming that clearing the ecu resets the fuel trims, resulting in similar behavior to disabling adaptive learning

Is that correct?

JJ@WMS

1) Yes but the MMR CAI dyno testing was done "As advertised" and also done following the included instructions.
2) No, I observed the "throttle closing event" when datalogging commanded throttle position both stock and MMR CAI installed with adaptive learning on.
3) Yes
4) Yes but only long term trims are not calculated, short term or what they are calling "equivalence ratios" are still working and enabled
5) Yes but not so much assuming as I am certain thats the case.

JJ

t-ray

Thanks for the clarification JJ. Is there any correlation between the curve of the dyno graph for the MMR piece and adaptive learning?

Because if there is, then resetting the ECU will do nothing permanent. Suppose that you reset the ecu, re-dyno with the MMR piece, and you get much better numbers. You drive the car with 1000 miles, which is certainly long enough for any adaptive learning to produce relatively stable fuel trims(less "bounce" than short term trims). when you dyno the car again, I bet the chart will resemble your first chart.

The point here is that resetting the ecu is a smoke and mirrors move proposed by the vendor. It certainly doesn't look good for a "no tune" CAI.

Tucker

3rd time,
where are MMR's dyno sheets?

bpmurr

The real question is. WHERE IS YOUR CF CAI?!!!