Chrome noob- chrome or aem for 850whp

**NOMIEZVR4** · 01-05-2014, 08:01 AM

I like where this is headed...

**fastfalcon94** · 01-05-2014, 09:07 AM

I think we need a pro/con wiki or sticky thread for tuning solutions. I think piggybacks, flash, and AEM all have a spot in this world. It comes down to budget, desired power levels, what kind of setup you want to run and some of it will come down to personal preference. When I started my build chrome wasn't available. AEM was really my only option so I went with that.

But now if I was going with 19Ts/dr650s on a stock motor (or even built bottom end) I would go with flash. Having NLTS and control over my timing/fuel tables would be awesome for what it costs.

With DR750s or a big stroker motor build I would still currently go AEM. If we ever get Speed Density/bigger maf for flash I would consider it for these turbos since I have a built 3.0 bottom end. However having used live tuning now in AEM I feel spoiled and don't know if I'd want to go back. I hate messing with tunes on my Suby now since I still use flash for that.

My vr4 with SD runs and drives just like stock for me. When it's cold out it takes a few more cranks to start but I haven't messed with the start-up tables yet. I know I mentioned it in the other threads, but the o2 feedback in aem is pretty slick. It also works under high load in what would be open loop on a stock ecu. So it makes it extremely easy to tune your fuel tables. It doesn't matter what air property changes, the o2 feedback will compensate by either adding/removing fuel to reach your desired afr. (well as long as it's within reason. You can set the +/- percentage of fuel for this compensation)

aem pros
-------
-live tuning, no waiting for flashes. Plus aem chip can withstand a larger number of re-flashes
-o2 feedback in "open loop"
-knock sensor calibration can be setup easily for stroker engines which run noisier to create a new "normal" noise line for your engine. People have had trouble with false knock due to noisy engines on flash. With v2 aem you can change the knock frequency value as well and the pulse width in which it looks for knock. In v1 they were hardcoded.
-large expandable 3d maps for easy reading and adjusting. You can't enlarge the 3d maps in ecuflash
-graphical logging maps are pretty good if you prefer to get a nice visual of your run instead of looking at tables
-allows you to set it up for a maf or SD. I don't know why a lot of people on 3si hate on SD. It's real popular in the DSM crowd with v3 ECMLINK.
-It can auto adjust tables. If you want to change the RPM or load scaling of your tables it will adjust everything within the tables automatically for this. I spent a solid hour messing with my own formulas in excel for my new RPM points, only to find out that it was not needed.
-Every area in aem that you go to, there is a help window which will explain all the fields and what they affect
-There is a notes section in the .cal files so you can document all of your changes. That way when you open a .cal file you will know what it is.

aem cons
------------
- kind of buggy for what it is. For instance you set some of the items in the wizard and they stay set, just next time you go into that menu what you set before isn't bolded like it should.
- Some of the switch pins mapped out for us don't work. Trying to get NLTS working on one switch wouldn't work, but another did. I looked on the aem forums and found it another person had this problem 2 years ago and aem never bothered to update their documentation. Same for the 1 High Output pin that is available to us. They advertise as 4 high outputs available but what they don't tell you is that 3 are being used already and the 4th one pin location is incorrect. I still haven't tracked it down. I gave aem my serial # but that's not enough. They want me to give them some sticker revision number off the ecu. I haven't had time to pull it yet. You would think they would care more to get this fixed/updated.
- exporting to Virtual Dyno a pain, not enough to make me want to sell it to FamilyMan
- no odbII port but my car is a 94 so it doesn't affect me
- more expensive but when you have 8k into a motor does it really matter at that point
- Really not a lot of thorough documentation out there on how to use it as in order of operation. I was a bit overwhelmed at first but looking back it really wasn't that bad. I've been working on my own documentation for it.
- the cool "serial gauge" you can get for it was very confusing to get working. The documentation they deliver for it is for aempro which was aem v1 software. I couldn't find anything for it on aem v2 and aemtuner. I got it working but you'd think they update their documentation.

**J. Fast** · 01-05-2014, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Greg E

SD is a calculated guess about airflow to which it almost never accurate and you need a correctional value of some sort to organize for you. MAF is a much more accurate reading of true airflow. That's why they use MAF in a stock car along with every current production vehicle on the market.

Both methods are accurate, Greg. Speed density just takes a bit more time to setup correctly. Once you take the time to set all the tables up in speed density the tuning is mindless and very easy, it's a simple algorithm. MAF vs SD, yes, one won't make more power than the other at lower power levels. When you have equivalent airmass, timing, and AFR, wether it's SD estimated or MAF measured, the power output results will be the same. Here's a great example of COBB Speed Density vs. MAF with no changes other than VE based calculating vs MAF measured. The results are the same in the hands of an experienced professional.
NASIOC - View Single Post - Speed Density Tuning with the Accessport on an 08 STI

Same test was performed on Evo...
evolutionm.net - View Single Post - MAF vs Speed Density w/no MAF

Both methods work just fine and as you can see the results are almost trace identical. Now, the only indifference I have with MAF is big power applications and track only applications. There's a point where a 3.5" intake poses a restriction and air metering resolution for the device tapers off. When you have a MAF setup pre-turbo you're giving up a lot of resolution and information post intercooler, plus you have to pour your PCV vapor back in, implement an intermediate bypass valve for surge control, and recirculate the BOV. There's pitfalls to these things on track cars.

In a perfect world we would love to see a COBB Tuner HP application for 3/S where you can run a both MAF and Speed Density concurrent. In hybrid mode you can transfer in and out of each setup for the best of both worlds. When the MAF approaches resolution fallout you transfer over to the SD.
MAF is likely on every production vehicle on the market to reduce production and R&D costs. Saving $300 in calibration time per vehicle adds up when you're producing 1,000,000 cars. If auto manufactures had to individually setup speed density for every vehicle it would take quite a bit of time vs. installing a MAF. As illustrated from the results I posted the solutions are the same.

When you start cranking the boost knob, discover the benefits of venting a number of things to atmosphere, and see the restriction in 3.5" MAF packaging poses in high pressure and volume situations then the SD conversion will be quite clear.

As far as the argument of Chrome VS. AEM... the results are the same in the hands of an experienced calibrator. Speed density however IS better than MAF in larger power output applications and for that reason the AEM is better right now. If Clone's had SD the playing filed would be level and the preference would likely come down to auxiliary ports and gauge plugins like MXL's, Stack's, Racepack's, and racing application type stuff etc.

Originally Posted by fastfalcon94

I think we need a pro/con wiki or sticky thread for tuning solutions. I think piggybacks, flash, and AEM all have a spot in this world. It comes down to budget, desired power levels, what kind of setup you want to run and some of it will come down to personal preference. When I started my build chrome wasn't available. AEM was really my only option so I went with that.

But now if I was going with 19Ts/dr650s on a stock motor (or even built bottom end) I would go with flash. Having NLTS and control over my timing/fuel tables would be awesome for what it costs.

With DR750s or a big stroker motor build I would still currently go AEM. If we ever get Speed Density/bigger maf for flash I would consider it for these turbos since I have a built 3.0 bottom end. However having used live tuning now in AEM I feel spoiled and don't know if I'd want to go back. I hate messing with tunes on my Suby now since I still use flash for that.

My vr4 with SD runs and drives just like stock for me. When it's cold out it takes a few more cranks to start but I haven't messed with the start-up tables yet. I know I mentioned it in the other threads, but the o2 feedback in aem is pretty slick. It also works under high load in what would be open loop on a stock ecu. So it makes it extremely easy to tune your fuel tables. It doesn't matter what air property changes, the o2 feedback will compensate by either adding/removing fuel to reach your desired afr. (well as long as it's within reason. You can set the +/- percentage of fuel for this compensation)

aem pros
-------
-live tuning, no waiting for flashes. Plus aem chip can withstand a larger number of re-flashes
-o2 feedback in "open loop"
-knock sensor calibration can be setup easily for stroker engines which run noisier to create a new "normal" noise line for your engine. People have had trouble with false knock due to noisy engines on flash. With v2 aem you can change the knock frequency value as well and the pulse width in which it looks for knock. In v1 they were hardcoded.
-large expandable 3d maps for easy reading and adjusting. You can't enlarge the 3d maps in ecuflash
-graphical logging maps are pretty good if you prefer to get a nice visual of your run instead of looking at tables
-allows you to set it up for a maf or SD. I don't know why a lot of people on 3si hate on SD. It's real popular in the DSM crowd with v3 ECMLINK.
-It can auto adjust tables. If you want to change the RPM or load scaling of your tables it will adjust everything within the tables automatically for this. I spent a solid hour messing with my own formulas in excel for my new RPM points, only to find out that it was not needed.
-Every area in aem that you go to, there is a help window which will explain all the fields and what they affect
-There is a notes section in the .cal files so you can document all of your changes. That way when you open a .cal file you will know what it is.

aem cons
------------
- kind of buggy for what it is. For instance you set some of the items in the wizard and they stay set, just next time you go into that menu what you set before isn't bolded like it should.
- Some of the switch pins mapped out for us don't work. Trying to get NLTS working on one switch wouldn't work, but another did. I looked on the aem forums and found it another person had this problem 2 years ago and aem never bothered to update their documentation. Same for the 1 High Output pin that is available to us. They advertise as 4 high outputs available but what they don't tell you is that 3 are being used already and the 4th one pin location is incorrect. I still haven't tracked it down. I gave aem my serial # but that's not enough. They want me to give them some sticker revision number off the ecu. I haven't had time to pull it yet. You would think they would care more to get this fixed/updated.
- exporting to Virtual Dyno a pain, not enough to make me want to sell it to FamilyMan
- no odbII port but my car is a 94 so it doesn't affect me
- more expensive but when you have 8k into a motor does it really matter at that point
- Really not a lot of thorough documentation out there on how to use it as in order of operation. I was a bit overwhelmed at first but looking back it really wasn't that bad. I've been working on my own documentation for it.
- the cool "serial gauge" you can get for it was very confusing to get working. The documentation they deliver for it is for aempro which was aem v1 software. I couldn't find anything for it on aem v2 and aemtuner. I got it working but you'd think they update their documentation.

Excellent post.

**Greg E** · 01-05-2014, 11:34 AM

Absolutely no argument SD will make more power but we don't drive our cars WOT all the time. The MAF has all the advantages of better street-ability due to more resolution at low air speeds. This is simply due to the nature of how the sensors read information. All I was saying before is that modern cars use both a MAF and SD to take advantage of both setups. This is probably the direction I'm going to take chrome. Been in the R&D phase of this for months now.

**mb3000** · 01-05-2014, 11:40 AM

Honestly AEM isn't that expensive once you total up what a comparable flash setup costs.

In my case (prices as of 1/5):

Jester ECU: $624.95
Evoscan: $25
Tactrix w/ Reflash: $179
MAFT: $199.95
3.5" Gm MAF: 189.95

Total: $1218.85

I taught myself how to tune the EMS, and after a full hour of driving on the streets the tune was good enough to DD. Within no time, the engine was running/driving better than any other setup(3/s) I've driven (ARC2, factory ecu, somewhat defective flash ecu, and finally ARC2-separate car/engine). Never had any problems connecting to the laptop, everything was user-friendly, live tuning was a huge factor in tuning the area under the curve for better than stock drive-ability. Not to mention popping a coupler and not even having to pull over, simply drive wherever you're going and fix it later. Tune is still 100% accurate during this time. All in all, selling my EMS V2 w/ sensors for $1100 was the biggest mistake I made during my build. Until you have ridden/driven in a properly tuned AEM SD car, you wouldn't know how nice it is.

**kywhitelightning** · 01-05-2014, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Greg E

Absolutely no argument SD will make more power but we don't drive our cars WOT all the time. The MAF has all the advantages of better street-ability due to more resolution at low air speeds. This is simply due to the nature of how the sensors read information. All I was saying before is that modern cars use both a MAF and SD to take advantage of both setups. This is probably the direction I'm going to take chrome. Been in the R&D phase of this for months now.

You know what needs to be done, now just go do it, lol.

Jeff

**anyonebutme** · 01-05-2014, 02:29 PM

I should reinstall my maft-pro so my chrome has SD.............just because I can then install my massive air filter again.

**J. Fast** · 01-10-2014, 11:50 AM

Thought I might share a look of AEM with a real time extension. This car/calibration is my old 19T setup. The owner can pull the 4 hex bolts and remove the interface for lap use. It is touchscreen. Anything the ECU/EMS sees can be displayed on the dash for real time. Real time trace is cool in this mode because you can do a pull and then follow the trace feature thru the timing and fuel map with correlating boost and AFR.

You can custom program race dash modes for live viewing. Here's a gauge mode. RPM up top with a shift light, Boost, AFR, AIT, Vehicle Speed, Water Temp, Voltage, KPA on the bottom.

As you guys are aware you can also plug an AIM MXL just like this one directly into the AEM.

Erron has one installed like the above. Works great!

Lot's of different things to look for when going down an ECU road.

**familyMAN** · 01-10-2014, 12:10 PM

Thanks J, I have thought about something like the touchscreen many times, but never know what components to get that are cost effective and will play nice with AEM. Would appreciate any insight.

I would love to get away from always bringing a laptop with me, but never see a day in the future that I don't want to play around with the map or view logs. In dash would satisfy both.

I just bought an AEM datastream gauge to install so at least I'll have some real time info and custom warnings if no laptop is with me just in case something goes haywire.