AEM V1 vs Flash ECU? Which should I have?

[Greg E]

I would resist the urge to reduce the differences to a bullet-point list. But if you must, there are some things the stock ECU can likely never do, such as on-board logging, real O2 feedback (not open/closed loop), P&H and staged injection (you mentioned meth), real boost control, etc. Everything else is a grey area to me. Obviously the stock ECU does things like knock control, accel fuel, DFCO, etc. How configurable these are compared to the AEM is something you'd have to ask Greg or someone else in the know.

While I agree (and stated earlier) that the learning curve for using both devices is about the same and just a matter of opinion, there's some mis-info with the features of the stock ECU.

On-board logging - the tactrix 2.0 cable does have this feature and uses the same type of sim card found in almost all modern android phones
Real 02 feedback = short and long term fuel trims. Everyone knows about this feature....
meth injection - yes it can. I'm working on that now.
real boost control - read my chromed ECU thread. V1.1 is setup to be boost based instead of airflow based boost control. However, after playing with both for some time now, I'll even argue that airflow based boost control (setup like this from the factory) is better as you get more "consistent" WHP based on the geography you're driving in...

[Gearheadvr4]

So in still back to the original question and I cannot decide.

I feel like the tuned ECU may have a smaller learning curve but the AEM has a little more flexibility if I'm willing to learn it.

Speed density is a large factor for me too. I ran it with another setup and really felt it was better. Plus filter pipes strait to the turbo is nice. Is there any advantage to running a maf type airflow meter?

[Greg E]

So in still back to the original question and I cannot decide.

I feel like the tuned ECU may have a smaller learning curve but the AEM has a little more flexibility if I'm willing to learn it.

Speed density is a large factor for me too. I ran it with another setup and really felt it was better. Plus filter pipes strait to the turbo is nice. Is there any advantage to running a maf type airflow meter?

I'm sure SD will happen in the future with the stock ECU.

The only advantage to "stock like" MAFs are the air counting accuracy. It's damn scary how accurately you can calculate HP based on the flow numbers it reports to the ECU. I'm hoping to show this if I can ever get to a dyno...

[Gearheadvr4]

So reading back a few posts the flash and AEM are roughly equal other than speed density (which is likely possible soon).

So I suppose it boils down to what will give me the best interface and enjoyment with the car. I've never looked at the tuner software for the flash ecu. Going to download and read up on it. The AEM software was complicated and hard to use at first glance.

Btw with 3.5 L on a flash ecu anything i would need to change to compensate for the extra displacement?

[Greg E]

.

Btw with 3.5 L on a flash ecu anything i would need to change to compensate for the extra displacement?

No.

You might find ecuflash easier to navigate.

Another disadvantage to flash tuning is no live tuning...

[Gearheadvr4]

I think with me as a beginner, live tuning wont be useful. I'll be pouring over the data to make even the smallest change.

[Greg E]

I think with me as a beginner, live tuning wont be useful. I'll be pouring over the data to make even the smallest change.

I do the same. Log a pull, pull over and review, update and flash, repeat....

Theres an instance where I wish I did have live tuning and that's for rescaling the MAF. The EVO guys found a way to link up to the RAM area of the ECU and adjust the tables live. When you're done tuning, you copy the tables into ECUFlash and save it to ROM. I haven't looked much into this yet to see if maybe it'll work for us. Jeff didn't sound enthusiastic that it would.

[Intropy]

While I agree (and stated earlier) that the learning curve for using both devices is about the same and just a matter of opinion, there's some mis-info with the features of the stock ECU.

On-board logging - the tactrix 2.0 cable does have this feature and uses the same type of sim card found in almost all modern android phones
Real 02 feedback = short and long term fuel trims. Everyone knows about this feature....
meth injection - yes it can. I'm working on that now.
real boost control - read my chromed ECU thread. V1.1 is setup to be boost based instead of airflow based boost control. However, after playing with both for some time now, I'll even argue that airflow based boost control (setup like this from the factory) is better as you get more "consistent" WHP based on the geography you're driving in...

Didn't know about logging on the tactrix cable, that's cool.

Comparing fuel trims to the AEM's O2 feedback is like comparing a BB gun to a cruise missile though. The feedback driver on the EMS is a configurable PID controller with two wideband inputs. A narrowband-based system is mainly for maintaining stoich (narrowbands would be inaccurate for any other purpose). The EMS has a full AFR target map (just like a fuel map) and can make corrections to each bank to maintain the target for each cell. How these per-cell trims are stored and cleared is also configurable. It's the same for boost control. With the AEM it's easy to implement things like "Don't go over 10psi if I'm in 6th gear".

I dig the flash ECU, I'm just saying... there's a reason the EMS is $1k. If they could be matched by a 14-year old re-purposed stock ECU, they should all kill themselves.

[Intropy]

Btw with 3.5 L on a flash ecu anything i would need to change to compensate for the extra displacement?

Everything will need to change. While you might be able to "get away with" stock settings, everything from your fuel map to ignition timing to accel/decel trims will be different.

[Jeff V.]

I dig the flash ECU, I'm just saying... there's a reason the EMS is $1k. If they could be matched by a 14-year old re-purposed stock ECU, they should all kill themselves.

It's $1000 (more like $1500) because it's a generic system meant to fit a dozen different cars and sold in small quantities. It's got no comparison to an OEM quality system tailored to a specific car and specific sensors, one which has hundreds of hours of tuning by professional calibration engineers and is built with emissions compliance, warranty needs and the ability to keep an engine alive despite some ham fisted idiot who never changes the oil and only uses the 'cheap' gas.

Last time I checked, the AEM used a very coarse knock feedback system which wasn't half as complex as Mitsu's patented factory system, to say nothing of the fact that the Mitsu system is actually tailored specifically to our engine.

I'm not saying the AEM isn't a damned nice piece of equipment. But there is precious little that makes it 'better' than the OEM ECU, and quite a bit that makes it worse. Starting off with Mitsubishi's factory developed calibrations will put you at a drivability point where you're far ahead of all but the absolute best AEM tuners out there, and you're getting there for a fraction of the price.