+1

I've said that a thousand times before. I'm still preferring the stock map myself.

theyre working on them so...... we just wait for now. what I dont understand is, are you guys saying the maps you guys try out "fade" because the ECU adjusts or you say they fade because there isnt too much difference between any of them from the get go.?

I think they fade because there is not a big difference or I just get used to it. However I think the 102 maps are more different from 101 than 101 was from 100.

I've been thinking of trying the stock style map so was going through the last few pages of this thread for context. Pretty interesting in hindsight since ztuner's latest dynos came out. It looks to me like the butt dynos here must be pretty good since the early reports of better midrange were confirmed. Mine still feels like that.

Both the v101 S1+ and the msf S1+ showed around 18 psi above 5K for me, then settled to mid-16ish after a tank. But that's the target range, so maybe the initial higher boost is fooling people? I don't know, but the term "ecu learning" seems to be a negative euphemism now, meaning "return to normal," but it seems to me it's learning right to the target range. Why it's higher at first I have no clue or guess (but AFCadett would have a hissy.)

Again from ztuner's dynos, the high end cutback perfectly corresponds to the often commented upon 5K-6K KR, so hard to believe it wasn't a (hopefully initial) attempt to quiet that, as well as the perceived complaints. I posted about it a few times but wasn't complaining, just curious, and more curious that Cobb never really responded to any of the posts that I saw in various forums. Anyhow, that has to be the reason for the obvious cutback there.

I think there's a perfectly logical reason the msf S1+ map would be slower in a standing start run to ~100 mph compared to the stock map ( I can't remember if lenny's got a DP or not.) It's simply a nice exercise to demonstrate that high rpm horsepower is more useful at high speed than low rpm torque.

Aerodynamic drag goes up with the square of speed, so there's about twice the drag at 100 as 70. You also spend a lot more time in gear at higher speed. Think about a rollon from 3K->6K in third and 5th gear. My theory says the msf would be faster in 3rd and the stock in 5th. This is all based on ztuner's dynos, so study them if you haven't.

If Cobb can preserve the low end (~4.5K and below) of the S1+ msf maps and get back the 5K->6K power without inducing knock, they'll prove their tuning ability and knowledge of the ecu pretty nicely I think.

Patiently waiting ...

i cant wait to see what they come up with...Hal mentioned something about them taking a diff approach to tuning these maps...id like to know what he meant. Id like to know in general what all goes into tuning this ECU. Its obviously more complex than any1 imagined.

19psi is in the near future, so a fuel pump will most likely be needed for those maps. Hal also has the DIY pump upgrade walk through coming up, too.

Okay, I did it - ran the stock map for the first time.

Subjective impression - me no likee. Soft on the bottom half (3K->4.5K) and even if it dynos better up top, that giant assed pillow at 5.8K is back and it's a struggle to fight through it. For just driving around the msf map is much nicer for me. Being able to use 6K+ rpm if needed is pretty handy sometimes in passing, exiting a corner etc.

Objective stuff: (taken at WOT, 4th gear, 6K)

AFR - stock is 1+ point richer
Ignition timing - stock is 1+ point more advanced
Boost - stock is 1+ point less

The above was ~3.5K rollons. I assume we all know that as reported by the AP, boost varies a lot depending on your input. Above, I was seeing 15.x with the msf and 14.x stock. With the msf, did a idle 2nd gear rollon, WOT, 6K shifting to 5th where I ran out of room and saw 18 spikes and holding 17.x to 6K. It held 17.8 for awhile in 5th until I had to back off, not sure the rpm, but it was holding. I didn't test the stock through the gears, but I assume it would correspond, but 1 point lower. I also assume the msf will settle to holding high 16 - I'm used to seeing ~16.8 in the same scenario.

Knock retard wasn't bad on stock, fractional mostly, but there.

After the through the gears run I thought fast and brought up BAT. It was 10 deg. higher than it had been running, and took 2 miles at 80mph to settle to normal. A few weeks ago I saw 175 waiting for a burgher and it took 4 miles at 60mph to settle to normal. Sigh ...

itzl0l,

Yeah, I agree on the complexity - a lot of unintended consequence traps in there I bet. Comparing the stock to latest msf map gave me heart though. For my use Cobb is going in the right direction, I just hope they can solve the puzzle and continue down this path without getting lost in the woods (I love a mixed metaphor.)

Your findings completely contradict Lenny's findings on the stock map. WTF. I have no idea which way is "up" anymore. Are these cars that different from car to car? I know when I ran the stock map, it was CLEARLY less powerful than the v101 MSCAI map (current release).

The 102 maps definately feel like a totally different approach. After 300 miles on the 102c maps I feel these are the best maps yet. Most notable is the power under 3k before boost comes on. I am assuming that this was accomplished through changes in timing but the car is very responsive. Last night the weather was perfect to feel the true power generated by the map. My car was chirping second all the way though, just on the edge of totally losing traction. Losing traction is not necessarily an indicator of power, but it certainly gives the impression that the map is more powerful. If I keep it under 6000 rpm I can feel the increase in midrange torque and it makes you want to stay in the sweet spot more than the 101 msf maps. I personally could give two shits if my car can pull above 5500. I like the midrange and the 102 maps seem to have made it really strong.

Good to hear

Your discription of being on the edge of traction in 2nd is what I want in 3rd gear on the stage2+SF map!! :fingersx: Hopefully v.102 delivers... I see it's out - anyone try it yet?

First off, I make no claims about anyone elses car simply because I have only tested my car. Second , apples to apples guys.

I have an 07 Mazdaspeed3 (CA car) running a ms CAI (turboxs hybrid bov but I take it out for testing)

I have tested all the stage 1's + ms CAI maps (msf, v.100, v.101) and have posted my (not subjective) results based on a G-tech meter. The results were about acceleration performance.

the map I run and have found quickest for my self is "stock style map v.101 CA car"


Now for FJames, I would love to see the specs of his car compared to mine first. to see if we are apples vs apples.


Which stock map is he using? stock stock, stock v.100 stock v.101, CA version , federal??? apples to apples

Now , for engine performance.... is he using a dashawk that logs? or just eyeballing the Ap? bigggg difference. ( I am not using a stopwatch and clicking when I see a needle hit 60mph on the speedo , I am using a device that measures CONFIRMED performance , I say confirmed because I have verified it against the 1/4 mile track on three separate occasions)



It could very well be that he lends me his car and my resluts on HIS car end up totally different, who knows??? But I dont see the test performed in the same manner or them even being the same tests. I will give you an example, I have tested the "stage 1 stock intake map v.100" it boosts considerably more than any other stage 1 (aside from the fmic I suspect) and more than stockv.101 , at least in my car. Wheelspin is easiest induced with this stage 1 stock intake map and it feels plenty stronger than even my beloved "stock v.101 map" but when I ran them against each other, while the stage 1 ran quicker up to about 60-65mph than my stock v.101 in the quarter mile the stock v.101 caught up always ( I suspect because the stage 1 stock intake map has too much knock when used with an ms CAI and eventually it will pull timing and drop power as you get going faster), now if I made my impression based on the AP I would still believe that this map was quickest of them all but the G-tech showed me otherwise.

I am not disputing FJames's findings, just saying that first make sure we have the same setup, maps etc...... and then get a device that measures vehicle acceleration performance , not engine performance. I have said this and will keep repeating it, Cobbs maps are safer than stock in every way I have tested them, knock, temps etc. I only posted performance based on measured acceleration.

I can only suggest that everyone does objective tests, and eyeballing gauges
I am sorry to disagree (if that was the case) is not objective, especially in a car that from a 3500 rpm roll will show enough variants in boost spikes, holding boost and just about everything else everytime you do one. Plus, were all the test from a roll done at the same outside temps?same exact spot on the street or fwy?? undulations, uphills , downhills all these things affect those gauges simply because the engine load will vary.

I do perform all of a "group" of tests in a controlled setup (meaning all variables are equal)

Anyways...lets see about them v.102 maps, I will post some results later next week.

all good, valid points lenny. I'm just a little frustrated at the situation and how differently some of these cars/maps perform.

it's understandable, but you should not rely on my positive/negative results to dictate on how YOUR car is performing because for all I know mine is an isolated incident or it is an indicative of all of our cars behavior. I would love for others to test in the same manner I do to give me a clue if I got stuck with a lemon perhaps or I do have a right to keep bugging Cristian. World is full of mysteries..........

I lost my entire post just when I was finishing, so had to recreate it. I can't remember if I made a point of not disputing other's findings (which I did in the original) and too lazy to check. Anyhow, I didn't post any objective performance figures, just my subjective impressions, objective observations of behavior (the "pillow" for instance) and a few readings. I'm comfortable with my methodology so take anything I post as realistic for my car - same time, same road, no hills etc.

My car is a fuji vs. lenny's gala maybe. '08.5 GT Fed; Cobb SF; Amsoil dry filter; ITV22 plugs @.028. That's it unless you count a SU MM.

The point I was intending to make is that even if the stock map measures faster from a standing start to a high speed, the msf101 map provided a more positive overall driving experience. That's the bottom line for me, and I think you could argue that real world performance, like passing on a 2-lane road, might actually be better with a car that emphasizes midrange torque (as long as it doesn't die up top like the old "e" series BMWs did.)

Hopefully this is all old news anyway, with the 102s out.

I think the problem is the mscai. Christian has a hard time getting a map to work when it responds differently on each car. I am going to get the sri when its available. I am sick of this ms cai bs. The intake works by itself but when combined with other parts and maps its a POS and that is all there is too it. Your car is not the lemon lenny, its your intake.

yea i think im gonna try to get the cobb intake too


....any1 know where to get one right now?

you can't find them anywhere.

I wouldnt do that until Christian says "I can develop the ms CAI no further", and what does Fuji vs Gala mean??? anyways Fjames seems to value "perceived drivebaility" above actual acceleration and I can't really argue with that since the G-tech cannot confirm from a roll acceleration. But I dont think it would be a huge stretch of the imagination that if from a standstill a 0-100mph was consistently quicker on every single 10mph increment the same would apply on a 30-70mph, but I could be wrong. The driveabilty thing again is solely based on "feelings" not actual measured performance and I am sorry but if a map feels better but is slower then that is a personal taste issue everyone of us is looking for something different I guess.

103 high octane maps are already in the works.

The way I look at it is Cobb doesn't even have a ms cai to test with, so how much more do you think the maps are going to improve. I just feel like I am better off running the sri.

well, to be honest I dont know shit about tuning, building engines I have a ton of experience but tuning (lap top especially) is a black art for me , Haltech said he was working with Christian to provide better maps for the ms CAI guys so....... I think Hal is on the up and up and I will make certain decisions of mine based on his input (partially). Right now I am hoping with his help we will end up with maps that will net us solid gains but , in the future if again , Christian or he concurr that it's a lost cause (maybe because we are a small group or because the ms CAI is a piece o crap) then yes , I might jump ship and get the SRI. But just to play devils advocate I have not heard any measured performance increase on the Cobb sri map guys either....... as long as we are getting closer with every new version I have hope.

I hear ya. I am just worried what the ms cai is doing to my engine and I am sick of worrying about hydrolock. I had to drive through extremely severe thunderstorms the other day and I was pretty concerned that I would hit a big puddle that I couldn't see.

I'm in the same boat as dread. It was very nice of Cobb to make maps for us MSCAI guys but when it boils down to it, the SRI maps are going to be better (in the long run). Logic tells me that they will be able to make better maps using their hardware rather than the MSCAI. At least for my short term goals, the MSCAI is probably going to get ditched on favor of an SRI.

They're different kinds of apples :)

My second long post yesterday was a continuation of the few hours earlier one. In that one I pointed out that ztuner's dynos showed the msf s1+ tune to have more midrange torque than the stock tune. I thought this was interesting since the butt dynos here at the forum mostly felt the same thing (before the dynos were posted.)

So, the subjective impression isn't that there's more torque, that's proven, the subjective impression is that this characteristic is desirable to some people like me for general driving around. Of course I'm coming from a b16 that power peaked at 8200 and torque peaked at 7700, so a nice change for me. I must be getting old.

Funny, didnt think about Fuji apples, I thought you had a Fujita intake or something...funny shit in retrospect

Well the more torque is on a car thats different to mine ms cai vs sri so who knows..... still wouldnt mind some 0-100 performance data on z tuner, I know lap times were improved on auto x for him but that may not necessarily translate to quicker ET's at the dragstrip. I cant wait to get the v.102 maps though....I am crossing my fingers cuz I dont want to report bad news anymore.

Just to be clear, I really appreciate what you're doing, the more data the better. I just wish there were at least two people somewhere doing the same kind of testing, whatever it might be. And I hope Cobb gets a big ol' shipment of SRIs that are perfect in every way so all you guys can get one if you want so at least us little guys would have similar stuff on our cars.

Oh, don't forget, if you're doing standing start runs and shifting at 6K or so, you're coming out in the hp band, so it's not valid to compare numbers to a rollon starting at 3Kish that covers the torque band. Except when you launch, midrange torque is pretty much irrelevant in a drag, which is why I like rollons - a better representation of real world driving - and auto-x and road racing too.

Still, I'm real curious what your testing will show for the v102.

Before:

Irwindale Raceway
Altitude: 1200? (not sure)
Temps: 60
Mods: Catback
60' = 2.38
1/8 = 9.61
MPH = 77.15

After:

Irwindale Raceway
Altitude: See above
Temps: 85-90 (85 on first run 90 on last run)
Mods: Catback, SU rear mount, Cobb SRI, Cobb Accessport - stage 1+SF v.102
60' = 2.35 (1st run) 2.49 (last run) - my two best runs
1/8 = 9.43 (1st run) 9.52 (last run)
MPH = 80.09 (1st run) 80.43 (last run)

I'm very happy with the results considering the temperature difference. I definitely need more practice launching; I just couldn't find a sweet spot. Started with my rpms too low and I'd bog and then too high and I'd spin. One thing is for certain, the stock intercooler was killing my power on repeat runs without cool down time. Fortunately, the track had low attendance, so I let it cool on my last two runs.

If I return to the track on a more consistent basis, I'm definitely getting a FMIC...no fun waiting for the cooked TMIC to cool off.

It's obvious here that the addition of the intake gave you at least 80% (even 100%) of your mph gains.

Yeah, that is no different than Cobb's stated improvements. As to where they came from, sri? ap? that is up for debate which makes the test inconclusive. (please take no offense to this) just stating that if you do a test , there needs to be a comparison vs a control as to isolate each gain separate from the other.

I tried the v,102 and it "feels' awesome but I myself saw too much knock so I cut the test short. I will retry when temps go down but if I see as much as 3.5 of knock I will not test the map further for 2 reasons. 1st , my "test" car is a daily driver and would like to keep it as such and 2nd I have already experienced that more "powerful maps" that show knock, under the right (or wrong) circumstances end up being slower because the ecu will pull timing to save the engine.

I ran the map for 250 miles (stage 1 +ms cai v,102), did a couple of blasts at the same temp and the results were not good as far as mph. I switched after those 250 miles to the stock v.101 and i picked up 2 mph in the eighth at 20 degrees higher temps. ( I was less than thrilled) I got very duscouraged with the knocjk I started seeing on the v.102 and the g-tech info and I gave up on it. I DO NOT COUNT THIS AS A VALID TEST, I HAD SOME PERSONAL SHIT HAPPEN TO ME SO I SAID FUCK IT IM DONE TESTING. plus add to that I got another flat on Sunday and I am bitting the bullet on 4 Potenzas in about 2 hours ($865 installed). Anyways you guys post some results, Goodspeed : sorry I didnt make it to Irwindale (flat + burnt out at work so I said Fuck it to everything this weekend) but glad u saw improvements, flash the stock style v.101 next and try it again and prove to us that the ms CAI is a piece of shit because I hate posting the same old news and would love to be proven that the ms cai IS hilding us back.

Hey Lenny - Using your testing method, did you ever test the stock map (ap uninstalleld)?

No. mostly because of the 30 minute re-install. but since my 36k warranty is up this week, screw saving the old map right??? just to be clear guys, I am just as confused and full of doubt as the rest of you. I thought this new v.102 map was great, felt torquier (hic ups and burps were present but I think this map is a more aggressive step up than others so I would be logcal for the ECU to take longer to adjust) but I dont know if I was hasty or what I got discouraged so quickly because of knock and slower mph after 250 miles that I didnt fully test it and at the first negative sign I threw in the towel with half ass results. Give me a few days guys and I will re test properly. I am starting to feel self conscious about sounding negative on every map and it is not my intention to report bad results or bad mouth anyone. I look at dread's results from his dyno and I am scratching my head now wondering if I have a lemon that wont go any faster , like Hal said maybe all cars and ms cai are different so they throw off all results or....... still in the back of my mind I wonder how these maps work in conjunction between all gears...... meaning one thing is to do a pull in 4th to find peak hp....another is doing 4 pulls in 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th as you are drag racing......how does where each gear ends up at affect the next one etc...... I dont know. I will watch and see what others find and I will post some results Wed night on msf maps as well.

That sucks I was hoping for some good runs. I hope you find a map that improves your performance.

well, I got my potenzas (bastard didnt tell me tax not included so it came out to $970 out the door) after i brought the psi down to 33 all around from the 48 that they inflated them to I am ready for some testing. I flashed the stage 1 + ms CAI v.102 MSF map (cali version) that Hal posted and hopefully tonight and tomorrow night I will test it out. It feels torquey but right away at part throttle I get .3 and .7 knock and the LTFT goes from all 0 to -10 at idle within 30 miles (at partial and WOT it stays pretty close to 0) , again I dont know shit about tuning so I have to take what I see and somehow interpret it as it would happen on an old car. To me if the ECU is taking fuel from idle then one might infer the transition between gears might not be the smoothest which is why I believe the car was throwing burps on some shifts. on a theoretical drag race every time you lift off the gas and shift gears the drop in rpms might (in my case) make me run rich for a fraction of a second and when next gear comes and I start pulling its reflected as a burp. (I am only assuming this by trying to picture how a carbureted car would behave if the idle circuit of that carb was running rich constantly.

anyways, hopefully tonight I will get some tests..... my car is super sensitive to the heat so I want to do this in 68 degree weather or lower.

but I hope that they give us full boost in 6th as well because 5th was holding higher than the v.101 stock map but 6th was way off.

Lenny,

Sorry to hear about the problems and no worries about not showing. Irwindale has one more Sunday (Aug. 24) TNT and I'll be there to test just the intake...no AP installed. The track and temp conditions should be the same...southern cali is pretty consistent this time of year. I'll uninstall a week or two before going, so the ECU has plenty of time to adjust. I hope to show the difference between factory map with SRI and v102 with SRI.

After 3 runs, I'll probably flash the Cobb stock style map and see how that does. Brecker and I are both interested in the results but the map won't have much mileage before I run it. Maybe I'll leave the track area and put some freeway miles on it...then comeback, let it cool, and run it again. This might put to rest the thought many have about the Cobb stock map...the stock car they used was in fact a freak of nature. :)

As far as knock goes, I never bothered looking at the track...too busy screwing up my launches. :P When testing at home (before the track), I never saw more than .7ish...I'll look again tonight.

LOL I'm out to prove you wrong Brecker!! :swordfight:

Keep the tests coming guys! The more the better!

I just want to clear up this perception that the "stock style map" on the AP is somehow better than the Mazda factory flash..

It's the SAME! except for some AP code to talk to the ECU..

makes sense

Perhaps...then why do so many say they feel so different...I'll let you know when I hit the track again. :)