Dyno run - Page 3

NASSTY · #1 (**permalink**) 10-17-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doubledip

As I said this is just a warning for all not a dig at what Nasty has said.

None taken. As builders it is natural to get caught up in the emotion of building a Cobra. Personally I had a lot of major components way before I needed them, mainly because I didn't won't suppliers stuffing me around, which did happen but I planned for that. A case of get the sale and deal with producing said product later. We're all busy people, builders and suppliers at the end of the day.

I've had one component fail to date after having the car registered for 10 months and the supplier at first gave the the line, "I sold you that 2 yrs ago" to which I said, "It's been registered for only 6 months". He understood and fixed the problem.

Doubledip · #2 (**permalink**) 10-17-2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NASSTY

I've had one component fail to date after having the car registered for 10 months and the supplier at first gave the the line, "I sold you that 2 yrs ago" to which I said, "It's been registered for only 6 months". He understood and fixed the problem.

yes and i know that we have had that in the past and warranted it as well.. it all comes down to the attitude of one person to the other as to what will come out of it... now i am sure you approached the supplier and told him it was faulty and when he said it was sold over 2 years ago i bet you didnt call him every name under the sun.. you in a professional and courteous manner told him the situation and it was resolved... but you cant expect a supplier to come to the party after having their business drapped across 2 forums and 4 threads basically saying i didnt get what i want when i asked for it 3.5 years ago with all the carry on this has had.

I am glad yours was sorted and if people (both client and supplier) can think rationally and put themselves in the other persons shoes (like you obviously did) before they shoot their thoughts off then there would be alot more happy customers and suppliers than there are, with the same happy outcome you got to.

Tenrocca · #3 (**permalink**) 10-17-2008, 05:52 PM

Just a few thoughts.....

On this cobra forum and in the cobra community in general, the concept of sharing ideas and offering help to benefits a fellow cobra owner and not yourself is at the heart of what we are about (its the vibe...its mabo...its...the vibe). This forum, particularly the Australian side is not driven by sponsors, and not there to benefit sponsors - its for us. I am very sceptical about the whole tuner thing - locking tune, the hiding of tunes or of cam specs. IMO, anyone who comes into the "cobra community" with these BS "I know something you dont know" attitudes is not going to endear themselves to the community as a whole.

When i visit the LS1 forum I am constantly amazed at how excited theses guys get about a friggin commodore. eg. The post pictures of your ride forum....Heres my...wait for it...new VE SS COMMODORE. Whoop di f**kin do.... And all the other commodore nerd jump in pissing in his pocket saying what a "sweet ride" it is or whatever. What a load of self indulgent crap. If I want to see a picture of a VE SS commodore I can go and get a brocure from the local dealer - these arent special cars.

Cobras, IMHO, are special. These cars have our heart, our time, our hard earned and a good deal of our lives tied up in them. Many cobra owners may be pretty well off - and to them $800 is a drop in the ocean. To me and to the majority of builders, we build because that is the only way they can afford to own a car like this - or at least convince the better half of that (lets face it - is we all had the means to buy a complete kirkham or csx car, we would).

I know David, and I trust him. David is part of the cobra community, and has built a reputation within here of being a straight talking no BS sort of guy. If David said he told the tuner his situation, and that he will be needing to have his tune "touched up" on a dyno locally to him, I believe him.

Buinesses should be about cutomer service. The customer may not be always right, but they should be treated as they are. Justin - your attitude to fixing problems and ensuring the cutomer is satisfied is commendable, and is the attitude all business owners should have. (In my dealings with you, you would realise I live by the same philosophy). I dont think chipmaster, in this instance at least, has.

There was certain operator in the LS1 community that if a few more people had spoken up about earlier on, a lot less people wouldnt have been burnt to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars (search LS1.com or google for "Derek Hocking" - An extreme case to illustrate my point). I see nothing wrong with advising potential customers of your dealings with a supplier, whether they be good or bad.

Cheers

PS. Les - you have my vote for CC Australia poster of the year.

alffie · #4 (**permalink**) 10-17-2008, 07:43 PM

So I have question for the tuners, a little off the topic. When my "mail order tune ECU" is turned on for the first time will it send fault codes because it cant find or "talk" to the corvette BCM,EBS modules? I have been told that some ECUs will give fault codes and go into "limp mode" when first fired up and need to be "told" again that it isnt in a Corvette.

Plums · #5 (**permalink**) 10-17-2008, 08:22 PM

Alffie, that "shouldn't" happen if the tuner has disabled the requirement for the ECU to aquire a code from the BCM. BUT it is possible that it may need a re-link on the first start-up..... If the engine fires then stops (as opposed to just cranking) you will need to get it re-linked. You'll just have to wait and see...

alffie · #6 (**permalink**) 10-17-2008, 09:03 PM

If its locked can a local tuner do this "re-link"?

Plums · #7 (**permalink**) 10-17-2008, 09:35 PM

No, you need it unlocked to do a re-link.

sideshow · #8 (**permalink**) 10-17-2008, 10:59 PM

hey plums if the ecu is locked and vats is enabled why can u do a relink to bcm

doesnt the bcm take the code from the ecu

a locked tune is only to do with not being able to read the actual tune using hp tuners or efi live

anyway the happy people out of all this is efi live and hp tuners

they are selling their product to more and more backyarders who think thye can tune a car

Plums · #9 (**permalink**) 10-17-2008, 11:57 PM

You can force a VATS re-link with a tuner-locked PCM. When the PCM is put back into the car, the first time the bcm sends the code to the PCM, the PCM will store that sequence and continue to use it from then on. It uses the first BCM code that it sees, so it only happens once.

Philm hit the nail on the head with this: "In our business the Intellectual property issue is a concern, allowing mediocre companies to grow on the backs of those who spend the time and money to developed new ideas and designs.
Like with the Tunes they are then out in the market place for all to see and unfortunately copy."
People may think this "hiding tuning secrets" thing is BS but Phil's statement here is 100% spot on. ANY person with the tuning software, can simply download your tune, compare the differences to a stock program (the latest software up date has an excellent compare function) and use these differences to tunes his own OR CUSTOMERS cars.

I'll tell everyone here the reason I am so passionate about this subject. Back in 2004 in Adelaide, the LS1 tuning game was at it's peak. The software was still relatively expensive and there were only a few places (in Adelaide) that could tune an LS1. From the very start, I had been putting a small "security function" into every tune that I did (this was simply changing one of the unused table values to something that was not realistic). I could easily tell my tune apart from another (aside from other variables) by going straight to this table. One day in late 2004, I got a phone call from a guy saying that his car was running badly but that he'd had it tuned by someone else and asked if I'd take a look. I told him to go back to the person that did it but he said he had had a "falling out" with that workshop and was desperate. I told him to bring it around and I'd take a look at it. The car was running badly so I got into the tune to take a look. As soon as I opened the editor I thought it looked familiar, it was MY PROGRAM... After doing a quick scan with the engine running, I realised that the O2 sensors were buggered, (one was lazy and the other stuffed). It was nothing to do with the tune at all, which was mine anyway and after the O2 sensors were replaced it was running well again. The worst thing about this story, is that this car was tuned by a big name workshop, charging big name dollars!!!!
After that day I always lock my "good tunes"....

Who knows, I could be keeping "secrets" that are known to every tuner, but I'll continue to live in my own little world and think that I'm the only person that knows my "secrets".....

Sorry for the big rant....

Doubledip · #10 (**permalink**) 10-18-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plums

As soon as I opened the editor I thought it looked familiar, it was MY PROGRAM... The worst thing about this story, is that this car was tuned by a big name workshop, charging big name dollars!!!!
After that day I always lock my "good tunes"....

couldnt agree more

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plums

Sorry for the big rant....

totally acceptable

boxhead · #11 (**permalink**) 10-19-2008, 06:09 PM

For those who are interested I have been in contact with the ACCC and the breach of rule comes under the title off "Not fit for purpose"
please refer to http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item....ds%20guide.pdf

And a warning to all tuners, unless you specify (and written documentation with a customer signature is best) that the tune is either locked or not accessable by any other running system, then you are in breach of this law.

Rebel1 · #12 (**permalink**) 10-19-2008, 06:51 PM

Interesting Box, and I suspect you have a huge chance of getting your money back.

In my limited knowledge of IP ownership or indeed how this act of tuning actually comes about I suspect that none of these tuners can claim an IP ownership of any tunes at all.

My reasons are these and please correct me if I'm totally off base here.

For any GM engine to fire and run initially then a generic tune as supplied by GM has to be used or a tune based upon a generic tune.

Once the engine is running the tuner uses tools ie. HP tuners or EFI Llive, to (I'll use the term) "hack" into the GM OS and tune to make changes to the parameters.

In other words the tuner has not written any code nor compiled that code into a running application. He has merely hacked into a generic tune and changed some tables.

Given the requirement that all tunes include as a starting point a generic tune then have these tuners paid GM for the generic tune included in their product. (ie tune)

Am I correct in my assumptions and if so does the very act of selling a hacked product and claiming it to be your own be somewhat illegal.

boxhead · #13 (**permalink**) 10-19-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebel1

Interesting Box, and I suspect you have a huge chance of getting your money back.

In my limited knowledge of IP ownership or indeed how this act of tuning actually comes about I suspect that none of these tuners can claim an IP ownership of any tunes at all.

My reasons are these and please correct me if I'm totally off base here.

For any GM engine to fire and run initially then a generic tune as supplied by GM has to be used or a tune based upon a generic tune.

Once running the tuner uses tools ie. HP tuners or EFI Llive, to (I'll use the term) "hack" into the GM OS and tune to make changes to the parameters.

In other words the tuner has not written any code and compiled that code into a running application. He has merely hacked into a generic tune and changed some tables.

Given the requirement that all tunes include as a starting point a generic tune then have these tuners paid GM for the generic tune included in their product. (ie tune)

Am I correct in my assumptions and if so does the very act of selling a hacked product and claiming it to be yours somewhat illegal.

I do not know where that stands legally Les.
I asked about my issue only.

Philm · #14 (**permalink**) 10-19-2008, 07:48 PM

This is where this debate will spiral into infinity. What Les has stated is also an argument that is valid IMHO.

sideshow · #15 (**permalink**) 10-19-2008, 11:11 PM

not be start another **** fight

but what is the law regarding bad mouthing a business on public forums

there is another forums to do with toyota v8s and they have a section where

u can actually post stuff about bad adventures with other companies

now i think this is totally wrong and the moderators of that forums should stop it

i recon if somone in the real world can get punished for publicly rubbishing a biusiness when it results in loss of work

then what is the difference on a public forum

anyway i will speak to my solicitor just to get a rough idea on where companies stand with forums

so i can be careful with what i post and warn others with what they post

and if anyone on here is a solicitor of some sort what are your opinions on this

and dont be biast to this site

im just curipus to see where everyone stands

anyway i think dirty laundry should not be posted on forums

just my 10 cents as ive been cusrios for afew years

boxhead · #16 (**permalink**) 10-19-2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sideshow

not be start another **** fight

but what is the law regarding bad mouthing a business on public forums

there is another forums to do with toyota v8s and they have a section where

u can actually post stuff about bad adventures with other companies

now i think this is totally wrong and the moderators of that forums should stop it

i recon if somone in the real world can get punished for publicly rubbishing a biusiness when it results in loss of work

then what is the difference on a public forum

anyway i will speak to my solicitor just to get a rough idea on where companies stand with forums

so i can be careful with what i post and warn others with what they post

and if anyone on here is a solicitor of some sort what are your opinions on this

and dont be biast to this site

im just curipus to see where everyone stands

anyway i think dirty laundry should not be posted on forums

just my 10 cents as ive been cusrios for afew years

Sideshow. Please show me where I have "bad mouthed" him or his business.

I advised I was not happy, I never got into a name calling scenario, Infact Dan is the one who has replied with "but after the performance of a 5 year old i think I would withdraw that offer ."

Please Sideshow, re read all the messages that I have posted on the LS1 site regarding this matter, if you can find any part where I have "bad mouthed" Dan or ChipMaster then please point it out to me.
I am sure you will find once you re read it (as I have just done) that I have not "bad mouthed" anyone, I infact sing his praises regarding starting first time and such good numbers, I am just not happy that I could not get it adjusted.

OZCOBRA · #17 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 04:54 PM

Christ Boxhead ,
I bought this little spat

Over here after the mods had suspended your account on ls1 for a laugh

...
...it's bloody ridiculous where it has gone...and totally agree with what you just stated ..you haven't bad mouthed anyone ,they're lucky it wasn't me who got the tune I'm by no means as diplomatic as YOU!!

Doubledip · #18 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxhead

Sideshow. Please show me where I have "bad mouthed" him or his business.

I advised I was not happy, I never got into a name calling scenario, Infact Dan is the one who has replied with "but after the performance of a 5 year old i think I would withdraw that offer ."

Please Sideshow, re read all the messages that I have posted on the LS1 site regarding this matter, if you can find any part where I have "bad mouthed" Dan or ChipMaster then please point it out to me.
I am sure you will find once you re read it (as I have just done) that I have not "bad mouthed" anyone, I infact sing his praises regarding starting first time and such good numbers, I am just not happy that I could not get it adjusted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sideshow

there is another forums to do with toyota v8s and they have a section where

u can actually post stuff about bad adventures with other companies

now i think this is totally wrong and the moderators of that forums should stop it

Boxhead , how bout you re read sideshows last post.. it wasnt aimed at you but at another forum where the bad mouthing goes on all the time. Sideshow was actually asking others what the stand is on that , seeming you had gone to the hard work of ringing around and finding stuff out he was asking where do people stand on that matter.... you really need to stop being so defensive when ever he starts posting stuff in the same thread as you..

Rebel1 - thanks for your reply.. this is what he was after. top stuff

Rebel1 · #19 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 10:15 PM

And here is another interpretation ...

Can this suppliers tunes be classed as "faulty" therefore refundable because they directly allow( encourage) the operation of a vehicle without legislated emission controls.( ie. MAF).

Not only does it allow the vehicle to operate in an illegal manner but also prevents the operator/owner of said vehicle to correct the situation and make the vehicle comply with legislation.

Serviceability is a legislative requirement of vehicles. see the above link to the ACCC recall site and note 2008/10385 regarding the Honda Jazz.

"Defect Details: During the manufacturing process, damage may have occurred to a joint in the handbrake lever assembly mechanism. Continued use may cause sufficient wear for the joint to detach and make the handbrake assembly unserviceable."

So the defect with the Jazz is not because the handbrake lever can wear but because it would become "unserviceable" after that wear.

I suppose because after a time a fleet of Jazz vehicles would be running around with unserviceable hand brakes.

A legal precedent set regarding serviceability maybe?.

Plums · #20 (**permalink**) 10-21-2008, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebel1

And here is another interpretation ...

Can this suppliers tunes be classed as "faulty" therefore refundable because they directly allow( encourage) the operation of a vehicle without legislated emission controls.( ie. MAF).

Not only does it allow the vehicle to operate in an illegal manner but also prevents the operator/owner of said vehicle to correct the situation and make the vehicle comply with legislation.

It depends on the year model..... There were a few different HSV cars that came MAFLess from the factory.
I always use a HSV SV300 program for my MAFLess tunes, that way they are compliant without the MAF.

Of course I would have sent Boxhead an unlocked PCM. I don't think I've locked a "Cobra" PCM yet...

Boxhead, I do believe that you haven't really received a fair deal from Chipmaster (geez I only charge $350 for these Cobra tunes, sometimes less). If you send me a spare PCM (not Delco's locked one), I'll send it back with a MAFless tune to your specs for nothing. Also, if you are interested in buying the software down the track, I'll help you learn how to use it so you can fine tune YOUR car to YOUR liking.....