any guest son

 

You can't totally hide it..impossible. You can bench tune the module not to trigger a invalid calibration code but keep the stock software version numbers in place..then you end up storing an extra flash count. If your really into this, you can go into the separate eeprom and probably reset the count to wtv it was before you did the flash.. But then if you have an issue and the car is at the dealer(and a suspected reason to a tune present), they can use there SDD2 scan and pull the read and log off the PCM.. Once engineering look at torque and spark limits(or even just do a simple difference read, your cover is blown even if the tuner managed to retain the same checksum value)... Just they would have to really suspect a concern because doing a update will show the original file version.. Dealer doesn't look at flash counts, so it really has to be a reason for them to suspect a tune and go deeper ex: if you fit a charger pulley, but go in for an issue with oil pressure and timing chain rattle..lights will start flashing as to a possible tune being present.

Now there is a way with MED 17 to be undected by a dealer scanner, was done on VAG awhile back, think APR still does this for there VAG stuff..is another chip soldered onto your board..with a cenquence of wiper and indicator movements it will activate the chip.. Reverse those steps and the chip is disabled, stock pcm chip is run on again. If a dealer scans the car, no tune or flash count is disturbed... Only thing with this is the PCM requires opening, so if the tech knows to look at your pcm and sees the initial pry marks, they can investigate further and see the chip sitting there soldered into place...its not like the Jag pcm is hiding, it's right there for Bosch units..

So, in the end..is there a way to "totally" hide it?... Nope..nadda!

 

Jaron,
Still happy with the Behe tune?

 

I'm very happy With the tune but almost did not make it home ;( went flat spinning on the freeway in the middle of a snowstorm, I was so lucky but it is pulling like a raped ape lol
I'll post the numbers in a few when I get to the house

 

We did a few mods to the engine

 

 

Started with a base /auto

I was making 280hp 311 Torque stock After I'm making 370hp 359 torque !! that's a Difference you can feel

It's running great now, I have nothing but good things to say about the shop he worked on it for hours and made it safe and found the power. John has a great understanding of tuning and what it takes to make it right. If you are are willing to take him your car it will be worth the drive for sure
Lance / ( Unhingd ) Thank you again & nice meeting you

 

Wow, those are some great figures!

Who did your tuning and what modifications did you do?

 

Upper pulley , xpipe , cat back
AsmPerformance.com
He does not want to do mail order tunes they feel there's too many variables.
But if you are near him he will take great care of your car
Lots more to come he is thinking 60 more hp With the lower pulley
Unhingd will be the first to have it

 

Maybe the first V6 with a lower pulley, but I'm not looking to twist my MT into a pretzel. I'm just looking for a broader, flatter torque curve at this point.

 

I understand fully

 

Those are some impressive numbers! We just dyno'd a stock V6 340bhp at 277whp/285wtq. Still in the testing phase, but those numbers are wow..your stock tune pushes 14psi to create 280whp, now your making 285whp@11.6psi...

Weird how you don't really see a difference in whp to say our car is a 340bhp base, and I believes your car is an "S" right?..so 380bhp base..wait are you awd? That could explain the extra power taken on base run.

Still astonished by the additional power increase, were both runs done in same gear and not one with/without TC lockup?

Your only a few whp short of making 5.0L power..we did a 2011 XF 510bhp base that made 394whp stock...with a lower pulley, your estimated 60hp pushes you over what a 5.0L XF can put to the ground.

Was the base run tested with the mods you have, or were mods added with the tuned run?

 

Nope, that's a base car, and I'm astonished too. I'm wondering if some of the fail-safes you mentioned in a post elsewhere on this forum are missing.

 

But it's a S model right?

 

No, it's a base 340 V6, auto, obviously RWD.

 

Ok, do you know if he did both runs on same dyno?

Those numbers all make perfect sense if a dynojet (even mustard dyno) was used on stock run and then the dynapack was used for mod runs..

 

Hmmmm, pretty sure they were, but you might PM Unhingd as he was there, and this was at a shop he's been using for many years here in Maryland. The base V6 tuned results were essentially identical to U's V6S.

That's exactly what I'd expect since the two engines are identical except for OEM tune.

 

Jaronstoys:
V6 base auto with Behe tune starting with a V6S OEM tune; 359wtq, 370whp
Unhingd:
V6S MT with VMax tune 347wtq, 365whp (OEM:285wtq, 320whp)


Jaron's numbers are a bit better and he has tighter control on his nannies. I am guessing he started at 282wtq/289whp

Both are now using a 2.5% upper under-drive pulley (-1.5mm)
All these numbers used the same load-bearing dynamometer: Dynapack.


Inertial dynos will not deliver consistent (reproducible) results and often overstate what you have. This one does not as shown by my OEM tune coming in close to advertised.

 

Yah, I usually see dynapack giving higher values, usually a 12% raise over dynojet..

Which makes sense of the mod power making 370whp..same car with mods on dynojet would make 330-340whp.

Just the stock power numbers don't match this theory being our car made 277whp(340bhp) stock on a mustang dyno which usually nets less power than a dynojet and waaaaay less power than a dynapack

 

Is it possible that the 19%(vs 16%) drive train loss you are seeing on the OEM tune is a result of the AT versus MT?