[whyrms]

Originally Posted by Carnage

I've been looking through the white paper from Dinan and he appears to make some good points.

Without the typical crap, personal attacks and blind faith that goes on around here, I'd really like to hear someone knowledgable explain why Dinan is right or wrong about the following statement....

".....More faults and frankly compromised reliability will also result from these control units when compared to good software.

This is because it is more difficult to obtain correct sensor, fuel mixtures and ignition timing values without getting a fault. In addition, computer controlled turbos have safety features that lower boost and re-tune the mixture and timing based on heat exchanger efficiency, engine temperature and detonation. Often piggy-back control units will compromise these safety programs because they “fight” these corrections rather than implement them as would be the case with properly engineered software."

I guess my days of being a forum lurker are over. From what the OP quoted, and from a little thing called critical reading comprehension, I was able to attain these informations:

1. it is more difficult to obtain correct values without getting a fault using piggy back.
2. often times piggy back will "fight" these corrections rather than implement them.

so if a piggy back system were to 1. obtain correct values without getting fault, and 2. implements these values in its correction. Then "No Problem!"

or am I missing something here?

btw I don't know if anyone notice it, but the last line sounded like *cough* *bs* *cough*, to me. "Often piggy-back control units will compromise these safety programs because they “fight” these corrections rather than implement them as would be the case with properly engineered software." wah? so you implement these safety programs....for what? aren't you're forcing the engine to work outside its normal parameter? isn't this what you're doing? ohk ohk, so maybe you're saying that, you keep these safety system in mind when you're writing the codes, but it's like saying to the system "your opinion is duly noted, but uhm i would like to increase the psi and fuel input."

[6Zylinder]

I read very often of good software and ECU flashing is better. The thing is, if you flash the ECU with a crappy software, you will have problems. If you put a piggy back with an excellent written software on it, you wont have problems. Both solutions need software! An ECU flash is less work intensive than to install a piggy back, but if your car is still under warranty, the piggy back is definitely the better solution. No traces can be found when uninstalled (to a certain degree ).

My 2c's

[dmz]

I don't know why people are arguing whether Flash or piggyback is better. it's kind of like arguing that Windows is better than MAC or viceversa. These 2 methods are just the delivery system. In my opinion, what really matter is the code inside the flash or the piggyback. If you write crappy code on a flash you get a crappy flash program on your ecu. If you have crappy code on a piggyback unit, you have a crappy piggyback system as well. End of story.