Care to elaborate on this? Why would anyone want adaptive learning to get in the way of trying to dial in a tune?

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

adaptives dont "get in the way" the hegos can accurately dial in fuel better than a human or a wideband

_________________
http://www.efidynotuning.com/ford/

Have you been drinking again? I feel that adaptives have a tendancy to learn around the changes we make and remember that its us humans that invented and built hegos and the ecms and all we tune with so I think we can handle dialing things in just fine without adaptives if we want to.

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

I think it's just differences in tuning styles.

Some people prefer the KAMRFs being there to smooth out the rough edges they'd rather not deal with.

Others want to smooth them out themselves and don't want the KAMRFs covering for them. Either way works as long as the engine gets what it wants WHEN it wants it. Again, it's just a matter of tuning style. He prefers KAMRFs. I've found it more advantageous to disable them so I can do unconventional things in the tune that KAMRFs would actually undo.

And then there is the compromise in the middle. You can activate adaptive learning, but then restrict it to only the RPM/Loads where you are OK with the tune learning, and the areas of the tune where you've got special voodoo going on, force the KAMRFs to maintain 1.000 so you can do your black magic.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

there is absolutely no cons associated with kam data, they can ONLY benefit the fueling, if kams are getting in your way then you are doing something wrong no 2 ways about it

_________________
http://www.efidynotuning.com/ford/

I accept that as your opinion, not fact. People can choose to agree with it or not. Makes no difference to me.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

not just my opinion, just about every vehicle manufacturer with probably over 600 million vehicles on the road currently utilize o2 sensors and correction data

it seems as though they have figured out the same as I

_________________
http://www.efidynotuning.com/ford/

I think adaptive learning has its place. In a stock production car it works of course. When you start throwing parts like we do at our cars, adaptive learning kind of gets skewed because its looking to make corrections based upon a stock production set up. If adaptive learning was so wonderful; why with todays technology do we have to reflash a 05 and up mustang ecm with just a simple addition of a jdm cold air intake? If adaptive learning was so great even to todays standards why can it compensate and correct for something as simple as that? I think adaptive learning has its place and with our tuning capabilities can be made to work if the time is put into the tune to reconfigure what needs to be done to make it work. This is just my oppinion and experience so take it with a grain of salt.

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

I agree with both assessments.

Yes, factories have to deal with a single tune working across LOTS of cars, operating at a wide range of running temperatures, and burning a fairly varied blend of fuels. So the only way to get that is to allow the tune to adapt to the vehicle it is controlling and to the condition it is controlling under. But these vehicles have far more going for them, in the way of R&D, than most DIY tuners and builders can afford. And even the factory doesn't open up learning to all RPM/Load across all driving conditions. There are limits as to what is learned, how fast learning is allowed, and where learning is allowed.

As for why the new cars require a flash because of a CAI change, I suspect that's not a fault of the Adaptive Learning technology. I suspect that's limits imposed by the factory when something "odd" is detected that on a 100% unmodified car probably would be an indication of a problem the owner probably should be made aware of or have checked out. I expect the new EECs of today have far more adaptability than they are allowed to utilize for one reason or another. But that's just a guess...and based on absolutely no experience other than what I've got dealing with 80s era Ford EEC technology. The people that deal with the modern EECs could speak to that far better than I.

And I also have to admit that most vehicles should be able to have adaptive learning turned on without causing any problems and in fact should benefit by its being there if properly configured. But that assumes the tune is configured for that vehicle and to work with adaptive learning and adaptive learning's assumptions (target is always lambda 1.000, so learn until LAMBSEs match).

However during the process of getting together a working tune, I personally prefer the KAMRFs not be in the mix just so I'm only dealing with LAMBSEs. It just simplifies things for me so I have less to think about and less to keep up with during the tuning phase...similar to getting rid of WOT Spark control and the Base & Altitude spark tables.

As for my truck, I'm having to tune around a setup that is known to be far less than optimal. For that reason alone, you could argue I'm doing something wrong. Regardless, I've found it easier to just leave KAMRFs disabled than try to work with them...mainly because I can. I don't recommend people go my route. I recommend people try to let KAMRFs do what they do once you get to a relatively usable and mature tune. But to say KAMRFs must be turned on or you are doing something wrong as an absolute statement, I just can't agree with.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

It almost seems as if there the misconception that one is loosing control using adaptives, rather then being a tool to be used. I'm a fan of KAMRF's as looking at them I can quickly see where the fuel is off - idle, decel, cruise, and close enough to WOT that WOT is only a few percent off. It's basically a history of fuel for me over the course of pulsewidths and airflows that I when I plot, I can see where and what to adjust.

It's like it's doing an automatic comparison of LAMBSE to AFR for you, no?

_________________
85GT, 302 w/Dart Windsor Jr heads, Crane 2030 equiv. Performer 5.0, 75mm TB, 88mm slot MAF, 34lbs injectors, BBK shorties, 5spd converted to 4R70W with Baumann controller, 9" rear w/3.25s
A9L running A9P bin via Quarterhorse w/LC-1 WB

That's exactly what it is doing. And under most conditions, it does fine-tune things. But where it causes problems for me is on transients of throttle or transitioning from one RPM/Load to another. My throttle transients are so unpredictable at times I often have to just over-enrich on transition, and let Closed Loop sort out the difference. I could probably correct most of my problems by replacing my MAF with something better than the POS C&L. And if that didn't do it, figure a better intake track than what I have by relocating my battery to the bed of the truck which would free up a ton of room. I'm sure if I took my truck to a quality tuner that actually wanted the best for his customers, they'd turn me away until I fixed those things. A crap tuner would give me a crap tune and take my money.

So why don't I replace the MAF? Mainly because I can tune around my issues and if truth be known, I've rather enjoyed the challenge. It's taken some creativity manipulating the tune to get it to work like I want AND still get 22-23 MPG on my daily commute. So it has been one hell of a learning tool forcing me into areas of the tune I would've never considered messing with otherwise. The catch is the way I have the tune right now, if KAMRFs are allowed to learn away some of my purposely done tweaks, then it makes transitions a little rougher because of a sometimes lean tip-in or it makes idle hunt rich right as I approach a stop sign in neutral or 1/2 dozen other things I've about forgotten I tuned away by messing with this or that in the tune. Most applications shouldn't have these issues so KAMRFs do what they were intended with little to no side-effects making the decision to use KAMRFs an obvious one and this whole argument for not using them an absolute moot point.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

Well like I said if adaptive learning was so wonderful why cant it compensate for a cold air intake on a 2011/2012 coyote 5.0? A cai is not adding that much more air to require a reflash that the adaptives cant control. If it can handle the variable cam timing events it should be able to in theory handle a little more air and richen the mix up a hair to compensate for the air addition. In my personal oppinion the end user should have to purchase a flashing tool or pay me to flash the ecm to handle a silly cai. I know it is what it is but how can one be so confident about adaptives if it cant handle the simple task of a cai?

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

Like I said above, I don't know that the word is "can't". I think the EEC has been purposely tuned to report changes in performance, even ones as small as a CAI addition. Again, the newer EEC tumer/def developers should be able to answer to this, but I suspect the EEC's parameters can be widened considerably to compensate/tolerate modifications like this or even more. But I don't want to say that with confidence since I don't know how true that is.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

I wasnt (edited) arguing against your thought. I am just stating the obviuos in my eyes. I go back to the days the we installed heads cam and intake and threw a supercharger on top of it and adaptives seemed to work just fine to a point figuring things out and somewhat adjusting. This is back when we didnt have the tuning capabilities or knowledge we have now. We now now what all needs to be changed and manipulated with adaptives to maximize their potential in todays environment. Of course our ecm's are alot more simple in a crude fashion compared to todays ecm technology. It seems like the tolerances have become tighter within the adaptive learning ranges and strategies allowed in todays cars and to me i would think this would be the opposite and would have better capabilities then they did back in the day. I know you mentioned that purposely tuned eecs of today may be purposely build or programmed this way and it leads me to wonder why it is as such if it is. If this is the case how do adaptives learn altitude changes correctly. A cold air intake should have a negligable effect on any of todays cars and in my oppinion should be alot more adaptive than our 20+ year old ecms and strategies. I could be wrong in all of this and maybe someone will be able to shed more light on this topic with more definitive answers to my why's and how comes but I can only go by my real everyday experience in the field. It seems we are all correct and/or incorrect in some respectand is a really good topic of discussion that we all may need to understand better. the same rule should apply to a mustang for example sold in the northeast per say that is in an e-10 environment. That same vehicle should be able to adaptively learn around a different region if traveled to that is a non ethanol blended region or a higher ethanol blend environment. I would assume the eecv can adapt around those conditions so why not a little more air from a cai without having to reflash the ecm?

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

I certainly can't comment with anything specific since that's just not my area. But I would be interested in hearing from someone like Adam (POPSRACING) or mpaton on their thoughts regarding this.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

adaptives CAN compensate for cold air intakes, what adaptives can't compensate for (in stock calibrations) is a change in maf housing, unless you have a d.e.c. its not as simple as plug and play

just about all newer ecu's use full time widebands, they can adjust to their clip limit set in the calibration, its not a physical limitation they are calibrated to do so

flex fuel is a completely different strategy than adaptives, apples and oranges

as thy so eloquently deliberated previously, adaptives can only 'improve' the overall tune

not much has changed in engine management function from the 80s until now, newer ecu's do extra useless crap but the basics are the exact same, theres only 2 primary variables, fuel and spark, transmission, vct, etc.. all come 2nd

_________________
http://www.efidynotuning.com/ford/

well if adaptives can compensate for a cai why is there a requirement to reflash the ecm with the install of a cai? The maf housing is not being changed.

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

Don't they usually try to give a better spark curve with any of those CAI to show how much better they are? I'd bet if the MAF/housing didn't change, you could get by without a reflash.

_________________
85GT, 302 w/Dart Windsor Jr heads, Crane 2030 equiv. Performer 5.0, 75mm TB, 88mm slot MAF, 34lbs injectors, BBK shorties, 5spd converted to 4R70W with Baumann controller, 9" rear w/3.25s
A9L running A9P bin via Quarterhorse w/LC-1 WB

you can, so long as the airflow across the sensor remains constant

_________________
http://www.efidynotuning.com/ford/

Thats probably whats going on. The new cai are 4" and it probably changes how the sensor is seing the air come in and is throwing the stock tune too far out of whack.

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

Since this has gone way off topic I thought I chuck a couple of thoughts in :)

A CAI should not necessitate a reflash due to fuelling adaptive limits being hit. If you think about what a CAI basically does, increase air flow, then the ecu would adjust fuelling to suit (i.e. just as if the throttle had been cracked open a little bit more). Even if the airflow has been drastically improved then the fuelling should still be OK as long as the MAF isn't being pegged.

Where you may encounter a problem is with idle speed, the extra airflow may increase the idle beyond where it can be controlled by the ISCV. I think this is unlikely though as improvements to airflow generally show them selves at higher throttle/rpm when the induction system previously couldn't keep up with the engine demand. Even if I'm wrong here, you could adjust the throttle stop to bring the flow back down to where the ISCV can control the idle speed again. Once again, a reflash wouldn't be needed.

An alternative idea about the issue is that it could be the CAI is causing turbulence in the airflow and this isn't something adaptives are designed to deal with. They are typically used to account for long term changes to the system and not very short term fluctuations in airflow.

As surmised above, maybe the ecu is rigged to spot mechanical changes and not play nicely with them. You'd really need to know what changes are being made with these CAI reflashes to know what effect the CAI is having.

Is there any chance the computer knows what airflow should result from a given RPM/TP? If so, anything that would improve airflow would cause airflow to be increased at any given TP. Thus I could see how a CAI might cause the computer to think something is different if airflows previously learned/hard-coded for given TP positions suddenly went higher, then the EEC would throw a code since it is recognizing a running condition it doesn't recognize as "stock".

Is that possible? I ask because I don't know the newer EECs.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

There are the 'Inferred Load' tables where the eec looks up a variant of LOAD according to rpm and relative throttle position. This value is used to derive an anticipated air charge value and if the measured air charge differs too much then it can cause issues (you'll see some sloppy tunes where multipliers are maxed out rather than re-populate the table(s) with realistic values to avoid this issue).

Well from what I understand and have seen, not all cai will require a reflash. I know the JDM and Steeda one require it because it throws a lean code and puts the ecm into limp mode. So it seems to me that the ecms must be hard coded for a certain airflow and fuel supply. Anything outside of that norm and the adaptives are not able to compensate for the change in airflow for whatever reason.

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

There is a difference between:

• Can't compensate
• Don't compensate, but could if allowed
• Throw a code but attempt to compensate and run the engine

I'm more interested in which of these best describes what happens when the EEC detects mods have been performed.

It is possible for the EEC to recognize that it is compensating for a lean condition outside of its normal range, particularly if the newer EECs have WBs, and thus throw a code. However what I haven't heard is whether the EEC prevents the compensation attempt or attempts the compensation, but just throws the CEL on as a detected oddity.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

Well the fact that the eec is going into limp mode is enough. Doesnt matter whether it can or cant or tries to compensate for anything. To me the bottom line is the eec is not compensating for the hardware upgrade on its own based on the factory tune and a reflash is required. Chris I get what your saying and I understand your interest as I share your interest as well and am eager to learn the in depth answer. But the short answer is, with most upgrades like a cai, exhaust or gear swap mods you will most likely need to reflash the ecm with a handheld flasher like the sct bama sf/x 3.

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

What's the indication you are basing the claim that the EEC has gone into limp mode? If it's the CEL, I don't think that's a Limp Mode indicator, only a code indicator.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com

From experience First indication is the cel, the second is the codes 2104 forced idle condition and 2122 app sensor circuit failure. These two codes will enter the ecm into limp mode.

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

It is not an opinion it is a fact and he is 100% correct and while I don't want to get into this discussion I will say this.

The entire purpose of adaptive are to make automatic changes for various conditions.... Having said that the ONLY time when adaptives should even be considered to be optional are on race cars that mayhave mechanical issues that the ECM will attempt to correct for.

There are only positives and NO negatives for running adaptives......if adaptives cause the car to run "worse" then the vehicles calibration is off.

The talk about adding aftermarket parts to the newer vehicles and expecting them to "adapt" is absurd... the calibration is not designed to do so as it is expecting an as built configuration.

I have personally read calibrations from dozens of "professional" tuners and the only ones that disable adaptives are the same ones that force open loop and disable the CEL because they are a "nuisance".

_________________
STLMustangs
Dealer and Tuning Support for DiabloSport,TwEECer, Moates, SCT & HPTuners

Why?
Back that claim with details. I think what we are trying to get to is what exactly is it in the tune that needs to be modified when someone puts a CAI onto one of these newer cars? And why is the EEC not adaptable, by default, to handle seemingly minor mods like a CAI?

I tend to agree with this. If I were to sell my truck, I wouldn't sell it as-is. I would either fix the things that prevent me from activating adaptives particularly if the person taking over my setup had little interest in DIY tuning. I get away with it because I touch my tune so frequently and datalog far more hours of drive-time than I don't. Although I haven't touched anything in the tune in a while that I think would be affected by adaptives (i.e. MAF curve, Injector parameters, etc).

But even if I were tuning someone elses vehicle, I'd initially disable adaptives just to ensure they don't need to clear their KAMRFs each time I make a tweak to the tune. Once they were happy with the results, then re-enable KAMRFs. Obviously if I were a professional tuner, this just wouldn't be an option. But for the VERY few people I've ever assisted locally, that just seemed to work out best since they were generally newbies and I couldn't trust them to successfully clear their KAMRFs on a tune change.

_________________
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331 w/GT40p heads, ported Explorer lower, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, 1.6RRs, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, Slot Style MAF, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, Innovate LC-1, GUFB, Moates QuarterHorse tuned using BE&EA

Member V8-Ranger.com