Quote Originally Posted by Rhinopkc View Post
Unless you have baseline data, all of this data you are presenting now doesn’t really support your tuning claim. The data logs, flow scans, gps logs, and whatever else you publish should be accompanied by a baseline set of logs with the same parameters. If not, it just another unsupported claim that a product is producing a certain result. It’s like the magnets on the fuel lines, or the unicorn blood in the fuel tank. Remember Slick 50? I’m not saying you can’t tune for a little better mileage, but unless you have the baseline set of numbers to look at, it’s hard to buy a forty percent improvement from just a tune. I’m pretty sure you can get a job tuning for OEMs if you can boost their fuel efficiency by that much.
Current emission standards and the equipment used would not be able to be used with this efficiency, technology isn't there. I'll ask you to look at a stock calibration and talk to the men/ women who did the work. They will tell you it is based on ftp and is tuned to meet it. Less regard to fuel mileage than you think. I used to instruct the techs who ran the ftps. I then collected the emission data and discussed it with the people who made changes. Half of them had no interest in cars, they worked their 49 hours a week and went home. I hope to get to the point where I can meet emissions and continue to get the same mileage, that's why I'm working on developing alternative ways to reduce emissions.

Btw, I quit because I have a hard time with educated idiots.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk