I have talked with Fuel Moto and PC tech support numerous times and often exhaustively about this device. Do you have someone more qualified in mind? Regardless, I assume you'll tell me the misconceptions I have below...

True, and it is also irrelevant to the auto-tune process. I've worked with the PCIII, later on with the basic PCV, and Auto-Tune since it was introduced in January. I've had it installed on my bike and I know how it works.

I've explained this process numerous times on other threads but I'll attempt it again. With Auto-Tune the base map is irrelevant to anything that involves the dynamic tune of the bike, and is nothing more than a starting point. If you start out with a zeroed base map it won't run any better or any worse than a base map that has been created from a dyno tune on the bike it is installed on after the Auto-Tune process has been completed. This is a matter of a long ride through all RPM/TP areas, preferably two times or more. Even if you install a map for totally wrong hardware (i.e. wrong cams) it still won't matter with the ultimate tune.

Auto-Tune uses the base map only as the basis from which to work. It compares the values in the Target AFR tables with the information given by the O2 sensors and creates a trim table. This trim table acts on the base map to meter the fuel to the engine.

If for example you have just dyno tuned your bike and the base map shows 10 for 2000 RPM @ 15% TP. When you ride and the target AFR's for the bike are designated the same as during the dyno tune you will have a trim value of 0 for that cell. If your base map shows 0 for the cell, as in a totally zeroed base map, the trim value will be 10 to provide the AFR you established in the target AFR table. The net result is the same and the bike won't know any difference. Calculating 0+10=10 or 10+0=10 you still end up with 10.

Wrong, it makes no difference whatsoever. Your bike's ECM will adjust for altitude and other environmental factors through the MAP sensor but AT will override it. You don't understand Auto-Tune and I'm obviously doing a bad job of explaining it, so why not call Jamie at Fuel Moto and he'll do a much better job of it. After you do that please get back to us with a report.

You may be confusing the PCV-AT with T'Max, as with the latter your base map must be very close for the system to trim properly. With the PCV-AT you can put random numbers into the base map if you want to and it will auto-tune the same as a base map that has been created from a dyno tune.

Timing is not a process of auto-tune. Keep in mind that it is not as big a factor as the fuel-metering aspect and is still controlled by the ECU's knock sensor. I used Fuel Moto's base map for the bike and tweaked it further in the cruise range for maximum advance before incipient detonation. I used the same strategy for WOT, although it is unchanged from the original base map. Also keep in mind that the ECU also regulates timing based on engine temperature and that behavior is not controllable by a third-party device. Besides, when you buy a PCV, with or without AT, from Fuel Moto you will get a correct base map based on a dyno-tune of a like-equipped bike, and that includes the ignition tables. The bike's MAP sensor also factors into the equation, and that is fully operational with the PCV.

 

I never said timing was controlled by auto-tune nor that AT is a panacea. I explained how I tuned the ignition advance earlier.

What all of you on the TTS bandwagon are missing is that even though you don't need a dyno tune to gain a proper AFR tune, if you buy a PCV-AT from Fuel Moto you will get a base map that's based on a dyno tune with a like-equipped bike. This includes the ignition tables. If you want to talk correct ignition timing you will get it with the PCV, with or without AT, purchased from Fuel Moto.

 

What you don't have is control over AFR's over the entire RPM/TP spectrum. Without feedback you don't have it, and the narrow-band O2 sensors simply won't give it to you. With wide-band sensors the PCV-AT will auto-tune AFR's throughout all ranges of operation.

 

Iclick we can debate all day about which tuner is better. You love the PCV and its works great for you. I almost went that route. But after talking to Jamie and getting his input on the motor work and the lack of a good base map for PCV, I purchased the TTS. It is a great piece of software. I'm in the process of adding a 50MM throttle body and Head work. With these changes the TTS will easily retune the bike with just a few changes to the map.

 

I don't think Iclick is debating which is better....but some folks came on and stated some blatantly false information about the PCV. That seems to be where the debate lies.

 

Iclick I do have a question. How are you able to make changes to your timing tables? The TTS has a data record feature which lets you record and playback what the engine is doing. Does the PCV do the same? Are you able to witness a knock event and make a timing change?

 

I had a Thundermax w/AutoTune and the bike ran alright with it. It didn't run great, though. The check engine light would come on and the AutoTune feature didn't work worth a crap when goin' from interstate to city ridin'. The base map I used was the closest Thundermax had available. I'm sure the PCV autotune works pretty much the same way. I'm not sayin' it's a bad product, but I bought into the hype of autotune, and that's all it was.....hype.

I used a PCIII after the Thundermax, and I was just as happy with it, but it cost a lot less. I got it from Fuel Moto with the map already loaded. Only thing I realized later was that I was sacrificing a good bit of gas mileage.

I wound up bumpin' the motor up to a 107 (115 hp, 128 tq) and I'm not using a TTS MasterTune. My gas mileage went up a lot. So now I have better gas mileage and more power than when I had the Thundermax w/AutoTune and the PCIII.

In my opinion, you can't beat a TTS MasterTune or SERT/SEST and a person who REALLY knows how to tune a bike.

 

I agree with you, and that one tuner isn't right for every person. I was only trying to dispel what I considered misinformation about the PCV-AT, not that it is a panacea that would save every rider's soul.

With the right tuner and mechanical acumen TTS, SERT, or SEST can be excellent tuners. I do think that a PCV from Fuel Moto is the best for the money given the excellent base map that usually can be provided, and while AT is a step beyond that it isn't either mandatory or necessary for most riders, IMO.

All tuners have their weaknesses, the PCV with it's lack of ability to auto-tune ignition advance, but I think that is easily worked around by either having a good canned map or tweaking by the seat of your pants. Tweaking timing isn't as blindly approached as are AFR's, as you have audible (detonation) and even visual (spark-plug inspection) indicators that tell you when you've gone too far. I don't consider this a major weakness, and know of no tuner that auto-tunes ignition advance.

 

It works very different from T'Max. With PCV-AT you can install any base map no matter how far off base it is and it will auto-tune, but I understand T'Max must have a close map to work properly. Of course with PCV-AT the further off the base map is the longer it will take to tune, but I find that one full day of riding through all ranges will get it very close, and that's starting with a rich base map using very lean target AFR's that produce double-digit trim values.

PCV-AT also works with the bike's installed knock-detection feature as well as provide full-featured use of the MAP sensor. T'Max won't do that and has no knock detection at all.

That can be tweaked by leaning the cruise range. There are quite a few tutorials on this forum about how to do that. I was able to get stock gas mileage (up to 50mpg) with the PCIII and PCV by just doing some tweaking. The AT makes it much easier by specifying the AFR you want to run and where without affecting overall performance.

I wound up bumpin' the motor up to a 107 (115 hp, 128 tq) and I'm not using a TTS MasterTune. My gas mileage went up a lot. So now I have better gas mileage and more power than when I had the Thundermax w/AutoTune and the PCIII.

That could be true, but the weak link in the equation is finding that great tuner. It also jacks up the ultimate price for that perfect tune. With PCV-AT you don't really need that that final step, and only the ignition tables may require some tweaking to get right, which any rider should be able to do on their own.

 

You can data-log using the LCD display, but that's an added-cost item that I find unnecessary for my needs. It records using a CF card for storage, and you can also load multiple maps among which you can choose on the fly. Otherwise (no display) you have the ability to toggle between two maps using a simple on-off switch, which I consider a valuable feature. I'm not aware of a way to data-log using the PCV by itself, although it may be possible.

The PCV-AT has four sets of tables: Base map, target AFR's, ignition timing, and trims--but the trim map cannot be edited. It changes based on the base map, target AFR's, and real-time AFR's being reported by the O2 sensors. Maps that come from Fuel Moto are advanced maps which are tuned for both cylinders individually, so each table set has two maps (front and rear cylinder), eight in all. They all look the same with RPM on one axis and TP on the other, 250 cells in all. The base map uses values that designate a percentage of increase or decrease over the ECU. Thus "10" would be 10% more fuel in that cell. Ignition timing has values in degrees, so "1" would designate 1° more advance than the ECU dictates. A "-1" is thus 1° retarded. I've never had a setup that required more than 4° of adjustment either way, but I believe you have ą20° to work with, which would seem extreme overkill for any situation. Here's an example of the Target AFR table for my front cylinder, although this is the one I was running with my stock cams, so I've made some changes since my cam upgrade. The Target AFR tables use actual AFR values, so "14.7" would obviously be a 14.7:1 AFR.