TS Performance Ramifier
02-19-2004, 08:59 PM
#61
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doug, why the chip on the shoulder.
most dynos show speed instead of RPM since they do not use the tach input. especially with diesels. dennis's truck has 3.73 gears and stock tires, 265 70 r17 i think. do the math.
i have dyno graphs with RPM on them to make you happy, send me a fax number.
TS performance has told you they modify boost and pressure signals.
TST told you the alter the timing signal with the crank sensor.
neither needs to tell you anymore. these are company tuning parameters they have spent hours/weeks developing. if everyone knew them, there would be no difference in brands.
also, if one box were to malfunction, which do you think would do more damage? too much fuel at the correct timing or a shot of fuel at the wrong time?
most dynos show speed instead of RPM since they do not use the tach input. especially with diesels. dennis's truck has 3.73 gears and stock tires, 265 70 r17 i think. do the math.
i have dyno graphs with RPM on them to make you happy, send me a fax number.
TS performance has told you they modify boost and pressure signals.
TST told you the alter the timing signal with the crank sensor.
neither needs to tell you anymore. these are company tuning parameters they have spent hours/weeks developing. if everyone knew them, there would be no difference in brands.
also, if one box were to malfunction, which do you think would do more damage? too much fuel at the correct timing or a shot of fuel at the wrong time?
02-19-2004, 09:25 PM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, IN
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by doug
I hear ya. A dyno chart that isn't publically available is of no use to me. I wasn't aware that there was no real dyno chart. I might be wrong about this, but suspect that a real dyno run would plot rpm on the x axis. So until we have such a chart we must assume that the Ramifier has made no real measurements worth comparing with others. like comparing apples and toyotas. huh. sometimes you gotta scratch 'yo head I guess.
clarity versus obfuscation is an important issue to me. gimme the facts without the vauge or oblique references.
I hear ya. A dyno chart that isn't publically available is of no use to me. I wasn't aware that there was no real dyno chart. I might be wrong about this, but suspect that a real dyno run would plot rpm on the x axis. So until we have such a chart we must assume that the Ramifier has made no real measurements worth comparing with others. like comparing apples and toyotas. huh. sometimes you gotta scratch 'yo head I guess.
clarity versus obfuscation is an important issue to me. gimme the facts without the vauge or oblique references.
Bret
02-20-2004, 03:07 PM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
installed today
I received and installed my new Ramifier today
I had the oppurtunity to try an Edge E.Z. about a week ago.No comparison.This module does make great gains,i have about 50' of black rubber on my driveway to prove it! Much more responsive THROUGHOUT the power band,it definitely woke my S.O. up.I l was hoping to have good low end,and i definitely have it now.Like driving a different truck.Good job T.S.
I had the oppurtunity to try an Edge E.Z. about a week ago.No comparison.This module does make great gains,i have about 50' of black rubber on my driveway to prove it! Much more responsive THROUGHOUT the power band,it definitely woke my S.O. up.I l was hoping to have good low end,and i definitely have it now.Like driving a different truck.Good job T.S.
02-22-2004, 04:42 PM
#66
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moved.......now Sumter, SC
Posts: 1,681
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Has anyone gotten their hands on a dyno graph for the RAMifier? I would love to have it e-mailed to me so I could check out the power curve. I asked TS to fax me one but it hasn't showed up yet.
SO preferebly, but an HO would do.
SO preferebly, but an HO would do.
02-22-2004, 10:05 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fencebuilders: good info. the torque does appear to come in lower than the EZ . must be that fancy boost fooling. I'll wait and see it on the public web site when it is available but at first glance this box appears to be a good alternative to the EZ. Maybe even the most favorable power curve on a box limited to these physical connections.
joeservo: no chip, just making conclusions based on available information, and pointing out what I believe is less than straightforward marketing. I don't make purchase decisions on the basis of information of this caliber, and in my opinion TS isn't doing very well in terms of clear, useful (without being proprietary) information suitable to distinguish their box from anothers. I've had to read between the technobabble and think I may be close, but at best my conclusions are speculative.
Yes, I'm aware that raw torque measured native on the rollers is agnostic of what delivers it and at what gear ratios. But the result of the measurement is meaningless without that (gear ratio and tire) data. My point is that raw torque as a function of speed has no meaning, and if raw torque (or HP) versus speed can be converted to engine torque (or engine HP) versus speed, then the necessary mathematics is already available to graph what we really need -- rpm on the x axis. Ultimately, though, my point is that whoever delivers a graph by any means (web, fax, whatever) to anyone considering the product should present something meaninful, or explain why it is not. If you put up something on a web site that isn't meaningful, then you communicate that to whoever sees it. There are trivial ways around the technical obsticals of web publishing but the desire to display meaningful information has to be there.
joeservo: "TS performance has told you they modify boost and pressure signals."
This is not the crux of my concern. TS perrformance has told us that the box is not a pressure box [they really mean not just a pressure box] , and that it actually modifies timing and duration. And they use the same language and context as TST does to describe their product. This is not correct, it is misleading, and falsely places the TS product in the same category as those boxes who actually modify timing and duration (directly) and do not modify pressure.
joeservo: "TST told you the alter the timing signal with the crank sensor"
correct. and we know that approximately 40 HP is available via that means alone. They also told us that that they alter duration with a connection to the injectors and we know that over 100 HP is available via that means alone. So when a company claims that a box alters timing and duration, but fails to meet the HP and torque numbers evident from other boxes that "alter timing and duration" I immediately call for a definition of terms, because the impact and benefit of "timing and duration" for one box is different from "timing and duration" on another. I see this a perfectly valid consumer question -- when the capability behind the claim does not make sense in the context of today's market. If "timing and duration" as method of power enancement didn't matter as a distinquishing characteristic between fueling boxes then the method of obtaining such would be irrelavent. But since "timing and duration" is both marketing language AND important to distinguish one box from another, the method of obtaining such IS relevant. One company has revealed how they obtain changes to timing and duration. TS refused to answer the question directly.
joeservo: "neither needs to tell you anymore. these are company tuning parameters they have spent hours/weeks developing. if everyone knew them, there would be no difference in brands."
High level approach descriptions such as "we alter duration via connection to injector", and "we alter timing via direct connection to crank sensor" are not company tuning parameters, and TST has not revealed any such thing. I only hold TS to the same standard as I hold TST: I want to know the high level apprach, ie. "we alter timing and duration via proprietary method of boost fooling." This information is no more sensitive or proprietary than what TST freely discusses. I think it would have been enormously helpful if TS would have simply said something like this early on. They could have even made a marketing claim that timing and duration parameters are kept within factory limits (like the fuel pressure statement), and they would have been correct to say it that way too (unlike the fuel pressure statement).
yes, I hold TS responsible for obfustcating rather than clarifying. As I say, I'm sure the box works, and as I have interpreted the claims by reading between the lines it appears to have some attractive benefits -- but the marketing approach is very distasteful and approaches technobabble. It certainly does not inspire trust -- which of course is independant of how the box actually performs.
joeservo: "also, if one box were to malfunction, which do you think would do more damage? too much fuel at the correct timing or a shot of fuel at the wrong time?"
probably the one capable of blowing the high pressure fuel rail...
But since I don't know how "correct timing" is defined, and I'm not (yet) acquainted with box failure modes, that is a hard question to answer. But you have raised an interesting question -- any box could be capable of driving the interfaces it connects to into out of bounds conditions during box failure. since the TST box has direct control over firing the injector, we would want to understand how it manages safety boundaries and its protection schemes.
For me, the boxes that puts the engine at the greatest long term risk are the ones placing the high pressure fuel rail at risk for either failure or destructive safety pop-off. I would be most concerned, for example, if the pressure port driving circuitry were to blow a device driver and ramp the pressure up to beyond the destructive limit.
But broken box failure modes have nothing to do with the crux of my concern re: safety and the TS satements. TS has stated that they manipulate fuel pressure within factory limits. Like Dr. Perrformance claims involving fuel pressure, I see this as a deliberate attempt to mis-lead and to create the false impression that safety and durability is not compromized. "factory limit" is a mis-nomer and left undefined. Especially in the context of a market where fuel pressure safety is open to debate, the terms "within factory limits" is bogus, intentionally misleading, and casts a shadow over the communication integrity of the company. They don't (at least I havent seen such) tell us how high the pressure is actually raised when other companies do. They don't even admit that the "factory" limit is a destructive pop-off event that requires dealer service to repair -- again when other companies do.
For example, compare this approach with Banks. I dont' agree witih the bad taste marketing language on their web site (the "bogus tuner" statement is un-called for), But at least they tell us exactly where they are willing go with fuel pressure and why. All publically available information delivered with clarity and capable of exposing their box's distinguishable characterisitcs.
FreynPres: I call it like I see it, and I'm not asking Dennis to reveal the secret of his livelihood. I'm asking for the same level of detail as we can obtain freely (and with clarity) from TST and Banks. I object when terms are used without clarification and where claims are made that don't align with clear thinking. These include:
1. statements that pressure is raised within factory limits without acknowledging that the factory limit is a descructive pop-off limit that requries dealer service when pop goes the weasle.
2. failure to address the whole issue of fuel pressure and reliability when asked, i.e. as Banks has done
3. statements that the box alters timing and duration without acknowledging that it has no direct control over those systems and instead influences the ECM via MAP fooling to control these parameters within normal factory operating limits -- a mighty big difference from the TST approach using the same descriptive language. The TS approach is a fine, clever, and beneficial approach -- just too bad it wasn't stated up front. The sense I get is similar to the one I get from Dr. Performance -- who also changes the meaning of terms like "factory limits" for marketing puposes.
Dennis: I still don't think there is a single question in my post that warranted a blow-off. As you can see, I'm not interested in proprietary information. I have come to understand that the TS box relates fuel pressure to measured MAP in a proprietary way (thats all I need to know), and that bogus MAP signals are also use to influence the ECM to alter timing and duration (thats all I need to know). If I am correct, I'd have to say that's pretty clever and should give the EZ a run for the money. good job on the design; not so good job on the marketing language.
joeservo: no chip, just making conclusions based on available information, and pointing out what I believe is less than straightforward marketing. I don't make purchase decisions on the basis of information of this caliber, and in my opinion TS isn't doing very well in terms of clear, useful (without being proprietary) information suitable to distinguish their box from anothers. I've had to read between the technobabble and think I may be close, but at best my conclusions are speculative.
Yes, I'm aware that raw torque measured native on the rollers is agnostic of what delivers it and at what gear ratios. But the result of the measurement is meaningless without that (gear ratio and tire) data. My point is that raw torque as a function of speed has no meaning, and if raw torque (or HP) versus speed can be converted to engine torque (or engine HP) versus speed, then the necessary mathematics is already available to graph what we really need -- rpm on the x axis. Ultimately, though, my point is that whoever delivers a graph by any means (web, fax, whatever) to anyone considering the product should present something meaninful, or explain why it is not. If you put up something on a web site that isn't meaningful, then you communicate that to whoever sees it. There are trivial ways around the technical obsticals of web publishing but the desire to display meaningful information has to be there.
joeservo: "TS performance has told you they modify boost and pressure signals."
This is not the crux of my concern. TS perrformance has told us that the box is not a pressure box [they really mean not just a pressure box] , and that it actually modifies timing and duration. And they use the same language and context as TST does to describe their product. This is not correct, it is misleading, and falsely places the TS product in the same category as those boxes who actually modify timing and duration (directly) and do not modify pressure.
joeservo: "TST told you the alter the timing signal with the crank sensor"
correct. and we know that approximately 40 HP is available via that means alone. They also told us that that they alter duration with a connection to the injectors and we know that over 100 HP is available via that means alone. So when a company claims that a box alters timing and duration, but fails to meet the HP and torque numbers evident from other boxes that "alter timing and duration" I immediately call for a definition of terms, because the impact and benefit of "timing and duration" for one box is different from "timing and duration" on another. I see this a perfectly valid consumer question -- when the capability behind the claim does not make sense in the context of today's market. If "timing and duration" as method of power enancement didn't matter as a distinquishing characteristic between fueling boxes then the method of obtaining such would be irrelavent. But since "timing and duration" is both marketing language AND important to distinguish one box from another, the method of obtaining such IS relevant. One company has revealed how they obtain changes to timing and duration. TS refused to answer the question directly.
joeservo: "neither needs to tell you anymore. these are company tuning parameters they have spent hours/weeks developing. if everyone knew them, there would be no difference in brands."
High level approach descriptions such as "we alter duration via connection to injector", and "we alter timing via direct connection to crank sensor" are not company tuning parameters, and TST has not revealed any such thing. I only hold TS to the same standard as I hold TST: I want to know the high level apprach, ie. "we alter timing and duration via proprietary method of boost fooling." This information is no more sensitive or proprietary than what TST freely discusses. I think it would have been enormously helpful if TS would have simply said something like this early on. They could have even made a marketing claim that timing and duration parameters are kept within factory limits (like the fuel pressure statement), and they would have been correct to say it that way too (unlike the fuel pressure statement).
yes, I hold TS responsible for obfustcating rather than clarifying. As I say, I'm sure the box works, and as I have interpreted the claims by reading between the lines it appears to have some attractive benefits -- but the marketing approach is very distasteful and approaches technobabble. It certainly does not inspire trust -- which of course is independant of how the box actually performs.
joeservo: "also, if one box were to malfunction, which do you think would do more damage? too much fuel at the correct timing or a shot of fuel at the wrong time?"
probably the one capable of blowing the high pressure fuel rail...
But since I don't know how "correct timing" is defined, and I'm not (yet) acquainted with box failure modes, that is a hard question to answer. But you have raised an interesting question -- any box could be capable of driving the interfaces it connects to into out of bounds conditions during box failure. since the TST box has direct control over firing the injector, we would want to understand how it manages safety boundaries and its protection schemes.
For me, the boxes that puts the engine at the greatest long term risk are the ones placing the high pressure fuel rail at risk for either failure or destructive safety pop-off. I would be most concerned, for example, if the pressure port driving circuitry were to blow a device driver and ramp the pressure up to beyond the destructive limit.
But broken box failure modes have nothing to do with the crux of my concern re: safety and the TS satements. TS has stated that they manipulate fuel pressure within factory limits. Like Dr. Perrformance claims involving fuel pressure, I see this as a deliberate attempt to mis-lead and to create the false impression that safety and durability is not compromized. "factory limit" is a mis-nomer and left undefined. Especially in the context of a market where fuel pressure safety is open to debate, the terms "within factory limits" is bogus, intentionally misleading, and casts a shadow over the communication integrity of the company. They don't (at least I havent seen such) tell us how high the pressure is actually raised when other companies do. They don't even admit that the "factory" limit is a destructive pop-off event that requires dealer service to repair -- again when other companies do.
For example, compare this approach with Banks. I dont' agree witih the bad taste marketing language on their web site (the "bogus tuner" statement is un-called for), But at least they tell us exactly where they are willing go with fuel pressure and why. All publically available information delivered with clarity and capable of exposing their box's distinguishable characterisitcs.
FreynPres: I call it like I see it, and I'm not asking Dennis to reveal the secret of his livelihood. I'm asking for the same level of detail as we can obtain freely (and with clarity) from TST and Banks. I object when terms are used without clarification and where claims are made that don't align with clear thinking. These include:
1. statements that pressure is raised within factory limits without acknowledging that the factory limit is a descructive pop-off limit that requries dealer service when pop goes the weasle.
2. failure to address the whole issue of fuel pressure and reliability when asked, i.e. as Banks has done
3. statements that the box alters timing and duration without acknowledging that it has no direct control over those systems and instead influences the ECM via MAP fooling to control these parameters within normal factory operating limits -- a mighty big difference from the TST approach using the same descriptive language. The TS approach is a fine, clever, and beneficial approach -- just too bad it wasn't stated up front. The sense I get is similar to the one I get from Dr. Performance -- who also changes the meaning of terms like "factory limits" for marketing puposes.
Dennis: I still don't think there is a single question in my post that warranted a blow-off. As you can see, I'm not interested in proprietary information. I have come to understand that the TS box relates fuel pressure to measured MAP in a proprietary way (thats all I need to know), and that bogus MAP signals are also use to influence the ECM to alter timing and duration (thats all I need to know). If I am correct, I'd have to say that's pretty clever and should give the EZ a run for the money. good job on the design; not so good job on the marketing language.
02-23-2004, 12:58 PM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my concerns remain as stated unless I've said something incorrect or misread anything. Certainly we should concentrate now on the technical performance of the box, which can be evaluated separately. I think that would be more fun.
for example, I claim that the Ramifier is more amenable to use on the 04.5s because it lets the ECM deal with timing, duration and the turbocharger wastegate.
does anyone know what the rail pressures run on the 04.5's? Are they the same?
for example, I claim that the Ramifier is more amenable to use on the 04.5s because it lets the ECM deal with timing, duration and the turbocharger wastegate.
does anyone know what the rail pressures run on the 04.5's? Are they the same?
02-23-2004, 02:19 PM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the shop
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who said any thing about the 04.5's
dont think theyve even been tested yet.
this is the exact kind of crap that gets noobies to do something wrong because a senoir member "said they could"
I think you are wrecking a good forum
dont think theyve even been tested yet.
this is the exact kind of crap that gets noobies to do something wrong because a senoir member "said they could"
I think you are wrecking a good forum
02-23-2004, 03:18 PM
#75
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
relax and focus on the capabilities of the Ramifier itself already. its an emerging technology and I didin't say anyone "could" put one on an 04.5 -- that recommendation has to come from TS. I suggested the nature of the Ramifier's technology has a better chance of success on the 04.5s due to various technical reasons.