# Frankenturbo f23 installed! need software options



## JamaicanTT (May 30, 2011)

hey guys i have a 2000 tt 180q with a ATC and was planning to get a Maestro Suite, but I've read a lot of different threads with some saying it will work and some saying it wont. does anyone else have an ATC engine with this program?

My current options are:

Frankenturbo F23 kit
APR fuel pump
550 injectors
42DD 3" catless dp
Frankenturbo TIP
Frankenturbo DV
ECS tuning underdrive pully's
3" custom catless exhaust with a magnaflow muffler
MBC
Eurodyne stage 1
CAI
FMIC


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

It will work and it's also what a local mk4 friend Steve runs on his car and he's making the biggest F23 numbers right now I believe.

Doug @ FT will chime in I bet. He has a TT also, IIRC running Maestro too.


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

From what I understand, we need a wideband conversion harness to slap on the 2001+ ecus that are flashable.


----------



## EuroSpic_TT (Apr 24, 2012)

maestro is deff the way to go especially since you already have eurodyne flash, its the route im going as well with my tt, gives you so much more room for advancement. you dont have to go wideband but it is something to think about in the future, if you want to go mafless and not worry bout pesty mafs. :thumbup:


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

EuroSpic_TT said:


> maestro is deff the way to go especially since you already have eurodyne flash, its the route im going as well with my tt, gives you so much more room for advancement. you dont have to go wideband but it is something to think about in the future, if you want to go mafless and not worry bout pesty mafs. :thumbup:



You want a MAF, it is the main source of your load calculation. MAF-less is not a solution/upgrade but just a way not to buy MAF sensors anymore. You'll make less power and have worse drive-ability. I proved it on a dyno by a difference of 50hp & 60 ft/lbs torque... at all four wheels! - back to back runs.

Chris Tapp's personal TT is a narrowband car- so you can definitely get a flash for that and update down the road if you'd like.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Tempes_TT said:


> From what I understand, we need a wideband conversion harness to slap on the 2001+ ecus that are flashable.


You don't need to convert to wideband. Eurodyne has a BT tune for the TT narrowband. Maestro works also. Just let Eurodyne know up front.

Wideband is more flexible, but will take some extra time and money.

You beat me too it by seconds Doug.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

DougLoBue said:


> You want a MAF, it is the main source of your load calculation. MAF-less is not a solution/upgrade but just a way not to buy MAF sensors anymore. You'll make less power and have worse drive-ability. I proved it on a dyno by a difference of 50hp & 60 ft/lbs torque... at all four wheels! - back to back runs.


But how much tuning did you do to offset the change in hardware? How much did your AFR and ignition timing change between the runs? There should be no reason a MAFless tune can not make the same power as a MAF based tune. It's all air, fuel, spark, and timing. Removing the MAF doesn't alter those things. If the tune wasn't worked on at all, meaning you just unplugged the MAF and redyno'ed, you didn't really prove anything.


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

20v master said:


> But how much tuning did you do to offset the change in hardware? How much did your AFR and ignition timing change between the runs? There should be no reason a MAFless tune can not make the same power as a MAF based tune. It's all air, fuel, spark, and timing. Removing the MAF doesn't alter those things. If the tune wasn't worked on at all, meaning you just unplugged the MAF and redyno'ed, you didn't really prove anything.


I have Maestro logs I can make some graphs out of.


----------



## JamaicanTT (May 30, 2011)

I spoke to some at eurodyne and he said it won't work but I read that some people are using it


----------



## JamaicanTT (May 30, 2011)

i know i dont have a tune right now but im not making over 10 psi of boost:banghead:


----------



## deltaP (Jul 26, 2011)

EuroSpic_TT said:


> maestro is deff the way to go especially since you already have eurodyne flash, its the route im going as well with my tt, gives you so much more room for advancement. you dont have to go wideband but it is something to think about in the future, if you want to go mafless and not worry bout pesty mafs. :thumbup:


How is the everyday driving with a mafless Maestro tune? I'm interested in the FT with Maestro and no maf.opcorn:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

DougLoBue said:


> YYou'll...have worse drive-ability.


Yeah, almost forgot this one. I have no driveability issues with my MAFless setup.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> Yeah, almost forgot this one. I have no driveability issues with my MAFless setup.


A MAFless tune will run OK if you're lucky but never at the level of a proper MAF tune. Randomly guessing rigid numbers is never going to work that well on something that changes on the fly like air (humidity, altitude, heat, barometric pressure etc. makes it physically impossible). We have discussed this before in the 1.8t technical forum but more and more people are finding out what I've been saying all along, they were leaving a lot on the table with what they really thought was a perfect MAFless tune (until they plugged a MAF and adapted).

In Doug's case, he only plugged a MAF on a "good MAFless" tune without even adapting and properly tuning for it and got those results... and to make things worse he is not the only one that documented this kind of results. Having being in the DSM/EVO world for over a decade, I saw some "tooners" try to make packaged "box tunes" and MAFless tunes the new thing, but that community is smarter than the VW crowd and quickly sent them packing with their BS. 

Every single car needs a proper tune adapted to the environment with a MAF to make corrections when the conditions are changing, the "off the shelf" and "MAFless" tunes can only be shoved down clueless people throats (somehow it happened to our community).


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

20v master said:


> Yeah, almost forgot this one. I have no driveability issues with my MAFless setup.


What is your MAF-less hardware setup though?

These Maestro base files or Uni files seem to be tuned around a basic log manifold, stock TB, stock intake manifold and who knows which size head. I know Chris Tapp uses a very basic bolt on PagParts kit on an otherwise stock AWP to make his tunes.

How would that file ever run on my pretty modified setup at various boost levels without having to be re-flashed?


----------



## EvilVento2.oT (Dec 1, 2003)

for what its worth i am running a united tune on a very similar product/injectors ( from FT) and run the united motorsport tune as it worked with the non wide band cars easy. its very smooth and i get 28-29 mpg


----------



## JamaicanTT (May 30, 2011)

Thanks I'll check that out. Have you put you car on a dyno?


----------



## babarber (Nov 3, 2008)

DougLoBue said:


> What is your MAF-less hardware setup though?
> 
> These Maestro base files or Uni files seem to be tuned around a basic log manifold, stock TB, stock intake manifold and who knows which size head. I know Chris Tapp uses a very basic bolt on PagParts kit on an otherwise stock AWP to make his tunes.
> 
> How would that file ever run on my pretty modified setup at various boost levels without having to be re-flashed?


the purpose of maestro is to select the base file closest to your setup and then adjust to your car thats the benefit of maestro because ti allows you to take the box tune that does decent and then push it even farther. and you can even to do your own logs to know when your hitting the limit.

i started with maestro's stage 1 file for awp and squeezed an extra 30hp out of it w/o changing my fueling only thing slowing me down now is i maxed out my injectors.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> A MAFless tune will run OK if you're lucky but never at the level of a proper MAF tune. Randomly guessing rigid numbers is never going to work that well on something that changes on the fly like air (humidity, altitude, heat, barometric pressure etc. makes it physically impossible). We have discussed this before in the 1.8t technical forum but more and more people are finding out what I've been saying all along, they were leaving a lot on the table with what they really thought was a perfect MAFless tune (until they plugged a MAF and adapted).
> 
> In Doug's case, he only plugged a MAF on a "good MAFless" tune without even adapting and properly tuning for it and got those results... and to make things worse he is not the only one that documented this kind of results. Having being in the DSM/EVO world for over a decade, I saw some "tooners" try to make packaged "box tunes" and MAFless tunes the new thing, but that community is smarter than the VW crowd and quickly sent them packing with their BS.
> 
> Every single car needs a proper tune adapted to the environment with a MAF to make corrections when the conditions are changing, the "off the shelf" and "MAFless" tunes can only be shoved down clueless people throats (somehow it happened to our community).


Max, we all value your opinion, but until I see a detailed comparison, I don't feel there are any limitations in the software that allow having a MAF signal to create more power. Isn't that the whole point of Maestro, to be able to dial it in yourself? And if plugging a MAF in on a MAFless file made more power, then I'd say the MAFless file needed some adjusting. Again, it's not like adding a MAF allows more airflow, reduces restrictions, lower temps, makes more boost, raises compression/bore/stroke, allows more chemical/thermal/mechanical efficiency, etc etc you get my point. The ECU can control AFR via O2 closed loop feedback, throttle position, MAP, IAT, coolant temp, and ambient. It doesn't matter if you're at 22psi or 30psi, if the MAP is pegged and the throttle is 100%, the ECU knows to adjust to WOT target AFR. Is a MAF more able to accurately predict intended AFR? Yes. Do our ECU's have enough adjustment range to deal with all this, and do it quickly enough, without a MAF? Yes. Now I'm not arguing that there are probably off the shelf files from tuners that aren't thoroughly refined, but that doesn't mean that the tuning can't be done to make them better. There just isn't a limitation imposed by not having a MAF.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

DougLoBue said:


> What is your MAF-less hardware setup though?
> 
> These Maestro base files or Uni files seem to be tuned around a basic log manifold, stock TB, stock intake manifold and who knows which size head. I know Chris Tapp uses a very basic bolt on PagParts kit on an otherwise stock AWP to make his tunes.
> 
> How would that file ever run on my pretty modified setup at various boost levels without having to be re-flashed?


10:1, 2008cc, Pag V band setup, AEB, SEM intake mani, 80mm throttle, 2.5" IC piping, PTE 600 core, Greddy S BOV, 1200cc injectors, 044 pump, ATP rail, -10 lines to the rail and -8 to the cell, and my software was tuned around my setup. You said it yourself: "base files." That's the whole point of Maestro, use it to tune the base file to your setup. No one said the file would work on a stock motor with stock fuel rail, intake mani, throttle, etc, and no one should expect it to.


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

babarber said:


> the purpose of maestro is to select the base file closest to your setup and then adjust to your car thats the benefit of maestro because ti allows you to take the box tune that does decent and then push it even farther. and you can even to do your own logs to know when your hitting the limit.
> 
> i started with maestro's stage 1 file for awp and squeezed an extra 30hp out of it w/o changing my fueling only thing slowing me down now is i maxed out my injectors.


Yep I have Maestro.



20v master said:


> 10:1, 2008cc, Pag V band setup, AEM, SEM intake mani, 80mm throttle, 2.5" IC piping, PTE 600 core, Greddy S BOV, 1200cc injectors, 044 pump, ATP rail, -10 lines to the rail and -8 to the cell, and my software was tuned around my setup. You said it yourself: "base files." That's the whole point of Maestro, use it to tune the base file to your setup. No one said the file would work on a stock motor with stock fuel rail, intake mani, throttle, etc, and no one should expect it to.


While I used the term base file I have a pretty tweaked file between my work, Max's, & Steve's throttle body tuning- it's far from the original. Maybe it's just me but I don't want 02 Corrections forcing my car to make it's AFR's under full boost. I have no clue why, but I blow out 02's about every other month. The last thing I want is to go full lean on a WOT pull with a motor that makes around 550hp at the crank. That sounds like the potential end of a motor to me.

A touch on drive-ability... the only issue I find is from not running a DV. I have a slight knock between gears because E85 doesn't like to go rich. Otherwise the car drives great without a MAF.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

DougLoBue said:


> Maybe it's just me but I don't want 02 Corrections forcing my car to make it's AFR's under full boost. I have no clue why, but I blow out 02's about every other month.


Well yeah, you want it dead on every time, but that's not going to happen. Now you don't want it having to add 20+% either though. The point is you should be able to dial that out mostly, via Maestro. Now as for your o2 sensor issue, you converted to wideband? Used an OEM harness, made your own, or used the aftermarket add on? You say you don't want o2 correction to hit AFR, but you're okay with something blowing the o2 sensor six times a year? I'd be hunting down that problem if I were you.


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

20v master said:


> Well yeah, you want it dead on every time, but that's not going to happen. Now you don't want it having to add 20+% either though. The point is you should be able to dial that out mostly, via Maestro. Now as for your o2 sensor issue, you converted to wideband? Used an OEM harness, made your own, or used the aftermarket add on? You say you don't want o2 correction to hit AFR, but you're okay with something blowing the o2 sensor six times a year? I'd be hunting down that problem if I were you.


Wouldn't the changes in Maestro Correction tables be for a static pressure/airflow ?

Yep blowing 02's out it's a concern of mine. I believe the car runs rich between gears and at warmup. I eliminated the warmup rich condition by playing with Maestro. Working on getting the DV in to see if that fixes between gear richness.

I'm converted to WB using a MK4 OEM harness. just unpinned it from their ECU and re-pinned into mine. The excess wire (about 5-8") I made a small ring of right by the ECU so no wires are kinked/bent.

OP sorry we took your thread off topic into a debate...


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

DougLoBue said:


> Wouldn't the changes in Maestro Correction tables be for a static pressure/airflow ?
> 
> 
> OP sorry we took your thread off topic into a debate...


Not sure what you mean. There is nothing static about pressure/airflow in an engine unless at constant rpm. Everything is a constant lookup. 

It's okay, he hasn't replied in a while. :laugh:


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

20v master said:


> Not sure what you mean. There is nothing static about pressure/airflow in an engine unless at constant rpm. Everything is a constant lookup.
> 
> It's okay, he hasn't replied in a while. :laugh:


haha

I guess I could change the resolution of the Main Fuel Correction table and make corrections by load vs. RPM. my 30psi pulls make a greater load than a 20psi pull. As you can tell I've avoided the main fuel correction table at all costs.

Ultimately I'd think I'd want the car to compensate for more airflow on it's own (not just telling it to add fuel by load)- with or without a MAF sensor connected.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

I've actually never used Maestro, but I'd think you should overcome your fears and use the system to it's fullest to accomplish your goals.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> I've actually never used Maestro, but I'd think you should overcome your fears and use the system to it's fullest to accomplish your goals.


Not possible without the MAF .

1) TQ based ECU

2) TQ is calc by using load (load is also one of the axis for most maps in the ECU)

3) Load is a value calc mainly based on *MAF* values and RPM. Boost absolute pressure ( we have no MAP in these cars) is referenced in the calculation but secondary at best.

4) Everything is off by a factor without the MAF in any load based ECU, it's a fact. I even have pictures of load and MAF values once the algorithm was broken for another load based ECU (EVO).


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Not possible without the MAF .
> 
> 1) TQ based ECU
> 
> ...


I know everything you just said, but there is load in all my logs on my MAFless setup, and there is adaptation going on, meaning the fueling target could be adjusted at each rpm point regardless of the load calculation. Yes, we all know it's a not a true MAP, but that's what the 1.8T forum calls it so the rest of the world does too. Yes, the MAP reading has nothing to do with fueling, but more ignition timing. The reason this is important is that once you're at WOT, your target ignition timing won't vary that much (MBT, you know ). And the load calculation can be done just off the throttle input. You go 100% WOT, you want all the load you can get. It's really not hard to see how it's done without the MAF. The point is, if there are drastic differences between AFR and timing seen by plugging a MAF in to an existing setup, then the software needs adjusted. Whether you can do that with Maestro or not, I don't know but would assume it's possible.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> I know everything you just said, but there is load in all my logs on my MAFless setup, and there is adaptation going on, meaning the fueling target could be adjusted at each rpm point regardless of the load calculation. Yes, we all know it's a not a true MAP, but that's what the 1.8T forum calls it so the rest of the world does too. Yes, the MAP reading has nothing to do with fueling, but more ignition timing. The reason this is important is that once you're at WOT, your target ignition timing won't vary that much (MBT, you know ). And the load calculation can be done just off the throttle input. You go 100% WOT, you want all the load you can get. It's really not hard to see how it's done without the MAF. The point is, if there are drastic differences between AFR and timing seen by plugging a MAF in to an existing setup, then the software needs adjusted. Whether you can do that with Maestro or not, I don't know but would assume it's possible.


I also know everything you're saying, a load value will be generated regardless of having the main factor that calculates it (the ECU would freak out without one as it's the axis in too many maps). What we're trying to tell you is the calculated replacement value is off. It uses boost pressure values or "MAP" values to estimate load. Problem with that is the "MAP" doesn't register too high in boost in our cars and it's not nearly as accurate as the MAF to input airflow going to the motor.

Vag made this hole mafless tune crap possible without a real replacement for calculated airflow because they didn't want their cars to stop running when their subpar quality MAF died. They created some kind of limp algorithm using "MAP" as a MAF replacement when the signal is off or out of spec range. Some other cars with load based ECU just don't run without a MAF unless you can replace the airflow values with another airflow metering source ( MAP doesn't cut it). :beer:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

I'm not saying the load value needs adjusting, I'm saying the fueling value at whatever load you are seeing needs adjusting. Again, if the AFR is right and the ignition timing is right, the power will be the same if the throttle is open 100%. I'm still waiting to see the differences in AFR and timing on these 50-60hp difference dyno pulls.


----------



## EvilVento2.oT (Dec 1, 2003)

JamaicanTT said:


> Thanks I'll check that out. Have you put you car on a dyno?


its going to the dyno this week end !! keep in mind the numbers are for not the f23 , and i will be on a 440 tune
i can say the tune a very linear and really a joy to drive . we can nit pic about all the little stuff from all the different company's . at the end of the day i want a tune that can deliver all the time and its drivable .. i feel i got this out of UM


----------

