i am interested as to how many have changed their tune from traditional to VE or Modelled?

traditional is simply selecting appropriate injector on-times in each of the fuel cells while VE, or Modelled tuning is based on posting base assumptions as to airflow and other factors and the ECU then adjusts to arrive at the target AFR.

hopefully i will figure out how to post the poll.

comments on the subject are welcomed. (while we have an ECU Section​ there is no general section where this subject would fit)​​​​​​

 

To me, this is an easy one - go with the VE tune! As long as you have good data to characterize your fuel injectors, VE/modeled fuel equation mode has too many benefits to pass up - and that applies if you're running just pump gas and even more so if you're running an ethanol blend.

 

This wasn't what you initially asked, but I recently went from speed-density (VE) to MAF based tuning. I find the car is much smoother, no longer needs much if any AE, and generally works better in changing environments.

No matter how I tweaked the speed-density tune I always found it would want to wander a bit. For example, I would tune on a hot day in the summer and car would run great, then winter would come and it would be slightly lean, or I would park the car for 25 minutes and it would idle poorly on restart. There are all sorts of compensation tables but no matter how well I had them dialed in a new situation would pop up (eg. hot start on a cold day vs hot start on a hot day) and it would be slightly off again.

This is mostly down to my setup I'm sure (plenty of people are running speed-density with good results) but the MAF sensor takes all the educated guessing out of the equation and gives the ECU the exact amount of air that's flowing.

 

Provided the ecu you are using has injector dead time compensation (and any choice of fuel rail pressure/IMP:EMP or baro etc) it's the same thing, you are literally just adding terms for engine/fuel volume in the background. But all the compensation maths is the same. VE is likely easier for people to approach as they don't have to make estimates in their head if starting from scratch but in application it's exactly the same.

Going to a full IMP:EMP and fuel rail pressure compensated wet wall fuel model vs basic speed density with fudged acceleration enrichment is a more interesting question.

 

i like the traditional for basically one reason, i'm old.

really though if one of our metrics is that peak injector duty needs to stay around 85%, the traditional way is more direct about that.
the last car i dealt with that was VE tuned, on a Haltech Platinum sport, to get injector duty you had to run a datalog, and run the car and then go look at it.
this was a little inconvenient at the race track during a race. we ran two drivers, and one was hitting 100% injector duty, the other wasn't (!)

the PFC ive got in my Rx7, injector duty is a key stroke.

other than that the VE way is easier