[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Info from TAP [long]

Thank you very much for providing this information to us Steve.  I *really* 
appreciate you taking your time to help us gather information to make an 
informed decision on the upgrade issue.  I also really appreciate Trevor 
being so forthcoming with the information that he did provide.  I did want
to make a couple of points though ... I will excerpt a little of the original 
message out of order.  I'll try not to ramble .......

> As  a  final  note,  and  somewhat  personal  one,  I  am disappointed 
> that  individuals  who  have  the  intelligence  to ask  good  questions 
> on  a  sophisticated  computer  network  do not  seem  to  use  that 
> intelligence  to  verify  what  they hear.  Both  rumors  and  3rd  party 
> reports  have  a  typical tendency  to  dispel  truth  and  fact.  The  net
>  is  a  great  way  to get  information,  but  I  would  suggest  using 
> that  info  mostly for  reference.  Investigate  what  interests  you  by 
> going directly  to  the  source  and  you'll  be  wiser  for  it.
> Oh,  and  remember:  in  the  world  of  corporate  combat  you'll find 
> that  one  company  is  usually  always  putting  down another.

Generally true, but ...
I believe that because I consider myself to be an intelligent person, it 
tends to make me critical of information that is provided by someone who is 
trying to sell me something.  I need corroborating evidence to allow me to 
come to a conclusion.  I don't know for a fact myself, but I understand that 
Superchips is a total placebo, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "Trevor" 
of Superchips would not make similar arguments as to why his solution is what 
I should buy.  This is why I look to the net for third party evidence of how 
TAP's product really works, and how TAP does business.  Furthermore, I spend 
enough time typing in e-mails to get info from the quattro list ... I'm 
likely to make my decisions based on info from the group alone.  So now I 
must use the third party report to try to evaluate how TAP does business.  
It appears that the customer did not follow instructions ... but it also 
appeared to me that some damage was done to the ECU as well.  A couple extra 
PSI into the pressure sensor should not cause a failure of the ECU!  TAP did 
replace the ECU (with a different unit), but it didn't sound like they were 
very forthcoming with it.  I have to keep in that I am getting most of my 
information from one side only ...

> A  good  example  has  already  appeared  on  the  net,  actually. The 
> writer  of  the  letter  repeatedly  refers  to  his  boost pressure 
> readings  according  to  the  cars  in-dash  gauge. Strangely  enough  this
>  very  same  writer  indicates  early on  in  his  letter  that  he  failed
>  to  use  a  mechanical gauge  from  the  start.  At  this  time  I  would 
> like  to  offer anyone  who  is  interested  a  set  of  our  instructions.
>  Simply call  and  ask  us  to  send  you  the  'waste-gate  spring  and 
> boost level  adjustment'  instructions.  If,  after  reading  them,  you
> feel  they  are  vague  or  confusing,  I  would  very  much  like  to have
>  your  input.

The question that I have here is why must I be so critical in adjusting the 
pressure at which the wastegate opens?  From what I hear about the IA mods 
this process is not required.  I could understand that the maximum boost as 
determined by the WG must be critically set, but as long as the overboost 
protection is left intact the worst thing that would happen is that the fuel 
pump would get shut off on me (at least that is what would happen on my QTC 
when the boost got too high).  Is TAP defeating the overboost protection in 
the ECU?  If so, what happens if my WG fails and I get a serious overboost?  
New engine?  The other question that I have is how much work was done to 
alter the ignition timing parameters based on the new boost characteristics?

I'm put in an interesting situation here.  Although it is quite apparent 
that Ned is now quite helpful with dealing with customers problems, and I'm 
tempted to go with IA for that reason, when I dealt with him a couple of 
years ago it seemed like he was really willing to talk to a potential 
customer, but when he found that I was an EE and wanted more information 
about the FI/ignition system that he really didn't want to talk to me.  
I've been trying to find an acceptable alternative to IA, but I'm still 
a bit skeptical about TAP.

Any other thoughts?
Steven L. Buchholz	KLA Instruments Corporation - RAPID Engineering
s_buchho@kla.com	M/S A1-3400, PO Box 49055, San Jose, CA 95161-9055
(408) 456-6244 (office/voice mail)	(408) 434-4284 (fax)