[RobBeck]

Well, you tried. And good info on tuning would only help those in the future.
In my case, I’ve decided that since everything is working so well, I’m content.

This is not to say that things won’t happen in the future.

But the GYTR turbo is doing as promised as is the Alba tune. It all works perfectly so far. At 3800 feet and sea level.

Thanks again for all your efforts. Gotta be frustrating 🤨

Yeah, I am sure the next hurdle will be actually getting a refund for the return, if they even respond to the latest. Will keep you all posted on that one as well.

And yeah, I am leaning towards either going Motec or going with Alba. The problem is with the exhaust I have, I am not sure Alba will be all it needs to be (nor were they), so if not I'd more than likely need to invest into all of the Dynojet PC6/Autotune hardware as well.

 

[RobBeck]

10/12/22: Would prefer not to be on ignore this entire week and would like to get this saga ended ASAP, so please provide some info for the below requested return by End of Business today. If I remain on ignore, Friday I will be following up with a payment transaction dispute.

Once again I’d be happy if there was some sort of SOLID progress with some HARD deadline, mainly to advance this platform and give others options to tune these machines themselves; but after 45 days with no updates (at all) you are not leaving me many options but to abort mission.

 

[RobBeck]

Good news today, I hope. Before following through with the promised payment dispute, I figured I'd give them one last call to discuss in person. Chris answered the phone and he kindly spoke for about 20 minutes, which was appreciated, to try to get an understanding if this had any last chance of ever going anywhere.

What he was explaining, unfortunately, I did not quite entirely comprehend (I am no software engineer). But what I did grasp is that the software ID of these GYTR ECU files are the same ID as the OE YXZ files, so for some reason they could not change their definitions without it then affecting all the definitions for every other OE YXZ files out there. So this put them in a pickle in determining a solution, as fixing it for the GYTR YXZ ECU would only break it for the OE YXZ ECU.

The good news is that he said HE could provide a new GYTR file with a new software ID (separating it from the OE YXZ ECU), which I'd have to write to my ECU first. Within this file he could provide all of the original GYTR Turbo Kit ECU data I'd provided to them, but make it readable with the tool without anything becoming corrupted.

So basically what this means is that in order to tune a GYTR ECU using FTecu, you must first WRITE the files provided to any YXZ ECU (which would make it a GYTR tuned ECU). This means the data that is on that ECU will be overwritten with a file that can be read and defined properly by FTecu, thus you will be building your tune from that file and NOT what was on your actual ECU. However you could write it back if you wish (assuming you read and saved the file in advance), but then again it would not be able to be read and defined properly by FTecu.

Once I confirm all is well with the project, I will provide these new provided files in this thread. Please note I take no responsibility for anything, but from what I am being told this would be the way to get this done for any of us wanting to tune using FTecu starting with the GYTR Gen 1 or Gen 2 basemaps (maps are those which were read from the 2 ECU's that I'd provided them).

FWIW he stated about the GYTR Gen 1 vs. Gen 2 ECU data that: "They are NOT the same.. Gen 2 had an internal label stating it’s limiter was set to 10psi". So now I am trying to figure out exactly what that means, to otherwise determine which would be better to use as the basemap.

 

[spottsjd]

Good news today, I hope. Before following through with the promised payment dispute, I figured I'd give them one last call to discuss in person. Chris answered the phone and he kindly spoke for about 20 minutes, which was appreciated, to try to get an understanding if this had any last chance of ever going anywhere.

What he was explaining, unfortunately, I did not quite entirely comprehend (I am no software engineer). But what I did grasp is that the software ID of these GYTR ECU files are the same ID as the OE YXZ files, so for some reason they could not change their definitions without it then affecting all the definitions for every other OE YXZ files out there. So this put them in a pickle in determining a solution, as fixing it for the GYTR YXZ ECU would only break it for the OE YXZ ECU.

The good news is that he said HE could provide a new GYTR file with a new software ID (separating it from the OE YXZ ECU), which I'd have to write to my ECU first. Within this file he could provide all of the original GYTR Turbo Kit ECU data I'd provided to them, but make it readable with the tool without anything becoming corrupted.

So basically what this means is that in order to tune a GYTR ECU using FTecu, you must first WRITE the files provided to any YXZ ECU (which would make it a GYTR tuned ECU). This means the data that is on that ECU will be overwritten with a file that can be read and defined properly by FTecu, thus you will be building your tune from that file and NOT what was on your actual ECU. However you could write it back if you wish (assuming you read and saved the file in advance), but then again it would not be able to be read and defined properly by FTecu.

Once I confirm all is well with the project, I will provide these new provided files in this thread. Please note I take no responsibility for anything, but from what I am being told this would be the way to get this done for any of us wanting to tune using FTecu starting with the GYTR Gen 1 or Gen 2 basemaps (maps are those which were read from the 2 ECU's that I'd provided them).

FWIW he stated about the GYTR Gen 1 vs. Gen 2 ECU data that: "They are NOT the same.. Gen 2 had an internal label stating it’s limiter was set to 10psi". So now I am trying to figure out exactly what that means, to otherwise determine which would be better to use as the basemap.

Wow. They ghosted you for months because they couldn't make a dropdown box selection after reading the ECU ID to ask if it was "NA" or "GYTR"?! And their solution, instead of providing a simple drop down option for selecting your ECU type, is to smash whatever is currently on your ECU?

Do we know if the v2 is identical to the v1 ECU? If not, that's going to add an extra headache for the v2 guys who want to do this.

For us v1 guys, this is great news! I still wish we could get a closed loop setup for 500 bucks, but, oh well.

And, WOW, I missed the v2 part. I'm guessing what that means is, it fuel cuts if it detects over 10psi of boost at the 3 bar map sensor. I actually really, really like the v2 having a 10psi limiter in it. Did he say if the v1 had any limiter? It's in the back of my mind that the only thing stopping my turbo from producing 20psi of boost is a rubber hose, some zip ties and a spring loaded cast part.

 

[RobBeck]

Wow. They ghosted you for months because they couldn't make a dropdown box selection after reading the ECU ID to ask if it was "NA" or "GYTR"?! And their solution, instead of providing a simple drop down option for selecting your ECU type, is to smash whatever is currently on your ECU?

Do we know if the v2 is identical to the v1 ECU? If not, that's going to add an extra headache for the v2 guys who want to do this.

For us v1 guys, this is great news! I still wish we could get a closed loop setup for 500 bucks, but, oh well.

And, WOW, I missed the v2 part. I'm guessing what that means is, it fuel cuts if it detects over 10psi of boost at the 3 bar map sensor. I actually really, really like the v2 having a 10psi limiter in it. Did he say if the v1 had any limiter? It's in the back of my mind that the only thing stopping my turbo from producing 20psi of boost is a rubber hose, some zip ties and a spring loaded cast part.

Yeah, would've been nice if they just told me this a long time ago. I guess most people just go away eventually? Or perhaps I should've just picked up the phone sooner.

As for what they needed to do, I'd suppose if it were that simple they'd had done it quickly. As stated, I am not a software engineer and did not understand most of what he said and that was just my takeaway. I'm sure he remembers me if you want to get a better software based understanding give him a call, I did explain to him I have others watching this progress but I probably was not the best ambassador to understand and communicate how they program their stuff. All I know is for them it was not going to be as easy as they initially had hoped and with their current workload they just kept pushing it back, so this was a way to end all of that and get something workable.

But yeah, if you want to use FTecu, you may need to overwrite your data. This may not go well for those already tuned from say Alba. Although, I am very curious if the Alba tune would read correctly with the FTecu? I hate to buy it to only smash it, but it would be really nice to get that tune if it could be read especially, that way I can build from that file if/when needed.
NOTE: I am pretty certain I will need further tuning once I add my exhaust, which is not the typical setup.

You could be right about the 10psi limiter being fuel cut, I have requested more info on that. I'd like it for the safety but not if I ever wanted to up the boost (and fuel system). And he made no mention of the Gen 1 ECU having any limiter, he made it sound like that was the only difference between them.

PS. They sent me the Gen 1 AND Gen 2 files I'd sent them, but updated with the new ID so it can be read. So both Gens are covered with this "fix".

 

[spottsjd]

Yeah, would've been nice if they just told me this a long time ago. I guess most people just go away eventually? Or perhaps I should've just picked up the phone sooner.

As for what they needed to do, I'd suppose if it were that simple they'd had done it quickly. As stated, I am not a software engineer and did not understand most of what he said and that was just my takeaway. I'm sure he remembers me if you want to get a better software based understanding give him a call, I did explain to him I have others watching this progress but I probably was not the best ambassador to understand and communicate how they program their stuff. All I know is for them it was not going to be as easy as they initially had hoped and with their current workload they just kept pushing it back, so this was a way to end all of that and get something workable.

But yeah, if you want to use FTecu, you may need to overwrite your data. This may not go well for those already tuned from say Alba. Although, I am very curious if the Alba tune would read correctly with the FTecu? I hate to buy it to only smash it, but it would be really nice to get that tune if it could be read especially, that way I can build from that file if/when needed.
NOTE: I am pretty certain I will need further tuning once I add my exhaust, which is not the typical setup.

You could be right about the 10psi limiter being fuel cut, I have requested more info on that. I'd like it for the safety but not if I ever wanted to up the boost (and fuel system). And he made no mention of the Gen 1 ECU having any limiter, he made it sound like that was the only difference between them.

PS. They sent me the Gen 1 AND Gen 2 files I'd sent them, but updated with the new ID so it can be read. So both Gens are covered with this "fix".

I pretend to be a software engineer for about 20 hours a week, and what you said about the ID makes a lot of sense. You plug in an ECU, the software reads an identifier, and it searches a list of identifiers in the database to find the correcet decoding tables. If there's two of the same identifiers in the database, the software doesn't know what decoder tables to use, and all hell breaks loose, and then the user might have to input a selection that they might make incorrectly(GASP).

I imagine it either was their fear of customers being confused about a menu option, or just deciding it wasn't worth their time to add a potentially bug-creating feature like that for a couple of thousand dollars. I'm both shocked that Yamaha/DASA are the only ones reusing their IDs like that, and that they would ever do that in the first place.

I think most people agree that the other tuners, at minimum, are locking their tunes with some sort of key that's different from factory/DASA. I think FTECU allows you to lock any tune you do down with a password?

Usually, rev limiters are a fuel cut. I'd just assume a boost limiter would be the same. I actually really would like to have that limiter until I built bigger, and would be amazing if it was a tunable value. Definitely my #1 concern and is a large part of why I want a standalone ecu, is the general safety that can be brought with it.

Very cool though, they got it done pretty quick after that RMA request!

 

[RobBeck]

The gist of it is that I think what I have in hand now, they essentially had worked on and had it done within just hours quite a while ago (he emailed these files to me in less than an hour after getting off the phone). But implementing it this way requires a bit more headache for the consumer, and I don't think they want to be in the business of file sharing either. That said I believe they had intentions of doing it the right way with further development, but this was going to take much more time, and then with other irons in the fire there comes prioritization and clearly this request was always going to end up at the bottom of the list. During the call he explained this current "option" just to end the saga, and it is something I can live with because really it is the same difference.

As for the other tunes being locked, that is hearsay at this point and I'm not sold on it. FTecu told me they initially (a long time ago) had the GYTR ECU's sorted, which is why they'd told me the FTecu would work with it prior to even buying it. But at some point someone else must've started doing the flashing on these things, and with that the ID conflict emerged. This was all something we all have just learned but surely affects all GYTR ECU's from at least the past few years. My gut feeling is that these other big tuners probably use the early FTecu GYTR ECU files and have just updated them as they feel needed over the years.

Based on the idea that the Gen 2 potentially has a fuel cut at 10psi, I will likely use that file as my basemap. But I'm not sure if this is a table that will be viewable to me, or if it is just some hard coding that I'll never see using the interface. That said whatever it is I am not sure it can be added to pre-existing custom tunes or even the GYTR Gen 1 tune, without some file development anyway.

 

[YumaYXZ]

Since I have no idea and maybe one or both of you may….
How does someone like Alba create a tune and then install it in my stock ECU? Do they just have some programming tool that you guys can’t get or perhaps it is very expensive????

Just a curiosity. You guys are way past me on all this!

 

[spottsjd]

Since I have no idea and maybe one or both of you may….
How does someone like Alba create a tune and then install it in my stock ECU? Do they just have some programming tool that you guys can’t get or perhaps it is very expensive????

Just a curiosity. You guys are way past me on all this!

These ECUs are just very reliable, slow, expensive, specialized computers with input and output hanging off of them. I don't know what comp architecture they use, but at the end of the day, they are just readings bits from input and memory, doing some math, comparing some numbers, and pushing bits out to output and memory, the same as whatever you are typing these posts on.

Putting files on, pulling files off, and erasing files on the ECU is nearly as simple as copying files from your computer to a thumb drive. It takes a not-even-that-special cable that probably has a total BOM cost of 3 dollars.

The actual editing of the files is special. You could open the file in notepad, change some numbers, save it and push it to your ECU, but it wouldn't work right. You could spend hundreds or thousands of hours reverse engineering and designing a GUI that allows you to make changes to the underliying function of the ECU, or you can beg/borrow/steal the program and/or design software from Yamaha/Mitsubishi/whoever has it. I almost wonder if all of these low budget Mitsubishi ECUs are the same, and FTECU and Nate just leveraged past tools/efforts to change the tune. The Alba Nate thing is especially weird, considering his tune disables one of the fan outputs! It makes me wonder if it's because instead of FTECU he used some weird older software that only had one fan output and not two?

And, like all Software as a Service(SaaS), the 100 dollars per license FTECU charges is just revinue stream. There is nothing special about marrying an ECU, and was implemented to prevent you from sharing the $500 dollar $3 dollar cable freely with your friends(or shops from not paying licensing fees).

 

[RobBeck]

These ECUs are just very reliable, slow, expensive, specialized computers with input and output hanging off of them. I don't know what comp architecture they use, but at the end of the day, they are just readings bits from input and memory, doing some math, comparing some numbers, and pushing bits out to output and memory, the same as whatever you are typing these posts on.

Putting files on, pulling files off, and erasing files on the ECU is nearly as simple as copying files from your computer to a thumb drive. It takes a not-even-that-special cable that probably has a total BOM cost of 3 dollars.

The actual editing of the files is special. You could open the file in notepad, change some numbers, save it and push it to your ECU, but it wouldn't work right. You could spend hundreds or thousands of hours reverse engineering and designing a GUI that allows you to make changes to the underliying function of the ECU, or you can beg/borrow/steal the program and/or design software from Yamaha/Mitsubishi/whoever has it. I almost wonder if all of these low budget Mitsubishi ECUs are the same, and FTECU and Nate just leveraged past tools/efforts to change the tune. The Alba Nate thing is especially weird, considering his tune disables one of the fan outputs! It makes me wonder if it's because instead of FTECU he used some weird older software that only had one fan output and not two?

And, like all Software as a Service(SaaS), the 100 dollars per license FTECU charges is just revinue stream. There is nothing special about marrying an ECU, and was implemented to prevent you from sharing the $500 dollar $3 dollar cable freely with your friends(or shops from not paying licensing fees).

Nailed it man, well said.

I am thinking Alba (and others) just use one of the original FTecu GYTR files, and has updated/dialed in their fueling tables to support the exhaust flow (ie. Trinity Stage 5 slip-on) over time. These earlier GYTR files are dating back to when the '19+ 2nd Gen YXZ's did not exist, and perhaps were intended to support the 1st Gen YXZ's, which I suppose only had one fan up front. Just a thought. Ultimately I think it would probably be best to get some good fueling tables (to support aftermarket exhaust) on one of these latest GYTR Gen 2 basemap files at this point.

 

[leadmic]

I know Graves and Weller use a different file for the 2019+ cars that run both fans like the factory ECM. Alba is the only one that I know of that has you install a jumper between the two fan relays. As far as a the cable goes I'm not sure how FTEcu does it, but somehow you need their cable to get into their system to marry the license you have to buy to your ECM.

 

[RobBeck]

I know Graves and Weller use a different file for the 2019+ cars that run both fans like the factory ECM. Alba is the only one that I know of that has you install a jumper between the two fan relays. As far as a the cable goes I'm not sure how FTEcu does it, but somehow you need their cable to get into their system to marry the license you have to buy to your ECM.

Just to ensure we are speaking on the same things, we are specifically talking about the tuning of the Turbo Based GYTR ECU's (not to get mixed up with the tuning of the N/A standard ECU's). While it appears all are the same actual ECU physically (and can be programmed each way with the right tools), the programming of each as they come are significantly different.

That said yes I think Alba is using the older GYTR basemap files that probably came about with FTecu and the Gen 1 YXZ's, but surely they have enhanced these files quite a bit over the years to provide a good safe tuning for those wanting to run a slip-on. The support for tuning the Standard N/A ECU's seems to be of no shortage, likely because they have much always had much more demand.

 

[spottsjd]

Just to ensure we are speaking on the same things, we are specifically talking about the tuning of the Turbo Based GYTR ECU's (not to get mixed up with the tuning of the N/A standard ECU's). While it appears all are the same actual ECU physically (and can be programmed each way with the right tools), the programming of each as they come are significantly different.

That said yes I think Alba is using the older GYTR basemap files that probably came about with FTecu and the Gen 1 YXZ's, but surely they have enhanced these files quite a bit over the years to provide a good safe tuning for those wanting to run a slip-on. The support for tuning the Standard N/A ECU's seems to be of no shortage, likely because they have much always had much more demand.

Actually, Nate's could be sidewinder flashes. That could be how he gets access to a 3 bar tune, and I assume snowmobiles don't need a whole bunch of fan relays.

I'd assume the base GYTR ECU is originally a sidewinder flash that was properly modified I also don't know how he'd get around the SS's TCU and the ECU communicating/working together issue either.

 

[RobBeck]

Actually, Nate's could be sidewinder flashes. That could be how he gets access to a 3 bar tune, and I assume snowmobiles don't need a whole bunch of fan relays.

I'd assume the base GYTR ECU is originally a sidewinder flash that was properly modified I also don't know how he'd get around the SS's TCU and the ECU communicating/working together issue either.

Don't think so in the slightest as those FTecu sidewinder files would not read any of these ECU's, all bombed out, and I believe it's control is a bit different as well (don't remember specifics and don't want to get thread off track, but if you study the system it has different hardware such as drivetrain/ECU controlled BOV/etc). I was hoping for some help there too using FTecu (it had sidewinder selections), but using it was only more discouraging and I do not believe it is the route anyone would take.

The 3 bar tune is part of the standard GYTR kit now and always has been since day 1 (which FTecu supported way back when and now again with these new files). It really is likely as simple as they used the original FTecu GYTR Gen 1 YXZ (16-18) basemap files and use the same final product for all years now, I mean why not as it would get the job done (but have only one fan control).

 

[leadmic]

Correct me if I'm wrong But I believe I have read that the Alba across the board (N/A and Turbo) all have to jump the second relay on the 2019+ cars. I'm not saying they are not producing great tunes, just they are doing something different than other tuners.

 

[RobBeck]

Correct me if I'm wrong But I believe I have read that the Alba across the board (N/A and Turbo) all have to jump the second relay on the 2019+ cars. I'm not saying they are not producing great tunes, just they are doing something different than other tuners.

Could be exact same thing mentioned above. They built all of their tunes off old (Gen 1 YXZ) base files, and rather than update all of that data into a new 2nd Gen YXZ base file they just figured it would be easier to have the end user jump the fan relays.

It would seem the Mitsubishi ECU could have some spare I/O ports, one output that Yamaha decided to use for the 2nd fan with the 2nd Gen YXZ, and with that I'd assume there is some harness variation amongst Gen 1/2 YXZ as well (ie. to support 2nd fan).

 

[YumaYXZ]

Mystery and speculation abound. From my results, Alba has it figured out. Would be cool to KNOW their method.

 

[RobBeck]

Mystery and speculation abound. From my results, Alba has it figured out. Would be cool to KNOW their method.

Would just take trying to read it with FTecu and if it won't read it then it is safe to say they've done something to keep it proprietary. This would make sense to do considering the effort they've put forth over the years trying to get some "universal" fueling set up to support an exhaust addition.

If I can ever get what I feel to be a nice map setup to support my custom exhaust, I will just make it a free (at your own risk) file for public (but you'd need FTecu to load it).

 

[spottsjd]

Don't think so in the slightest as those FTecu sidewinder files would not read any of these ECU's, all bombed out, and I believe it's control is a bit different as well (don't remember specifics and don't want to get thread off track, but if you study the system it has different hardware such as drivetrain/ECU controlled BOV/etc). I was hoping for some help there too using FTecu (it had sidewinder selections), but using it was only more discouraging and I do not believe it is the route anyone would take.

The 3 bar tune is part of the standard GYTR kit now and always has been since day 1 (which FTecu supported way back when and now again with these new files). It really is likely as simple as they used the original FTecu GYTR Gen 1 YXZ (16-18) basemap files and use the same final product for all years now, I mean why not as it would get the job done (but have only one fan control).

These facts almost make me think that it IS a sidewinder map. Yamaha could have easily taken the BOV output control and changed it to a second fan relay, and if Nate was working with some custom sidewinder tune, that output could just be left connected to the fan without any real downsides. A pin-out would help us figure that out better. Annoyingly, the service manual doesn't seem to have any pinouts.

Finding a pin-out resource for these ECUs and TCUs would be really really helpful actually.

 

[RobBeck]

These facts almost make me think that it IS a sidewinder map. Yamaha could have easily taken the BOV output control and changed it to a second fan relay, and if Nate was working with some custom sidewinder tune, that output could just be left connected to the fan without any real downsides. A pin-out would help us figure that out better. Annoyingly, the service manual doesn't seem to have any pinouts.

Finding a pin-out resource for these ECUs and TCUs would be really really helpful actually.

Well, one way to find out.