i agree, they are totally relevant

neither of us is waffling. unless you don't understand it, and then it might look like waffle. based on previous posts involving mapping that you have commented on, i'd take that to be the case. if you didn't do the mapping as you clearly don't fully understand it, why do you even start talking about such things? very strange.

i can understand you wanting to defend your friend, but trying to do it in this way just seems like more of a hindrance than a help.

tony's point that the map can't possibly have the right values in it for the boost run is entirely valid, as the boost run is higher than in the map. what is so difficult to understand about that?

it could be the case that if the timing in the top load sites is conservative enough then it's not a problem, but that's far from a certainty, and that is what would need to be proven by testing of the original engine/map/car on the road combination as others have agreed. that neither says the map is to blame or isn't (for whatever damage we are all talking about without having seen it )

we can argue until the cows come home about the actual cause of failure as we don't have it datalogged to prove it either way. what is not up for argument though is that copying and pasting maps from an unsuitable map (i.e. one with a low 'top line' of load/boost pressure) to a 'custom' map is bad practice at best and a potential engine killer at worst.