anyone know the differences?

 

600 is 4-cylinder semi-sequential, 710 does up to 12 cylinder, full sequential. Thats for starters.

 

so on a cossie there would be very little advantage to go 710?

 

There is a bucket-load of additional features on the 710. Tony has one for sale!!

 

How much Christian?

 

Another option

http://www.tour-de-force.co.uk/tdf-engine-control.html

 

Not sure you'll have to ask him.....

https://passionford.com/forum/ford-r...-1600-cvh.html

 

710 has traction control, mappable boost control, PWM control of VCT...probably more, can't remember.

 

I looked into this a while back when I was after new management, I spoke to Corten Miller Performance who specialise in these ecu's I wanted the 700 mainly as it could control the boost, but they recomended I get a blitz controller as the ecu controlled option was not all that. This actually put me off buying the whole ecu as its was a pretty expensive bit of kit and when you are spending that sort of money I would expect any features it has to offer to be spot on and faultless.

Probably a non informatice post so soz, if you give them a bell on 01754820341 and ask for Ben, say I pointed you in their direction thay can answer all your questions as like I say they work on most of Omex's ecu's day in day out.

Hope this helps

 

I have to say that in the grand scheme of ECU's, Omex is in the low/mid range. It has masses of features and not all of them are perfect. Infact, I'm not sure if there is an ECU on the market, whether it be Ł300 or Ł3000 that has a 100% perfect spec with everything working just as it should. They all have their pro's and con's. Infact the choice of ECU you make should have a VERY large influence by who will map it.

It's a bit like arriving at a garage to have your car serviced and telling them that you want them to leave their Snap-On tools in the drawers and use your Halfords ones. There's nothing wrong with the Halfords ones, but the mechanic will certainly be more comfortable working with what he is familiar.

 

This is true to an extent, but if I turned up to a gig and said 'put the Yamaha PM5D away I only use Digico mixing desks' I'd be the one laughed off.

Like mixings desks they all achieve the same end result, have broadly the same inputs and broadly the same outputs. They manipulate signals in broadly the same way and allow adjustment of broadly the same parameters.

As a professional sound engineer one is expected to understand the principals by which all sound desks operate and thus be able to achieve the desired result regardless of the user interface, differences in terminology or minor quirks.

I would hope that if some is intelligent enough to fully understand the physics of engines, sensors, etc then they should be capable of getting their head around minor differences in ECU. If they can't, how can they get their head around the differences between cars? A Fiesta ZS is a totally different beast to a Merc, for example.

Someone like Stu @ MSD is a good example of someone who IS adaptable, along with Harvey Gibbs, Chris Todd, and I would hope many many more!

Where I think the argument you raise has some weight is where the 'tools' are genuinely inappropriate for the task and would limit the performance of the tuner or harm the engine. Nobody wants to damage their reputation.

Chris

 

It wouldn't limit performance, it'd probably be the same. Just cost you more in mapping time as the mapper isn't used to the software. Take an Autronic ECU and engine to SCS and ask them to map it. I imagine they would tell you NO as they're not experienced with the ECU.

 

Why spend money, you've still got spare map positions on your present ecu's.
tabetha