[VF-Engineering]

Originally Posted by BuLoOoSki

FYI, I believe by "safest" he was referring to being undetectable at the dealership due to the "DME Manipulated" code being suppressed. Now I do know for a fact that PTF were the first to do that for some time before you guys where able to jump into it. Plus with PTF you can switch back to your stock map which also has the DME manipulated code suppressed (not sure if VF does that as well).

Even if we assume that's what he meant, the point that we've
been trying to make is that's it's a constant uphill battle dealing
with rumors created/perpetuated by those with an obvious agenda.

I'm not saying that you are one of those with an agenda, but what
you just shared in the quote above to defend his argument is once
again an example of something that is quite misleading and just
not true.



We've had a solution to the tamper code since the initial release
of our F8X ECU software in June of 2015 (pre-map switching),
and was carried over to our "Re-Release" in May of 2016 when
we were the first to offer the GTS Features with MAP Switching
capabilities.

This applied to ALL files generated by our software department,
including our supplied 'stock' files.



While this isn't definitive proof as to who was the first to solve
this issue (which I will add that we have never tried to claim), it
demonstrates how others try to use this sort of information to
discourage people from buying our products or at the very least
insinuates that PTF was the first to do so even though the timeline
suggests otherwise.

For the record; I don't believe that PTF themselves have claimed
to be the first either but the damage is done when someone like
yourself feels confident enough to say "I do know for a fact...".

Originally Posted by BuLoOoSki

You never specifically said that it was better under ALL circumstances, it would be a disaster has you done that :P. But you have in multiple posts gone to state and/or imply how your products are the most thoroughly tested, being a "turn-key" solution, tune being issue/worry free so customers can just enjoy more time driving etc etc. And all those posts are usually in response to PTF/BM3 related posts. So you see how when that is not true as your product is not issue free and you have no ability to prove that your product is the most thoroughly tested, people don't let those claims just go by unresponded to

This is obviously a more debatable topic, but still something we
can support with evidence if people are willing to leave semantics
aside and focus on the facts.



We absolutely believe there is an advantage to having an in house
dyno for development purposes, along with a process for on-road
and off-road testing for validation purposes long before the product
is offered at a consumer level.

Showing examples of instrument testing utilizing EGT probes and
pressure sensors to test the effects of aftermarket modifications and
hardware changes demonstrates thoroughness. Something as simple
as the ability to share multiple dyno plots for each Stage Level that
you offer is proof of (at the very least) power testing, while
also showing that you have the ability to test version changes within
a controlled environment with consistency and repeatability.



We never stated that our product was entirely fee of issues, but we
have proven time and time again through independent testing and
customer reviews that our product delivers as advertised based on
the efforts and groundwork we laid well ahead of release.

The problem seems to be that when a company highlights what they
feel is an attribute of their own products, others (and I'll admit that
we sometime fall into this trap) will take this as a direct comparison
or knock against themselves.

This isn't about right vs. wrong, better or worse , it's about helping
the customer understand the differences so they can make the most
educated decision based on their own needs.

Originally Posted by BuLoOoSki

Anyone who actually built their own tune has "the base knowledge in place for when/where/why/how their product is meant to perform when
used properly".

We would also argue that this is not entirely true as the full extent of
the "base knowledge" we are referring to is directly proportionate to
the amount of time, effort, resources, and processes in place to acquire
information and validate the results.

Originally Posted by BuLoOoSki

So don't see how VF has anything special going on there. If anyone does have a competitive advantage in that aspect its BM3, IMO, as they did in fact define their tables from the ground up.

Again, this is not to draw a direct comparison or to take anything
away from BM3, but "defining tables" is the same as translating a
list of ingredients from a German cookbook.

Without getting overly technical here, we are all looking at the
exact same cookbook, and there is no competitive advantage to
be had in this regard. We are all working within the functionality
of the same ECU as designed by Bosch.