New Miller Alpha-N System

[reelizmpro]

Ya killin me Brody.

From people who own Ex DTM/Grp A race cars...BTW, I'm referring to the early cars before ECU4A. They went through several changes.

http://s14net.vbulletin.net/forum/s14/topics-of-interest/historical-dtm/29153-did-the-dtm-cars-ran-motronic

Here are quotes...

"I have an Original DTM group A engine harness. It was imported along with a schnitzer enduro 2.3 that was installed in a gruppe N car.
After a few years of sitting on it, I have decide to sell. It is boxed and ready to go. These are NLA from BMW, It has the alpha N conversion box wired in and ready to go. It is a 4 injector harness (not 8). I am asking 6k for it. If you are building a Gruppe A car (or copy (or just like cool things habging on your garage wall like me)), Then I have just the thing for you. The only thing you need is a standard DME and a chip burned for your engine.
All proceeds will be deposited into my newly aquired m3. Thanks

I can email pics to anyone interested.
"
So I emailed and got this response...

"You are correct. The group A cars ran a Motorsport alpha N piggy back. It was hardwired into the engine harness. The unit used to be listed in the group A catalog, but I haven't checked in a long time. "


I have the Grp A catalog. I'll check it out but I have seen pictures of the unit from people parting out their original Grp A cars.
Here ya go...



"The race cars used a piggy back system which used the motronic to control ignition." - Marco

This one basically backs up everything I have said...

"Since the piggy back uses it own microcontroller it has more
processing power vs. a chip AN which relies on the limited processing power
of the 8051. BMW and Bosch both chose to use a 2nd offboard microcontroller
for their alpha N, when Bosch could easily write the software to do it on chip.
In the case of the MAXX, it has a few more features that are handled by the
microcontroller. e.g. it decodes the RPM
signal itself (where the BMW unit relied on the internal motronic decoding
and required a hardware change within the motronic). It also has built in
compensation capability (2 user input channels), its own lambda controller,
ICV control and will log its signals. Its not the most sophisticated
system, but its easy to use. "

Note: Wideband closed loop control was added later

"The users are aware that they either continue to use their tuner
chip (usually JC), which for minor changes in breathing is not
entirely off the mark as youd like to have people believe, or they
burn a custom eprom (e.g. for highly modified motors). If you read
the postings you will see people are getting very good results.

BTW, changing rev limit in eprom is extremely simple, for anyone
who doesnt know how to do it, we can send a new eprom or the modified binary
file via email for the user to burn.

Chip AN also has programmed fuel and ignition. But not everyone
wants to work with an eprom simulator. Tuners usually do that.

If the user wants something changed, e.g. cold start is off (a 1 day tuner
session usually doesnt get this right),
then he has to return to the tuner just to correct this. That lacks
in flexibility. What the user saves $$$ wise in electronics, he
pays for in lack of flexibility and additional tuner time. When
you look at it that way, a MAXX system is really cheap because
with a little aptitude a user can make the correction himself.

As ignition is just a pre-programmed table and not in closed loop, for street cars it must
be setup to run under a variety of conditions. It cant be setup to
run on the cutting edge as is done on a race car. Is it better to
do a custom chip (this is true independent of AN, MAF or AFM setup)
vs. a generic tuner chip, yes it is. But, "optimal" depends on several
parameters and the application." - John @Maxx in 2004.

[brody]

Ok so ECU 4a was an entire engine management that replaced the entire Motronic system. You can't compare it to a MAXX box as it was the sole computer for the car that was running the engine on its own. That eould also be a tune on just a chip just with a different ECU...

I can almost guarantee it was an in house standalone that had no emission related hooey like the public's motronic version.they still use computers like this today.

Do you think the BMW owned pro race cars are using factory production ECUs? NOPE. they are using bmw designed standalone systems OR Bosch Motorsport standalone systems etc.

[brody]

Brody, I think it's great you guys developed this although it's about a decade late. Split Second was the premier MAF people for E30 M3's ...not Miller and many people had issues with them as well and went to MAXX. I think you guys were messing with M20/M30's exclusively back then. At least that's what it seemed like. This isn't a MAF kit discussion though. I just wanted to point out that BMW themselves used chip based alpha N and then switched to the piggyback. I'm guessing they did it so they can tune on the fly vs removing the chip and rewriting, then repeating which is something you guys have rectified with the WAR chip. The reason for my posts is to figure out the pros and cons of each setup.

As for cars falling out of tune due to wear, etc. The MAXX closed loop feature adjusts on the fly and can compensate for this within certain parameters.

The reason why the split second kit doesn't work as well as it could is simply because the ECU doesn't use the MAF directly. We started the ECU controlled MAF, were the first to do so BECAUSE of the constant inconsistencies with the SS kits and knew if the ECU was in full conrtol of the signal use it would self adapt and operate more precisely as if BMW had intended it to be there. The s14 resonance makes a MAF signal difficult to deal with with low air speeds and high resonance. The m20, M30, M88 and S38 all work EXCELLENT with the MAF but yes, this is not a MAF discussion thread.

What Piggy-back did BMW use??? I can't see BMW ever using a piggyback. A new TOTALLY STANDALONE computer, yes but that would still be 100% controlled by ONE computer using signals directly from the sensor they are reading. They/BOSCH aren't lazy or budget limited enough to make a piggyback.

Any, BMW has always been able to emulate their computers. They have never been limited to burning chips to see the results and have always been able to emulate or simulate on the fly.

[Henna30]

Have not yet received your broken WAR Chip coming back for repair. responded to your PM and email.

Thanks for getting back with me. I replied to your pm on here and via regular email. Can't wait to have the war machine up and running this weekend. Thank you for the help.

[reelizmpro]

Brody, I think it's great you guys developed this although it's about a decade late. Split Second was the premier MAF people for E30 M3's ...not Miller and many people had issues with them as well and went to MAXX. I think you guys were messing with M20/M30's exclusively back then. At least that's what it seemed like. This isn't a MAF kit discussion though. I just wanted to point out that BMW themselves used chip based alpha N and then switched to the piggyback. I'm guessing they did it so they can tune on the fly vs removing the chip and rewriting, then repeating which is something you guys have rectified with the WAR chip. The reason for my posts is to figure out the pros and cons of each setup.

As for cars falling out of tune due to wear, etc. The MAXX closed loop feature adjusts on the fly and can compensate for this within certain parameters.

[brody]

Brody, Hoping to get ahold of you this way. Haven't heard back from you on any of my emails about the WAR chip. Would really just like to know what's going on. I'm in a crunch for time and the shop my car is at needs it gone. If you could please get back with me asap I would greatly appreciate it.

Have not yet received your broken WAR Chip coming back for repair. responded to your PM and email.

[brody]

This is what I don't understand....

E30 M3 owner that you helped had an incorrect install, poor tune and/or a incorrect EPROM chip.

The exact same could be said for the two MAFs that popped up for sale. You would not believe how many customers A) never contact us about tuning B) never fine tune their cars C) install our products wrong. I don't even know how many M3 really are still out there, but I am shocked with how many MAF's we sell for those cars.

Tony's car had a conforti chip for his stock 2.3L car. Hardly the wrong chip. His car was also mechanically sound. Evident by us going through it, installing our Alpha system and developing the tune. Also proven further by the fact that the same "base tune" that we developed with Tony's car as a starting point was ALMOST bang on for our customer we installed one on today in LA. Yes, we tuned it on the dyno to verify and the changes required were no more than a minute adjustment to tailor it SPECIFICALLY to the car. We are talking the same amount of time it would take conforti to load a base tune into a car and massage it out specifically to the car. Not days, not hours - about 45 minutes.

STRAIGHT FROM THE PIPERS MOUTH

the alpha doesn't intercept any signals, process them (falsify them) and then feed them back into the ecu.
it synthesizes the load signal electronically. the AFM creates same kind of load signal, but mechanically (by movement of the vane/door). the load signal is what is used to index all the maps on the chip. so basically the AN is simulating the AFM electronically, the AFM and the flow restriction it created is eliminated.

That by definition IS a piggyback. That by definition IS intercepting the signal since it is not feeding STRAIGHT to the ECU. THAT BY DEFINITION IS falsifying the signal. He clearly states that the MAXX piggyback is SYNTHESIZING a signal to resemble the AFM. FAKING A SIGNAL TO LOOK LIKE THE AFM!!!! Why? Because they do not rewrite the ECU code to PROPERLY be in ALPHA-N Configuration. They are FAKING an AFM load signal.

I am not saying the system is wrong to the point of it not working. Clearly it works, but it definitely is LESS ideal than recalibrating the ECU to use the TPS signal directly. In our software, it does not need to see an AFM load signal.

it is not true that the ECU "jumps around between cells" inside a map, when it is being fed from a signal by the AN. not sure where this is notion is coming from.

An advantage of indexing tables via load is that it smooths out the response curve.

I did not want to say anything, but since he admits that the MAXX box is "Synthesizing" an AFM signal, I will lay it out. They did not reconfigure the ECU to run TRUE alpha N. The Air flow table, which is still in ALL the chips running on a MAXX system is key to the driveability of the car. Because they have simply tried to "synthesize" their load signal, the active byte(s) scatters TERRIBLY in the air flow table. This scattering causes an AFM, MAF, or in this case also a MAXX powered car to lack accuracy since the ECU can't get an EXACT reading of what is happening.

I will be the first to admit, customers who are UNHAPPY with the Miller MAF for low load stumbling issues are experiencing this exact phenomenon. That is the nature/problem with a MAF sensor on a very resonant ITB car that flows little air at low engine speeds/light throttle.

The next MAXX powered car we see in person, we will make a video to show you EXACTLY what we mean. There is ZERO denying this. The fact that they don't understand a "choppy" or "Scattered" signal on the air flow table is bad for accuracy and driveability is really mind numbing. The reason this happens is they ABSOLUTELY have RC filters in the box to enable the signal to come into their unit "cleanly" but the problem with an RC filter is it slows signal response down. THEN when they send that now simulated signal to the ECU it is again futher slowed down. The fact that they are not letting the uninterrupted voltage signal to go directly to the ECU is the cause of this scattering.


Ask any stock ECU tuner. If the air flow signal is all over the place in terms of cell reference in the AFT the ECU has trouble with what is going on, PERIOD.

Sometimes people have engine running problems, e.g. something wrong with a sensor, wiring, grounds, or intank fuel pump. We've all read about such problems before. Occasionally someone might first think its a problem with their alpha N, but so far has not been the case. If inconsistent signals are fed into the system, then obviously you will have running issues.

Even if you just worked out your perfect tune on the dyno, initially the car can run very well and then sometime later something is off. e.g. this can happen if there is a problem with the intank fuel pump. Initially the problem is compensated for in the tune, but then later intank fuel pump degrades/changes further, and the problem returns. Of course when the new pump is installed, the tune is still off and needs to be re-tuned.

Again, exact same thing goes for our MAF. EVERYONE blames the last after-market part they put on their cars for any problems present and future simply because 90% of people HAVE NO CLUE about the technical system running their car. PRIME EXAMPLE. A customer with our PSIK (for M20 engines) had been down for a year with a "fuel" problem. He took it to a local (to him) shop who's owner is very close friends with us for diagnosis and repair. This shop owner and all the staff know what we do for these older cars. Because it had an aftermarket product on it, which happened to be our PSIK, they immediately had a melt down and said they did not know how to troubleshoot it. Well, you troubleshoot it just like any other car. Anyway, they sent the car away without being diagnosed, without being repaired and simply said take it to Miller. Fast forward to the end of last month. I PERSONALLY go to the customers house to help him out because EVERYONE has him believing it is our PSIK that is causing this poor running.

In about 45 minutes problem solved. plugged fuel return line in the gas tank. it was causing 80 PSI fuel pressure which is simply ridiculous and explained why his car was breaking up so bad. Guess what? MAF was perfect, tune was perfect, the shop that is extremely reputable and has been around for 30 years was made to look kind of foolish.

Point of the story, even the pros shit bricks and blame aftermarket parts because even THEY usually have ZERO clue about how the systems ACTUALLY work. They know how to follow a manual, and customers know how to blame parts that aren't original and or simply throw parts at a car. This is true OBVIOUSLY for the MAXX System. The fact is for every UNSATISFIED Miller MAF customer, there are easily 5 or 6 happy customers. I am sure same can be said for MAXX.

That brings me to the next point though. You would not believe what people consider to be tuned "good." We have seen the most outrageous stuff whether it was something fully built and tuned by a customer who wanted us to "polish" it off, or whether it was a customer who installed our product incorrectly on their cars and same thing, coming to us for a "polishing" of the tune. The reaction when they get an actual properly tuned car back is priceless. At that point, customers usually start to listen to everything we have to say rather than second guess or state that they heard XYZ on the internet.

We've helped solve a lot of running problems over the years. Ive personally tuned cars when on track visits (here and when in the USA). Free of course. When you go to BMW and tell them you have a running problem they will charge for that, even if the AFM that is installed on the car originally came from them... There are only 24 hours in the day."

NO SHIT. Why is BMW USA or BMW DE even being brought into this????? BMW is not in the business of custom tuning. BMW does not give a rats ass about how you "THINK" your car is running. Of course they won't even look at your car without charging you money????

I don't know what DATA you are looking for. This is all he-said-she said bullshit of which the only data we can and will provide is the scattering signal the stock ECU sees with the MAXX system vs our TPS input table which is not used to reference all necessary tables is BANG ON and does not falter.

The next thing we can only do is start having customers use our ALPHA-N System to let THEM tell you how it is. The advantage for North American customers is that we are reachable BY PHONE during normal waking hours for North Americans instead of waiting until 11pm to XX AM in the morning to contact someone in Europe by phone. It is extremely easy for us to come to customers if they want us to tune the car in person as we are both US and Canadian Citizens.

The fact that there is NO soldering NO wiring manipulations etc to install our hardware. It literally takes 20 minutes or less to install.

The fact that no signal is "simulated," "synthesized" "faked" or "manipulated" which can all be said for what that MAXX box does shows that a better MORE DIRECT way of doing things is possible. JIM CONFORTI many consider the god of Motronic did not need to use a piggy back. OF ALL PEOPLE, if he did not use a piggyback it is because 100% doing it on the stock ECU is the best way to do it.

we have a video posted on our Facebook Page showing how fast the system installs. MILLER FACEBOOK

It is the first post on our wall so you can't miss it.

[cdeason]

Brody

Did you hear back from Brody ?

[Henna30]

Brody, Hoping to get ahold of you this way. Haven't heard back from you on any of my emails about the WAR chip. Would really just like to know what's going on. I'm in a crunch for time and the shop my car is at needs it gone. If you could please get back with me asap I would greatly appreciate it.

[cdeason]

Alpha-N

Brody,I have to respectfully disagree with you. We had at least 2 Miller MAF systems for sale on the E30 M3 SIG just this month. I know owners that have pulled the Miller system and installed the MAXX system but not the other way around. I would bet you $100 the E30 M3 owner that you helped had an incorrect install, poor tune and/or a incorrect EPROM chip. I have attached the response from MAXX below. I am not attempting to rain on your product introduction. I just think you should concentrate on what makes your product better, explain this to the group and back it up with proven data.

The individual responding from MAXX is an American electrical engineer that married a German lady and currently lives in Germany and works with MAXX Automotive.

"its somewhat surprising that this subject resurfaces every few years. it doesn't matter what I or anyone else has to say.


it is not true that the ECU "jumps around between cells" inside a map, when it is being fed from a signal by the AN. not sure where this is notion is coming from.


I have an eprom simulator. we hook that up on the dyno and allows live mapping of everything inside the eprom.
The alpha N is connected up as well.

when we change loads on the dyno, or accelerate thru rpms at a certain load, you see the ECU correctly walks thru each cell in the map along that load and rpm range. But we are using a load peggable dyno. so if you have a stock engine with stock chip and load up a AN map for the stock setup, things will be working correctly. If you have a highly modified engine, then you do need a different chip, which is also true for AFM setups. If you convert to a 2.5l engine e.g., you shouldn't be running a 2.3l chip.


the alpha doesn't intercept any signals, process them (falsify them) and then feed them back into the ecu.
it synthesizes the load signal electronically. the AFM creates same kind of load signal, but mechanically (by movement of the vane/door). the load signal is what is used to index all the maps on the chip. so basically the AN is simulating the AFM electronically, the AFM and the flow restriction it created is eliminated.


An advantage of indexing tables via load is that it smooths out the response curve. It removes the strong nonlinear behavior of engine response vs. TPS angle for low TPS angles. That was one of the problems with the chip-AN solution. In that setup, its best to delete the ICV as the additional air is not correctly accounted for (it degrades the idle / near idle tuneability and consistency).


Sometimes people have engine running problems, e.g. something wrong with a sensor, wiring, grounds, or intank fuel pump. We've all read about such problems before. Occasionally someone might first think its a problem with their alpha N, but so far has not been the case. If inconsistent signals are fed into the system, then obviously you will have running issues.

Even if you just worked out your perfect tune on the dyno, initially the car can run very well and then sometime later something is off. e.g. this can happen if there is a problem with the intank fuel pump. Initially the problem is compensated for in the tune, but then later intank fuel pump degrades/changes further, and the problem returns. Of course when the new pump is installed, the tune is still off and needs to be re-tuned.


We've helped solve a lot of running problems over the years. Ive personally tuned cars when on track visits (here and when in the USA). Free of course. When you go to BMW and tell them you have a running problem they will charge for that, even if the AFM that is installed on the car originally came from them... There are only 24 hours in the day."

[brody]

This is basically the same thing Jim C/Cyntex did back in the 90's from what I've seen except with the Miller WAR chip, one can switch between 4 different preset maps. Since there's no real time tuning this means a lot of dyno time with every future engine modification change and the eprom would have to be rewritten...correct? Perhaps this is the shortcoming of this approach? The MAXX unit shows real time data and allows for rolling road tuning. The upgraded unit also supports wideband closed loop. MAXX doesn't control ignition however, ignition timing is still controlled by the chip and trimmed by the FQS.

I was part of the first batch to run the MAXX AN piggyback and have had great success with it over the 10+ years I've had it. Worked right out of the box with basemaps. I tuned it on a narrowband first, then a wideband. I hit 209rwhp on the stock 2.3 with cams, 48mm TB's, evo headers on a Dynojet. It's done everything well and even better with the wideband closed loop upgrade so I'm not sure why Tolofou/BattleM3 never got his to run right but there are many factors. TPS calibration is critical.


Here's a quote from Jimmy P on Cyntex EPROM based Alpha N.

" Thats because it was a black art back then and pre-dated the internet.
You will find little to no documentation on it.

The factory cars used it,,, and in the earliest days had a fake AFM there for show.
Then at some point they stopped having the fake AFM. I assume the homologation rules changed.
There are very few photos of the Grp A cars with the fake AFM mounted up but they are out there.

The factory cars used the ECU4A


John Johnson who can be a polarizing person I know, is an encyclopedia of this stuff.

In the USA, Alpha N style fueling as it applies to our S14 engines became a project of Jim Conforti and the two owners of Cyntex, a tuning company outside of philadelphia.
They made a chip that replaced the stock eprom, along with a short adapter harness and a new full sweep TPS.
That chip took the throttle position and translated it to replace the combined signal from the AFM and the stock TPS into just reading the throttle opening.
It was marketed for a short time through Racing Dynamics. Cyntex also sold setups themselves out of their small shop in Philadelphia. I have both versions.

The "Cyntex" system worked REALLY well,,, IF it was tuned for the car it was on,,, but had serious adaptability limitations. It simply really needed to be tuned for each car.
Too many people tried one size fits all applications of it, thus hurting some motors and all of a sudden Alpha N style fueling got a very bad name in the US.
It then almost vanised from the USA for a decade (barring a few of us brave souls who knew how to use it).
It reappeared when the MAXX AN systems hit the market. To his credit, MAXX or John Johnson was a pretty strong figure in re-introducing Alpha N style engine mgt into the US. It was considered a black art by many for a long time. Jim Conforti tried to poison anyone who would read his writing on the concept.

I could write way more, much of it has been written here already if you search. Many discussions.

Last edited by jimmy p.; 08-14-2013, 05:57 PM
"

I'm sure the Miller AN method is improved over the Cyntex version but seems to me they both have the same shortcomings. You would need some sort of data acquisition and/or a dyno since there's no real time interface. Would it be fair to say, the customer's car is benefiting from being dynotuned more than just the switch from MAXX to Miller?

Tony's TPS was calibrated properly. It was the problems I have described above with poor referencing on table data etc. We have had a fair amount of remote customers switch from Alpha-N to our MAF conversion for many years now. This time we were able to see the customers car in person and educate ourselves as to what was causing the driveability issues they would complain about. The piggyback interferes with the signals and the quality/speed of those signals getting to the ECU and that causes issues. You can tune around them for sure, but it is way more work than needed.

Wideband control works, but by no means was it excellent nor is it required for a proper tune.

The WAR Chip shouldn't take any longer to tune than the MAXX system. You are right, it does not offer real time tuning, but as long as you understand what you are looking at, you will know where you are needing to make changes and you simply upload them via USB to the WAR Chip. You can use the 4 tunes to your advantage and upload 4 revisions at a time and test each one on the fly before you need to upload new tunes.

I wouldn't call the FQS a tuning tool either LOL. Taking global timing and increasing or decreasing it is hardly refinement and should not be used as "tuning" when the tools exist to deal with it properly.

A pair of eyes and a wideband AFR gauge for reference is all that is technically needed to bare bones tune the car. Obviously a dyno is the safest and easiest environment to tune a car, real time or not.

I see you are also in LA. I would love for you to come out and talk to Dan in person. See the system, see the cars they are going on and feel them for yourself. I will PM you and I will give you Dan's cell. Shoot, we can even emulate your alphaN car just to see if and how bad the signal is scattering on your car. Not going to sell you anything, it would just be great to have the educational opportunity to show you what we mean so more people will understand.

[reelizmpro]

This is basically the same thing Jim C/Cyntex did back in the 90's from what I've seen except with the Miller WAR chip, one can switch between 4 different preset maps. Since there's no real time tuning this means a lot of dyno time with every future engine modification change and the eprom would have to be rewritten...correct? Perhaps this is the shortcoming of this approach? The MAXX unit shows real time data and allows for rolling road tuning. The upgraded unit also supports wideband closed loop. MAXX doesn't control ignition however, ignition timing is still controlled by the chip and trimmed by the FQS.

I was part of the first batch to run the MAXX AN piggyback and have had great success with it over the 10+ years I've had it. Worked right out of the box with basemaps. I tuned it on a narrowband first, then a wideband. I hit 209rwhp on the stock 2.3 with cams, 48mm TB's, evo headers on a Dynojet. It's done everything well and even better with the wideband closed loop upgrade so I'm not sure why Tolofou/BattleM3 never got his to run right but there are many factors. TPS calibration is critical.


Here's a quote from Jimmy P on Cyntex EPROM based Alpha N.

" Thats because it was a black art back then and pre-dated the internet.
You will find little to no documentation on it.

The factory cars used it,,, and in the earliest days had a fake AFM there for show.
Then at some point they stopped having the fake AFM. I assume the homologation rules changed.
There are very few photos of the Grp A cars with the fake AFM mounted up but they are out there.

The factory cars used the ECU4A


John Johnson who can be a polarizing person I know, is an encyclopedia of this stuff.

In the USA, Alpha N style fueling as it applies to our S14 engines became a project of Jim Conforti and the two owners of Cyntex, a tuning company outside of philadelphia.
They made a chip that replaced the stock eprom, along with a short adapter harness and a new full sweep TPS.
That chip took the throttle position and translated it to replace the combined signal from the AFM and the stock TPS into just reading the throttle opening.
It was marketed for a short time through Racing Dynamics. Cyntex also sold setups themselves out of their small shop in Philadelphia. I have both versions.

The "Cyntex" system worked REALLY well,,, IF it was tuned for the car it was on,,, but had serious adaptability limitations. It simply really needed to be tuned for each car.
Too many people tried one size fits all applications of it, thus hurting some motors and all of a sudden Alpha N style fueling got a very bad name in the US.
It then almost vanised from the USA for a decade (barring a few of us brave souls who knew how to use it).
It reappeared when the MAXX AN systems hit the market. To his credit, MAXX or John Johnson was a pretty strong figure in re-introducing Alpha N style engine mgt into the US. It was considered a black art by many for a long time. Jim Conforti tried to poison anyone who would read his writing on the concept.

I could write way more, much of it has been written here already if you search. Many discussions.

Last edited by jimmy p.; 08-14-2013, 05:57 PM
"

I'm sure the Miller AN method is improved over the Cyntex version but seems to me they both have the same shortcomings. You would need some sort of data acquisition and/or a dyno since there's no real time interface. Would it be fair to say, the customer's car is benefiting from being dynotuned more than just the switch from MAXX to Miller?

[brody]

Well for starters, with our system, you can be up and running in 20 minutes or less. there is NO, repeat, ABSOLUTELY NO wire modifications that need to be done. No cutting, no splicing, no soldering ANYWHERE. Install the TPS and temp sensor, plug in our harness to the factory BMW harness connectors outlined in the manual, install the chip and start the car. We will make a video of how fast "plugging in" our system is as we are installing this on two cars in L.A. today and Tuesday.

Secondly, the way we have done it is the way BMW would have done it from the factory up until the late 90's as wideband wasn't used on production BMW's until mid 2000's. We have reconfigured everything to do with engine "Load" added tables, turned off or deleted tables and changed load scaling references as needed to properly control the system.

Using any sort of a piggy-back system causes problems with cell referencing on the stock ECU. Without inviting you over to see in person what we are talking about and in short, if you were to watch how the stock ECU "hits" on certain cells that are critical to driveability you would see major scatter. Like our MAF, when the air flow is too turbulent you get poor driveability and scattering on the air flow table instead of having one or two cells only referenced at one time. With our alpha N system, it hits on ONE cell at a time, which not only proves the ECU likes the signal MORE, but it dramatically improves the accuracy of what is being read and what is happening.

The Miller Alpha-N system allows the end user full control over the fuel and ignition maps as well as idle speed, RPM limit O2 sensor control, cold start etc etc with the included Miller WAR Chip. Having proper control over the values in the ECU for fuel and timing is far superior than having to control that externally. You could use any external piggy back to make an alpha-N system with something like an SMT-6. In the very very early days of our MAF conversion, we used to use a piggyback. As we grew our knowledge of how these ECU's work, we found that the piggyback was actually causing more problems than it was worth. We figured if we could rewrite the code in the ECU to use the MAF properly and DIRECTLY, it would be far superior. It was! Our MAF conversion is still the best and only factory controlled MAF conversion for early model BMW cars out there. Providing the most power and performance you can bolt on to your BMW by far.

The Alpha-N system will not make any more power than our MAF conversion. BUT it will cure some super light throttle and super light load issues S14 MAF converted customers can have and it is also far superior to use it on the carbon box systems as those can only amplify low load drive-ability issues that a MAF conversion can have on an S14.

The ease of converting back to stock for a vehicle inspection or WHATEVER reason is bar none too. Again, 20 minutes or less.

Our intimate understanding of these ECU's allows us to do the things we do with them and be as confident as we are in our systems. Unlike other tuners that used to cater to these cars, we are still actively developing and improving systems and strategies for these older cars. Most others have moved on and offer stuff they developed 10 to 20 years ago with no improvements, no updates, no new ideas.

It is unfortunate we can't be everywhere in the country. If we were local to you Cdeason, we would love for you to come as see some technical details in person. The MAXX system has been around a long time and has a good name for the alpha-N method. BUT, we feel and so far so do our customers who have driven our system, our approach is better suited and slightly better in execution than anything currently available for the stock ECU. As time goes on, I hope to have more "proof in the pudding" for everyone to see.

Check out our facebook page to see what's happening over the next couple days with these in person installs. Right now, we are installing one on a fresh off the boat Evo3 M3 that was just cleared for import late last week.

[goarmy]

^It's already better if you are using the original ecu.

[cdeason]

Alpha-N

Brody if I may suggest that you stop criticizing your competition and tell us exactly why your product is better, back it up with proven data, dyno runs etc. I think this would help market your products.

I can tell you that Martin (MAXX) has a wealth of experience and if there were improvements to be made, he would have done so, for example developing closed loop, he did that and it works great. Plus he is very honest. I looked at installing his product on a M20 engine and he told me the only plus was throttle response, no power gains.