I hope this post doesn't get deleted because they don't appear to be sponsors here, but, this seems like its pretty big news...

https://www.trifectaperformance.com/...e-the-c8-r139/

 

 

This is amazing if true.

 

I hope it's true.

 

GM engineers did their homework!

 

Excited to see how this works out for those of us with full bolt-ons!

 

10-15 rwhp gains would be off the chart with supporting bolt ons.

 

And cams.

 

Nice to see this cracking of the ECM

 

This is great news. Looking forward to additional information.

 

The base ECU and wideband O2 compensates for bolts just fine us they screw up the MAF signal. The tuner will help for raising rpm limits and power added that take you beyond the limits of the injectors. So when you swap cams, turbocharge or supercharge this will allow it. ECU has the flexibility to be set up for a supercharger, twin turbos, multiple different cylinder arrangements. A huge number of things. It has been a long time since I looked at the 99 series ECU tables. This is huge for those going beyond bolt ons.

 

Hopefully HPTuners isn't far behind. Although we don't see what the EPA may be doing to them behind the scene since they are the big player in tuning.

 

Check out what happened with Cobb. They do for Subaru what HPT does for GM.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/cobb-l...rs-are-furious

https://www.cobbtuning.com/green-spe...te-april-2022/

You can still buy their software and tune cars, but you can no longer disable certain emission related systems and error codes. So basically your tuner can still delete your cats and write a crap tune, but they can't turn off all the error lights that it'll cause.

 

Yup I am aware. I am a Cobb tuner as well but I don't tune Subaru's much anymore as I prefer GM stuff. Technically the catalyst stuff doesn't bother me, but not allowing Flex Fuel is too far in my opinion.

 

It'll be interesting to see how well this plays in the sandbox with OTA updates.

 

On the ZR1 E99, HPT replaced GMs security keys with their own. That meant the ECM could only be tuned with HP Tuners from that point forward. It broke compatibility with GMs programming tools. It basically turns GMs security mechanism against them.

If Trifecta did the same thing with the C8 E99, then that would also break GMs tools. So if GM tried to remotely flash it via OTA, it would fail because the code wasn't signed with Trifecta's keys.

My bigger concern would be those other modules and the trust relationship. If GM does an OTA on the gateway module for example, and changes the trust procedure or finds a way to have it explicitly detect and block Trifecta programmed ECMs, then that's going to cause a ton of problems.

On that note, has anyone tried to just cripple the OTA mechanism? On the older cars you could remote the cellular modem board from the OnStar module, while leaving the module itself in place and functioning. Do the Global B cars freak out when you do that?

 

Agreed. This is a huge step forward.

 

Watch until the end. Some valid commentary

 

I think this guy in the video needs a Valium . Calling some very smart people stupid wont win you respect in this industry .


I’ve spoke to CSP and Chris Crawford . Cracking the C8 was going to happen sooner or later . Yes I agree about the hptuners thing ( EPA wants to crackdown on anyone ) so with HPT not dipping into the waters of the C8 crack n hack they avoid that headache .

No one knows what Mary Barra is thinking , I really doubt she’s losing sleep over some gear heads cracking the C8 .

There might be some backlash , Im sure the trifecta folks might be able to disable to remote GM update via ECU , etc .

No one knows what’s next and this guy assumes that all tuners are going to suffer , sounds like he’s just pissy . Calling people pieces of **** ? Like seriously , this guy needs to chill .

 

That guy is a clown. I saw his videos last night. Why would GM spend a ton of extra money moving the decision making for the platform outside of the ECU? It would cost a lot more to manufacture and a lot more R&D vs just making the ECU more complex. There have always been external controllers, especially in the C7. The C8 will still have external controllers that interact with the ECU to advise if it should cut power etc. But the ECU is who makes the ultimate decision. Not to mention, he says in one of his videos that Trifecta can't make power because he thinks they can't bypass an external limiter, but people have made 20+ HP by tricking the ECU to add more timing with external sensor interceptors. This doesn't make any sense. The ECU commands the timing in both scenarios and would apply whatever limiter it sees fit. So right there I knew this guys theories were based on absolutely ZERO real information and are just his wild assumptions. Until we get more info from Trifecta and HPTuners and people start actually working with these ECU's, his rambling is subjective opinion.

Pretty sure Trifecta and HPTuners know a lot more than this guy. Global B is more complex but I still think it is too far fetched to think GM would put decision making into any external parts of the ECU into control modules that would cost 5x to manufacture and replace. It makes much more sense that everything is tied together and has the ability to ask the ECU to limit something but only because the ECU's programming sees the value has exceeded a limit.

In 2 years when we actually know, feel free to come back in here and say I was ignorant and wrong. But for now I stand my ground.