When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Did you notice any dash light illuminate?
And (if you have) does uninstalling VT solves your problem？
I don't daily my rx8, I only go to and from race events, so uninstalling is not terribly practical. On top of that, I only got cutouts twice in 80 runs up the hills, never on the street, and never at autocross, so it's so infrequent that going back to stock is unlikely to reveal the issue with as little driving as I do
The issue has not been identified yet. We have not really received much data from those affected. It's hard to narrow it down without more specific info around operating conditions and calibration IDs.
The issue has not been identified yet. We have not really received much data from those affected. It's hard to narrow it down without more specific info around operating conditions and calibration IDs.
Bit of a bump.
Just purchased VersaTuner last week to port over my Cobb AP/ATR tune for my turbo charged RX8.
Basically it was a straight copy and paste and I was up and running.
The VT software has a great GUI and nice features to compare values from on tune to another.
There's enough logging features to be useful. (I love my MegaLogViewer HD software, but I know VT isn't try to compete with that package)
The Live Dashboard is nice though live tracing would be nice.
Only 2 issues I've had (and I can't really blame VT on the first one) was with the ODBII Link SX cable.
My windows software wouldn't recognize the cable so I needed to manually install the virtual com port driver software manually from the manufacture site.
(and)
The data logging for Desired air to fuel ratio seems jacked. I'm still looking in to this tho, it may be me as I've only had the software a few days.
Bit of a bump.
Just purchased VersaTuner last week to port over my Cobb AP/ATR tune for my turbo charged RX8.
....
The data logging for Desired air to fuel ratio seems jacked. I'm still looking in to this tho, it may be me as I've only had the software a few days.
Agreed, In open-loop, my actual AFR seems to be right where I put it in the air-fuel-ratio tables, but the "Desired AFR" is way up near 14.4 or 14.7 all the time. If I am in closed-loop, then the PCM adjusts the actual AFR to that higher Desired AFR. Very weird. However, that may not be a VersaTune issue, might be something about the PCM and what that value means.
I did a test where I set ALL of the air-fuel-ratio cells to a single lambda value (ie 0.85, 12.5:1) and set the closed-loop RPM limit to 1000. So everything above idle was open-loop. As I drove, almost everything stayed near 12.5:1. But the log showed Desired AFR of 14.4/14.7.
I took that same tune and moved the closed-loop RPM back to normal (6000) and drove around. In closed-loop, it kept my AFR near the "Desired" 14.7 almost the entire time and ignored my air-fuel-ratio cells I had set to 12.5:1. My fuel trims stayed near zero (+/- 4 but hovered around zero) so my MAF calibration seems right.
Just gunna put this out there for those using Versatuner . I've been experimenting with the launch control and no lift shift features.
My findings so far :
No lift shift ..... kinda works but not to the point where I'd consider it useful . When you are using it, it doesn't really save you any time when shifting and I find it tends to interfere with normal shifting when you're not using it. Overall ...not a feature I'd use as my normal gearshifts are faster and more enjoyable.
Launch control ....Works ok but can only be used in conjunction with NLS (which I'm not a fan of) so wont be using this either.
Anyone else care to give their thoughts on this?
Maybe I'm 'doin' it wrong' ?
Just gunna put this out there for those using Versatuner . I've been experimenting with the launch control and no lift shift features.
My findings so far :
No lift shift ..... kinda works but not to the point where I'd consider it useful . When you are using it, it doesn't really save you any time when shifting and I find it tends to interfere with normal shifting when you're not using it. Overall ...not a feature I'd use as my normal gearshifts are faster and more enjoyable.
Launch control ....Works ok but can only be used in conjunction with NLS (which I'm not a fan of) so wont be using this either.
Anyone else care to give their thoughts on this?
Maybe I'm 'doin' it wrong' ?
Agreed. When we bought VersaTuner back in 2019, there was a discussion thread at the time that their code had a bug in it which was leading to the ECM restarting while some guys were racing. So when they fixed it later, we gave it a try and as you said.....a little "wonky". We don't activate that feature at the moment. Its an everyday driver. As I always say....just develop the skill to shift fast instead of the ECM carrying you.
Any updates about identifying the cause of engines shutting off for a split second?
I hope updates for this platform haven’t stalled. VT is on my shopping list but reading multiple instances of engine cut (although not yet pinpointed to be a VersaTuner issue) is not worth the risk
Originally Posted by Steve@VersaTune
The issue has not been identified yet. We have not really received much data from those affected. It's hard to narrow it down without more specific info around operating conditions and calibration IDs.
The issue was a bug in the launch control code that affected some calibrations. This was fixed years ago for all calibrations that we were made aware of.
Any updates about identifying the cause of engines shutting off for a split second?
I hope updates for this platform haven’t stalled. VT is on my shopping list but reading multiple instances of engine cut (although not yet pinpointed to be a VersaTuner issue) is not worth the risk
the issue was fixed for my ECU code. it did cause me a lot of aggravation and race wins up till that point. lol
I know where the code for that is, question... was it that the area of the ROM which was presumed as "not referenced/used" was actually used in some very rare/weird corner case?
Like so...
The factory ROM ends its code section at about 6BFE0 and the FFS/LC patched one ends at about 6C080
Last edited by ciprianrx8; Feb 8, 2025 at 11:26 AM.
The issue has not been identified yet. We have not really received much data from those affected. It's hard to narrow it down without more specific info around operating conditions and calibration IDs.
Steve@VersaTune
I need to have access to alternator maps and oil injector settings vs engine temperature.
I can not have access to my ecu read as it is locked by VT, which is very frustrating and makes VT useless.
There is no development on VT; those maps are already decoded by open source programs.
Are VT going to include those maps? (They are already decoded and avl)
Or can I return my VT licence?
I mean no insult but as far as I've seen VT on a friends car, they just copied the ME definitions as they were. Which means, terribly wrong at times... so I really, really doubt they bothered to reverse engineer the code themselves. I am not saying ME has done this either. It looks like a long chain of people just copy pasting some wrong definitions from who knows where... and charging $ for it.
VT and ME might as well both benefit from the open source work done recently to at least update their definitions and fix the known wrong descriptions.
Ownership. Yes. The current RX-8 definitions are not what they should be.
Context. There is no "perfect software". If every software publisher waited until their product was perfect, there would be no software. Software is always a work in progress.
History. When we initially released support for RX-8, we did our best to define the tables as accurately as possible. The tables were labeled based on our reverse engineering, testing, and what the community generally accepted as accurate at the time. Clearly, you cannot add features like launch control and no-lift shift without understanding the code.
We invested in a shop test car too.
Status. We have learned a lot over the years and have a much better understanding of the RX-8 ECU now. We still think that Mazda rotaries are some of the coolest mass production cars ever. We have not abandoned the 21 year old platform.
The single biggest hurdle with RX-8, from our perspective, is the ridiculous number of calibrations that Mazda created. Everyone here knows the emissions, reliability, horsepower rating, and fuel economy challenges the platform had. The result is that Mazda produced new unique calibrations on a regular basis trying to address those issues.
Every new table that we define, or custom patch to fix an OE code bug has to be replicated across all of the unique calibrations. All custom code has to be bench flashed on EVERY cal to ensure that noone gets a bricked ECU. This is a huge work effort.
Not just lip service. We are working through the older platforms and updating the definitions with more accurate table descriptions. We released a big update for Gen2 Mazda3 in January, and we're working on Gen1 Mazda3 now. There is also a huge update for NC Miata in the works.
RX-8 is the last port injected platform in need of an update. We're saving the best for last(unfortunately).
We need to get things as close to right as possible before we touch all of those cals.
We've already identified a significant number of new and changed tables, but we welcome any crowd sourced support in the testing effort. It really is a resource issue on our end, not a lack of desire.
Lastly, we've never raised prices, ever, and we've never charged for updates, ever. We've added VersaTuner Lite and added support for low cost vehicle interface cables to help lower the cost of tuning your RX-8.
We're still here to support this great platform. Help us help you.
Let users define their tables. Let users define their own OBD2 logging pids. The information is already made public for free, so people just need to define the stuff and use it as is.
That will keep you out of all trouble and effort and come across like the good guys still supporting stuff.
Last edited by ciprianrx8; Mar 14, 2025 at 04:58 AM.
Let users define their tables. Let users define their own OBD2 logging pids. The information is already made public for free, so people just need to define the stuff and use it as is.
That will keep you out of all trouble and effort and come across like the good guys still supporting stuff.
That would help a few people help themselves. That capability already exists in other products.
Our goal has always been to raise the bar for all Mazda owners.
VersaTuner is not a file based tuning solution. A VersaTuner tune is applicable for every calibration in the entire platform. Real Pro tuners appreciate this. No need to maintain hundreds of tune files.
When we add a new table or logging PID, everyone gets it - every cal in the platform. It makes it easier for Pro tuners to send out tunes without having end users jumping through hoops with custom definitions or maintaining a huge library of tune files. We try to make the tuning process as easy as possible - for everyone.
There is not a lot of "secret sauce" left in the RX-8 platform. It makes sense for us to continue to expose all of the known tables to everyone with the best possible table descriptions.
We will do as much as we can internally, and if the commuinity wants to contribute, it will be that much better.
That would help a few people help themselves. That capability already exists in other products.
if the communitywants to contribute, it will be that much better.
We are shouting from the top of our lungs to help and have access to basic tables like:
1- Altenator settings
2- oil injectors vs engine temp
3-...
Firstly, the ECU ron is locked by VT ( very stupid if asking, since the normal user only suffers; the pro user would boot load/brake the lock)
Secondly, we can not define a table ( is it more nonsense than in the advanced section/tab any user can put " unsafe" numbers? )
Thirdly, many "pro users" have already quit VT and use ME as it is cheaper to have a business account and more options.
All in all, WE, as a normal user of the community, keeps suffering and is stoked and have a huge regret about choosing VT, not ME!
We are shouting from the top of our lungs to help and have access to basic tables like:
1- Altenator settings
2- oil injectors vs engine temp
3-...
Firstly, the ECU ron is locked by VT ( very stupid if asking, since the normal user only suffers; the pro user would boot load/brake the lock)
Secondly, we can not define a table ( is it more nonsense than in the advanced section/tab any user can put " unsafe" numbers? )
Thirdly, many "pro users" have already quit VT and use ME as it is cheaper to have a business account and more options.
All in all, WE, as a normal user of the community, keeps suffering and is stoked and have a huge regret about choosing VT, not ME!
Again, we want to make the new capabilities available to everyone. Maybe 1%, and that's a stretch, of end users have the skills and desire to define tables from a hex editor. You are not a "normal user"
Again, we want to make the new capabilities available to everyone. Maybe 1%, and that's a stretch, of end users have the skills and desire to define tables from a hex editor. You are not a "normal user"
How is it cheaper to have ME Pro?
So, even as those 1% can I have my access?
If not, can I sell back my VT licence? I would sell it back in one heartbeat, and go for ME rather wait for "saving the best for last"
Unfortunately, the rest of that 99% have no idea what they are missing and how easy and useful it is.
FYI
" Features of the mazdaEdit Pro: License to unlimited cars 1. mazdaEdit Pro is separate tool based on the ecuEdit functionality 2. Mazda Logger 3. Only OpenPort 2.0 is supported 4. mazdaEdit Pro supports all markets: - 2.3Turbo cars (Mazda3 MPS (1st&2nd gen), Mazda6 MPS, CX7&MPV (1st&2nd gen)), - Mazda3 (1st, 2nd and 3rd gen) NA 1.6, 2.0, 2.3, 2.5 2005+, SkyAcvtiv-G, SkyAcvtiv-D, - Mazda6 (1st, 2nd and 3rd gen) NA 1.8,2.0,2.3,2.5 2005+, SkyAcvtiv-G, SkyAcvtiv-D, - MPV (2.3, 3.0), - Mazda 5 2nd-gen (2.0, 2.5), - Mazda 2 (3rd,4th gen) NA, SkyAcvtiv-G, SkyAcvtiv-D, - MX5 NC, ND, - RX8, - CX-5 SkyActiv-G, SkyAcvtiv-D, - CX-3 SkyActiv-G, SkyAcvtiv-D, - CX-8 SkyActiv-G, SkyAcvtiv-D, - CX-9 SkyActiv Turbo 5. ECU definitions are available for all supported cars
mazdaEdit Pro cost is $899 for unlimited flashed cars including a support for a one year.
Purchase link: xxxxx
Subtotal: £695.44
Total VAT (20%) : £139.09
Total price: £834.53 "
There is no non sense in subscription fees or paying extra for that number of cars.. etc.
..... We've added VersaTuner Lite and added support for low cost vehicle interface cables to help lower the cost of tuning your RX-8.
We're still here to support this great platform. Help us help you.
The reason i chose VT. (I hate being locked on one HW as if they drop support/manufacturing im at loss if I meed replacement). also the fact you published a free test version to play with..
But I also come from WinOLS.. yes its great that I can serve multiple tines across different calibrations, but I cant do everything.. and also as a "pro" tuner I have the responsibility to tune other cars and adjust all parameters..
CL limits (0.85 / 1.05) for example. Many DTC codes which you keep blocked of for probably legal reasonss but let us adjust it if we know how.. if not for personal licenses let it be available for PRO same as ME has..
Again, we want to make the new capabilities available to everyone. Maybe 1%, and that's a stretch, of end users have the skills and desire to define tables from a hex editor. You are not a "normal user"
How is it cheaper to have ME Pro?
For me its not only about the price..
Most of your users would be more than fullfiled with lite version.. they dont know what they do while adjusting (and that is their right) but as @motodenta pointed out.. its all out responsibility no matter if its "allow entering unsafe value" adjusting axis or any adjustment made..
We have to select the calibration and using a different one is anyways a sure way to make it go bad.. so if an edit is locked to one calibration.. well..
I dont want to use a file based solution but more and more it seams I will have to..
Having closed loop in rich area would make the life of remote tune for example so much more easy...
