Before testing each ECU, it’s important to discuss the evaluation process. The "perception" of how any car is performing is always going to be subjective and will vary from driver to driver depending on individual driving styles. Some cars can feel faster than others even though on paper they may be slower. An example of this would be the Mazda MX-5. The car feels fast and is a hoot to drive but on paper is outperformed by many other sports (and family) cars. So although my (and Mikes) perception will be important in evaluating each ECU, it should not be taken as gospel. What I prefer in a car may not suit others. 

The term "driveability" should be discussed. This term covers a range of factors such as throttle response, power delivery, in-gear acceleration, cruise mode etc. Some of these are scientifically measurable (eg. power and acceleration) but others (throttle response and smoothness) are somewhat subjective and each driver may have a different opinion. I am merely offering mine in this article. 

To maintain a level of consistency, all performance testing was done at the same location, at roughly the same time of day and at similar temperatures. We did not test unless the temperature was below 21 to minimise the effect of temperature on our times. In the end, all testing was done in the range 16-21C. The 0-100km/hr and 400m times were measured using a G-Tech meter with the average of several consistent runs used as the final figure. Each test was performed with two people on board and a full tank of fuel. We did this because, a) the passenger needed to operate the laptop which was recording in-gear acceleration and, b) we wanted the exact same level of fuel each time in the tank (and full was the easiest to measure). 
 
 

The test strip in Carrum.  During testing of the Link, we were first threatened by a shotgun wielding local and then later pulled over by police after the neighbours complained. I bet Motor magazine never had it this tough.

The in gear times were measured using a prototype accelerometer (called an RBU) which was connected to a laptop to record raw G data. The technique for measuring in gear times is important and should be noted here. We would slowly accelerate up to the lower speed before planting the foot and accelerating to the upper speed (as you would in traffic for example). This method seemed to give times that were close to Motor magazine so we elected to use this technique for all our tests. We tested 3^rd gear response only. 
 
 

The accelerometer used to measure in-gear acceleration. All data was logged and later analysed to extract the in-gear times.

Fuel economy was measured over at least 1000km for improved accuracy and averaging. The driving done during this time was fairly consistent across each ECU with a mixture of city and highway driving. 

The cars used in testing were my car, a bog standard MY99 model (riding on 17" wheels) and Michael Fisher's beast, a MY98 EVO2 with 17" wheels, flat foam air filter and rear section 3" loud pipe (exhaust). 

Finally…… 

There will be some of you who will disagree with my comments and perhaps even berate me for reporting my (less than positive) opinions about some of the ECUs and tuners in this article (as you'll read further on). I spent countless hours of my spare time (and money) on this project to make sure all the facts were reported accurately and without bias. I would challenge anyone to undergo the same rigorous evaluation and perform the same testing over 6 months and 8000km and come up with a different result.