Close

Activity Stream

Filter
Sort By Time Show
Recent Recent Popular Popular Anytime Anytime Last 24 Hours Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days Last 7 Days Last 30 Days Last 30 Days All All Photos Photos Forum Forums Articles Articles
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Today, 03:47 PM
    You need to stop recording races with potatoes. Who is taking shots? Oh no a Viper beat a PP-P tuned car. Is it necessary to start making excuses? Do you know how much PP-P content I've promoted? Am I only supposed to show their cars winning? How insecure are you people?
    7 replies | 327 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Today, 03:45 PM
    How do we explain the M3 and C63 AMG inconsistency though? There is no way that car is trapping less in the 1/4 mile, none.
    2 replies | 145 view(s)
  • Fishayyy's Avatar
    Today, 03:44 PM
    Fishayyy replied to a thread N54 Intake? in N54
    It's a pretty cool group. Lots of people from these forums too.
    14 replies | 351 view(s)
  • Fishayyy's Avatar
    Today, 03:43 PM
    Fishayyy replied to a thread N54 Intake? in N54
    If the box is completely sealed off from the engine bay I feel like the CF box should do a good job of insulating it and keeping the extreme temperatures out.
    14 replies | 351 view(s)
  • BoostDr's Avatar
    Today, 03:33 PM
    Bump for an old thread, any updates as of yet?
    39 replies | 1167 view(s)
  • zeenon53's Avatar
    31 replies | 632 view(s)
  • Cpt_Rum-bo's Avatar
    Today, 03:26 PM
    Cpt_Rum-bo replied to a thread Coding in Florida? in N54
    Ok, I'm near Ft. Lauderdale.
    11 replies | 145 view(s)
  • 63Master's Avatar
    Today, 03:25 PM
    You need to stop taking shots at PPPerformance and the UAE. It doesnt make you look good
    7 replies | 327 view(s)
  • Ericbh77's Avatar
    Today, 03:11 PM
    Ericbh77 replied to a thread Coding in Florida? in N54
    I'm in the Tampa Bay area
    11 replies | 145 view(s)
  • Stevenh's Avatar
    Today, 03:06 PM
    I'd have to agree its a factory ringer as well, but at least we know it will be a strong car with a tune.
    2 replies | 145 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 03:05 PM
    Hey BobbyDupps: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 3 view(s)
  • Terry@BMS's Avatar
    Today, 03:01 PM
    Terry@BMS replied to a thread XDF Progress in N54
    Shift points for ATs would be a game changer. I poked through the DAMOS and didn't see anything promising there. Hope I just missed it! :)
    7 replies | 121 view(s)
  • BostonBeemah's Avatar
    Today, 03:00 PM
    BostonBeemah replied to a thread It's battery time! in N54
    The above will only work if the specifications of the battery are EXACTLY the same as oem which chances are it's not going to be. You can code in a couple different battery types using Inpa if not going with oem.
    27 replies | 542 view(s)
  • Terry@BMS's Avatar
    Today, 02:59 PM
    Terry@BMS replied to a thread No Boost in N54
    DWP is used on all maps. The test calls to set DWP = 100 to measure vacuum after the solenoids at idle. It's not plausible both solenoids would fail. Anything 2013+ on the JB4 end has the larger MOSFET so that can't be related. Maybe if you didn't connect the JB4 power wire? But then it would have never worked right. So if this is a new thing. Sounds like it must be a vacuum line before the solenoid.
    19 replies | 162 view(s)
  • Tony@VargasTurboTech's Avatar
    Today, 02:57 PM
    Sorry missed this question. They are 100% worth it, as they flow more, are lighter, stronger, and are more efficient at higher pressure ratios. Just to name a few of the advantages. As for price, I have no idea where Rob gets his wheels, but we only buy the highest quality products, this is after being in the turbo business for 30+ years, and going through quite a few vendors. Maybe our wheels cost us more, etc. I really do not know. If we are going to compare price, I think the better question is, why are RB's $600 more than our Stage 2's, when we hold the stock frame power records? VTT Stage 2: Base turbo: $2499 Upgraded thrust: Included Billet Wheels: $300 Total: $2799 RB: Base turbo: $2999 Upgraded thrust: $250 Billet Wheels: $150 Total: $3399 :think:
    31 replies | 632 view(s)
  • BostonBeemah's Avatar
    Today, 02:44 PM
    BostonBeemah replied to a thread XDF Progress in N54
    Excellent work Jake and thank you Martial for the cold start duration tables!! So pumped for all this!
    7 replies | 121 view(s)
  • cloud9blue's Avatar
    Today, 02:44 PM
    damn, that's harsh :)
    31 replies | 632 view(s)
  • jturboawd's Avatar
    Today, 02:33 PM
    jturboawd replied to a thread No Boost in N54
    I think even if your waste gates are 100% open you should register something on the boost gauge. If you are actually seeing 0 boost, after you check what Terry and Tony are suggesting I would pressure test the system. The only time I was able to get 0 boost but vacuum I had a coupling come loose.
    19 replies | 162 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 02:24 PM
    Camshaft, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 5 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Today, 02:21 PM
    Last week CaddyBoost commented on the spectacularly fast ATS-V test numbers Car and Driver somehow managed to achieve which blew their previous test figures out of the water. It is starting to make more sense as those test figures appeared in this comparison test of the ATS-V versus the BMW M3 and Mercedes-AMG C63 S. If we knew those figures were recorded for this test we would have stated Cadillac may have sent a tweaked ATS-V to Car and Driver. Maybe they changed the software on all ATS-V's. Either way, something happened and the ATS-V is now spectacularly fast. Speaking of which, the C63 AMG S is not recording any spectacularly fast times. At least not in this comparison. Of all the races we have seen between the C63 AMG S and the M3/M4, the AMG takes the victory and somewhat easily. So how is the C63 AMG S only trapping 116 in the 1/4 mile which is a mile per hour less than the M3 and how is it getting beaten to 100 miles per hour and 150 miles per hour by the M3? We can not explain it. Is Car and Driver just throwing together test figures from different days for the cars? That certainly is how it feels. The numbers do not make sense in context. The ATS-V may actually be as fast as they are saying despite the previous slow tests from more than one source but that would mean it blows the C63 AMG S away. It's not even close with their claimed 6 miles per hour trap speed spread. What this network thinks is that the C63 AMG S would be the highway king out of these three. The acceleration numbers are puzzling. As far as the weights there is no surprise that the M3 is the lightest at 3608 pounds followed by the ATS-V at 3800 pounds and the C63 AMG S at 3939 pounds. The W205 C-Class is not the lightweight car Mercedes claimed it would be. In all fairness, the F80 M3 missed its weight target too. The M3's weight advantage pays dividends in the slalom posting the fastest time follow by the ATS-V and the C63 AMG S. The Caddy does record the best skidpad figure at 1.02g followed by the C63 AMG S at .98g and the M3 at .97g. BMW's 50/50 weight distribution is simply a myth in the turbo era. The cars have more weight on the nose and Car and Driver records 52.1/47.9 front to back. The ATS-V and C63 AMG S fair no better with 52.5/47.5 and 54.3/45.7 front to back respectively. Out of the trio the car chosen is the M3 finishing in first place. They comment that it is the lightest and leanest but criticize the brakes which seems to always be a point of criticism on BMW's and BMW just can't get it right. The Cadillac's handling is said to be better and the AMG braking is set to be better yet they still pick the M3 due to it being the better all around package. The Cadillac ATS-V wows with its eye opening (and suspicious) numbers but its overall package and namely the interior is behind the other two. The engine also receives criticism for being 'dull' whatever that means. Its sound is criticized yet BMW is faking their engine sound with synthetic engine noise through the speaker system. The ATS-V is said to be the best handling car offering the best steering feel and brake feel yet it loses out because of the lack of refinement. Cadillac is almost there. Almost. The AMG's transmission is criticized but it's V8 engine is praised despite putting up the slowest numbers. We still do not understand how the most powerful motor out of the group is somehow putting up the slowest numbers when all independent testing shows us it should be the fastest. Something is off here and perhaps Car and Driver got some 'magazine specials' to test. It's becoming harder and harder to trust these test results. Make of it what you will.
    2 replies | 145 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Today, 02:12 PM
    Last week CaddyBoost commented on the spectacularly fast ATS-V test numbers Car and Driver somehow managed to achieve which blew their previous test figures out of the water. It is starting to make more sense as those test figures appeared in this comparison test of the ATS-V versus the BMW M3 and Mercedes-AMG C63 S. If we knew those figures were recorded for this test we would have stated Cadillac may have sent a tweaked ATS-V to Car and Driver. Maybe they changed the software on all ATS-V's. Either way, something happened and the ATS-V is now spectacularly fast. Speaking of which, the C63 AMG S is not recording any spectacularly fast times. At least not in this comparison. Of all the races we have seen between the C63 AMG S and the M3/M4, the AMG takes the victory and somewhat easily. So how is the C63 AMG S only trapping 116 in the 1/4 mile which is a mile per hour less than the M3 and how is it getting beaten to 100 miles per hour and 150 miles per hour by the M3? We can not explain it. Is Car and Driver just throwing together test figures from different days for the cars? That certainly is how it feels. The numbers do not make sense in context. The ATS-V may actually be as fast as they are saying despite the previous slow tests from more than one source but that would mean it blows the C63 AMG S away. It's not even close with their claimed 6 miles per hour trap speed spread. What this network thinks is that the C63 AMG S would be the highway king out of these three. The acceleration numbers are puzzling. As far as the weights there is no surprise that the M3 is the lightest at 3608 pounds followed by the ATS-V at 3800 pounds and the C63 AMG S at 3939 pounds. The W205 C-Class is not the lightweight car Mercedes claimed it would be. In all fairness, the F80 M3 missed its weight target too. The M3's weight advantage pays dividends in the slalom posting the fastest time follow by the ATS-V and the C63 AMG S. The Caddy does record the best skidpad figure at 1.02g followed by the C63 AMG S at .98g and the M3 at .97g. BMW's 50/50 weight distribution is simply a myth in the turbo era. The cars have more weight on the nose and Car and Driver records 52.1/47.9 front to back. The ATS-V and C63 AMG S fair no better with 52.5/47.5 and 54.3/45.7 front to back respectively. Out of the trio the car chosen is the M3 finishing in first place. They comment that it is the lightest and leanest but criticize the brakes which seems to always be a point of criticism on BMW's and BMW just can't get it right. The Cadillac's handling is said to be better and the AMG braking is set to be better yet they still pick the M3 due to it being the better all around package. The Cadillac ATS-V wows with its eye opening (and suspicious) numbers but its overall package and namely the interior is behind the other two. The engine also receives criticism for being 'dull' whatever that means. Its sound is criticized yet BMW is faking their engine sound with synthetic engine noise through the speaker system. The ATS-V is said to be the best handling car offering the best steering feel and brake feel yet it loses out because of the lack of refinement. Cadillac is almost there. Almost. The AMG's transmission is criticized but it's V8 engine is praised despite putting up the slowest numbers. We still do not understand how the most powerful motor out of the group is somehow putting up the slowest numbers when all independent testing shows us it should be the fastest. Something is off here and perhaps Car and Driver got some 'magazine specials' to test. It's becoming harder and harder to trust these test results. Make of it what you will.
    2 replies | 14 view(s)
  • Njz's Avatar
    Today, 02:05 PM
    When I was in TX and had my own garage I would attempt it. I will consider calling them for this, I have heard good things about VAC.
    242 replies | 12637 view(s)
  • Steve J's Avatar
    Today, 01:59 PM
    Steve J replied to a thread It's battery time! in N54
    as far as coding the battery there is a software called bmwlogger - it's a free download and there is a section for resetting the battery. I did this with the cheapy cable. Installed a new battery about 6 months ago from walmart - I don't see any reason to waste money on this item. Coded it when installed, all done w/in 40 minutes. hxxp://bimmersoftware.com/battery-and-adaptations
    27 replies | 542 view(s)
  • Modded335i's Avatar
    Today, 01:58 PM
    Modded335i replied to a thread No Boost in N54
    I did the test last night. The gauge I hooked up had no reading. I purchased my jb4 last July. So I'm sure I have the G5 ISO....BUT. I believe I may have had the jb4 deactivated (map 0) as I was using a code reader at my friends shop just in case the jb4 app wasn't getting every code. But there were no other codes.....so I'm going to assume that since the jb4 was set to map 0 the DWP settings had no effect....am i right?
    19 replies | 162 view(s)
  • mastawyrm's Avatar
    Today, 01:54 PM
    mastawyrm replied to a thread XDF Progress in N54
    If the shift points are in the DME and not the TCU, is there hope for us IS owners to get an adjustable launch control too? Also, I JUST last night worked to add the torque request breakpoints to my IJE0S.xdf by cross referencing the INA0S.xdf and here's a truly updated copy that already has it lol.
    7 replies | 121 view(s)
More Activity