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
Filter by: Popular Last 7 Days Clear All
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-25-2014, 02:22 PM
    It is the effort that counts, right? No, sadly, it is not. When it comes to trying to prove who has the fastest or most powerful cars and who is the most capable tuner the only things that count are the raw numbers. A pat on the back and 'Good try!' do not cut it in this business. ESS-Tuning wrapped up a supercharged and stroked S65 V8 taken to 4.4 liters and the result is 725 wheel horsepower and 507 lb-ft of torque. This is good enough for roughly a ~25 wheel horsepower premium over their VT3 built motor supercharged setup (which is not even available for sale) with the stock crank and stroke. It is also good enough for second place again and trails the world record holding BimmerBoost.com M3 which put down 773 wheel horsepower over a year ago with another 1000+ rpm to spare. It isn't even as close as it looks on paper. The positives here are that this is the first supercharged stroked and built S65 ESS has been able to successfully tune. Many people have forgotten about the how the previous attempt went. Fortunately, the engine builder this time is a different entity and so far things look like they are running well. Since it seems nobody is able to break the S65 V8 or E9X horsepower record even with a handicap BimmerBoost.com is announcing that it will break its own record next month. With the installation and programming for the upgraded DCT transmission parts courtesy of Dodson and Gintani wrapping up, after the break in BimmerBoost will show the world what a real 1000+ horsepower M3 looks like in practice. Congratulations to ESS on improving their second place standing by roughly 30 horsepower. Well done!
    93 replies | 1125 view(s)
  • angelic0-'s Avatar
    09-27-2014, 06:34 AM
    Does anyone know what the status is on this :?:
    71 replies | 1143 view(s)
  • Terry@BMS's Avatar
    09-26-2014, 03:29 PM
    Hey guys, Was able to get Ando's car back on the dyno to test out the new 1.00 AR exhaust housing. Mods are a JB4, VM top mount turbo kit, E40, meth, and all the bolt ons. The result was an impressive ~30whp gain from his .84 AR housing with improved spool. Looks like the COMP 6465 1.00 twin scroll is good for a nice spooling 700whp. Even on automatics. I also plotted it out against Payam's manual trans 335i running basically the same turbo kit, tuning, and mods, and you can see what an improvement the longer MT gearing makes on spool and power under the curve -- on the dyno. In the real world though advantage automatic. We'll find out for sure when the two of them race at Shift Sector in a month.
    54 replies | 1608 view(s)
  • Terry@BMS's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:05 PM
    Hey guys, Was able to get Ando's car back on the dyno to test out the new 1.00 AR exhaust housing. Mods are a JB4, VM top mount turbo kit, E40, meth, and all the bolt ons. The result was an impressive ~30whp gain from his .84 AR housing with improved spool. Looks like the COMP 6465 1.00 twin scroll is good for a nice spooling 700whp. Even on automatics. I also plotted it out against Payam's manual trans 335i running basically the same turbo kit, tuning, and mods, and you can see what an improvement the longer MT gearing makes on spool and power under the curve -- on the dyno. In the real world though advantage automatic. We'll find out for sure when the two of them.
    54 replies | 391 view(s)
  • drfrink24's Avatar
    09-25-2014, 12:33 PM
    Seems its now common knowledge that cylinder 5 (and 2, to a lesser extent) is a problem for several people out there. Running E60, 61% Meth w/CM10 nozzle, meowless downpipes, AMS IC, in 60 degree ambient temps, fresh walnut blasting, newer 1 step colder plugs (maybe 10k on them) gapped correctly.... Cylinder 5 almost always hits some 3-6 degree corrections, sometimes dropping to as low as 3.7 degrees from 13.5 (not all at once, but during the run), which tanks my avg. ignition.. things recover, avg. ignition drops to .9 ish, then it will hit again. Single pulls are less sensitive than multiple gear pulls, its far more likely to happen in a 2/3/4 pull vs. just a 2500rpm to 6000rpm 3rd gear pull, but it can happen in 3rd gear (much less though). Are there any values in BavTech logging that can reveal what's going on? There are hundreds of values to log if you look. - Is it EGT related? - Knock values? - AFR (I've seen bank 2 get .1-.3 points leaner preceeding a timing event) - ??? It's obvious that timing is being pulled.. but perhaps knowing why its being pulled is a good first step to fixing it? Do we have single turbos setups hitting cylinder 5 timing problems too?
    41 replies | 894 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-29-2014, 02:46 PM
    Port injection in conjunction with direct injection on the N54? Yep, it is here and it is working well. How well you ask? How about 705 horsepower to the wheels and 680 lb-ft of torque to the wheels on an ethanol blend without any methanol injection necessary? Yes, that makes for an N54 horsepower record without any methanol. Additionally, it also means that supplemental port injection is another fueling solution for the N54. It is going to be interesting to see how the port injection setups and upgraded direct injection setups flesh out in the coming year. Regardless, N54 owners have fueling options to choose from now which is something that could not be said not too long ago. Dynograph and specs below: MOTIV Motorsport 750 horsepower Single Turbo Kit MOTIV Motorsport PI-1000 Fueling Solution MOTIV Motorsport / proTuning Freaks Single Turbo Tuning Fuel-IT! / MOTIV Low Pressure Prototype
    30 replies | 957 view(s)
  • dzenno@PTF's Avatar
    09-25-2014, 03:41 PM
    Happy to report a new record for the N54 XIs, top spot on DragTimes :music-rockout: Great job Valy! 11.476@125mph, 1.71 60' http://www.dragtimes.com/results.php?carmodel=1483&op1=%3E%3D&data1=&search2=et&op2=%3C%3D&data2=&days=10000000&carmake=5&name=Search+DragTimes He ran a pump/meth custom map but ran with MS109 and meth, TD Stage 2 turbos, FBO with STOCK exhaust. This is a 2008 335xi E90. http://www.dragtimes.com/BMW-335xi-Timeslip-26828.html
    27 replies | 896 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-29-2014, 02:38 PM
    Port injection in conjunction with direct injection on the N54? Yep, it is here and it is working well. How well you ask? How about 705 horsepower to the wheels and 680 lb-ft of torque to the wheels on an ethanol blend without any methanol injection necessary? Yes, that makes for an N54 horsepower record without any methanol. Additionally, it also means that supplemental port injection is another fueling solution for the N54. It is going to be interesting to see how the port injection setups and upgraded direct injection setups flesh out in the coming year. Regardless, N54 owners have fueling options to choose from now which is something that could not be said not too long ago. Dynograph and specs below: MOTIV Motorsport 750 horsepower Single Turbo Kit MOTIV Motorsport PI-1000 Fueling Solution MOTIV Motorsport / proTuning Freaks Single Turbo Tuning Fuel-IT! / MOTIV Low Pressure Prototype
    30 replies | 733 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-27-2014, 12:31 PM
    The only option for turbochargers for the E9X M3 S65 V8 that is proven to be successfully running is from Gintani. Could they perhaps now have some competition in this area? Not exactly but it looks like Crzy Engineering is trying to create a rear mount turbo setup for the E9X M3. Rear mounted turbos solve a lot of packaging problems and make fitment much easier. They create their own set of problems though as your car should not have more plumbing than your house. The response and spool will not match turbos next to the motor with a well designed manifold. Regardless, Crzy Engineering is trying the rear mount approach using a pair of oilless 6065 Comp Turbo turbochargers. Who is tuning this setup? Good question. Is it even running? Good question. What does the power curve look like? Good question. Is this even worth the effort? Well, you see the pattern here. This may be a cost effective solution depending on the price but like most rear mount turbo setups there likely are better options out there. It is nice to see a another approach taken of course.
    32 replies | 894 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-30-2014, 12:47 PM
    Let's not spoil the winner just yet. You probably already saw the contenders from MotorTrend's World's Greatest Drag Race 4. MotorTrend takes the same vehicles from their driver's car competition and drag races them as well which is fine of course although the best driver's car likely is not the best drag racing car. The list of cars in the competition is the Alfa Romeo 4C, BMW i8, BMW M4, Chevrolet Camaro Z/28, Ford Fiesta ST, Jaguar F-Type R Coupe, Nissan GT-R Nismo, Porsche 911 Turbo S, Subaru STI, and Volkswagen GTI. These cars run a spread from $25,000 to close to $200,00.00. It is nice that there is something here as representation that can fit almost everyone's pocketbook but the performance spread is pretty large. It would be more useful to compare more cars of the same class than picking a couple from the lower end and a couple from the higher end. No Mustang? No Challenger Hellcat? No Viper? No Huracan? No GT3? No AMG? Come on guys, what is this? Here are the results in the order of how the cars finished from worst to first based on driving impressions (not just the raw laptime). Randy Pobst is again doing the driving at Laguna Seca. 10. Volkswagen Golf GTI 9. Jaguar F-Type R Coupe 8. BMW i8 7. Subaru WRX STI 6. Ford Fiesta ST 5. BMW M4 4. Nissan GT-R Nismo 3. Porsche 911 Turbo S 2. Alfa Romeo 4C 1. Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 If you were to order the cars in order of laptimes, the result would be: 10. Ford Fiesta ST - 1:51.25 9. Volkswagen GTI - 1:50.11 8. Subaru WRX STI - 1:47.16 7. BMW i8 - 1:44.29 6. Alfa Romeo 4C - 1:43.78 5. Jaguar F-Type Coupe R - 1:42.01 4. BMW M4 - 1:39.69 3. Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 - 1:37.82 2. Porsche 911 Turbo S - 1:35.62 1. Nissan GTR Nismo - 1:35.51 The Camaro Z/28 takes the title as the best driver's car and from this group. You have a 7.0 liter LS7 V8 revving to 7000 rpm offering glorious response under the hood, a manual transmission, huge 305mm wide tires at all four corners, and a car built around cornering and not just horsepower or acceleration. It is the car you would want to drive on an empty canyon road and the most rewarding of the group. It is the best driver's car. Source
    28 replies | 797 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-27-2014, 12:27 PM
    The only option for turbochargers for the E9X M3 S65 V8 that is proven to be successfully running is from Gintani. Could they perhaps now have some competition in this area? Not exactly but it looks like Crzy Engineering is trying to create a rear mount turbo setup for the E9X M3. Rear mounted turbos solve a lot of packaging problems and make fitment much easier. They create their own set of problems though as your car should not have more plumbing than your house. The response and spool will not match turbos next to the motor with a well designed manifold. Regardless, Crzy Engineering is trying the rear mount approach using a pair of oilless 6065 Comp Turbo turbochargers. Who is tuning this setup? Good question. Is it even running? Good question. What does the power curve look like? Good question. Is this even worth the effort? Well, you see the pattern here. This may be a cost effective solution depending on the price but like most rear mount turbo setups there likely are better options out there. It is nice to see a another approach taken of course.
    32 replies | 367 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-30-2014, 12:30 PM
    Let's not spoil the winner just yet. You probably already saw the contenders from MotorTrend's World's Greatest Drag Race 4. MotorTrend takes the same vehicles from their driver's car competition and drag races them as well which is fine of course although the best driver's car likely is not the best drag racing car. The list of cars in the competition is the Alfa Romeo 4C, BMW i8, BMW M4, Chevrolet Camaro Z/28, Ford Fiesta ST, Jaguar F-Type R Coupe, Nissan GT-R Nismo, Porsche 911 Turbo S, Subaru STI, and Volkswagen GTI. These cars run a spread from $25,000 to close to $200,00.00. It is nice that there is something here as representation that can fit almost everyone's pocketbook but the performance spread is pretty large. It would be more useful to compare more cars of the same class than picking a couple from the lower end and a couple from the higher end. No Mustang? No Challenger Hellcat? No Viper? No Huracan? No GT3? No AMG? Come on guys, what is this? Here are the results in the order of how the cars finished from worst to first based on driving impressions (not just the raw laptime). Randy Pobst is again doing the driving at Laguna Seca. 10. Volkswagen Golf GTI 9. Jaguar F-Type R Coupe 8. BMW i8 7. Subaru WRX STI 6. Ford Fiesta ST 5. BMW M4 4. Nissan GT-R Nismo 3. Porsche 911 Turbo S 2. Alfa Romeo 4C 1. Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 If you were to order the cars in order of laptimes, the result would be: 10. Ford Fiesta ST - 1:51.25 9. Volkswagen GTI - 1:50.11 8. Subaru WRX STI - 1:47.16 7. BMW i8 - 1:44.29 6. Alfa Romeo 4C - 1:43.78 5. Jaguar F-Type Coupe R - 1:42.01 4. BMW M4 - 1:39.69 3. Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 - 1:37.82 2. Porsche 911 Turbo S - 1:35.62 1. Nissan GTR Nismo - 1:35.51 The Camaro Z/28 takes the title as the best driver's car and from this group. You have a 7.0 liter LS7 V8 revving to 7000 rpm offering glorious response under the hood, a manual transmission, huge 305mm wide tires at all four corners, and a car built around cornering and not just horsepower or acceleration. It is the car you would want to drive on an empty canyon road and the most rewarding of the group. It is the best driver's car. Source
    28 replies | 266 view(s)
  • Dietcoke's Avatar
    09-29-2014, 06:07 PM
    Is there any way to make this horrible new style go away? For some reason you have the site set to a column in the middle of the monitor, not using a 20% margin on either side of the page. It's horrrendous to read or look at. Help.
    26 replies | 659 view(s)
  • fastgti69's Avatar
    09-26-2014, 06:58 PM
    We got the 1.00Ar housing on Ando@BMS car. While doing that we tapped the housing and installed an Emap sensor. This sensor tests back pressure in between the turbo and manifold pretty much. 1:1 ratio is realistically where everyone wants to be at. We will find out soon enough how much back pressure we have and why we can hold more than 28-30 lbs boost to redline. Take a quick look at some pics. Hard line to the pulse dampener. It's for heat and literally pulse from cylinders so it will keep the sensor running as long as it can. Terry@BMS will be updating this thread as well once he gets it connected to the JB4 for logging.
    24 replies | 878 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-29-2014, 02:21 PM
    A 140+ mile per hour trap speed with a stock engine internal 996 Turbo is very doable. PorscheBoost member schwarz996 got right in that range with a 11.4 @ 139.53 1/4 mile pass with his stock motor Porsche 996 Turbo. The car is also converted to a rear wheel drive drivetrain from the stock all wheel drive. The modifications to the car are A28 turbochargers pushing 1.9 BAR of boost, Eurodyne Maestro software, a 3 inch catless exhaust, stock fuel pump with Evoms big fuel line kit, methanol, GT2RS intercoolers, Evoms intake piping, Jc cross suspension, 60 lb roll bar. The plenum, headers, and Y-pipe are all stock. @schwarz996 intends to go back with more meth and try for more. 140+ in the 1/4 mile will not be a problem.
    31 replies | 327 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-29-2014, 01:55 PM
    The V8 version of the R8 is not exactly known as being a straightline monster. In all honesty, the 4.2 liter V8 6-speed model that you see in the video below is not even able to beat the previous generation naturally aspirated M3 in a roll on contest let alone the new and much more powerful turbocharged version. This is not even a race. It is a flat out beatdown. For the R8 to change the outcome here it needs to be the ten cylinder model that borrows its engine from the Gallardo. Even then, the M3 can up the boost a bit and make that quite a race. The R8 is obviously about more than straightline speed but that Audi 4.2 liter FSI V8 sure looks dated. That is because it is dated and it should have been put out to pasture years ago.
    21 replies | 800 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-30-2014, 01:10 AM
    A Boosted German 5.5 liter V8 against a boosted German 3.0 liter inline-6. The larger V8 motor is in the larger and heavier sedan which is the W212 generation E63 AMG. This particular E63 AMG is also equipped with the Performance Package which was an option on the pre-facelift W212 E63 AMG models. This package boosts output to 550 horsepower from the standard 518 horsepower. Dyno testing shows us that the Performance Package brings output up from the standard 483 wheel horsepower to 516 wheel horsepower. Torque jumps up considerably from 478 lb-ft at the wheels to 544 lb-ft at the wheels with the Performance Package. This is much more power and torque than the F80 M3 despite the F80 M3 being significantly underrated with 427 horsepower 429 lb-ft of torque at the wheels. The M3 is roughly 700 pounds lighter though and it has a quick shifting DCT transmission. This same F80 M3 absolutely annihilated an Audi R8 4.2 V8 so the E63 AMG here helps put the M3 acceleration and the previous race in context. The M3 is fast, but the E63 AMG with the Performance Package is much faster. Yes, it does a get a jump but even if it did not it is still will pull much more strongly on the top end. There is always a bigger dog.
    19 replies | 758 view(s)
  • vasillalov's Avatar
    09-27-2014, 05:36 PM
    Hey folks, I am sure the vast majority of us are aware that BMW has revised the injectors for our cars a few times. Recently they released what is known as Gen 2 injectors which are supposed to have been made with different machinery and they are supposed to have improved thermal oil and electronics inside of them. BMW states that those Gen2 injectors should not be mixed in the same bank with the outgoing Gen 1 injector, although I (and many others) have ran gen 1 and gen 2 injectors mixed in the same bank without issues. The part number for Gen 2 injectors is well know: 13537585261-11, where the -11 stands for Integration Level 11. Today I went to buy 2 more injectors to keep in stock as I used all of mine up and I discovered that BMW has released new injectors yet again. Their Integration level is -12 Does anyone know what has changed in the -12 injectors compared to the -11? I've never had a -11 fail on me, nor have I seen one being reported as failing online.
    16 replies | 597 view(s)
  • Socrates.Tii's Avatar
    09-29-2014, 01:24 AM
    CobbV3 Stg2+CAICatless downpipesrace midpipesBerk Race exhaustFMICSpec stg2+Spec Flywheelshort shifter6Speed manual--135i 2008what am i doing wrong?how to launch ?were to rev at?at what rpm should i be changing gears at?
    13 replies | 459 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-25-2014, 02:04 PM
    Manufacturers are really making trying to figure out what a car actually weighs these days pretty difficult. They play all kinds of games with the numbers in order to make the cars appear lighter than they really are in order to claim large weight savings. BMW fudged the numbers in a fashion that makes one stand in awe of their claims with the new F80 M3 missing their claimed target by 256 pounds. Is Mercedes guilty of the same thing here? Until we get a new C63 AMG on the scales we will not know for certain but the chances of the car weighing 3615 pounds in US trim with fluids are pretty slim. Why? Well, first of all AMG states the weight at 1640 kilograms is 15 kilograms less than the previous model. We all know the previous generation W204 C63 AMG does not weigh 3648 pounds pounds. At 39XX pounds it is closer to 4000 than it is to 3600. The C63 AMG S takes a 15 kilograms penalty over the standard C63. That is a fairly small difference and enough that a full or empty tank of gas can sway which one weighs more. The real question will be how much lighter the new car is than the older car and once an independent source weighs 2015 C63 we will know. 37XX pounds seems like a more realistic range than what AMG is giving us in their Press Release.
    16 replies | 679 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-28-2014, 12:15 AM
    Well, I could dream bigger like a palace of some sort but this is at least attainable. I just think the design is sick:
    16 replies | 575 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-30-2014, 01:06 AM
    A Boosted German 5.5 liter V8 against a boosted German 3.0 liter inline-6. The larger V8 motor is in the larger and heavier sedan which is the W212 generation E63 AMG. This particular E63 AMG is also equipped with the Performance Package which was an option on the pre-facelift W212 E63 AMG models. This package boosts output to 550 horsepower from the standard 518 horsepower. Dyno testing shows us that the Performance Package brings output up from the standard 483 wheel horsepower to 516 wheel horsepower. Torque jumps up considerably from 478 lb-ft at the wheels to 544 lb-ft at the wheels with the Performance Package. This is much more power and torque than the F80 M3 despite the F80 M3 being significantly underrated with 427 horsepower 429 lb-ft of torque at the wheels. The M3 is roughly 700 pounds lighter though and it has a quick shifting DCT transmission. This same F80 M3 absolutely annihilated an Audi R8 4.2 V8 so the E63 AMG here helps put the M3 acceleration and the previous race in context. The M3 is fast, but the E63 AMG with the Performance Package is much faster. Yes, it does a get a jump but even if it did not it is still will pull much more strongly on the top end. There is always a bigger dog.
    19 replies | 167 view(s)
  • fastgti69's Avatar
    09-26-2014, 07:11 PM
    fastgti69 started a thread BMS 135i Build by VM in N54
    Since we've had the pleasure of doing some very custom things to Terry@BMS car. Why not show the community exactly how it's done at VM ;) Terry came to us and wanted to get as much weight out of his car as possible. We got him a new 3.5" aluminum exhaust all the way down. It comes in at around 9-10lbs total weight for this badboy, and saved 30lbs from stock exhaust. Next up, we are upgrading his intercooler with a custom setup as well as new light weight Chromoly bumper supports. Garrett core to support his current hp sufficiently. This setup should net save 20-30 lbs is what we're aiming for. For now, a few pics of the exhaust while we'll update this thread as we go with his build.
    11 replies | 586 view(s)
  • mjmarovi's Avatar
    09-27-2014, 04:58 PM
    Alright, so I replaced my battery today with a duralast gold from autozone. I keep getting the battery intelligent sensor code. I have a BT cable so I plugged her in and reset the battery adaptations for battery replacement. Code still comes back. I've tried resetting battery adaptations about 4-5 times and have now given up. What else can I do?
    14 replies | 204 view(s)
  • The Ghost's Avatar
    09-28-2014, 11:00 AM
    This is just a theory, however when removing my stock TOB (from my Spec 2+) and inspecting the billet TOB included with my Spec Twin disk, I noticed that the Spec TOB does not include the two TOB retaining "bumps"as the stock one does. These bumps essentially attach the TOB to the release fork; when you release the clutch pedal, the fork retracts from the pressure plate pulling the (plastic) TOB away from the PP. With the Spec TOB, when the fork is retracted, the TOB is floating so it doesn't get pulled back and is free to move in between the fork and PP (perhaps also vibrate freely when the FORL when normally hold it still). Now, this might not solve it completely, but may contribute to the noise. This seems highly suspect to me. I don't know if I want to try both as pulling the transmission is a PITA. Thoughts?
    11 replies | 271 view(s)
  • Ingeniator's Avatar
    09-25-2014, 05:24 PM
    So just picked up a turbo apex. Wondering if anyone else on here is running turbo snowmobiles. Will be hanging out in Revi a few times this year if anyone is heading that way. It's a Alpine front mount GTX2867R with a CR/Alpine 163 tunnel and M10 skid. Gut that had it built before the last owner. http://www.alpinemotorsport.ca/default.asp?page=apex-turbos
    11 replies | 562 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-27-2014, 07:20 PM
    It is that time of year again where MotorTrend does their World's Greatest Drag Race gathering 10 cars together for a 10-way showdown. It is very cool to see but calling it the world's greatest drag race when some important hardware is missing may be an overstatement. Hey, there is a marketing aspect to the name in order to generate views and that is fine. So what is the hardware included this year? The following: Alfa Romeo 4C, BMW i8, BMW M4, Chevrolet Camaro Z/28, Ford Fiesta ST, Jaguar F-Type R Coupe, Nissan GT-R Nismo, Porsche 911 Turbo S, Subaru WRX STI, and the Volkswagen Golf GTI. You do not need to watch the video know that the Porsche 911 Turbo S is going to beat the Volkswagen GTI, right? The cars run the spectrum from 10 second stock capability to 14 second cars meaning this is hardly a group chosen based on performance capability. Speaking of which, where are some of the notable performance cars from 2014? Where is the Challenger Hellcat? Where is the Corvette Stingray? Where is an AMG of any kind? No Audi RS7? No Lamborghini Huracan to spice things up? If this network were choosing let's just say some of the slower stuff would be phased out to make for a more competitive and interesting matchup worthy of the 'World's Greatest Drag Race' moniker. Here are the results: 1. 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S - 10.9 @ 126.0 2. 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo - 11.1 @ 125.3 3. 2015 Jaguar F-Type Coupe R - 11.8 @ 122.3 4. 2015 BMW M4 - 12.2 @ 117.8 5. 2014 Camaro Z28 - 12.3 @ 117.2 6. 2015 BMW i8 - 12.4 @ 112.1 7. 2015 Alfa Romeo 4C - 12.8 @ 104.8 8. 2015 Subaru WRX STI - 13.1 @ 104.4 9. 2015 Volkswagen GTI - 14.5 @ 97.9 10. 2015 Ford Fiesta ST - 14.9 @ 94.6
    4 replies | 1314 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    09-28-2014, 06:32 PM
    Option 1: or Option 2:
    11 replies | 267 view(s)
  • bradsm87's Avatar
    09-26-2014, 06:12 AM
    Hi, I thought I'd do a log for the first time with my very conservative flash tune. I run the JB4 on Map 1 with option 4-3 enabled, all CPS (except 7000 for 6cyl logging) zeroed and open loop fuel disabled so I can have the DME controlling pretty much everything except boost control. I have Wagner tuning 70mm DPs and an AMS FMIC at this stage. I don't intend on changing the stock exhaust downstream from the DPs because it appears very free flowing. I do intend to do a Mr.5-style additional intake pipe soon. I guess I'm not quite 'FBO'. I run 98 RON fuel which is known good fuel that I've tuned other platforms on. People say it's equivalent to 93 RON+MON/2 in the US. Timing, boost and AFR are all at very safe levels. IAT is excellent, however I have a handful of timing drops. I was hoping to raise the DME load until just before the threshold of the dreaded AT timing flatline then give it another 2psi or so via Map 6 on the JB4. I see no hope of approaching anywhere near my hoped 16psi when I have timing drops at ~12-13psi. The secondary cats crossed my mind but SURELY they are not causing this. See log screenshot and JB4 log attached. Any help is greatly appreciated.
    9 replies | 283 view(s)
More Activity