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 24 Hours Clear All
  • jyamona's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:57 AM
    jyamona started a thread XDF Progress in N54
    Hey guys, This will be the main thread for discussion on all XDF update releases going forward. As I have mentioned in the past, the XDF's for the main 4 rom types are being hosted on a public GitHub so you can track revision history. The link to the GitHub is here: BMW XDF's To get this thread rolling, I do have some news as well. The knock tables I provided Terry for testing are now available for each rom type. EcuFlash XML's are still planned, but are on the backburner right now and will be completed as time allows. For now, time is being devoted to a few promising table discovery efforts: - possible single bank O2 functionality (two possibilities to test) - changing the upshift / downshift points for AT trans - raising idle (lots of tables, will take time to define in all roms) Stay tuned =)
    12 replies | 296 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:00 PM
    So I started development of a new GPS performance box. The idea is to have something cheaper and superior to the VBOX. I'm not going to go into all the details as others will just try to rip me off. Anyway, I invited @dmacpro91 to the project as I offered to pay him to do the mobile development. He asked for a % of the sales for the lifespan of the product and I said no but said I would pay him for his work. Well, now he is trying to take my ideas and produce his own. I already got ripped off on the BimmerBoost free software trying to work with people who used it to develop paid options and now I'm getting ripped off again. Want proof? I discussed this with him months ago and invited him to the team. I should have known better: Now he's trying to steal my ideas and project for himself. I keep getting stabbed in the back when I'm just trying to make products to help people in the performance automotive community. Well I'm not going to let this one slide.
    16 replies | 232 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    6 replies | 430 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    6 replies | 55 view(s)
  • BostonBeemah's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:49 PM
    Tried a couple different setups for ""Cold Start" and I settled on a time of 5 seconds. It seemed to start up the smoothest of them all. (rattle is from flywheel) Using TunerPro with the XDFs defined in this thread and using MHD to flash. XDFs http://bimmerboost.com/showthread.php?67640-XDF-Progress&p=647595#post647595 Just wanted to say thank you to everyone involved in breaking down the DAMOS and pushing the platform further!! Little things such as this "disabling" cold start are a big one for me along with the knock tables which have opened up a new horizon in itself. You guys rock!:music-rockout: One Second Zero Seconds
    4 replies | 90 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:02 PM
    With the launch of the new B9 generation A4 the new styling is being debated by enthusiasts. Much like the previous generation A4 models a more aggressive body, suspension setup, and wheels do wonders. Take a look at this rendering of what a B9 RS4 Avant model might look like. Pretty good, right? With Audi RS styling touches applied the B9 A4 design looks much better than in the base A4 trim. Audi has yet to announce the B9 RS4 and details on such a model are scarce. Reports are all over the place regarding the potential engine and output but it appears they are leaning toward a 3.0 TFSI turbo V6. If it is just a smaller 4.0 TFSI V8, nobody will have any problem with that.
    4 replies | 114 view(s)
  • COBB Tuning's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:36 PM
    Back from Pikes Peak and we just wanted to post up some of the info from the blog. This is a bit of data that we have collected over some the past few months. This same data is what we put into our calibrations to make sure they work no matter the variable! Here is some info from the blog I figured I would post up so you guys can check it out! READING/WRITING OF THE ECU How long does it take? The initial install of the Accessport takes around 6 minutes. Once installed, a map change takes approximately 1 minute. Map changing is done on the Accessport and you can select from calibrations that come preloaded on the device. We have Stage1 maps that are for otherwise stock cars as well as Stage2 maps that are made for cars with upgraded exhaust systems. These calibrations come for ACN91, 91, 93, and 100 octane fuels. We do require that a battery charger be connected to the car for the initial Accessport install process on the 991 turbo. Once installed, a battery charger is not required for map changes. DATALOGGING A great deal of time and resources have been invested to make sure we are offering an exceptional, feature rich, tuning tool. One that can not only flash but also allow the end user to monitor the health and status of their car; something that only the COBB Accessport can do! Data collection is an instrumental part of making a proper calibration. Without data you are only taking an educated guess of the vehicle’s state. The Accessport is able to datalog the most crucial parameters for the Engine Control Unit at a sample rate of 45 samples per second. We currently have the ability to log every single factory monitor as well as a slew of custom created monitors that not even Porsche can see! As we continue to learn more about these cars, we will have the ability to create custom monitors using any data that is reported to, or calculated by, the ECU. Below is an example of a small sample of data monitors we currently have access to, viewed in conjunction with a dyno run from one of the many 991 turbos we have been testing with: Over the previous months we have flown around the country and tested our OTS maps for these cars in varying climates and elevations using a variety of fuel grades. A majority of the R&D was performed out of our COBB SoCal facility which has access to some very poor quality 91 octane fuels as well as 100 octane race fuel. We have also performed a great deal of testing in extreme climates and elevations. From a freezing Pikes Peak to an extremely hot and humid Puerto Rico, we were able to test the cars and calibration files in a variety of relative air densities. Below, we’ll take a look at a few of the quirks we’ve learned along the way: -First, the factory intercoolers leave much to be desired even in stock form. With raised boost pressure we have seen intake temps as high as 185*F while in Puerto Rico and 205*F on Pike Peak pushing the pressure ratio of turbos in an extremely low barometric pressure environment. Intercoolers will be a highly recommended upgrade for these cars in the future as cooling the intake charge will be absolutely vital for making power in a safe manner. -The fuel system on the 991 Turbo seems to be a bit more capable than that of the previous 997.2 Turbo. We have experimented with alternative fuel mixtures and thus far have had great results. We have successfully tested up to E30 in a Stage2 Turbo S without any issues whereas the direct injection fuel system on the 997.2 Turbo car is not capable of maintaining pressure with that amount of ethanol content. We will continue to experiment with alternative fuel blends in order to find and push the limitations of the factory fuel system. -The turbochargers on the 991 Turbo appear to be more efficient than those of the previous generations. We performed some exhaust gas back pressure testing in the 991 and compared the results to those from a 991.1 Turbo. We noticed that the 991 spools earlier as well as holds boost longer with less back-pressure. Back-pressure is still quite high in the upper RPM range but not as bad as the 997.1. Below is a dyno plot illustrating the differences between the 991 and 997.1: The solid line is from the 997.1 and the dashed is from the 991. The blue line is the barometric pressure (InHg), pink is temperature (*F), red is relative boost pressure (psig), and orange shows exhaust manifold pressure (psig). You can see that the 991 spools quicker and makes more boost with less back pressure than with the 997.1. The average boost from 2200RPM to 6500RPM on the 991 in this example was 19.4psi with and average exhaust gas back pressure of 24.2psi. The average boost for the 997.1 over the same rev range was 17.3psi with an average exhaust back pressure of 24.182psi. At 6500RPM the exhaust back pressure of the 991 is just shy of 10psi lower than that of the 997.2. In general, it is preferred to keep exhaust gas back pressure at a minimum in order to keep temperatures under control. When exhaust gas back pressure is too high it puts excessive strain on the turbocharger and effectively lowers the overall volumetric efficiency of the engine. POWER GAINS The 991 Turbo’s gains on the OTS (Off The Shelf) maps are substantial. This is a graph of a bone stock 2015 991 Turbo S with just a flash. As you can see the car picks up a lot all over the power band! Another strong example of a car we have tuned with some basic bolt-on modifications: This is a graph of a bone stock 2015 991 Turbo S with just a flash. As you can see the car picks up a lot all over the power band! Another strong example of a car we have tuned with some basic bolt-on modifications: If you have any questions on the 991 stuff please feel free to email me and ask! mitch.mckee@cobbtuning.com Thanks! -Mitch
    1 replies | 165 view(s)
  • Malloy's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:14 PM
    Hello all, I'm happy to say that my car is getting close to being 'done' so it's time for a thread! Basics: 2005 M3 Silver Grey Metallic 6MT Sunroof Delete Impuls / Anthracite Cloth (Manual-Heated Seats) Bi Xenon Bought with 53k miles in early 2013, currently at 71k. Car was a daily till last summer when I bought my F31 328d. The rear subframe points still look good. Updates: Dinan Muffler Black Grilles Total 10W60, BMW Coolant, Pentosin MTF2, BMW 75W140 OEM VANOS Hub - Exhaust Uprated VANOS bolts - 12.9 Drilled VANOS disc ARP Rod Bolts Coated Rod Bearings VAC High Volume Oil Pump VAC Underdrive Pulleys OEM Battery ST XTA - Single Adjustable Coilovers Stoptech BBK - ST60 380mm Front, ST40 355mm Rear, 309 Pads and SS Lines Advan GT Forged Wheels - 18x9.5 et22 18x10.5 et24 Machining & Racing Metal Black Finish (manufactured by RAYS) Project KICS R40 REVO Lugnuts Michelin Pilot Super Sport - 245/40/18 275/35/18 Whiteline Lollipops DINAN Monoball RTABs UUC SSK w/ DSSR OEM Euro Front Bumper Cover (installed but not pictured yet)
    1 replies | 15 view(s)
  • Dietcoke's Avatar
    Today, 12:15 AM
    Dietcoke started a thread For Sale: Cobb AP V3 N54 Tuner in Buy/Sell - Parts
    Cobb V3 for N54, unmarried, still has the plastic cover over the tuner itself and original box, etc. Car going back to stock. $670 shipped firm, wont find a better deal around.
    0 replies | 15 view(s)
  • Dietcoke's Avatar
    Today, 12:15 AM
    Newest revision 3" Catless VRSF downpipes (v2). We made a little extra clearance in two spots where it was a little tight to the subframe (you can see in the photo). No issues. Going back to stock. 220 shipped in the USA
    0 replies | 14 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 02:37 AM
    Welcome TAYLOR, take a look around, I think you will like what you see.
    0 replies | 12 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:30 PM
    Welcome to a real enthusiast forum LarryLeak1.
    0 replies | 11 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:05 PM
    Hey BobbyDupps: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 11 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:24 PM
    Camshaft, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 11 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 03:57 AM
    Hey mwmsh: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 10 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 01:46 AM
    RondaKelle, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 10 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:40 PM
    Welcome to a real enthusiast forum John745.
    0 replies | 10 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 03:40 AM
    Hey WillianJxa: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 9 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:18 AM
    Hey MTrejo: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 9 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:17 PM
    Welcome squixs, take a look around, I think you will like what you see.
    0 replies | 6 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 05:59 AM
    EthelProps, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 5 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:16 PM
    Hey nshinnrenea: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 4 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:16 PM
    Hey RandellGos: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 4 view(s)
  • mike@n54tuning.com's Avatar
    Today, 09:08 AM
    Bump for a great deal @ www.n54tuning.com Mike
    26 replies | 1324 view(s)
  • mike@n54tuning.com's Avatar
    Today, 09:08 AM
    Bump for a great deal @ www.n54tuning.com Just got a new batch of these yesterday so fully stocked and ready to ship! Mike
    81 replies | 3552 view(s)
  • mike@n54tuning.com's Avatar
    Today, 09:06 AM
    We can make you a custom pipe with meth bung on there if you would like :) Not an issue. I think the reason there are no meth bungs out of the box is that the benefits of meth are post intercooler, not pre-intercooler. Might be interesting to see affect on IAT though pre intercooler. Mike
    8 replies | 101 view(s)
  • Mrpikolo's Avatar
    Today, 08:57 AM
    Times seen a little slow to me... And on the tires...it depends on the compound. A typical street tire starts is useless "hot" like a drag radial needs to be. I'm sure no one can argue about the science of particular compound and the temperature that is required for maximum fractions. Like snow tires, are pretty sticky cold, and racing compounds are useless cold. Generally your typical performance street tire likes to function at a "warm" temperature. I didn't watch the video(at work), but if they did a huge smoking burnout with street tires, it's pretty much a waste
    18 replies | 1377 view(s)
  • Artial's Avatar
    Today, 05:28 AM
    Artial replied to a thread Cold Start Value Testing in N54
    Because his Rom has more default values than yours. The x axis is coolant temp. EU cars seems to no longer perform cats heating. When the cars is a already a bit warm.
    4 replies | 90 view(s)
More Activity