• Vishnu Procede N54 misfire mystery solved? CPS offsetting to blame?


      With all the discussion on the CPS offsetting lately, I have been delving deeper into this topic and contacting various tuners to get to the bottom of it. Now, we all know the Procede has had and still has misfire problems and the JB has not had this problem. As I have learned more about the impact of this system I have spoken to a couple tuners who pointed me in the right direction.

      What is the major difference between the two? CPS offsetting.

      Why would CPS offsetting cause misfires? Well, if the CPS offsetting is based on load and not static it will wreak havoc with the misfire detection of the DME. Here is how the Procede does CPS offsetting:

      So, the more load the more offset. Why is this a problem? The ECU uses the CPS signal to mesaure the acceleration of the crankshaft. If the acceleration value is outside what the DME expects, it is interpreted as a misfire. So when the ECU goes to measure the crank speed and this signal is changed, boom, misfire.

      Why has this been difficult to pin down? Because the Procede varies the offset and it isn't static. CPS offsetting isn't the right way to reduce ignition timing but the only option the Procede really has, as do all N54 piggybacks. Since the number isn't static misfires will happen based on a ton of variables that affect the ECU, load, weather, rpm, VANOS, etc. This is why there is no rhyme or reason to it only the constant of CPS offset.

      Further evidence that supports this theory is that Terry of BMS has recently been doing CPS Offset Testing and has been able to induce misfires with the CPS offsetting. So, hopefully this clears things up for people and to be noted a static offset may be best to prevent misfires. Ideally though, tuners we have contacted stated they believe such a vital part of the way the factory DME functions should not be messed with due to its impact on VANOS and the knock detection system.
      This article was originally published in forum thread: Procede misfire mystery solved? CPS offsetting to blame? started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 188 Comments
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        Exactly my point.......you are presenting CPS offsetting principles which have not been fully or "Completely" proven or discounted on your behalf as a viable and useful tuning parameter and accept a certain tuners results blindly as the final verdict and nail in the coffin.
        No, it is a fact that offsetting alters where the DME sees TDC of the crank. This could actually be taken further and used against you in the sense of why would you accept Vishnu saying CPS offsetting is a viable tuning parameter when the results have not substantiated it and it has not been proven to be so?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        Till anyone can prove the validity of your comments as a non-tuner on this topic in relation to the associated "Misfires", it's fair to say that it is hearsay and unsubstantiated.
        I challenge you to prove that what has been stated about CPS offsetting essentially misleading the ECU is incorrect. Delaying the signal does exactly what has been stated, there is no circumventing it. The burden of proof is on Vishnu, not on me.
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        have never seen a misfire code or run in limp mode in the 4 years I have run a Procede at up to 17psi. The majority are in the same boat, so your claims are pretty fuzzy.

        No piggyback can match a Flash tune which can control timing fully..........no question there but CPS Offsetting is as close as we can get with timing control on a piggyback and in that regard the Procede presents itself better than any other piggyback tune out there.
        You have not seen a misfire? But others have? Has it not been explained why this is inconsistent? With variable load and offset there is no one situation where a misfire event will occur.

        True, CPS offsetting is as close as you can get to ignition timing control but that doesn't mean it is the right way to control timing. That doesn't mean it is the right way to do things, it means it is a limitation. Doing something the wrong way just because you can isn't a good thing.
      1. Sparky66's Avatar
        Sparky66 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        No, it is a fact that offsetting alters where the DME sees TDC of the crank. This could actually be taken further and used against you in the sense of why would you accept Vishnu saying CPS offsetting is a viable tuning parameter when the results have not substantiated it and it has not been proven to be so?
        I challenge you to prove that what has been stated about CPS offsetting essentially misleading the ECU is incorrect. Delaying the signal does exactly what has been stated, there is no circumventing it. The burden of proof is on Vishnu, not on me.
        No $#@! sherlock...that's what piggybacks do> Feeding in a signal to trick the ECU is piggyback 101

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        You have not seen a misfire? But others have? Has it not been explained why this is inconsistent? With variable load and offset there is no one situation where a misfire event will occur.
        The people who have seen misfires have voiced their opinion and been the most vocal on the forum, for obvious reasons. All others remain quiet since the majority don't have any issues. Anyway their issues of misfire is resolved so not really an excuse anymore.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        True, CPS offsetting is as close as you can get to ignition timing control but that doesn't mean it is the right way to control timing. That doesn't mean it is the right way to do things, it means it is a limitation. Doing something the wrong way just because you can isn't a good thing.
        Results have been substantiated with comprehensive test results and multiple log graphs, a long time ago(Search the Forums).........the Procede knocks less than a tune without CPS> it's a fact.
        I'm not going to look it up as I could not be bothered but the newbs will find it if they look hard enough.

        Correct, CPS's limitation of knock events is a negative to a tune without it.Click here to enlarge
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        No $#@! sherlock...that's what piggybacks do> Feeding in a signal to trick the ECU is piggyback 101
        Ok, so we both understand this, so why don't you understand what delaying the CPS signal does to the DME?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        The people who have seen misfires have voiced their opinion and been the most vocal on the forum, for obvious reasons. All others remain quiet since the majority don't have any issues. Anyway their issues of misfire is resolved so not really an excuse anymore.
        On which forum? Have they been vocal? Last time I encountered a user having misfires he went out of his way to get me to try to stop revealing that he had misfires. So my personal experience is a bit different in this regard.

        I'm not saying everyone has issues, but I am trying to explain why people do. I think we can agree that misfires have taken place and I am more than happy meeting in the middle there.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        Results have been substantiated with comprehensive test results and multiple log graphs, a long time ago(Search the Forums).........the Procede knocks less than a tune without CPS> it's a fact.
        I'm not going to look it up as I could not be bothered but the newbs will find it if they look hard enough.

        Correct, CPS's limitation of knock events is a negative to a tune without it.
        Well, I have seen results lately that show CPS offsetting causing misfires and additionally costing a user power. So, what is the source of your "results" that you speak of? I think we know the answer to that.

        The Procede kocks less than a tune without CPS? Really? Does the factory DME knock less than the Procede? Because it should.

        I think we should look all the info up as what would support you is evidence, not assertion.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        Correct, CPS's limitation of knock events is a negative to a tune without it.
        CPS limitation of knock events is a negative to a tune without it. I think you should re-read this. I also never said the CPS limits knock events, if anything CPS offsetting may be tricking the ECU to not register real knock.
      1. Sparky66's Avatar
        Sparky66 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Ok, so we both understand this, so why don't you understand what delaying the CPS signal does to the DME?
        You mind enlightening us on the detrimental effect it has on the DME and what it is damaging??. I already answered what little effect CPS has on the DME in the other thread. The floor is yours.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        On which forum? Have they been vocal? Last time I encountered a user having misfires he went out of his way to get me to try to stop revealing that he had misfires. So my personal experience is a bit different in this regard.

        I'm not saying everyone has issues, but I am trying to explain why people do. I think we can agree that misfires have taken place and I am more than happy meeting in the middle there.
        Out of respect, I won't discuss this user and that topic anymore and it's best left in the past. These misfires are way overstated over here and not anywhere as near as widespread a problem as you state but it's your call and your Forum.......the traffic must be great.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The Procede kocks less than a tune without CPS? Really? Does the factory DME knock less than the Procede? Because it should.
        You can't compare a factory DME running 8psi and a Procede tricking the DME at 16psi... But all things being equal they probably respond with similar results at factory boost points. If we were to use 93 octane fuel, at increasing boost, you would need to retard more and more timing to prevent knock. The lower the octane the higher the ignition retard would need to be set to prevent knock. If we wait for knock to retard timing for us at these higher boost levels on normal fuel, the more severe knock events become. Hence why it's always better to have any form of timing control over none at all.
        Where levels of knock changes is at increased boost where the DME thinks it still running factory boost. Having a means of affecting ignition timing at this level is preferred over a tune that can't make any adjustment to prevent any knock other than using high octane fuel/meth to compensate.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Well, I have seen results lately that show CPS offsetting causing misfires and additionally costing a user power.
        Terry needs to do a hell of a lot more testing. At the expense of not knocking and leaving a small margin of power on the table............I'll take that, thank you very much.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        So, what is the source of your "results" that you speak of? I think we know the answer to that. I think we should look all the info up as what would support you is evidence, not assertion.
        I have already mentioned his name. Look up Scalbert on Terry's site and on E90Post. He has alot of good information in his threads on timing control. He is an engineer who did extensive testing using both tunes. His documentation of his results are an eye opener and virtually ended all discussion with regards to pro-active knock control or lack there of.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        CPS's knock events limitation is a negative to a tune without it. I think you should re-read this. I also never said the CPS limits knock events, if anything CPS offsetting may be tricking the ECU to not register real knock.
        You forgot the 's........Fixed it for you, so you understandClick here to enlarge
        As I stated in the other thread.......a knock sensor operates exclusively to listen for knock and relay that information to the DME so it can retard timing. CPS can't effect a knock event and a knock sensors signal can't be altered, so if it picks up knock the DME will respond irrespectively and independantly. What you can do is prevent it from knocking in the first place pro-actively by retarding or advancing the timing via CPS
      1. George Smooth's Avatar
        George Smooth -
        Its scary when people with zero technical knowledge and who are forum owners swim so deep into such a intricate subject for the sake of creating threads that might be of interest. At the moment it sound like you don't know your ass from your elbow so I would stick to making picture threads.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by George Smooth Click here to enlarge
        Its scary when people with zero technical knowledge and who are forum owners swim so deep into such a intricate subject for the sake of creating threads that might be of interest. At the moment it sound like you don't know your ass from your elbow so I would stick to making picture threads.
        Good job refuting any of the points made. Much easier to type than actually do any research.

        Show me what you got George, go ahead, refute anything posted. That, or stick to lobbing insults since you would be over your head if you tried.
      1. dzenno@PTF's Avatar
        dzenno@PTF -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        If anything, the correlation between the CPS offset and misfiring has been strengthened. How else do you explain JB's without CPS not having this problem? What proof do you have? Haven't cars that have changed hardware still had misfire problems after the change? Isn't the constant the tune? So...
        ultimateracing335i's car misfired at around 500whp on the dyno with the JB4 plugged in...how's that for proof that around 500 there's somewhat of an ignition system limit? It didn't misfire as consistently as the procede that time but it still did misfire..
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        You mind enlightening us on the detrimental effect it has on the DME and what it is damaging??. I already answered what little effect CPS has on the DME in the other thread. The floor is yours.
        Same that has already been stated? The signal is being offset. DME no longer knows where TDC is. Offsetting the CPS advances the cams. What part of this don't you understand?

        Offsetting the CPS also seems to lead to misfires because the DME uses the CPS for misfire detection. You are telling me messing with this is a good thing? And you are telling me that tricking the DME into not knowing where TDC is in lieu of proper ignition timing is a good thing as well? Well, the floor is now yours.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        Out of respect, I won't discuss this user and that topic anymore and it's best left in the past. These misfires are way overstated over here and not anywhere as near as widespread a problem as you state but it's your call and your Forum.......the traffic must be great.
        I will discuss it. We were the ones who posted proof of the issue so it isn't something that just came out of the blue. Not a widespread problem? Sure seems to be, depending on which forum you read. Last I checked this problem that isn't "widespread" still has yet to solved and new users with it are popping up all the time:

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Orlin Click here to enlarge
        since I moved from procede v4 to jb4 my misfires have stopped so I found that thread very interesting, thanks Sticky.
        Coincidence?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        You can't compare a factory DME running 8psi and a Procede tricking the DME at 16psi... But all things being equal they probably respond with similar results at factory boost points. If we were to use 93 octane fuel, at increasing boost, you would need to retard more and more timing to prevent knock. The lower the octane the higher the ignition retard would need to be set to prevent knock. If we wait for knock to retard timing for us at these higher boost levels on normal fuel, the more severe knock events become. Hence why it's always better to have any form of timing control over none at all.
        Where levels of knock changes is at increased boost where the DME thinks it still running factory boost. Having a means of affecting ignition timing at this level is preferred over a tune that can't make any adjustment to prevent any knock other than using high octane fuel/meth to compensate.
        I don't consider CPS offsetting true timing control and neither should you. It simply is all that that can be offered with Piggy's. It is the most cost effective solution they have, not the proper solution. No one is going to say pulling timing is a bad thing but you keep equating CPS offset to timing retard which is not what it is. Delaying the signal introduces other problems and some potentially serious issues beyond just misfires.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        Terry needs to do a hell of a lot more testing. At the expense of not knocking and leaving a small margin of power on the table............I'll take that, thank you very much.
        I'm all for as much testing as possible with all the information being posted to help us. I'm glad Terry at least posts what he is up to, can't say the same for you know who.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        I have already mentioned his name. Look up Scalbert on Terry's site and on E90Post. He has alot of good information in his threads on timing control. He is an engineer who did extensive testing using both tunes. His documentation of his results are an eye opener and virtually ended all discussion with regards to pro-active knock control or lack there of.
        I find that interesting because if you talk to serious BMW tuners they seem to think CPS offsetting is well... junk. They seem to consider it a poor way of controlling timing and certainly not the proper way to go about it. Hey, I'm just referencing tuners that are well beyond anything "Scalbert" has done when it comes to BMW forced induction but I'll take a look.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        As I stated in the other thread.......a knock sensor operates exclusively to listen for knock and relay that information to the DME so it can retard timing. CPS can't effect a knock event and a knock sensors signal can't be altered, so if it picks up knock the DME will respond irrespectively and independantly. What you can do is prevent it from knocking in the first place pro-actively by retarding or advancing the timing via CPS
        You still don't seem to understand the negative effect CPS offsetting has on knock control. Did you miss where I wrote that the CPS plays an integral role in the factory knock system? The DME can retard around 12-15 degrees if knock is detected. If you need a piggyback to remove an additional 2-4 degrees beyond this there are some serious issues with the tune to begin with.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno Click here to enlarge
        ultimateracing335i's car misfired at around 500whp on the dyno with the JB4 plugged in...how's that for proof that around 500 there's somewhat of an ignition system limit? It didn't misfire as consistently as the procede that time but it still did misfire..
        Ok, and LostMarine's car didn't misfire at around 500whp with the JB4 plugged in, and? So what, these offset now (haha, get it?) ? We all know the ignition system has a limit.

        How does this change the fact cars that aren't at 500 whp or with upgraded turbos are misfiring? As stated, not every misfire is the Procede's fault and there will be legitimate ones for legitimate reasons as Ultimateracing apparently experienced.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
        The last time I announced a trip to NJ, you publicly threatened me with your guns and got banned from e90post for publicly implying that you would shoot me upon sight. So forgive me for not wanting to come face to face with your sociopathic nutty self. So you want to run a v5, purchase one, install it, and run it on the dyno. You will likely make more power than what you are making now. That's pretty ballsy asking me for a custom tune. You really are crazy, aren't you? Click here to enlarge

        Shiv
        shiv, show me when and how i threatened you, especially with any weapon, since i didnt own a gun until a few months ago.. you can take this to OT though. i dont want you getting confused on the topic at hand.

        more power? please, how so. please tell me how you claim this, what are basing this on, more boost? that might be tough to add more boost with y current tune..
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        The people who have seen misfires have voiced their opinion and been the most vocal on the forum, for obvious reasons. All others remain quiet since the majority don't have any issues. Anyway their issues of misfire is resolved so not really an excuse anymore.
        really.. why dont you go ask some of the more vocal people, especially guys in the N.E. because none of them got rid of it.. EVEN WITH SHIV ATTEMPTING IN PERSON.. how much more attention do they need?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sparky66 Click here to enlarge
        Results have been substantiated with comprehensive test results and multiple log graphs, a long time ago(Search the Forums).........the Procede knocks less than a tune without CPS> it's a fact. I'm not going to look it up as I could not be bothered but the newbs will find it if they look hard enough.
        really?, are you really trying to say this? you wont look it up, because its not there, find me some results and ill concede. I search th e $#@! outta places, and i dont see anything.. maybe you missed this:
        http://www.bimmerboost.com/showthrea...LOOSH-IS-RIGHT
      1. George Smooth's Avatar
        George Smooth -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Good job refuting any of the points made. Much easier to type than actually do any research.

        Show me what you got George, go ahead, refute anything posted. That, or stick to lobbing insults since you would be over your head if you tried.
        I do not think I have insulted you in the least. Besides your online forum research what technical knowledge do you have on the matter that is factual: either based on literature on how the MSD DME works or in any practical form.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by George Smooth Click here to enlarge
        I do not think I have insulted you in the least. Besides your online forum research what technical knowledge do you have on the matter that is factual: either based on literature on how the MSD DME works or in any practical form.
        I think the burden is on you to refute anything stated regarding how offsetting affects the DME. My points were made and researched, as well as referenced with tuners before being put up, please show me how they are incorrect with your "practical" experience.

        Your assertion was baseless unless you prove otherwise and yes you did insult me but that is fine. Look forward to your technical knowledge on the subject if you have any to share.
      1. Jimefam's Avatar
        Jimefam -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I challenge you to prove that what has been stated about CPS offsetting essentially misleading the ECU is incorrect. Delaying the signal does exactly what has been stated, there is no circumventing it. The burden of proof is on Vishnu, not on me.
        LOL so you put up a bunch of slanderous statements without one shred of data to back you up, admit you are not a tuner and are out of your depth, admit your "sources" are this companies direct competition and even they didn't say they had any knowledge just what they HEARD and you think the burden of proof is on the person being slandered? This thread would have been terrific if you could post up ANY real data, or if your so called BMW tuners would speak up. From what I posted before of Terry feeding you lines it's clear he's your source and even he won't speak on the subject. You know why? Because he doesn't care if it's true or not! That's the beauty behind slander it doesn't need to be true to work. Someone may stumble on here and read your first post and believe it because they may Mistake you for somebody with technical knowledge or facts about what your talking about. There is a very good reason why you won't name your "BMW tuner sources" because no real tuner is gonna stake his reputation on his opinion with NO DATA to back it up.

        That's the only reason I'm posting on here because it's very easy for someone to make accusation and sit back and say "disprove it" if I were shiv or if someone was doing that to my company I wouldn't dignify you with a response. Now if you had any concrete(hell not even concrete at this point ANY) data I would be on here expecting shiv or haltech(which your also slandering) to respond and ready to test them if they tried to BS their way out of it.

        So to answer your question from a couple weeks ago(which considering your intimate and recent conversations with BMW tuners I would think you wouldn't need to post on a brand new forum with little traffic) YES it is hard to become a tuner but apparently it's EASY to impersonate one on the Internet! LOL this thread is a MISFIRE! Bring some data or fact or even knowledge about what you talking about and it would be a different story.
      1. George Smooth's Avatar
        George Smooth -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Jimefam Click here to enlarge
        LOL this thread is a MISFIRE!
        LOL I am going to nominate this as the quote of the year. Top Shot.
      1. dzenno@PTF's Avatar
        dzenno@PTF -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Ok, and LostMarine's car didn't misfire at around 500whp with the JB4 plugged in, and? So what, these offset now (haha, get it?) ? We all know the ignition system has a limit.

        How does this change the fact cars that aren't at 500 whp or with upgraded turbos are misfiring? As stated, not every misfire is the Procede's fault and there will be legitimate ones for legitimate reasons as Ultimateracing apparently experienced.
        What're you laughing about, seriously? Procede had an issue, it was solved, PERIOD! But no, lets get some publicity to bimmerboost everyone...people keep coming back for soap opera BS threads like this, guess you've got that magic formula nailed
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno Click here to enlarge
        What're you laughing about, seriously? Procede had an issue, it was solved, PERIOD! But no, lets get some publicity to bimmerboost everyone...people keep coming back for soap opera BS threads like this, guess you've got that magic formula nailed
        Issue is not exactly "solved" but that isn't even the point. How about understanding what caused the issue in the first place? Or do you simply care more about pretending offsetting is the greatest thing in the world because that is all the architecture as implemented is limited to?

        Why don't you tell everyone how CPS offsetting does not change the crank TDC, ok? If you want a BS story, that would be it. You've got nothing.
      1. shiv@vishnu's Avatar
        shiv@vishnu -
        Yep, still an idiot.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Jimefam Click here to enlarge
        LOL so you put up a bunch of slanderous statements without one shred of data to back you up, admit you are not a tuner and are out of your depth, admit your "sources" are this companies direct competition and even they didn't say they had any knowledge just what they HEARD and you think the burden of proof is on the person being slandered?
        Excuse me?

        Admit I'm not a tuner? When did I ever say I was tuner? Uh, never.

        Where did I say my "sources" are this companies competition? Actually, what I stated was the main source is not even a tuner who is focused on the N54 market but an excellent BMW tuner. Would you please try reading the thread? I'm getting worried about your reading comprehension.

        Slander is spoken, not written, please don't try playing lawyer with me as you are way out of your league.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Jimefam Click here to enlarge
        This thread would have been terrific if you could post up ANY real data, or if your so called BMW tuners would speak up. From what I posted before of Terry feeding you lines it's clear he's your source and even he won't speak on the subject. You know why? Because he doesn't care if it's true or not! That's the beauty behind slander it doesn't need to be true to work. Someone may stumble on here and read your first post and believe it because they may Mistake you for somebody with technical knowledge or facts about what your talking about. There is a very good reason why you won't name your "BMW tuner sources" because no real tuner is gonna stake his reputation on his opinion with NO DATA to back it up.
        You are so far off it is unbelievable. Terry has nothing to do with any of this other than himself supporting the OP by being able to induce misfires through the CPS.

        It is a fact that offsetting the crank position sensor will cause the DME to misinterpret where TDC is. Why can't you figure this out?

        You have been posting a lot for someone who is WAY behind on the topic of the N54. I really would ask you to catch up or maybe do more reading as you continue to make mistake after mistake.

        My tuner source can participate if he wants to. He doesn't need to prove anything to you and frankly if you were bright enough you would have looked at the other threads and figured it out already. But hey, let me not spoil your fun of thinking it is Terry. I find it laughable you accuse me of speaking without facts when in actuality that is what you are doing, just baseless speculation and you aren't even good at it.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Jimefam Click here to enlarge
        That's the only reason I'm posting on here because it's very easy for someone to make accusation and sit back and say "disprove it" if I were shiv or if someone was doing that to my company I wouldn't dignify you with a response. Now if you had any concrete(hell not even concrete at this point ANY) data I would be on here expecting shiv or haltech(which your also slandering) to respond and ready to test them if they tried to BS their way out of it.
        I posted my information, where is yours to disprove it? Guess what, you can't. So you are just going to have to get comfortable with it or get to the point where you can understand it.

        What data is necessary for you to understand that CPS offsetting is tricking the DME into not knowing the true position of the crank? Well?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Jimefam Click here to enlarge
        So to answer your question from a couple weeks ago(which considering your intimate and recent conversations with BMW tuners I would think you wouldn't need to post on a brand new forum with little traffic) YES it is hard to become a tuner but apparently it's EASY to impersonate one on the Internet! LOL this thread is a MISFIRE! Bring some data or fact or even knowledge about what you talking about and it would be a different story.
        I think you should take your own advice as you have not posted a single shred of evidence to refute what is a theory based on research with tuners which explains a known problem with the tune which has been shown with evidence. How's that? Is this the best you can do?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
        Yep, still an idiot.
        Don't put Adrian down, the tune isn't that bad. I'm sure he will bail you out with some creative CPS offset...