Close

    • Powerchip S65 E92/E90 M3 ECU Tune Issues

      A bit of a debate has been raging on the forum which led to our user DonDon requesting his Powerchip dyno graphs be posted. These graphs were sent to us a while ago but we did not post them as we wanted to see how the situation was resolved before judging anyone. However, the owner of this car, DonDon, requested they now be put up due to his displeasure with Powerchip. As you can see in the graphs, the car loses power from idle to 7000 rpm. It only gains power beyond 7k and it does so due to being heavily leaned out. This tune would give the impression of greater top end gains even though the stock file is actually a better tune. Take a look at the graphs and come to your own conclusion as they are compared with stock. We also are not sure if the situation has been properly resolved yet..








      This article was originally published in forum thread: Powerchip S65 M3 Tune Issues started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 40 Comments
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Mike clearly just proved Don's car had AA software at one point, it did, no debate here.

        My only question would be if the car was running the AA software at the time of the Powerchip tune. If so, the base map being AA would complicate the issue and it would not be as clear cut as it was made to seem.

        Waiting to see what Don has to say as it would seem the stock software was not in the car when Powerchip attempted to tune making this a special case and not representative of Powerchip tunes as a whole on stock S65 cars.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        well mike, its seems you are rebutting the claims with information. And I thank you for it. I can admit i am not infallible. I Still believe there much improvement needed in certain area's
      1. DoNDoN's Avatar
        DoNDoN -
        This is beyond hillarious. When did I say I did not have the AA tune? How does Mike even know the dyno I had is not my stock tune? Is he the one who did the dyno for me? Give me a break. I am tried of this guy making up stuff. He is the one who is always saying "stop putting words in my mouth" when he is doing it right here. Please give this up Mike. Powerchip has offered to give me a fix to my messed up software through a PM on Bimmerpost. At this point Powerchip can keep my money as I am done being a guinea pig for them. I would rather run stock software which I am doing now then support people like Mike at Powerchip. I guarantee I wouldn't edit any of my posts unlike what you have already done.
      1. fstop7's Avatar
        fstop7 -
        Looking at the dyno graphs I don't see what's so dangerous about the AFRs. The leanest it gets up top appears to be around 12.5:1. On a naturally aspirated car that hardly seems dangerous. Was the car pinging or pulling timing? The curve does kind of flatten out on top. That said the fact it makes less power below 7,000 RPM is interesting. What that says to me is that the car was in need of more tuning.

        Also, what was the location of the wideband O2 sensor used for this testing? If was a sensor placed at the muffler that often yields numbers that are much leaner than if the sensor were placed closer to the engine.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by fstop7 Click here to enlarge
        Looking at the dyno graphs I don't see what's so dangerous about the AFRs. The leanest it gets up top appears to be around 12.5:1. On a naturally aspirated car that hardly seems dangerous. Was the car pinging or pulling timing? The curve does kind of flatten out on top. That said the fact it makes less power below 7,000 RPM is interesting. What that says to me is that the car was in need of more tuning.

        Also, what was the location of the wideband O2 sensor used for this testing? If was a sensor placed at the muffler that often yields numbers that are much leaner than if the sensor were placed closer to the engine.
        I don't think we are saying the tune is "dangerous" as much as we are saying the power is being made by aggressively leaning it out up top. I don't know what kind of fuel this was on either but that may lead you to not be as confident running 91 or if unfortunately you get some bad grade gas. The feelings on it were conveyed by the dyno operator who was concerned with the air/fuel ratio. As you alluded to, the location of the sensor has an impact.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DoNDoN Click here to enlarge
        This is beyond hillarious. When did I say I did not have the AA tune? How does Mike even know the dyno I had is not my stock tune? Is he the one who did the dyno for me? Give me a break. I am tried of this guy making up stuff. He is the one who is always saying "stop putting words in my mouth" when he is doing it right here. Please give this up Mike. Powerchip has offered to give me a fix to my messed up software through a PM on Bimmerpost. At this point Powerchip can keep my money as I am done being a guinea pig for them. I would rather run stock software which I am doing now then support people like Mike at Powerchip. I guarantee I wouldn't edit any of my posts unlike what you have already done.
        You did not say you never had the AA tune. The main question being asked, is the base map AA? If so, the car is not exactly stock so that is a valid point. At what point would you have switched from the AA tune to stock? What led to you wanted to switch from AA to Powerchip?

        I know you are not happy with how this was resolved, or rather, unresolved and you no longer have the patience for it. It seems they now want to offer you what should have already been done in order to pacify you.

        I just hope you get software you are satisfied with in the car that offers you the performance you have been looking for as I know you enjoy track duty. In that instance, more power down low would be welcome Click here to enlarge
      1. DoNDoN's Avatar
        DoNDoN -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        You did not say you never had the AA tune. The main question being asked, is the base map AA? If so, the car is not exactly stock so that is a valid point. At what point would you have switched from the AA tune to stock? What led to you wanted to switch from AA to Powerchip?

        I know you are not happy with how this was resolved, or rather, unresolved and you no longer have the patience for it. It seems they now want to offer you what should have already been done in order to pacify you.

        I just hope you get software you are satisfied with in the car that offers you the performance you have been looking for as I know you enjoy track duty. In that instance, more power down low would be welcome Click here to enlarge
        As I have stated before, the stock tune mentioned is my stock BMW tune with bolt on mods. The stock dyno does not have any aftermarket tune at all. This dyno does not even include the Fabspeed X Pipe and HFCs.

        I went from AA to Powerchip after talking to Jeremy at Fabspeed telling me he has been getting lower HP/TQ numbers with people using AA and people using Powerchip.

        I have been quiet about the whole thing as I have moved on and gone back to stock. I am happy with my stock software and I did not want to deal with Powerchip anymore. The only reason why I even posted anything about this was because Mike had to call me out on this forum.

        This is the history of my original tune with Powerchip and BenM3 and spacecakeM can attest to this:

        I first got the Powerchip tune with the VA group buy and I was really happy with it. I thought that I felt power throughout the power band and I was completely satisfied. Then spacecakeM goes and gets a dyno and he told Mike that he was making LESS horsepower then his original AA tune. He said that since Mike and I originally had the AA tune we needed to flash back to stock first and then get the Powerchip tune. This was never told to me but I didn't complain as Powerchip stated they would resolve this issue but reflashing my car again. After the reflash I was happy with the performance. Then came the whole emissions issue which you can read on M3post.

        Matt has been my contact since the whole emissions issue and he has been beyond helpful. I respectfully declined their offer to reflash my car as I am tired of this whole issue. I have not asked for a refund and I am willing to walk away with nothing. I have nothing but respect for Matt and Powerchip and I hope for the best for the company.

        As for my track day, that is coming up and I cannot wait to get driving again. Click here to enlarge
      1. akh23456's Avatar
        akh23456 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DoNDoN Click here to enlarge
        As I have stated before, the stock tune mentioned is my stock BMW tune with bolt on mods. The stock dyno does not have any aftermarket tune at all. This dyno does not even include the Fabspeed X Pipe and HFCs.

        I went from AA to Powerchip after talking to Jeremy at Fabspeed telling me he has been getting lower HP/TQ numbers with people using AA and people using Powerchip.

        I have been quiet about the whole thing as I have moved on and gone back to stock. I am happy with my stock software and I did not want to deal with Powerchip anymore. The only reason why I even posted anything about this was because Mike had to call me out on this forum.

        This is the history of my original tune with Powerchip and BenM3 and spacecakeM can attest to this:

        I first got the Powerchip tune with the VA group buy and I was really happy with it. I thought that I felt power throughout the power band and I was completely satisfied. Then spacecakeM goes and gets a dyno and he told Mike that he was making LESS horsepower then his original AA tune. He said that since Mike and I originally had the AA tune we needed to flash back to stock first and then get the Powerchip tune. This was never told to me but I didn't complain as Powerchip stated they would resolve this issue but reflashing my car again. After the reflash I was happy with the performance. Then came the whole emissions issue which you can read on M3post.

        Matt has been my contact since the whole emissions issue and he has been beyond helpful. I respectfully declined their offer to reflash my car as I am tired of this whole issue. I have not asked for a refund and I am willing to walk away with nothing. I have nothing but respect for Matt and Powerchip and I hope for the best for the company.

        As for my track day, that is coming up and I cannot wait to get driving again. Click here to enlarge

        i think i know who you are speaking of the aa tune at fabspeed i spoke to him i think a way back about it...i can post my stock graphs w charge pipe, cats and xipipe if it helps i am still waiting for fabspeed to send me my pc tuned dyno.
      1. akh23456's Avatar
        akh23456 -
        here is my stock graph with charge pipe, 200 cell cats, and x-pipe w resonator, filter on a mustang dyno
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by akh23456 Click here to enlarge
        here is my stock graph with charge pipe, 200 cell cats, and x-pipe w resonator, filter on a mustang dyno

        if you dont mind sharing.. what were your results after the tune, on the same dyno ? Click here to enlarge
      1. akh23456's Avatar
        akh23456 -
        330hp and 250 tq i think i will have to give a call to them
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DoNDoN Click here to enlarge
        I have been quiet about the whole thing as I have moved on and gone back to stock. I am happy with my stock software and I did not want to deal with Powerchip anymore. The only reason why I even posted anything about this was because Mike had to call me out on this forum.
        That is absolutely true, as I recall when speaking to you, you simply wanted your tune resolved and never intended to put up any graphs. You just wanted what you thought you paid for.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DoNDoN Click here to enlarge
        As I have stated before, the stock tune mentioned is my stock BMW tune with bolt on mods. The stock dyno does not have any aftermarket tune at all. This dyno does not even include the Fabspeed X Pipe and HFCs.
        This is all true. I think the misunderstanding stems from Powerchip modifying what is an AA base file and not a stock file. What I don't understand is why didn't Powerchip see this and why not simply flash your ecu to stock and work from there?

        Your comparison run is all stock, 100%.
      1. JonMartin's Avatar
        JonMartin -
        What I don't understand is why didn't Powerchip see this and why not simply flash your ecu to stock and work from there?
        I've been wanting to ask this didn't care to keep arguing with Mike though. I just don't see how if it was an issue why wasn't it brought up at that time. I mean in my old business if I was programming something for my client and I saw that it was previously programmed by someone else either I'd wipe it clean with the "factory" specs or just have them send it out before if I couldn't do so myself and If it mattered before I started working on it. But either way I'd let it be known if it was an issue upfront. Otherwise I'd call that a half ass job imo.
      1. BrenM3's Avatar
        BrenM3 -
        Most tuners that don't have the tools or the ability to wipe it clean with factory programming .... ask the customer to have it reprogrammed prior to tuning. This is a good cop out also when something goes wrong (example: above)
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
        Most tuners that don't have the tools or the ability to wipe it clean with factory programming .... ask the customer to have it reprogrammed prior to tuning. This is a good cop out also when something goes wrong (example: above)
        What would you do if you knew a car had another tune previously and were asked to tune it?

        I would think Powerchip has the tools, they flashed my car back to stock.
      1. BrenM3's Avatar
        BrenM3 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        What would you do if you knew a car had another tune previously and were asked to tune it?

        I would think Powerchip has the tools, they flashed my car back to stock.
        There is a big difference from pulling and saving a copy of your stock file originally, tuning your car, and then putting you back to stock when need be Sticky.

        THEN there is coming in previously tuned by whatever company and not having a "stock" read to put on your car.

        Depending on the previous tuner, i know what they've changed and where to delete and start fresh. Some files come in so HACKED that it's easier to start fresh. This is rare. I could spend hours un-$#@!ing the file. There's certain tuning companies who move things around so much it's not even salvageable.

        It's easier to have a stock read incase you may have missed a table or two. But if you are going to take on someone elses file as a read you need to a) fix it or b) not do it till it's stock c) half ass it and hope for the best
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
        There is a big difference from pulling and saving a copy of your stock file originally, tuning your car, and then putting you back to stock when need be Sticky.

        THEN there is coming in previously tuned by whatever company and not having a "stock" read to put on your car.
        I see.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
        It's easier to have a stock read incase you may have missed a table or two. But if you are going to take on someone elses file as a read you need to a) fix it or b) not do it till it's stock c) half ass it and hope for the best
        So in this situation, would B have been the best choice from a tuner's standpoint?
      1. BrenM3's Avatar
        BrenM3 -
        Correct. Some previous files can be messed with. From as far as I know AA doesn't do anything to cripple the file. GIAC from my experience has been very difficult to work from. So any VF kit that comes in needs a full reflash prior.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
        Correct. Some previous files can be messed with. From as far as I know AA doesn't do anything to cripple the file. GIAC from my experience has been very difficult to work from. So any VF kit that comes in needs a full reflash prior.
        What would the reasoning be that GIAC is more difficult to work on than AA?

        This may be way off but is the AA coding neater?
      1. JonMartin's Avatar
        JonMartin -
        G-power had to wipe my car with a stock file in Germany to tune my S/C because of this delay it caused me to miss the debut at Bimmerfest 09..