" This is a shame. But maybe it's by design "

" Bad news. If I increase the values in the "Load to Torque Limit" table to 50% over originals at low RPMS (1250-3000) and moderate loads (60-130), the ECU does not request more than 5psi when accelerating...car is sluggish. But the "Actual Torque" now reads higher even at low psi / low timing values. Which leads me to believe that this table is just for the ECU to estimate torque based on load, it's not a limits table. And since the Actual Torque is now higher due to this table, other torque limitations tables come into play and cut boost and timing. I don't know what to believe anymore. I would love to know what the "Requested Torque Limit (Driver)" and "Torque Limit Offset" tables do, but I leave these to when I get some more ideas.

I will probably revert to the stock value for this map, leave the timing raised and enjoy the good low-end torque so far. "

" As long as it's done by advancing timing while keeping the same boost and AFR, the fueling stuff remains the same. "

" Ok, so regarding my previous posts about increasing low-end torque when on RB turbos (which have more lag than stock turbos):

- I increased the timing in the Timing (Spool) map, but surprise, the timing does not reach the targets in this map. It's close, but not quite. It's off by 2-3 degrees, and it's not the IATs or other compensation. For example, it doesn't go above about 14.5 degrees al low RPMs despite my target of 17 degrees.

So...this brings us to the table "Load to Torque Limit". When I logged the "Actual Torque" I noticed that the actual torque kind of obeys this table...so my theory is that this is why the timing doesn't rise like I in the Timing (Spool) table: the torque for the actual load is at the limit, so the timing is not raised in order to keep the torque under the limit. This table is also the reason why the engine always feels so smooth despite not-so-smooth value variations in the timing tables. The ECU adjusts timing in order to obey this table. (I suppose that's why there's that flag available, "Disable Torque Intervention by Ign" - which I prefer to leave it unchecked for now).

I increased the values in the "Load to Torque Limit" table by 20% in the low-RPM area, and I think I noticed an improvement in timing (not much, but 1-1.5-2 degrees). However tomorrow I will test a 50% increase.

I wonder if I am on the right path with this. "

" First, the 4-series looks very good, thank God

About the M4, if the F32 335i is lighter than the e92 335i by 100lbs, then I think that not only will it be much lighter than the e92 M3, but it will be able to match the e46 M3 weight like the rumors were circulating. Think about it, only the S65 V8 engine weights 150lbs more than the N54. So substract 150lbs from the engine (ok, add back 20lbs for 2 air-to-water intercoolers), 100lbs from F32 standard construction weight reduction, and some 50-80lbs from M3-specific weight reduction: carbon fiber roof, maybe carbon fiber trunk and hood, some aluminium suspension bits instead of steel, etc. Easily 250-300lbs less than the e92 M3. "