Close

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 103

Thread: OH MM GEEE :)

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    31
    Rep Points
    64.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    You know, thank God for the internet. If this were to happen face to face in real life, I think people would really get killed over this stuff lol

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,089
    Rep Points
    999.1
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    With a piggyback you have very few limitations. So things like boost control, methanol integration, CAN features, etc, can all be handled in the best possible way. With a flash you're basically limited to table editing so must work within the confines of whatever logic the DME uses. Sometimes you can meet your objectives that way but often you can't. Doing something unique or outside of the box with a flash tune is almost impossible. Yet with a piggyback since you are "outside" of the system it might only be a couple hours of programming work. I've tuned with both extensively and depending on the platform and your objectives sometimes flash tuning allows enough flexibility to do what you want to do and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of the N54 it's going to be a real headache to make the flash tune handle a single turbo. It should be able to handle twin OEM style turbos like RBs but it's never going to be as good as a piggyback can be in terms of overall integration and features. And little integration details can really make all the difference. On the other hand a piggyback is never going to give the same level of fuel and advance control.
    The gauges, meth safety and CAN stuff is nice and convenient, but not critical to tuning the car properly. Boost control definitely comes easier with a piggyback, but with some work, flash boost control can be as good.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,888
    Rep Points
    1,422.5
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Very interesting to see him talk out both sides of his mouth. One post his says a flash is no good, then next post he has been developing a flash for over a year. If he is using a flash in conjunction with the procede to help control fueling. His spin will be something like the flash is just part of the fuel upgrade.


  4. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6,676
    Rep Points
    3,291.4
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by skim7x Click here to enlarge
    You know, thank God for the internet. If this were to happen face to face in real life, I think people would really get killed over this stuff lol
    ummmm, ya, not really, just $#@! slapped

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Points
    8,864.6
    Mentioned
    626 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    89


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by vasillalov Click here to enlarge
    I agree. Just don't repeat this over and over because the innocent souls all over the internet will take it as a God given truth and they'll die defending what they think is true fact, which it isn't.

    I'll give you another example of ECU logic alteration, directly related to N54: Cobb discovered a fueling algorithm bug/issue which has been eliminated and coded out. This is yet to make it to consumer maps though. You'll have to agree with me that this goes beyond the simple fiddling with tables, no?
    That sounds like a classic table edit scenario to me. There are literally hundreds of tables and early on you may only have access or understanding of a small subset of that. My read of that change is that some table had a fueling limit in it that was holding back something they were trying to do. So they finally found and modified that table.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Jersey City
    Posts
    3,857
    Rep Points
    3,642.6
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    37


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    This discussion, while frustrating for some, is very informative for me (and I'm sure others). I'm glad to have access to this camp and the shiv/e90 camp so I can better understand what's really going on in n54 tuning. My Cobb v401 is smooth as hell and the car is running great. I have a feeling Cobb is working on some ground breaking stuff, the fact that ATP exists and soon ATR, tells me the n54 tuning is about to go to the next level.

    I love how Cobb just comes out with stuff, no teasers, no hinting, no talk...just does it
    Click here to enlarge
    ESS 6XX kit

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    919
    Rep Points
    778.4
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    That sounds like a classic table edit scenario to me. There are literally hundreds of tables and early on you may only have access or understanding of a small subset of that. My read of that change is that some table had a fueling limit in it that was holding back something they were trying to do. So they finally found and modified that table.

    No, it was an algorithm that they modified. You are probing and guessing here...
    From all the things I've lost,
    I miss my mind the most!
    Click here to enlarge

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Points
    8,864.6
    Mentioned
    626 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    89


    3 out of 3 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by vasillalov Click here to enlarge
    No, it was an algorithm that they modified. You are probing and guessing here...
    I have not really been following their tuning and don't have any information on what they are doing other than what I've seen posted. But it sounds like the classic example of a hidden table causing a fuel cap to me. From my perspective it seems you are trying to make it out to be more than it is. But it doesn't really effect me or JB4 tuning so feel free to believe whatever you want to believe about it. I really couldn't care less one way or the other. Click here to enlarge

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    919
    Rep Points
    778.4
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Well, the reason why I even got into the original argument was because you and other piggie tuners keep claiming that flash tuning is limited by internal DME logic which is a load of BS and you know it!

    I feel the same way about JB4 and the rest of the piggies. Not a single f#ck is given. Click here to enlarge Just don't throw mud on others. That's all.
    From all the things I've lost,
    I miss my mind the most!
    Click here to enlarge

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6,676
    Rep Points
    3,291.4
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    I have not really been following their tuning and don't have any information on what they are doing other than what I've seen posted. But it sounds like the classic example of a hidden table causing a fuel cap to me. From my perspective it seems you are trying to make it out to be more than it is. But it doesn't really effect me or JB4 tuning so feel free to believe whatever you want to believe about it. I really couldn't care less one way or the other. Click here to enlarge
    To clarify, it was not a table change. It was a code change in the os as stated before. This is a fact, no need to guess.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Points
    8,864.6
    Mentioned
    626 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    89


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno Click here to enlarge
    To clarify, it was not a table change. It was a code change in the os as stated before. This is a fact, no need to guess.
    This would require having the operating system code and then recompiling it. And the provisions for uploading an OS will be much different than for uploading tables. If Cobb specifically posts they made an operating system change, recompiled the OS, and uploaded it, then I'll take them at their word and be impressed. Until then I remain skeptical. Click here to enlarge

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    18
    Rep Points
    82.5
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    This would require having the operating system code and then recompiling it. And the provisions for uploading an OS will be much different than for uploading tables. If Cobb specifically posts they made an operating system change, recompiled the OS, and uploaded it, then I'll take them at their word and be impressed. Until then I remain skeptical. Click here to enlarge
    Hi Terry,

    We make changes to the OS all the time without having source or recompiling the code. Every car we support has some sort of custom code written and running in the ECU. Never once have we seen source code. If I could have the source, OMG, I would be geeking out for months.

    Cheers,
    Rob

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Points
    8,864.6
    Mentioned
    626 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    89


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Rob@Cobb Click here to enlarge
    Hi Terry,

    We make changes to the OS all the time without having source or recompiling the code. Every car we support has some sort of custom code written and running in the ECU. Never once have we seen source code. If I could have the source, OMG, I would be geeking out for months.

    Cheers,
    Rob
    If you ever get that code feel free to send it my way. Click here to enlarge Still, even getting any custom code to run on the DME is impressive so kudos there.

    Actually while you are here I've had a few customers ask about using our integrated meth kits w/ Cobb re: safety integration. The perfect scenario for me would be if you took something like the intake air temperature table and picked a specific temperature range. Maybe over 240 degrees, and then mapped advance points in that range to take out say 6-7 degrees across the board. We would then have our meth controller alter the IAT signal if we wanted to trigger a failsafe. It's not quite as good as doing a full progressive setup but would cover the safety need and then allow them to run closer to the 10-13 degrees of advance they need to make maximum power while meth is flowing. Is that easy to do on your end? I understand you guys have the wastegate solenoid failsafe and that is probably OK but IMHO won't be as effective.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6,676
    Rep Points
    3,291.4
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    That would be great for all kits with a 0-5V flow sensor. The HFS-4 kit actually has an integrated wire-in failsafe that goes into the wastegate line at the DME (no external solenoid, just wires the controller to the wg line). When any issue is detected by the HFS-4 controller (low flow, tank low on fluid, too high of a flow) it will trip the failsafe and cut boost by pulling the wg line low. It also does this very cleanly where you don't get a half engine light or a CEL in your dash and you know you just need to fill up on meth. Its great because you don't get to run out of meth as the level sensor trips before the level of meth/water goes down to the pickup. So you just fill up and off you go, failsafe is happy, full boost again

    The other advantage of this controller, with respect to the failsafe, is the button on the gauge to disable meth injection which in turn activates the failsafe until the system is on again...basically a valet mode at the push button Click here to enlarge

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    919
    Rep Points
    778.4
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    This would require having the operating system code and then recompiling it.
    Clearly showing lack of knowledge! Look up what a dissasembler does! Click here to enlarge
    From all the things I've lost,
    I miss my mind the most!
    Click here to enlarge

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Points
    8,864.6
    Mentioned
    626 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    89


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno Click here to enlarge
    That would be great for all kits with a 0-5V flow sensor. The HFS-4 kit actually has a wire in failsafe that goes into the wastegate line at the DME. When any issue is detected by the HFS-4 controller (low flow, tank low on fluid, too high of a flow) it will trip the failsafe and cut boost by pulling the wg line low. It also does this very cleanly where you don't get a half engine light or a CEL in your dash and you know you just need to fill up on meth. Its great because you don't get to run out of meth as the level sensor trips before the level of meth/water goes down to the pickup. So you just fill up and off you go, failsafe is happy, full boost again

    The other advantage of this controller is the button on the gauge to disable meth injection which in turn activates the failsafe until the system is on again...basically a valet mode at the push button Click here to enlarge
    Hmm it should throw a 30FF code if you just cut power to a wastegate solenoid?

    On the old CMGS we used to do that flow range min and max and it was "OK". Although, it required a lot of setup, and often didn't work well enough. For the failsafe to be effective it really should monitor not only meth flow but fuel trims and advance on the DME side. Sometimes customers will add too much water to the mix or use meth that for some reason doesn't work well, see full flow, but wind up with a lot more ign drops than they should have. Being able to monitor those things and react really helps make it a lot safer IMHO. But even a basic failsafe is a lot better than nothing at all.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    18
    Rep Points
    82.5
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    If you ever get that code feel free to send it my way. Click here to enlarge Still, even getting any custom code to run on the DME is impressive so kudos there.

    Actually while you are here I've had a few customers ask about using our integrated meth kits w/ Cobb re: safety integration. The perfect scenario for me would be if you took something like the intake air temperature table and picked a specific temperature range. Maybe over 240 degrees, and then mapped advance points in that range to take out say 6-7 degrees across the board. We would then have our meth controller alter the IAT signal if we wanted to trigger a failsafe. It's not quite as good as doing a full progressive setup but would cover the safety need and then allow them to run closer to the 10-13 degrees of advance they need to make maximum power while meth is flowing. Is that easy to do on your end? I understand you guys have the wastegate solenoid failsafe and that is probably OK but IMHO won't be as effective.
    Thanks for the kind words. Your work is quite impressive as well.

    We could do something like that pretty easily. Just need to rescale the IAT Timing Correction tables. Jason is about to start in on the RACE mapping. We can make and test that change then.

    The WG failsafe is built into the HFS-4. I will give Jeff and Richard credit for that.

    Cheers,
    Rob

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    le Paris
    Posts
    6,653
    Rep Points
    -258.0
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by oddjob2021 Click here to enlarge
    well said terry. +rep, although it looks like you don't really need it Click here to enlarge btw, i commend your attitude in this situation and all situations, you could have easily bashed and trashed like the rest. very professional.
    Click here to enlarge

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    le Paris
    Posts
    6,653
    Rep Points
    -258.0
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by M3_WC Click here to enlarge
    Very interesting to see him talk out both sides of his mouth. One post his says a flash is no good, then next post he has been developing a flash for over a year. If he is using a flash in conjunction with the procede to help control fueling. His spin will be something like the flash is just part of the fuel upgrade.
    He's a classic POS man, don't expect him to act like a man.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,057
    Rep Points
    1,149.5
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Rob and Terry are class acts. Tuners helping tuners. Thats what I like to see!

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,099
    Rep Points
    1,398.0
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Tzu Click here to enlarge
    Rob and Terry are class acts. Tuners helping tuners. Thats what I like to see!
    I can think of one tuner that might not be all impressed by this Click here to enlarge
    Click here to enlarge
    997.1 tt
    Kline 200cell exhaust
    997.2/GT2RS IC's
    Cobb E85 custom stage3 tune by Mitch
    ID1000 injectors
    Sachs stage 2.5 clutch

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6,676
    Rep Points
    3,291.4
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Tzu Click here to enlarge
    Rob and Terry are class acts. Tuners helping tuners. Thats what I like to see!
    You guys have no idea how nice it is for me, and I'm sure others too, to see this interaction happen this way. Huge respect to both Rob and Terry. Both flashes and piggies definitely have things that each other can take advantage of in my opinion and the combo of the two can be quite potent, no doubt about that.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6,676
    Rep Points
    3,291.4
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    Hmm it should throw a 30FF code if you just cut power to a wastegate solenoid?

    On the old CMGS we used to do that flow range min and max and it was "OK". Although, it required a lot of setup, and often didn't work well enough. For the failsafe to be effective it really should monitor not only meth flow but fuel trims and advance on the DME side. Sometimes customers will add too much water to the mix or use meth that for some reason doesn't work well, see full flow, but wind up with a lot more ign drops than they should have. Being able to monitor those things and react really helps make it a lot safer IMHO. But even a basic failsafe is a lot better than nothing at all.
    It doesn't just ground it and I agree it'd trigger limp if it did. Not sure exactly what they do but its really cool in that it does work great. There's a jumper on the board that you can use to have CEL-free operation of it or to actually have the CEL triggered. Default is no CEL.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    46
    Rep Points
    160.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    interesting - hopefully Terry's current ww kit for flash tune can somehow integrate otherwise is time to buy a HSF-4!

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Points
    8,864.6
    Mentioned
    626 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    89


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno Click here to enlarge
    It doesn't just ground it and I agree it'd trigger limp if it did. Not sure exactly what they do but its really cool in that it does work great. There's a jumper on the board that you can use to have CEL-free operation of it or to actually have the CEL triggered. Default is no CEL.
    Do a JB4 log of it in action and I'll tell you how it works and give my opinion on how good of a safety it is. Just make sure the JB4 is also reading meth flow and then trip a failsafe by having removing a solenoid ground mid run or something. Exactly which wire is it intercepting in the DME? 7 or 14 on the white subconnector?
    Last edited by Terry@BMS; 03-30-2012 at 11:26 PM.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •