Close

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 55
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,852
    Rep Points
    31,579.5
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I see, so it compensates on its own, even for fuel. So someone dumps in race gas and then does nothing? This is the whole auto-tune feature? What about meth?

    Yes, I assume it is a function of the throttle body closing at redline. Is this the only instance where it spikes?

    Ok, so it has 3 times the sampling rate and you are saying anything below 30 samples per second is sub-par. That is your stance, I don't know if I agree with that as I just have yet to see any issues with JB3 logs missing something and sort of feel this is a selling point as an extra "feature."

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    253
    Rep Points
    328.2
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I am pretty sure the stock boost control system is designed to deliver an even power delivery.

    Although the sytem works very well on stock power levels, why would you want to piggyback onto a system which is attempting to keep power constant via boost compensations?

    The stock system lowers boost at cold intake temps and raises boost at high intake temps in order to compensate for how air density impacts power levels.

    I have seen the JB3 boost system follow this pattern - mind you at higher boost values than stock.

    In the cold of winter I would often see 1st and 2nd gears deliver 12 psi and then 3rd and 4th would jump up to 14 psi as intake temps got hotter.

    Same thing would happen on hotter days of summer. As ambient temps rose, boost values would go up almost 1psi. Gotta ask yourself whether you really want those snails spinning harder as temps get hotter.

    That's just the physics of what is going to happen if you index yourself to the stock boost control system.
    Last edited by DCAFS; 06-19-2010 at 11:15 PM.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,852
    Rep Points
    31,579.5
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DCAFS Click here to enlarge
    I am pretty sure the stock boost control system is designed to deliver an even power delivery.

    Although the sytem it works very well on stock power levels, why would you want to piggyback onto a system which is attempting to keep power constant?

    Seems to me one would be leaving power on the table by such attenuation.

    So stock system lowers boost at cold intake temps and raises boost at high intake temps in order to compensate for how air density impacts power levels.

    I have seen the JB3 boost system follow this pattern - mind you at higher boost values than stock.

    In the cold of winter I would often see 1st and 2nd gears deliver 12 psi and then 3rd and 4th would jump up to 14 psi as intake temps got hotter.

    Same thing would happen on hotter days of summer. As ambient temps rose, boost values would go up almost 1psi.

    That's just the physics of what is going to happen if you index yourself to the stock boost control system.
    What is your reasoning for one leaving power on the table?

    The factory ecu limits once it gets behind a target but the tune is going to be telling it to deliver more boost anyway. If there was power left on the table the results (1/4 mile, 60-130) and dynos don't show it.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    253
    Rep Points
    328.2
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    What is your reasoning for one leaving power on the table?

    The factory ecu limits once it gets behind a target but the tune is going to be telling it to deliver more boost anyway. If there was power left on the table the results (1/4 mile, 60-130) and dynos don't show it.

    I am not referring to 1/4 miles........where the tunes are targetting a wot situation and can target boost more accurately.

    Take my example of winter temps above. 1st and 2nd gear dropped boost by 2 psi due to temperature. That is leaving a bit of power on the table.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    641
    Rep Points
    76.9
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    What is your reasoning for one leaving power on the table?

    The factory ecu limits once it gets behind a target but the tune is going to be telling it to deliver more boost anyway. If there was power left on the table the results (1/4 mile, 60-130) and dynos don't show it.
    Honestly, I'm not sure if you are purposely try to play devil's advocate on anything that we say. Or if you truly don't get it. Or if you are just trying to keep this discussion going on indefinitely for other reaons. But there does come a time where all the topics are answered and all the angles covered. And I think we have reached that point, no?

    Shiv

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,852
    Rep Points
    31,579.5
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DCAFS Click here to enlarge
    I am not referring to 1/4 miles........where the tunes are targetting a wot situation and can target boost more accurately.

    Take my example of winter temps above. 1st and 2nd gear dropped boost by 2 psi due to temperature. That is leaving a bit of power on the table.
    I see, so you are just saying in certain situations but not in max performance situations?

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,852
    Rep Points
    31,579.5
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    Honestly, I'm not sure if you are purposely try to play devil's advocate on anything that we say. Or if you truly don't get it. Or if you are just trying to keep this discussion going on indefinitely for other reaons. But there does come a time where all the topics are answered and all the angles covered. And I think we have reached that point, no?

    Shiv
    Shiv, I think you just expect everyone to just accept what you say without thinking for themselves. I don't see any performance results which agree with what was being stated with power left on the table. If that was true, it would happen, frequently, but it hasn't.

    Secondly, it seems you are getting frustrated I'm not just swallowing everything thrown out here. You make a lot of good points but they are all solely designed to discredit the competition and you take some leeway with certain aspects of that.

    I still don't see any concrete example showing that the JB3 sampling rate is inadequate or does not give a user what they need. All I see is that you are touting the Procede sampling rate as superior. You yourself admit that you could have a higher sampling rate, but don't. Well, if higher sampling is that big of a deal why aren't you giving consumers the absolute best in that regard? Sounds like you are missing things 60 samples a second would pick up by your same logic.

    What don't I get? This is Bimmerboost - BMW performance where BMW performance rules the day. I don't see the V4 doing anything the JB3 can't in that regard. This isn't e90post, thread won't be locked, and if it goes on indefinitely, it will go on indefinitely. I'll ask a million questions if necessary to get the best absolute understanding I can. I am here to learn, as is everyone else, so I don't see the harm in it and will always advocate trying to learn as much as possible.

    I also asked you, does the V4 just automatically adjust to meth and race gas or not?

    The topic and angles are not covered when you decide that point is reached. This whole thread exists due to you taking enrita's thread off topic when you saw an opportunity to pounce, no?

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,010
    Rep Points
    8,959.7
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I see, so it compensates on its own, even for fuel. So someone dumps in race gas and then does nothing? This is the whole auto-tune feature? What about meth?

    Yes, I assume it is a function of the throttle body closing at redline. Is this the only instance where it spikes?

    Ok, so it has 3 times the sampling rate and you are saying anything below 30 samples per second is sub-par. That is your stance, I don't know if I agree with that as I just have yet to see any issues with JB3 logs missing something and sort of feel this is a selling point as an extra "feature."
    30 is better but 10 is good enough for the values we output. We used to output 0. Remember it's just an output and has nothing to do with the hundreds of calculations a second the JB3 is performing. Also just because you spit out 30 values per second in a chart doesn't mean you are sampling at 30 times per second. If you only actually read those values 5 times per second that is the sample rate. So for example you can isolate the timing advance values on the BUS and count how many unique samples per second the V4 is really pulling in. I asked a question about that earlier but must have missed the answer?

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,010
    Rep Points
    8,959.7
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DCAFS Click here to enlarge
    I am pretty sure the stock boost control system is designed to deliver an even power delivery.

    Although the sytem works very well on stock power levels, why would you want to piggyback onto a system which is attempting to keep power constant via boost compensations?

    The stock system lowers boost at cold intake temps and raises boost at high intake temps in order to compensate for how air density impacts power levels.

    I have seen the JB3 boost system follow this pattern - mind you at higher boost values than stock.

    In the cold of winter I would often see 1st and 2nd gears deliver 12 psi and then 3rd and 4th would jump up to 14 psi as intake temps got hotter.

    Same thing would happen on hotter days of summer. As ambient temps rose, boost values would go up almost 1psi. Gotta ask yourself whether you really want those snails spinning harder as temps get hotter.

    That's just the physics of what is going to happen if you index yourself to the stock boost control system.
    We've leveled 2.0 out a lot more as previous versions allowed boost to drop too low in colder temps. But the underlying logic is still in there and is the most appropriate way to handle boost delivery. It's not only the peak values that alter but the entire shape of the curve. With lower baros or hotter IATs peak boost shifts in and you hold less to redline to better match the turbos efficiency window. Let me ask this. If just picking say 8 or 14psi regardless of barometric pressure or air density was the ideal solution why did BMW bother with a much more complicated and dynamic approach?

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,852
    Rep Points
    31,579.5
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    We've leveled 2.0 out a lot more as previous versions allowed boost to drop too low in colder temps. But the underlying logic is still in there and is the most appropriate way to handle boost delivery. It's not only the peak values that alter but the entire shape of the curve. With lower baros or hotter IATs peak boost shifts in and you hold less to redline to better match the turbos efficiency window. Let me ask this. If just picking say 8 or 14psi regardless of barometric pressure or air density was the ideal solution why did BMW bother with a much more complicated and dynamic approach?
    This was my point and abandoning the BMW solution entirely does not seem ideal. If I understand this correctly it seems the Procede substitutes the BMW factory system for their own which basically is doing similar calculations for various atmospheric conditions. If that is the case, why reinvent it?

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    641
    Rep Points
    76.9
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Shiv, I think you just expect everyone to just accept what you say without thinking for themselves. I don't see any performance results which agree with what was being stated with power left on the table. If that was true, it would happen, frequently, but it hasn't.

    Secondly, it seems you are getting frustrated I'm not just swallowing everything thrown out here. You make a lot of good points but they are all solely designed to discredit the competition and you take some leeway with certain aspects of that.

    I still don't see any concrete example showing that the JB3 sampling rate is inadequate or does not give a user what they need. All I see is that you are touting the Procede sampling rate as superior. You yourself admit that you could have a higher sampling rate, but don't. Well, if higher sampling is that big of a deal why aren't you giving consumers the absolute best in that regard? Sounds like you are missing things 60 samples a second would pick up by your same logic.

    What don't I get? This is Bimmerboost - BMW performance where BMW performance rules the day. I don't see the V4 doing anything the JB3 can't in that regard. This isn't e90post, thread won't be locked, and if it goes on indefinitely, it will go on indefinitely. I'll ask a million questions if necessary to get the best absolute understanding I can. I am here to learn, as is everyone else, so I don't see the harm in it and will always advocate trying to learn as much as possible.
    You basically proved my point Sticky. You kept on harping on the sample rate issue that you failed to realize that it only pertains to datalogging. Not the clock speed of the Procede's (or jb3's) processor. This is my frustration here. You keep trying to progress the discussion to higher levels before even understanding the fundamentals. And I (and others) have to keep backtracking to get you up to speed. If you just took the time and effort to understand what I'm saying, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    Forgive me but it seems as if your goal is to create an dramatic debate for the purpose of generating traffic. And not to have a discussion for the purpose of learning/information sharing. That is the difference between this forum and others.

    I also asked you, does the V4 just automatically adjust to meth and race gas or not?
    Yes. As discussed before.

    The topic and angles are not covered when you decide that point is reached. This whole thread exists due to you taking enrita's thread off topic when you saw an opportunity to pounce, no
    No. I'm explaining what led to the failure based upon supportable and substantiated statements. You (and terry) have a hard time accepting that. If that continues to be the case, this discussion will never get anywhere.

    Shiv

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,852
    Rep Points
    31,579.5
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    You basically proved my point Sticky. You kept on harping on the sample rate issue that you failed to realize that it only pertains to datalogging. Not the clock speed of the Procede's (or jb3's) processor. This is my frustration here. You keep trying to progress the discussion to higher levels before even understanding the fundamentals. And I (and others) have to keep backtracking to get you up to speed. If you just took the time and effort to understand what I'm saying, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You want to create an debate for the purpose of this forum traffic. And not have a discussion for the purpose of learning. That is the difference between this forum and others.

    Yes. As discussed before.

    No. I'm explaining what led to the failure based upon supportable and substantiated statements. You (and terry) have a hard time accepting that. If that continues to be the case, this discussion will never get anywhere.

    Shiv
    I understand the sampling rate pertains to datalogging, at what point did I state any different? I did not make a single statement regarding the Procede or JB3's processor as I'm not even familiar with their processors all too well except with what Terry and Adrian mentioned here about them and their cost.

    Perhaps I am trying to progress to higher levels without understanding the fundamentals without even realizing it. Shiv, if you have to explain again or state it differently so it is more palatable, who cares? No need to get frustrated. If you need to backtrack, big deal, the average person will have even more trouble so the more often and easier pertinent points are stated the better for everyone, yourself included.

    If I wanted to create this for the purpose of traffic I would make sure people on e90post would get word of it. That is not happening, this is solely for the benefit of users here so lets keep it on topic. Our traffic is actually getting pretty strong so no need to even try to invent it. Secondly, if I was not interested in having a discussion for the purpose of learning or sharing information then explain to me why you and Adrian are allowed to overstep boundaries as often as you are? Probably due to the fact that there is good information in there. If this worked like "other" forums you wouldn't be allowed to talk unless you gave me money. So yes, definitely a difference between this forum and others.

    You are basically attributing the failure to BMS and you couldn't help yourself in doing so. You are taking ample leeway in doing so. Don't group Terry and I together as if I felt any failure was the fault of BMS I would be the first to state it, even make it front page news. You seem to have a hard time accepting that high boost with low octane was a recipe for disaster no matter what. Enrita stated cylinder 2 going lean and detonating is what happened. You want to portray it in a manner that makes you look best and knocks down a competitor.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,322
    Rep Points
    1,955.5
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    This was my point and abandoning the BMW solution entirely does not seem ideal. If I understand this correctly it seems the Procede substitutes the BMW factory system for their own which basically is doing similar calculations for various atmospheric conditions. If that is the case, why reinvent it?
    I think at a certain point the BMW Solution has take a secondary spot. If at the boost levels and CFM that cars like Enritas and others are running you are reliant on BMW safety measures you will be bound to have serious problems. The Safety measures that are incorporated in the BMW software are related to stock boost and the safety features are programmed with a problem that might occur at the factory boost level. Now when you start doubling the factory boost and increasing timing and you rely again on this system to save you then your tuning method is completely faulted. A super knock that can occur under extreme load at very high levels of boost can be silent and a split second is all that is need for the engine damage to occur. The programmed algorithms that the stock DME has will never compensate enough to save the motor.
    In my opinion the knock that can occur and is not heard can weaken the motor over time and give in at the strangest of times. In Enritas case it gave in whilst under extreme load but it cannot be excluded that some damage had not occurred prior and it was that run that a very slight knock caused the damage.

    As for the comments of leaving power on the table I think its smart to do this and barometric compensation is not all it is made out to be. Companies do this more in lines with the efficiency of the motor than the way the vehicle drives. In older systems that did not have this in place there would be no problem besides rich running. The drop in air density far greater compensates for the change in boost pressure as barometric pressure changes.

    On overall though I think it is both the consumers fault and the tuners that are willing to tune the cars to 1psi within breaking limit. This is mostly seen by the piggy back tuners and also the consumer who sits comparing dyno graphs and gets involved in fanaticism on internet forums. So if someone has left power on the table as Sticky said I would respect him more than the guy that tuned the last horse power out of a vehicle.

    The Autotune feature is a big step towards piggy back tuning and the fact that the Procede is starting to become a more stand alone solution is the greatest thing that could happen for the market. It knows what its asking the motor to do and it knows how to react when something goes wrong. Adding and subtracting voltage and running the car consistancy agains the OEM adaption maps is always going to have a final limitation especially now that we are starting to get more serious upgrades for our vehicles.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,852
    Rep Points
    31,579.5
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by George Smooth Click here to enlarge
    I think at a certain point the BMW Solution has take a secondary spot. If at the boost levels and CFM that cars like Enritas and others are running you are reliant on BMW safety measures you will be bound to have serious problems. The Safety measures that are incorporated in the BMW software are related to stock boost and the safety features are programmed with a problem that might occur at the factory boost level. Now when you start doubling the factory boost and increasing timing and you rely again on this system to save you then your tuning method is completely faulted. A super knock that can occur under extreme load at very high levels of boost can be silent and a split second is all that is need for the engine damage to occur. The programmed algorithms that the stock DME has will never compensate enough to save the motor.
    In my opinion the knock that can occur and is not heard can weaken the motor over time and give in at the strangest of times. In Enritas case it gave in whilst under extreme load but it cannot be excluded that some damage had not occurred prior and it was that run that a very slight knock caused the damage.

    As for the comments of leaving power on the table I think its smart to do this and barometric compensation is not all it is made out to be. Companies do this more in lines with the efficiency of the motor than the way the vehicle drives. In older systems that did not have this in place there would be no problem besides rich running. The drop in air density far greater compensates for the change in boost pressure as barometric pressure changes.

    On overall though I think it is both the consumers fault and the tuners that are willing to tune the cars to 1psi within breaking limit. This is mostly seen by the piggy back tuners and also the consumer who sits comparing dyno graphs and gets involved in fanaticism on internet forums. So if someone has left power on the table as Sticky said I would respect him more than the guy that tuned the last horse power out of a vehicle.

    The Autotune feature is a big step towards piggy back tuning and the fact that the Procede is starting to become a more stand alone solution is the greatest thing that could happen for the market. It knows what its asking the motor to do and it knows how to react when something goes wrong. Adding and subtracting voltage and running the car consistancy agains the OEM adaption maps is always going to have a final limitation especially now that we are starting to get more serious upgrades for our vehicles.
    Very solid post George.

    I would like to ask now what additional safety measures the various tuning solutions on the market have.

    Your feeling is that the factory setup is no longer adequate when pushing the limit and it definitely makes sense but the factory DME is also quite a sophisticated piece of technology that does incredible amounts of calculations per second. I don't see a piggyback solution eclipsing its monitoring capability but perhaps I am not giving some of the piggybacks enough credit.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,322
    Rep Points
    1,955.5
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Very solid post George.

    I would like to ask now what additional safety measures the various tuning solutions on the market have.

    Your feeling is that the factory setup is no longer adequate when pushing the limit and it definitely makes sense but the factory DME is also quite a sophisticated piece of technology that does incredible amounts of calculations per second. I don't see a piggyback solution eclipsing its monitoring capability but perhaps I am not giving some of the piggybacks enough credit.
    I wouldn't be caught up too much with the amounts of calculations per second, in my opinion after a certain point its marketing chargen. There are only so many events that can occur in a cycle of a combustion engine. There is no point in seeing or measuring a certain event such as knock for example 1000 times over. The argument is that should knock occur the right piggy back will be able react better knowing the true state of the motor than the DME reacting to information that is only percieved due to the alteration of signals. That's why boost and timing control must be controlled by the piggy as it only knows the true values of these.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    253
    Rep Points
    328.2
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    Let me ask this. If just picking say 8 or 14psi regardless of barometric pressure or air density was the ideal solution why did BMW bother with a much more complicated and dynamic approach?

    It's not only the peak values that alter but the entire shape of the curve.
    Admittedly, I don't know the answer.....but if I had to speculate, I would imagine it has something to do with producing smooth and consistent power levels.

    I recall reading something along those lines in the N54 technical papers. The stock programming targets a certain predetermined torque level.

    My thinking in this regard is that this is not the ideal logic for those seeking to make more power than stock.

    I think you speak to that when you say you altered the shape of the boost curve.

    But regardless.....both tuner methods work.

    Procede takes over with direct control while the JB indexes the stock control system and relies on layers of algorithms and PID logic to shape the stock curve.

    I don't have a problem with the stock curve at all. In fact when I run in stock mode, I find power delivery to be smoothest of all.

    It's when you start to push boost past stock levels that the tunes start to have problems with conflicts from the DME not being fooled 100% of the time.

    Boost oscillation due to throttle closure invoked by the stock safety systems reared it's ugly head and ruined day to day driveability.

    Obviously JB3 20 has gone a long way to predict and eliminate those variances, so the current versions are much better in this regard.

    But hey! Even procede has just gone through a period of boost hicuups and I have an ongoing little boost burp between 2nd and 3rd on low load when I shift around 3K.

    So no one is infallable and it's actually a good thing that both tunes still allow the DME to intervene when it has to, but as mentioned in the above post - you have to wonder whether that's enough when the DME doesn't really know what's going on?
    Last edited by DCAFS; 06-20-2010 at 11:18 AM.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    324
    Rep Points
    467.6
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    I'd like to mention the cp-e Standback (SB) in this thread for completeness. It controls the wastegates using two transistors and sends the factory wgdc signal to ground. The SB uses PID control logic to manage the wgdc and hit its target. It does so with incredible accuracy and speed relative to any other turbo application that I know about. BMW's vacuum controlled wastegates are to be commended for this.

    All this talk of autotuning and emulation of the DME's boost logic seems a bit misplaced to me and represents marketing spin on both sides. I believe the stock boost logic/throttle plate activity is supposed to be smooth and effective but for emissions purposes more than performance. This car does have to pass emissions and report mileage, etc.

    The SB is very simple to use and delivers exactly what a tuner desires - full control over fueling (scales the widebands), fuel pressure, boost (direct control of wg), timing (cps offsetting), a secondary fuel system (meth or fuel injectors). All of the tables can be individually configured to run on the map sensor or the throttle position sensor vs. rpm and they are 30x30 so exquisite control of every aspect of the car is possible. You can taper or not to your heart's content. Using it is very simple but the control is extremely complex. Until the implementation of CAN the SB suffered throttle closure and that was a problem. THat has been fixed and there is absolutely no closure whatsoever. In addition, map switching using in car controls has been added and code clearing will be implemented this week, again using in car controls.

    Finally with the SB being used to control the two single turbo applications in the works it's about to become a record holder in addition to a solid alternative for tuning the n54.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    40
    Rep Points
    17.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Adjusting boost up for warmer iats and down for cooler ones makes sense on a stock vehicle as to maintain consistency that most BMW drivers pay for. This works especially well considering how much overhead is left on the table with stock boost levels. When tuning for aggressive performance, that same system could be detrimental depending on targeted boost levels. A car tuned near peak performance would actually want the opposite to happen regarding iats.
    Last edited by pentaxis; 06-20-2010 at 01:04 PM.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,265
    Rep Points
    552.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by boom Click here to enlarge
    In addition, map switching using in car controls has been added and code clearing will be implemented this week, again using in car controls.
    Click here to enlarge

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    253
    Rep Points
    328.2
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by pentaxis Click here to enlarge
    Adjusting boost up for warmer iats and down for cooler ones makes sense on a stock vehicle as to maintain consistency that most BMW drivers pay for. This works especially well considering how much overhead is left on the table with stock boost levels. When tuning for aggressive performance, that same system could be detrimental depending on targeted boost levels. A car tuned near peak performance would actually want the opposite to happen regarding to iats.
    Thanks for expressing what I was trying to say! Click here to enlarge

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    641
    Rep Points
    76.9
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Good posts guys.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    324
    Rep Points
    467.6
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    You need to be clear about what you desire. Adjusting boost up at high IAT would be adding more air and consequently more fuel so power is maintained but the higher boost that you specified would result in higher temps as the turbo would be spinning faster. Therefore raising boost because of an already high IAT would result in hotter air and more chance of detonation. Additionally lowering boost b/c of low IAT may maintain consistency but you are robbed of the power than a colder intake charge would give you at the same boost.

    Most guys I know that tune their cars lower boost or rely on meth to keep temps low when the temps rise but love to drive as the ambient temps fall as the air is more dense, the charge cooler, the timing advanced, and power up.

    Raising boost when it's hot out and lowering it when it's cold is absolutely contrary to what you want to do for performance.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by pentaxis Click here to enlarge
    Adjusting boost up for warmer iats and down for cooler ones makes sense on a stock vehicle as to maintain consistency that most BMW drivers pay for. This works especially well considering how much overhead is left on the table with stock boost levels. When tuning for aggressive performance, that same system could be detrimental depending on targeted boost levels. A car tuned near peak performance would actually want the opposite to happen regarding iats.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,265
    Rep Points
    552.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Boom, care to elaborate on the new CAN features for the standback?

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    324
    Rep Points
    467.6
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I'm not at liberty to disclose all but I can confirm in car controls for map switching-map 1, 2, and valet and code clearing with feedback from the dash about what map you're in and that codes have been cleared. That's all I can confirm ATM but there is more to come and the concepts are really cool.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,265
    Rep Points
    552.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Wow, that gets me really excited Click here to enlarge

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •