Close

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 171
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,130
    Rep Points
    9,146.4
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92


    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No

    Talking BMS vs. Vishnu on N54 Air/Fuel Ratios

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by supracg Click here to enlarge
    V4 doesn't need new resistors to adjust AFRs to answer 654's questions, and like oddjob said the boost limitation is due to the car's sensor not the tune
    With the V4 you have 4.7k ohm fueling resistors on the board which limit how rich you can set the tuning to around 13.5:1 in the midrange and around 12.0:1 up top. With 1k resistors you can go to ~11.5:1 in the midrange down to ~10.5:1 if you want. Or use the software to dial in a nice level 11.5:1 curve all the way across. In a high load high heat high horsepower situation like this richer is definitely safer.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,174.3
    Mentioned
    2112 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    With the V4 you have 4.7k ohm fueling resistors on the board which limit how rich you can set the tuning to around 13.5:1 in the midrange and around 12.0:1 up top. With 1k resistors you can go to ~11.5:1 in the midrange down to ~10.5:1 if you want. Or use the software to dial in a nice level 11.5:1 curve all the way across. In a high load high heat high horsepower situation like this richer is definitely safer.
    The V4 can only run 13.5:1 in the midrange? That's it?

    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    642
    Rep Points
    97.0
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    0 out of 2 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 654 Click here to enlarge
    So can we conclude that V4 is not well suited for stg 2 upgrades because of having the boost limitation and having no ability to change the fueling resistors for keeping it rich for safety purposes?
    Contrary to what Terry suggests, you don't need to change any hardware on the Procede to support upgraded turbos. No fueling resisters. No "safety" resistors. Nothing. Just upload the standard map and leave autotuning ON. Or just upload a more aggressive map (less top end taper) that we specifically designed for the TD, EPL and ASR turbos. We limit boost to 20psi. Although we have run up to 21psi on the ASR turbos and tested it doing 1 mile runs in hot and humid florida.

    And listening to Terry promote safety given his ignition-control-by-knock approach is too much irony for even someone like me. And for anyone one else who knows how to tune an engine Click here to enlarge

    Shiv

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,174.3
    Mentioned
    2112 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    Contrary to what Terry suggests, you don't need to change any hardware on the Procede to support upgraded turbos. No fueling resisters. No "safety" resistors. Nothing. Just upload the standard map and leave autotuning ON. Or just upload a more aggressive map (less top end taper) that we specifically designed for the TD, EPL and ASR turbos. We limit boost to 20psi. Although we have run up to 21psi on the ASR turbos and tested it doing 1 mile runs in hot and humid florida.

    And listening to Terry promote safety given his ignition-control-by-knock approach is too much irony for even someone like me. And for anyone one else who knows how to tune an engine Click here to enlarge

    Shiv
    Are you limited on the fueling as suggested?

    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    642
    Rep Points
    97.0
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 2 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Are you limited on the fueling as suggested?
    lol.. nope Click here to enlarge Terry's mistake when designing the jb3 was not trying to copy the procede's fueling enrichment circuitry. So instead of using the 4.7kOhm resistors we used, went for something bigger which has less influence over o2 sensor biasing. We were actually the first ones to implement such a design which was later adopted by everyone else. CP-E asked me how it worked during a dyno day in Maryland. And Terry asked me on e90post. But judging by some comments, i still don't think many people (tuners included) understand how it works and how to actually implement it.

    Shiv

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,130
    Rep Points
    9,146.4
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92



    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    lol.. nope Click here to enlarge Terry's mistake when designing the jb3 was not trying to copy the procede's fueling enrichment circuitry. So instead of using the 4.7kOhm resistors we used, went for something bigger which has less influence over o2 sensor biasing. We were actually the first ones to implement such a design which was later adopted by everyone else. CP-E asked me how it worked during a dyno day in Maryland. And Terry asked me on e90post. But judging by some comments, i still don't think many people (tuners included) understand how it works and how to actually implement it.

    Shiv
    Shiv,

    Save the bull$#@! for e90post.

    Those 4.7k fueling resistors you selected limit how rich you can set the air/fuel ratio target. To produce the nice rich air/fuel curve the flash tuners provide you need at least 1k resistors. 13.5:1 in the midrange is fine for 16psi but too lean for those pushing the boundaries of the platform IMHO. So rather than flailing around the issue why don't you just make the change? It's not like 1k resistors cost more than 4.7k resistors?

    In Enrico's case the 18 ohm was supposed to have 3.3k resistors but apparently he got his before we started doing that. Yet another detail that didn't go in the right direction for him. Click here to enlarge

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,462
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    I LOVE THIS PLACE!!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    642
    Rep Points
    97.0
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    0 out of 2 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Terry telling me to "cut the bull$#@!.". Too much humor too early in the morning Click here to enlarge

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,174.3
    Mentioned
    2112 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    Terry telling me to "cut the bull$#@!.". Too much humor too early in the morning Click here to enlarge
    Trying to make sense as to which one of you is right on this is a pain sometimes. You say you aren't limited on fuel and Terry says the resistors you choose can't go beyond 13.5:1 in the mid range which may be a liability in higher boost applications. Is there any proof one way or the other?

    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,130
    Rep Points
    9,146.4
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92



    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Here are a few dynos I did back when we were setting up the mapping for the 1k fueling resistors. The car has cats so you can't get a very accurate tailpipe air/fuel reading on it until the exhaust gets flowing but on our LM1 we were hitting 12.5:1 @ 2500rpm down to 11:1 @ 4000rpm and holding that to redline. Those are the kind of air/fuel ratios people pushing the boundaries should be running IMHO.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Terry@BMS; 07-02-2010 at 01:18 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,130
    Rep Points
    9,146.4
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92



    Yes Reputation No
    For comparison here is one of Shiv's customers nitrous dyno runs on his 4.7k fueling resistors. He's catless so gets a better tailpipe reading, but you can clearly see the target is ~13.2:1 in the midrange instead of ~11:1.

    Click here to enlarge

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6,684
    Rep Points
    3,343.8
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    34


    Yes Reputation No
    very interesting discussion on AFR control...

    Terry,
    Were you just changing out fueling resistors on that dyno chart, making more power by going richer?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,130
    Rep Points
    9,146.4
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno Click here to enlarge
    very interesting discussion on AFR control...

    Terry,
    Were you just changing out fueling resistors on that dyno chart, making more power by going richer?
    No the power was with extra boost. On a dynojet (partial load) doing short pulls output has proven to be relatively insensitive to the air/fuel ratios. Where they really come in to play is on the road.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    642
    Rep Points
    97.0
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    0 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    This is classic.

    According to the graphs Terry posted:

    RPM 1.1k Jb3 "4.7k" procede
    2500 14.5 13.5
    3000 14.0 13.0
    3500 13.5 13.0
    4000 11.75 12.0
    4500 10.5 12.0
    5000 11.0 11.0
    5500 11.0 11.0
    6000 11.0 11.0
    6500 11.0 11.0

    Is that about right?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,130
    Rep Points
    9,146.4
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    This is classic.

    According to the graphs Terry posted:

    RPM 1.1k Jb3 "4.7k" procede
    2500 14.5 13.5
    3000 14.0 13.0
    3500 13.5 13.0
    4000 11.75 12.0
    4500 10.5 12.0
    5000 11.0 11.0
    5500 11.0 11.0
    6000 11.0 11.0
    6500 11.0 11.0

    Is that about right?
    Looks like this to me:
    RPM JB3 V4
    3500 13 13
    4000 11.5 13
    4500 10.5 12.5
    5000 11 11.5
    5500 11 11.8
    6000 11.25 11.8

    JB3 car is catted, V4 isn't. JB3 also has the exhaust flapper in place. So the lower RPM air/fuel ratios are not accurate. But with the 1k fueling resistors you can go as rich as 10:1 up top if you want. It becomes a matter of mapping. It's really a no brainer and you should change them. Just have your customers send the boards back, solder the right resistors on, and send it back to them. Especially the higher power guys. We went with 1k on our new board and on the G3 board they are of course user changeable.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    642
    Rep Points
    97.0
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    0 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    So the low end AFR isn't accurate due to muffler design? And the comparison isn't fair because the jb3 car is catted. And you can go richer up top if you wanted to? And that rich spike at 4500rpm is intended and desirable. Got it.

    Shiv

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,130
    Rep Points
    9,146.4
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    So the low end AFR isn't accurate due to muffler design? And the comparison isn't fair because the jb3 car is catted. And you can go richer up top if you wanted to? And that rich spike at 4500rpm is intended and desirable. Got it.

    Shiv
    Sigh. Why do you make these discussions such a chore? Does playing stupid really benefit your sales enough to make it worth it?

    Yes the exhaust flapper and cats make reading air/fuel ratios from the tailpipe more difficul at low RPM. Anyway here are some more dyno charts. One from a V4 (4.7k), one from a JB3 (5.1k), those two on the same car same dyno, and an overlay of the JB3 1k testing from our catted car running a similar boost level.

    Note how the normal V4 and JB3 are only able to target 13.5 in the midrange and 12:1 up top. Most air/fuel curves posted will follow this exact same air/fuel curve as they are riding the limits of the hardware's ability to target a richer air/fuel ratio. In the case of the JB3 we ride those resistors on maps 6+.

    Then compare that curve with the 1k testing. To put this in terms you might understand we'll just call it JB3 CANtargetadecentairfuelratio for now. And that 11:1 curve is not riding the limit of the resistors meaning it could be set richer in the software if wanted.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    642
    Rep Points
    97.0
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    0 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    There you go again Terry. You are comparing the differences in AFR targets between different tunes/maps. Not the lowest AFR target the tunes are capable of achieving. I admit, I do get a charge listening to you try to prove points that you can't possibly prove with the data you are privy to. And I've learned a long time ago to stop feeding you info.

    But this is all very ironic. You are claiming that we are doing something dangerous which is disingenuous at best. Yet you convinced yourself (and some others) that riding the knock sensor by 4-5 degrees, all the time, is a-okay. Only later to change your tune (pun not intended) once you tried "tuning" the n55 and realized that BMW stopped you dead in your tracks with a less forgiving knock control system. And now you angle your pitch suggesting that only some cars/users need these "advanced" features. While others can knock away.

    So we've been here before. You can move onwards telling people how dangerous things like torque targeting, can-based boost control, CPS offsetting, direct boost control, 4.7k resistors, etc are. And I can go back and watching you try to copy us a year later when your die-hards stop believing you and move on to a fully functional tune that doesn't limp every time it is driven hard.

    How many board revisions are you on now? 4 or 5? And your boards still only kinda sorta controls boost and biases the factory widebands? Give me a break Terry. Or at least some popcorn to munch on while I watch you do your chicken dance of tuning. In a thread that describes how your "custom" tune blew up a engine no less. The irony is overwhelming.

    Shiv

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,130
    Rep Points
    9,146.4
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
    There you go again Terry. You are comparing the differences in AFR targets between different tunes/maps. Not the lowest AFR target the tunes are capable of achieving. I admit, I do get a charge listening to you try to prove points that you can't possibly prove with the data you are privy to. And I've learned a long time ago to stop feeding you info.
    I really don't get why you're trying so hard to obscure and dodge around the very simple subject of air/fuel ratios. A little A.D.D. perhaps?

    This isn't complicated. The dyno plot above (same car) represents the maximum attenuation out of the PROcede 4.7k resistors. There is dyno to dyno variance on o2 sensors so comparing the same dyno same car is a best practice as has been done above.

    Are you suggesting 4.7k and 5.1k fueling resistors are not functionally equivalent in this application? Because if so ohm's law disagrees with you. @ 2.25v (wideband voltage) 4.7k will give you .47ma and 5.1k .44ma. To get the flash tune style air/fuel ratios you need 2.25ma or around 5 times the attenuation.

    At moderate 13-16psi boost levels the 13.5-12:1 air/fuel ratio has worked well. It's OK. But there are tuning benefits in being able to go much richer and it's clear with our testing those richer air/fuel targets can be hit.

    ...

    Let's just rewind the clock and make this conversation much more productive for you and your customers:
    Terry: We've found with 1k fueling resistors we can support a much richer air/fuel ratio. It's a worthwhile change for higher HP guys.
    Shiv: Good idea. I'll update their boards with the 1k resistors and setup a user adjustable option for them to dial in their desired air/fuel ratios as you have.

    Now wasn't that easier? Click here to enlarge
    Last edited by Terry@BMS; 07-02-2010 at 05:19 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    642
    Rep Points
    97.0
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    0 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry
    I really don't get why you're trying so hard to obscure and dodge around the very simple subject of air/fuel ratios. A little A.D.D. perhaps?

    This isn't complicated. The dyno plot above (same car) represents the maximum attenuation out of the PROcede 4.7k resistors. There is dyno to dyno variance on o2 sensors so comparing the same dyno same car is a best practice as has been done above.

    Are you suggesting 4.7k and 5.1k fueling resistors are not functionally equivalent in this application? Because if so ohm's law disagrees with you. at 2.25v (wideband voltage) 4.7k will give you .47ma and 5.1k .44ma. To get the flash tune style air/fuel ratios you need 2.25ma or around 5 times the attenuation.

    At moderate 13-16psi boost levels the 13.5-12:1 air/fuel ratio has worked well. It's OK. But there are tuning benefits in being able to go much richer and it's clear with our testing those richer air/fuel targets can be hit.

    ...

    Let's just rewind the clock and make this conversation much more productive for you and your customers:
    Terry: We've found with 1k fueling resistors we can support a much richer air/fuel ratio. It's a worthwhile change for higher HP guys.
    Shiv: Good idea. I'll update their boards with the 1k resistors and setup a user adjustable option for them to dial in their desired air/fuel ratios as you have.

    Now wasn't that easier? Click here to enlarge
    I'll try to make this clear. We developed this method of fuel control, you just copied. Fact.

    And during development, we tried more than 1 resistor value as you can probably imagine. If you go back to our wire-in v1 days (with XEDE), you will even see some of the early pre-production units has 3.3k and others at 2.4ks. And the first in-house prototypes even had 1ks. Have you stopped for a moment to think that there may be a reason we ended up using 4.7k?

    Do you expect me to tell you what is wrong with using too low of a value? Am I going to spread FUD and tell people the risk involved with your more is better approach? I haven't. And I won't. Let's just say you have your way. And we have ours. But my money is on history repeating itself (ie, you copying us) Click here to enlarge

    Shiv

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,130
    Rep Points
    9,146.4
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by enrita Click here to enlarge
    My shop could also be bullshitting me... Do crankshaft/rods bearings need to be replaced when you rebuild an engine with the old parts in question? Maybe they forgot themselves to order them. Impossible for me to find out.
    This fueling and afr conversion is very interesting and good info.
    Would have been interesting to know what kind of afr i was running on jb3 on the high boost settings. With giac my afr were spot on and on the fat side on oem turbos. I will definetely put the car on the dyno and check the v4 afr with the dyno probe and the additional aem afr bosch lambda sensor.
    With the normal 5k fueling resistors probably too lean for the power levels. Click here to enlarge For 18ohm board should have been 3.3k but yours was an older one I think.

    Will be interesting to see your dyno air/fuel V4 vs. flash tune. The flash tuners target very rich ratios in the midrange. Ratios the 4.7k resistors will not be able to touch.
    Last edited by Terry@BMS; 07-02-2010 at 07:28 PM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,130
    Rep Points
    9,146.4
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    I'll try to make this clear. We developed this method of fuel control, you just copied. Fact.

    And during development, we tried more than 1 resistor value as you can probably imagine. If you go back to our wire-in v1 days (with XEDE), you will even see some of the early pre-production units has 3.3k and others at 2.4ks. And the first in-house prototypes even had 1ks. Have you stopped for a moment to think that there may be a reason we ended up using 4.7k?

    Do you expect me to tell you what is wrong with using too low of a value? Am I going to spread FUD and tell people the risk involved with your more is better approach? I haven't. And I won't. Let's just say you have your way. And we have ours. But my money is on history repeating itself (ie, you copying us) Click here to enlarge

    Shiv
    So Siemens had nothing to do with it? They setup the ECU with current based primary oxygen sensors just like they setup the ECU with voltage based boost sensors. Their configuration determines how we must alter the signal and if you want to alter a current based sensor you must add or remove current. You taking credit for oxygen sensor biasing would be like claiming you invented the voltage divider circuit. Actually come to think of it I do think you made some claim like that once?

    Back in the JB2 days we went with 5k resistors as the JB2 had only a simplistic function for fuel control and was not able to precisely set a voltage. We needed something that would hit around 12:1 @ 0v and the 5k fit the bill. Those carried over to the JB3 as the air/fuel ratios worked well for the power levels we were looking for. For a time we had to go leaner than ideal to avoid tuner codes.

    Then we developed our fuel pressure control, which you copied later on James Lambos car, which took care of the tuner codes leaving us free to go with whatever fueling resistor value we wanted. But the 13.5->12:1 / 5k has remained the primary target for the normal board and 3.3k for the race board. For the future we'll just make them all 1k and control it on the software end. It's a much better and more flexible approach.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,462
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    ...
    Do you expect me to tell you what is wrong with using too low of a value? Am I going to spread FUD and tell people the risk involved with your more is better approach? I haven't. And I won't. Let's just say you have your way. And we have ours...
    Shiv
    I know nothin about the conversation, but based on every, EVERY thread that you are on, speaking about the JB3, you are always willing throw a jab whenevr you see an openeing. With that being said .. your lack of doing so here makes us suspect as to why..


    BTW have i told anyone how much I LOVE THIS PLACE!! Only here can your read everything both sides want to say from their own mouths Click here to enlarge

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,174.3
    Mentioned
    2112 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322


    Yes Reputation No
    New thread created for this discussion.

    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6,684
    Rep Points
    3,343.8
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    34


    Yes Reputation No
    Where?

Page 1 of 7 123 ... 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
  •