Close

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 112
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,129
    Rep Points
    9,106.3
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92


    Yes Reputation No
    Like I was telling Tony I have a limited amount of time for development. Keep in mind we support many models now several of which we're busy launching new products for. So jumping in to a possibly endless development cycle for a non CAN based boost control scheme that I don't believe in, isn't going to happen. Now I would like to get the N54 cyl 2-6 logging going. On the F30 N55 motor and N20 motors we're able to log knock count directly by cylinder. We can also use Cobbs logging scheme to record it in the N54 JB4 but the catch is the JB4 doesn't work properly when doing that. So right now its just one of those R&D type things I'm poking around at when time permits. If I had big turbos on my personal car I'm sure it would get more attention... Click here to enlarge

    Practically speaking though, this is sort of the job. You determine how you want to tune something and if what you require doesn't exist then you either make it yourself or come up with a workaround. If you're not up for that then maybe you've bitten off a bit more than you can chew with this for the moment.
    Burger Motorsports
    Home of the Worlds fastest N20s, N54s, N55s, N63s, S55s, and S63s!

    It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser and installer of any BMS part to employ the correct installation techniques required to ensure the proper operation of BMS parts, and BMS disclaims any and all liability for any part failure due to improper installation or use. It is the sole responsibility of the customer to verify that the use of their vehicle and items purchased comply with federal, state and local regulations. BMS claims no legal federal, state or local certification concerning pollution controlled motor vehicles or mandated emissions requirements. BMS products labeled for use only in competition racing vehicles may only be used on competition racing vehicles operated exclusively on a closed course in conjunction with a sanctioned racing event, in accordance with all federal and state laws, and may never be operated on public roads/highways. Please see http://www.burgertuning.com/emissions_info.html for more information on legal requirements related to use of BMS parts.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    937
    Rep Points
    562.7
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by vasillalov Click here to enlarge
    Terry, I apologize if I am diverting things a bit off topic. An engine spinning at 7,000 rpms equates to roughly 116 revs per second. This means 116Hz

    Please, excuse my utter ignorance on this matter, but how is it that a 10Hz sample rate allows you to do reliable tuning of an engine that spins 10 TIMES faster?
    I'm going to try being smart... And haven't read all the long responses yet... I'm sure Terry is accurate.

    The piggy interface doesn't really need the info real time. Any pass through signals like throttle, MAP, or procede only, meth flow, is not limited to 10hz... or actions taken by the piggy are also not limited to 10hz... Only the CAN info. A couple of these signals are needed, most is just channels for logging or autotune. Boost setpoint, DME throttle (minority)... I'm sure there's others. These are not time critical and DME has control. piggy info is fed directly to the DME, not through the CAN bus.

    Tomorrow when I'm sober, I'll be curious to reread this.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    642
    Rep Points
    97.0
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzennoProTUNING Freaks Click here to enlarge
    I still don't understand why the community isn't pressing the piggyback vendors, especially those with single turbos out there, for exposing this critical data when its available. It'd make for much better overall tunes down the road and make them evolve too in the way that it'd eliminate some of the guesswork there. Is it because CPS wouldn't be able to pull out enough timing where required and would cause misfires? I know that was the case from my own testing. When trying to pull significant amounts of timing with CPS the car would misfire. This was apparent on a number of cars. In fact about 3-4deg of CPS offset was about a safe limit of what it could do without issues.
    Our baseline Aggressive v5 maps pull up to 7-8 deg of retard via CPS offsetting and they don't misfire. And we have a few thousand people running them I'm guessing. Our single turbo maps advance and retard timing (through CPS offsetting) based upon IAT. And they seem to drive rather well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your car still misfires if you were to enable misfire detection again.

    But none of that matters. Who cares about CPS, its bogus and outdated. Today everyone running a stacked setup has the ability to flash for timing as well as fuel, vanos and any other required tables. Thanks to the community's efforts we can also use the Alpina flash to flash the TCU and get more out of the previously suffering high powered 6AT cars.
    CPS offsetting is the only way to map active ignition advance setpoint changes based up on methanol flow, ethanol content, etc,. This means it is just another tool that allows tuners to actually tune. I don't think it's a good idea to defend tuning limitations because you think doing it another way (that works) is "bad". I understand that you are enthusiastic about your new tuning gig. And that's great. But part of being enthusiastic should include trying new things and spending time on getting them to work before saying that they are bogus or outdated.

    Taking shortcuts gets us nowhere the right way. Back 2 years ago it was thought N54 had about 450whp worth of fuel in it and it was deemed pointless building a big turbo setup on it without upgrading the car's perfectly capable hardware.
    Not everyone thought this.

    I want to simply keep on pushing the envelope while doing it through the DME where/whenever possible. I want to use all the kickass data and capabilities available to push the platform further.
    But while keeping boost under 19psi?Click here to enlarge

    Like Josh, I'll be curious to reread this when I'm sober.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    3,309
    Rep Points
    1,439.3
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by VargasTurboTech Click here to enlarge
    Because you have to taper the boost on all of them towards redline to keep them alive. 21 psi+ on hyrbrids isn't feasible with the back pressure issues they have. D step in, if that is not the only reason, but I know that the major one.
    wouldn't it still effect you if you ran >21 in the midrange?

  5. #55
    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
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    Like I was telling Tony I have a limited amount of time for development. Keep in mind we support many models now several of which we're busy launching new products for. So jumping in to a possibly endless development cycle for a non CAN based boost control scheme that I don't believe in, isn't going to happen. Now I would like to get the N54 cyl 2-6 logging going. On the F30 N55 motor and N20 motors we're able to log knock count directly by cylinder. We can also use Cobbs logging scheme to record it in the N54 JB4 but the catch is the JB4 doesn't work properly when doing that. So right now its just one of those R&D type things I'm poking around at when time permits. If I had big turbos on my personal car I'm sure it would get more attention... Click here to enlarge

    Practically speaking though, this is sort of the job. You determine how you want to tune something and if what you require doesn't exist then you either make it yourself or come up with a workaround. If you're not up for that then maybe you've bitten off a bit more than you can chew with this for the moment.
    If you can get cyl 2-6 timing logging I'd have no problem stacking for additional boost. That'd be a very welcome change on the JB4 at least for me.

    There really is no job in my case. There's just goals with the way I'd like to do things pushing power. I'm looking to keep all the visibility I can. The reason behind this thread is Cobb's delay of a couple months in releasing the boost limit removal instead of where we had hoped it'd be released which was by this weekend.

    There's no big bites that can't be swallowed here. There's bites that I'd rather leave on the plate for now as I'm out of ketchup Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JoshBoody Click here to enlarge
    I'm going to try being smart... And haven't read all the long responses yet... I'm sure Terry is accurate.

    The piggy interface doesn't really need the info real time. Any pass through signals like throttle, MAP, or procede only, meth flow, is not limited to 10hz... or actions taken by the piggy are also not limited to 10hz... Only the CAN info. A couple of these signals are needed, most is just channels for logging or autotune. Boost setpoint, DME throttle (minority)... I'm sure there's others. These are not time critical and DME has control. piggy info is fed directly to the DME, not through the CAN bus.

    Tomorrow when I'm sober, I'll be curious to reread this.
    Take a look at what I posted next time before rushing to respond.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    Our baseline Aggressive v5 maps pull up to 7-8 deg of retard via CPS offsetting and they don't misfire. And we have a few thousand people running them I'm guessing. Our single turbo maps advance and retard timing (through CPS offsetting) based upon IAT. And they seem to drive rather well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your car still misfires if you were to enable misfire detection again.
    You're wrong. My car stopped misfiring entirely while testing the Vargas prototype twins. This was on a lot more boost and timing than what I had before. Why it stopped I don't know as this was considerably more power and torque than I ran before when it did trigger misfires.

    Regardless though I've got a single mass flywheel and a 3+ spec clutch on the car as of last night and thanks to the community's efforts this issue should be gone for good even if it were lingering to show up again on the DMFW.

    In terms of your Aggressive V5 maps and CPS based retard. Retarding timing with CPS isn't the same at low RPM vs. high RPM as you know. Are you confident and have you tested pulling 7-8deg of CPS retard at say 6500rpm? I'd be very curious. Last time that was tested the car misfired every time (last year summer on a local car). If you've fixed it then great.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    CPS offsetting is the only way to map active ignition advance setpoint changes based up on methanol flow, ethanol content, etc,. This means it is just another tool that allows tuners to actually tune. I don't think it's a good idea to defend tuning limitations because you think doing it another way (that works) is "bad". I understand that you are enthusiastic about your new tuning gig. And that's great. But part of being enthusiastic should include trying new things and spending time on getting them to work before saying that they are bogus or outdated.
    Nothing is being defended. I'm just being open and transparent with what we have and what we'd like to use while boost limited on the DME side. We have a boost limit right now and simply can't calibrate past 22psi through the DME. In terms of trying new things, this thread is new. I was/am trying to see who is willing to adapt their piggyback so it can be used with a Cobb AP in a way where existing visibility isn't lost the way it is today when stacking a procede or a jb4. I could've sent an email privately too but that would be sort of too much behind closed doors sort of approach for me so I wanted it out in the wild to try for an open discussion.

    CPS was bogus last summer trying to pull more than about 3-4deg of timing through it and it'd misfire at high RPM. If it can do 7-8deg at high RPM without misfiring I think that's a good range to work with on a stock motor setup with its factory compression.

    Why did you end up flashing the base timing curve if you could cover the entire range with CPS reliably? Other than solely because you have the ability to flash the timing table.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    Not everyone thought this.
    Are you kidding me? Click here to enlarge Without a base re-flash and before it became the norm on some setups including your flex-fuel and ST setups you posted yourself many times about 440-450whp limit and 470whp on race gas without reaching for meth for fueling itself. This was before Cobb came to the scene and before I showed you you could get more fuel by stacking which you at first called blasphemy on and then implemented yourself. Things change I realize that but let's be honest here.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    But while keeping boost under 19psi?Click here to enlarge
    Click here to enlarge For now it may just be pump gas numbers that we do and as you probably know there isn't much boost you can run on a stock compression car with ACN 91 or 93 pump gas. I'm not one to rush this just to get numbers. If the kit was on my own car that's a different story in terms of showing numbers and pushing limits Click here to enlarge Even if I did on my car I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone nor would I recommend such a tune to the general public.

    My mission is simple. Given the boost limit on the DME side I am looking for an external boost controller that won't intrude or a piggyback that'll log timing across the board. This thread is making it quite obvious neither of these will happen for one reason or another. Bunch of excuses, nonsense posts by Joshboody, but it is what it is.

    I'm personally happy working on some kick ass pump gas numbers and 22psi for right now if the means of pushing further simply aren't available. It is more than plenty to make that happen on stock compression. Looking forward to those numbers next week.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    Like Josh, I'll be curious to reread this when I'm sober.
    Are you talking to yourself here? LOL
    Last edited by dzenno@PTF; 03-09-2013 at 09:28 AM.
    Click here to enlarge

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    919
    Rep Points
    780.4
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Yes Reputation No
    Thanks for the clarification guys.
    From all the things I've lost,
    I miss my mind the most!
    Click here to enlarge

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    389
    Rep Points
    2.0
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    3 out of 6 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    Our baseline Aggressive v5 maps pull up to 7-8 deg of retard via CPS offsetting and they don't misfire. And we have a few thousand people running them I'm guessing. Our single turbo maps advance and retard timing (through CPS offsetting) based upon IAT. And they seem to drive rather well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your car still misfires if you were to enable misfire detection again.

    CPS offsetting is the only way to map active ignition advance setpoint changes based up on methanol flow, ethanol content, etc,. This means it is just another tool that allows tuners to actually tune. I don't think it's a good idea to defend tuning limitations because you think doing it another way (that works) is "bad". I understand that you are enthusiastic about your new tuning gig. And that's great. But part of being enthusiastic should include trying new things and spending time on getting them to work before saying that they are bogus or outdated.
    Not everyone thought this. But while keeping boost under 19psi?Click here to enlarge

    Like Josh, I'll be curious to reread this when I'm sober.
    Shocked to say this, but good post shiv!Click here to enlarge You actually should have said: You guys spend half the time bashing me, and giving me neg rep points, now you want info from me on how to advance projects from my would be competitors?

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    3,309
    Rep Points
    1,439.3
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Yes Reputation No
    is it a DME limit or cobb limit on the 21psi thing?

    why can't they just code out the 21psi limit in the tuning software in a few minutes?

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Houston under a book
    Posts
    1,404
    Rep Points
    2,675.5
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    27


    Yes Reputation No
    F@$# me shiv made a somewhat useful post here, he must have been drunk. Wait he was... Anyway, CPS offset sucks other than as a tuning tool for meth failsafes imo. You are offsetting the entire timing of events if I understand it correctly, which means also offsetting injection events. I don't like this one bit for base tuning.

  10. #60
    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
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    is it a DME limit or cobb limit on the 21psi thing?

    why can't they just code out the 21psi limit in the tuning software in a few minutes?
    With the 3.5bar sensor on the car the actual limit is 22.5psi at the moment so we have about 22psi of tunable boost. With the OEM tmap this tunable boost limit is at around 21psi.

    Thing to keep in mind is this sort of high boost support is something that was worked on sort of off hours by some guys at Cobb enthusiastic enough to help. This wasn't a top priority in their projects to my knowledge. Our initial update was that they'd work on handling the limit when the hardware became available and that it wouldn't take a huge amount of time. The last update, after their further in-depth research, was that it'd take a couple months due to complexity in altering the ROMs to support it properly. I'm sure if it were a top priority on the table an update would be released much sooner.

    It is not a flag or value where you set a limit. Everything in the DME is modeled based on MAF, VE. All of it needs appropriate recalibration/adjustment to not have issues while tuning. It may look simple on the outside (e.g. change the boost limit from 21 to 100psi) but apparently BMW engineers didn't make it that simple and, it is what it is.
    Click here to enlarge

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Naples, FL
    Posts
    2,086
    Rep Points
    2,205.2
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23


    Yes Reputation No
    I agree with Dzenno. I think its better to be able to completely see everything while pushing forward, than to blindly raise boost until it pops.

    That is how they "used" to do it, and we are now much farther ahead than we were back than, and even now with car's that don't have that ability.

    Please Dzenno, don't give into the "blind" approach.

    Terry, are you buying a prototype/beta(even though there is no official beta) of these S3s?

    Keep up the good work everybody.




  12. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Roanoke VA
    Posts
    1,632
    Rep Points
    2,248.3
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    Not everyone thought this.
    WHOA, stop the $#@!ing bus here.

    While working on the ST kits, and at the same time the fuel system upgrades, you made it PERFECTLY clear that there was a fuel system limit at 450hp without methanol. You repeated this several times while talking about how much of an improvement the fuel system upgrade will make. In fact, that was your whole reasoning behind the "Vishnu fuel ystem reasearch" thread.
    Click here to enlarge
    MOTIV750, MOTIV P-1000 PI, MOTIV/FUEL-IT! low pressure fuel system, AEM EMS/COBB AP, Aquamist HFS-3, ETS FMIC, SPEC stage 3+ clutch/SS flywheel, BC Racing coilovers and VMR wheels wrapped in Hankook RS3s.

  13. #63
    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
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rader1 Click here to enlarge
    WHOA, stop the $#@!ing bus here.

    While working on the ST kits, and at the same time the fuel system upgrades, you made it PERFECTLY clear that there was a fuel system limit at 450hp without methanol. You repeated this several times while talking about how much of an improvement the fuel system upgrade will make. In fact, that was your whole reasoning behind the "Vishnu fuel ystem reasearch" thread.
    He's no doubt a great tuner but he'd make an even greater politician. I couldn't believe he said that.
    Click here to enlarge

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    51
    Rep Points
    84.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    4 out of 6 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    This whole discussion illustrates my fear with cobb, which is that it will not evolve fast enough with the needs of the n54 community. Though they can't be faulted for as I'm sure they have a lot on their plate.

    This platform needs a good open source tuning solution, one where anyone skilled enough can push things forward.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Houston under a book
    Posts
    1,404
    Rep Points
    2,675.5
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    27


    Yes Reputation No
    Maybe he wasn't referring to himself as the one that thought that? His statement was kinda open ended, could have meant the guys at Cobb didn't think that.....



    Naaaaah. Some good points, but still a tool. At least he was semi constructive. Usually it's more "you're doing it wrong" garbage. If he becomes a politician I'm moving to Canada.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    884
    Rep Points
    1,435.3
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Yes Reputation No
    @dzenno how were you able to tune north of 22.5 psi in your car when you made the 553hp 631wtq?

    Here's the quote from your thread: "In terms of the tune, it was running more than 22.5psi in midrange, 19.7psi peak at 6k rpm, 17.5-18psi at redline. Logs of actual boost in midrange aren't available as I found out that ATP's datalogging needs to be updated to accomodate the 3.5bar scaling. I was going off my p3 gauge for midrange boost when pushed past the 22.5psi datalogging limit."

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,129
    Rep Points
    9,106.3
    Mentioned
    644 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    92


    4 out of 4 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    OK Tony & D I made a present for you guys. I found an old JB+ I had sitting around, put a N20 3.5 bar sensor connector on one end, gutted the JB+ code and replaced it with code that will read the 3.5 bar sensor and output a normal 2.25 bar output for the DME to read. And then scaled the pot to linearly reduce from 0% to 15% of the boost value over 3psi. Should up your usable limit from the factory 21psi to around 26psi. To use this you'll need to switch the Cobb back to the logic that uses the factory TMAP sensor. I'd increase the global fuel scaling offset maybe 15% to account for the variance. You'll need a physical boost gauge on the car as well to verify actual boost vs. DME observed boost.

    Just say the word and you can play with it. Click here to enlarge
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Burger Motorsports
    Home of the Worlds fastest N20s, N54s, N55s, N63s, S55s, and S63s!

    It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser and installer of any BMS part to employ the correct installation techniques required to ensure the proper operation of BMS parts, and BMS disclaims any and all liability for any part failure due to improper installation or use. It is the sole responsibility of the customer to verify that the use of their vehicle and items purchased comply with federal, state and local regulations. BMS claims no legal federal, state or local certification concerning pollution controlled motor vehicles or mandated emissions requirements. BMS products labeled for use only in competition racing vehicles may only be used on competition racing vehicles operated exclusively on a closed course in conjunction with a sanctioned racing event, in accordance with all federal and state laws, and may never be operated on public roads/highways. Please see http://www.burgertuning.com/emissions_info.html for more information on legal requirements related to use of BMS parts.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hayward, CA
    Posts
    7,920
    Rep Points
    3,985.4
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 2000max Click here to enlarge
    This whole discussion illustrates my fear with cobb, which is that it will not evolve fast enough with the needs of the n54 community. Though they can't be faulted for as I'm sure they have a lot on their plate.

    This platform needs a good open source tuning solution, one where anyone skilled enough can push things forward.
    Not evolve fast enough with the platform? We are talking about a 6 year old platform that just now got its first real dual turbo upgrade right? Cause if that is your idea of a fast evolution I would love to see your idea of slow.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hayward, CA
    Posts
    7,920
    Rep Points
    3,985.4
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    OK Tony & D I made a present for you guys. I found an old JB+ I had sitting around, put a N20 3.5 bar sensor connector on one end, gutted the JB+ code and replaced it with code that will read the 3.5 bar sensor and output a normal 2.25 bar output for the DME to read. And then scaled the pot to linearly reduce from 0% to 15% of the boost value over 3psi. Should up your usable limit from the factory 21psi to around 26psi. To use this you'll need to switch the Cobb back to the logic that uses the factory TMAP sensor. I'd increase the global fuel scaling offset maybe 15% to account for the variance. You'll need a physical boost gauge on the car as well to verify actual boost vs. DME observed boost.

    Just say the word and you can play with it. Click here to enlarge
    T, you are awesome man thanks...Click here to enlarge Ship it out whenever you get a chance. We will be finalizing the 91 map this weekend and will prob need it next week. Thanks again

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hayward, CA
    Posts
    7,920
    Rep Points
    3,985.4
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Turkeybaster115 Click here to enlarge
    Shocked to say this, but good post shiv!Click here to enlarge You actually should have said: You guys spend half the time bashing me, and giving me neg rep points, now you want info from me on how to advance projects from my would be competitors?
    Curious as to who asked Shiv for any info on anything? Cause I know me or Dzenno didn't. In a post the other day Shiv actually said he would write us some firmware for the Procede if I remember reading it write. I thought that was pretty cool of him. Unlike a lot of people here I don't have a problem with either camp and try to stay neutral. But I am just curious as to where we asked him for any help?

  21. #71
    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
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    OK Tony & D I made a present for you guys. I found an old JB+ I had sitting around, put a N20 3.5 bar sensor connector on one end, gutted the JB+ code and replaced it with code that will read the 3.5 bar sensor and output a normal 2.25 bar output for the DME to read. And then scaled the pot to linearly reduce from 0% to 15% of the boost value over 3psi. Should up your usable limit from the factory 21psi to around 26psi. To use this you'll need to switch the Cobb back to the logic that uses the factory TMAP sensor. I'd increase the global fuel scaling offset maybe 15% to account for the variance. You'll need a physical boost gauge on the car as well to verify actual boost vs. DME observed boost.

    Just say the word and you can play with it. Click here to enlarge
    Really appreciate the help, thank you. Definitely send it Tony's way in case he'd be willing to use it.

    In the meantime though, a little breakthrough on our side in this morning. I've managed to figure out a way to get around the boost limit in the DME as well. It is "cheating", not proud of it, but so are all other current options. This way at least we get full full transparency/visibility into the tuning without dependency on an external device. Haven't tried it yet but on paper it make complete sense.

    Again, thank you. I owe you for doing this and willing to help us out.
    Click here to enlarge

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,089
    Rep Points
    999.1
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno@ProTUNING Freaks Click here to enlarge
    Really appreciate the help, thank you. Definitely send it Tony's way in case he'd be willing to use it.

    In the meantime though, a little breakthrough on our side in this morning. I've managed to figure out a way to get around the boost limit in the DME as well. It is "cheating", not proud of it, but so are all other current options. This way at least we get full full transparency/visibility into the tuning without dependency on an external device. Haven't tried it yet but on paper it make complete sense.

    Again, thank you. I owe you for doing this and willing to help us out.
    Told you if you asked nicely he'd help. Click here to enlarge

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,089
    Rep Points
    999.1
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    @shiv@vishnu while I agree that everyone should keep an open mind to other tuning solutions, you actually did say we had a 450whp limit back in the day circa 2010.

    I guess you meant from a piggyback?

  24. #74
    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
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by themyst Click here to enlarge
    Told you if you asked nicely he'd help. Click here to enlarge
    I hoped/asked for a JB4 with true boost control or for 2-6 cyl timing correction datalogging. Regardless, any/all the help is very appreciated.
    Click here to enlarge

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Houston under a book
    Posts
    1,404
    Rep Points
    2,675.5
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    27


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno@ProTUNING Freaks Click here to enlarge
    Really appreciate the help, thank you. Definitely send it Tony's way in case he'd be willing to use it.

    In the meantime though, a little breakthrough on our side in this morning. I've managed to figure out a way to get around the boost limit in the DME as well. It is "cheating", not proud of it, but so are all other current options. This way at least we get full full transparency/visibility into the tuning without dependency on an external device. Haven't tried it yet but on paper it make complete sense.

    Again, thank you. I owe you for doing this and willing to help us out.
    Alpha-N above 21psi by chance?

    I like the box Terry made, nice oldschool chipburner too, tiny compared to my good 'ol willem burner. The only real downside to this method is the fact you have to plug it in and scale your current maps, and the fact it's not a true ISO setup.

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
  •