Close

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    1,591
    Rep Points
    2,215.1
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No

    Some good reading from cobb and vishnu

    This is the original poster and post
    Since we got information from Cobb regarding how they have defeated every load limit barrier they have encountered thus far, I was hoping I could get the two main piggyback reps to chime in regarding this information (Shiv, Mike)

    I was having a long discussion with Clap135 about this issue, and I am still not quite grasping the concept. He states that piggybacks are limited in real-world performance due to the engine dumping air/fuel when the load limit has been reached. Not ever having tuned a car before on other platforms (every car I've owned before this one was NA) I am not trying to pretend I know everything about this point.

    Knowing this isn't my field of expertise, in theory, piggybacks are intercepting and manipulating various signals, including cps offsetting for advancing and retarding ignition and feeding the DME a stock boost level so that it does not trigger an underboost code. My question is, being that the stock DME is receiving stock output in every way conceivable to stay happy, how does this theory come into play?

    I bet if this theory were true, we could throw a car with a piggyback on a load dyno, such as a Mustang or DD, and the piggyback units would perform significantly worse than their flash-based counterparts.

    Maybe I'm completely stupid. I really want to understand how this could potentially affect real-world performance from a piggyback standpoint, so I was hoping the various reps could chime in regarding this question.

    Thanks in advance if you answer.
    Shivs response
    I think the misunderstanding comes from what one believes "load" to be. In terms of speed density based engine management systems (such as the DME in the n54), engine load is how much calculated airflow is being consumed at any given time. Or to put simply, manifold pressure corrected by intake charge temp. That is all the DME needs to calculate engine load at any given time.

    I think people confuse load with the "load" term used when it comes to dynos. In the case of dynos, load is basically the acceleration rate of the run. it's somewhat of a misnomer. Dyno "load" can be zero, which represents a steady state load (ie, engine not accelerating but holding a constant engine speed. Or it can be positive which indicates a typical acceleration run. But the ENGINE load has nothing to do with the DYNO load. They are two separate things. Often confused.

    For example, a load-bearing dyno can load the engine to maintain a fixed RPM. This RPM can remain constant at a variety of ENGINE loads (ie, from several inches of vacuum to full boost).

    As for the piggyback/flash question, it becomes apparent that both tuning approaches calculate engine load from the same sensors. In the case of the Procede, it reads both actual load (actual MAP corrected by air temp) and the DME perceived load. Unlike traditional piggybacks, the Procede uses this DME data (via CAN) to induces a consistent and predictable DME output by managing the relationship between DME boost targets and DME perceived boost. With a predictable input/output relationship, one can effectively implement the tuning adjustments. It's pretty simple. There is no "load barrier" to defeat. The DME sees the load it expects to see. The only barrier to the tune is the response range of the actual engine load sensor (~22psi).

    Feel free to ask for any clarification as I may not have presented the most understandable explanation. It's late and I've had at least one eye on my laptop screen since 9am and the other eye on the road. If only my insurance company knew....

    shiv
    A challenger appears!
    i understand how procede does what it does, but can i ask why you(or the other Piggyback companies) have never really ventured into a flash?

    i can see it being a case of evolution, (starting with the old school proceed/JB1, the the V2/JB2 etc), but wouldnt one flash solve most of the issues with trying to work around on board systems?
    Shiv responding
    In my opinion, the basic DME logic is not ideal for a high power application. We are know at the point were we expect a tune to double or even triple factory boost pressure. On a DME that tends to target the similar ignition advance value and boost target regardless of historical knock activity. Kind of silly.

    By comparison, modern DMEs designed to support high boost/high specific output turbo engines (evo, sti, porsche, etc,.), almost always rely a multiple timing/fuel/boost maps (high det and low det) and constantly updating knock activity coefficient that dictates what values, within these wide ranges of maps, the DME will output/target. The MSD80/81, by comparison was structured to support an 100bhp/liter engine that only runs 5-6psi on a cold night. Adding 10psi of boost on top of that (with little or no hardware changes) benefits from some additional smarts in my opinion.

    Not entirely by coincidence given our tuning background, Procede autotuning logic is based upon what Evo and Sti ECUs do in response to history knock activty/calculated tune aggression. But with a much wider authority range and user definable limits.

    Shiv
    Rob@Cobb has a response
    Generally the Subaru and Mitsu ECUs tend to run multiple maps due to a lack of logic and processing power to properly calculate a precise and efficient tune for the conditions they are in at the time. In simple terms the engineers are betting they guessed well at the conditions the car will be in. As we have seen with both the Subaru and Mitsubishi factory tunes, they most certainly were off at factory power levels.

    The MSD8x ECUs are able to calculate what the engine needs real-time from a good base data at 2psi or 20psi. They don't work on pressure alone as it is only one variable in equation. Instead they work heavily on sensor input of the conditions inside and outside the motor compensating for different conditions to most accurately and efficiently run the motor. Bosch publishes an expansive amount of data they have collected and put into their engine electronics, and mechanical parts for that matter, if you ever want to take a peek to get a gist of the logic involved.

    Either way, having multiple sets of the same table has little bearing on the capabilities of the hardware or software.

    As time goes on the power of factory ECU will continue to evolve to the point where there is no longer a need for tables. Everything will be calculated real time.

    Cheers,
    Rob
    Shivs response
    Hi Rob,
    I completely agree that the MSD80/1 DME is very fast reacting and very capable. If that wasn't the case, one couldn't get away with hooking up a boost controller and increase boost pressure by 100-200%. Doing something like that in a Mitsu/Sti application would be an expensive and short-lived exercise. However, I have yet to see an unassisted MSD80/81 DME proactively adjust timing and boost targets based upon historical knock retard activity. At most, I've seen it adjust ignition retard decay and richen lambda targets. But the nominal ignition advance setpoint remains essentially unchanged which is understandable given the relatively low output/stress level of the factory tune.

    Maybe one day the state of the art will get to the point were DME output based upon an internally calculated combustion model is so spot on that we see max power without ever crossing over the knock threshold. But I don't think that day is coming any time soon. But when it does come, I'm sure it will be from the Germans.

    Regards,
    Shiv
    Some .02 thrown in from shiv
    Originally Posted by Rob@Cobb
    Quite honestly I have not tuned a piggieback or attempted to trick the ECU. It's a feat they can push the motors as hard as they do while telling the ECU life is peachy. They have my respect for the number of hours spend modeling what the ECU needs to hear.

    Also, from your other thread, I just wanted to point out that not all piggybacks require modeling of ECU demands. In the case of the Procede, heaps of data is continuously read through the PT-CAN. As you can imagine, knowing real-time ignition advance, boost target, throttle blade angle, calc torque output, lambda, etc,. this eliminates the guesswork and input/output channel limitations that conventional piggybacks have to contend to.

    That said, every tuning medium has it's strengths and weaknesses.
    Robs response
    Simply removing ignition timing hurts efficiency, ruins emissions, and kills cats. Why only use one tool in the chest when the ECU has many at it's discretion? The ECU is setup to be able to react fast enough to the impending detonation events with proper internal ECU mapping by removing/adding load, fuel, and/or spark at stock power and beyond.

    There is a history of what timing the ECU requests on individual cylinders, but it's much faster than the Subaru and Mitsu ECUs you speak of. They generally are very slow and require a reset to get your timing back in any kind of timely fashion. The BMW is trying hard to run what the calibrators set as MBT and will continue to try to get back to those values asap. It just happens the ECU is good enough to pull the timing in near real-time conditions not leaving a history clearly visible. As a matter of fact the system is so sensitive it likely will pull 2-3 degrees on a cylinder on stock mapping when running good gas. All the cylinders will start talking when the detonation threshold gets closer. I believe your device listens to one of the cylinders which happens to be a quieter cylinder. Either way the BMW/Seimens/Bosch logic (not sure who all had their hands in the logic Click here to enlarge ) used is safe, effective, and efficient when the ECU knows what is actually going on.

    Strapping a device to the outside of of the ECU which tells the ECU it's running at a stock load level, when the motor is really seeing 40% more load, is simply pushing outside of where it can protect itself. Calling the ECU "silly" or "not ideal for high power applications" for not being able to handle a 40% bump in load when it expect stock load may not be entirely accurate.

    Taking what the ECU is requesting and feeding back is a neat trick for riding the line of what the ECU will allow. Lots of good effort and engineering there for sure. It's also fantastic that you can remove timing with the Procede. There might be a few more hurt motors trying to run 14-15psi on the stock timing curve. You should see what timing on all the cylinders does when trying to run higher boost on the stock timing curve. It's not pretty.

    As I'm sure you have seen I have played with the Procede. It's a nice tool and provides good power.
    Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    Also, from your other thread, I just wanted to point out that not all piggybacks require modeling of ECU demands. In the case of the Procede, heaps of data is continuously read through the PT-CAN.

    You should see what is available though logging beyond the base BMW PIDs. The information is pretty cool for nerds like us.

    Cheers,
    Rob
    Shiv again
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob@Cobb Click here to enlarge
    Simply removing ignition timing hurts efficiency, ruins emissions, and kills cats. Why only use one tool in the chest when the ECU has many at it's discretion? The ECU is setup to be able to react fast enough to the impending detonation events with proper internal ECU mapping by removing/adding load, fuel, and/or spark at stock power and beyond.

    The ECU can only do this if the mapping is consistent with the operating conditions/fuel quality. Pushed far enough beyond that and the engine will audibly knock. We have seen this on all overly aggressive tunes, regardless of tuning medium. Some, yourself included I believe, compensate for an overly aggressive tune (ie, standard tune used in especially harsh conditions or with low qualify fuel) by running octane booster or water injection. Others, like myself, would rather have a tune that automatically adjusts tune aggression proactively based upon historic knock retard activity. Also, keep in mind that our ignition target reduction is a short-term correction. What follows is a boost reduction which allow advance to creep up to desired levels. So efficiency reduction, elevated cat temps and elevated emissions aren't a concern

    Quote:
    There is a history of what timing the ECU requests on individual cylinders, but it's much faster than the Subaru and Mitsu ECUs you speak of. They generally are very slow and require a reset to get your timing back in any kind of timely fashion. The BMW is trying hard to run what the calibrators set as MBT and will continue to try to get back to those values asap. It just happens the ECU is good enough to pull the timing in near real-time conditions not leaving a history clearly visible. As a matter of fact the system is so sensitive it likely will pull 2-3 degrees on a cylinder on stock mapping when running good gas. All the cylinders will start talking when the detonation threshold gets closer. I believe your device listens to one of the cylinders which happens to be a quieter cylinder. Either way the BMW/Seimens/Bosch logic (not sure who all had their hands in the logic Click here to enlarge ) used is safe, effective, and efficient when the ECU knows what is actually going on.
    I think that is where the misunderstanding arises. Using a properly integrated piggyback doesn't not rob the DME of any of it's safety-related functionality. Nor is, in my opinion, the acceptable knock retard activity at stock power levels equal to the acceptable knock retard activity at 50% higher power levels. Which is why running a static DME flashed 15psi in harsh conditions usually results in audible knock.

    Quote:
    Strapping a device to the outside of of the ECU which tells the ECU it's running at a stock load level, when the motor is really seeing 40% more load, is simply pushing outside of where it can protect itself. Calling the ECU "silly" or "not ideal for high power applications" for not being able to handle a 40% bump in load when it expect stock load may not be entirely accurate.
    Clearly the DME can "handle" a 40% bump in power. The question is whether it can do that with a greater safety margin. Or more power gains with the same safety margin. In a variety of different conditions. I'm sure we can agree that the next several months will be interesting for all.

    And I have to say, it is refreshing debating these topics with another tuner, such as yourself, instead of a salesperson.

    Cheers,
    shiv

    ps. On that note, it's late and I desperately need (or so I'm told) my beauty sleep.
    Overall there is some great information being exchanged and I thought it was a pretty awesome read. Granted this is on the first page of six. But this is as far as I have gotten lol
    2006 AW/Black ZCP 6MT


    Click here to enlarge


    E46 M3 Owners of the World <---- Join the FB group!!


    Instagram :: @NotSMG.M3

    Click here to enlarge

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hanover, MD
    Posts
    1,220
    Rep Points
    697.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Nice find! Is anyone else excited to have a fresh, educated across multiple platforms, and level headed voice working on the N54 engine? The fresh perspective is great for a new person like myself. I guess I'm just comparing them to CP-E and GIAC, in that they both came quietly and don't get into the discussions that get information out there to people like me. I also like that Cobb is a name that pretty much any car person knows and can at least respect.
    Click here to enlarge

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    1,591
    Rep Points
    2,215.1
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Oh boy it gets better!

    Here is Terrys response

    Copied this from N54Tech, from Terry to the conversation:

    1) The premise of load limits holding back piggyback tuning is of course false as the piggyback can report any load it wishes back to the DME. And by peeking under the DME's skirt real time reading out CAN diagnostics we can see what the DME is looking for and a) set the tuning to hit objectives while keeping the DME reacting the way we want as we do with the JB4 or b) tell the DME what it wants to hear while independently recreating the tuning logic you want (procede). I wish dealing with my wife was this easy.

    2) The DME's response to increasing knock feedback is to reduce advance and richen the air/fuel ratio. Timing reduction is then trended in long term (octane) and short term (knock) trims that work very similar to L/S fuel trims. It is trimmed by cylinder. Whomever said DME logic is migrating towards a single continuously adjustable value and away from high/low tables for advance for example is completely right.

    3) In theory flash tuning is great because in theory you have access to every single table, a map for how they interact, and thus can recreate an OEM quality tune only scaled up to the power levels you're looking for. But in practice on the n54 there are many problems. I'll mention only a few of them.

    a) Many of the tables one would want to tune the vehicle are not available. Having spent some time flash tuning the n54 using dimsport I was appalled at how limited their table selection was. As time goes on more and more tables will be found but don't make the mistake of thinking just because someone can flash tune today that they have access to everything one would want to do it.

    b) The flash tune is confined by the DME's logic which at times is inconsistent with how one might want to tune. As a simple example I might want to specify a boost curve by RPM and IAT. But the DME doesn't work that way, it uses load/torque targets, meaning the boost pressure targeted is dynamic. During cold weather you'll get less boost and during hot weather more boost. Fair enough for a stock car where consistent performance is needed but when developing a performance tune it's counter intuitive. If there is additional performance on the table during cold weather for example we want to unlock that performance. Another example of this inconsistent logic is holding the throttle body open during manual transmission shifts.

    c) BMW is actively trying to nerf aftermarket tuning and flash tuning is the most vulnerable to this. BMW need only change the keys required to load the tune to flat out kill it. Beyond that, they have built IPW/fuel usable limits in to the firmware which are much more difficult to deal with in a flash environment. With a piggy environment, we just alter the fuel pressure, giving the added benefit of an expanded HP range. This works as the fueling system is closed loop. Then we monitor the dme's observed LPH usage and ensure our tuning stays below the set limits. With a flash, you instead must alter many tables to trick the DME in to thinking it is targeting less load than it actually is. And in the end wind up with a convoluted and difficult to manage tune spread across many tables. Beyond that, the DME is mostly aware of the true boost pressure values and just like it stores the maximum RPM achieved appears to also store the maximum sustained KPA. This is done in a spot of the ECU only BMW has the keys to.

    d) Certain things such as in dash gauges, progressive meth mapping, on the fly map switching on the steering wheel, dynamic gear based boost, etc, are much more difficult or impossible to do with a flash tune.

    Where flash tuning shines is in delivering a nice stable 13-15psi tune that one can load from the drivers seat. It can do that quite well and because of that cobb is going to occupy a large share of the market. But that comes with a higher price tag and at the expense of many features IMHO. Given where we've been able to take the JB4 power and feature wise provided we can keep it at a much lower price point I don't see its market being impacted much.
    2006 AW/Black ZCP 6MT


    Click here to enlarge


    E46 M3 Owners of the World <---- Join the FB group!!


    Instagram :: @NotSMG.M3

    Click here to enlarge

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,915
    Rep Points
    1,353.6
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Cylinder number 6 runs the hottest. The question is who can manage the cylinder six the best. If there is a flash which has the means to do it, good for them.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    116
    Rep Points
    67.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    It's amazing how many cylinder 6 failures there have been in the past 4 years...Click here to enlarge
    2009 335i: PROcede V4 with BMS DCI (still not sure how they get along!)

  6. #6
    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 Doug007 Click here to enlarge
    It's amazing how many cylinder 6 failures there have been in the past 4 years...Click here to enlarge
    lol

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,053
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Reputation: Yes | No
    A 4-way discussion between Terry, Shiv, GIAC and Cobb on here would be very interesting, to say the least.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    espaņa
    Posts
    749
    Rep Points
    819.7
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlargeClick here to enlarge
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,716
    Rep Points
    826.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    A 4-way discussion between Terry, Shiv, GIAC and Cobb on here would be very interesting, to say the least.
    I would love to see that, maybe that smart dude from cp-e would be cool too
    JB4LIFE

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    878
    Rep Points
    891.7
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I still think Terry bms is in la la land making assumptions about flashes based on his Fischer Price My-first-tuner tool Dimisport. That tool is the VW bug to a 911 Turbo. Garbage in garbage out. Click here to enlarge

  11. #11
    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 BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
    I still think Terry bms is in la la land making assumptions about flashes based on his Fischer Price My-first-tuner tool Dimisport. That tool is the VW bug to a 911 Turbo. Garbage in garbage out. Click here to enlarge
    I'm pretty familiar with flash tuning, there was a time when it was all I did. Also wrote a flash loader program once similar to the cobb setup only laptop based for an employer. Click here to enlarge I also think my post that was copied here is pretty clear. Did you read it? If so quote the part you're disagreeing with and we can discuss in detail.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,848
    Rep Points
    31,576.4
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SSDD Click here to enlarge
    Nice find! Is anyone else excited to have a fresh, educated across multiple platforms, and level headed voice working on the N54 engine? The fresh perspective is great for a new person like myself. I guess I'm just comparing them to CP-E and GIAC, in that they both came quietly and don't get into the discussions that get information out there to people like me. I also like that Cobb is a name that pretty much any car person knows and can at least respect.
    It is nice to have a breath of fresh air.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,915
    Rep Points
    1,353.6
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Doug007 Click here to enlarge
    It's amazing how many cylinder 6 failures there have been in the past 4 years...Click here to enlarge
    Frankly there shouldn't be that many since the DME is protecting itself well. Unless you mean failing to balance the cylinder specific AFRs.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    641
    Rep Points
    720.8
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    COBB on a customers recent logs showing over 3 events of throttle clsoure within a gear and a half .


    Hey Y'all,

    The ECU uses the throttle to trim the torque output of the motor. It's a neat way to keep the inertia of the turbos going vs. pulling duty cycle to open the wastegate. I am aware of the throttle trimming and fully expect the ECU to use this tool to control the motor. As Alan mentioned the power output of the tune is smooth, which is what we are going for.

    From what I have seen of the European ECUs they have taken a different tuning stance from what most are use to. We have tested and embraced the logic as it works very well. As our customers further explore the ECU though data logs and tuning, I will be happy to help educate the community on how their ECUs are controlling the motor.

    Cheers,
    Rob

    ?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,915
    Rep Points
    1,353.6
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Throttle closure is definitely better than adjusting wastegates which takes more time and especially takes more time to spool again.

    Regarding having throttle closure or not, the answer is whatever makes the car quicker is better. I remember JB having more throttle closure than Procede at some point, JB being quicker of the two... But honestly, I don't know. There could be a way to make the car even quicker by not having throttle closures. Or it might be slower that way.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    878
    Rep Points
    891.7
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    3) In theory flash tuning is great because in theory you have access to every single table, a map for how they interact, and thus can recreate an OEM quality tune only scaled up to the power levels you're looking for. But in practice on the n54 there are many problems. I'll mention only a few of them.

    a) Many of the tables one would want to tune the vehicle are not available. Having spent some time flash tuning the n54 using dimsport I was appalled at how limited their table selection was. As time goes on more and more tables will be found but don't make the mistake of thinking just because someone can flash tune today that they have access to everything one would want to do it.
    Well - the flaw here is you used a junk tool, with minimized pre-sorted tables - to draw this conclusion. Like the diablosport of BMW. The worst tool on the market. In flash tuning it's simple HE WHO FINDS THE MOST TABLES, WINS! Click here to enlarge Those with contacts to manufacturers or race teams with DAMOS files worked out - will create a better flash. The only problems you ran into is you using a canned euro software to try to conclude what flash tuning was about. Some read and write tools can pull more areas of the hex so you have access to more, and can define more tables. From there if you know what you are doing, you can make a better tune. Those who can re-write the code internally can create an OEM like calibration for high horsepower vehicles. Ex: Nick G, OE Click here to enlarge


    That is like me trying to compare piggybacks like a JB1 to a JB4 - you are only working with so much. I commend you on the work from your side of fence, but I think you might be a little blindfolded in the flash world.
    Last edited by BrenM3; 01-18-2011 at 02:06 PM.

  17. #17
    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
    I don't disagree with the Dimsport lacking even basic tables needed and other tuners being more advanced in terms of what they have located. The point of that comment was "don't make the mistake of thinking just because someone can flash tune today that they have access to everything one would want to do it.". So, does cobb have access to every table needed?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5soko Click here to enlarge
    COBB on a customers recent logs showing over 3 events of throttle clsoure within a gear and a half .


    Hey Y'all,

    The ECU uses the throttle to trim the torque output of the motor. It's a neat way to keep the inertia of the turbos going vs. pulling duty cycle to open the wastegate. I am aware of the throttle trimming and fully expect the ECU to use this tool to control the motor. As Alan mentioned the power output of the tune is smooth, which is what we are going for.

    From what I have seen of the European ECUs they have taken a different tuning stance from what most are use to. We have tested and embraced the logic as it works very well. As our customers further explore the ECU though data logs and tuning, I will be happy to help educate the community on how their ECUs are controlling the motor.

    Cheers,
    Rob

    ?
    If you take a look at the load portion of the graph, it's rock solid. Which means the ECU logic is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. Hitting load targets and mitigating the effects of overboost. You have to remember that by using load targets, you aren't trying to eke out every bit of power at all times like the piggybacks do and do very well. This is more like - I want 360 HP, no more, no less... ECU, do whatcha gotta do.

    So far, I think that means piggies will still rule at the track, but for some guys (like me), this'll be a consistent tune with convenience to boot. Just wish they'd hurry up with the N55 development.

  19. #19
    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
    PS. It's pretty funny watching laloosh gimp around his thread defending his position that consistent throttle closure during WOT is awesome as long as its coming from flash tuning... Click here to enlarge

    http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=477561

  20. #20
    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 AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    If you take a look at the load portion of the graph, it's rock solid. Which means the ECU logic is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. Hitting load targets and mitigating the effects of overboost. You have to remember that by using load targets, you aren't trying to eke out every bit of power at all times like the piggybacks do and do very well. This is more like - I want 360 HP, no more, no less... ECU, do whatcha gotta do.

    So far, I think that means piggies will still rule at the track, but for some guys (like me), this'll be a consistent tune with convenience to boot. Just wish they'd hurry up with the N55 development.
    The technical problem is that they have left the wastegate duty cycle too high for the load target, under the conditions the log was taken, IMHO. Normally the PID would have enough authority to quickly drop boost back below target but in their case it does not appear to be working as it should. Typically for 13psi flash maps as that one PID is not retuned, only duty cycle defaults changed, but it will certainly need to be for higher boost maps.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Lol, that was what Mike said... wait... haha!

    You're right, one of the things that I do have reservations about regarding the COBB tune is that the overboost "issue" will have to be overcome before reaching higher boost pressures. A little overboost on a stage 1 tune is probably ok. A "little" overboost on a stage 3 tune is a whole other animal. That said... I don't REALLY have reservations because I'm not planning on progressing past Stage 1 OTS. It's just interesting reading.

  22. #22
    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
    Yes, he called me for my opinion LOL. I did tell him to put it in his own words so hopefully he put his own spin on it! Click here to enlarge But I believe it's the correct analysis based on the data presented. Open to counter-opinions though... they make the forums go round and round! Click here to enlarge

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    116
    Rep Points
    67.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    The technical problem is that they have left the wastegate duty cycle too high for the load target, under the conditions the log was taken, IMHO. Normally the PID would have enough authority to quickly drop boost back below target but in their case it does not appear to be working as it should. Typically for 13psi flash maps as that one PID is not retuned, only duty cycle defaults changed, but it will certainly need to be for higher boost maps.
    If only they understood what wastegate duty cycle means Click here to enlarge
    2009 335i: PROcede V4 with BMS DCI (still not sure how they get along!)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    641
    Rep Points
    720.8
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    That thread is so much full of fail, i cant bare to even sit and respond to people in there. But reading through it, you had some good points DOUG007.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    878
    Rep Points
    891.7
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    I don't disagree with the Dimsport lacking even basic tables needed and other tuners being more advanced in terms of what they have located. The point of that comment was "don't make the mistake of thinking just because someone can flash tune today that they have access to everything one would want to do it.". So, does cobb have access to every table needed?
    You and I both don't know this information yet - until the AT is released - so why even assume they don't? That would be stupid. They are the biggest and most sophisticated tuner by nature to ever enter this market.

    Knowing Trey Cobb himself - who personally decompiles all the hex himself in House from every car they deal with i'd say he's got more then you think for tables. If history repeats itself he finds things other tuners havent from experience with him over the last 10 years. He isn't sitting there with WINOLS either. And from using their AccessTuner software for years I'd say they will have all the tables worked out more then any other person on the market. That is a full born tuning facility. Cobb's tuning of the tables is subjective...but once end user software is released - every other option on the market is in for immediate trouble. IMO an OTS file is good enough to drive the car to the dyno. You and I know the difference between all these cars and how they can vary. Closed loop boost or fuel aside.

    Here's my position Terry and I think you'll agree with me....Cobb IMO hasn't found all the torque limits or the tuner codes or worked them out yet based on posts and information I've seen. And as they increase the boost it will get even more messy. Along with the self flashing, can id faults issues and other flashing related errors will be stored in some of these cars when they go into service and boom, investigation. The AP didn't even read these codes while the BT did. This will cause a world of hurt for people thinking they are invisible since they flashed back to stock.

    This is something someone like myself who has been flashing BMW's DMEs and working with service managers for a while would know. I don't think it's possible to work out all the MSD DME issues as quickly as they did. They have some more homework and pain to deal with. The MSD80/1 also doesnt flash quick at all aka SLOWEST DME EVER! This may cause issues with bricking. I can't even count how many Subaru ECU's I've witnessed brick during an unmarrying process of an AP and they take less then 0 seconds. Almost to the point I won't unmarry one.

    The N54 is a finicky platform, a code clearing software is needed with each purchase, IMO. Regardless of the tuning solution. This is what they need to focus on with the AP.
    Last edited by BrenM3; 01-18-2011 at 09:17 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •