View Single Post
      02-25-2011, 08:59 AM   #108
Jake@MOTIV
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
Jake@MOTIV's Avatar
26
Rep
951
Posts


 
Drives: 135i, 335i
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MD & NC

iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com View Post
I appreciate the note and I would also ask that before invoking product names in your posts that you spend more time learning the platform. Clearly certain aspects of how the N54 works are being mischaracterized to fit in to your model of how you've tuned other platforms or how you think it should work. For example, you and clap135 continually ignore the adaptive timing system. Instead you say "well, if you set the advance maximums so low that it can't adapt up then you'll have tuning like you would in any other platform", and that is of course true. But no one does that and for very good reason. The adaptive advance system is one of the best things about this
platform. Timing is managed on a cylinder by cylinder basis and is almost perfectly timed in every situation, condition, and octane. It's never lazy or undertimed and never knocks. Try doing that with manual timing tables.

Also this has nothing to do with products. The fact is there are more tunes out there using the JB3s method of timing control than there are using CPS. It's about understanding how the DME and tunes work. I think clap135 put it really eloquently when he said if you add race gas and timing goes up its knocking. That seems a reasonable position and as I've said that will happen with any tune on this market. If you don't believe it then let's put that to the test once again. You'll be surprised.

Mike
Mike - I think you can agree that I have tried my best to have these discussions with you. This last statement is just so wrong and it is so wrong in the worst way.

You describe the JB4 as having great results because of a safety system the dme has. It is great at pulling timing based on a number of characteristics and feedback (short and historic). You say that because it is so adaptive it is so great. Yes for a factory stock setup its great!

When people tune a car they tune it to gain power, consistancy and reliable. The entire strategy of tuning a DAILY DRIVER is to tune the car to a safe distance from knock thresholds. Are you getting every whp out of the car? No - but that is the point of a daily driver tune. The goal is to extract a good amount of power and leave a margin of safety so the car is okay (no excess wear -not only focusing on blowing a motor) in even the harshest conditions. Using the dme's ability to pull timing is a fantastic BACKUP. HOWEVER lowering the set points so that 99% of the time that logic in the dme isn't used is even better.

The scary thing here is that you know a little about how the dme works but you know nothing (or are purposely going with this absurd approach you seem to take) about why and how to use the logic in the dme.

I can only imagine how fun it would be to put you through a lie detector and ask you questions lol. You can say that the comments here hold true on other platforms but not here - but you are unfortunately very wrong. The theory behind mapping timing doesn't change from platform to platform. Timing tables are what change - the actual values. Subaru, mazda, mitsubishi etc. all run off the same physics and tuning theory. An adaptive ecu doesn't change the game - it just presents new features.

An example of this...lets say openecu was available for this platform so we leave all vendors/tunes out of this. If I make my timing tables with maximum timing values of 5* by redline so I never knock because it is that conservative - and I go put race gas - guess what - my timing isn't going to get higher. Thats why you make race gas maps. So that when you run race gas you can run more timing. That is how you tune. An adaptive ecu doesnt change tuning theory at all.