E90Post
 


E92 Lighting
 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > E90 / E92 / E93 3-series Powertrain and Drivetrain Discussions > N54 Turbo Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust Modifications - 335i > Dinan II Reflash Dyno



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-25-2008, 01:19 PM   #67
ybbiz34
Moderator
 
ybbiz34's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 C63 AMG Sedan
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 4,420
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Dirt View Post
This is encouraging, it is much better to just look at the difference in the before and after dynos. Kelvin's results also show a 51whp gain which is actually better than the Dinan advertised.
Hopefully the revision results are just as good.
Exactly. Shiv must have skipped over this one by accident...
ybbiz34 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-25-2008, 02:07 PM   #68
Bubbles
Green Bastard
 
Bubbles's Avatar
 
Drives: ZCP-Powered
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bishop Bend

Posts: 3,545
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ybbiz34 View Post
You always fail to address or acknowledge the Dinan dynos that show strong numbers. You only show up to point out the "lesser" ones.

It is pretty obvious. Also pretty shady.

One tablespoon of sales puffing + 2 cups of BS make a great "self-preservation" cake. Add a bit of "dual cone" icing and watch out Betty Crocker!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb View Post
Looks like PROcede sales are falling....no one cares about you nonsense and especially a tune that blows turbo like yours.

Orb

♫♫♫"Shark Edit killed the Piggy-Back Star"♫♫♫
__________________
Bubbles is offline   Cayman Islands
0
Reply With Quote
      06-25-2008, 02:12 PM   #69
Potty_Pants
Colonel
 
Potty_Pants's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Genesis Sedan Rspec
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Southern NJ

Posts: 2,191
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb View Post
Looks like PROcede sales are falling....no one cares about you nonsense and especially a tune that blows turbo like yours.

Orb
oh snap
__________________
Olds Starfire > Chevy Malibu > Isuzu I-mark RS & Honda Magna 500 > Grand Am GT & YSR50 > Nissan Maxima & Ninja 750 > X-Wife > Hyundai Excel > Honda Prelude > Honda Accord > Honda Prelude & Ninja 250> Infiniti G35 > E90 335i > Hyundai Genesis Rspec, Hyunadai Sonata > Kia Sorento > Honda CRV-EX
Potty_Pants is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-25-2008, 02:30 PM   #70
x986
Private First Class
 
Drives: e92 335, ex e46 M3
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Bay Area, CA

Posts: 134
iTrader: (0)

Bubbles, I'm with you. I still have the Flash Classic & am a happy camper.

Question: Are we going to have problems with passing smog? I think I remember something about that being the reason for version/revision stuff. My memory just doesn't go back that far.

Another question: Aren't driveline losses different for manual and auto? I rarely see any info on what transmission posters have.
x986 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-25-2008, 03:11 PM   #71
ybbiz34
Moderator
 
ybbiz34's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 C63 AMG Sedan
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 4,420
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubbles View Post

One tablespoon of sales puffing + 2 cups of BS make a great "self-preservation" cake. Add a bit of "dual cone" icing and watch out Betty Crocker!




♫♫♫"Shark Edit killed the Piggy-Back Star"♫♫♫
ybbiz34 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-27-2008, 12:14 PM   #72
Winston Wolf
Tax Paying, Gun Toting American Veteran
 
Winston Wolf's Avatar
 
Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Minneapolis

Posts: 248
iTrader: (1)

My car made 239 HP on a mustang dyno stock. 239 (Dyno HP) divided by 300 (rated HP) = .796 Drive train loss

Flash Dyno was 302 (Dyno HP) diveded by .796 Drive train loss = 379 HP.

I'm satisfied.

Max boost was 13.6 PSI
__________________
I'm Winston Wolf, I solve problems...
Winston Wolf is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-28-2008, 09:00 PM   #73
NeoE46
Connoisseur of Velocity
 
NeoE46's Avatar
 
Drives: 09 AW E92 M3 w/DCT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston, TX.

Posts: 139
iTrader: (0)

Good results with the Dinan Flash. The car is fast already and anything that makes it faster and comes with a little engineering amd warranty behind it is awesome.

I saw the Vishnu products before I even purchased my car. I was planning to get one, but was confused by the whole solenoid bypass design. The first and most obvious question was why was there a need to do a bypass??? If the device has true control of all the required paramaters (inputs to ECU) why would there be a need to do this? Well, I looked and looked and diagramed the system and watched the install video over and over. No matter how many times I did, the rear turbo wastgate ended up cponnected directly to the vaccum accumulator. I asked a question but was rebuffed by fan boys. The majority opinion was that both accumulators were hooked up through the front solenoid to keep duty cycle times the same. I don't deny that the rear accumulator has a path to the front solenoid, however, it is on the wrong freakin side and has a direct path to the wastegate. I decided to wait. Not a week later, the forum was awash with people with ticking and whiring noises from the.....drumroll......rear turbo wastegate. What did the majority of these people share in common??........Vishnu.

I am glad his new systems don't rely on the bypass, but the fact still remains that the initial attempts were not ready for prime time......and let's not forget the daily limp mode posts with the products. I am all for pay to play, but do your homework on your own dime....that is what I expect when I pay for a product.

Sorry to vent. I read the post and thought the comments from Shiv were unecessary. I read all of the marketing hyperbole in his posts about technical prowess and engineering capability. He appears to have just enough knowledge to be dangerous.....hence the continuous release of new versions as he continues to learn what he claims to already know.

Just my .02
away.
NeoE46 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-28-2008, 09:17 PM   #74
skim7x
Use it or Lose it
 
skim7x's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i e92
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clifton, NJ

Posts: 2,461
iTrader: (4)

Garage List
2007 335i  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoE46 View Post
Good results with the Dinan Flash. The car is fast already and anything that makes it faster and comes with a little engineering amd warranty behind it is awesome.

I saw the Vishnu products before I even purchased my car. I was planning to get one, but was confused by the whole solenoid bypass design. The first and most obvious question was why was there a need to do a bypass??? If the device has true control of all the required paramaters (inputs to ECU) why would there be a need to do this? Well, I looked and looked and diagramed the system and watched the install video over and over. No matter how many times I did, the rear turbo wastgate ended up cponnected directly to the vaccum accumulator. I asked a question but was rebuffed by fan boys. The majority opinion was that both accumulators were hooked up through the front solenoid to keep duty cycle times the same. I don't deny that the rear accumulator has a path to the front solenoid, however, it is on the wrong freakin side and has a direct path to the wastegate. I decided to wait. Not a week later, the forum was awash with people with ticking and whiring noises from the.....drumroll......rear turbo wastegate. What did the majority of these people share in common??........Vishnu.

I am glad his new systems don't rely on the bypass, but the fact still remains that the initial attempts were not ready for prime time......and let's not forget the daily limp mode posts with the products. I am all for pay to play, but do your homework on your own dime....that is what I expect when I pay for a product.

Sorry to vent. I read the post and thought the comments from Shiv were unecessary. I read all of the marketing hyperbole in his posts about technical prowess and engineering capability. He appears to have just enough knowledge to be dangerous.....hence the continuous release of new versions as he continues to learn what he claims to already know.

Just my .02
away.
I totally agree with your assessment. I don't have anything against shiv though... he's out to get his own, and that's the American way.

Here's how I see it... Dinan is Macintosh and Vishnu Tuning is PC in the sense that you don't really get to mess with much on a Macintosh because everything is pretty much set -- you just take it out of the box, plug it in, and use it without any worries or problems. It may not be as flexible as the PC, but it works every time. Vishnu is like a PC in the sense that you have more you can mess with... more programs, more settings, more personalization (and cheaper, while we're at it), but you also have the capability of really screwing it up... So it would seem at first that you can't really go wrong with the PC... if you want to play it safe, don't download anything and only use programs that the computer came with... but who does that?? Nobody... everyone's going to be tempted to download the newest program that speeds up their web browser... and then you start running into problems with computer glitches and crashes.

The only thing is that with PC's, you can just reformat the computer and start from scratch--no harm done. But with your car, whatever damage is dealt is dealt, end of story.
__________________
'07 Space Gray 335i coupe w/ Sports Package | Comfort Access

Cobb S1+ | PTF e30 custom tune | AMS | CP-e | BMS OCC | Quaife
[Newark Photoshoot #1]
skim7x is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-28-2008, 09:28 PM   #75
StarrDlux
Pussycat's Meow
 
StarrDlux's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 335i montego | Stock
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Midtown (Altanta)

Posts: 682
iTrader: (0)

i bought my bmw with safeguard and such so i would put gas in it, pay for it, and drive it. then get rid of it.

just went through the whole audi A4 experience to 104K miles and my TCO was $580/month for a car that was butt slow, peeling interior, and not nearly as fun as the 335i. I did alot of PM , some mods to make it how i wanted it to look, and many repairs, still about 2G worth since the warranty ended at 100K miles. so now i have a needs-repairs worth about $5K total street value (after the 2k repairs) audi.

The extra hundred bucks a month or so to have a monster without any worries (on-star, free service, free tire replacement when nails) and a very positive experience with the car for me is worth it. I ride share to work so our total cost of ownership and importance of having one great car is much easier to swallow than if you had to rock two decent cars and two gas bills every day.

dinan fits my lifestyle. no worries mate.

I think OSX sucks i use my mac for light surfing, parallels (XP pro) and firefox and frontrow. thats it.
__________________
2008 335i montego | stock
2002 A4 1.8TQS | APR 1+
1990 VW Corrado | Stage 4 by SNS
StarrDlux is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-28-2008, 09:29 PM   #76
scalbert
Major General
 
scalbert's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 E90 M3, '13 Volt, '08 Ody
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woodstock, GA

Posts: 5,707
iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoE46 View Post
Well, I looked and looked and diagramed the system and watched the install video over and over. No matter how many times I did, the rear turbo wastgate ended up cponnected directly to the vaccum accumulator. I asked a question but was rebuffed by fan boys. The majority opinion was that both accumulators were hooked up through the front solenoid to keep duty cycle times the same. I don't deny that the rear accumulator has a path to the front solenoid, however, it is on the wrong freakin side and has a direct path to the wastegate. I decided to wait. Not a week later, the forum was awash with people with ticking and whiring noises from the.....drumroll......rear turbo wastegate. What did the majority of these people share in common??........Vishnu.
Actually, this is an incorrect assessment. The solenoid bypass (which is no longer required with V2 and V3) was to fool the DME into using a higher duty cycle which allowed increased boost as well as better control. The downside is that with only one solenoid in the loop, things respond more slowly.

As for the affects of one or both solenoids being used. The solenoids are in parallel to both turbos. One is not controlling one turbo, etc. There is a single vacuum accumulator per solenoid but after the solenoids, there is a single line which later gets Tee'd to each wastegate actuator.

To sum up, bypassing one solenoid does not affect a single turbo, it affects both. But now that is irrelevant as V2 and V3 do not require a solenoid bypass.
scalbert is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-28-2008, 09:38 PM   #77
scalbert
Major General
 
scalbert's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 E90 M3, '13 Volt, '08 Ody
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woodstock, GA

Posts: 5,707
iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by skim7x View Post
Here's how I see it... Dinan is Macintosh and Vishnu Tuning is PC in the sense that you don't really get to mess with much on a Macintosh because everything is pretty much set
I guess I really do not see the analogy here as both can be changed. However and IMO, these comparisons are pointless. Dinan makes a tune which has decent power but matches the factory warranty; which is paramount. This is certainly of value to give a peace of mind. There is nothing at all wrong with that and I was certainly considering it. However, I then thought of what I will truly end up doing with this car and being locked down would not work in the future.

In other words, we all have reasons for our decisions which suit our capability, desire and/or intentions. That decision will make that choice of tune the best one for the individual.
scalbert is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-28-2008, 11:56 PM   #78
NeoE46
Connoisseur of Velocity
 
NeoE46's Avatar
 
Drives: 09 AW E92 M3 w/DCT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston, TX.

Posts: 139
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scalbert View Post
Actually, this is an incorrect assessment.

But now that is irrelevant as V2 and V3 do not require a solenoid bypass.
I disagree. The bypass as performed in the video seen herehttp://216.120.252.228/files/instruc...mw_procede.mp4 is dangerous. It is still relevant because it is representative of the shortcuts taken by the creator with the product.

I have taken pics from the video to highlight the area of concern. The colors are just overlays from the video.


Vacuum hoses located.


Colors overlayed. Still in stock configuration.


Rear Accumulator removed from rear solenoid- Blue color.


Tee removed from rear solenoid.


Supplied coupler ready. Note: Hose to front solenoid and rear wastegate are connected and never removed from Tee.


Supplied coupler inserted. Ready to connect rear accumulator hose.


Same


Connected


Ready to go. Notice that there is no solenoid between the red and blue lines. In the 2nd photo, these lines are seperated by the solenoid, hence the method of control. In the last photo, the rear system is connected to the front system, but on the wrong side of the solenoid. In other words, the yellow hose won't see vaccum from the front accumulater until the front solenoid opens, but it and the red hose always see the vaccum from the blue as they are connected via the T. The front solenoid has very limited control if any in this arrangement.

In order to do what you describe, the blue hose or rear accumulator should have been Tee'd to the front accumulator hose before the first solenoid. This would have given full control to the front solenoid. The way this connection is described in the video explains the limps and problems seen with the initial product. This, in my opinion, was a negligent shortcut and the reason I chose to pass on Vishnu.
NeoE46 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-29-2008, 07:31 AM   #79
scalbert
Major General
 
scalbert's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 E90 M3, '13 Volt, '08 Ody
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woodstock, GA

Posts: 5,707
iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoE46 View Post
I disagree. The bypass as performed in the video seen herehttp://216.120.252.228/files/instruc...mw_procede.mp4 is dangerous. It is still relevant because it is representative of the shortcuts taken by the creator with the product.

In order to do what you describe, the blue hose or rear accumulator should have been Tee'd to the front accumulator hose before the first solenoid. This would have given full control to the front solenoid. The way this connection is described in the video explains the limps and problems seen with the initial product. This, in my opinion, was a negligent shortcut and the reason I chose to pass on Vishnu.
I guess I do not see what you are disagreeing with. As you illustrated, the solenoid is bypassed thus putting continuous vacuum to the wastergate actuators (note, as you have shown, the one vacuum line after the solenoids feeds both wastegate actuators). This contionuous vacuum tries to close the actuators and requires the front solenoid to operate at a lower duty cycle (mis-stated earlier) which keeps the DME happy.

And as mentioned, this is not the case with V2 and V3, the vacuum lines are in stock configuration.

However, the mechanical bypass used by V1, JBx and all other piggy backs is not too different from the electronic signal alterations. In either case, the DME is trying to be fooled to get the desired end results. This has always been the case with piggy back systems.

Perhaps the below diagram will illustrate how the vacuum line to the accumulators are fed fromt he same vacuum pump sources. Secondly, it also shows how both solenoids feed both actuators; byapssing one just forces control of both turbos on one solenoid. This is contrast to what you previously alluded that only the rear turbo's actuator was affected which is clearly not the case.


Last edited by scalbert; 06-29-2008 at 09:05 PM.
scalbert is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-29-2008, 12:02 PM   #80
NeoE46
Connoisseur of Velocity
 
NeoE46's Avatar
 
Drives: 09 AW E92 M3 w/DCT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston, TX.

Posts: 139
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scalbert View Post
I guess I do not see what you are disagreeing with. As you illustrated, the solenoid is bypassed thus putting continuous vacuum to the wastergate actuators
This is not what I said. Only the rear solenoid is bypassed and in this case allowing constant vacuum to be seen at the rear wastgate actuator. If it were both this would be worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scalbert View Post
(note, as you have shown, the one vacuum line after the solenoids feeds both wastegate actuators).
This is not what is illustrated in my photos or the link you provide. It is definitely not in what I wrote. There are two accumulators. There are two accumulator hoses. In stock configuration, each accumulator hose is attached to its corresponding solenoid. In the video, hence my pictures, the only focus is on the REAR accumulator, solenoid, wastegate actuator, etc. The front system is never altered, which is the root of the problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by scalbert View Post
Perhaps the below diagram will illustrate how the vacuum line to the accumulators are fed fromt he same vacuum pump sources.
Agree. One vacuum pump. Two accumulators. What difference would this make in your point of view or mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scalbert View Post
Secondly, it also shows how both solenoids feed both actuators; byapssing one just forces control of both turbos on one solenoid. This is contrast to what you previously alluded that only the rear turbo's actuator was affected which is clearly not the case.
This is a wrong assumption. Both solenoids do not control both actuators. The hose between the two solenoids is to balance the response of the system when the solenoids are open. Think of it more as a damper to smooth out system response. Primary control of the wastegates is from the solenoid and accumulator they are supposed to be hooked to. In the case of this bypass, the rear wastegate actuator is exposed to constant vacuum as it is hooked directly to the rear accumulator.

As I stated before, had both accumulators been Tee'd to the front solenoid, the rear would have been bypassed and full control would reside with the front solenoid. The vacuum signal would have reached the rear wastegate through the yellow hose. This setup, however, would cause significant delay in spool up for the rear turbo, hence the reason BMW designed the system the way they did.

The video clearly highlights that only connections on the rear system are altered. Look at the video and diagrams again and trace a pressure pulse through the system. Ask yourself how you would control that pulse. If you look at it from that point of view, it should become clear for you.

For the record, I know V2 & V3 no longer use the bypass. I wonder why? The point I make is that if you could make such an egregiuos error, either you have no business doing this or you look for shortcuts without exploring the full consequence. Either is too much risk for my hard earned money. If Shiv were to offer a version with warranty on damages to the car (put his money where his mouth is), this would speak volumes.
NeoE46 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-29-2008, 04:48 PM   #81
scalbert
Major General
 
scalbert's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 E90 M3, '13 Volt, '08 Ody
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woodstock, GA

Posts: 5,707
iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoE46 View Post
As I stated before, had both accumulators been Tee'd to the front solenoid, the rear would have been bypassed and full control would reside with the front solenoid. The vacuum signal would have reached the rear wastegate through the yellow hose. This setup, however, would cause significant delay in spool up for the rear turbo, hence the reason BMW designed the system the way they did.
I will keep it simple as I believe you are set in your beliefs. That said, I have taken the DP's off, applied vacuum, tested vacuum at multiple points which none support what you have stated. If you apply vacuum to either tee, both wastegates close. In fact, if BMW designed it the way you suggest, it would be an awful design and I have designed several pneumatic control systems. There is then no fall back. You might as well run a single solenoid like the B5 S4. The dual set up is to provide quicker response than a single could provide while still providing a back up mechanism.

That two inch section of tubing does not act as a buffer for anything. Unless there is orifice plate or sintered filter in between, the vacuum at the tee, and subsequently the actuators, will be the same. BTW, the solenoids role is not to deliver vacuum but relieve it. Vacuum/pressure always balances its self and remains the case here. If there were a vacuum differential, nature will take care of it and make it equal.

FYI, I have removed items, tested and verified functionality as I was considering creating my own product. But there are other aspects of my life which come first and the project was abandoned. Following that I have provided some research on the boost control through testing and have hands on experience with it.
scalbert is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-29-2008, 09:19 PM   #82
NeoE46
Connoisseur of Velocity
 
NeoE46's Avatar
 
Drives: 09 AW E92 M3 w/DCT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston, TX.

Posts: 139
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scalbert View Post
I will keep it simple as I believe you are set in your beliefs. That said, I have taken the DP's off, applied vacuum, tested vacuum at multiple points which none support what you have stated. If you apply vacuum to either tee, both wastegates close.
No need to keep it simple for me. I agree with this portion of your statement. I think you should re-read what I wrote. If the yellow hose is connected between the Tees, yes the vacuum would be the same.


Quote:
Originally Posted by scalbert View Post
In fact, if BMW designed it the way you suggest, it would be an awful design
Please do me a favor and read what I posted. I did not suggest BMW should have designed it this way. I suggested that if Shiv had bypassed it this way, that the piggyback would have had control of the rear wastegate actuator. My reference to BMW was that they did it the correct way. Perhaps I need to make my statements more clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scalbert View Post
You might as well run a single solenoid like the B5 S4. The dual set up is to provide quicker response than a single could provide while still providing a back up mechanism.
Duh. This is the whole point I am making. Why bypass something that is meant to make the system more efficient? Why do so in a manner that removes control from the rear system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scalbert View Post
That two inch section of tubing does not act as a buffer for anything. Unless there is orifice plate or sintered filter in between, the vacuum at the tee, and subsequently the actuators, will be the same.
Nowhere did anybody say buffer. It (the yellow hose as BMW designed it....just to be clear) is a damper to smooth response. It can't act as a backup if the solenoid fails. All a solenoid does is open or close and allows the pressure to temporarily equalize. If it fails to open, there is no connection between the two sides. BTW, when solenoids open and close and the pressure is not equal on both sides, pressure pulses are created, hence the reason for the yellow tube between the solenoids.

Once again, my point is that the bypass, not the design of the existing system, is a poor method and an example of poor engineering.
NeoE46 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-29-2008, 09:39 PM   #83
scalbert
Major General
 
scalbert's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 E90 M3, '13 Volt, '08 Ody
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woodstock, GA

Posts: 5,707
iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoE46 View Post
Once again, my point is that the bypass, not the design of the existing system, is a poor method and an example of poor engineering.
And my point is that bypassing a solenoid has the same affect on both actuators. You may not agree with this but testing, through vacuum tests and monitoring duty cycles of the solenoids shows this result. Regardless of being a good alteration method or not, it does affect both turbos equally.
scalbert is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-30-2008, 08:12 AM   #84
Sniz
Lieutenant General
 
Sniz's Avatar
 
Drives: e92 335 - gone // e36 M3 turbo
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ellicott City, MD

Posts: 10,556
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoE46 View Post
Good results with the Dinan Flash. The car is fast already and anything that makes it faster and comes with a little engineering amd warranty behind it is awesome.

I saw the Vishnu products before I even purchased my car. I was planning to get one, but was confused by the whole solenoid bypass design. The first and most obvious question was why was there a need to do a bypass??? If the device has true control of all the required paramaters (inputs to ECU) why would there be a need to do this? Well, I looked and looked and diagramed the system and watched the install video over and over. No matter how many times I did, the rear turbo wastgate ended up cponnected directly to the vaccum accumulator. I asked a question but was rebuffed by fan boys. The majority opinion was that both accumulators were hooked up through the front solenoid to keep duty cycle times the same. I don't deny that the rear accumulator has a path to the front solenoid, however, it is on the wrong freakin side and has a direct path to the wastegate. I decided to wait. Not a week later, the forum was awash with people with ticking and whiring noises from the.....drumroll......rear turbo wastegate. What did the majority of these people share in common??........Vishnu.

I am glad his new systems don't rely on the bypass, but the fact still remains that the initial attempts were not ready for prime time......and let's not forget the daily limp mode posts with the products. I am all for pay to play, but do your homework on your own dime....that is what I expect when I pay for a product.

Sorry to vent. I read the post and thought the comments from Shiv were unecessary. I read all of the marketing hyperbole in his posts about technical prowess and engineering capability. He appears to have just enough knowledge to be dangerous.....hence the continuous release of new versions as he continues to learn what he claims to already know.

Just my .02
away.
why are you arguing the bypass methods of the 1st version of Procede in a Dinan thread?
__________________
Sniz is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-30-2008, 11:46 AM   #85
NeoE46
Connoisseur of Velocity
 
NeoE46's Avatar
 
Drives: 09 AW E92 M3 w/DCT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston, TX.

Posts: 139
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sniz View Post
why are you arguing the bypass methods of the 1st version of Procede in a Dinan thread?
Simple. It was a Dinan thread before the normal Procede interdiction. The point of bringing up the 1st version (which isn't that old) was stated previously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoE46 View Post
For the record, I know V2 & V3 no longer use the bypass. I wonder why? The point I make is that if you could make such an egregiuos error, either you have no business doing this or you look for shortcuts without exploring the full consequence. Either is too much risk for my hard earned money. If Shiv were to offer a version with warranty on damages to the car (put his money where his mouth is), this would speak volumes.
NeoE46 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-30-2008, 11:54 AM   #86
Sniz
Lieutenant General
 
Sniz's Avatar
 
Drives: e92 335 - gone // e36 M3 turbo
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ellicott City, MD

Posts: 10,556
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoE46 View Post
Simple. It was a Dinan thread before the normal Procede interdiction. The point of bringing up the 1st version (which isn't that old) was stated previously.
just about all the other tunes were/are doing it that way too fyi.





Took a ride in a Dinan tuned 335 yesterday, smooth power . Smooth, not angry.
__________________
Sniz is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-30-2008, 12:14 PM   #87
AWD Addict
Chief Executive
 
AWD Addict's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi 6spd Coupe
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Boston

Posts: 2,462
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 335xi  [0.00]
Personally, I think Shiv's asking the same exact question I had after seeing those dyno runs.

WTF? How can these figures be so much lower than advertised? I mean, the difference between what he (and many others here now) are getting with their DINAN flash versus DINAN's advertisements is far more than just a standard temperature/humidity variance.

Stop bashing Shiv for asking what everyone else wants to know. Why isn't DINAN delivering on it's advertised product?
AWD Addict is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-30-2008, 12:27 PM   #88
AWD Addict
Chief Executive
 
AWD Addict's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi 6spd Coupe
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Boston

Posts: 2,462
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 335xi  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winston Wolf View Post
My car made 239 HP on a mustang dyno stock. 239 (Dyno HP) divided by 300 (rated HP) = .796 Drive train loss

Flash Dyno was 302 (Dyno HP) diveded by .796 Drive train loss = 379 HP.

I'm satisfied.

Max boost was 13.6 PSI
Mustangs read low anyways, which is why the gains shown are the relevant figure, not the absolute result.
AWD Addict is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 AM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST