[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by Nor_Cal_335i

One little correction.

MBT does NOT stand for "Minimum ignition timing for Best Torque".

It stands for "Maximum Brake Torque". Knock limit aside, it is the spark timing that gives maximum torque at a given speed and flow rate.

The phrase "Minimum ignition timing" shoudlnt be associated with MBT at ALL, because its the MAXIMUM timing you should run because running more timing then MBT causes unacceptable cylinder pressures that lead to broken engines.

Good point, there is sometimes scenarios where adding ignition timing doesnt make more power, and at that point you have what you said, large cylinder pressure and for no benefit.

[Clarkson]

Originally Posted by Clarkson

Since the MSD80 (2007) is serial based. Do you have any rough estimate how long it will take to flash the first time, and how long it will take to revert to stock?

COBB, you skipped over this one on page 2.

[335iaz]

Originally Posted by Clarkson

COBB, you skipped over this one on page 2.

I read somewhere that it is being worked on as we speak, that it should be out before March if memory serves me correctly.

[COBB Tuning]

Originally Posted by Nor_Cal_335i

One little correction.

MBT does NOT stand for "Minimum ignition timing for Best Torque".

It stands for "Maximum Brake Torque". Knock limit aside, it is the spark timing that gives maximum torque at a given speed and flow rate.

The phrase "Minimum ignition timing" shoudlnt be associated with MBT at ALL, because its the MAXIMUM timing you should run because running more timing then MBT causes unacceptable cylinder pressures that lead to broken engines.

I respectfully disagree, though I believe this is just a simple issue of semantics:

http://www.acronymfinder.com/MBT.html

MBT usually refers to "Minimum Timing (Spark/Ignition Advance) for Best Torque". I believe this is indeed this is the same phenomenon you describe -- the lowest ignition timing advance level necessary to reach ideal cylinder pressures for generating peak power (torque) under a given set of conditions.

Thanks for your insight!

Best regards,
Lance

[COBB Tuning]

Originally Posted by Clarkson

COBB, you skipped over this one on page 2.

I apologize, I thought this question had been covered. We have absolutely no ETA or intended delivery date for 2007 support. It is at the top of our priority list but we need to ensure that we are meeting and exceeding our current market's expectations before we expand our offering. Our greatest fear would be to deliver a product that was not ready for prime-time or without the level of support that we are dedicated to providing.

Best regards,
Lance

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by COBB Tuning

I apologize, I thought this question had been covered. We have absolutely no ETA or intended delivery date for 2007 support. It is at the top of our priority list but we need to ensure that we are meeting and exceeding our current market's expectations before we expand our offering. Our greatest fear would be to deliver a product that was not ready for prime-time or without the level of support that we are dedicated to providing.

Best regards,
Lance

What I believe the posted was asking was if there was any estimate on what the flash time would be on an 2007 vs. 2008-2010. I believe that the CAN based 2008-2010 cars would take approximately ~17 minutes to initially marry/flash, and I believe the poster was wondering if the serial based protocol within the 2007 ECU would slow down/increase the overall amount of time it takes to initially flash/marry to the ECU?

While we know you currently have no availability ETA for the 2007, based on speculation or rough estimate, is there anyway to tell how much the difference in protocol is going to affect flash times?

I have a feeling you probably can't answer that at this time, but figured I would clarify for the original poster.

[Clap135]

Is it just me or the more technical questions being completly ignored?

[biz77]

Originally Posted by Nor_Cal_335i

One little correction.

MBT does NOT stand for "Minimum ignition timing for Best Torque".

It stands for "Maximum Brake Torque". Knock limit aside, it is the spark timing that gives maximum torque at a given speed and flow rate.

The phrase "Minimum ignition timing" shoudlnt be associated with MBT at ALL, because its the MAXIMUM timing you should run because running more timing then MBT causes unacceptable cylinder pressures that lead to broken engines.

This is semantics. No one agrees on it. Maximum Brake Torque, Mean Best timing, Minimum timing required for Best Torque and on. Here is debate among automotive engineers that can't even agree on what it stands for: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.c...=251159&page=1

I digress. Tuning for power on pump gas under boost, you will never hit MBT (whatever it is an acronym for) before inducing knock anyways.

I still don't find "Maximum Brake Torque" as a fitting description. For example on my Subaru, running E85 which is NOT knock-limited even past MBT, I have a range of timing at peak boost/peak torque that has no negligible effect on power output. It's a range of about 2.5 - 3 degrees. If I go beyond that then power starts to drop, but within that range power is the same. Why would I want to run at the upper end of that if I can accomplish the same thing with the "minimum?" Maximum Brake Torque says to me there is one value that gets you to a desired outcome, but I haven't found that to be the case.

[COBB Tuning]

Originally Posted by Nor_Cal_335i

Even your link you posted says "Maximum Brake Torque" http://www.acronymfinder.com/MBT.html

I was demonstrating that it shows both Like biz77 just mentioned, it's one of those arguments that has existed for ages...just like the age-old question of "does VE exist/apply on a forced induction engine?" My version is #3 on that acronym list, yours is a little down the list. Again, just a simple difference in semantics; the important thing is we are referring to the same theory and phenomenon. I am happy that you guys are taking such an active interest in the tuning side of things -- it's quite refreshing!

Regards,
Lance

[themyst]

It seems that although there is the technical aspect to tuning, certain things are an artform to the point that tuners will differ on their opinions.

[COBB Tuning]

Originally Posted by Clap135

Is it just me or the more technical questions being completly ignored?

What question have I missed, and how can I be of assistance? Doing my best to address everyone's questions, please give me a prod when I've missed one!

Lance

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by COBB Tuning

What question have I missed, and how can I be of assistance? Doing my best to address everyone's questions, please give me a prod when I've missed one!

Lance

I previously asked, based on your teams understanding of the n54 ecu, is the implementation of flat foot shifting and launch control for manual transmission cars a possibility?

[COBB Tuning]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

What I believe the posted was asking was if there was any estimate on what the flash time would be on an 2007 vs. 2008-2010. I believe that the CAN based 2008-2010 cars would take approximately ~17 minutes to initially marry/flash, and I believe the poster was wondering if the serial based protocol within the 2007 ECU would slow down/increase the overall amount of time it takes to initially flash/marry to the ECU?

While we know you currently have no availability ETA for the 2007, based on speculation or rough estimate, is there anyway to tell how much the difference in protocol is going to affect flash times?

Ahh, gotcha, thank you for the clarification, I obviously misinterpreted the question a bit. Serial flash/install times vs. is something I cannot yet speak to with accuracy -- I am very much a tuner (and very much NOT a coder!) in the sense that I work with our "finished" software products. They grunt and nod and point towards the dyno and I head out to do my thing I will try to find out but I believe this information is not totally known at this point.

Regards,
Lance

[COBB Tuning]

Originally Posted by Clap135

I previously asked, based on your teams understanding of the n54 ecu, is the implementation of flat foot shifting and launch control for manual transmission cars a possibility?

Thanks for the question and sorry I missed it the first go-around. Based on my understanding, it will require some re-coding/re-writing of the rev limiter logic. Rob would know more but I believe we cannot say if this is possible and/or feasible yet. I am relatively certain that once some of the initial support has slowed, we'll be polling the community for desired features to make sure we're working on the stuff you guys want the most.

Regards,
Lance

[boom]

Cobb guys:
I spent quite a bit of time on the phone with Christian. last night (clap135 will find that ironic) discussing the n54 vs. the mazdaspeed3/6 and he mentioned that the n54 uses a measured pressure drop across the intercooler to determine turbo efficiency and factors that in to wastegate control. I'm assuming it's a MAP sensor somehow before and after the IC.

Do you guys mess with this table when running whatever boost you're using for the stage 1 tune (15psi?)

How would installing a freer flowing IC affect the tune?
Thanks.

[shifterboy45]

Originally Posted by COBB Tuning

So, what other topics would you like to hear about? I know that Tim is preparing a post about our software's logging capabilities and show some of the information we have to work with from the tuning side of things, so keep an eye out for that. Tuning cars is definitely 1 part art and 1 part science, so please don't hesitate to ask if you'd like to know more about a certain aspect of what goes in to the tuning process around here

+1

[BQTuning]

Originally Posted by COBB Tuning

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "red line on boost"? Without upgraded cooling (more efficient FMIC, water/meth injection, etc.) it's likely that the load/boost levels being run on our 93 map is the most that we'll run for our Stage 1 OTS offerings.

Red Line = critically unsafe conditions capable of distroying your stock turbos and or engine.

In other words what is the max boost the engine and stock turbos can handle before they reach that -red line- with Cold Air Intake, Oil Cooler, Intercooler, DP's, high flow cat and free flow exaust upgrades ?

[COBB Tuning]

Originally Posted by BuraQ

Red Line = critically unsafe conditions capable of distroying your stock turbos and or engine.

That's a great question. The "redline" for the turbos is different than for the engine -- they are likely even mutually exclusive.

It is very rare that a turbocharger will suffer catastrophic failure due to running "high" (IE, higher than stock) boost levels. In general, the faster you spin them, the shorter the lifespan of a turbo....unfortunately, there is no specific formula I can give for estimating how much shorter a turbo will live at X vs. Y shaft RPM.

An engine, of course, can suffer a catastrophic failure when subjected to excessive cylinder pressures. However, in these types of situations, where we're talking about a factory turbo setup on an engine built for boost, those cylinder pressures are usually only generated by severe or repeated detonation/knock events. Many factors go into causing detonation, including boost, AFR, incoming charge temps, EGT, fuel quality (biggie!), etc. We have made every attempt to ensure our OTS maps are detonation free as well as retained the ECU's full authority to take action if detonation is induced. A well-tuned engine can live a very long and happy life, regardless of boost level

Best regards,
Lance
R&D Calibrator

[BQTuning]

Originally Posted by COBB Tuning

That's a great question. The "redline" for the turbos is different than for the engine -- they are likely even mutually exclusive.

It is very rare that a turbocharger will suffer catastrophic failure due to running "high" (IE, higher than stock) boost levels. In general, the faster you spin them, the shorter the lifespan of a turbo....unfortunately, there is no specific formula I can give for estimating how much shorter a turbo will live at X vs. Y shaft RPM.

An engine, of course, can suffer a catastrophic failure when subjected to excessive cylinder pressures. However, in these types of situations, where we're talking about a factory turbo setup on an engine built for boost, those cylinder pressures are usually only generated by severe or repeated detonation/knock events. Many factors go into causing detonation, including boost, AFR, incoming charge temps, EGT, fuel quality (biggie!), etc. We have made every attempt to ensure our OTS maps are detonation free as well as retained the ECU's full authority to take action if detonation is induced. A well-tuned engine can live a very long and happy life, regardless of boost level

Best regards,
Lance
R&D Calibrator

I detect some evasion of the entire question at hand "directly", but I will settle with your answer as it has some indirect connotation of what may lay ahead as in regards to pontientiality, but not limiting.

[joed1]

Originally Posted by BuraQ

I detect some evasion of the entire question at hand "directly", but I will settle with your answer as it has some indirect connotation of what may lay ahead as in regards to pontientiality, but not limiting.

He's attempting to develop a product for sale here, not running for President of The United States. This isn't Meet The Press here.

How does one answer a question as yours with 100% certainty? He can't. NO vendor here can answer that question to that certainty. ANY tune has the potential to cause failure, period.

I am fairly new to this forum and BMWs, but it seems like this is a contest of one ups man-ship and an effort to make people feel good about their own tunes. I think questions should be answered to the best of one's ability, but to say someone is being evasive is rather harsh.

[techlogik]

Originally Posted by BuraQ

I detect some evasion of the entire question at hand "directly", but I will settle with your answer as it has some indirect connotation of what may lay ahead as in regards to pontientiality, but not limiting.

I will add to this.

An example of similar sized turbos in a bi-turbo setup is the K03 turbos that were used on the Audi S4 2000-2002.5 and VWs during that time.

If those were run at higher boost, 17-19psi all the time, which my GIAC flash would boost it via logs to 19psi and taper down to 16-17psi, it wasn't a matter of IF, but WHEN they would fail.

It was a guarantee that the K03s pushed at those levels would be toast without questions. This was only found out by experimentation at higher boost levels to determine the factory designed limits of the turbos themselves.

The best solution was to replace them with the K04s from the RS4, which could be run at 20-21psi all day long.

The only way we will know is people need to run these levels of boost, which can't be safely done anyway above 15psi without meth, and see what happens.

I would say that is a good thing that they can't be pushed that hard due to other issues with detonation etc...and we probably won't find out anytime soon how much they can really take...but then again, maybe we will. It's a waiting game right now and experiment. No tuner can say for sure.

The good news, like K03s, these stock turbos are so cheap to replace, so what if they let go...they are only worth about $150 each.

[vasillalov]

Originally Posted by enrita

yep i have experienced this myself when running one of the first GIAC stage 1 beta on my fully modded car and as well Stage 2 giac on upped turbos. car was overboosting and cutting power constantly.

Same thing happened to my car while I was running stock ECU and full catless turbo back system. The car will constantly overshoot its targets and cut down on power.