[roozie2001]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

If? You're kidding me, right? Unless I'm mistaken, Mike/Terry is nor questioning whether we can control timing. They have quietly abandoned that stance due to obvious reasons. They have moved on to another concerns now.

shiv

No im not kidding you. Im not kidding at all. i think u do a great job. I also think this thread is great because u guys arguing is just gonna make u work harder to make a better tune. Now when u guys argue its cool, but when fanboys from BOTH sides come in and start taking cracks it makes the thread just look like a tuner war. Ive learned a descent amount just from this thread. Just dont like seeing it devalued.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

lol ok. Million dollar question Mike: Does the JB3 control timing?

Shiv

Asked and answered.

No piggyback can directly control timing on the N54 without directly driving the coil packs.

Mike

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Asked and answered.

No piggyback can directly control timing on the N54 without directly driving the coil packs.

Mike

So if I say we can put the timing anywhere we want, just as long as it doesn't exceed the knock threshold, you'd claim that is impossible?

Also, how many other piggybacks can read actual timing from CAN data?

Shiv

[marcvtec]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

lol ok. Million dollar question Mike: Does the JB3 control timing?

Shiv

No not really, Actually the Juice box was made a few years ago when you were teaching Terry how resistors worked and how one could theortically create that kind of tune to control boost with the vacuum bypass,I have your original diagram saved somewhere but heck what do I know its Sunday and I'm tired lol.

[RiXst3r]

people are actually saying that the PROcede doesn't control timing??? WHAT!?!?!

The PROcede controls timing, I have seen it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears. Even if its not "directly driving the coil packs" , it is still creating obvious and substantial changes to timing.

A few examples....

In some of the early beta maps when shiv would adjust timing by up to 4 degrees at low rpm's, you could hear the exhaust note changing as you switched maps with the PROcede map switcher... it was actively adjusting timing, and the car was behaving exactly as expected.

Also, shiv released a few maps to beta testers, one with timing adjustments, and one with the timing table zero'd out as a "race gas map"... when running this map on 93 octane, the car would get kinda rough in the high rpms, even stumble a bit... switching to the map which was *EXACTLY* the same except for he was retarding the timing, the car ran butter smooth, stumbling was gone.

It was completely obvious that these timing changes were real and permanent, and were doing exactly as advertised; actively controlling timing.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

So if I say we can put the timing anywhere we want, just as long as it doesn't exceed the knock threshold, you'd claim that is impossible?

Also, how many other piggybacks can read actual timing from CAN data?

Shiv

More distractions. There are cases where CPS offsetting may offer a performance benefit. Like when you're riding at the very top of the curve on meth/race gas. Still, the highest stock turbo dyno in the world doesn't use CPS offsetting... the worlds quickest/fastest N54s don't use it... So one wonders on the performance benefit.

I am happy to admit I am not as familiar with off boost timing, so CPS offsetting may offer some benefit in vacuum/idle. I can't say. I can say that CPS offsetting as an effective timing retard / safety device under boost, is simply a parlor trick/marketing.

If you want timing control like a flash why don't you just use that CANbus to directly drive the coil packs?

Mike

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by marcvtec

No not really, Actually the Juice box was made a few years ago when you were teaching Terry how resistors worked and how one could theortically create that kind of tune to control boost with the vacuum bypass,I have your original diagram saved somewhere but heck what do I know its Sunday and I'm tired lol.

More fun but that isn't my fight. Take it over to N54Tech if you're so inclined and give Terry a chance to answer

Mike

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

More distractions. There are cases where CPS offsetting may offer a performance benefit. Like when you're riding at the very top of the curve on meth/race gas. Still, the highest stock turbo dyno in the world doesn't use CPS offsetting... the worlds quickest/fastest N54s don't use it... So one wonders on the performance benefit.

I am happy to admit I am not as familiar with off boost timing, so CPS offsetting may offer some benefit in vacuum/idle. I can't say. I can say that CPS offsetting as an effective timing retard / safety device under boost, is simply a parlor trick/marketing.

If you want timing control like a flash why don't you just use that CANbus to directly drive the coil packs?

Mike

It appears to me that you really hope that there are enough people on this forum who don't know enough about engine control systems which will actually give you words even one ounce of credibility. And to even suggest that I'm providing "more distractions" is so far beyond rational (and well into the realm of irony) that I'm at a loss for words. It's a new feeling... I think I kinda like it.

Shiv

[usc335]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

More distractions. There are cases where CPS offsetting may offer a performance benefit. Like when you're riding at the very top of the curve on meth/race gas. Still, the highest stock turbo dyno in the world doesn't use CPS offsetting... the worlds quickest/fastest N54s don't use it... So one wonders on the performance benefit.
Mike

It's called consistency and safety. As has been discussed before, CPS offsetting, is an EXTREMELY common practice on almost all "piggybacks" (except the JB3) on all kinds of cars all over the world for over 20 years. You are really fighting a losing battle trying to argue that CPS offsetting doesn't work. What your saying is that Terry knows better than ALL of the piggyback manufacturers in the world with their vast resources. That's pretty arrogant (and wrong). The N54 is nothing more than an internal combustion engine, so please don't try and argue it is something special and the rules don't apply. Please stop the mis-direction and post data. I realize you are just trying to confuse people because it must be true if it's on the internet.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by usc335

It's called consistency and safety. As has been discussed before, CPS offsetting, is an EXTREMELY common practice on almost all "piggybacks" (except the JB3) on all kinds of cars all over the world for over 20 years. You are really fighting a losing battle trying to argue that CPS offsetting doesn't work. What your saying is that Terry knows better than ALL of the piggyback manufacturers in the world with their vast resources. That's pretty arrogant (and wrong). The N54 is nothing more than an internal combustion engine, so please don't try and argue it is something special and the rules don't apply. Please stop the mis-direction and post data. I realize you are just trying to confuse people because it must be true if it's on the internet.

+1
Also, let's not forget that BMS actually claimed that the JB3 offered CPS offsetting before and after it was released. Until it was proven that it didn't through independent testing and hardware analysis.

Sorry I'm going off topic but it's clear that staying on-topic is futile at times.

Shiv

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by usc335

It's called consistency and safety. As has been discussed before, CPS offsetting, is an EXTREMELY common practice on almost all "piggybacks" (except the JB3) on all kinds of cars all over the world for over 20 years. You are really fighting a losing battle trying to argue that CPS offsetting doesn't work. What your saying is that Terry knows better than ALL of the piggyback manufacturers in the world with their vast resources. That's pretty arrogant (and wrong). The N54 is nothing more than an internal combustion engine, so please don't try and argue it is something special and the rules don't apply. Please stop the mis-direction and post data. I realize you are just trying to confuse people because it must be true if it's on the internet.

From another thread.

Originally Posted by Mike@ N54Tuning

Actually, there are more N54 piggybacks out there running without CPS offsetting than with. And they have proven to be exceptionally reliable and powerful. Non-CPS tunes own the pump gas track records, and the pump gas dyno records. But don't let those inconvenient truths stand in the way of the marketing.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

From another thread.

Mike, this is why many of us don't take you seriously. The only piggybacks that don't offer CPS offsetting are simple plug-in TMAP attenuators like the SSTT and its progeny the JB+. And they do so for reasons of cost and packaging. Same reason they don't directly drive the wastegate solenoids or adjust fuel mapping. Please tell me you don't believe otherwise.

Shiv

[RiXst3r]

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

+1
Also, let's not forget that BMS actually claimed that the JB3 offered CPS offsetting before and after it was released. Until it was proven that it didn't through independent testing and hardware analysis.

Sorry I'm going off topic but it's clear that staying on-topic is futile at times.

Shiv

More distractions. CPS was never mentioned after release, but certainly during the conceptual and development phases it was thought to be the only method. There was never a big "we discovered CPS offsetting doesn't work on the N54" party, but if there was, I'm sure you would have been invited. If you want to continue to make distractions lets at least make them interesting... Which method has resulted in more engine carnage?

Mike

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Mike, this is why many of us don't take you seriously. The only piggybacks that don't offer CPS offsetting are simple plug-in TMAP attenuators like the SSTT and its progeny the JB+. And they do so for reasons of cost and packaging. Same reason they don't directly drive the wastegate solenoids or adjust fuel mapping. Please tell me you don't believe otherwise.

Shiv

There are more N54 engines running tunes without CPS offsetting than with. Just something many readers, like usc335 here, might not know.

Mike

[RiXst3r]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

There are more N54 engines running tunes without CPS offsetting than with. Just something many readers, like usc335 here, might not know.

Mike

That comment is a "tad" misleading... on THIS thread, which is about a full high boost piggyback... here is another way to look at it, and weed out the "half" tunes which run low boost.

Of all the piggyback tunes which offer "high boost" (14psi or more), and map the tune based on RPM, how many do so without CPS offset?

Correct me if I am wrong with this list...

CPS offset and "high boost":
AA, RDsport blackbox, XEDE, PROcede, Helix Attache, CP-E standback

NO CPS offset and "high boost":
Juicebox

I am not saying that BMS doesn't know something that the others don't... aka, the "secret sauce", but as for full 4D+ tuning piggybacks, cps offset IS popular.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by RiXst3r

That comment is a "tad" misleading... on THIS thread, which is about a full high boost piggyback... here is another way to look at it, and weed out the "half" tunes which run low boost.

Of all the piggyback tunes which offer "high boost" (14psi or more), and map the tune based on RPM, how many do so without CPS offset?

Correct me if I am wrong with this list...

CPS offset and "high boost":
AA, RDsport blackbox, XEDE, PROcede, Helix Attache, CP-E standback

NO CPS offset and "high boost":
Juicebox

I am not saying that BMS doesn't know something that the others don't... aka, the "secret sauce", lol, but as for full 4D+ tuning piggybacks, cps offset IS popular.

Of those tunes you mention, PROCede aside, the rest make up some 200 or less units. Hardly worth mentioning. Unless this is example of tunes with CPS offsetting that failed to make a dent in the N54 tuning market thread.

There were over 1,100 JB2/JB2H/JBX tunes sold, around 800 JB+s, and at last count 1,200 JB3s. Then add to that at least 4000-5000 SSTTs, and you have a staggering number of tunes in use for years. With great reliability. Remember, Shiv claimed that the "Terry Tuner" with its 1.5psi gains was going to blow motors when it was introduced. If this internet connection wasn't so slow I'd go find the quote. Funny stuff.

Mike

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Remember, Shiv claimed that the "Terry Tuner" with its 1.5psi gains was going to blow motors when it was introduced. If this internet connection wasn't so slow I'd go find the quote. Funny stuff.

Will we see a link to that post before or after you present all that data of yours? Because, your total contribution to this thread thus far has been zilch.

And yes, there are more Daewoo Lanoses on the road than M3s.

Shiv

[RiXst3r]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Of those tunes you mention, PROCede aside, the rest make up some 200 or less units. Hardly worth mentioning. Unless this is example of tunes with CPS offsetting that failed to make a dent in the N54 tuning market thread.

There were over 1,100 JB2/JB2H/JBX tunes sold, around 800 JB+s, and at last count 1,200 JB3s. Then add to that at least 4000-5000 SSTTs, and you have a staggering number of tunes in use for years. With great reliability. Remember, Shiv claimed that the "Terry Tuner" with its 1.5psi gains was going to blow motors when it was introduced. If this internet connection wasn't so slow I'd go find the quote. Funny stuff.

Mike

Once again, you are counting tunes that don't actually accomplish re-mapping of the engine parameters at the level of the jb3 or procede, but rather are focused on things like quick install, low boost, or low cost. Different goals. Apples to Oranges.

I am not going to argue that not having CPS offset is a "bad thing" , I am just saying, your comment about how CPS offset is vastly unpopular is misleading. The jb3 was the first, and still the only piggyback tune to offer full 4d engine mapping without the use of CPS offset.

[lawdude]

@n54tuning.com is as slippery as Terry.

[usc335]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

There are more N54 engines running tunes without CPS offsetting than with. Just something many readers, like usc335 here, might not know.

Mike

Here we go with more mis-direction. Apparently, I know a lot more than you think, and maybe that's the problem -- you think we are ignorant. I suggest you quit while your only losing badly as opposed to going down in flames. Although, I do find your responses rather amusing, so keep it up...

[edo]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

More distractions. CPS was never mentioned after release, but certainly during the conceptual and development phases it was thought to be the only method.

I'm not going to participate in this discussion as I'm not very good in all this technical stuff, but what you wrote isn't true.
I do remember BMS claiming that JB3 controlled CPS offsetting. When everybody was asking how, Terry told that he wouldn't reveal it as he'd found a unique way to controll it, that no other tune uses. And he was claiming it for a long period of time until Scalbert tested both tunes.