[hotrod182]

Like I said before, I actually think that the ECU does a pretty good job at protecting, and adapting. So some will say riding the ECU safety net results in choppy dyno graphs. I can vouch that even running on Map #7 virtually all the time on 91 octane, racing around just about every day, I haven't had any problems at all. And the car runs perfectly smooth. That is with probably 300 1/4 mile runs on 91 octane, this year alone! Now running map #7 on 91 octane is way beyond what is recommended. If my car has survived this kind of abnormal usage, I can't understand why anyone would be afraid of any timing control inadequacies of this tune. I have pushed this tune to the limit, over and over. No super knock codes, etc. I just had my car updated to the latest progman. The car wouldn't make over 10psi of boost. But after a week now, the boost has been totally restored. I think the DME does a lot more controlling than one gives it credit for. Its hard to say whether trying to control certain parameters may become ineffective as the DME might "learn out" that correction value. Well, what do I know...I can only vouch for the fact that it seems silly to argue about something that really isn't an issue unless you always plan on running 87 octane, at high boost levels, in high temps, ignoring all signs of knock, hesitation, etc, etc. But in that case, a tuned car probably isn't the right course to take in the first place.

If you will recall, when I had the first "ultra radical turbo melter map", I used to drive all the way to Sacramento on it on 91 octane, and then after running at the dragstrip on high octane, drove all the way back, and raced around town for weeks without changing a thing. No limps, no superknock codes, nothing. This kind of abuse surely should result in major knocking, engine damage, one would thinK? Well, obviously many 1/4 mile runs after that "melter" tune, the car still ran strong enough to set records.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by hotrod182

Like I said before, I actually think that the ECU does a pretty good job at protecting, and adapting. So some will say riding the ECU safety net results in choppy dyno graphs. I can vouch that even running on Map #7 virtually all the time on 91 octane, racing around just about every day, I haven't had any problems at all. And the car runs perfectly smooth. That is with probably 300 1/4 mile runs on 91 octane, this year alone! Now running map #7 on 91 octane is way beyond what is recommended. If my car has survived this kind of abnormal usage, I can't understand why anyone would be afraid of any timing control inadequacies of this tune. I have pushed this tune to the limit, over and over. No super knock codes, etc. I just had my car updated to the latest progman. The car wouldn't make over 10psi of boost. But after a week now, the boost has been totally restored. I think the DME does a lot more controlling than one gives it credit for. Its hard to say whether trying to control certain parameters may become ineffective as the DME might "learn out" that correction value. Well, what do I know...I can only vouch for the fact that it seems silly to argue about something that really isn't an issue unless you always plan on running 87 octane, at high boost levels, in high temps, ignoring all signs of knock, hesitation, etc, etc. But in that case, a tuned car probably isn't the right course to take in the first place.

If you will recall, when I had the first "ultra radical turbo melter map", I used to drive all the way to Sacramento on it on 91 octane, and then after running at the dragstrip on high octane, drove all the way back, and raced around town for weeks without changing a thing. No limps, no superknock codes, nothing. This kind of abuse surely should result in major knocking, engine damage, one would thinK? Well, obviously many 1/4 mile runs after that "melter" tune, the car still ran strong enough to set records.

You run 120mph trap speeds with a "stock" 6AT car. Just about else running purportedly the set-up/same tune is trapping nearly 10mph slower. So I'm not sure that you are a good data point. More like an outliner. Your 120mph trap speeds would suggest well over 400whp. But since you refuse to dyno your car in public, we'll never know why that tune seems to work so well in your car. And only in your car.

But what this has to do with the PROcede actually controlling timing I don't know.

Shiv

[hotrod182]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

You run 120mph trap speeds with a "stock" 6AT car. Just about else running purportedly the set-up/same tune is trapping nearly 10mph slower. So I'm not sure that you are a good data point. More like an outliner. Your 120mph trap speeds would suggest well over 400whp. But since you refuse to dyno your car in public, we'll never know why that tune seems to work so well in your car. And only in your car.

But what this has to do with the PROcede actually controlling timing I don't know.

Shiv

I respect what you are trying to convey here, and your technical research and expertise. You have always been a gentleman to me at the track, and I don't want to start an argument here. I am just saying I used to be paranoid of any knock, and resultant engine damage. I have run under all these absurd conditions, monitored with my BT for any faults, etc, and have been particularly sensitive to audible knock incidents. And through all this, I have seen the DME make some pretty good adjustment, with an obviously large margin of safety. I think to rely on DME adaptation for instant meth shut down, etc, would probably not be wise, but otherwise I have been surprised at how well it works. Perhaps my dyno graph wouldn't be ideally smooth, who knows? But in everyday driving, racing, the car feels great. But as far as your timing control, I'm glad you have the parameter under control to your satisfaction.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

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

Sure.

Here is a funny quote from 2007. Funny two ways. First, you hammer on the dangers of the “unsafe” SSTT and JB2. Note not a single engine failure related to either. Second, you suggest the IAT timing retard used by the JB2 was nonsense. It’s funny because earlier in this thread you cited it as the number one arbiter of total timing advance.

Originally Posted by Shiv@Vishnu

In the case of the 335i tuning market, half of the tuning options are actually missing one-third of the necessary ingredients. The taste can be made temporarily palatable by through spreading misinformation (air intake temp based timing retard nonsense, factory closed loop fuel control adjusting for fuel delivery bs, how 'unsafe' other options are, for examples). It's just the way the market works. Some will get it immediately. Some won't. But in the end, the more options out there will make everyone more knowledgable on the subject. But a few eggs will likely be cracked along the way.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...1&postcount=12

Mike

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by edo

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.

I don't remember discussing CPS at all until Steve brought it up 2-3 months ago. Throw up a link.

Mike

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

You run 120mph trap speeds with a "stock" 6AT car. Just about else running purportedly the set-up/same tune is trapping nearly 10mph slower. So I'm not sure that you are a good data point. More like an outliner. Your 120mph trap speeds would suggest well over 400whp. But since you refuse to dyno your car in public, we'll never know why that tune seems to work so well in your car. And only in your car.

But what this has to do with the PROcede actually controlling timing I don't know.

Shiv

Off topic since you went there 119+ MPH has been matched by others. Like this guy:

http://www.dragtimes.com/BMW-135i-Timeslip-17881.html

He actually went 11s on runflats too on another run! That impresses me more than the MPH.

Anyway, if you search dragtimes you'll find many cars running 114+mph under all sorts of conditions and lack of mods. A couple even on pump gas.

Mike

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Sure.

Here is a funny quote from 2007. Funny two ways. First, you hammer on the dangers of the “unsafe” SSTT and JB2. Note not a single engine failure related to either. Second, you suggest the IAT timing retard used by the JB2 was nonsense. It’s funny because earlier in this thread you cited it as the number one arbiter of total timing advance.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...1&postcount=12

Mike

You're struggling Mike. I said a few eggs will be cracked along the way. And they have. You know this as well as I.

As for the IAT/ignition advance relationship, you might want to read (and understand) what I wrote in this thread. I said IAT has a big impact on initial advance upon WOT. After that, the DME rolls timing back in. It does not have a big impact on target timing advance during stead state or post tip-in conditions. Think of it as an accelerator pump. But instead of adding a quick burst of fuel, it induces a quick bit of brief retard.

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I don't remember discussing CPS at all until Steve brought it up 2-3 months ago. Throw up a link.

All you need to do is look at the JB3 marketing material that was posted on n54tech as well as the BMS website. The CPS offset/timing control claim was only edited out after Steve tested it to have no such feature due to hardware limitation. And if you do some searches on n54tech (since Terry got banned from this and the other BMW forums for questionable behavior), you'll even see him mention it as a feature. He even had the nerve to differentiate maps by how much timing correction they induce. Of course, he no longer talks about that now.

Cheers,
Shiv

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Sure.

Here is a funny quote from 2007. Funny two ways. First, you hammer on the dangers of the “unsafe” SSTT and JB2. Note not a single engine failure related to either. Second, you suggest the IAT timing retard used by the JB2 was nonsense. It’s funny because earlier in this thread you cited it as the number one arbiter of total timing advance.



http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...1&postcount=12

Mike

Yep, you have access to Terry's cataloged and sorted repository of everything Shiv has ever posted.

[Malek@MRF]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Sure.

Here is a funny quote from 2007. Funny two ways. First, you hammer on the dangers of the “unsafe” SSTT and JB2. Note not a single engine failure related to either. Second, you suggest the IAT timing retard used by the JB2 was nonsense. It’s funny because earlier in this thread you cited it as the number one arbiter of total timing advance.

Mike

You don't sound like a very technically oriented person, but do you even know what is in that JB2?? It's quite simple....

The JB2 doesn't do anything for timing, or alter IAT's for that matter.

Some of your posts sounds like its Terry typing.. annoying.

[StartupJunkie]

Hi Folks,

I feel that we've gotten a bit off track with this thread (its not about trap times, past issues or claims). I was wondering if we can return to the original intent:

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

...This purpose of this thread was to disprove the following myths:

1) The DME "learns out" all PROcede induced timing changes
2) The DME ultimately decides what actual ignition advance to run, regardless of what the PROcede is doing to the CAS signal.

I know there are some folks who are gathering data, but if anyone has data they've collected and wish to discuss, please post it and add to this thread.

If we can limit the discussion to presenting data and interpreting data, it will be a lot easier for folks to read. We are at 7 pages with only a small handful of posts with tangible information in it.

Thanks (back to our regularly scheduled programming),

Junk

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Malekreza11

You don't sound like a very technically oriented person, but do you even know what is in that JB2?? It's quite simple....

The JB2 doesn't do anything for timing, or alter IAT's for that matter.

To be fair, it did something to IAT when you ran the "R switch". It shorted the signal to ground, making the DME believe that the car was driving on Mercury. This primarily raised the boost due to the DME trying to compensate for a make believe air density reduction.

Some of your posts sounds like its Terry typing.. annoying.

It is always Terry writing those words. But only when his arguments sound semi-convincing. When they falter like they have been lately, Terry will assume no responsibility and leave Mike high and dry.

Shiv

[Malek@MRF]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

To be fair, it did something to IAT when you ran the "R switch". It shorted the signal to ground, making the DME believe that the car was driving on Mercury. This primarily raised the boost due to the DME trying to compensate for a make believe air density reduction.



It is always Terry writing those words. But only when his arguments sound semi-convincing. When they falter like they have been lately, Terry will assume no responsibility and leave Mike high and dry.

Shiv

Shiv, you're right about the R-switch. I just assumed we were talking about a simple barebones JB2 with none of the BS added to it. (hotpill, R, X, whatever)

Terry and crew... I don't have much to say about them anymore. I saw his true colors over a year ago when he couldn't handle another competitor.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by Shiv@Vishnu

All you need to do is look at the JB3 marketing material that was posted on n54tech as well as the BMS website. The CPS offset/timing control claim was only edited out after Steve tested it to have no such feature due to hardware limitation. And if you do some searches on n54tech (since Terry got banned from this and the other BMW forums for questionable behavior), you'll even see him mention it as a feature. He even had the nerve to differentiate maps by how much timing correction they induce. Of course, he no longer talks about that now.

Again that isn't my concern. But FWIW the only BMW forum that banned Terry was "bimmerpost" (parent of this forum), and for arguing with you much like I'm doing now. The same reason you also have been banned from forums for "questionable behavior". He has been a good standing member and sponsor of many other BMW community forums for years. I'm sure the same can be said for you. Sometimes personalities just clash and certain people get a lot more leeway than others for some reason.

On the CPS, you've made those "BMS always marketed JB3 as having CPS" claims before but I've yet to see any links/proof. Rick dug up a paragraph on **********'s website that mentioned it, but you could see it was the word for word press release announcing the kick off of JB3 development. The document was written months before the JB3 was released and the final feature list did not mention CPS. No other document posted on n54tech or any website referenced it as a feature. During tuning gauge development one post suggested they might add CPS adjustment as an option to their tuning gauge but it was never promised just discussed.

Hopefully we can keep this thread civil as I think it sorta has, except for the few shots at me but thats okay I have no hard feelings against anybody and if any of my detractors are in my neck of the woods you are welcome to stop by for some beer

I will post some data soon as I arrived home today.

Mike

[RiXst3r]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

On the CPS, you've made those "BMS always marketed JB3 as having CPS" claims before but I've yet to see any links/proof.

Mike

To maintain your integrity, you might want to contact vendors to have it removed from these currently active pages... They all still list "CPS offset aka timing control" as a feature of the jb3. Obviously they used the product announcement as well. I am good at finding things I guess, lol... no hard feelings? Just trying to help

http://www.hopupracing.com/juboxjb3st3p.html
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163830
http://www.street-power.com/juboxjb3st3p.html
http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217182
http://forums.e60.net/index.php?showtopic=60019

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I have no hard feelings against anybody and if any of my detractors are in my neck of the woods you are welcome to stop by for some beer

Mike

C'mon down to south georgia. I'll put a fresh Sears and Roebuck catalog in the outhouse, prime the pump so you can freshen up, put some extra hay in the mattress, fire up the generator to run the bug zapper to take care of gnats and skeeters and such, and uncork a jug of my freshest corn squeezins.

[ontopofm]

Originally Posted by RiXst3r

To maintain your integrity, you might want to contact vendors to have it removed from these currently active pages... They all still list "CPS offset aka timing control" as a feature of the jb3. Obviously they used the product announcement as well. I am good at finding things I guess, lol... no hard feelings? Just trying to help

http://www.hopupracing.com/juboxjb3st3p.html
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163830
http://www.street-power.com/juboxjb3st3p.html
http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217182
http://forums.e60.net/index.php?showtopic=60019

[jpsimon]

From the JB3 marketing material:

Transform your 335i from a sports sedan to a true sports car with the Juice Box 3.

CPS offset ("timing control"), allows for a little more boost on pump gas, which is not capable with the JB2. In addition boost will be mapped by RPM which is now fed in from the Crank Position Sensor.

[jpsimon]

Oh sweet, CPS offset is the JB3's #1 new feature straight from Terry's mouth:

Here is a partial list of new features:

1) CPS offset (AKA "timing control"), which allows a little more boost on pump gas than we can with the JB2 variants. In addition boost will be mapped by RPM to boost midrange power.

[Kbueno]

[Ironring Racing]

Wow, like swatting a fly with a buick!

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by got psi

is the JB3 hardware capable of CPS offset?

I really don't know one way or the other. BMS's engineer has stated the hardware is capable of it. Shiv's engineer claims it would never work.. but this engineer also tells us you can alter ECU data via the CANbus. Since CPS doesn't control timing in the first place it is really a moot point.

Mike

[BavarianBullet]

Originally Posted by RiXst3r

To maintain your integrity, you might want to contact vendors to have it removed from these currently active pages... They all still list "CPS offset aka timing control" as a feature of the jb3. Obviously they used the product announcement as well. I am good at finding things I guess, lol... no hard feelings? Just trying to help

http://www.hopupracing.com/juboxjb3st3p.html
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163830
http://www.street-power.com/juboxjb3st3p.html
http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217182
http://forums.e60.net/index.php?showtopic=60019

Blast from the past repeats just keep on rolling...

http://www.n54tech.com/forums/showth...keting&page=12
.