JB3 1.0 Dynojet Result

Mike@N54Tuning.com · 01-18-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I'm not talking about more boost Mike. I'm talking about just adding race gas to the current tune with no other changes. If one sees BIG gains when doing so, what can he conclude?

Shiv

There is no such comparison here. We have a car that did 375rw on the JB3 on race gas, and 355rw? on a V3 with race gas. Without an actual boost trace from the dyno its impossible to know if he was running more or less boost with the JB3 vs. V3, so no reason to get defense about it.

We also have two JB3 cars that were clearly running too much boost for their octanes and had disappointing results. At their boost levels they very may well have picked up 40hp on race gas. Mote may very well have dynod 40hp less on straight 91 octane. Who knows. The last dyno day we had a variety of V3 and JB3 cars running 91 octane and the numbers are posted in that thread for all to analyze. No reason to jump over only the test results you like.

SfValley335i · 01-18-2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

We also have two JB3 cars that were clearly running too much boost for their octanes and had disappointing results.

Too much boost for their octanes?

So that pretty much means they were knocking for awhile now since both users have been running the tunes on 91 octane. I dont think that can be too good for the motor.

I'm really surprised someone, in this case two users running JB3 maps that were not designed for their 91 octane fuel they run on. I think theres plenty of more users that believe their JB3 1.2 on map6 is okay to run on 91 octane.

In the OP's case, he has the JB3 1.0... I dont think this version had the map switching (maps 0-7)... So I dont really understand how he could be running too much boost for his octane?

garmboyz_nat · 01-18-2009, 03:40 PM

I like the result of WTQ, but not WHP. I was shock on the 1 run when I heard they say 299WHP

Mike@N54Tuning.com · 01-18-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SfValley335i

Too much boost for their octanes?

So that pretty much means they were knocking for awhile now since both users have been running the tunes on 91 octane. I dont think that can be too good for the motor.

I'm really surprised someone, in this case two users running JB3 maps that were not designed for their 91 octane fuel they run on. I think theres plenty of more users that believe their JB3 1.2 on map6 is okay to run on 91 octane.

In the OP's case, he has the JB3 1.0... I dont think this version had the map switching (maps 0-7)... So I dont really understand how he could be running too much boost for his octane?

The maps have suggested octane ratings. For example maps 5/6 are suggested for 93 octane and higher. You can get away with them on 91 if you have good airflow, but dynos do not simulate real world airflow.

RiXst3r · 01-18-2009, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The maps have suggested octane ratings. For example maps 5/6 are suggested for 93 octane and higher. You can get away with them on 91 if you have good airflow, but dynos do not simulate real world airflow.

Sorry to pop in here, but since I sold and distributed the jb3 back in the 1.0 days, I am familiar with its octane requirements

In the defense of your customers... they are not going against suggestions as you state, they are following directions.

JB3 1.0 had 3 maps... low boost, high boost, and stock.
All 3 of these maps were TUNED and SUGGESTED for 91 octane.

Your example does not apply.

Mike@N54Tuning.com · 01-18-2009, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RiXst3r

Sorry to pop in here, but since I sold and distributed the jb3 back in the 1.0 days, I am familiar with its octane requirements

In the defense of your customers... they are not going against suggestions as you state, they are following directions.

JB3 1.0 had 3 maps... low boost, high boost, and stock.
All 3 of these maps were TUNED and SUGGESTED for 91 octane.

Your example does not apply.

My understanding was it was later determined 1.0 was too strong for 91 as far as dynos are concerned, although with the right fans and cool down can put up some numbers. Thus the changes with 1.1 to increase IAT taper, etc.

My point is you can search around and find plenty of JB3 and V3 dynos, on various octane levels. Here is an example of map 3 making more power than map 6 on 93 octane. I guarantee map 6 is faster on the street on 93. You simply need the airflow to make it work.

RiXst3r · 01-18-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

My understanding was it was later determined 1.0 was too strong for 91 as far as dynos are concerned, although with the right fans and cool down can put up some numbers. Thus the changes with 1.1 to increase IAT taper, etc.

My point is you can search around and find plenty of JB3 and V3 dynos, on various octane levels. Here is an example of map 3 making more power than map 6 on 93 octane. I guarantee map 6 is faster on the street on 93. You simply need the airflow to make it work.

True, airflow does make a big difference... and you are correct, 1.1 reduced boost by around 1psi more during high IAT's which helped with that issue...

but that's not the customers fault

OpenFlash · 01-18-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

My understanding was it was later determined 1.0 was too strong for 91 as far as dynos are concerned, although with the right fans and cool down can put up some numbers. Thus the changes with 1.1 to increase IAT taper, etc.

My point is you can search around and find plenty of JB3 and V3 dynos, on various octane levels. Here is an example of map 3 making more power than map 6 on 93 octane. I guarantee map 6 is faster on the street on 93. You simply need the airflow to make it work.

Once again, there is that midrange dip caused by throttle closure. On both maps.

Shiv

Mike@N54Tuning.com · 01-18-2009, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Once again, there is that midrange dip caused by throttle closure. On both maps.

Shiv

Run looks pretty smooth to me, and great numbers on 93 octane!

Mike

OpenFlash · 01-18-2009, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Run looks pretty smooth to me, and great numbers on 93 octane!

Mike

Really? You don't notice that dip in the midrange that all Jb3s seem to have?

Shiv

enrita · 01-18-2009, 05:15 PM

oh jeez...

Ilma · 01-18-2009, 09:54 PM

It's the emperor's clothes debate again!

But seriously...Shiv are you referring to the dip in horsepower curve?

I also see a spike in the torque curve, but you are referring to the horsepower curve I take it?

01-18-2009, 03:40 PM	#25
garmboyz_nat Private First Class 8 Rep 183 Posts Drives: 2007 335i Coupe Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: North Hollywood iTrader: (7)	I like the result of WTQ, but not WHP. I was shock on the 1 run when I heard they say 299WHP Last edited by garmboyz_nat; 01-18-2009 at 03:56 PM..
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-18-2009, 05:15 PM	#33
enrita Major General 161 Rep 7,377 Posts Drives: 335i - Big turbos Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Italian in Sweden iTrader: (0)	oh jeez... __________________ 07 335i AT - MOTIV 750 - MHD E85 BMS flash - BMS PI - JB4G5 - Okada Coils - NGK 5992 Plugs - Helix IC - Snow Stg. 3 - Stett CP - Custom midpipes with 100 HJS Cats - Bastuck Quad - PSS10 - QUAIFE LSD - BMS OCC - Forge DVs - AR OC - ALCON BBK - M3 Chassi - Dinan CP - Velocity M rear Toe arms - Advan RZ-DF - LUX H8 - Level 10 AT upgrade
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-18-2009, 09:54 PM	#34
Ilma Colonel 184 Rep 2,841 Posts Drives: 2008 135i Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Mississauga iTrader: (0)	It's the emperor's clothes debate again! But seriously...Shiv are you referring to the dip in horsepower curve? I also see a spike in the torque curve, but you are referring to the horsepower curve I take it?
	Appreciate 0 Quote