[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by jpsimon

Bump for data from other parties to support any supposed theories/claims they have........

If you are referring to me, it is going to be a few days before I'm able to put together the data to support concepts I introduced to the discussion. Like the relationship between "total timing advance" and "knock", and octane adaption. Neither side has presented any data on this topic. In addition I have a V3 system here which will I will use to illustrate another simple concept. Using the V3 system will add credibility to the data as we do not have the source code to "screw with it".

Please keep in mind the refutal of CPS as being "not learned out" is proven in the logs posted as "Test 1" and "Test 2", which demonstrates that at 100% of programmed CPS offset the system was unable to prevent the ECU from upwardly adjusting timing at 5000 rpm. No additional logs on my part are required. No meaningful rebuttal was presented. For all intensive purposes that debate is over. We will simply be moving on to the new topics I have presented, which will help you understand how the system really works.

Mike

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

If you are referring to me, it is going to be a few days before I'm able to put together the data to support concepts I introduced to the discussion. Like the relationship between "total timing advance" and "knock", and octane adaption. Neither side has presented any data on this topic. In addition I have a V3 system here which will I will use to illustrate another simple concept. Using the V3 system will add credibility to the data as we do not have the source code to "screw with it".

Please keep in mind the refutal of CPS as being "not learned out" is proven in the logs posted as "Test 1" and "Test 2", which demonstrates that at 100% of programmed CPS offset the system was unable to prevent the ECU from upwardly adjusting timing at 5000 rpm. No additional logs on my part are required. No meaningful rebuttal was presented. For all intensive purposes that debate is over. We will simply be moving on to the new topics I have presented, which will help you understand how the system really works.

Mike

Ok Mike. So you don't have data? You have to go out and gather it. Ok doke.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Please keep in mind the refutal of CPS as being "not learned out" is proven in the logs posted as "Test 1" and "Test 2", which demonstrates that at 100% of programmed CPS offset the system was unable to prevent the ECU from upwardly adjusting timing at 5000 rpm.

Are we looking at the same charts? The below are approximates when looking at the plots as I do not have the raw data.

Test 1
RPM - DME Advance
5000 - 9.5
5500 - 8.5
6000 - 10.0
6500 - 12.0


Test 2
RPM - DME Advance
5000 - 5.5
5500 - 7.0
6000 - 9.5
6500 - 10.5

Your statement appears to suggest that the removed timing was added back in by the DME. But that would mean Test 2 would show more advance at the same RPM. But it was less, probably due to difference in temperatures as well as acceleration rates. Even Test 4 showed similar numbers.

What am I missing with what you are saying?

BTW, better tell AMS they are heading down a wrong way street as well.

[brianhn1]

I'd like to see more results from 'Test 2.' Can someone else post their 3rd gear runs with their own PROcede?

[GeorgiaTech335coupe]

Originally Posted by brianhn1

I'd like to see more results from 'Test 2.' Can someone else post their 3rd gear runs with their own PROcede?

I don't think all the firmware/software/reader for this has been released to the public yet.

[brianhn1]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaTech335coupe

I don't think all the firmware/software/reader for this has been released to the public yet.

Thanks.

Shiv, you have more 'Test 2' data?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by inthemiddle

I must chime in here... I don't believe Shiv has ever made a statement to try to lead anyone to believe that.... ...

It would be nice to stay on point as well... good dicussions sorta.. but seems to be degrading rapidly...

Thank you. That is correct. 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.

These myths were proven to be untrue. And others will be able to reproduce these tests and get similar results now that we have added "Ignition Correction" as a user adjustable.

Not surprisingly, Mike/Terry didn't have anything to say with regards to us debunking these myths (that they were responsible for spreading). They just tried to ignore it and hoped that no one will notice.

Instead, they are suggesting that our timing map isn't 100% of the job that they think it should. Which is strange considering that their timing map is doing 0% of that job on account of it not existing in any place other than their marketing pitches.

shiv

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by brianhn1

Thanks.

Shiv, you have more 'Test 2' data?

Sure do.

[brianhn1]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Sure do.

Would be great if you could post them.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by brianhn1

Would be great if you could post them.

It's not my turn to present data. I've already spent a full day doing that.

Shiv

[StartupJunkie]

Hi Scalbert,

Thanks for documenting what I was seeing ... I thought I was the only person "mis-reading" the data. As it turns out, i'm not mis-reading anything.

Thanks,

Junk

Originally Posted by scalbert

Are we looking at the same charts? The below are approximates when looking at the plots as I do not have the raw data.

Test 1
RPM - DME Advance
5000 - 9.5
5500 - 8.5
6000 - 10.0
6500 - 12.0


Test 2
RPM - DME Advance
5000 - 5.5
5500 - 7.0
6000 - 9.5
6500 - 10.5

Your statement appears to suggest that the removed timing was added back in by the DME. But that would mean Test 2 would show more advance at the same RPM. But it was less, probably due to difference in temperatures as well as acceleration rates. Even Test 4 showed similar numbers.

What am I missing with what you are saying?

BTW, better tell AMS they are heading down a wrong way street as well.

[jpsimon]

shiv hasn't released the newest procede logging software yet so I couldn't log everything he did so this might not be very useful... but man i'm loving how steady that boost holds BTW, ths 15.3psi you see in these logs is the same I was running when I put down 398whp/420wtq on 93 octane....... you really don't need insane boost levels or high octane fuel to make good power.

1st - 3rd (loss of traction in 1st even with my AWD):


3rd gear pulls:

[beepbeep]

Originally Posted by scalbert

Are we looking at the same charts? The below are approximates when looking at the plots as I do not have the raw data.

Test 1
RPM - DME Advance
5000 - 9.5
5500 - 8.5
6000 - 10.0
6500 - 12.0


Test 2
RPM - DME Advance
5000 - 5.5
5500 - 7.0
6000 - 9.5
6500 - 10.5

Your statement appears to suggest that the removed timing was added back in by the DME. But that would mean Test 2 would show more advance at the same RPM. But it was less, probably due to difference in temperatures as well as acceleration rates. Even Test 4 showed similar numbers.

Shouldn't Mike have been comparing Test 2 and Test 6a anyway since those are the ones with full boost? Test 1 and Test 2 are kind of apples and oranges with IAT and acceleration (time) at much different levels, as you say. Test 2 and 6a have closer variables and still show that the offset is only slightly removed by the DME.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by jpsimon

shiv hasn't released the newest procede logging software yet so I couldn't log everything he did so this might not be very useful...

Thanks for post your logs. The new software/firmware that I'm testing now is very similar with the following exceptions:

1) Twice the CANbus sampling rate
2) New data channel for DME Ignition Advance
3) CAN Ign Advance is renamed Actual Ignition Advance
4) New channels for AFR and pre and post rear o2 voltage
5) User adjustable for Ignition Correction has range of 0-200% instead of current 0-100%

Cheers,
shiv

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

5) User adjustable for Ignition Correction has range of 0-200% instead of current 0-100%

-100% - (+)200% sounds better.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by beepbeep

Shouldn't Mike have been comparing Test 2 and Test 6a anyway since those are the ones with full boost? Test 1 and Test 2 are kind of apples and oranges with IAT and acceleration (time) at much different levels, as you say. Test 2 and 6a have closer variables and still show that the offset is only slightly removed by the DME.

Perhaps, but those are the ones he mentioned. I am just trying to get a clear picture of the perspectives.

The problem I see with Test 6a is the sudden timing drop just after 5000 RPM. It was climbing as normal at about 8.5 degrees at about 5k revs, but then drops 4 - 5 degrees which is indicative of knock activity. It will then gradually recover, but not completely to where it should have been.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by lawdude

-100% - (+)200% sounds better.

What does your friend want to run? 3 - 4 degrees advance up top will need some serious octane to support it.

[nj1266]

I am not a fan of Shiv's tuning but what he is saying is correct and what Mike is saying has no validity. The basics of the ECU (DME) are the same. You have 3D fuel maps, timing maps, and boost maps.

For the timing maps, the x-axis is usually the load and the y-axis is usually the rpm. The cells are filled with numbers. The ECU recieves data from the MAF (for load) and CRS. At a certain load and a certain rpm the ECU looks up the number and commands the spark plug to fire at x-degrees BTDC. Sometimes you have more than one timing map and the ECU interpolates between them, but the logic is pretty much the same. At a certain load and certain rpm the ECU looks up the timing number in the cell and tells the coil pack to fire the plug at x-degrees before top dead center. What Mike is saying is totally off the wall. There is no fuzzy logic to timing at all.

What an interceptor does (haltech, proceed, Xede), is intercept the signal from the CRS, modifies the signal (timing correction) and sends it to the ECU. The ECU then sends a signal based on the data from the interceptor to change the timing either by retarding it or advancing it.

I had an Xede on my Evo and it worked almost the same as the Proceed. The only thing that we did not have was the ability to log ACTUAL timing. So I went down the Innovate in SoCal and had them write a plug-in for the xede so we can log actual timing.

Here is a SS showing pretty much the same thing that the proceed is showing.



The light green trace is the timing correction from the interceptor, the dark green line is the timing from the ECU/DME, and the dark redline is the actual timing that the car is running. If you look at the tag at 6500 rpm you will see the ECU/DME timing at 14*, the correction at -7.09* and the actual timing at 6.90*. So the actual ignition timing advance, ie, how far in advance of TDC the spark plug is being fired, was 6.90*.

All interceptors work on the same principal. Intercept the signal, modify it, and send it to the ECU. The ECU will then send the modified signal to the coil pack to fire the plug. It is very simple and in the absence of direct flashing of the ECU the most effective. Flashing the ECU is the best method, however, since the ECU directly reads the maps that the tuner modified. There is no middle man in the form of an interceptor. That makes flashing very effecient and very consistent. Unfortunately for BMW owners, it is also quite expensive.

[doofus2]

I took the 0% correction logs (test6a) and overlaid the 100% correction logs (test2) at 50% transparency. In the below image, the half-intensity lines are the 100% correction logs.

Unfortunately, the scaling is off by quite a bit, but I think there's still something to be learned by overlaying the graphs this way. Luckily, the RPM graphs seem to be in sync (if scaled wrong).

Check DME timing from about halfway after the 4th blue vertical bar to about the 6th blue vertical bar (~5.2kRPM to 6kRPM). In this range, the DME timing lines match almost exactly. But: since the scaling's off, the reality is that the DME timing is more advanced in the 100% correction case.

[doofus2]

After my last post, I was really frustrated by the lack of readability. In fact, I have a bunch more questions on the data (e.g. what's up with those bumps at 4kRPM on the 0% advance logs??)

Shiv, can you post the raw data for these runs? Re-graphing them in Excel to correct scaling is a lot better than screwing around with re-scaling sub-parts of jpegs...

[nj1266]

Can you overlap 6a and 6b for us?

Thanks

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by ’Scalbert’

Are we looking at the same charts? The below are approximates when looking at the plots as I do not have the raw data.

The point is that the “Test 2” timing is still in a position to float because the offset introduced does not match the stock timing curve. The net timing result of the 100% correction is about the same as the 0% correction. Moreover as seen in 6b and subsequent runs with or without CPS offset the long term octane adaptation will reshape both curves significantly. I will provide data for this but currently find myself around 10, 000 miles away from home in the south pacific right now, but flying home tommorow, so appologies that I am not up to posting things right now. I have a scooter and the speed limit is 25MPH on this island so not much I can do

Test 2 (effective):
RPM – Advance
5000 – 2.5
5500 – 6
6000 – 7
6500 – 9

Test 6b:
RPM – Advance
5000 – 4
5500 – 7
6000 – 5
6500 – 8