[Joshboody]

well this is a more indept subject then just adding timing with rpm due to piston duration time decreasing. On some N/A platforms advance will remain constant from mid to top because min timing for max torque does not increase. this is because of cylinder turbulence, heat, and maybe piston compression speed increase burn rate. the chamber design, quench, squish, cam profile, etc plays into this formula. In FI engines detonation is more of an issue than MBT I believe. and of course port and direct injection will have an effect. anyway, i'm sure others can elaborate here.

Probably decreased detonation time and load are the main factors for us in the top.

[Ilma]

KISS.....

still think running 14.5 psi on 91 octane is too much boost for the octane.

I can get a knock free curve in 3rd gear on 13.5 psi with 94 octane using -3 degrees of offset down low and tapering up to -1.8 degrees as I approach redline.

That's with 94 octane. If I add just 1 more psi of boost, I can induce a timing dip.

I think there are plenty of procede logs posted on here that show good timing curves with much less offset than BMS is using.

Makes me think their approach is flawed and their conclusions follow that.

[vasillalov]

I am sorry for not being constructive on the topic of this thread...

From everything that I've read on multiple threads on three different forums over the course of close to 16 months, it seems to me that BurgerTuning is simply making up some weird lame black box they call a piggy back tune, then they "throw that shit to the wall and see if it sticks".

Clap, JPSlick, Sniz, and the rest of you guys: I really appreciate your knowledge and technical skills, but for the love of God, stop educating BMS. Let them figure how engine tuning works on their own... If motors start blowing up, more end users will realize something is not kosher and they will either demand improvement from BMS or they will jump ships like rats from a burning boat. Either way, this will (hopefully) force BMS to produce a better product.

</rant>

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by Ilma

KISS.....

still think running 14.5 psi on 91 octane is too much boost for the octane.

I can get a knock free curve in 3rd gear on 13.5 psi with 94 octane using -3 degrees of offset down low and tapering up to -1.8 degrees as I approach redline.

That's with 94 octane. If I add just 1 more psi of boost, I can induce a timing dip.

I think there are plenty of procede logs posted on here that show good timing curves with much less offset than BMS is using.

Makes me think their approach is flawed and their conclusions follow that.

The test here was holding everything constant including boost at 14.5psi tapering to 12 psi at redline, using 91 octane, and determining if any CPS offset could produce a consistent drop free curve. The testing showed even extreme CPS offsets couldn't which contradicts popular the discussions and theory from a few weeks back. If you look at the 13psi curves they were almost as strong on 91 octane with and without a small offset. Interestingly in all runs the curves with the most "knock" were the smoothest and most powerful clearly indicating no real knock was taking place. There is a lot of good data here to benefit the community. Especially given how many people plan to tune their own cars with AP. I'm a little surprised so few are willing to look at the data presented and discuss without the tuner war bs and insults.

Mike

[Clap135]

Sorry went out and bought another rc car last night. Tonight I will show you why your data on map 2 is useless. And actually the offsetted map 1 looks smoother. Simply match up the timing drops with the dyno....maybe you wi get a.clue.

[Jake@MOTIV]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The test here was holding everything constant including boost at 14.5psi tapering to 12 psi at redline, using 91 octane, and determining if any CPS offset could produce a consistent drop free curve. The testing showed even extreme CPS offsets couldn't which contradicts popular the discussions and theory from a few weeks back. If you look at the 13psi curves they were almost as strong on 91 octane with and without a small offset. Interestingly in all runs the curves with the most "knock" were the smoothest and most powerful clearly indicating no real knock was taking place. There is a lot of good data here to benefit the community. Especially given how many people plan to tune their own cars with AP. I'm a little surprised so few are willing to look at the data presented and discuss without the tuner war bs and insults.

Mike

I saw earlier you said it was pointless or something like that to pull more timing down low and less timing up top. Every single rpm digit by digit matters for every other single rpm in the pull. At 3000rpms everything you do sets the environment in the cylinder for what will occur at 6000 rpms (or whatever rpm you want to use as an example). Drop too much timing down low and you can create a more knock susceptible environment up top. Having the appropriate timing through out the rpms is imperative.

This is why mustang dynos, dynopacks, etc are so popular. You can set the roller speed and go through every load cell at every rpm in the tables to set the proper timing curve while monitoring torque output, egts, and afr so that you get everything set up to induce efficiency, safety, and reliable power deliver that is CONSISTANT in many conditions (leaving that buffer for when conditions deteriorate). Just some free info for you. Just offsetting a bunch of degrees isn't how you are going to test the tuning facts we presented in those long drawn out threads in the past. Actually offsetting timing properly for each load range (I guess rpm-vs-map in the tables for the piggy backs) would be a bit more logical and relevant.

This has nothing to do with which tune I run or blah blah blah - this is just tuning 101 MAYBE 102? If I drop a ton of timing or advance timing (too much) down low I am setting myself up for failure by creating cylinder atmospheres that are more readily susceptible to knock. Tuners get paid because they are able to find that "just right" spot where its not too much or too little.

In regard to my bolded section of your post - the data doesn't show anything of the sort. It shows that just offsetting by different values isn't working. If you go back and actually apply tuning logic / knowledge to the offsets and do so appropriately throughout the rpms you will see the results you know will show up or maybe you really don't know...either way the results will support what physics and tuning facts dictate. Maybe this isn't possible - I am guessing Terry created tables that have cells that represent sections of a map where as you can pinpoint 4800rpms and 14.5psi of boost - if he doesnt have actual tables in which he can enter desired + or - offsets to the factory timing curve I can see why this is more difficult and unsuccessful thus far.

[BrianMN]

Jeez talk about a thread backfire ...

[Ilma]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The test here was holding everything constant including boost at 14.5psi tapering to 12 psi at redline, using 91 octane, and determining if any CPS offset could produce a consistent drop free curve. The testing showed even extreme CPS offsets couldn't which contradicts popular the discussions and theory from a few weeks back. If you look at the 13psi curves they were almost as strong on 91 octane with and without a small offset.
Mike

Thanks for confirming what I am saying........

14.5 psi on 91 octane is a recipe for knock.

I think that to stay relatively knock free, you have to be in the zone of correct boost with correct timing offset which maxes out the timing curve to just below the knock point and of course, appropriate octane for your boost.

That's where the tuning skill comes into play.

That is probably why the 13 psi curves look better on 91 octane than the 14.5 psi ones do.

You just can't keep feeding more and more boost on crappy octane without changing anything else and still expect to make knock-free power. Offsetting timing on 91 octane does not appear to be enough to compensate for the higher combustion temperatures at 14.5 psi.

It's not an insult.....it's just physics.

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by vasillalov

I am sorry for not being constructive on the topic of this thread...

From everything that I've read on multiple threads on three different forums over the course of close to 16 months, it seems to me that BurgerTuning is simply making up some weird lame black box they call a piggy back tune, then they "throw that shit to the wall and see if it sticks".

Clap, JPSlick, Sniz, and the rest of you guys: I really appreciate your knowledge and technical skills, but for the love of God, stop educating BMS. Let them figure how engine tuning works on their own... If motors start blowing up, more end users will realize something is not kosher and they will either demand improvement from BMS or they will jump ships like rats from a burning boat. Either way, this will (hopefully) force BMS to produce a better product.

</rant>

I love this. This has been said since the JB1. And we have yet to see this happen, are we waiting for the engines to hit 200k before this starts happening?

[Forcefed3]

Yeah everyone is saying there will be a lot of damage, but when is this going to happen? There are surely people with 50k on JB tunes.

[gboop]

Originally Posted by gbreeE90

Yeah everyone is saying there will be a lot of damage, but when is this going to happen? There are surely people with 50k on JB tunes.

Speculation. But it's probably going to happen to the poor 3rd or 4th owner of the car. It will most likely be your stereotypical poor college student who is forced to eat instant noodles so that he can afford the $200 monthly payments on his first luxury turbo car... and BOOM!

Have you no decency?

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

No idea what you're talking about but the data is all in the first post for everyone to analyze and benefit from and is being discussed in more detail elsewhere.

The next step for this module is programming it to allow user definable offsets by RPM, boost, and gear, and then it will be easier for all of us to test various curves. The suggestion that offsetting more down low where there have not been problems with timing drops and offsetting less up top where there are drops is pretty counter intuitive. Especially given the data posted showing drops even with extreme offsets both down low and up top. During a 1/4 mile run the RPMs will never drop much below 5000rpm anyway. But the dyno will tell all and I'll certainly post the results here. Actually clap if you want to put together an RPM by RPM offset curve given the map 2 boost curve above I'll arrange to get that tested for you ASAP so we can all see the results.

Mike

No doubt you wont reply to this message despite how helpful I'am to not only the community but to BMS for helping not only launch a new product they can sell and make money on, but for you as well.

Be that as it may...

Mike- tuning 101.

Torque is your enemy and your friend.

This car makes its largest torque in the mid-range. That is going be a "hot" area. You would by no accident find your least amount of ignition in those areas.


Tuning 102- If you reduce timing before your timing drop outs it will never reach the knock threshold to induce a timing drop out.

Instead of reinventing the wheel of tuning, think about how all other flash tunes operate, even better, look at that stock ignition and see how its represented. I will give you a hint again, low ignition in the mid-range, ramping up by redline. ITs not rocket science here. All the information is available.

Flylow really hit the nail on the head on the explanation. I tried to dumb it down.

IDK if you are reading past the word "Timing".... Just like when you swing a bat in baseball, you can either be too late, too early, too high, or too low.... Timing is science and an art. Ive said it before. There is a happy medium.

Throwing out offsets for sh*ts and giggles is not ideal.

Originally Posted by vasillalov

I am sorry for not being constructive on the topic of this thread...

From everything that I've read on multiple threads on three different forums over the course of close to 16 months, it seems to me that BurgerTuning is simply making up some weird lame black box they call a piggy back tune, then they "throw that shit to the wall and see if it sticks".

Clap, JPSlick, Sniz, and the rest of you guys: I really appreciate your knowledge and technical skills, but for the love of God, stop educating BMS. Let them figure how engine tuning works on their own... If motors start blowing up, more end users will realize something is not kosher and they will either demand improvement from BMS or they will jump ships like rats from a burning boat. Either way, this will (hopefully) force BMS to produce a better product.

</rant>

We say what we say for the good of the community, atleast I do.

Letting someone walk into a burning building just isnt me.

[vasillalov]

Originally Posted by JPSlick

We say what we say for the good of the community, atleast I do.

Letting someone walk into a burning building just isnt me.

This is quite valiant of you sir! You sure do have a lot more patience than I do...

[roninsoldier83]

While I largely echo the opinions of many of the members here (JPSlick, Clap135, FlyLow335i ect), I've chosen to stay out of this thread for the most part, as it seems like the same points keep being made over and over. The same discussions are repetitive with no resolution.

However, I must say that I applaud Terry for at least making steps that I would have made if I were in his shoes: at least attempting to give his customers the option to modify timing and user adjustability. To anyone who gives a shit about tuning their own car, I think this is a step in the right direction, even if it is an unpopular stance. I'm sure the vast majority of BMS customers will simply stick with the OTS maps provided at purchase and never use these features, but to those seeking optimal tunes (assuming they don't purchase other tuning devices/services), this is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

With that said, I have a strong feeling many of these threads will soon be less frequent. I've been no quiet advocate about my intentions (purchase AP & tune my car myself via ATR), and they will soon come to fruition. At this point, the AP will soon be released for the '07's (yay me!!) as they appear to be final testing them as we speak. Last I checked, after that on Cobb's priority list is developing stage 2 maps, then Protuner software followed by ATR software, projected to be completed by the end of Q1 2011. It's almost here.

As such, there's really not much of a need to debate topics like this anymore IMO... this isn't meant to be a tuner war/bash, but honestly, soon many of us who have had some experience tuning in the past will have the ability to tune our cars ourselves, and as such, will have the ability to let the results speak for themselves (no need for debate when the proof is in the pudding ). No altering CPS signals, or playing with algorithms that arguably might have negative consequences (another debatable topic I'm going to leave alone haha), but changing the base DME timing maps themselves based on individual need/conditions.

Maybe many of us who have tuned multiple platforms/cars in the past will be unable to quantify our suppositions on this platform.... I highly doubt that's the case Although I for one tire from arguing my positions on subjects like this, and intend to simply prove my theories based on previous experience in the very near future. I can only say that I hope many of you feel the same and will be posting your personal findings in the near future with the release of ATR software

Either way, I'm sure it's going to be an interesting learning experience on a new platform, and I'm sure the community as a whole will benefit.

Happy tuning gentlemen.

-Brandon

[/OT_rant]

[vasillalov]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

As such, there's really not much of a need to debate topics like this anymore IMO... this isn't meant to be a tuner war/bash, but honestly, soon many of us who have had some experience tuning in the past will have the ability to tune our cars ourselves, and as such, will have the ability to let the results speak for themselves (no need for debate when the proof is in the pudding ). No altering CPS signals, or playing with algorithms that arguably might have negative consequences (another debatable topic I'm going to leave alone haha), but changing the base DME timing maps themselves based on individual need/conditions.

[/OT_rant]

Amen brother! I've been preaching this ever since I came to this forum...

[Clap135]

I on the other hand went with meth as one of my first mods lol. No need for cps at all if you figure out the boost level at which your car is happy on the stock timing curve given your meth ratio. Cps is not the correct way to run higher boost on pump but it sure is better then having the dme knock.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by JPSlick

No doubt you wont reply to this message despite how helpful I'am to not only the community but to BMS for helping not only launch a new product they can sell and make money on, but for you as well.

Be that as it may...

Mike- tuning 101.

Torque is your enemy and your friend.

This car makes its largest torque in the mid-range. That is going be a "hot" area. You would by no accident find your least amount of ignition in those areas.


Tuning 102- If you reduce timing before your timing drop outs it will never reach the knock threshold to induce a timing drop out.

Instead of reinventing the wheel of tuning, think about how all other flash tunes operate, even better, look at that stock ignition and see how its represented. I will give you a hint again, low ignition in the mid-range, ramping up by redline. ITs not rocket science here. All the information is available.

Flylow really hit the nail on the head on the explanation. I tried to dumb it down.

IDK if you are reading past the word "Timing".... Just like when you swing a bat in baseball, you can either be too late, too early, too high, or too low.... Timing is science and an art. Ive said it before. There is a happy medium.

Throwing out offsets for sh*ts and giggles is not ideal.



We say what we say for the good of the community, atleast I do.

Letting someone walk into a burning building just isnt me.

The best piece of data to come from this testing IMHO is that at 14.5psi on 91 octane, under these conditions, no timing curve is going to really eliminate these drops. It's just too much boost for the octane. The DME was not able to find a perfect curve and offsetting CPS didn't help. Although interestingly the curve with timing drops produced the highest and smoothest power output. Now at lower boost levels the DME was able to find a pretty good curve and offsetting did provide a marginal improvement to that timing curve. Again though no significant power or smoothness came from that. If you are in the camp that CPS is largely overrated you can look to these charts and draw elements to prove your case. If you are in the camp that CPS is required you can also draw elements to support your case. Either way I'm happy to soon offer the module to anyone who wants it. You don't need a JB4 either. You flash tune guys can also use it as a generic CPS retard if you ever need it for nitrous, etc.

I also agree with roninsoldier83 to a point but also believe as more do custom tuning the number of these threads will quadrupole. Tuning piggybacks is relatively simple given they use absolute boost targets, the PID systems are well developed for these higher boost levels, etc. Trying to do this type of tuning with a flash and keeping it consistent from day to day is not going to be fun at all but I guess that is the challenge.

Mike

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by JPSlick

Throwing out offsets for sh*ts and giggles is not ideal.



We say what we say for the good of the community, atleast I do.

Letting someone walk into a burning building just isnt me.

Actually you guys are going more along the lines of this route " Hey, that building might catch fire, don't know when or really sure if its going to. But its gonna happen just wait and see."
Even though many people have hung out in that building, hell even lived in the building for years with no issues what so ever.

[ianthegreat]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Looks more like CPS isn't all its cracked up to be which isn't surprising at all.

I've got 50k+ miles w/ no cps and the engine is running fine. I can't get into the details with anyone, but do know historics. Based on my experiences and several others, whether or not you stumbled onto something without knowing, a lack of CPS is CLEARLY not hurting anything here at the boost levels I currently run.

[techlogik]

Originally Posted by Ilma

Yup.....that's what I saw in my pre-dic datalogs.


14.5 psi is probably too much boost for 91 octane.

This^^^

With all the logs posted by Cobb/GIAC/Procede and JB guys we have around here, does anybody think that 14psi on 91oct, even with full bolt-ons...is a good idea without meth/race gas? Me thinks 91oct and 14psi is already on the "raggity" edge (see urban dictionary). As we have seen, 14psi on 91oct is pushing it on the stocker turbos. And now that it is starting to heat up outside Spring/Summer...wow...knock knock knock.

Then, apply poor FI tuning methods with this middle school FI tuning science project Terry is trying to execute = recipe for crap performance and results.

Party On!

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The best piece of data to come from this testing IMHO is that at 14.5psi on 91 octane, under these conditions, no timing curve is going to really eliminate these drops. It's just too much boost for the octane. The DME was not able to find a perfect curve and offsetting CPS didn't help. Although interestingly the curve with timing drops produced the highest and smoothest power output. Now at lower boost levels the DME was able to find a pretty good curve and offsetting did provide a marginal improvement to that timing curve. Again though no significant power or smoothness came from that. If you are in the camp that CPS is largely overrated you can look to these charts and draw elements to prove your case. If you are in the camp that CPS is required you can also draw elements to support your case. Either way I'm happy to soon offer the module to anyone who wants it. You don't need a JB4 either. You flash tune guys can also use it as a generic CPS retard if you ever need it for nitrous, etc.

I also agree with roninsoldier83 to a point but also believe as more do custom tuning the number of these threads will quadrupole. Tuning piggybacks is relatively simple given they use absolute boost targets, the PID systems are well developed for these higher boost levels, etc. Trying to do this type of tuning with a flash and keeping it consistent from day to day is not going to be fun at all but I guess that is the challenge.

Mike

Its been mentioned many times that its too much boost. You are quite the salesmen Mike. I commend you. You just turned my post into an advertisement and didnt touch anything else or hit on a thing I mentioned but just beat right around the bush.

As long as other people learn from it thats fine with me.

Originally Posted by RambleJ

Actually you guys are going more along the lines of this route " Hey, that building might catch fire, don't know when or really sure if its going to. But its gonna happen just wait and see."
Even though many people have hung out in that building, hell even lived in the building for years with no issues what so ever.

What tuning background do you have? Or what sources would you like to claim that have an agreement that riding the knock sensor is the ideal way of tuning.

Notice I didnt put a question mark.

Keep your judgments and opinions to yourself, lets stick with hard facts and data. Bringing up some mud to sling through a comment like this does nothing but derail the thread.

This is about improving a product.... Dont get it twisted.

Originally Posted by vasillalov

This is quite valiant of you sir! You sure do have a lot more patience than I do...

I'm starting to lose patience with the people above..... and the same fanobis just coming in with their .02 and no tuning background. I'm all for questions, but the derail JB camp is simply annoying.

[Sniz]

Originally Posted by JPSlick

Its been mentioned many times that its too much boost. You are quite the salesmen Mike. I commend you. You just turned my post into an advertisement and didnt touch anything else or hit on a thing I mentioned but just beat right around the bush.

As long as other people learn from it thats fine with me.



What tuning background do you have? Or what sources would you like to claim that have an agreement that riding the knock sensor is the ideal way of tuning.

Notice I didnt put a question mark.

Keep your judgments and opinions to yourself, lets stick with hard facts and data. Bringing up some mud to sling through a comment like this does nothing but derail the thread.

This is about improving a product.... Dont get it twisted.



I'm starting to lose patience with the people above..... and the same fanobis just coming in with their .02 and no tuning background. I'm all for questions, but the derail JB camp is simply annoying.

there is a simple reason for that JP, people who have even the smallest idea of what should and should not be done when tuning their cars are not JB supporters.

At least Terry is on the right track but its a bit painful seeing the learning curve that others knew before the n54 was even an idea in a BMW engineer's head.