[Fundahl]

Originally Posted by E3r2E9r

How come every new post of yours comes up with a new subject and words that you make up that I say?
Who said anything about changing boost?
The discussion is TUNED ignition. T U N E D. The Jb4 is not T U N E D ignition, it is using the knock sensor to adjust timing.
Cobb Giac and even PROcede tune the ignition for its maps proactively. That is the definition of tuning. Finding optimum max brake torque with an efficient boost curve and safe air fuel.
It saddens me that someone that claims to know so much can't grasps this simple concept.

Please stick to the topic you are discussing, MBT.

Ok, I'll take the guesswork out:

For my 1M, there is no reason to have "tuned" ignition timing. It is "tuned" from the factory.

You can drop the timing a bit, and raise the boost, while keeping the same amount of ignition chatter, but you are going to have a similar or worse results than running less boost and stock timing.

Why? Look at how the turbos react running even just 14psi midrange. The stock curve wants to hit around 8-9psi at 7,000RPM. These turbos are hugely inefficient for the flow of this motor near its stock rotational speeds.

For ME, I would rather run as much boost as possible with NO ignition retard, in order to keep spool time and engine response on "crisp" as stock. PLUS, these turbos are struggling at stock boost anyway. No one like high IATs, right?

If I throw MS109 in the fuel tank, and especially with a good meth mixture and injection rate, the CPS offset almost becomes useless (I can see how possibly timing advancements could help), and I simply run the maximum amount of boost that my octane and hardware will allow.

Do you see where this is going? I'm not even saying anything bad about the Procede. It's awesome. But to say the JB4 is laughable, "riding the knock sensor", doesn't have "tuned ignition timing", etc is pretty idiotic in my opinion.

Can you show me real world data where the JB4 (configured correctly) is blowing a motor or performing worse than other tunes?


By the way, I went through Windows 95, and the JB4 logs are much more XP look, in my opinion.

[bryce]

Originally Posted by Fundahl

Do you see where this is going? I'm not even saying anything bad about the Procede. It's awesome. But to say the JB4 is laughable, "riding the knock sensor", doesn't have "tuned ignition timing", etc is pretty idiotic in my opinion.

have you read that thread that i posted yet? care to re-evaluate "jb4" and "laughable" and why i feel that way?

[E3r2E9r]

Originally Posted by Fundahl

Ok, I'll take the guesswork out:

For my 1M, there is no reason to have "tuned" ignition timing. It is "tuned" from the factory.
I never said anything about stock tunes, especially for a 1M, you brought that up.
You can drop the timing a bit, and raise the boost, while keeping the same amount of ignition chatter, but you are going to have a similar or worse results than running less boost and stock timing.
That is fine, that is a correct tuning approach, finding efficient boost curve and timing. They need to work together, no denying that here.

Why? Look at how the turbos react running even just 14psi midrange. The stock curve wants to hit around 8-9psi at 7,000RPM. These turbos are hugely inefficient for the flow of this motor near its stock rotational speeds.
Agreed, it would likely behoove even a stock tune to have a more efficient FMIC but thats for a different discussion.

For ME, I would rather run as much boost as possible with NO ignition retard, in order to keep spool time and engine response on "crisp" as stock. PLUS, these turbos are struggling at stock boost anyway. No one like high IATs, right?
Well there are different theories between high boost low timing and low boost and high timing, it really depends on the platform and how it takes the power.

If I throw MS109 in the fuel tank, and especially with a good meth mixture and injection rate, the CPS offset almost becomes useless (I can see how possibly timing advancements could help), and I simply run the maximum amount of boost that my octane and hardware will allow.

Do you see where this is going? I'm not even saying anything bad about the Procede. It's awesome. But to say the JB4 is laughable, "riding the knock sensor", doesn't have "tuned ignition timing", etc is pretty idiotic in my opinion.
Actually Bryce said it was laughable I just pointed out the correct way of tuning a vehicle. Everything you said made sense up until just now. Perhaps we will agree to disagree. I like tuning ignition, you like letting the knock sensor finding ignition. Good luck with that approach but its not the ideal way, ask Cobb.
Can you show me real world data where the JB4 (configured correctly) is blowing a motor or performing worse than other tunes?

Pm me your information, come down to my shop, I have both tunes on hand, you can take my car for a spin. Then i'll swap un named tune in the car and you tell me which feels better. It cant get any more real then real world usage. I wont tell you which tune you are driving but both tunes will be off the shelf and stage 1 made for an otherwise stock vehicle. You can then tell me which feels more refined, smoother, with better response and consistency.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by Fundahl

Ok, I'll take the guesswork out:

For my 1M, there is no reason to have "tuned" ignition timing. It is "tuned" from the factory.

You can drop the timing a bit, and raise the boost, while keeping the same amount of ignition chatter, but you are going to have a similar or worse results than running less boost and stock timing.

Why? Look at how the turbos react running even just 14psi midrange. The stock curve wants to hit around 8-9psi at 7,000RPM. These turbos are hugely inefficient for the flow of this motor near its stock rotational speeds.

For ME, I would rather run as much boost as possible with NO ignition retard, in order to keep spool time and engine response on "crisp" as stock. PLUS, these turbos are struggling at stock boost anyway. No one like high IATs, right?

If I throw MS109 in the fuel tank, and especially with a good meth mixture and injection rate, the CPS offset almost becomes useless (I can see how possibly timing advancements could help), and I simply run the maximum amount of boost that my octane and hardware will allow.

Do you see where this is going? I'm not even saying anything bad about the Procede. It's awesome. But to say the JB4 is laughable, "riding the knock sensor", doesn't have "tuned ignition timing", etc is pretty idiotic in my opinion.

Can you show me real world data where the JB4 (configured correctly) is blowing a motor or performing worse than other tunes?


By the way, I went through Windows 95, and the JB4 logs are much more XP look, in my opinion.

For your 1M you have valid points. That timing curve is quite conservative. On a regular N54 though which runs 10 degrees ramping to 14 at redline, it's simply too much for increased boost on pump gas. This is where reducing timing comes into play either via CPS or through increased octane.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by bryce

have you read that thread that i posted yet? care to re-evaluate "jb4" and "laughable" and why i feel that way?

Man you're like clap135 reincarnated.

[Fundahl]

Originally Posted by bryce

i've had a jb4 on my old car, then put the procede right back in, and there definitely was a noticeable difference in power delivery, consistancy, etc. your call though. sometimes ignorance is bliss (no offense meant)

Do you have a vBox? I think I am going to get one soon. I will take you up on your offer.

Have you gotten a chance to drive a 1M? For your kindness, you can take mine for a little joyride with each tune.

Where do you live? We can do a e85 mix too, there is a station here off of Weber.

[bryce]

Originally Posted by themyst

Man you're like clap135 reincarnated.

i'm not sure whether to thank you or be offended. clap was an interesting guy.

[bryce]

Originally Posted by Fundahl

Do you have a vBox? I think I am going to get one soon. I will take you up on your offer.

Have you gotten a chance to drive a 1M? For your kindness, you can take mine for a little joyride with each tune.

Where do you live? We can do a e85 mix too, there is a station here off of Weber.

thanks, pretty kind of you. i've driven a 1///m on the stock tune, with an exhaust only. it's a fun car. i used to have a 135i, i love how much better, planted, etc. the 1///m feels by comparrison

[bryce]

i live in houston, by the way. corpus is a relatively close (and fun) drive to make. my wife and i go down there sometimes

[Fundahl]

Originally Posted by themyst

For your 1M you have valid points. That timing curve is quite conservative. On a regular N54 though which runs 10 degrees ramping to 14 at redline, it's simply too much for increased boost on pump gas. This is where reducing timing comes into play either via CPS or through increased octane.

Yes, my 135i stock fuel target and stock ignition target sucked compared to the 1M. My 135i ran like 14:1 down to 13:1, way lean, with the ignition curve you mentioned. It had trouble running even 13psi on just 93 octane. Eventually I got it to hit 12.5:1 up top.

The Cobb flash basically makes a 135i/335i fuel/ignition similar to a 1M/335is fuel/ignition curve but slightly more aggressive, and then the piggies make methanol/nitrous/additional boost due to octane a breeze to setup.

[E3r2E9r]

Originally Posted by themyst

For your 1M you have valid points. That timing curve is quite conservative. On a regular N54 though which runs 10 degrees ramping to 14 at redline, it's simply too much for increased boost on pump gas. This is where reducing timing comes into play either via CPS or through increased octane.

Exactly

[bryce]

Originally Posted by themyst

For your 1M you have valid points. That timing curve is quite conservative. On a regular N54 though which runs 10 degrees ramping to 14 at redline, it's simply too much for increased boost on pump gas. This is where reducing timing comes into play either via CPS or through increased octane.

someone should email this to terry. that's really the underlining debate here. jb4 approach versus procede or cobb approach.

[nitehawk]

Wow this thread blew up!

[themyst]

Originally Posted by bryce

someone should email this to terry. that's really the underlining debate here. jb4 approach versus procede or cobb approach.

What debate? JB4 has CPS. It had CPS for over a year. The G5 board has it integrated. CPS isn't rocket science.

[bryce]

Originally Posted by themyst

What debate? JB4 has CPS. It had CPS for over a year. The G5 board has it integrated. CPS isn't rocket science.

you'll have to forgive me. i don't keep up with jb4 updates as well. so, jb4 or jb5 has cps off-setting. has it been improved upon since this:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=504988

[bmw335 power]

We all know that PRocede, JB, and COBB can control a N54 and make decent power. However, would you trust and put your money on JB and COBB to control 24psi on big turbo and over 600whp with CURRENT JB and COBB hardware software????? we already know what the Procede can do so does that justify the ability to controlling this engine???

[BFD99]

Originally Posted by bmw335 power

We all know that PRocede, JB, and COBB can control a N54 and make decent power. However, would you trust and put your money on JB and COBB to control 24psi on big turbo and over 600whp with CURRENT JB and COBB hardware software????? we already know what the Procede can do so does that justify the ability to controlling this engine???

Are you running a big turbo on yours? Do you have any plans to?

[JamesM3M5]

Originally Posted by themyst

Heh, a good old fashioned tuner war. Been a while.

I thought the same thing! This is getting good... Now we have boldface and ALL CAPS to make things really interesting.

I see this getting closed before I can even hit "Submit Reply".