[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Hey Everyone,

Sorry for the delays in posting data, as I just got back from my honeymoon and wanted to be heavily involved in this testing procedure.

As most have seen we've been discussing CPS as a form of timing control, and unfortunately much of those threads have digressed to the point of personal insults and have become rather useless. So I am making a new thread to share this data, and hopefully engage in a more informative and professional discussion. I would hope that members with no technical knowledge but strong opinions (on either side) would refrain from posting.

Also keep in mind I am not claiming to be a tuning expert. I can read logs and understand the principles, and I want to engage in this discussion. If you disagree with me then do so in a professional way.

The following logs were captured from a fully modified well adapted 135i during two days of testing. One day with the V3 using the latest Stage 3 maps, the next day with the JB3 using the latest map 7. Same tank of gas, same weather, etc. The same roads were used, and efforts were made to keep testing conditions as close as possible. All testing was done on 91 octane in 90 degree weather, at around 15psi boost, which represents the worst possible conditions for "knock" (high heat and high boost). During both tests the cars were loaded with 550# of passenger and driver to ensure the results were comparable to a 335i. Starting IAT temperatures were matched.

The original objective was to recreate Shiv's previously posted V3 logs under similar circumstances so that CPS offsetting could be tested. The problem that immediately has came up is run to run variance. These runs have huge timing variances between them.

In addition here are two JB3 logs for reference. They exhibit similar timing behavior, only an overall lower timing curve (as no offset is applied). They also reflect better boost targeting and less throttle closure but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

So here are two questions:

1) Why do these V3 logs captured not match the ones Shiv posted?

2) How should we analyze CPS offsetting when run to run variance eclipses the CPS offset being applied?

Finally an observation:

Backing out the CPS offset, the overall timing curves do not look very different to me. Especially given the run to run variance. I can't look at any of these charts and say they indicate a happier or safer engine. Which supports the point that CPS offsetting is not an effective timing control. I will also add that this JB3 map combination is not officially supported by BMS. Map 7 is supposed to be used on 93 or higher octane.




.

[edo]

[SmoyKa]

[StartupJunkie]

Hi Mike,

I just posted a new thread describing my experience with the PROcede V3 Rev II with Canbus (wow, that's a long name):

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285519

But the picture that matter is the following:




Please see anywhere from the 4.25 second mark on until redline, that the actual ignition and DME ignition are different. I can understand (to the layperson - including myself), that the graphs look very similar, but what everyone needs to understand is that they are in fact are different. Trends can be similar, but look at the details of the numbers at any given time ... they are different values. The shift in the values is what the CPS offset is doing for ignition control and that it DOES NOT get adapted out.

I do recall in the other thread that jpsimon posted his results too. His results were similar to mine which was similar to Shiv's.

If Shiv is faking his results, I'm sure he's got hundreds (possibly thousands) of customers who will be able to call BS ... if it were true. This product has enabled us to log what is going on, we have been showed how to use it, now a bunch of folks can say yay or nay that CPS offset is doing something different on their car.

Couple Clarification Questions:
#1 - What exact version of the PROcede are you using (Rev 1 or 2)?
#2 - Is it Canbus enabled?
#3 - What version of the maps are you running?
#4 - (nothing personal) - Is there 91 octane where you are at?
#5 - (nothing personal) - I get slightly confused on who is doing the testing you or Terry. I believe it may be okay if its Terry (via you), but we should know who is really saying these things that you are posting.

Thanks,

Junk

[StartupJunkie]

OT - Mike would it be possible not to use the baby blue on your graphs? It is very hard to read what is going on (via a laptop's LCD).

One more question - how did you collect this data? I was curious about the method and the software used to display these results.

Thanks,

Junk

[ktdw]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

So here are two questions:

1) Why do these V3 logs captured not match the ones Shiv posted?

2) How should we analyze CPS offsetting when run to run variance eclipses the CPS offset being applied?

.

Are these rhetorical questions? I'm asking because you should have had the answers long before the term "adapted out" was coined...err, or was it "learned out"...whatever.

But since I have yet to attend a chart reading class, I'll just

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by StartupJunkie

Hi Mike,

I just posted a new thread describing my experience with the PROcede V3 Rev II with Canbus (wow, that's a long name):

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285519

But the picture that matter is the following:




Please see anywhere from the 4.25 second mark on until redline, that the actual ignition and DME ignition are different. I can understand (to the layperson - including myself), that the graphs look very similar, but what everyone needs to understand is that they are in fact are different. Trends can be similar, but look at the details of the numbers at any given time ... they are different values. The shift in the values is what the CPS offset is doing for ignition control and that it DOES NOT get adapted out.

I do recall in the other thread that jpsimon posted his results too. His results were similar to mine which was similar to Shiv's.

If Shiv is faking his results, I'm sure he's got hundreds (possibly thousands) of customers who will be able to call BS ... if it were true. This product has enabled us to log what is going on, we have been showed how to use it, now a bunch of folks can say yay or nay that CPS offset is doing something different on their car.

Couple Clarification Questions:
#1 - What exact version of the PROcede are you using (Rev 1 or 2)?
#2 - Is it Canbus enabled?
#3 - What version of the maps are you running?
#4 - (nothing personal) - Is there 91 octane where you are at?
#5 - (nothing personal) - I get slightly confused on who is doing the testing you or Terry. I believe it may be okay if its Terry (via you), but we should know who is really saying these things that you are posting.

Thanks,

Junk

I saw that thread, nice dyno results! Actually, your timing values are moving around quite a lot. Nothing like Shiv's or JPs, more like what I posted. Maybe somewhere in between.

For your questions:
1) It is a REV1
2) It does not offer CANbus as far as I know. The mapping and performance is claimed to be the same (no auto tuning feature was enabled, etc)
3) The latest posted Stage 3. Downloaded a few days ago.
4) Yes
5) As has been stated I employed BMS' help to collect the data, which I am analyzing and presenting. They used the same tank of Shell 91 octane.

Mike

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I saw that thread, nice dyno results! Actually, your timing values are moving around quite a lot. Nothing like Shiv's or JPs, more like what I posted. Maybe somewhere in between.

Oh Mike. Junk's logs show a full rpm band dyno sweep (2000-7000rpm in 4th gear), not the 4000 to 7000rpm 3rd gear street runs that JP and I posted. You can't compare the results of two different test procedures.

BTW, have a dozen or so dyno datalogs from our shop car today. They look nearly identical to Junks in just about every way. I'll be posting them up shortly. Along with the dyno results showing the effects of CPS offsetting (in both directions!)

Shiv

[TheTwinz]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

BTW, have a dozen or so dyno datalogs from our shop car today. They look nearly identical to Junks in just about every way. I'll be posting them up shortly. Along with the dyno results showing the effects of CPS offsetting (in both directions!)

Shiv

Can you say for certain that without CPS offsetting, it will be detrimental to the engine? Like for example, I believe that if someone were to run 87 octane in their 335 for a few years, the DME will make the necessary adjustments to ensure the longevity of the vehicle and to prevent it from knocking/pinging. So, is CPS offsetting just a redundant safety measure built into the Procede for older vehicles?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by TheTwinz

Can you say for certain that without CPS offsetting, it will be detrimental to the engine? Like for example, I believe that if someone were to run 87 octane in their 335 for a few years, the DME will make the necessary adjustments to ensure the longevity of the vehicle and to prevent it from knocking/pinging. So, is CPS offsetting just a redundant safety measure built into the Procede for older vehicles?

Yes, I think anyone reasonably knowledgeable about knock sensors (and their limitations) would come to that conclusion.

I would never define features that enhance the margin of safety "redundant". Then again, with thousands of PROcedes on the road, each one of them controlling a $15,000 engine, I kind of have my neck out on the line.

Shiv

[Ilma]

I have logged both tunes myself and have a difficult time accepting so much throttle plate closure on the Procede logs by Mike/Terry.

Without knowing the position of the gas pedal on those graphs, it would be easy to manipulate the results by applying part throttle settings.

Here are my logs of each tune, done at WOT.

Full throttle is scaled to be wide open at 40 units on the Y axis. The red line is throttle plate activity, while the orange line clearly shows the gas pedal position as being fully depressed.


Notice how similar the two graphs appear at WOT.....makes me a little skeptical of the logs posted by Mike which show a lot of throttle closure on the Procede, yet very little on the JB3

The only time I see that much throttle closure on either tune is when I log part throttle settings.

Mike: Can you show the same logs with gas pedal position showing and not just throttle plate activity?

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The following logs were captured from a fully modified well adapted 135i during two days of testing. One day with the V3 using the latest Stage 3 maps, the next day with the JB3 using the latest map 7. Same tank of gas, same weather, etc.

As you are aware, there is quite a bit missing. And I thought the Excel Workbook charting suggestion would have sunk in.

Seeing as you own a 335i and not a 135i, we can assume where the data came from. And to be honest, I don't care. But as mentioned previously, more concise data as well as better controlled conditions would be welcome. And, if you would like to post the raw data so someone else can make an appropriate chart, that would be great.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by ktdw

Are these rhetorical questions? I'm asking because you should have had the answers long before the term "adapted out" was coined...err, or was it "learned out"...whatever.

What a novel idea...

[OpenFlash]

[RiXst3r]

Originally Posted by Ilma

Nice logs! Very easy to compare...

[jpsimon]

That throttle closure is very suspect mike. Clearly the logs came from Terry. you should do some logging yourself if you're presenting and backing up data like this.

[leon]

I guess this is what owned feels like

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Sure, here is one with tps voltage added and scaled so that 2v = 1000. Boost targeting is a function of barometric pressure, IAT, and other factors. Getting targeting to work well under various conditions is tricky business. It may work well in the cold climate here, but when the ECU shifts around the boost targets for hotter weather be completely different. If you could include DME target and DME actual on your charts we could infer from the target curve your IAT and barometric pressure.

Mike

[jpsimon]

Mike you mention a lack of consistency quite a bit when you post Terry's logs. You saw my runs and commented how nice they looked and how well my car was running... Those runs were in hot very high humidity weather... Pull after pull after pull no cool downs.... Clearly other people than Terry can produce good looking logs under bad conditions.

My car is getting a leak (rain water gets in where it shouldn't) fixed at the dealer right now but when I get the car back I'll post a ton more logs.

[Ilma]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Sure, here is one with tps voltage added and scaled so that 2v = 1000. Boost targeting is a function of barometric pressure, IAT, and other factors. Getting targeting to work well under various conditions is tricky business. It may work well in the cold climate here, but when the ECU shifts around the boost targets for hotter weather be completely different. If you could include DME target and DME actual on your charts we could infer from the target curve your IAT and barometric pressure.

Mike

I presume you are responding to me?

Thanks for the additional data as to throtte pedal position......this now explains that the procede throttle closure is consistent with boost being overtarget.

I too observed this behaviour on the early beta canbus maps. However, the more recent canbus maps seem to have improved on this as evidenced by my graph (admittedly not an extreme temperature test, but not what I would call cold weather either).

Curious.....there is no need for you to infer IAT as it is already showing on my logs at 36C for the JB3 and 34C for the procede - which is around 95F.

Ambient temps when I ran these logs were 78F for the Procede and 77F for the JB3 as shown in my filenames at the top of the spreadsheet.

Barometric pressure in the area was between 998-999 millibars.

But I know the point you are trying to illustrate....that throttle closure can be directly correlated to boost targets being exceeded, and those targets fluctuate with temperature extremes.

[jpsimon]

*my latest logs were at ~80f, 70% humidity

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by jpsimon

That throttle closure is very suspect mike. Clearly the logs came from Terry. you should do some logging yourself if you're presenting and backing up data like this.

JP, please don't take offense to this, but we're trying to keep this as a technical thread. If you want to come make some analysis please do so but leave the rest of it out. If you look at the DME boost target you can see all the logs were from WOT. This is rather obvious. Your charts are interesting and I will reference them in the future as an example of CPS offsetting serving little purpose in your conditions.

As far as my logging and yours for that matter, the premise was to match Shiv's conditions. This means hot weather, 91 octane, and a V3. I only have 1 out of 3 here, and wishing everyday for warm hot weather but we have been stuck in the high 60s here for a while. I believe you have only 1 out of 3 as well. StartupJunkie has 3/3 and his logs don't match either, but in their defense Shiv was only posting partial logs as his examples. Also based on the correction factor on StartupJunkie's dyno it is safe to say they are not high IAT logs.

Mike