[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The throttle gain setting of 50 may explain the tip in overshoot on your first set of logs. For catless cars I've been suggesting 25 as a starting point.

Mike

Hmm ok. I'm going to go back out and do partial throttle step tests either tonight or this weekend when it stops raining. I'll make that adjustment if you think its necessary. While I really didn't want to get into a custom tuning session with this test, if you think it's necessary for my car, i'll do it. Is there any other setting that needs to be changed for a fully catless car?

Shiv

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

That's fine. All I said is that, with the JB3, the DME is perceiving a rather substantial underboost situation. And that it will not close the throttle until that large negative boost error turns into a positive boost error. This is pretty basic stuff. Can we agree on that?

Mike

Yes that is easy to agree on. In the event of an over boost condition such as a waste gate sticking open ECU boost would go up to and surpass the target and trigger throttle closure and an a 30FE code. You could simulate that by misadjusting the ECU targets in user adjustment.

As it stands under these conditions you are close to triggering a 30FF ECU boost below target code. You could simulate that by misadjusting the ECU target downward or disconnecting a bypass valve to simulate a boost leak.

The JB3 uses hardwired resistors to establish the maximum allowable duty cycle, I presume the V4 does something similar via a software algorithm?

Mike

[ren]

It's interesting that boost doesn't drop when shifting to 4th gear with JB3.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Hmm ok. I'm going to go back out and do partial throttle step tests either tonight or this weekend when it stops raining. I'll make that adjustment if you think its necessary. While I really didn't want to get into a custom tuning session with this test, if you think it's necessary for my car, i'll do it. Is there any other setting that needs to be changed for a fully catless car?

Shiv

The suggested range for catless is 10-30, so just split it and go 20 if you just want to default it. The other default settings are fine.

Mike

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Yes that is easy to agree on. In the event of an over boost condition such as a waste gate sticking open ECU boost would go up to and surpass the target and trigger throttle closure and an a 30FE code. You could simulate that by misadjusting the ECU targets in user adjustment.

ok.

As it stands under these conditions you are close to triggering a 30FF ECU boost below target code. You could simulate that by misadjusting the ECU target downward or disconnecting a bypass valve to simulate a boost leak.

ok.

The JB3 uses hardwired resistors to establish the maximum allowable duty cycle, I presume the V4 does something similar via a software algorithm?

Mike, I'm currently running the 18ohm resistors. I believe this allows more effective boost DC% correct? Could you clarify the performance differences between the 18ohm resistors and the standard 24ohm resistors? Ie, what are the pros and cons of each?

To answer your question, the Procede has direct/physically isolated control of the boost control solenoids. This is why we can implement a maximum DC limit setting in the user adjustable page. Exceeding this value for longer than 1/2 a second will trigger a valet mode. No need to change hardware.

Shiv

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Mike, I'm currently running the 18ohm resistors. I believe this allows more effective boost DC% correct? Could you clarify the performance differences between the 18ohm resistors and the standard 24ohm resistors? Ie, what are the pros and cons of each?

To answer your question, the Procede has direct/physically isolated control of the boost control solenoids. This is why we can implement a maximum DC limit setting in the user adjustable page. Exceeding this value for longer than 1/2 a second will trigger a valet mode. No need to change hardware.

Shiv

For the 18 ohm resistors the suggested default pid gain is 35. Although 45 seems to be working fine for you at WOT.

Larger safety resistors allow a higher effective duty cycle range. In theory no resistors would provide no hardware imposed limit and allow 100% duty cycle at the hardware level. Similar to how the V4 is configured. BMS suggests the 24 ohm for most applications and 18 ohm for more aggressive users.

There is also a software PWM limit but I'm not sure how its configured in 2.0 beta currently. In prior versions if PWM stuck at 100% for an extended period of time it would flip to 0 and trigger a 30FF under boost code.

It's interesting that you are using an 18ohm from a customer who switched to PROcede and Startup Junkie also just happens to have bought an 18 ohm JB3 for his review. I didn't realize there were that many out there. As a general rule the 18 ohm allows more boost but requires custom tuning to get the same drivability as the normal 24 ohm board. All of the PID logic, targeting logic, is based around the 24 ohm which 98% of the customer base uses. FYI, I even use a 24ohm board

Mike

[oddjob2021]

this thread is turning out well, i'll be watching

[johnny_boy]

Do these charts (like a dyno chart) really tell you how the car drives in a real world? I doubt it as they are all WOT runs.

I would be also interested in hearing about how the car "feels" differently between the two in 99% of driving condition which is not WOT. Or see the data that show under conditions such as:
- partial throttle/boost
- getting off/on the throttle fast/slow in and out of gear
- AC on/off
- Cold/hot weather
- cod start vs warm start
- sea level vs mile high
- cruising at low gear vs high gear with sudden throttle open/close
- heat socked engine vs normal
- etc

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by johnny_boy

Do these charts (like a dyno chart) really tell you how the car drives in a real world? I doubt it as they are all WOT runs.

I would be also interested in hearing about how the car "feels" differently between the two in 99% of driving condition which is not WOT. Or see the data that show under conditions such as:
- partial throttle/boost
- getting off/on the throttle fast/slow in and out of gear
- AC on/off
- Cold/hot weather
- cod start vs warm start
- sea level vs mile high
- cruising at low gear vs high gear with sudden throttle open/close
- heat socked engine vs normal
- etc

I agree with you 110%. But I wanted to get the WOT testing out of the way before I posted the partial throttle "step test" which I almost finished today before the rain started. This tests a number of things, such as partial throttle boost response, boost stability, throttle predictability, boost target speed/accuracy, etc,. Basically, it shows how "nice" a car is to drive during normal real-world driving where WOT only accounts for may 1% of driving conditions.

The boost logs that I did collect were very interesting. If there is ever a test to really drive home the differences between the tunes, this is it. Should have complete data (logs and videos) posted tomorrow.

I'll leave the other tests (heat soak, high altitude, etc,.) for someone else to do. It's a bit beyond the scope of this test which is primarily for quantifying the differences between the tune and drawing parallels between collected data and subjective driving impressions.

Shiv

[ianthegreat]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

To be fair, the jb3 is probably running on the low side of the its boost target range due to the IAT being so low. It's only 50F out today and my car has a FMIC that keeps temps within a few degrees of ambient.

The Procede doesn't care about IATs (withing a certain broad range) and will target the same boost curve regardless.

Shiv

Can you elaborate on this? I guess more specifically on the range. I know you wouldn't want to 'over-use' the turbos. Does the JB3 better take advantage of lower IAT's? Or is the range so small its insignificant? For the record I may be completely misunderstanding it.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by ianthegreat

Can you elaborate on this? I guess more specifically on the range. I know you wouldn't want to 'over-use' the turbos. Does the JB3 better take advantage of lower IAT's? Or is the range so small its insignificant? For the record I may be completely misunderstanding it.

With v4, we don't piggyback on top of the factory boost control system. Which means that we aren't subject to the factory DME's IAT-based boost adjustments. Instead, we apply our IAT (and coolant and oil temp) based boost compensations. In these particular testing conditions (moderate temps), there is no boost correction applied. Things need to get a bit older and a bunch hotter before boost is reduced.

Shiv

[ianthegreat]

Gotcha, thanks.

[Bimmer335i07]

Great info Mike and Shiv. I learned a few new things from you guys from this thread.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by rwalker

Mind, Shiv, you've apparently signed your post "Mike".

Sorry... i was segmenting this post in quotes. Forgot to edit out his sign-off. I I just edited my post for your approval

[vgame64]

Shiv: From analyzing these logs have you learned of anything surprisingly different about the JB3 2.0's operation/power delivery from what you expected? Anything worthwhile to add/modify to the V4?

Mike/Terry: Same question...anything interesting in the V4's operation/power delivery worth adding/modifying to the JB3?

Thanks to both for providing a civil discussion and opportunity for us ordinary folk to get a peek behind how these piggybacks do their job.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by vgame64

Shiv: From analyzing these logs have you learned of anything surprisingly different about the JB3 2.0's operation/power delivery from what you expected?

I've learned a few things about how the jb3 goes about its business. Some of it is somewhat different from what i've expected based upon info posted by Mike/Terry. Perhaps their tuning methodology has changed since the last time we had a spirited discussion about boost control and torque targeting. I was expecting to see evidence of the DME boost target "modeling" that they talked about at length. If their modeling were as accurate as I expected it to me, I would have expected to see less boost error. From the data presented, v2.0 looks to be very similar to our first torque targeting v3 map with the exception of it inducing a larger negative boost error. There is clearly some differences as far as the underlying PID logic but that is to be expected.

Anything worthwhile to add/modify to the V4?

I'll reserve comments until I post the final bits of data tomorrow (weather permitting). The JB3 is also going to be retested with the throttle gain setting that Mike suggested. As for the v4 data, i'd say it's spot on to what we intended and expected. And perfectly in line with what customers have demonstrated themselves.

Shiv

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I've learned a few things about how the jb3 goes about its business. Some of it is somewhat different from what i've expected based upon info posted by Mike/Terry. Perhaps their tuning methodology has changed since the last time we had a spirited discussion about boost control and torque targeting. I was expecting to see evidence of the DME boost target "modeling" that they talked about at length. If their modeling were as accurate as I expected it to me, I would have expected to see less boost error. From the data presented, v2.0 looks to be very similar to our first torque targeting v3 map with the exception of it inducing a larger negative boost error. There is clearly some differences as far as the underlying PID logic but that is to be expected.



I'll reserve comments until I post the final bits of data tomorrow (weather permitting). The JB3 is also going to be retested with the throttle gain setting that Mike suggested. As for the v4 data, i'd say it's spot on to what we intended and expected. And perfectly in line with what customers have demonstrated themselves.

Shiv

According to your logs the modeled target (ECU Target, pink line in the JB3 chart) looks pretty damn close to the actual target (debug Word 5 in the PROcede log) to me. On the rest of your JB3 data, somehow you've wound up with a modified race board, which really requires some custom tuning per the documentation. My suggestion would be to go with a normal 24 ohm board and the suggested heavily modified settings. With improper settings on the modified board you'll wind up with muddy partial throttle and overshoot. You really should compare a production V4 with a production JB3, which the 18ohm board is not, if your goal is a fair comparison and as stated you want to avoid custom tuning.

Regarding the WOT data in general all looks as expected to me. The JB3 got to its target fast, held boost well through the shifts, and was generally very stable. The V4 did well also. I'm hoping we can see some DC logs at some point to further quantify the differences in targeting.

Mike

[Bimmer335i07]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

According to your logs the modeled target (ECU Target, pink line in the JB3 chart) looks pretty damn close to the actual target (debug Word 5 in the PROcede log) to me. On the rest of your JB3 data, somehow you've wound up with a modified race board, which really requires some custom tuning per the documentation. My suggestion would be to go with a normal 24 ohm board and the suggested heavily modified settings. With improper settings on the modified board you'll wind up with muddy partial throttle and overshoot. You really should compare a production V4 with a production JB3, which the 18ohm board is not, if your goal is a fair comparison and as stated you want to avoid custom tuning.

Regarding the WOT data in general all looks as expected to me. The JB3 got to its target fast, held boost well through the shifts, and was generally very stable. The V4 did well also. I'm hoping we can see some DC logs at some point to further quantify the differences in targeting.

Mike

I have to agree with Mike. Not many members are running the 18ohm boards. If you want this to be a fair comparison, please use the 24ohm board.

Anybody that purchases a standard JB3 2.0 or lower will get the 24ohm board.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

According to your logs the modeled target (ECU Target, pink line in the JB3 chart) looks pretty damn close to the actual target (debug Word 5 in the PROcede log) to me. On the rest of your JB3 data, somehow you've wound up with a modified race board, which really requires some custom tuning per the documentation. My suggestion would be to go with a normal 24 ohm board and the suggested heavily modified settings. With improper settings on the modified board you'll wind up with muddy partial throttle and overshoot. You really should compare a production V4 with a production JB3, which the 18ohm board is not, if your goal is a fair comparison and as stated you want to avoid custom tuning.

Regarding the WOT data in general all looks as expected to me. The JB3 got to its target fast, held boost well through the shifts, and was generally very stable. The V4 did well also. I'm hoping we can see some DC logs at some point to further quantify the differences in targeting.

Mike

Fair enough. I'll retest the jb3 the 24ohm resistors tomorrow. Perhaps that explains the partial throttle test results I logged earlier today. What Throttle Gain setting should I use with the standard resistors? Is there anything else that you suggest I do in preparation for tomorrow's re-testing?

I also plan on testing both tunes with a high powered race gas map. The Procede will run the Stg 4+ map (with 0% ignition correction) which hits peak boost of 17.1psi. What comparable map should I run with the JB3?

Shiv

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by Bimmer335i07

I have to agree with Mike. Not many members are running the 18ohm boards. If you want this to be a fair comparison, please use the 24ohm board.

Anybody that purchases a standard JB3 2.0 or lower will get the 24ohm board.

At a minimum he should set the throttle gain to ~15, pid gain to ~35, and pwm min to ~17. It won't be as crisp as a normal board but at least it's in the ballpark. Hopefully the next person that gets this "snooping" harness has normal production hardware for comparison.

Mike

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Fair enough. I'll retest the jb3 the 24ohm resistors tomorrow. Perhaps that explains the partial throttle test results I logged earlier today. What Throttle Gain setting should I use with the standard resistors? Is there anything else that you suggest I do in preparation for tomorrow's re-testing?

I also plan on testing both tunes with a high powered race gas map. The Procede will run the Stg 4+ map (with 0% ignition correction) which hits peak boost of 17.1psi. What comparable map should I run with the JB3?

Shiv

The normal production board has an 820 ohm going in to transistor and 24 ohm resistors. You would use default settings with throttle gain lowered to 20 to start since you're fully catless.

I haven't tested the 2.0 race maps but if you want to sustain 17+psi (e.g. going all out) keeping the 18 ohms but properly adjusting the global settings for them makes more sense. I've heard map 1 with values of 80 tq, 100 hp, 100 fuel, 0 iat, 100 lagfix, 19 boost limit works well as a starting point. But your mileage may vary so log and adjust accordingly.

Mike

[Joshboody]

can't open the log files... should excel work? Do you need procede software?