E90Post
 


Lux Angel Eyes
 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > E90 / E92 / E93 3-series Powertrain and Drivetrain Discussions > N54 Turbo Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust Modifications - 335i > Vishnu Technical: Ignition timing control facts



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      07-17-2009, 03:08 PM   #89
Mike@N54Tuning.com
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor

 
Drives: 07335i
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Earth

Posts: 14,505
iTrader: (86)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsimon View Post
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
Mike@N54Tuning.com is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 03:37 PM   #90
shiv@vishnu
Tuner
 
Drives: X1, 335i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SF Bay, CA

Posts: 17,616
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com View Post
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.
shiv@vishnu is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 03:39 PM   #91
scalbert
Major General
 
scalbert's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 E90 M3, '13 Volt, '08 Ody
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woodstock, GA

Posts: 5,710
iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com View Post
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.
scalbert is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 03:55 PM   #92
brianhn1
Slow Mo
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US

Posts: 518
iTrader: (0)

I'd like to see more results from 'Test 2.' Can someone else post their 3rd gear runs with their own PROcede?
__________________
'15 M4 AW/SO, ED 7/1/14, US 8/4/14, PU 8/18/14
'13 X5 35i, '08 335i
Mopeds: '12 R1200GS, '10 F800GS, '74 R90S

brianhn1 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 03:59 PM   #93
GeorgiaTech335coupe
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Black BMW 335i coupe
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 1,884
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianhn1 View Post
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.
__________________
Legal Disclaimer: Anything I or anyone else says about my vehicle on this website(e90post.com or any affiliated or nonaffiliated sites), pertaining to modifications, is only to gain acceptance from my/our peers, and does not actually represent anything actually existing on my car, and thus, cannot be held against me in any issues, i.e. warranty claims, that may arise.
GeorgiaTech335coupe is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 04:03 PM   #94
brianhn1
Slow Mo
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US

Posts: 518
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTech335coupe View Post
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?
__________________
'15 M4 AW/SO, ED 7/1/14, US 8/4/14, PU 8/18/14
'13 X5 35i, '08 335i
Mopeds: '12 R1200GS, '10 F800GS, '74 R90S

brianhn1 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 04:05 PM   #95
shiv@vishnu
Tuner
 
Drives: X1, 335i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SF Bay, CA

Posts: 17,616
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by inthemiddle View Post
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
shiv@vishnu is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 04:06 PM   #96
shiv@vishnu
Tuner
 
Drives: X1, 335i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SF Bay, CA

Posts: 17,616
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianhn1 View Post
Thanks.

Shiv, you have more 'Test 2' data?
Sure do.
shiv@vishnu is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 04:08 PM   #97
brianhn1
Slow Mo
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US

Posts: 518
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu View Post
Sure do.
Would be great if you could post them.
__________________
'15 M4 AW/SO, ED 7/1/14, US 8/4/14, PU 8/18/14
'13 X5 35i, '08 335i
Mopeds: '12 R1200GS, '10 F800GS, '74 R90S

brianhn1 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 04:09 PM   #98
shiv@vishnu
Tuner
 
Drives: X1, 335i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SF Bay, CA

Posts: 17,616
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianhn1 View Post
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
shiv@vishnu is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 04:13 PM   #99
StartupJunkie
First Lieutenant
 
StartupJunkie's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Sedan+2 Baby Seats
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SF South Bay Area, CA

Posts: 314
iTrader: (0)

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by scalbert View Post
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.
__________________
11.535@124.423mph (1.641 60') - AutoTune 7-27, Race+Meth, Best ET w/ only 80% throttle 1st and 2nd
11.647@121.356mph (1.590 60') - AutoTune (beta pre-5-15), Race Gas, No METH

Perf Mods: Vishnu PROcede Rev3 v5, Vishnu PWM Meth Kit, AR Design DPs, AE Exhaust, Helix FMIC, Vishnu DCI, Forge DV, WaveTrac LSD (Best Trap - 124.665mph)
StartupJunkie is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 04:51 PM   #100
jpsimon
Team Zissou
 
jpsimon's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 STi
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CT

Posts: 9,000
iTrader: (4)

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:




__________________
2015 STi / 335xi (solid)
www.datazap.me - fast, free, interactive data log viewing

jpsimon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 05:06 PM   #101
beepbeep
Private First Class
 
Drives: 2007 335i sedan E90
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Corrales,NM

Posts: 151
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scalbert View Post
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.

Last edited by beepbeep; 07-17-2009 at 05:07 PM. Reason: conclusion hard to understand.
beepbeep is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 05:08 PM   #102
shiv@vishnu
Tuner
 
Drives: X1, 335i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SF Bay, CA

Posts: 17,616
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsimon View Post
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
shiv@vishnu is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 05:13 PM   #103
lawdude
Colonel
 
lawdude's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i ZPP ZSP TiAg MT
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 2,259
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu View Post
5) User adjustable for Ignition Correction has range of 0-200% instead of current 0-100%
-100% - (+)200% sounds better.
__________________
What do I know? I'm insane.
lawdude is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 07:27 PM   #104
scalbert
Major General
 
scalbert's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 E90 M3, '13 Volt, '08 Ody
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woodstock, GA

Posts: 5,710
iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by beepbeep View Post
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 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 07:41 PM   #105
scalbert
Major General
 
scalbert's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 E90 M3, '13 Volt, '08 Ody
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woodstock, GA

Posts: 5,710
iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawdude View Post
-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.
scalbert is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 09:39 PM   #106
nj1266
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: Evolution
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Long Beach, CA

Posts: 43
iTrader: (0)

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.
nj1266 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 10:11 PM   #107
doofus2
Private
 
Drives: e90 335i
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Scotts Valley

Posts: 56
iTrader: (0)

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.
Attached Images
 
doofus2 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 10:23 PM   #108
doofus2
Private
 
Drives: e90 335i
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Scotts Valley

Posts: 56
iTrader: (0)

raw data

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...
doofus2 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-17-2009, 10:27 PM   #109
nj1266
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: Evolution
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Long Beach, CA

Posts: 43
iTrader: (0)

Can you overlap 6a and 6b for us?

Thanks
nj1266 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-18-2009, 01:21 AM   #110
Mike@N54Tuning.com
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor

 
Drives: 07335i
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Earth

Posts: 14,505
iTrader: (86)

Quote:
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
Mike@N54Tuning.com is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31 PM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST