[jpsimon]

The first log is the default stage 3 settings.... ut 85%, ign. correction 100%.

The second log I only changed the ign. correction settings to 25% to demonstrate how ign. advance changes with no other modifications.

I think the results speak for themselves... clearly total ign. advance has increased.

87-90° f., 63% humidity... 3rd gear pulls

default (ut:85%, ign. correction:100%):


modified (ut:85%, ign. correction:25%):

[Panoz]

Great, weldone...The ignition advance increased ,so what?

[jpsimon]

So what? I guess you haven't been reading the other threads on the matter... Merry (Mike/Terry) claim the procede doesn't effectively control/change timing, and that the car "learns out" the procede's changes. This is just another examples that clearly shows it working as advertised.

The more data for the public to see the better. That's "what".

[scalbert]

This is the corrected advance value with the CPS offset included. By lowering the reduction of retard, it supports that the no offset learning occurs. Less timing was pulled so timing increased as you would expect. If CPS offsetting was learned out, it should have stayed the same.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Thanks for the logs. A couple questions:

1) Why not run logs from 2000-6500rpm for a full sweep of the power
band? 4400rpm-6000rpm is a very small window.
2) There appears to be boost variances between the runs. The "100%"
run appears to have 1/2-1psi less boost than the "25%" run? Are these
both "fully adapted" runs? Was starting IAT and other variables
preserved? Was the same road used?

Finally, a comment. The "25%" log does not seem to indicate knock or any other sign of engine unhappiness. Even something as simply as a spool up or targeting differences could account for this minor overall timing change.

Mike

[Panoz]

Originally Posted by jpsimon

So what? I guess you haven't been reading the other threads on the matter... Merry (Mike/Terry) claim the procede doesn't effectively control/change timing, and that the car "learns out" the procede's changes. This is just another examples that clearly shows it working as advertised.

The more data for the public to see the better. That's "what".

You obviously didn't catch the spirit...I meant that it makes no surprise the Ig.Adv. increased it was expected that it would happen. Its makes no sense replicating an event that has been already presented from Shiv and analyzed so extensively. I wouldn't doubt for a second that this would be the case.

[lawdude]

Holy crap Mike. Can't you be happy for just a few minutes?

[TheTwinz]

I dont think the argument was whether or not the Procede controls timing... The argument was whether or not the car *NEEDED* the procede to control timing when it can do it by itself given the situation. I believe BMW has top notch safety features to ensure the longevity of their engines.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Thanks for the logs. A couple questions:

1) Why not run logs from 2000-6500rpm for a full sweep of the power
band? 4400rpm-6000rpm is a very small window.
2) There appears to be boost variances between the runs. The "100%"
run appears to have 1/2-1psi less boost than the "25%" run? Are these
both "fully adapted" runs? Was starting IAT and other variables
preserved? Was the same road used?

Finally, a comment. The "25%" log does not seem to indicate knock or any other sign of engine unhappiness. Even something as simply as a spool up or targeting differences could account for this minor overall timing change.

Mike

Granted, more rev range would be nice but it really shouldn't matter. This is the area where there is the most CPS offsetting and as such, should be learned out and can be more easily seen.

IMO, those boost curves are pretty darn close. At the 5900 scroll mark, there is 0.3 PSI difference. When that reaches the DME, it would be about 0.15 difference, which is splitting hairs. When you take out the offset, both are sitting right near 12 degrees total advance. If learning was occuring, the first run should be higher without the offset, about 15 degrees total advance.

And true, 25% does not show any significant knock. It did go flat after 6k revs whereas the first log kept climbing. And this is on 93 octane.

[Alpine 335i]

Merry aka (mike and terry)? Cheap Shot JP?

[jpsimon]

Splitting hairs!

1) Mainly a space issue. 4000 - ~6500rpm is what I can reproduce effectively mid day where I am.
2) The boost varies in both: they both fluctuate slightly from ~14.9 - ~15.3. Yes I was attempting to keep the variables as close to the same as I can... same road, etc.

The point was to demonstrate timing changes based on ign. correction adjustments.... which this demonstrates.

I'm almost surprised you haven't asked about light-weight mods such as taking a big shit before the run to reduce weight by 2lbs, which could potentially change overall timing The answer to that variable is in fact no, no JDM shats.

[jpsimon]

Originally Posted by TheTwinz

I dont think the argument was whether or not the Procede controls timing... The argument was whether or not the car *NEEDED* the procede to control timing when it can do it by itself given the situation. I believe BMW has top notch safety features to ensure the longevity of their engines.

Mike/terry claim the procede doesn't effectively control timing, and that it is "learned out" by the car.

[shiv@vishnu]

Originally Posted by TheTwinz

I dont think the argument was whether or not the Procede controls timing...

Yes it was. Just ask Mike/Terry. They have always marketed the idea that PROcede timing corrects were "learned out" by the DME ever since it was discovered that the JB3 doesn't control timing. But, to be fair, their arguments do change as facts and info is brought to light.

The argument was whether or not the car *NEEDED* the procede to control timing when it can do it by itself given the situation. I believe BMW has top notch safety features to ensure the longevity of their engines.

Yes, top notch safety systems that expect to support 5-8psi of boost, reasonable IATs and 275whp. Not 15+psi of boost, 170+ deg IATS and 350+whp.

What you are suggesting is much like filling up a stock car with 86oct and expecting it to not compromise safety because the factory knock control system is "top notch".

Shiv

[dkvby]

Does the 25%/100% change at all after adapted(10+ so WOT)?? if either timing changes ... does it mean the car does learn?

[jpsimon]

I'll keep the 25% as is for a few days, and get some more logs (depending on the rain of course).

[scottp999]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Yes, top notch safety systems that expect to support 5-8psi of boost, reasonable IATs and 275whp. Not 15+psi of boost, 170+ deg IATS and 350+whp.Shiv

Beat me to it. Was going to say almost the same thing, that the saftey systems were designed around the product as it was released. I think tuners showing an interest in making sure there are saftey features that are appropriate for the power they are delivering is a great thing.

[jaza45]

I've yet to see the ignition correction at 0% to see if the dme changes ignition to protect itself from knocking instead of the procede telling it what to do.....can somebody post those so I can compare....

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Yes, top notch safety systems that expect to support 5-8psi of boost, reasonable IATs and 275whp. Not 15+psi of boost, 170+ deg IATS and 350+whp.
Shiv

Doesn't the ECU have to adjust for altitude? And when it does, depending on the altitude can compensate up to around 10.2 psi on stock program? If so then wouldn't the ECU have to adjust timing for that change in boost?

[shiv@vishnu]

Originally Posted by RambleJ

Doesn't the ECU have to adjust for altitude? And when it does, depending on the altitude can compensate up to around 10.2 psi on stock program? If so then wouldn't the ECU have to adjust timing for that change in boost?

The engine doesn't care about boost. It only cares about absolute pressure. Which is the atmospheric pressure PLUS Boost. In your case of high altitude when the DME induces higher boost, the atmosphere pressure is correspondingly lower. The total (absolute pressure) is always the same.

Shiv

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by scalbert

Granted, more rev range would be nice but it really shouldn't matter. This is the area where there is the most CPS offsetting and as such, should be learned out and can be more easily seen.

IMO, those boost curves are pretty darn close. At the 5900 scroll mark, there is 0.3 PSI difference. When that reaches the DME, it would be about 0.15 difference, which is splitting hairs. When you take out the offset, both are sitting right near 12 degrees total advance. If learning was occuring, the first run should be higher without the offset, about 15 degrees total advance.

And true, 25% does not show any significant knock. It did go flat after 6k revs whereas the first log kept climbing. And this is on 93 octane.

It's like Shiv's logs that had a 4 degree timing variance blamed on IAT differences. Full dyno logs where IAT and oil temperatures are matched seems to be the only way to go. I have street logs showing less timing with CPS, logs showing more timing with CPS, and logs showing the same timing with CPS. When the run to run variance is so huge and the CPS so small it is
hard to prove anything.

At a minimum lets all agree on a criteria for testing. Knock is knock whether it happens at 2000rpm, 3000rpm, or 6000rpm, so lets post full logs. Perhaps also including IAT on all logs will also help spot variances. Something I've been guilty of omitting in a couple logs.

Mike

[shiv@vishnu]

Mike's hamster wheel is about to seize up.

[jpsimon]

in other news, can't wait to see the other meth dyno's shiv!