[Joshboody]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

I think I understand your question... and if I do, yes, tuning is fairly "linear" per se. For instance, if two of your set points for example are 3000rpm and 3500rpm, and in the same load column, at 3000rpm under XXX load, you have a value of 14.5 degrees of timing, and then under the same load value at 3500rpm you have a timing value of 15.5 degrees, the ECU will "ramp" to that value per se. In other words, even though you do not have a set point at 3250rpm, at that RPM under the same load, the ECU will calculate your timing value to about 15.0 degrees. Does that make sense/answer your question?

It will work the same way when sliding between load values at a fixed RPM. A 3D image is a bit easier to understand, as it really does create a "map".

I've never played with Vanos, but I have played with AVCS and MIVEC (cam timing), and they have their own separate tables/separate from ignition timing tables. Honestly, I never invested too much time into cam/valve timing parameters, as I found that you can usually find a bit of lowend torque playing with them/decrease spool time just a bit, but for the most part I found most of them were pretty well tuned from the factory.

Haven't played with too many Honda's (very minor experience with some of the Hondata software), but VTEC typically has its own set point (separate adjustable parameter) that most people adjust at a set RPM. VTEC is just a simple extra lobe/rocker arm that adjusts lift/duration at a set point:


If/when the extra lift and duration increases load on the engine, the ignition timing map/table will be consulted in order to attempt to target the correct amount of timing advance.

I hope that helps.

Playing with the tables would be neat... the most i've done is set a distributor back in the day.

For the vanos, you can see the timing adjustment in the tables ramping up and then down from 3500 to 4500 due to the different cam durations.

I guess what i was asking was more if there's a direct relationship, so if a hand full of boxes are determined on the dyno or by ear, you can fill in the rest.

Originally Posted by ExpensiveTaste

I understand what the OP is saying in every way and I agree 100%. However, I think there is more to it. Can someone conduct a test when it gets warmer out? Run Map 0 or whatever map reverts to the factory BMW tuning and run 87 octane from an empty tank. It's obvious that there will be knock and the timing will drop down by 3 degrees every time. HOWEVER...I would like to see how long it takes for the ECU to adapt and go back to the normal timing changes of less than 1 degree plus or minus. Also, once it gets there, will it stay there without raising timing back up and then getting back to 3 degree timing drops again. We need to figure out the logic the ECU uses to control adaptive timing. For example, does the ECU only try to adapt back up after x successful small timing advances? Is this WOT adaptation a separate logic, or does cruising conditions affect it as well. I would like to learn more about the ECU logic as I'm sure most of us do...

Plenty have done this, but using race gas instead of WOT on 87... OUCH. The dme tries to get back to its curve fairly aggresively. you can see the slope is much greater in most JB logs because there's no correction.

[ExpensiveTaste]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

Plenty have done this, but using race gas instead of WOT on 87... OUCH. The dme tries to get back to its curve fairly aggresively. you can see the slope is much greater in most JB logs because there's no correction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but using a higher octane might be a different reaction than using a lower octane. I would think that it would be harder to adapt when the ECU is bouncing off the maximum timing tables. Or do you mean that it was tested where the ECU sensed knock on high octane and bumped itself down and then didn't try to keep the new lower timing at all? It just tries to advance timing a set amount in a set period of time no matter what and relies on knock events to go back down 3 degrees? Implying there are no "octane adaptations"?

[KennyPowers]

No what he means is that when you use race gas, the stock tune does not knock becase the car is able to reah the set maximum timing values without any knock detection events.

There is no "bouncing" off the maximum timing points, that's why they are called maximum.

(as I understand it)

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

No what he means is that when you use race gas, the stock tune does not knock becase the car is able to reah the set maximum timing values without any knock detection events.

There is no "bouncing" off the maximum timing points, that's why they are called maximum.

(as I understand it)

Correct.

This is not a hard concept to understand guys. Set timing below knock, car won't knock. Very simply and works just like any other car.

[ExpensiveTaste]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

No what he means is that when you use race gas, the stock tune does not knock becase the car is able to reah the set maximum timing values without any knock detection events.

There is no "bouncing" off the maximum timing points, that's why they are called maximum.

(as I understand it)

Ya, so that wouldn't be a good way to test the ECU's ability to modify advance levels based on knock history...

[Jake@PTF]

Originally Posted by Clap135

Correct.

This is not a hard concept to understand guys. Set timing below knock, car won't knock. Very simply and works just like any other car.

Mike PM'd me earlier and we are attempting civilized discussions but he avoids my questions when I answer all of his. My latest was what would he set the timing at if he had a full standalone on this car and could tune it anyway he wanted. I asked fro timing from 4000-7000 because I know the answer. I just couldn't think of a way around answering it honestly. And I think I was right - hence no answer

[KennyPowers]

Originally Posted by ExpensiveTaste

Ya, so that wouldn't be a good way to test the ECU's ability to modify advance levels based on knock history...

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say...sorry.

The point of the race gas test is to prove that the car CAN run knock free IF the maximum timing values are set properly, (ie low enough) to prevent the knock sensor from detecting events an thus having to drop timing.

With increased load, timing table maximums need to be dropped relative to stock values in order to prevent timig drops based on knock sensor detection events.

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Like I said this platform is pretty unique. Get ready for 14.5:1 air/fuel ratios @ WOT and 5-10 degrees advance @ WOT. The maximum advance set points are based on load, rpm, but also gear, iat, EGT, etc. Then you have the long and short term learned factors that play in. Generally with a JB3 on pump for example the long term octane adaptive is maxed out negative which takes away 2-3 degrees of advance. Which is why you have thousands running tens of millions of miles without knock related damage, ping, or even bad looking plugs. And that is using the old logic that could not even listen for knock / drop outs. The new JB4 logic is going to prove much better. When the ATR comes out it will be interesting to see the actual knock related tables and how it all really works. There may be factors that play in that we're not aware of. But make no mistake, it does work perfectly well as many JB4 logs posted have already shown.

Mike

The thing is Mike, as shown above, base timing is still controlled by a very simple and universal concept- a load vs RPM table, just like most other modern vehicles. You might not realize this, but pretty much all modern performance vehicles have temp sensors (that sense IAT's either via MAF or MAP), and they have compensation tables for IAT's as well. Many cars don't have gear specific maps/boost settings (however there are means of tuning cars that way outside of the BMW community), but at the same time if based on a preset WGDC value, as load increases (aka higher gear), so does boost, so in essence, most tuners realize this and typically tune in a higher gear (3rd, 4th or occasionally 5th depending on the ratio of the gear) in order to attempt to tune under a full load/boost.

The reason why a person sets an ignition timing table is so that under different load & RPM conditions, the ECU knows how to compensate accordingly. On most other cars, you also have short and long term fuel trims (STFT & LTFT), that adjust accordingly based on your conditions, and alter fuel trims accordingly (mostly CL, but OL to a smaller extent long term). They also have IAM settings, which modify timing at load sites based on historic knock and adjust slowly over time (just like autotuning, but only for timing).

As far as timing and AFR's go, all cars are different. Boxers don't dissipate heat as well, and as such are more prone to detonation than inline motors. Because of this, Subie's are traditionally run a little richer than other turbo 4's (typically around the 11.5:1 mark, many times tapering into the low 11's/high 10's), in order to use the extra fuel to cool the heads/lower cylinder temps in order to stave off detonation.

In contrast, I've seen 4G63 powered EVO's that were pretty happy around the 12.5:1 mark, and 2.3 DISI motors (also DI) that were happy anywhere from 12.5 to 11.5 depending on mods and tune. Although it's NA, my brother's GTO runs well around the 13-13.5:1 mark under full load without an issue.

My point? All cars have different preferences when it comes to AFR and timing. This is to be expected. I'm actually pretty excited about seeing what I can make this engine do, but at the same time, it is still an internal combustion engine, and as such falls under the same principles that other internal combustion gasoline engines fall under. I've played with meth, race gas, and E85 (love the corn juice!!) over the years, all of which require some form of tuning in order to reap their full benefits... but across the board, the principles stay the same. Every car is going to be slightly different, which is why I believe custom tuning is so important, but ultimately, they'll all gasoline internal combustion engines, many of which have the same parameters.

Honestly, I know you're trying to sell a product, and I respect that, I know it's a tough job, but I think you might benefit from an EFI 101 course. I think by seeing multiple platforms, and the differences between them, you might also realize just how similar the guiding principles are regardless of the variations between motors. Again, I'm not trying to come off as a prick, but I think you could learn a good bit, and expand your overall knowledge base, which would help with sales IMO.

I also think you should learn to accept the fact that timing control can be beneficial when it comes to optimizing (<--key word) a tune. It's not personal, and it's nothing against the JB3/4, so please don't take it as such, but just realize the truth of the thing. In all reality, the Procede doesn't have nearly the user adjustability as many standalone ECU's (Haltech, Motronic ect)... look at the price difference... it's not supposed to. Many people don't want/need that level of involvement. Comparatively, the JB4 is less than optimum due to the fact that it doesn't control timing... it's also only $479. You get what you pay for, and people understand that. It's been proven (even stated in my original post) that on otherwise stock cars, the DME is adaptable enough to save your motor running a JB3/4, that is well understood, and agreed upon. However, it is not optimal, as optimal IMO would be a map created specifically for a person's car, with their specific mods, on their fuel, in their environment, that does not see knock under normal conditions (i.e. consistent).

Bang for buck, you can't beat the JB3/4. This is a well known fact. However, arguing that an inferior product is somehow on the same level as it's more capable competition is a fallacy. It's cheaper... you own a good portion of the market due to price point... for the life of me I don't understand why you would argue with so many reputable tuners & knowledgeable enthusiasts who have tuned countless vehicles, when it does nothing to sway your potential customers.

Again, I am not trying to flame you, as a matter of fact, I don't think you're a bad guy, and I'm sure you're just trying to stand up for your customer base, but honestly, it's not necessary. It is what it is. The JB doesn't control timing, which is a crucial factor when tuning for optimum performance, consistency and safety. Period. It's not a bad device, it offers great bang for buck value to those who don't care (large majority), and doesn't pop motors on this vehicle. That should be enough. Either that, or if you don't like the negative stigma around having no timing control, simple answer- build a better machine. Isn't the Proboard going to have timing control? Viola.

Either way, again, not trying to be a prick. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors, but for those of us who have tuned many different platforms, the core principles of tuning are still the same.

Just me $.02

-Brandon

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

The thing is Mike, as shown above, base timing is still controlled by a very simple and universal concept- a load vs RPM table, just like most other modern vehicles. You might not realize this, but pretty much all modern performance vehicles have temp sensors (that sense IAT's either via MAF or MAP), and they have compensation tables for IAT's as well. Many cars don't have gear specific maps/boost settings (however there are means of tuning cars that way outside of the BMW community), but at the same time if based on a preset WGDC value, as load increases (aka higher gear), so does boost, so in essence, most tuners realize this and typically tune in a higher gear (3rd, 4th or occasionally 5th depending on the ratio of the gear) in order to attempt to tune under a full load/boost.

The reason why a person sets an ignition timing table is so that under different load & RPM conditions, the ECU knows how to compensate accordingly. On most other cars, you also have short and long term fuel trims (STFT & LTFT), that adjust accordingly based on your conditions, and alter fuel trims accordingly (mostly CL, but OL to a smaller extent long term). They also have IAM settings, which modify timing at load sites based on historic knock and adjust slowly over time (just like autotuning, but only for timing).

As far as timing and AFR's go, all cars are different. Boxers don't dissipate heat as well, and as such are more prone to detonation than inline motors. Because of this, Subie's are traditionally run a little richer than other turbo 4's (typically around the 11.5:1 mark, many times tapering into the low 11's/high 10's), in order to use the extra fuel to cool the heads/lower cylinder temps in order to stave off detonation.

In contrast, I've seen 4G63 powered EVO's that were pretty happy around the 12.5:1 mark, and 2.3 DISI motors (also DI) that were happy anywhere from 12.5 to 11.5 depending on mods and tune. Although it's NA, my brother's GTO runs well around the 13-13.5:1 mark under full load without an issue.

My point? All cars have different preferences when it comes to AFR and timing. This is to be expected. I'm actually pretty excited about seeing what I can make this engine do, but at the same time, it is still an internal combustion engine, and as such falls under the same principles that other internal combustion gasoline engines fall under. I've played with meth, race gas, and E85 (love the corn juice!!) over the years, all of which require some form of tuning in order to reap their full benefits... but across the board, the principles stay the same. Every car is going to be slightly different, which is why I believe custom tuning is so important, but ultimately, they'll all gasoline internal combustion engines, many of which have the same parameters.

Honestly, I know you're trying to sell a product, and I respect that, I know it's a tough job, but I think you might benefit from an EFI 101 course. I think by seeing multiple platforms, and the differences between them, you might also realize just how similar the guiding principles are regardless of the variations between motors. Again, I'm not trying to come off as a prick, but I think you could learn a good bit, and expand your overall knowledge base, which would help with sales IMO.

I also think you should learn to accept the fact that timing control can be beneficial when it comes to optimizing (<--key word) a tune. It's not personal, and it's nothing against the JB3/4, so please don't take it as such, but just realize the truth of the thing. In all reality, the Procede doesn't have nearly the user adjustability as many standalone ECU's (Haltech, Motronic ect)... look at the price difference... it's not supposed to. Many people don't want/need that level of involvement. Comparatively, the JB4 is less than optimum due to the fact that it doesn't control timing... it's also only $479. You get what you pay for, and people understand that. It's been proven (even stated in my original post) that on otherwise stock cars, the DME is adaptable enough to save your motor running a JB3/4, that is well understood, and agreed upon. However, it is not optimal, as optimal IMO would be a map created specifically for a person's car, with their specific mods, on their fuel, in their environment, that does not see knock under normal conditions (i.e. consistent).

Bang for buck, you can't beat the JB3/4. This is a well known fact. However, arguing that an inferior product is somehow on the same level as it's more capable competition is a fallacy. It's cheaper... you own a good portion of the market due to price point... for the life of me I don't understand why you would argue with so many reputable tuners & knowledgeable enthusiasts who have tuned countless vehicles, when it does nothing to sway your potential customers.

Again, I am not trying to flame you, as a matter of fact, I don't think you're a bad guy, and I'm sure you're just trying to stand up for your customer base, but honestly, it's not necessary. It is what it is. The JB doesn't control timing, which is a crucial factor when tuning for optimum performance, consistency and safety. Period. It's not a bad device, it offers great bang for buck value to those who don't care (large majority), and doesn't pop motors on this vehicle. That should be enough. Either that, or if you don't like the negative stigma around having no timing control, simple answer- build a better machine. Isn't the Proboard going to have timing control? Viola.

Either way, again, not trying to be a prick. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors, but for those of us who have tuned many different platforms, the core principles of tuning are still the same.

Just me $.02

-Brandon

I would like to add one thing to this. When tuning, picking a higher gear isnt only due to recorded load. It is also because you slow the rate of rpm down under full throttle. As we know the slower the rpm rate rises, the more chance the cylinder has to be filled with air. The more air, the more pressure, the more heat, the worse conditions become ect ect.

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Clap135

I would like to add one thing to this. When tuning, picking a higher gear isnt only due to recorded load. It is also because you slow the rate of rpm down under full throttle. As we know the slower the rpm rate rises, the more chance the cylinder has to be filled with air. The more air, the more pressure, the more heat, the worse conditions become ect ect.

Agreed

I was only pointing out to Mike variance between gears and one of the prime reasons why gear selection is crucial when dyno tuning (for a turbo car). On an NA car, I'm going to choose a gear with a higher load for the exact reasons you listed. I'm a big fan of tuning under harsh conditions.

[ExpensiveTaste]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say...sorry.

The point of the race gas test is to prove that the car CAN run knock free IF the maximum timing values are set properly, (ie low enough) to prevent the knock sensor from detecting events an thus having to drop timing.

With increased load, timing table maximums need to be dropped relative to stock values in order to prevent timig drops based on knock sensor detection events.

What I would like to test is if the ECU has logic built into it to have the ability to run a timing curve lower than the maximum timing values without knock events based on knock history.

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

Agreed

I was only pointing out to Mike variance between gears and one of the prime reasons why gear selection is crucial when dyno tuning (for a turbo car). On an NA car, I'm going to choose a gear with a higher load for the exact reasons you listed. I'm a big fan of tuning under harsh conditions.

I don't know where the hell you came from, but for the first time in a long time I am not angry when posting on this forum. We need more experienced users like yourself to chime in on this board.

[SennaZ]

Originally Posted by SennaZ

Great post Brandon!

Having read your and the rest of the kiss ass responses, I retract that, sorry.

You BMW guys really are agenda driven.

[Sniz]

Reminds me of way back when Terry constantly asked questions of Shiv trying to learn how build a cheap resistor tune.

Times have not changed. I'm always wary of who is actually the one typing what comes through Mike's account

Originally Posted by FlyLow335i

Mike PM'd me earlier and we are attempting civilized discussions but he avoids my questions when I answer all of his. My latest was what would he set the timing at if he had a full standalone on this car and could tune it anyway he wanted. I asked fro timing from 4000-7000 because I know the answer. I just couldn't think of a way around answering it honestly. And I think I was right - hence no answer

[BmwFanFL]

If combustion is stable, there would be no abnormal noise for the sensors to pick up - -the noise would be normal combustion noise by definition. It is very unlikely there is a harmless, partially degenerated wavefront, that happens to create audible vibration, without any potential for harm.

I do believe that knock varies in intensity and severity, influenced by how far off the timing was, the load, temperatures, cylinder pressures, at which it occurs, etc. The less accurate the tune is at getting timing right, in light of all the factors, the more potential for knock events, in both severity and number. Catastrophic loss may be rare, but heightened wear and tear is almost certain.

I come from other engineering areas, and have no tuning background, but this seems obvious to me. Yes, I inferred it from what I've read here, but also did my own thinking and reading...

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The DME reaction to knock sensor feedback is progressive. Normally it operates within a range than reduces timing in small amounts of say 1/4 degree. If knock sensor noise is above that range it overreacts with 3 degrees. This is when you know it's having a harder time honing in on the right curve which means combustion is becoming less stable. If it continues you get another 3 degrees. Finally if there is still no reduction in knock sensor noise after the two 3 degree drops it assumes you are experiencing preignition or something bad is happening and goes to limp mode / triggers ignition glow codes. The whole time it is learning long and short term trims by RPM, load, gear, etc.

Mike

[Sparky66]

Originally Posted by Clap135

Did you expect otherwise? There are something he states publically from time to time that just makes my mouth drop a little, forcing me to reread it a couple of times. The guy does a good job with groupbuys and shipping parts, after all, thats what he does, he sells other peoples products.

Wouldn't it be scary if Mike's responses were in fact Terry's.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

I also think you should learn to accept the fact that timing control can be beneficial when it comes to optimizing (<--key word) a tune. It's not personal, and it's nothing against the JB3/4, so please don't take it as such, but just realize the truth of the thing. In all reality, the Procede doesn't have nearly the user adjustability as many standalone ECU's (Haltech, Motronic ect)... look at the price difference... it's not supposed to. Many people don't want/need that level of involvement. Comparatively, the JB4 is less than optimum due to the fact that it doesn't control timing... it's also only $479. You get what you pay for, and people understand that. It's been proven (even stated in my original post) that on otherwise stock cars, the DME is adaptable enough to save your motor running a JB3/4, that is well understood, and agreed upon. However, it is not optimal, as optimal IMO would be a map created specifically for a person's car, with their specific mods, on their fuel, in their environment, that does not see knock under normal conditions (i.e. consistent).

I appreciate the note and I would also ask that before invoking product names in your posts that you spend more time learning the platform. Clearly certain aspects of how the N54 works are being mischaracterized to fit in to your model of how you've tuned other platforms or how you think it should work. For example, you and clap135 continually ignore the adaptive timing system. Instead you say "well, if you set the advance maximums so low that it can't adapt up then you'll have tuning like you would in any other platform", and that is of course true. But no one does that and for very good reason. The adaptive advance system is one of the best things about this
platform. Timing is managed on a cylinder by cylinder basis and is almost perfectly timed in every situation, condition, and octane. It's never lazy or undertimed and never knocks. Try doing that with manual timing tables.

Also this has nothing to do with products. The fact is there are more tunes out there using the JB3s method of timing control than there are using CPS. It's about understanding how the DME and tunes work. I think clap135 put it really eloquently when he said if you add race gas and timing goes up its knocking. That seems a reasonable position and as I've said that will happen with any tune on this market. If you don't believe it then let's put that to the test once again. You'll be surprised.

Mike

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I appreciate the note and I would also ask that before invoking product names in your posts that you spend more time learning the platform. Clearly certain aspects of how the N54 works are being mischaracterized to fit in to your model of how you've tuned other platforms or how you think it should work. For example, you and clap135 continually ignore the adaptive timing system. Instead you say "well, if you set the advance maximums so low that it can't adapt up then you'll have tuning like you would in any other platform", and that is of course true. But no one does that and for very good reason. The adaptive advance system is one of the best things about this
platform. Timing is managed on a cylinder by cylinder basis and is almost perfectly timed in every situation, condition, and octane. It's never lazy or undertimed and never knocks. Try doing that with manual timing tables.

Also this has nothing to do with products. The fact is there are more tunes out there using the JB3s method of timing control than there are using CPS. It's about understanding how the DME and tunes work. I think clap135 put it really eloquently when he said if you add race gas and timing goes up its knocking. That seems a reasonable position and as I've said that will happen with any tune on this market. If you don't believe it then let's put that to the test once again. You'll be surprised.

Mike

I think you are still misunderstanding how timing works. Most modern cars will drop ignition when knock is detected. Like said, lowering the ignition in the first place will simply remove the knock. You saying htat adding race gas to any tune will raise timing is incorrect. Adding racegas ontop of my car will not raise timing one bit, and that is becuase it is not running overly aggressive. Day in and day out my timing is spot on to the base timing programmed into my tune. Thats how it should work all the time.

[DesertDude]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I appreciate the note and I would also ask that before invoking product names in your posts that you spend more time learning the platform. Clearly certain aspects of how the N54 works are being mischaracterized to fit in to your model of how you've tuned other platforms or how you think it should work. For example, you and clap135 continually ignore the adaptive timing system. Instead you say "well, if you set the advance maximums so low that it can't adapt up then you'll have tuning like you would in any other platform", and that is of course true. But no one does that and for very good reason. The adaptive advance system is one of the best things about this
platform. Timing is managed on a cylinder by cylinder basis and is almost perfectly timed in every situation, condition, and octane. It's never lazy or undertimed and never knocks. Try doing that with manual timing tables.

Also this has nothing to do with products. The fact is there are more tunes out there using the JB3s method of timing control than there are using CPS. It's about understanding how the DME and tunes work. I think clap135 put it really eloquently when he said if you add race gas and timing goes up its knocking. That seems a reasonable position and as I've said that will happen with any tune on this market. If you don't believe it then let's put that to the test once again. You'll be surprised.

Mike

You're right Mike. The ability of the N54 to protect itself in all conditions is quite impressive. Those BMW engineers really know what they are doing.

But...those same BMW engineer saw fit to reduce the timing tables in the IS version of the engine. Why would they do that if the system that they created was so good at adaptation that it shouldn't have been needed based on your reasoning? They increased boost in the IS and reduced the maximum timing allowed under certain load conditions. We are increasing boost even more with the aftermarket tunes, yet you suggest that we don't need to adjust the timing tables? I would think it would be prudent to follow BMW engineerings lead since they know the abilities of this engine and DME better than anyone.

[Jake@PTF]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I appreciate the note and I would also ask that before invoking product names in your posts that you spend more time learning the platform. Clearly certain aspects of how the N54 works are being mischaracterized to fit in to your model of how you've tuned other platforms or how you think it should work. For example, you and clap135 continually ignore the adaptive timing system. Instead you say "well, if you set the advance maximums so low that it can't adapt up then you'll have tuning like you would in any other platform", and that is of course true. But no one does that and for very good reason. The adaptive advance system is one of the best things about this
platform. Timing is managed on a cylinder by cylinder basis and is almost perfectly timed in every situation, condition, and octane. It's never lazy or undertimed and never knocks. Try doing that with manual timing tables.

Also this has nothing to do with products. The fact is there are more tunes out there using the JB3s method of timing control than there are using CPS. It's about understanding how the DME and tunes work. I think clap135 put it really eloquently when he said if you add race gas and timing goes up its knocking. That seems a reasonable position and as I've said that will happen with any tune on this market. If you don't believe it then let's put that to the test once again. You'll be surprised.

Mike

Mike - I think you can agree that I have tried my best to have these discussions with you. This last statement is just so wrong and it is so wrong in the worst way.

You describe the JB4 as having great results because of a safety system the dme has. It is great at pulling timing based on a number of characteristics and feedback (short and historic). You say that because it is so adaptive it is so great. Yes for a factory stock setup its great!

When people tune a car they tune it to gain power, consistancy and reliable. The entire strategy of tuning a DAILY DRIVER is to tune the car to a safe distance from knock thresholds. Are you getting every whp out of the car? No - but that is the point of a daily driver tune. The goal is to extract a good amount of power and leave a margin of safety so the car is okay (no excess wear -not only focusing on blowing a motor) in even the harshest conditions. Using the dme's ability to pull timing is a fantastic BACKUP. HOWEVER lowering the set points so that 99% of the time that logic in the dme isn't used is even better.

The scary thing here is that you know a little about how the dme works but you know nothing (or are purposely going with this absurd approach you seem to take) about why and how to use the logic in the dme.

I can only imagine how fun it would be to put you through a lie detector and ask you questions lol. You can say that the comments here hold true on other platforms but not here - but you are unfortunately very wrong. The theory behind mapping timing doesn't change from platform to platform. Timing tables are what change - the actual values. Subaru, mazda, mitsubishi etc. all run off the same physics and tuning theory. An adaptive ecu doesn't change the game - it just presents new features.

An example of this...lets say openecu was available for this platform so we leave all vendors/tunes out of this. If I make my timing tables with maximum timing values of 5* by redline so I never knock because it is that conservative - and I go put race gas - guess what - my timing isn't going to get higher. Thats why you make race gas maps. So that when you run race gas you can run more timing. That is how you tune. An adaptive ecu doesnt change tuning theory at all.

[BeenieMan]

Originally Posted by Clap135

I think you are still misunderstanding how timing works. Most modern cars will drop ignition when knock is detected. Like said, lowering the ignition in the first place will simply remove the knock. You saying htat adding race gas to any tune will raise timing is incorrect. Adding racegas ontop of my car will not raise timing one bit, and that is becuase it is not running overly aggressive. Day in and day out my timing is spot on to the base timing programmed into my tune. Thats how it should work all the time.

adding race gas on a cobb tune did raise timing after it knocked in 4th on pump. do you have some special cobb tune that doesn't?

[KennyPowers]

Originally Posted by BeenieMan

adding race gas on a cobb tune did raise timing after it knocked in 4th on pump. do you have some special cobb tune that doesn't?

Raised timing above the modified timing table maximums Cobb implemented?

Link?