[scalbert]

I will be conducting my own tests concerning ignition timing soon. I should have this done next weekend. In addition, I'll digest what was stated but there is no point in arguing. I'll present some data taken on a vehicle with no changes other than varying octane levels. But IMO, less than 3 degrees advance at peak torque...

And are we now saying that the JB3 relies solely on the DME to control timing? It seems to be suggested. The argument is now if that is adequate which I cannot say 100% either way.

[Bagelfast]

Great info from Terry! Fianlly some decent info around here.

[Tobias1980]

Originally Posted by cstavaru

My opinion is that the "only 1/2 degree timing offset" is the maximum Vishnu can do by offseting the crank position sensor in order to avoid malfunctioning of other things that depend on this sensor's data.

But the graph shows a maximum of more than 3 degrees, right?

[Sparky66]

Originally Posted by lurker

I have been on a break for a while over Christmas, and have just found this thread, and I find it rather interesting. I am not surprised by most of what scalbert has found given the photos of the products posted a couple of months ago. But I am interested in this ignition timing debate.

Please tell me if I am missing something.. I have been through the whole thread, but just want to make sure I understand it right.

* Procede does in fact do timing control via crank sensor phase shifting.
* JB3 does not.
* Someone posted a list of JB3 features posted by BMS that claims the JB3 does crank phase shifting, but it is proven it does not, but they claim to have found some other way to alter timing.
* Lots of arguing over whether crank phase shifting is required as the stock knock control does alter timing based on knock.
* BMS posts in another forum some OBD logs showing timing changes for different octane fuels which shoes some ignition timing change due to ECU knock adaption.

My question is... when BMS claims they achieve timing retard at high boost levels using some other method other than crank sensor phase shifting, are they talking about the stock ECU retarding due to knock control (in which case, every tune on the market does this), or is there something else there that has not been presented yet?

If there is more to it so far unpresented. Does the OBD data mean anything since a JB3 was fitted and may have altered the timing is some unknown way?

My take on this is that unless you modify either the crank sensor input or the ECU outputs to the ignition system, then the only way you can change timing is to convince the stock ECU to run a different value out of its maps. Clearly the Procede has the ability to alter ignition timing from what the ECU wants to run (for better or worse) via the shifting of the crank sensor signal. The JB3 does not have this capability, so the only way it could possibly alter the ignition timing is to alter some other sensor signal such the ECU changes its target mapped igntion timing. I think it was mentioned that this could be done by adjusting IAT/Coolant temps sensor signals... but from the list of IOs listed by scalbert I cannot see that these signals are changed. IAT is read, but does not come out of an output.

Another point worth noting is that because the Procede alters the timing reference used by the stock ECU, then any OBD logs with a Procede fitted would not be accurate, as the OBD log comes from the stock ECU which has an altered reference.

Scalbert has done some testing which shows that there is vast difference in the technical capability of the products as suspected from the photos a while back. In my mind, of all the functions done by the Procede, the crank sensor shifting would be the most demanding and the main reason it uses a more powerful processor. I believe Bosch systems use a 58 tooth wheel, so 116 edges per revolution. This mean edges coming in at 15kHz, and out at the same rate but phase shifted. This means timing calculations done for in and out at 30kHz. I doubt this could be achieved with a <10MHz processor without specific timer peripherals.

So it does seem there is good reason why the Procede uses the more advanced processor. I am now interested whether BMS has found some other trick to alter the timing which seems unlikely, or whether they are just relying on the stock ECU like every other tune and claiming that this is their special way.

Either way, IMHO you are getting alot more in your box with a Procede for the money. But whether the added capability adds anything to the end user remains to be determined.

Well done scalbert!!

- Lurker

Lurker, what is your background?
There are suggestions on N54tech forums, that you may infact be a Haltech engineer ?
Any truth to this?????????

[stimpy]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Gotta give Terry an A for effort. F for content.

Shiv

Thanks for the informative post.

[getInline]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Gotta give Terry an A for effort. F for content.

Shiv

Shiv, I can understand that you're tiring of arguing but these flippant replies do you no favours. I would suggest that you either take the time to formulate a proper reply or don't bother replying.

Scalbert, thanks for taking the time to do a proper analysis so we can better understand what these piggyback tunes are doing to our $50k cars. It's a lot for one person to undertake and it's great to have someone with your background putting in this effort.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by getInline

Shiv, I can understand that you're tiring of arguing but these flippant replies do you no favours. I would suggest that you either take the time to formulate a proper reply or don't bother replying.

As I said in my previous post, I'm gathering some info right now. All of which will be refuted by Terry no doubt. And the cycle will continue just as he wants it to. Fortunately, all of this data can be easily gathered/verified by anyone with basic obd logging software. It seems that a few people here are interested in the drama of the debate that actually confirming/dismissing some of the blatant misinformation that is being thrown around here. Heavens forbid that we actually learn about what our tunes are (and aren't doing).

Scalbert, thanks for taking the time to do a proper analysis so we can better understand what these piggyback tunes are doing to our $50k cars. It's a lot for one person to undertake and it's great to have someone with your background putting in this effort.

+1

shiv

[Brian GT PRO]

I have to agree, there needs to be solid and intelligent information learned, however the need for additional drama is simply unnecessary/unneeded.

[tomtom]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

As I said in my previous post, I'm gathering some info right now. All of which will be refuted by Terry no doubt. And the cycle will continue just as he wants it to. Fortunately, all of this data can be easily gathered/verified by anyone with basic obd logging software. It seems that a few people here are interested in the drama of the debate that actually confirming/dismissing some of the blatant misinformation that is being thrown around here.

I don't know who to believe, cause you both have a vested interested in your products. MONEY!

I don't really know either of you...I have had very good service from Terry and quick response to each and every question. I have never read anything to the contrary, except from yourself.

I don't want to jump to any conclusions about either of you and I don't know who is the more competent tuner. I believe there are 500-600 JB3 on the road, with no reports of any real problems. It has been out since Fall 2008. Shouldn't we have had a major issue by now if his tuning methods were as bad as you say?

How many Rev1 or RevII are there on the road?

At the same time, I really enjoy reading your posts and Scalbert's as well. Just to have a balance of opinions.
The thread is the best by far!

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by tomtom

I don't know who to believe, cause you both have a vested interested in your products. MONEY!

I don't really know either of you...I have had very good service from Terry and quick response to each and every question. I have never read anything to the contrary, except from yourself.

I don't want to jump to any conclusions about either of you and I don't know who is the more competent tuner. I believe there are 500-600 JB3 on the road, with no reports of any real problems. It has been out since Fall 2008. Shouldn't we have had a major issue by now if his tuning methods were as bad as you say?

How many Rev1 or RevII are there on the road?

At the same time, I really enjoy reading your posts and Scalbert's as well. Just to have a balance of opinions.
The thread is the best by far!

Again, I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe me. In fact, I'm asking everyone to think for themselves and try to understand scalbert's testing data. And in addition to that, conduct testing themselves if they have the means (a simple obd2 logger).

The concepts are very simple. But certain parties are doing their best to cloud the issues at hand. And unfortunately some forum members aren't helping the situation as they seem more interested in defending their purchase than actually verifying that the device that is controlling their $20k engine is doing what it is supposed/advertised to do.

As for longevity, a few months on the road means nothing. We haven't even gotten to summer yet! And when we do, things are going to be even more obvious. Until then, I urge everyone to absorb scalbert's testing data. It's unbiased, concise and very clearly written.

Shiv

[vrZtuned]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Again, I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe me. In fact, I'm asking everyone to think for themselves and try to understand scalbert's testing data. And in addition to that, conduct testing themselves if they have the means (a simple obd2 logger).

The concepts are very simple. But certain parties are doing their best to cloud the issues at hand. And unfortunately some forum members aren't helping the situation as they seem more interested in defending their purchase than actually verifying that the device that is controlling their $20k engine is doing what it is supposed/advertised to do.

As for longevity, a few months on the road means nothing. We haven't even gotten to summer yet! And when we do, things are going to be even more obvious. Until then, I urge everyone to absorb scalbert's testing data. It's unbiased, concise and very clearly written.

Shiv

i just hope you say the same thing even if scalbert finds things that goes against the procede.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by vrZtuned

i just hope you say the same thing even if scalbert finds things that goes against the procede.

Search.

I haven't always had kind words about the PROcede and Shiv is well aware of them. It is the nature of which you present your findings will determine how one will respond.

[s2kdagjd]

Originally Posted by vrZtuned

i just hope you say the same thing even if scalbert finds things that goes against the procede.

+1

[Bagelfast]

Scalbert is Shiv's customer right? and Just being lended a JB3? ummmmm

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by 1LUMI335

Scalbert is Shiv's customer right? and Just being lended a JB3? ummmmm

Yes, I own a PROcede. I acquired a JB3 for testing which Terry was aware of months ago. He even overnighted the latest chip for the testing to continue.

This whole concept was brought up and agreed upon by all tuners back in September and due to various reason (the death of my brother being one of them), it took until now to get started. Now when it starts, people get cross-eyed.

[Bagelfast]

Thanks for the clear up. Sorry to hear for your brother(R.I.P.).

[tomtom]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Again, I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe me. In fact, I'm asking everyone to think for themselves and try to understand scalbert's testing data. And in addition to that, conduct testing themselves if they have the means (a simple obd2 logger).

The concepts are very simple. But certain parties are doing their best to cloud the issues at hand. And unfortunately some forum members aren't helping the situation as they seem more interested in defending their purchase than actually verifying that the device that is controlling their $20k engine is doing what it is supposed/advertised to do.

As for longevity, a few months on the road means nothing. We haven't even gotten to summer yet! And when we do, things are going to be even more obvious. Until then, I urge everyone to absorb scalbert's testing data. It's unbiased, concise and very clearly written.

Shiv

Do we have any reports of failed turbos or engines while using piggybacks on this forum?

The JB2 has been on the market for quite some time. That doesn't have CPS offset, no? Shouldn't there be more of these issues you are expecting this summer?

I thought someone here had a turbo bearing failure while using a piggyback. I don't recall which one.

I agree there are a few loyalists here. But other like myself, that remain objective and want to protect our investments.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by tomtom

Do we have any reports of failed turbos or engines while using piggybacks on this forum?

The JB2 has been on the market for quite some time. That doesn't have CPS offset, no? Shouldn't there be more of these issues you are expecting this summer?

I thought someone here had a turbo bearing failure while using a piggyback. I don't recall which one.

I agree there are a few loyalists here. But other like myself, that remain objective and want to protect our investments.

The JB2 doesn't and has never made the common big power numbers that we are seeing now with tunes that actually control the wastegate solenoids (JB3 and v2/v3 PROcede). It was limited by maximum boost pressure. Those who run ran the jb2 and adjusted boost with that adjustable pot (or by adding more in-line resistors) knew that going that raising boost too much would cause an engine fault code. Burt yes, not controlling timing offsets will no doubt compromise safety margin.

As for engine durability, I don't think anyone can claim high mileage with a moderate-to-high powered tune yet. Even I only have 40k miles on my clock. And with only 20k of that being with direct solenoid/higher boost with power levels above 330whp. So anyone who claims that their tune doesn't measurably impact long term durability is just wishful thinking at this point.

So what do we do to keep things as safe as possible for our $50k investment? We make sure that the car is tuned properly with all safety features operating as they should. And very big part of that is letting the factory knock control system operating in the range it is designed to operate in (in a stock car). If simply running a tune takes away half of that adjustment range due to induced ignition retard, half of the ability to protect the engine from detonation is gone. And with, it have of your safety margin against knock.

It's like running a stock car around on 87oct. Yes, the factory knock control system will yank out the timing to keep the engine from audibly pinging 95% of the time. But now you only have a fraction of that safety margin that you had on premium gasoline. This same exact concept applies with tunes that don't actively adjust timing to go along with the 8-10psi boost increase that they induce.

Even on the theoretical level, the idea of a solid piggy-back tune is one that induce ALL the necessary fuel, boost and timing offsets itself in order to keep the factory ECU operating in the exact same expected range that is designed to operate in (in a stock car). This means that fuel trims should be within factory range (this is why even our nonDD maps adjust fuel pressure), ignition timing/knock sensor intervention should be within stock ranges (hence the induced CPS offset), and wastegate drive should be in the stock range (hence the PID control system that keeps it there). All pretty intuitive and all goes far in making sure that as little as possible is compromised when retuning a car to make another 70-100whp.

For a tuner, it can be very tempted to do littler more than raise the boost, bias the widebands and let the factory ECU sort out as much as it can. To the user, all they will immediately see is that adaptation takes a bit longer. But for the tuner, it makes map development and hardware design so mucgh easier since one can run 80-90% fewer board components and address 50% of the tuning maps.

But the question is, is it the best approach for your $50k car. Everyone will have different answers since no two people have the same risk/reward traits.

Shiv

[sambonator]

Originally Posted by scalbert

...PROcede Signals

B1S1 O2 Sensor Biasing - Analog Output
B2S1 O2 Sensor Biasing - Analog Output
Speed Sensor - Digital Input and Digital Output
Throttle Pedal - Analog Input, Just Tapped, no Analog Output used
Crank Position Sensor - Digital Input and Digital Output
TMAP - Analog Input and Analog Output
Intake Air Temperature – Analog Input, Just Tapped, no Analog Output used
Boost Control Solenoids - Digital Input and Individual Digital Outputs
Fuel Pressure - Analog Input and Analog Output

JB3 Signals

B1S1 O2 Sensor Biasing - PWM Output
B2S1 O2 Sensor Biasing - PWM Output
Throttle Pedal - Analog Input, Just Tapped, no Analog Output used
Crank Position Sensor - Digital Input, jumpered at terminals
TMAP - Analog Input and PWM Output
Intake Air Temperature – Analog Input, Just Tapped, no Analog Output used
Boost Control Solenoids - Single Digital Output
Fuel Pressure - Analog Input and PWM Output
...

According to the above, JB3 does not induce CPS offsets nor IAT offsets.

So are you saying the only way timing can be controlled is through CPS offsets or IAT offsets, which the JB3 doesn't do, thus does not control timing? None of the other outputs available on the JB3 can not indirectly induce any changes to timing?

[e55lover]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Again, I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe me. In fact, I'm asking everyone to think for themselves and try to understand scalbert's testing data. And in addition to that, conduct testing themselves if they have the means (a simple obd2 logger).

The concepts are very simple. But certain parties are doing their best to cloud the issues at hand. And unfortunately some forum members aren't helping the situation as they seem more interested in defending their purchase than actually verifying that the device that is controlling their $20k engine is doing what it is supposed/advertised to do.

As for longevity, a few months on the road means nothing. We haven't even gotten to summer yet! And when we do, things are going to be even more obvious. Until then, I urge everyone to absorb scalbert's testing data. It's unbiased, concise and very clearly written.

Shiv

my concern is with Shiv feeling completely at ease with Scalbert's present or future findings on this exploration.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by e55lover

my concern is with Shiv feeling completely at ease with Scalbert's present or future findings on this exploration.

Why shouldn't I be at ease? Our product does what we say it does. Nothing that scalbert is testing with respect to the PROcede hasn't been done internally by us during development. It's just nice to see facts come out.

Shiv

[Bubbles]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

As for engine durability, I don't think anyone can claim high mileage with a moderate-to-high powered tune yet. Even I only have 40k miles on my clock. And with only 20k of that being with direct solenoid/higher boost with power levels above 330whp. So anyone who claims that their tune doesn't measurably impact long term durability is just wishful thinking at this point.

I agree 100%, in fact with my "safe tune" I'd wager this engine won't make it past 50k without a complete overhaul (slight exaggeration). Seriously, if you beat on this engine with a "tune" be sure you send it packing before 50k.