[bnj]

Although it doesn't look as good as Juice box, both products are perfectly safe considering the direct injection and piezo injectors. Stock 335i would look lean too in the traditional scale.

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by Rez90

Here's my question...........

Granted i'm used to different type's of cars.......so maybe i'm just out of my element.........

but does anyone else think those A/F's seem very lean?
On my car under wot (especailly on pump), 12.0 is considered too lean to run.......

Considering he works on evo's and bmw's..........

Shiv? care to chime in?

cause i'm looking at A/F's in the 12's, 13's, and 14's!

Someone tell me thats safe for BMW's.............

It would be nice for Shiv to add an input here about the air to fuel ratios because I would like to know this as well, but I know the guy is busy.

[catdog]

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

It would be nice for Shiv to add an input here about the air to fuel ratios because I would like to know this as well, but I know the guy is busy.

Mr. 5 thanks for all your hard work; are you sure you have stage 2 of the juice box? i inquired a few days ago to the ?? everyone loves to hate on this website and he informed me, consistent with his "so called shabby" website that the stage 2 will not be out until end of August. It looks like you tested stage I which and if you did then the results are exactly in line with what ?? claims.

He also told me that he would send me notification when JB stage 2 is out; also currently they are running a $99 special on ?? stage 1 which if this is what you tested would have to be the deal of the century.

I am probably going to be getting the procede as well but am intrigued by the consistency of the dyno runs on the JB compared to the procede setup you have and also the fact that the a/f ratios appear to be safer...

By the way, i do not know the history behind JB and terry with this forum but he is an engineer and has teamed up with a computer programmer, whatever, time will tell.

Nonetheless, i just wanted to point out that it's more likely you tested JB stage 1 rather than stage 2; another way to be sure is to count the number of wires sticking out of the device, the stage 2 has a few more to account for enriching the fuel mixture at higher rpm according to JB website.

_______________________

Correction to above, i apologize to Mr. 5 it seems like on another forum where they discussed the results presented here the JB tested here appears to be stage 2 according to its creator (evidently they have been sending stage 2 to beta testers), i am not deleting comments made above though so that no one can claim voodoo manipulations, thanks

[catdog]

One more thing, again, it sounds like ?? was a complete fool and a$$ with respect to his dealings with this forum but your dynos have got to be the strongest supporting point for his product since they show consistent results for a low price although not as low a degree of invasiveness as the SS product.

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by catdog

Mr. 5 thanks for all your hard work; are you sure you have stage 2 of the juice box? i inquired a few days ago to the ?? everyone loves to hate on this website and he informed me, consistent with his "so called shabby" website that the stage 2 will not be out until end of August. It looks like you tested stage I which and if you did then the results are exactly in line with what ?? claims.

He also told me that he would send me notification when JB stage 2 is out; also currently they are running a $99 special on ?? stage 1 which if this is what you tested would have to be the deal of the century.

I am probably going to be getting the procede as well but am intrigued by the consistency of the dyno runs on the JB compared to the procede setup you have and also the fact that the a/f ratios appear to be safer...

By the way, i do not know the history behind JB and terry with this forum but he is an engineer and has teamed up with a computer programmer, whatever, time will tell.

Nonetheless, i just wanted to point out that it's more likely you tested JB stage 1 rather than stage 2; another way to be sure is to count the number of wires sticking out of the device, the stage 2 has a few more to account for enriching the fuel mixture at higher rpm according to JB website.

_______________________

Correction to above, i apologize to Mr. 5 it seems like on another forum where they discussed the results presented here the JB tested here appears to be stage 2 according to its creator (evidently they have been sending stage 2 to beta testers), i am not deleting comments made above though so that no one can claim voodoo manipulations, thanks

Yep, I was one that had the chance to try out the stage 2, and since I was unbiased I thought I'd try I it out.

[Beer Goggles]

Originally Posted by Rez90

Here's my question...........

Granted i'm used to different type's of cars.......so maybe i'm just out of my element.........

but does anyone else think those A/F's seem very lean?
On my car under wot (especailly on pump), 12.0 is considered too lean to run.......

Considering he works on evo's and bmw's..........

Shiv? care to chime in?

cause i'm looking at A/F's in the 12's, 13's, and 14's!

Someone tell me thats safe for BMW's.............

I think you're backwards on the Air to Fuel ratio.

This explains what you should be looking for



The ideal A/F ratio when using gasoline is 14.7:1. This is expressed in pounds weight of air and fuel. An A/F ratio of 14.7:1 states that the engine is using 14 pounds of air for every pound of fuel. The optimal A/F ratio of 14.7:1 is referred to as Stoichiometric. ( This is shown as yellow lamps lights up on a Halmeter ) The goal is to approach and maintain stoichiometric or 14.7:1 A/F fuel ratio during idle and highway driving speeds. This is seIdom attained by carbureted engines.

The A/F ratio should richen to 13.1:1 or even less during acceleration and top speed. ( This is shown as green lamps lights up on a Halmeter ) The richer mixture is required during this time to aid in cooling the engine and to provide for increased power output. This is very important, specially on turbo charged engines. Deceleration will show leaner A/F numbers such as 16.1:1 as the throttles close and the engine burns off all available fuel. ( This makes the red lamps to light up on a Halmeter ) Attempting to run excessively lean A/F ratios can severely reduce engine life.
High engine temperatures, backfire through the carburetor, surging at highway speeds, and hesitation just off idle are indications of lean A/F ratios, and will show clearly on the A/F Meter.
Sluggish performance,black smoke,and poor economy are indications of a rich A/F ratio. This will also show on an A/F Meter.



Also remember these turbos aren't using the old school technology of preventing detonation with more fuel. They are designed to work at higher temps.

[Beer Goggles]

Originally Posted by DrGP

Your concerns are all valid. Not sure in which room of the house he is fabricating them.

Man some of you guys are absolute children. What makes a better product? A 13 year old in China, or somebody taking the time to build what they design.

I could care less where somebody makes products. Hand built things aren't 'worse" things that cost less are "worse"

Who is more of the fool. Paying $1300 for $15 worth of electronics? Or paying $140 for $10 worth of electronics. I'm not talking shit about the other products, but some of you guys here are immature and really are just basing things off your ass not what the product actually does.

[GTO2turbos]

I know I'm on your ignore list, but I'll say it anyway. OUTSTANDING work, Mr.5. Same day, same dyno, it hardly gets any better than that.

[BoLaS]

Mr. 5, your the mannnn, and i will leave it at that!

[AoshichanX]

Originally Posted by Beer Goggles

I think you're backwards on the Air to Fuel ratio.

This explains what you should be looking for



The ideal A/F ratio when using gasoline is 14.7:1. This is expressed in pounds weight of air and fuel. An A/F ratio of 14.7:1 states that the engine is using 14 pounds of air for every pound of fuel. The optimal A/F ratio of 14.7:1 is referred to as Stoichiometric. ( This is shown as yellow lamps lights up on a Halmeter ) The goal is to approach and maintain stoichiometric or 14.7:1 A/F fuel ratio during idle and highway driving speeds. This is seIdom attained by carbureted engines.

The A/F ratio should richen to 13.1:1 or even less during acceleration and top speed. ( This is shown as green lamps lights up on a Halmeter ) The richer mixture is required during this time to aid in cooling the engine and to provide for increased power output. This is very important, specially on turbo charged engines. Deceleration will show leaner A/F numbers such as 16.1:1 as the throttles close and the engine burns off all available fuel. ( This makes the red lamps to light up on a Halmeter ) Attempting to run excessively lean A/F ratios can severely reduce engine life.
High engine temperatures, backfire through the carburetor, surging at highway speeds, and hesitation just off idle are indications of lean A/F ratios, and will show clearly on the A/F Meter.
Sluggish performance,black smoke,and poor economy are indications of a rich A/F ratio. This will also show on an A/F Meter.



Also remember these turbos aren't using the old school technology of preventing detonation with more fuel. They are designed to work at higher temps.

and I didn't have to

Very informative, thanks a bunch. More power to me as the consumer when I know what the numbers mean!

[Rez90]

Originally Posted by Beer Goggles

I think you're backwards on the Air to Fuel ratio.

This explains what you should be looking for



The ideal A/F ratio when using gasoline is 14.7:1. This is expressed in pounds weight of air and fuel. An A/F ratio of 14.7:1 states that the engine is using 14 pounds of air for every pound of fuel. The optimal A/F ratio of 14.7:1 is referred to as Stoichiometric. ( This is shown as yellow lamps lights up on a Halmeter ) The goal is to approach and maintain stoichiometric or 14.7:1 A/F fuel ratio during idle and highway driving speeds. This is seIdom attained by carbureted engines.

The A/F ratio should richen to 13.1:1 or even less during acceleration and top speed. ( This is shown as green lamps lights up on a Halmeter ) The richer mixture is required during this time to aid in cooling the engine and to provide for increased power output. This is very important, specially on turbo charged engines. Deceleration will show leaner A/F numbers such as 16.1:1 as the throttles close and the engine burns off all available fuel. ( This makes the red lamps to light up on a Halmeter ) Attempting to run excessively lean A/F ratios can severely reduce engine life.
High engine temperatures, backfire through the carburetor, surging at highway speeds, and hesitation just off idle are indications of lean A/F ratios, and will show clearly on the A/F Meter.
Sluggish performance,black smoke,and poor economy are indications of a rich A/F ratio. This will also show on an A/F Meter.



Also remember these turbos aren't using the old school technology of preventing detonation with more fuel. They are designed to work at higher temps.

ok........

Granted my knowledge is based on the EVO, but.......no evo on pump gas is going to be tuned at WOT over 12.0 A/F........EVER.

And i'm sure Shiv can attest to that....

which is why i'm asking the question about the 335 A/F's.....i would just like some clarification on why the A/F's are so much higher. i'm not saying that they are unsafe.....hell, i'm very ignorant to the car........and i'll be the fist to admit that.......

But, i would like to know what the reason is for such a difference.......

[bnj]

Originally Posted by Rez90

ok........

Granted my knowledge is based on the EVO, but.......no evo on pump gas is going to be tuned at WOT over 12.0 A/F........EVER.

And i'm sure Shiv can attest to that....

which is why i'm asking the question about the 335 A/F's.....i would just like some clarification on why the A/F's are so much higher. i'm not saying that they are unsafe.....hell, i'm very ignorant to the car........and i'll be the fist to admit that.......

But, i would like to know what the reason is for such a difference.......

As I said earlier, the new fuel injection system with piezo injectors cannot be compared at the traditional scale.


From greencarcongress.com:

"High Precision Injection gasoline engines. The new series of four-cylinder gasoline engines features second-generation direct fuel injection: BMW’s High Precision Injection, allowing lean burn operation of the engine throughout a wide range of engine speed thus helping to significantly reduce fuel consumption in everyday traffic despite increases in engine power.

Applied in the new 120i, the engine offers a 14% reduction in fuel consumption to 6.4 l/100km (37 mpg US) compared to its predecessor, while increasing power by 15 kW. The engine in the new 118i decreases fuel consumption by 19% to 5.9 l/100km (40 mpg US) while increasing power by 10 kW.

BMW introduced High Precision Injection for the first time in the 225 kW/306 hp straight-six power unit with Twin Turbo technology featured in the BMW 335i Coupé. (Earlier post.)

The HPI engines can operate in lean-burn mode (lambda >1) throughout a wide operating range. Piezo-injectors positioned directly next to the spark plugs support stratified charging and combustion, with the exact composition of the fuel:air mixture varying from one layer to the other.

Within the common fuel rail, the high-pressure pump generates 200 bar of pressure for the four injectors delivering fuel to the combustion chambers. The piezo-injectors allow up to six injection processes in each operating stroke.

The piezo-injectors form a stable, conical injection jet within the combustion chamber. The jet-guided process ensures a much faster and more efficient fuel/air mixing process in the direct vicinity of the spark plug, without any loss otherwise caused by fuel resting on the walls of the cylinder as in wall-guided injection.

This provides exactly the right conditions for a stratified cylinder charge characteristic of lean burn operation: various, intersecting zones of differently composed fuel-air mixtures forming within the combustion chamber. In the process the share of fuel in the mixture decreases consistently with an increasing distance from the spark plug, a rich, ignitable fuel/air mixture being maintained only in the direct vicinity of the spark plug. As soon as this richer mixture is ignited, the leaner layers further away from the spark plug will also start burning in a clean, smooth and consistent process.

This serves to maintain fuel-efficient lean burn operation throughout a very wide range of engine speeds and loads."

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by Beer Goggles

I think you're backwards on the Air to Fuel ratio.

This explains what you should be looking for



The ideal A/F ratio when using gasoline is 14.7:1. This is expressed in pounds weight of air and fuel. An A/F ratio of 14.7:1 states that the engine is using 14 pounds of air for every pound of fuel. The optimal A/F ratio of 14.7:1 is referred to as Stoichiometric. ( This is shown as yellow lamps lights up on a Halmeter ) The goal is to approach and maintain stoichiometric or 14.7:1 A/F fuel ratio during idle and highway driving speeds. This is seIdom attained by carbureted engines.

The A/F ratio should richen to 13.1:1 or even less during acceleration and top speed. ( This is shown as green lamps lights up on a Halmeter ) The richer mixture is required during this time to aid in cooling the engine and to provide for increased power output. This is very important, specially on turbo charged engines. Deceleration will show leaner A/F numbers such as 16.1:1 as the throttles close and the engine burns off all available fuel. ( This makes the red lamps to light up on a Halmeter ) Attempting to run excessively lean A/F ratios can severely reduce engine life.
High engine temperatures, backfire through the carburetor, surging at highway speeds, and hesitation just off idle are indications of lean A/F ratios, and will show clearly on the A/F Meter.
Sluggish performance,black smoke,and poor economy are indications of a rich A/F ratio. This will also show on an A/F Meter.



Also remember these turbos aren't using the old school technology of preventing detonation with more fuel. They are designed to work at higher temps.

Hmm, not trying to be rude, but your info is not completely correct. Optimum A/F for boosted vs. N/A cars is completely different. You are also taking compression ratio completely out of the equation as well by listing that 14.7:1. The 14.7:1 applies to a 10.5:1 compression ratio N/A car. Now, I do not know enough about this engine to comment on optimum A/F for this vehicle and what the compression ratio is. I did own a turbo'd IS300 and as the evo owner stated above running a 14.0:1 A/F ratio was very lean and an engine waiting to pop.

With that said, this engine should be able to detect ping and it would be easy to know if there was any sort of detonation. Also, in the middle of summer if that A/F was too lean, there should already be engines falling. I think we probably need a tuner to chime in here.

[jon@themshop]

Bnj has already posted this twice but people are forgetting that this is a DIRECT INJECTION fuel system and not a port manifold type.

The high pressurized fuel is injected into a fine mist and some of that fuel is evaporated and atomizes inside the combustion chamber. This acts as a cooling effect to lower combustion temps to reduce knock.

So if the A/F ratio under WOT starts off at 15:1 at low rpms (where max boost is made), then 14:1, then 13:1 at mid rpms, then 12:1 at high rpms and there is NO indication of knock or detonation then it's running fine.

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by jon@themshop

Bnj has already posted this twice but people are forgetting that this is a DIRECT INJECTION fuel system and not a port manifold type.

The high pressurized fuel is injected into a fine mist and some of that fuel is evaporated and atomizes inside the combustion chamber. This acts as a cooling effect to lower combustion temps to reduce knock.

So if the A/F ratio under WOT starts off at 15:1 at low rpms (where max boost is made), then 14:1, then 13:1 at mid rpms, then 12:1 at high rpms and there is NO indication of knock or detonation then it's running fine.

Thanks for the input guys. I feel a llittle better now about the AtoFs

[Beer Goggles]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Hmm, not trying to be rude, but your info is not completely correct. Optimum A/F for boosted vs. N/A cars is completely different. You are also taking compression ratio completely out of the equation as well by listing that 14.7:1. The 14.7:1 applies to a 10.5:1 compression ratio N/A car. Now, I do not know enough about this engine to comment on optimum A/F for this vehicle and what the compression ratio is. I did own a turbo'd IS300 and as the evo owner stated above running a 14.0:1 A/F ratio was very lean and an engine waiting to pop.

With that said, this engine should be able to detect ping and it would be easy to know if there was any sort of detonation. Also, in the middle of summer if that A/F was too lean, there should already be engines falling. I think we probably need a tuner to chime in here.

It was a quote from a forum. It seemed to me that he was mixing up what was lean and what was rich...12:1 isn't lean. 18:1 is. I think he was bass ackwards.

[Mr. 5]

Please guys,

Don't turn this into a thread that will get closed or deleted.
I believe I have valid information here, and I feel this will help the community with any questions and comparisons in the future.

I keep adding things to the first post that I feel is necessary -- like the version of Procede, and the cost for each tuner.

Thanks!

[Beer Goggles]

I agree...thanks for doing all that dyno work. It's nice to have a car with tuning options.

[Jason]

Please keep the topic on the merits and technical aspects of the comparison. Any extraneous discussions regarding the tuners will be removed.

This goes for all threads in this forum. If anyone sees otherwise, please report the post (by clicking exclamation point icon under the poster's profile). Thanks.

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by Jason

Please keep the topic on the merits and technical aspects of the comparison. Any extraneous discussions regarding the tuners will be removed.

This goes for all threads in this forum. If anyone sees otherwise, please report the post (by clicking exclamation point icon under the poster's profile). Thanks.

[DLSJ5]

Nice Job Craig!!!! Looks like Vishnu FTW, I think AA is damn good too.

[adc]

Originally Posted by Brisk

what happens iof something happens to my engine, should listen to some guy on the internet selling a 100$ part with 3 wires sticking out which everyone seems to hate and he gets banned from the most popular 335i and e90/e92 forum?

1. Not everyone hates the guy. I reserve hate for things that really matter in life. Car tuning is way down on that list...

2. Here's the kicker: not one of these tuners warranty your engine at all. If anything were to happen to your engine, all of them would hang you out dry. You would be on your own. (Dinan excepted).

3. More food for thought - as a general rule, the more boost you run, the more things can go wrong, and if they do, the more expensive it is likely to get. This is not a slight on any of these tuners - in fact I'd run any of their products in my car, based on my current knowledge.


If I wanted to run lots of boost, I'd probably go with Dinan. That way there's a big door I can knock at if the engine takes the hood with it when it blows.

I just wanted to post something different here, to generate a slightly different perspective. And to the OP - you're the Man!