[adrian@vishnu]

Why should having timing control give more power and more safety???? Assuming all things are in a reasonable range, tuning is simple:

* Ignition timing - more is more power (to a limit) and less is more safe. A safer tune will generally make less power.

* Boost - more is more power (to a limit) and less is more safe. A safer tune will generally make less power.

* Fuel Mixtures - lean is more power (to a limit) and rich is more safe. A safer tune will generally make less power.

So it is not rocket science at all. JB3 has more advanced (not in a technical sense) timing... which means more power and less safety... which kind of backs up observations of results.

The Subaru/EVO market is bigger.... and you can also get a free flash and the market doesn't like paying for tunes. Nobody is making money in that market anymore except the workshops that use the free tune software.

[MisterSkiMask]

Another counterproductive whining pissing contest before anybody knows much of anything.

All is normal here.

[itsbrokeagain]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I know of 2 mitsu and 1 subaru engine failure. Both evo engines were stock with big turbos and running upwards to 25-30psi of boost on c16 race gas. Making close to 600hp out of 2.0-2.5 liters. So imagine a stock 3.0L n54 making 800-800hp for an idea of how hard they work. IIRC, the Subaru threw a rod at just 1psi over stock during deccel after a dyno pull so who knows what happened there.

And if a BMS reseller like Matt at Camber-Toe wants to know, I've personally tuned over 1000 Suburus and Evos over the last 10 years. And the race cars of Tanner Foust, Pat Richard, Stephan Verdier and a few other national rally champions. All over the world. For all types of competition. So if Matt thinks that citing isolated engine failure incidences gives himself some credibility and puts my tuning experience in question, then he can go ahead and knock himself out. But I'll say this, at just 150hp/liter we shouldn't even be working these n54 engines hard.

Shiv

I never said i was knocking your experience in tuning. All i was saying was that you too have had your failures. Isolated or not. Terry has plenty of his tunes running around on the market. So if two of his customers had an engine failure, its isolated...pushing their car outside the limits is on the users end right? You stated so yourself. But you are coming off as saying the tune caused it and using it to bash the competiton. Well if thats the point you want to portray, then your tune caused the engine failures of the mitsu guys pushing it past the limits. Hp/liter facts aside, wether it be 150hp or 800hp.

As i said before im not knocking your experience but attacking someone for having an engine failure when it is possibly an error on the users end and when you yourself have grenaded an engine or two, it comes off as sounding hypocritical.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by adrian@vishnu

I thought we were keeping that to ourselves!!

Unfortunately our datalogging has served to make it easier to copy our algorithms, so we have changed our tact a bit with datalogging in recent times.

Adrian I hope you are joking with those comments? No one offers similar hardware to you to even care what your internal algorithms might be. If one was interested in knowing they would simply put the box on a bench and simulate the I/O.

I remember when you added CAN you claimed the reason the BT was not compatible was because you were tired of people copying your tuning. Although no one else offered CAN at the time or hardware to simulate your I/O it was taken at face value. Only later was it discovered that the real reason the BT is not compatible with the PROcede is because you mistakenly copied the same x6F1 diagnostic port the BT uses. As you know this is all nonsense anyway because one need only piggyback a can transceiver on yours to read all the I/O if so inclined.

I don't doubt that a CPS offset is triggered during a meth failure but this has the same effect as the JB3 method of retarging the ECU in the factory timing map and closing the throttle body.

I do agree that automatically monitoring timing advance is desirable when pushing the boundaries and I'm VERY EXCITED the JB3 will soon have this functionality. Although it should be noted another Swedish customer (one of yours) posted in this sister thread that his autotuning targets 20psi @ 0% CPS offsetting on meth. This is a similar situation where a minor issue can cause major knock quickly. At 20psi with full advance you don't get many second chances.

Mike

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by joyride

You may have tuned over 1000 Suburus and Evos in the past, but you're still out of favor with that crowd for the most part. Which is surprising, since that would seem to be a bigger market, guess some things just can't be undone with basic engine tuning fundamentals and other marketing key words.

Regardless of the past, people do learn from things from time to time and move on.

Timing control seems to be the latest thing that everyone's keyed up on. Which it is a big part of the fundamentals, but when someone takes the stance of "we can control timing", i'd honestly expect more power then someone who "lets the stock DME" control it. But that doesn't seem to be the case, only that it's safer?

Eh... don't wanna take this too much off topic, so just make this a statement for another thread.

The problem is the ignition control system is only really understood by a few and any discussion is dominated by one liners and partisan bickering. To a very large degree the PROcede also lets the ECU sort out timing advance. It's only in cases where factory timing is at its ceiling, which is something like 10-11 degrees @ 4000rpm and 14-15 degrees @ redline (see Shiv's post re: IAT temperatures as he has a good chart in there showing max timing), that CPS offsetting would have any net timing effect. Where CPS offsetting is useful is in limiting the total timing advance in cases where preignition or heat buildup is a concern. Of course the same positive effect can be had by limiting boost pressure but that is generally just glanced over. For your average detonation control or finding the optimal timing point, the factory system is generally always in full effect with any tune. Probably with any flash tune as well.

Mike

[adrian@vishnu]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Adrian I hope you are joking with those comments? No one offers similar hardware to you to even care what your internal algorithms might be. If one was interested in knowing they would simply put the box on a bench and simulate the I/O.

I remember when you added CAN you claimed the reason the BT was not compatible was because you were tired of people copying your tuning. Although no one else offered CAN at the time or hardware to simulate your I/O it was taken at face value. Only later was it discovered that the real reason the BT is not compatible with the PROcede is because you mistakenly copied the same x6F1 diagnostic port the BT uses. As you know this is all nonsense anyway because one need only piggyback a can transceiver on yours to read all the I/O if so inclined.

I don't doubt that a CPS offset is triggered during a meth failure but this has the same effect as the JB3 method of retarging the ECU in the factory timing map and closing the throttle body.

I do agree that automatically monitoring timing advance is desirable when pushing the boundaries and I'm VERY EXCITED the JB3 will soon have this functionality. Although it should be noted another Swedish customer (one of yours) posted in this sister thread that his autotuning targets 20psi @ 0% CPS offsetting on meth. This is a similar situation where a minor issue can cause major knock quickly. At 20psi with full advance you don't get many second chances.

Mike

Are you serious about not copying Procede.... On one thread you openly post pictures of the new JB 11ty which openly parades the level to which you go to to copy the Procede (same connector, lookalike extrusion, same relays, and I bet the pinouts will also be the same when released) and now you take the high ground that nobody would do that. Of course a JB version of Autotune, bogfix, CAN logging target, isolated boost control has also never been mentioned as plans... for which Procede was the first to do? Seriously, I expect people to copy our product features as we set the pace in this market, but to copy our look and feel and even the parts we use when there is endless ways to do this is really shouting out "We are copying and we are proud of it", so don't play innocent now. And those comments about the connector and extrusion being selected with no regard to Procede... what a joke. There is plenty of un-Procede like options that could have been taken!!

Anyway that is way off topic. I will agree that a meth failure with no fail safe in place could cause severe knock with the Procede. The Autotune cannot react quick enough. To date I am not aware of customers doing this. Vishnu sells a kit with instructions that state only one way to install it and that is with the fail safe. If the fail safe is in use, the boost and timing will drop VERY QUICKLY as flow drops off (progressively with flow... so not after the problem... but as the problem is occuring). Obviously we can't control what someone injects in their engine that is isolated from the Procede. If they put NOS or Meth in without using the Procede functions, they are on their own.

But it remains to be seen as to whether the failure was due to a meth system failure. I am not jumping to conclusions on that. If it turns out to be a meth system failure and the system was not used as recommended, I would happily say the blame is not with the tune. I think it more likely that the meth system was working fine, but sustained high load increased detonation and the JB3 did not respond to this, but time will tell.

One thing I can say... cracked ringlands are almost always related to detonation. Something caused severe detonation. Out of all the things on an engine, it is the tune that has the biggest impact on detonation, so it is natural for the finger to be pointed that way, but I will wait for final reports (that are hopefully truthful) before giving my verdict. It is obviously possible for the user to push the tune beyond its capability to prevent detonation, but that does not seem to have been the case here with current info. I will say that the procede has more capability in this regard than JB3.

Adrian

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Just wanted to add that if the meth stops flowing with the failsafe in place the moment it drops below its defined window, say 500ml/min, timing is cut and boost is dropped. This has nothing to do with the adaptive timing system. My only point to Adrian was I've posted logs before showing timing running smoothly at as low as negative 2 degrees during sustained WOT.
His assertion that there is some lower limit that below which the ECU lets the motor detonate itself to death is completely false and having designed an N54 tuning system I'm sure he knows that. Long before that point you would get a ignition glow CEL/LIMP.

I think a few are missing the moral of the story and trying to hijack these unfortunate events for their own personal gains. The motor is not indestructible and at 18.5psi psi on meth + pump there are risks. This is the main point of the original post on the other forum, so lets not loose track of that.

Mike

[adrian@vishnu]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Just wanted to add that if the meth stops flowing with the failsafe in place the moment it drops below its defined window, say 500ml/min, timing is cut and boost is dropped. This has nothing to do with the adaptive timing system. My only point to Adrian was I've posted logs before showing timing running smoothly at as low as negative 2 degrees during sustained WOT.
His assertion that there is some lower limit that below which the ECU lets the motor detonate itself to death is completely false and having designed an N54 tuning system I'm sure he knows that. Long before that point you would get a ignition glow CEL/LIMP.

I think a few are missing the moral of the story and trying to hijack these unfortunate events for their own personal gains. The motor is not indestructible and at 18.5psi psi on meth + pump there are risks. This is the main point of the original post on the other forum, so lets not loose track of that.

Mike

Actually as a habbit, we generally try not to cause so much detonation that we are testing the knock retard boundaries of the stock system... hence why we try to tune this out with CPS. I am guessing BMS has also not purposely induced rediculous knock in a search for the capability of the stock knock control (though they should since they rely on its ability).

I do not know that the limit is (but there is one unless you can run -infinity knock retard), because I would not test it on my or another's car. What I do know is that with the JB3 the DME thinks the engine is running 7psi of boost, but in this case it is running 18psi. Without octane enhancement we would need about around 0.25 to 0.5 degree per 1psi of boost of retard. So for 11psi more boost, that is 2.5 - 5 degrees retard. With the JB3 this is all done via the knock control. With the Procede it is not. Therefore whatever that limit is... with the JB3 you just lost 2.5-5 degrees of its usable range. Too bad if it is say 10, you used 5 up for the tuning mechanism, and you get get the combustion chambers nice and hot so you need another 5 or more?? These numbers I use are for illustration only.

Adrian

[themyst]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Just wanted to add that if the meth stops flowing with the failsafe in place the moment it drops below its defined window, say 500ml/min, timing is cut and boost is dropped. This has nothing to do with the adaptive timing system. My only point to Adrian was I've posted logs before showing timing running smoothly at as low as negative 2 degrees during sustained WOT.
His assertion that there is some lower limit that below which the ECU lets the motor detonate itself to death is completely false and having designed an N54 tuning system I'm sure he knows that. Long before that point you would get a ignition glow CEL/LIMP.

I think a few are missing the moral of the story and trying to hijack these unfortunate events for their own personal gains. The motor is not indestructible and at 18.5psi psi on meth + pump there are risks. This is the main point of the original post on the other forum, so lets not loose track of that.

Mike

Not to hijack, or bash one tune over another, but if I'm not mistaken, the JB3 failsafe integration uses the +12V trigger vs the 0-5V flow level reading the Procede uses. Wouldn't the Procede approach be safer for the end user in that the car reduces boost based on the maximum flow reducing versus a minimum threshold?

Being that some setups flow in excess of 1000ml/min, waiting for the failsafe to kick in by reaching the flow threshold would mean that the car isn't getting the full flow into the charge, leaving the end user to assume their car is running properly.

I'll provide an example - The meth flow indicators were "blinking" which indicates that I was flowing meth, but not at the expected full output. At this time, I found that my tank was dislodged from the wall and after tinkering and repriming found that I had air in the line. Now, I am not brave enough to run 19-20psi daily driver (I do run 17 - 17.5) imagine if this partial reduction of meth occurred on the +12V trigger failsafe setup of the JB3. You'd be left assuming everything is running fine yet you are not getting the expected flow level which leaves the end user at risk, especially at the extremely high boost levels.

I'm far from an expert, but just providing feedback on my observations.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

At the end of the day the best failsafe will cut ignition instantaneously when meth flow is reduced or lost.

Thereafter it should close throttle automatically until the user gets off the gas pedal.

Upon re-acceleration it should lower boost until meth flow is optimum again.

That would ideally be the best failsafe.

[mycoupe]

After just reading this whole thread, I feel like the vishnu and BMS boys need to be banned from posting in non-forsale threads. They do nothing but argue and go way off topic. Don't think you went off topic do you? Well, if you tried telling us what caused the engine failure or argued, ya went off topic. We don't have the info yet, and you're just wasting interwebz space and our time. kthanxbi

[Brey335i]

Seems like this really isn't something that is about to happen to most people on here though. Would have been worse if it blew at 15 psi with full failsafes and meth

[ZTUNER]

Makes you think about the logic of dual fuel systems being run with piggy backs ehh ? Maybe its better to tune for C16 and forget about meth all together . Don't have to worry about failsafes then. Keep it Simple, always works.

Personally i think proactive knock retard is better than reactive knock retard. Even so i would go Giac before Procede. I don't think Giac has figured out the stock ecu completely anyway, just bits of it and piggys are just hacks. If all this was open source, we would have far better results and no fanboys

Enjoy

Harry

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by ZTUNER

Makes you think about the logic of dual fuel systems being run with piggy backs ehh ? Maybe its better to tune for C16 and forget about meth all together . Don't have to worry about failsafes then. Keep it Simple, always works.

Personally i think proactive knock retard is better than reactive knock retard. Even so i would go Giac before Procede. I don't think Giac has figured out the stock ecu completely anyway, just bits of it and piggys are just hacks. If all this was open source, we would have far better results and no fanboys

Enjoy

Harry

I'm curious as to what you find specifically "hackish" about the procede. It controls boost/throttle better than any reflash I've tested. Offers methanol integration/safety that no reflash can match. Autotunes boost/timing/fuel based upon conditions and mods. And drives exactly the way you want it to by simply adjusting the 'boost response" setting. I understand when people turn their knows up at traditional piggybacks. But the Procede is no traditional piggyback since it does not share their shortcomings (limited input data, no output monitoring, no DME integration, etc,.)

It's very unfair to lump the jb3 (which is basically a boost controller) with the Procede when talking about piggybacks. They two are on opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of technology/functionality.

Shiv

[marconi118]

How will the N55 handle the knocking problem? looking at realoem it lacks of knock sensor?!

big trouble for N55 tune?!

[cstavaru]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I think the Sweden thing is a statistical anomaly/cluster. Could be wrong but it is definitely odd as the amount of tuned Swedish N54s is extremely low compared to Canada and the US.

Mike

I think I know what the problem is: the swedish 335i owners race alot to each other and have big egos (not in a bad way). The USA 35i owners are probably widely spread across the country so the direct competition is not very high. So this has pushed them to up the boost levels to insane values, to ask the tuners for modified tunes (12 ohm, etc.) in order to come out on top. They forgot that they are probably outputting 50-70% more power than stock...this is just not what BMW meant for this engine...

I really don't think anyone is to blame but the owners.

Maybe Terry from BMS would consider that in the future is is not a good practice to provide modified tunes which bypass safety measures. Bad for business and reputation.

[cstavaru]

Originally Posted by marconi118

How will the N55 handle the knocking problem? looking at realoem it lacks of knock sensor?!

big trouble for N55 tune?!

Hmm...I think it's impossible not to have a knock sensor (or another better knock control mechanism). Maybe it's integrated and not replaceable ?

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by vasillalov

Hopefully now all the GIAC haters will "bite their tongues" and realize the reasons why GIAC "limited" Stage 2 at about 16-17 psi.

We've had all kinds of people preaching 18+ psi safety with methanol and all that crap... I am willing to bet that we will see more engine failures at 18+ psi on pump gasolene.

EDIT:
I am curious to find out exactly what failed and the extent of the damage. OP, please keep us posted.

Please explain to me what GIAC will do in the case of a methanol failure? It has NO failsafe in any way, shape, or form. It is the single most unsafe tune if you are running the S2 without race gas.

[cstavaru]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Please explain to me what GIAC will do in the case of a methanol failure? It has NO failsafe in any way, shape, or form. It is the single most unsafe tune if you are running the S2 without race gas.

You mean Stage 2+. Stage 2 is tuned for 91ROZ (95RON).

However, the user Alpina_B3_Lux has ran Stage 2+ on 98RON (93ROZ) for multiple laps (20+) at Nurburgring without any issue. I suppose that if your meth fails and you ar using 93 octane gas there is not a big issue.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by cstavaru

You mean Stage 2+. Stage 2 is tuned for 91ROZ (95RON).

However, the user Alpina_B3_Lux has ran Stage 2+ on 98RON (93ROZ) for multiple laps (20+) at Nurburgring without any issue. I suppose that if your meth fails and you ar using 93 octane gas there is not a big issue.

Oh I wasn't aware of the difference, my bad on the stage notation. The logic remains. If the GIAC is tuned for methanol and requires it, then you have zero safety whatsoever if it fails.

[enrita]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Oh I wasn't aware of the difference, my bad on the stage notation. The logic remains. If the GIAC is tuned for methanol and requires it, then you have zero safety whatsoever if it fails.

The current Stage 2 plus basically has 2 different timing tables :
1 for 98 RON
1 for 95 RON plus Meth with has more aggressive timing. The tune is able to switch between them depending on the octane used.
The bosst is the same for both.

In case of higher boost and more aggressive map a safety need to be in place and GIAC i think wrote they are working on it.

[J02 335i]

This thread is like watching a good slapping match between two sister. Come on, this could have happened with any tune. This is what happens when you push something to the limit. Who's to say the engine didn't have a defect from the factory? I think we should wait for all the details before pointing fingers.