[beepbeep]

Hi Scalbert,
First, thanks for the testing and posting.

Second, you say "The JB3 sinks the signal through a transistor. Meaning that the DME is still directly connected to the solenoids but the JB3 has the option of adding duty cycle. The benefit to this is that in the event of a JB3 component failure, the DME can still run stock boost levels." Wouldn't this "fail safe" depend on whether the transistor or a component controlling it caused the transistor to be open or closed (shorted)?

Again, thanks for the information.

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I really haven't seen any boost logs from JB3s. Probably because they can't log boost. So I'm not sure where you are getting this info from. But assuming your statement is correct, the only way to get more power when holding things like boost/fuel equal is to run less or no timing retard under boost.

And then ask yourself why do we run more timing retard? Running less or none is just a key stroke away. The only maps that run little or no timing retard are race gas maps. Do you know why?

Shiv

apparently we do not know why.... Care to explain?
We are here in this post to learn about the tunes..

BTW Scalbert.. Excellent info! Thanks

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by beepbeep

Wouldn't this "fail safe" depend on whether the transistor or a component controlling it caused the transistor to be open or closed (shorted)?

Again, thanks for the information.

That is true, if it failed closed you would essentially be at 100% DC all of the time. Great for response but not good for the turbos or engine. But looking at the circuit, I do not see it happening.

[TurboBullett@Ambient Thermal Management]

as a tuner on this car, on these turbos i would rather run 15-16 psi and more timing than 17-18psi and less timing AND the lower boost car in this situation "should" make more power. Timing can be advanced or retarded a number of ways directly and indirectly ie ait temps, less exhaust backpressure and by manipulating the crank trigger signal to name a few

[Sniz]

interesting thread SC! thanks for the hard work.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by TTurboBullett

as a tuner on this car, on these turbos i would rather run 15-16 psi and more timing than 17-18psi and less timing AND the lower boost car in this situation "should" make more power. Timing can be advanced or retarded a number of ways directly and indirectly ie ait temps, less exhaust backpressure and by manipulating the crank trigger signal to name a few

Depends on what where there tuner's concern is. If he thinks the engine is the weaker link at those power levels, then he will/should do what he can to lessen its mechanical stress (ie, peak cylinder pressure). And the biggest contributor to peak cylinder pressure is spark timing. If he felt that the turbos would be the weaker link, then he would run as little boost as possible and make fuel and timing maps aggressive.

In the case of the BMW, the engine costs about $20k+labor to replace. The turbos about $4k+labor. And if an engine fails, bits of ring land, piston material, valve bits, etc,. it will probably take out the turbos anyway.

Also, in the the comparison mentioned above, one thing that wasn't mentioned is that the supposedly less boost car (again, no boost logs to support that claim) was a 6MT running every possible mod versus a 6AT running dual intakes, Helix FMIC and a home brew catless exhausts.

Shiv

[TurboBullett@Ambient Thermal Management]

im on the fence in this discussion but what you are saying in regards to "first to fail" is true. Personally i would err on the side of caution and tune my 93 octane maps on 91 to be safe in regards to BOTH boost and timing and allow the dme to auto adjust the timing back up for the increased octane.

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Depends on what where there tuner's concern is. If he thinks the engine is the weaker link at those power levels, then he will/should do what he can to lessen its mechanical stress (ie, peak cylinder pressure). And the biggest contributor to peak cylinder pressure is spark timing. If he felt that the turbos would be the weaker link, then he would run as little boost as possible and make fuel and timing maps aggressive.

In the case of the BMW, the engine costs about $20k+labor to replace. The turbos about $4k+labor. And if an engine fails, bits of ring land, piston material, valve bits, etc,. it will probably take out the turbos anyway.

Also, in the the comparison mentioned above, one thing that wasn't mentioned is that the supposedly less boost car (again, no boost logs to support that claim) was a 6MT running every possible mod versus a 6AT running dual intakes, FMIC and a home brew catless exhausts.

Shiv

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Nikolas

No it does not come down to that as that has not been proven yet. Again with our engines, pulling timing is key at high boost, but my question is how much is required. Certainly the answer is different from non DI cars? or am I off base?

How much timing retard (as a function of boost) is required is going to be subject to conditions (octane, IAT, rpm, coolant temp, etc,.) But we can all agree that some amount of timing retard is required whether it be 2-3deg at 15psi or 4-5deg at 15psi. The DI system does allow for more overall timing (less retard) since the fuel's evaporative effect reduces charge temp if all other things are held equal. However, BMW already takes advantage of this benefit by keeping compression ratio high at 10.5:1, NOT the 8.5-9:1 range seen in most other forced induction non DI engines. And for fuel economy/emissions reasons, it already runs AFRs 1-2 points leaner than other non DI engines. So to say that it's safe to get greedy with timing would be a mistake.

Also, there is no question that the timing is eventually retarded with the JB3. The question one should ask is if this timing retard is induced proactively by the JB3. Or reactively by the factory ECU's knock control system. Both approaches end up at the same power level. And both approaches provide roughly the same seat-of-the-pants performance. But its the later approach that will shorten the life of the engine by the damaging cumulative effects of knock.

There is a reason why the Attache, Xede, E-manage, etc,. ALL actively retard timing through CPS (Crank position signal) offset. Not offering that would make those devices little more than glorified boost controllers that don't address everything needed for a proper safe tune. The temptation to omit this feature is tempting as it accounts for at least 75% of the work required to design a full functioning piggyback. It's one of those things that you can't do "well enough". it has to work perfectly. Or else the car simply wont run, misfire, throw crank sensor related codes, etc,.)

Sure, in all fairness, there is always a chance that BMS is employing a previously undiscovered way of proactively retarding timing that doesn't involve CPS offset. But if that is the case, why does the press release that Terry posted say this:

The Features:

Microcontroller programming opens up a new level of features that the JB3 can provide. Here is a partial list:

1) CPS offset (AKA "timing control"), which allows a little more boost on pump gas than we can with the JB2 variants. In addition boost will be mapped by RPM which is now fed in from the Crank Position Sensor.

2) Air intake temperature based boost decay. As temperatures rise due to ambient conditions and extended loads, the ECU actually raises boost. Which is good enough for the factory tune, but with the JB2, BMS been limiting boost to account for the most extreme conditions.
With IAT based boost decay the JB3 will auto-tune itself on the fly for the current conditions. High-temperature (>90 degrees) performance will be similar, but when temperatures are cooler we will be able to up the power considerably. Those of you with intercoolers will really benefit from this change.

3) Throttle based boost input. The JB3 will adjust the boost targets as a function of throttle input for smoother partial throttle performance.

4) Fuel pressure remapping. Part of the 29.2/v81 compliance package, by remapping the fuel pressure we can sneak more fuel past the ECU. Since the ECU is measuring fuel consumption now to determine if you have a tune this is a critical benefit for diagnostic invisibility.

5) "Direct solenoid control". The JBX series relies on vacuum line configurations to trick the ECU in to a higher solenoid duty cycle, which actually works well. But the JB3 handles the I/O of the solenoids directly, eliminating the need for any changes to the vacuum lines. BMS has developed a method to adjust the solenoid duty cycles without having to replicate the internal boost control system. One that I might add BMW has spent millions of dollars developing to perfection. The result is a smooth non-oscillating boost curve, without spikes... and an ECU that is very happy.

6) Multi-position persistent (e.g. stays where you set it) map switch. To allow you to go between stock, 91, 93, and the race gas tune on the fly with the turn of a dial. No more turning the car off first, and no more issues with leaving the race map on 24x7! Wireless options are not planned for now, but there are other options in the works for easy map switching from in the car.

7) Lean-cruise mode, for those of you looking for maximum fuel economy on your private roads. Ideally selectable via the map switch. BMS is also toying around with the idea of nerfing boost on this map to 2-3 psi, so your 335 feels like a 328. Perfect for when your "buddy" needs to borrow it.

8) Plug and play harness. JB3 harness is color keyed and completely plug and play for super easy install. Power and ground come through the harness directly so there are no external taps or grounds, and no extracting of power wires.... Just the 4 ECU sub connectors.

So if that was simply a matter of false advertising, BMS should have a good explanation at best or an even better lawyer at worse. It would be analogous to an auto manufacturer to not equip their cars with Airbags despite advertising. Sure, hopefully you wont miss it. Until, of course, you do.

My 2c,
Shiv

[Eric@AMS]

awesome thread.

Everyone should be really paying attention to this as these are typically things kept fairly close to the chest by tuners.

Scalbert and Shiv are providing invaluable information about these tuning systems and they should be commended for it. Honesty in this industry is hard to come by.

I also hope Terry can come in here and shed some light on his system as well as I believe there is a great deal of speculation going around and nothing right from the horses mouth.

We are eager to try the proceed system here at the shop knowing what the JB3 is capable of and honestly seeing this breakdown by scalbert makes me want to try it even more.

Eric

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

That was a great read and an amazing job on pulling that together. I think I can speak for everybody in thanking Scalbert for taking the time to do this testing. I can't offer much technical insight but there is a parallel thread for those who are interested in BMS' comments.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by N54Tuning.com

I can't offer much technical incite

We need less incite and more insight anyway.

Steve is da man. I just wish I knew what the heck he was 'splaining.

[RiXst3r]

Originally Posted by lawdude

We need less incite and more insight anyway.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by N54Tuning.com

That was a great read and an amazing job on pulling that together. I think I can speak for everybody in thanking Scalbert for taking the time to do this testing. I can't offer much technical incite but there is a parallel thread for those who are interested in BMS' comments.

Unless I'm mistaken, all comments from Terry (on his forum) have been of the "we're not telling you any info" nature. He stated that he didn't want to let this competition in on their "propriety" design info. Kind of funny given the rudimentary design of the JB3. Not to mention that ALL of his competitors (Dinan, Helix, AA, CPE, us etc,.) already have systems have incorporate a verifiable CPS offset/timing adjust system.

On his forum, Terry is very vocal when it comes to pointing out completely fabricated design "flaws" in the PROcede. Such as:

1) Elimination of all ECU provided safety features (untrue)
2) Diagnostic visibility of Torque Targeting logic (untrue)
3) Diagnostic visibility of speed delimiter (untrue)

In fact, he bans people for even contesting his statements. And now when scientific data is presented that questions his claims, he stays quiet.

Shiv

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Unless I'm mistaken, all comments from Terry (on his forum) have been of the "we're not telling you any info" nature. He stated that he didn't want to let this competition in on their "propriety" design info. Kind of funny given the rudimentary design of the JB3. Not to mention that ALL of his competitors (Dinan, Helix, AA, CPE, us etc,.) already have systems have incorporate a verifiable CPS offset/timing adjust system.

Shiv

Or he could at least have Steve sign a non-disclosure agreement and provide the proprietary info to him so Steve can give us a more complete review.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by lawdude

Or he could at least have Steve sign a non-disclosure agreement and provide the proprietary info to him so Steve can give us a more complete review.

There's really not much to disclose. The entire hardware schematic has been mapped out. A single layer board with a handful of components makes that a 30 min job. All the I/O has been verified. Even a engine simulator has been made. The only thing left out of the model is how the factory ECU responds to the modified input. But with only a handful of I/O, this is already well documented. I think Steve is being kind with his statement that maybe is isn't understanding something.

Shiv

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Unless I'm mistaken, all comments from Terry (on his forum) have been of the "we're not telling you any info" nature. He stated that he didn't want to let this competition in on their "propriety" design info. Kind of funny given the rudimentary design of the JB3. Not to mention that ALL of his competitors (Dinan, Helix, AA, CPE, us etc,.) already have systems have incorporate a verifiable CPS offset/timing adjust system.

On his forum, Terry is very vocal when it comes to pointing out completely fabricated design "flaws" in the PROcede. Such as:



In fact, he bans people for even contesting his statements. And now when scientific data is presented that questions his claims, he stays quiet.

Shiv

Irrelevant to the technical sides of the tunes......

[Ramos]

With all due respect to this forum which I love, it is very unfair and biased that Shiv gets to respond and make all kind of claims whereas Terry is shut out...
Whaterver the past or the reasons are .. Just my 2 cents

Great thread though, lots of great info and I would agree that BMS does need to shed more light of the whole timing issue... I am an example of a potential customer on the fence still undecided which tune to buy, and I am getting a bit skeptical about how the JB3 works in terms of timing retard...

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Unless I'm mistaken, all comments from Terry (on his forum) have been of the "we're not telling you any info" nature. He stated that he didn't want to let this competition in on their "propriety" design info. Kind of funny given the rudimentary design of the JB3. Not to mention that ALL of his competitors (Dinan, Helix, AA, CPE, us etc,.) already have systems have incorporate a verifiable CPS offset/timing adjust system.

On his forum, Terry is very vocal when it comes to pointing out completely fabricated design "flaws" in the PROcede. Such as:

1) Elimination of all ECU provided safety features (untrue)
2) Diagnostic visibility of Torque Targeting logic (untrue)
3) Diagnostic visibility of speed delimiter (untrue)

In fact, he bans people for even contesting his statements. And now when scientific data is presented that questions his claims, he stays quiet.

Shiv

You clearly know your stuff, but your stirring of the pot is completely unnecessary and makes you look like a bitch. Keep this thread clean!

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by Ramos

With all due respect to this forum which I love, it is very unfair and biased that Shiv gets to respond and make all kind of claims whereas Terry is shut out...
Whaterver the past or the reasons are .. Just my 2 cents

Great thread though, lots of great info and I would agree that BMS does need to shed more light of the whole timing issue... I am an example of a potential customer on the fence still undecided which tune to buy, and I am getting a bit skeptical about how the JB3 works in terms of timing retard...

FYI -- there's several ppl on E90Post.com that can post (copy & paste) current responses from Terry on his N54Tech.com forum; they have done this in the past. Or, even better, maybe Scalbert will get more info from Terry and post it up here. Having a middleman may not be the best way to get both tuners involved, but at least we could get both sides...if Terry will just go into a little more detail about how the JB3 works (specifically timing control, etc.).

Ever since Terry went out to do his own thing with his Juice Box, there has always been a very competitive arena for the N54 "piggyback." However, I can say (being here when Shiv began tuning the 335i when he first bought his own 335i on 9/1/06) that Shiv has always been very forthright on how the N54 engine works and how he can tune it with a piggyback computer. Scalbert is doing an AMAZING thing for all of us here, going into the complete technical differences between the top two piggybacks for no monetary compensation from anyone (I hope j/k). It would just be great if the consumers could get ALL the facts from BOTH tuners about how their respective piggyback boxes work.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

You clearly know your stuff, but your stirring of the pot is completely unnecessary and makes you look like a bitch. Keep this thread clean!

I could be called a lot worse than a b*tch who clearly knows his stuff

On a serious note, Terry has responded to scalbert's results on his forum. Just not with any worthwhile info. Also, Terry routinely asks his vendors to speak for them by actually giving them text to post as their own (see N54tuning.com's post above as an example). Terry is here and perfectly active on this forum.

Shiv

[Sniz]

I'd love to see both sides really give full disclosure here, but it isnt going to happen IMO.

and Shiv, no reason to get too up in arms over this

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Sniz

I'd love to see both sides really give full disclosure here, but it isnt going to happen IMO.

Sadly, there's nothing left to disclose. All the info is out.

Shiv