[Jake@MOTIV]

Originally Posted by MDORPHN

Can you discuss the differences in Cobb and Procede's approaches to timing?

Neil

Cobb and Procede both control timing - albeit in different ways.

Cobb is a flash tune that goes in and edits the actual tables in the ecu. If you look at screenshots of their tuning software you see 2d grids. In those grids are the x-axis (they represent load values) and a y axis (rpms). They go in and change those timing targets to be lower as load increases on the vehicle in comparison to what the stock table was as they are running higher boost levels. Tuning 101 dictates that you want to run less timing as boost increases. So if you ran 16* by redline at 10psi on a car - you would want to run less than that at 15 or 20psi. This is a very bare bones example as there are many other facets like afr etc to think about - but timing is a necessary aspect of a tune- without it - well its hard to say its a full tuning solution.

The procede uses CPS offsetting to control timing. The DME thinks its getting full ignition mapping values but the procede uses an offset of lets say 3* for example to make sure you have less timing. When that offset is in play - the dme says "yup i hit my 13* max value at redline with no knock events - yay" while the cps was actually offset by 3* so it really only hit 10* by redline. Because boost went up Shiv pulled (in this example) 3* of timing so that it would not knock.

Both tunes achieve the same goal - just in different ways.

Which is better - I wont get into it but just having the ability to run less timing is crucial. Hope that helps

[vasillalov]

Originally Posted by shifterboy45

if you had a car that was slightly overheating (maybe bumper to bumper traffic) and the car was traveling on the 6% incline, the outside temp is 98degress wouldnt you pull timing if your were the engine management system -- even before the car knocked ?? think about it.

Amen brother! I've been trying to get explain all this for quite some time. This *could* explain certain, but not all, timing drops in stock/flash logs. Unfortunately, this concept seems difficult to comprehend for some and they insist that timing drop MUST ABSOLUTELY 100% of the time be a result of an actual knock event...

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by M335i Oreo Package

The BMW Turbo Control System and Dinan Tuning

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent postings on forums have suggested that Dinan is backing off on power aggressively with our 3.0L twin turbo software when the engine heat soaks. This is completely false.

First off, temperature and safety correction logic in the software are actually written by BMW, not Dinan, and are in both the Dinan and stock software. Dinan does not adjust the stock corrections or any other safety logic because we deem such actions unnecessary and potentially unsafe for the engine.

The software's strategies are as follows:

I) Ambient Air Temperature. There is a standard correction for air inlet temperature for both fuel mixture and ignition timing. These are based on air density and are standard for all engine calibrations regardless of manufacturer or fuel injection brand. These corrections work the same on both naturally aspirated and forced induction engines.
Basically, colder air is denser, which means there are more oxygen molecules going into the engine. Because of this, more fuel must be injected to maintain the proper air fuel ratio. The opposite occurs when the air is hot, in which case less fuel is injected into the engine.
A colder charge is less prone to detonation, so the ignition timing is advanced with cold air and retarded with hot air to protect the engine.

II) Overheat Protection. There is also heat exchanger efficiency software that protects the engine if it gets hot. Laws of thermodynamics tell us that to exchange heat there must be a differential in temperature, and the greater the differential the more heat is exchanged. These corrections work the same on both naturally aspirated and forced induction engines.
On a cold day when the radiator is working very well and is much colder than the block temperature, the ECU will lean out the mixture and advance the timing.
On a hot day when the radiator gets closer to the engine block temperature and the block temperature rises because of radiator inefficiency, the software anticipates the engine overheating and retards the ignition timing so the engine loses power and thereby produces less heat. In addition, the fuel mixture is richened to absorb combustion chamber heat (fuel cooling). This fuel cooling also quenches the combustion chamber and reduces the tendency to detonate or ping.

III) Detonation. When the engine is detonating (pinging) due to poor fuel quality or excess cylinder pressure, the knock control system will retard the ignition timing so the engine loses power, reducing the tendency to detonate. In addition, the fuel mixture is richened to absorb combustion chamber heat (fuel cooling) and reduce the hot metal’s tendency to cause detonation.

IV) Catalyst Protection. When the engine’s duty cycle is high (high rpm, and especially at wide open throttle in high gear), there is less time for the catalyst to cool between cylinder firings. This puts more load or heat on the catalyst, so the fuel mixture is richened to quench the catalyst in order to keep it below the temperature where it will get damaged.

Some additional points:

I) The Dyno Run Versus the Road. When you put your car on a chassis dyno it is impossible to get the same level of air flow that the car will experience on the road. It would require a fan the size of a wind tunnel. As cars get smarter, accurate dynamometer testing gets harder. While we have the largest fan I have ever seen on a chassis dyno, it still will produce significantly less air flow than driving the car down the road. This will give you the triple whammy.
Both the intercooler and the radiator will be less efficient, and as a result the engine will detonate more. So when repeated runs are made, the engine goes into save-its- life mode, aggressively reducing power by retarding the ignition timing and richening the fuel mixture as well as possibly lowering the boost depending on how extreme the condition is.
If the piggy back boxes are not losing as much power as a stock or Dinan car on the dyno, you should be afraid because this means that your engine is in jeopardy as a result of these safety controls being compromised. Maybe not on purpose, but none the less compromised.
The same conditions are seldom seen on the road, so the correction while driving will not be as aggressive as you will see on the dyno. You can verify that this is true by the glowing reports of the cars performance on the road and the track:



II) Getting the Most Power. As you can tell, these corrections are a good thing. Having said that, more power can be safely achieved by correcting the conditions that the ECU is correcting for.
A better intercooler will reduce inlet temperature, advance the timing, and lean the mixture
A better oil cooler will reduce engine temperature, advance the timing, and lean the mixture
Higher octane fuel will reduce detonation, advance the timing, and lean the mixture.
This is why we require an intercooler and oil cooler for our Stage 3 software, to protect your investment and extract the most power. We also recommend using unleaded racing fuel whenever you do a track day.

I hope this helps you to understand what is going on inside the incredible engine control system that BMW has put on your engine.

Steve Dinan, Steve Breen



very interesting to say the least....

Originally Posted by techlogik

My take?

JB is the only tuner that doesn't control timing directly when running higher boost levels on the N54/N55.

Cobb/GIAC, Procede, Dinan, ESS, AA etc...all have the ability and do control timing DIRECTLY. Not as a by-product like Terry. This of course is FI tuning 101 material.

JB solely relies on riding the knock sensor and the stock DME value/tables/logic that were written for the the stock setup to deal with and handle high boost levels requested to make big power. That = bad IMO.

Actually, I lied, Terry/JB do control timing. They do this by inducing knock under high boost levels, then rely on the DME to jump in, pull timing and save the day!!! Isn't that a great way to tune FI?!?!

Why Terry/Mike think this is an acceptable, reliable and healthly way to tune a FI engine when every other tuner of FI applications wants to control timing directly, and not as a by-product/reaction....is beyond me.

Yet, Terry does.....things that make you go hmmmmm.........

??

[MDORPHN]

Originally Posted by FlyLow335i

Cobb and Procede both control timing - albeit in different ways.

Cobb is a flash tune that goes in and edits the actual tables in the ecu. If you look at screenshots of their tuning software you see 2d grids. In those grids are the x-axis (they represent load values) and a y axis (rpms). They go in and change those timing targets to be lower as load increases on the vehicle in comparison to what the stock table was as they are running higher boost levels. Tuning 101 dictates that you want to run less timing as boost increases. So if you ran 16* by redline at 10psi on a car - you would want to run less than that at 15 or 20psi. This is a very bare bones example as there are many other facets like afr etc to think about - but timing is a necessary aspect of a tune- without it - well its hard to say its a full tuning solution.

The procede uses CPS offsetting to control timing. The DME thinks its getting full ignition mapping values but the procede uses an offset of lets say 3* for example to make sure you have less timing. When that offset is in play - the dme says "yup i hit my 13* max value at redline with no knock events - yay" while the cps was actually offset by 3* so it really only hit 10* by redline. Because boost went up Shiv pulled (in this example) 3* of timing so that it would not knock.

Both tunes achieve the same goal - just in different ways.

Which is better - I wont get into it but just having the ability to run less timing is crucial. Hope that helps

Yes, very helpful and much appreciated.

It's been suggested that the Procede -- because it's a piggyback -- might be slightly slower than a flash tune (like Cobb) in pulling timing in the event that knock is detected.

Is that suggestion credible and, if so, might the possible difference in reaction time be significant?

Thanks.

Neil

[papiti]

Originally Posted by techlogik

No offense here....but....

If that is the only thing you got out of this thread, and pretty much every other thread on this subject on the forum, then either your reading and comprehension regarding FI tuning is poor, or you need some updating and reviewing on the subject.

Nope, No offense taken.

But, NO, my comprehension is not the best when the talk is about tuning, and that is EXACTLY my point.

Sometimes in order for many of us to understand what is going on, need to either do a little research and/or get some explanation by someone (the thread starter) on what the discussion is all about, meaning, in simple words.

Now, why do I say this, WELL, the only thing that many of us understood is the constant bashing and bickering that CLAP kept of doing all over the thread. And, when asked with a question, he answered with a question, and when asked nicely to post some proof, he just kept on saying, LOOK FOR IT IT IS POSTED.

For many, many pages on this post all you could read is the back and forth between CLAP and other members, while the other members just wanted him to post the proof, or some evidence of what he is trying to prove, IN SIMPLE WORDS, not in charts that the majority here don't have a clue how to read.

And that's why I posted of what I learned, because this thread could have had an end a lot of pages ago only if CLAP would have given proof of his "findings" or "re-posted" his findings.

Also, still waiting for him to tell us on how he measures when Knock does a lot of damage, meaning, is there a 1 to 10 chart for damage? and how do his charts compare to this 1 to 10, or, what damage of Knock can an engine hold. etc.

You know where I'm going with this. Just quit the back and forth and just keep it simple.

[Joshboody]

Originally Posted by vasillalov

Amen brother! I've been trying to get explain all this for quite some time. This *could* explain certain, but not all, timing drops in stock/flash logs. Unfortunately, this concept seems difficult to comprehend for some and they insist that timing drop MUST ABSOLUTELY 100% of the time be a result of an actual knock event...

any input by the dme based on outside factors will be gradual, and NOT a sudden decrease. Knock is a trigger that lowers timing x amount to run safer. incline, IAT, cooling temp are NOT "triggers", they are included into the overall formula constantly for each spark fire.

[STONEY_M5]

Aren't there some other characteristics of knock besides pulling timing, it can't be just that alone....

[Joshboody]

Originally Posted by M335i Oreo Package

Aren't there some other characteristics of knock besides pulling timing, it can't be just that alone....

besides damage NO. once it's detected, there is an effort to eliminate it.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by vasillalov

Unfortunately, this concept seems difficult to comprehend for some and they insist that timing drop MUST ABSOLUTELY 100% of the time be a result of an actual knock event...

i'm also still waiting for 100% evidence of this as well.

not just "what else do you think it could be !?!?"

[vasillalov]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

any input by the dme based on outside factors will be gradual, and NOT a sudden decrease. Knock is a trigger that lowers timing x amount to run safer. incline, IAT, cooling temp are NOT "triggers", they are included into the overall formula constantly for each spark fire.

OK. This sounds good enough to be plausible and I am almost there with you, but I have a question:

Wouldn't there be a drop in timing in MT cars when the clutch is engaged at launch and after gear shifts? I would think that would be the case if the load goes from almost 0 to almost max in less than 1 second, correct?

[papiti]

Originally Posted by techlogik

No offense here....but....

If that is the only thing you got out of this thread, and pretty much every other thread on this subject on the forum, then either your reading and comprehension regarding FI tuning is poor, or you need some updating and reviewing on the subject.

OH, and BTW, what I posted, It is a summary of what is going on in this thread, LMFAO!! JAJAJAJAAAA!!!

[STONEY_M5]

If dinan doesn't pull timing although they could've, and relies on the dme to do it wouldn't that imply that it is safe enough to do so? And they are running upwards of 14psi on stage 3

[chili36]

Originally Posted by techlogik

My take?

JB is the only tuner that doesn't control timing directly when running higher boost levels on the N54/N55.

Cobb/GIAC, Procede, Dinan, ESS, AA etc...all have the ability and do control timing DIRECTLY. Not as a by-product like Terry. This of course is FI tuning 101 material.

JB solely relies on riding the knock sensor and the stock DME value/tables/logic that were written for the the stock setup to deal with and handle high boost levels requested to make big power. That = bad IMO.

Actually, I lied, Terry/JB do control timing. They do this by inducing knock under high boost levels, then rely on the DME to jump in, pull timing and save the day!!! Isn't that a great way to tune FI?!?!

Why Terry/Mike think this is an acceptable, reliable and healthly way to tune a FI engine when every other tuner of FI applications wants to control timing directly, and not as a by-product/reaction....is beyond me.

Yet, Terry does.....things that make you go hmmmmm....

So what you and OP are saying is that there is a weakness to the timing control of the factory DME?

[Joshboody]

Originally Posted by vasillalov

OK. This sounds good enough to be plausible and I am almost there with you, but I have a question:

Wouldn't there be a drop in timing in MT cars when the clutch is engaged at launch and after gear shifts? I would think that would be the case if the load goes from almost 0 to almost max in less than 1 second, correct?

yes it all depends on load. I would NOT think there's any calculations based on gear, acceleration, etc.

During a shift there is some funny business though, depending on your foot work. for example if you are lifting the clutch as you are pressing the accelerator then you go from a low to high load very quickly and this would cause more "acceleration load" in my thinking causing some potential knock events. ever notice how low the timing is 4th compared to 3rd. I'm not sure about this subject though. of course best WOT shift is to be fully engaged with the clutch before accelerator.

[papiti]

Originally Posted by M335i Oreo Package

If dinan doesn't pull timing although they could've, and relies on the dme to do it wouldn't that imply that it is safe enough to do so? And they are running upwards of 14psi on stage 3

Good point!!

[Joshboody]

Originally Posted by M335i Oreo Package

If dinan doesn't pull timing although they could've, and relies on the dme to do it wouldn't that imply that it is safe enough to do so? And they are running upwards of 14psi on stage 3

I'm sure Dinan changes the timing table. BMW pulls timing if needed, as this is not changed by the flash.

[STONEY_M5]

BMW must've put in some sort of safety parameters. Its a fi car they knew that people would up the boost lol... Can you name one turbo car from the factory people have not bought and tuned? I'm all ears.....

[usc335]

To those who keep asking for proof that knock is bad, why aren't you asking for proof that knock isn't bad? On every other platform, knock is bad, so I think the people who are claiming that the N54 ECU is fast enough to prevent long-term damage bear the burden of proof.

To anyone familiar with the scientific method, saying "well, I have thousands of customers" is not proof -- it is just deflecting the question because they have no scientific proof. It's been said before, but that's like saying that because there are millions of smokers that haven't died yet that smoking is safe. Is that really the best they can do? I don't know why people insist that Engine Tuning 101 doesn't apply to the N54.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by AltecBX

Hey, I'm from YO.

It's and inside joke among some members. (So are all my cousins, no worries).

(the joke is some kid came on xbox live one night during a Call of duty game, ranting and raving, "i'll show you how we do it in NY, Yonka's baby"..."choppa gunna"

He went 10kill, 25 deaths LOL

[STONEY_M5]

Originally Posted by RambleJ

Seriously interesting. But I like how everyone just skips over this stuff and continues to spread what they have learned from their history of tuning 87 corolla's.

Originally Posted by Joshboody

I'm sure Dinan changes the timing table. BMW pulls timing if needed, as this is not changed by the flash.

they stated that they left all safety parameters as BMW had it, I dnt recall them saying that they adjusted timing, but if they did that goes back to, its gonna run good in certain weather and poorly in other because it isn't constantly adjusting, correct?

[papiti]

Originally Posted by usc335

To those who keep asking for proof that knock is bad, why aren't you asking for proof that knock isn't bad? On every other platform, knock is bad, so I think the people who are claiming that the N54 ECU is fast enough to prevent long-term damage bear the burden of proof.

To anyone familiar with the scientific method, saying "well, I have thousands of customers" is not proof -- it is just deflecting the question because they have no scientific proof. It's been said before, but that's like saying that because there are millions of smokers that haven't died yet that smoking is safe. Is that really the best they can do? I don't know why people insist that Engine Tuning 101 doesn't apply to the N54.

I agree with you, BUT, I don't think that's the real question. We all know knock is BAD but all engines knock. Now, the question is, knowing that knock causes damage, and knowing that all engines have knock, and knowing that engines are built to specifications having knock, what is the highest threshold of knock that an engine can take with a tune?

[STONEY_M5]

Originally Posted by usc335

To those who keep asking for proof that knock is bad, why aren't you asking for proof that knock isn't bad? On every other platform, knock is bad, so I think the people who are claiming that the N54 ECU is fast enough to prevent long-term damage bear the burden of proof.

To anyone familiar with the scientific method, saying "well, I have thousands of customers" is not proof -- it is just deflecting the question because they have no scientific proof. It's been said before, but that's like saying that because there are millions of smokers that haven't died yet that smoking is safe. Is that really the best they can do? I don't know why people insist that Engine Tuning 101 doesn't apply to the N54.

suppose just suppose the dme is pulling timing b4 the onset of knock bcuz it looks for certain conditions and labeled it "here comes knock" so it just making necessary adjustments... Kinda like the theory presented about over heating a few posts back....