[OpenFlash]

All our OpenFlash OTS map testing has been done on 91oct. This one included

[nation]

Originally Posted by Wedge1967

I have to laugh. Why do people argue which tuning hardware/software makes the most power? Who really holds the record for highest HP stock turbo? A tune is a tune is a tune. They all do the SAME thing. At the end of the day, don't you think that hardware (mods), fuel, condition, and dyno calibration have anything to do with it? PTF has made some really great numbers, same with the current self proclaimed record holder BMS. At the end of the day, who actually took the tuner shootout at Shift S3ctor? It wasn't BMS or COBB. Unfortunately I only made 422 whp on a mustang dyno, but that doesn't qualify for a world record because it wasn't on a miss calibrated dynojet. haha What did BMS post as the record? If you calculate the average variation of 9% - 15%, 422 whp could be 460 to 485 rwhp... Hmmm Does it matter? NO Numbers don't mean $#!T unless you can put it on the track.

SO... Regardless of what tune you're running, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter because we are all here for the same reason, make power, and have fun doing it. If you bought a tune and you're happy with it, great... But don't bash another tune out of assumptions. I've watched well tuned COBB cars pull flat 12's with run flats trapping at 119 with stock turbos.

amen

this crying reminds me of my subaru days. guys claiming that a stock sti turbo could touch 320whp and if you claimed it did you were lying. post a vid of you running the car at a track on par with the stated numbers,must still be lying. all because these people went huge turbo and were only making 20whp more and that didnt make sense.......until i smashed them back to back to back at the track.

[derrick603]

Originally Posted by jippii ensio

Exactly, and since boost, timing and fueling are somewhat different in the tunes, the outcomes are different accordingly. Most people know Cobb maps are conservative but it seems hard to admit that conservative means less power.

I agree that conservative tuning will result in less power and admit that Cobb OTS tunes may produce less power as a result. I would love it if this OpenFlash OTS tune produces this level of power without compromising safety, but pushing 18 psi with the stock turbos, intercooler, and downpipe seems like a bit much. Time will tell however.

[OpenFlash]

Our OTS tune runs 18psi briefly right around 4000rpm (see below). Which means just for a second at a time when WOT on the road. Turbo is efficient at that rpm/airflow and intake temps are low. Much above and below that engine speed, its in the 13-14psi range. At 6700rpm, its down to 12psi Definitely seems to be a few who are making excuses for underperforming tunes. Perhaps their efforts should be on making their tune work better and not on suggesting a well performing tune is unsafe and should be brought down to their level for some perceived safety reason. I encourage those who believe this to drive both tunes. The biggest difference, IMHO, is not even power. But rather drivability and response to throttle (immediate and consistent vs delayed and irregular). There is a reason for this and if people can focus on things constructively instead of destructively, perhaps it will benefit them and the community as a whole.

Attached is the boost/afr logs for our Stage 1 OTS map compared to stock as tested on joec500's DCI-only car:

[boom]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Our OTS tune runs 18psi briefly right around 4000rpm (see below). Which means just for a second at a time when WOT on the road. Turbo is efficient at that rpm/airflow and intake temps are low. Much above and below that engine speed, its in the 13-14psi range. At 6700rpm, its down to 12psi Definitely seems to be a few who are making excuses for underperforming tunes. Perhaps their efforts should be on making their tune work better and not on suggesting a well performing tune is unsafe and should be brought down to their level for some perceived safety reason. I encourage those who believe this to drive both tunes. The biggest difference, IMHO, is not even power. But rather drivability and response to throttle (immediate and consistent vs delayed and irregular). There is a reason for this and if people can focus on things constructively instead of destructively, perhaps it will benefit them and the community as a whole.

Attached is the boost/afr logs for our Stage 1 OTS map compared to stock as tested on joec500's DCI-only car:

Thank you! You wouldn't have the identical graph for a Dinan, COBB, or Giac flash would you? It'd be nice to compare and since the OFT is completely editable by its users, they could adjust the boost/load to the level they feel comfortable pushing their cars.

[JStang]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Our OTS tune runs 18psi briefly right around 4000rpm (see below). Which means just for a second at a time when WOT on the road. Turbo is efficient at that rpm/airflow and intake temps are low. Much above and below that engine speed, its in the 13-14psi range. At 6700rpm, its down to 12psi Definitely seems to be a few who are making excuses for underperforming tunes. Perhaps their efforts should be on making their tune work better and not on suggesting a well performing tune is unsafe and should be brought down to their level for some perceived safety reason. I encourage those who believe this to drive both tunes. The biggest difference, IMHO, is not even power. But rather drivability and response to throttle (immediate and consistent vs delayed and irregular). There is a reason for this and if people can focus on things constructively instead of destructively, perhaps it will benefit them and the community as a whole.

Attached is the boost/afr logs for our Stage 1 OTS map compared to stock as tested on joec500's DCI-only car:

I'm just curious why no one including Cobb, JB4, Procede GIAC etc. have even sniffed 18 psi on a stock car until now. There has to be a reason why this hasn't happened until now.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by JStang

I'm just curious why no one including Cobb, JB4, Procede GIAC etc. have even sniffed 18 psi on a stock car until now. There has to be a reason why this hasn't happened until now.

Agreed. Shiv care to comment?

I don't think anyone is against a cheaper better tuning solution. What people are concerned about is how this new cheap tune puts out better numbers than the previous tunes we are all familiar with which have had 4+ years of development. And better numbers on crap 91 in an auto to boot.

[BmwECY]

Originally Posted by JStang

I'm just curious why no one including Cobb, JB4, Procede GIAC etc. have even sniffed 18 psi on a stock car until now. There has to be a reason why this hasn't happened until now.

Originally Posted by Torgus

Agreed. Shiv care to comment?

I don't think anyone is against a cheaper better tuning solution. What people are concerned about is how this new cheap tune puts out better numbers than the previous tunes we are all familiar with which have had 4+ years of development. And better numbers on crap 91 in an auto to boot.

this must be your first turbocharged car, right?



look at the boost curve shiv posted. the boost ramps up to 17-18psi briefly, then tapers very quickly off to 12 or so psi. this is well within the factory turbo's compressor maps. have you ever looked at the compressor maps? they're posted in a sticky.

also, i don't know if it's because this is a newer platform, but i don't know why people are SO FOCUSED on how much boost a certain tune runs.


BOOST IS JUST A MEASURE/RESULT OF RESISTANCE.


on the acura k20, for example, people run upwards of 15-16psi on a stock engine. it's actually safer to run that type of manifold pressure from a GT35 turbo, rather than 13psi from a greddy or equivillent, smaller turbo.

same reason that shiv's single turbo kit runs 19psi flawlessly on the n54. the stock turbo's struggle when you run them past 15-16psi on the upper rpm range. down low, 16-19psi is perfectly fine. tapering boost aggressively (as the OpenFlash tablet appears to do) is the key to longer turbo life, more power, lower IAT's, less problems from back pressure from teh restrictive stock turbo housings, etc.

[BmwECY]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Agreed. Shiv care to comment?

I don't think anyone is against a cheaper better tuning solution. What people are concerned about is how this new cheap tune puts out better numbers than the previous tunes we are all familiar with which have had 4+ years of development. And better numbers on crap 91 in an auto to boot.

Also, this tune has had 7 years of development. yes, 7. shiv first started tuning n54's in 2007. way before cobb even thought about coming over to this platform.

[BmwECY]

one last point. cobb came out in the n54 in 2011 i believe. not sure what tune you're referencing that has 4 years of development. bms maybe?

[JStang]

Originally Posted by BmwECY

this must be your first turbocharged car, right?



look at the boost curve shiv posted. the boost ramps up to 17-18psi briefly, then tapers very quickly off to 12 or so psi. this is well within the factory turbo's compressor maps. have you ever looked at the compressor maps? they're posted in a sticky.

also, i don't know if it's because this is a newer platform, but i don't know why people are SO FOCUSED on how much boost a certain tune runs.


BOOST IS JUST A MEASURE/RESULT OF RESISTANCE.


on the acura k20, for example, people run upwards of 15-16psi on a stock engine. it's actually safer to run that type of manifold pressure from a GT35 turbo, rather than 13psi from a greddy or equivillent, smaller turbo.

same reason that shiv's single turbo kit runs 19psi flawlessly on the n54. the stock turbo's struggle when you run them past 15-16psi on the upper rpm range. down low, 16-19psi is perfectly fine. tapering boost aggressively (as the OpenFlash tablet appears to do) is the key to longer turbo life, more power, lower IAT's, less problems from back pressure from teh restrictive stock turbo housings, etc.

Yes, this is my first turbocharged car but I've been around long enough to know that no one else has done this on a stock car. I am not a tuner so I leave my comparison up to those who are and only push 12-14 psi on 91 octane.

I'm not saying it's wrong but what I'm asking is why is this the only available option pushing this much boost on a stock car.

[BmwECY]

Originally Posted by JStang

Yes, this is my first turbocharged car but I've been around long enough to know that no one else has done this on a stock car. I am not a tuner so I leave my comparison up to those who are and only push 12-14 psi on 91 octane.

I'm not saying it's wrong but what I'm asking is why is this the only available option pushing this much boost on a stock car.

you'll just have to be patient then for datalogging to be present then. i know the openflash tablet runs great on my car, on 93 octane however. this is on stage 1. stage 0 on 91 octane, even CA/AZ 91 ocatane, appears to run very well. so well in fact, that people are questioning if it's true/correct. i know the proof is on page one of this thread, but others won't believe it until another unbiased independant review comes in (not saying that this review is biased, btw)

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by BmwECY

look at the boost curve shiv posted. the boost ramps up to 17-18psi

So it took Shiv 7 years to hit 18psi on a stock N54 on crap 91? Why didn't he do this from day 1 and why hasn't everyone else done this from the get go?

Again I am not attacking the tune just wondering why after 7 years this is suddenly ok.

[JStang]

Originally Posted by BmwECY

you'll just have to be patient then for datalogging to be present then. i know the openflash tablet runs great on my car, on 93 octane however. this is on stage 1. stage 0 on 91 octane, even CA/AZ 91 ocatane, appears to run very well. so well in fact, that people are questioning if it's true/correct. i know the proof is on page one of this thread, but others won't believe it until another unbiased independant review comes in (not saying that this review is biased, btw)

I believe the numbers. I'm just wondering how safe it is to hit this much boost on a stock car. I looked at recent logs and I am hitting 18 psi at 3700 RPM's and by 4680 boost begins to drop off running the E30 map with FBO mods. Very similar to what is happening here on a stock car.

[jippii ensio]

Originally Posted by JStang

I'm just curious why no one including Cobb, JB4, Procede GIAC etc. have even sniffed 18 psi on a stock car until now. There has to be a reason why this hasn't happened until now.

OpenFlash has access to more tables than piggies. Giac cannot be conveniently flashed at home in case of carbon build-up or tired engine, so they need to leave a lot on the table to avoid the need of sending the DME back and forth for reflashing. Cobb helps their distribution channel, pro-tuners, to sell pro-tunes that invariably push more power than Cobb's own tunes. Pro-tuners actually pay Cobb for getting to offer value added services on top of Cobb tunes.

So, the question is actually, why OpenFlash tune would NOT be special?

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by jippii ensio

OpenFlash has access to more tables than piggies.

Explain what those tables are and how they effect engine output please.

[mave198]

Originally Posted by JStang

I believe the numbers. I'm just wondering how safe it is to hit this much boost on a stock car. I looked at recent logs and I am hitting 18 psi at 3700 RPM's and by 4680 boost begins to drop off running the E30 map with FBO mods. Very similar to what is happening here on a stock car.

Concerned about this also.

I would rather it stays consistent thru the entire rpm range at 12ish psi. I would take a hit on performance for the piece of mind. Especially for a Stage 1 map.

[jippii ensio]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Explain what those tables are and how they effect engine output please.

LOL. Not a small task... explaining the MSD80 and MSD81 tables and their effects I would need to write a book of valve timing alone I hope that you realize that all the tables are used for managing the engine w/ auxiliaries, so all of them have their own effects on how the engine works.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by jippii ensio

LOL. Not a small task... explaining the MSD80 and MSD81 tables and their effects I would need to write a book of valve timing alone I hope that you realize that all the tables are used for managing the engine w/ auxiliaries, so all of them have their own effects on how the engine works.

My point is that people keep bringing up these tables but never say what they control or do. Sounds like marketing BS to me.

[BmwECY]

tuning is like a never ending art. what worked in 2007 would be very conservative today. a lot of what goes on in tuning we don't see/hear about. for example, shiv has probably developed over 300 maps for the n54. anyone who's been here since 2008 knows that. the procede has gone from a pretty basic boost/fuel controller to a CAN-bus integrated, meth controlling high end piggy back. shiv has probably learned quite a bit in the 7 years of tuning these engines. you're also comparing GIAC, which came out in 2008 and hasn't really had a big update since then.

flash tuning isn't new, it isn't even new to bmw. what is new is applying tuning techniques/technology from piggybacks to flash tunes. that's why the OpenFlash tablet has the procede command center, built in. it will also have built-in in-dash gauges like the procede has (and the jb4 copied).

i don't know why everyone is so negative and skeptical. this platform has the most acclectic group of owners. some almost seem to want tuners to fail. why that is, i can't comprehend. tuners are here for our benefit. they don't make a huge living off selling/tuning. they could probably make $300k a year if they went into software development, especially considering where some of them live (bay area, ca).

overall, i'm glad that openflash tablet has so many haters/negative posters. in teh long run, they're going to want an openflash tablet, and they'll realize how cool of a device it is. until then, i guess we'll just have to suffer through their shitty posts on this forum.

[boost junkie]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Explain what those tables are and how they effect engine output please.

http://www.procedetuning.com/BMW/n54...s-3/index.html

Download tuner pro and the XDF files. Shiv includes the stock maps as well as stage 0 and stage 1.

[WLF]

Originally Posted by jippii ensio

Cobb tunes are conservative indeed. You must mean that you get different numbers when compared to another more aggressive tune?

No i meant one tuner ( for example PTF) can get u same numbers from cobb as shiv from the open source since both flash have access to same tables.
Comparing Cobb off the shelf maps to the open source does not make sense because it is a fact cobb maps are on the safe side . Not saying the open source are not.

Originally Posted by derrick603

Yes, COBB's OTS tunes are conservative, but also realize that all OTS tunes must be made for the lowest common denominator, and are therefore also conservative, including the OpenFlash one. What I find hard to believe is that one conservative tune can safely make an additional 30 or 40 hp over another conservative tune when stock hardware, low quality gas, and the exact same tuneable tables are involved.

Saying both are conservative is not the same as saying they are the same.
example ( although it might not be applicable here) i can set boost to 14 or 9 both are considered conservative but the 14 will make more power.
Again Cobb off the shelf maps are too conservative thats why anyone that get cobb has to protune or else it would not be worth it he is better off with jb4 or now the open source.

Originally Posted by jippii ensio

Exactly, and since boost, timing and fueling are somewhat different in the tunes, the outcomes are different accordingly. Most people know Cobb maps are conservative but it seems hard to admit that conservative means less power.

+1