[Terry335]

Our JB development rig has a microcontroller that runs cps in/out, IAT in/out, map in/out, and right/left wideband taps. We can map boost, fuel, and CPS offset based on rpm, boost, and IAT, in 50 rpm increments.

During development I tested a variety of different maps ranging from 15psi in the midrange, down to 6psi in the midrange, and decided on a final design that we felt would most appeal to consumers in this market. A stock feeling powerband, zero chance for cel/limp, easy install, and tremendous value.

[hotrod182]

Originally Posted by Terry335

Our JB development rig has a microcontroller that runs cps in/out, IAT in/out, map in/out, and right/left wideband taps. We can map boost, fuel, and CPS offset based on rpm, boost, and IAT, in 50 rpm increments.

During development I tested a variety of different maps ranging from 15psi in the midrange, down to 6psi in the midrange, and decided on a final design that we felt would most appeal to consumers in this market. A stock feeling powerband, zero chance for cel/limp, easy install, and tremendous value.

On the R tune, the car feels much more responsive and torquey down low. It is just a smooth strong push at part throttle. It became even smoother on the 2nd day. Its nice to have low end part throttle torque, but really not that necessary with really aggressive driving, because I would hardly have my rpms that low for very long any ways. Thats what is nice about the 6 spd trans. 1st gear is fairly low, and upper rpms are accessible at just about any given speed. Just having higher boost come on down low, and accessing it so frequently will probably just decrease your city gas mileage incrementally. In some way, launching with high torque is almost easier if you know how to modulate the throttle. Kind of comparing launching a S2000 Honda against a big V8 engined car.

I think Sacramento is a 6hr drive from here. So as tempting as it sounds, probably not happening soon. So yes Driver 72, it would be nice to see how the Procede 1.47 runs at Fontana. If you still run 13.0 @ 107 there, then it will affirm your belief that the track is similar to Famosa. However, you should run a little faster with the V 1.47 compared to the 1.2X? Maybe 108mph? Again, it would be interesting for the sake of analysis.

Fontana is ridiculous how they wont let you run a minute before 10am. As the temps get warmer and warmer! That day when I left, the temps were about 88F. Started at about 77F. Besides the elevation, there is a huge difference in cooler weather. Cooler intake, more effective intercooler, etc, etc.

Are you sure the track at LACR doesn't drop in elevation? The first picture is LACR. It definitely doesnt look uphill till past the 1/4 marker. Maybe you Googled the very end of the track! By comparison I have included a picture of the Fontana picture again for comparison.

[Nikolas]

4 feet over a 1/4 mile is hard for the human eye to register. Also, Google Earth is not that accurate for measuring elevation in this manner. I use that program daily and there are many areas that the elevation can be really off, especially in areas that have lots of terrain change.

[Driver72]

Hotrod, to be honest, the picture of Fontana looks pretty darn flat to me.
The angle of the picture makes it hard to see, you'd need to be higher and more at a side angle like the LACR picture.

Now I don't know about the LACR.

As you know I've been there many, many times.
In that picture it "appears" to run downhill but again that may just be an illusion from the angle and the upward incline near the end.

I've used Google Earth many times before too and the elevation seems pretty good, but can't vouch for every location.

I've checked it on my road out front of my house, which has an incline, and it shows the incline.
I've checked it in other areas where I know for a fact the road is not level, and sure enough Google Earth shows it.

I've also checked it on roads that I know are pretty level, but have a large dip in them at certain points and Google Earth has showed that too.

But again, I doubt it's perfect for every location and elevation, so you never know. But it's the best we have at the moment.

Unless someone has a Chrysler or Dodge with their Navigation system.
I test drove a 300C when they came out with it's GPS and loved the fact it had an elevation meter built into it.
It was impressive to see the elevation change on that thing as you drove down the road. Go up a hill and it showed your elevation instantly.

Maybe someone with this could someday test out Fontana and see what it says at the starting line and as they cross the finish line?

[Terry335]

Hmm is there a portable thing like that I can buy and throw in the car?

[Driver72]

BTW all, on the LACR site, it states the Antelope Valley Committee is in contact with the County of Los Angeles to try to find a NEW place to build a NEW drag strip!
We may have a sweet new strip in the coming year or two, or three.
That would be GREAT.

I'm sure it won't be anywhere near sea level though, as that would be costly and no space.
But if they looked up towards Castiac or somewhere north of Santa Clarita up the 5, it would be better than the 2700+ feet of Palmdale (it would be closer to 1500-2000' and if they made the strip run DOWNHILL by about 3-4 feet from start to finish and made it run east too, that would counteract the elevation quite a bit and balance it out to make it a nice place to go!

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Terry335

Hmm is there a portable thing like that I can buy and throw in the car?

I would think there is.
Maybe even the base Garmin or something would have it.

[hotrod182]

My M3 has elevation built into it's navigation system. It is generally accurate, but sometimes you can go up/down sudden changes in elevation, and the GPS won't accurately pick it up. It seems to have a resolution of 1/8 mile distances or so.

If you look carefully at the Fontana track barriers, you can see how they clearly go in an uphill direction.

We really need a car comparable to Shivs to run at Fontana to quantify the performance decreases due to the inferior DA.

I can only emphasize how remarkable CEA's and Terrys numbers were at Fontana. If they had run in cooler, low elevation conditions, I am sure their times would have been much better. Most definitely below 12.40 in the 1/4 mile.

[sambonator]

Originally Posted by Terry335

Hmm is there a portable thing like that I can buy and throw in the car?

Terry, I thought you had a VBOX Performance Meter? That should be recording altitude information (recorded as height).

So your 1/4 mile runs logged will show if there was any altitude change throughout the run.

[stillclaimndp]

damn that thing looks so fast in the youtube video!!!

[DrewKo]

Terry, I may be mistaken, and if so, no problem, but i find it very hard to believe you are mapping torque when you are simply confusing the ECU in your boost protocol. I suppose you might confuse it to yield the torque parameters of your choosing, but I honestly doubt that is the case.

[Terry335]

Originally Posted by sambonator

Terry, I thought you had a VBOX Performance Meter? That should be recording altitude information (recorded as height).

So your 1/4 mile runs logged will show if there was any altitude change throughout the run.

Oh good idea, I'll have to check for that!

[Terry335]

Originally Posted by DrewKo

Terry, I may be mistaken, and if so, no problem, but i find it very hard to believe you are mapping torque when you are simply confusing the ECU in your boost protocol. I suppose you might confuse it to yield the torque parameters of your choosing, but I honestly doubt that is the case.

Hi Drew, I'm a bit confused by the question. Our development chip allows full control over everything, but when it came to the production JB2 not everything carried over from the development rig. RPM based boost mapping was eliminated from the JB2 because I didn't like the way it made the car feel. I wanted a smooth linear boost curve, not a sudden torque thump, so I went with a +3psi across the board curve. That doesn't mean I can't do it, just means I don't have a tune like that for sale. Who knows maybe down the road if there is enough interest, but I'm telling you it won't be much quicker and will just blow the tires off the line.

There are pics of the development rig (still in my car), our software, etc here. The programming software is proton suite, and scanning software is Auterro Dynoscan

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96380

[hotrod182]

I was just thinking that my 113.2mph run is not that bad relative to Shiv's V2.02 running 114.8 mph on non drag radials also. This is considering that I don't have exhaust, a prototype intake system, or 98 octane. I mean, all that is probably worth the 1.6 mph difference. Certainly not what a 50 hp advantage should yield in my opinon.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by Terry335

Hi Drew, I'm a bit confused by the question. Our development chip allows full control over everything, but when it came to the production JB2 not everything carried over from the development rig. RPM based boost mapping was eliminated from the JB2 because I didn't like the way it made the car feel. I wanted a smooth linear boost curve, not a sudden torque thump, so I went with a +3psi across the board curve. That doesn't mean I can't do it, just means I don't have a tune like that for sale. Who knows maybe down the road if there is enough interest, but I'm telling you it won't be much quicker and will just blow the tires off the line.

There are pics of the development rig (still in my car), our software, etc here. The programming software is proton suite, and scanning software is Auterro Dynoscan

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96380

Terry, your post is very confusing. Are you talking about testing equipment to measure A/F, etc? It sounds like your JB and JB2 do not have any ability to adjust A/F or boost in rpm increments from your previous posts? Does the JB2 now have a microprocessor that allows these incremental adjustments?

[dxb335d]

Nice one Hotrod

is JB2 very similar too Procede V2.0?? Wonder how you would fair against a stock M5?

Carlos

[Nikolas]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Hotrod, to be honest, the picture of Fontana looks pretty darn flat to me.
The angle of the picture makes it hard to see, you'd need to be higher and more at a side angle like the LACR picture.

Now I don't know about the LACR.

As you know I've been there many, many times.
In that picture it "appears" to run downhill but again that may just be an illusion from the angle and the upward incline near the end.

I've used Google Earth many times before too and the elevation seems pretty good, but can't vouch for every location.

I've checked it on my road out front of my house, which has an incline, and it shows the incline.
I've checked it in other areas where I know for a fact the road is not level, and sure enough Google Earth shows it.

I've also checked it on roads that I know are pretty level, but have a large dip in them at certain points and Google Earth has showed that too.

But again, I doubt it's perfect for every location and elevation, so you never know. But it's the best we have at the moment.

Unless someone has a Chrysler or Dodge with their Navigation system.
I test drove a 300C when they came out with it's GPS and loved the fact it had an elevation meter built into it.
It was impressive to see the elevation change on that thing as you drove down the road. Go up a hill and it showed your elevation instantly.

Maybe someone with this could someday test out Fontana and see what it says at the starting line and as they cross the finish line?

Google Earth's numbers can be really off from reality, unless you are on an area that is dead flat and that area needs to be much more significant than a 1/4 mile stretch. It is a great tool to get average elevations though, just not exact point elevations. It is an amazing tool for architecture which is what I use if for.

[Terry335]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Terry, your post is very confusing. Are you talking about testing equipment to measure A/F, etc? It sounds like your JB and JB2 do not have any ability to adjust A/F or boost in rpm increments from your previous posts? Does the JB2 now have a microprocessor that allows these incremental adjustments?

The JB1 does not have the ability to adjust air/fuel ratios, but the JB2 does. How it actually works is proprietary so I don't release that, but I'm happy to share a dyno showing our air/fuel delta over stock.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by Terry335

The JB1 does not have the ability to adjust air/fuel ratios, but the JB2 does. How it actually works is proprietary so I don't release that, but I'm happy to share a dyno showing our air/fuel delta over stock.

I appreciate the dynos Terry and I understand that you are adjusting the A/F ratio. My question is whether you can do adjustments to the A/F in 50 rpm increments like you stated above? Without a processor, there is no way to adjust the A/F in incremental levels. I don't really need to know all the details on how it works, but I am just trying to clear this inconsistency in my mind. I don't have any mods to this car yet and I am still shopping, so this info would be helpful for me.

[Terry335]

The JB2 doesn't have a tach pickup, it's a pretty stripped down version of our development rig. By the time you get a new car we might have something else for you.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by Terry335

The JB2 doesn't have a tach pickup, it's a pretty stripped down version of our development rig. By the time you get a new car we might have something else for you.

Terry, I do have an '08 335i, but I was just waiting for the break-in to end before I decided on something. My old car was on standalone and it was a non turbo ECU, so things were vastly different. I am trying to decide what is the best option on this car as every single car seems to be so different.