[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by Terrance28

Calm down guy you procede guys and your insults. I'm trying to understand why is a handicapped rev1 running with a unhandicapped rev2. I didn't make up the statement look to your tuner. So you guys were running the same map but according to shiv the rev1 is handicapped regardless, so why didn't your unhandicapped rev2 pull away regardless of what map? Because it complete nonsense. What I see and what I know is that big toms car is fast as hell and I already know from his videos that he is a fast shifter but he is not shifting faster than a dct tranny so please knock it off, so for shiv to make up this bogus statement that it was handicapped when he was racing enrita is ridiculous and you know it.

The fact you guys argue about this sh*t ridiculous.

It really is amusing.

[stressdoc]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

The fact you guys argue about this sh*t is ridiculous.

It really is amusing.

[supracg]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

What I didn't see or read from that thread was if the power differred after multiple pulls on the same ignition correction setting.

What I really want to know is, the software design specification (SDS) for the DME in regards to detonation/timing control (does it retard timing before the onset of knock or during knock and how does it detect knock)? Does it keep on advancing timing until it knocks than backs of a bit and stays there or does it use a predefined timing map? From the debates, and comments from Giac (who has probably seen the DME program), it looks like the DME advances until it knocks then backs off and stays there to keep things "cool." If we knew the exact design specification, and if the DME does "ride the knock" sensor, it is irrelevant if knock occurs under high or low boost (knock is knock at any boost level) - the DME will react accordingly, and quickly. If quickly, it is also irrelevant if one tune knocks more than the other as the DME reacts within probably a few milliseconds. Now if the SDS for the DME didn't "ride the knock" sensor then we clearly know which tune is safer and most likely better - the Procede. But if the DME was designed to "ride the knock" sensor then, neither tune is any better than the other.

I think this is a good point anyone care to comment?

[DefBringer]

I wish a reputable, independent party would take his own personal 335i, use these two tunes in his otherwise STOCK car, and report his personal driving impression as well as datalogging/dyno numbers. Videos of modified cars racing proves exactly nothing to me or anyone else and just clouds the issue.

I believe the price and performance contrast of these two are negligible. Or at least, that is my impression after reading thousands of posts on these forums for the past 6+ months.

[usc335]

Originally Posted by DefBringer

I wish a reputable, independent party would take his own personal 335i, use these two tunes in his otherwise STOCK car, and report his personal driving impression as well as datalogging/dyno numbers. Videos of modified cars racing proves exactly nothing to me or anyone else and just clouds the issue.

I believe the price and performance contrast of these two are negligible. Or at least, that is my impression after reading thousands of posts on these forums for the past 6+ months.

I know this is only one element (but a big one in my opinion), but Scalbert did extensive testing on timing control here:
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233795
At the time BMS said they had a proprietary method of controlling timing. The tests showed that they do not, in fact, control timing. They still haven't admitted that they misled people about this.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Terrance28

From what I gather doesn't the factory dme rely on knock before it pulls timing as well, thats how the BMW engineers designed it. The car will pull timing so fast you will barely knew you knocked. So if its cool that the BMW engineers designed it this way what is the problem.

The problem with this is that most people do not drive at WOT all of the time. They may run at 50% to 75% where ignition advance is not such that it promotes knock events. So that the adaptation is lessened but when you finally get on it, it knocks and the DME has to overreact. This is the issue with power repeatability as well as the potential long term matters. And in response to an earlier question, the DME reacts to knock events; not before. So knock has to occur for the DME to react. The benefit what we have is that this DME can react in seemingly one engine cycle. Unfortunately knock is like little hammers tapping away inside the engine. A few small taps is not a problem. After many miles, those cumulative taps can add up. But at this point, we do not know for sure what the end result is. Some don’t care, others do. The tuner in me would prefer some sort of safety net even if it may not be needed.

On another topic, the JB3 owners have been mislead about what the JB3 does and does not do. Some may have purchased on a pre-conceived notion of what was suggested it did do only to find out that is not a real function. I tried to give the JB3 the benefit of doubt in the time aspect but it turned out to be just well phrased marketing to the point that some JB3 owners acknowledge the JB3 does nothing to aid the DME with timing control. If it cannot be measured or quantified, it does not exist or occur.

The notion that unlimited timing is run until knock is seen is absurd and easily disproven by anyone wanting to learn. If this were the case then running 96 octane versus 100 octane should yield noticeable ignition advance differences but yet they are the same for the same conditions. Early in the N54 life, some people actually tested octane benefits and it was found that about 95 - 96 octane was the most the DME would adapt to which makes sense considering the worldwide octane differences. BMW is not going to give you free power if you run 100 octane; why would they allow increased loads and increased chances of warranty repairs. They would make the advertised power and call it a day. They will tune the DME for the best fuel readily available and then adapt when fuel is not adequate. But this is for stock boost levels. Once you go higher, the loads and impacts are increased dramatically.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by usc335

I know this is only one element (but a big one in my opinion), but Scalbert did extensive testing on timing control here:
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233795
At the time BMS said they had a proprietary method of controlling timing. The tests showed that they do not, in fact, control timing. They still haven't admitted that they misled people about this.

And don't forget about this link.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196916

[mmmotornutz]

It has been proven that the JB3 doesn't control timing - that is not the controvery anymore. It is known that the DME can react rather quickly. The issue/contoversy is and what is not known, is if the JB3's method of relying on the stock DME for timing control when boosting twice as much is harmfull or not. Right now it is too early to tell if it is or not as not enough miles have been logged to show any signs of detonation and no one has full understanding of how the DME handles detonation as the DME has not been "cracked." All anyone can really do is guess and wait for the true DME software design to come out. Until then, any definitive statement regarding the JB3's lack of timing control and its ill effects on the motor is just a best guess and premature.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

It has been proven that the JB3 doesn't control timing - that is not the controvery anymore.

Should never have been a controversy in the first place.

[Sal G@Camber-Toe]

"On a stock car running just the tune, what would the difference in HP be on simaler maps? If its something like ~5HP will you really notice the difference? Maybe someone can post logs to backup what they are saying?"
Referring to an earlier post that wasnt answered

[bren335i]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

It has been proven that the JB3 doesn't control timing - that is not the controvery anymore. It is known that the DME can react rather quickly. The issue/contoversy is and what is not known, is if the JB3's method of relying on the stock DME for timing control when boosting twice as much is harmfull or not. Right now it is too early to tell if it is or not as not enough miles have been logged to show any signs of detonation and no one has full understanding of how the DME handles detonation as the DME has not been "cracked." All anyone can really do is guess and wait for the true DME software design to come out. Until then, any definitive statement regarding the JB3's lack of timing control and its ill effects on the motor is just a best guess and premature.

Thanks for being brainwashed by marketing. You were already lied to once (cps), no?

It has NEVER, EVER in any car platform been OKAY to NOT control timing when raising or doubling the factory boost in which the car has been tuned for. Especially for pump fuel. Study cylinder EGT's, cylinder pressure, det cans etc. on a JB3 car and I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised .

Remember that.

[supracg]

Originally Posted by bren335i

Thanks for being brainwashed by marketing. You were already lied to once (cps), no?

It has NEVER, EVER in any car platform been OKAY to NOT control timing when raising or doubling the factory boost in which the car has been tuned for. Especially for pump fuel. Study cylinder EGT's, cylinder pressure, det cans etc. on a JB3 car and I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised .

Remember that.

Could you explain what those are? I don't have either tune just curious why the DME's adjustments to the increase in boost is not adequate (as on the JB3 apparently).

[enrita]

i would like to know that as well since my car was runnning on JB3 for 20.000 miles on the highest boost settings but seems to be ok. never had a code or a cell... maybe i have a hole in a piston without even knowing. strange

[munters]

We don't know yet. That's right. If you want to test it go ahead.
I for myself for myself don't want to wait and know.
REACTION is a step backwards.

[sd390r]

lol I cant believe people still start these threads

[NRG]

I bet we'll be seeing those kind of threads in another 3 years time of N54 existence, claiming that JB does not do this and that. It's becoming old.

[Terrance28]

+1 2-3 years from now when we all have 100k+ miles(those who keep theirs that long) with the JB and still going strong. You'll start to hear, "You guys won't last another 100k I bet ya, with no timing control".

[Terrance28]

Originally Posted by bren335i

Thanks for being brainwashed by marketing. You were already lied to once (cps), no?

It has NEVER, EVER in any car platform been OKAY to NOT control timing when raising or doubling the factory boost in which the car has been tuned for. Especially for pump fuel. Study cylinder EGT's, cylinder pressure, det cans etc. on a JB3 car and I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised .

Remember that.

Do you have any tests or data you would like to come forth with on the n54 that you did with the JB3? Or are you just saying that from other previous turbos cars that you've owned?

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Terrance28

+1 2-3 years from now when we all have 100k+ miles(those who keep theirs that long) with the JB and still going strong. You'll start to hear, "You guys won't last another 100k I bet ya, with no timing control".

This is quite childish. Some wish to have a margin of extra protection whether warranted or not; others just don't care. Why not leave it at that.

[jippii ensio]

JB3 has been more reliable. Less limps and no boost spikes. The current versions of the tunes are both save though if you analyze the logs & spark plugs & lack of serious problems.

Those who are serious in modding seem to go with JB. Several JB-customers are in 11s & >400whp. Pushing the limits will accumulate the experience with the product.

[bren335i]

Originally Posted by Terrance28

Do you have any tests or data you would like to come forth with on the n54 that you did with the JB3? Or are you just saying that from other previous turbos cars that you've owned?

I for one am not a keyboard warrior. I stay pretty silent.

However in my line of work (Tuning actual DME's and not intercepting signals) it's pretty simple balancing act. When one increases boost pressure/heat/cylinder egt and pressure, you offset it with less timing add more or less fuel depending how the car is setup stock (pig rich or lean from the factory). You in essence keep cylinder pressure in check, egts down, and the car happy.

You guys go back and forth here trying to recite internet rhetoric of what a marketer told you. The evidence is out there if you want to read between the lines (scalbert's threads) It's up to you, if you want to put your head in the sand and hope for the best.

Shiv is the only one that seems to make sense here, and the guys at AMS for using the CP-E Standback.

The N54 knock control system doesn't defy physics, neither does the JB3.

Hope that helps.

[darkphantom]

MODS: PLEASE add this to the search script:

IF(Search parameter = "JB3" or "V3") Set @User BAN = forever!