[Fern8321]

^lol..can't wait to see some logs

[Papajim]

Originally Posted by jpsimon

There is no active "bog-fix" with V4, if you shift fast enough (.3-.35s) it just holds boost, basically no need for an additional feature to force it to do this.

When I went logging some days ago for a boost reason (and not shifting test) my shifts were about 0.4-0.45" slow and the pressure never dropped under 9-10psi...

When i went again out for testing the "aftershift" pressure and I dropped to ~0.37" (+/-0.02) the boost never was under 11.5psi... ~12psi was the normal for 8 logs!!!...
And thats my best with bmw shifter, clutch etc...

So man, with procede V4 there's no absolute need to go shifting under 0.4"... an amateur kid can hold pressure...

[adrian@vishnu]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Dammit... My mom says the same thing.

Say hi to your mom Shiv. Will see her in July.

[huyner328]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Dammit... My mom says the same thing.

[mkPOTO]

very nice, its cool to see such a review from a competitor.

[Belarus]

Originally Posted by mkPOTO

very nice, its cool to see such a review from a competitor.

+1

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Here are some JB3 customer logs from a fully modded car on map 7, default settings, running through a similar step test. Fully catless with intercooler is the most difficult for partial throttle with the JB3 as the duty cycles are furthest from stock. Overall partial throttle testing was fine as expected although there are some areas for improvement at higher starting RPMs.

Mike

.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by huyner328

Maybe I'm a slow shifter but with my JB3, I still feel a slight bog and I shift fairly fast. I don't have an SSK however.

Are you on 2.0? Its still in beta, just send Terry a log of the so called bog and he will advise you on the steps to take.

There is speculation of new maps that should fix this for some.

Again, its still in Beta, so any judgements made about 2.0 are really premature as its not done. My .02

[OpenFlash]

Sorry for the delay. I spent the weekend developing new goodies. Finally got around to re-install the JB3 (with Procede once again in parallel snoop mode). This time, the JB3 was running standard resistors and with the gain set to 25 as Mike/Terry suggested. The PID gain was set to the default value of 45. Map 7.

Video:

Full Datalog:


First section zoomed in:


With CAN actual throttle added:

[vase330]

I think that Maxima driver thinks you are trying to race them. Either that or you just a punk playing with his car on the road, accelerating and decelerating just for kicks.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Sorry for the delay. I spent the weekend developing new goodies. Finally got around to re-install the JB3 (with Procede once again in parallel snoop mode). This time, the JB3 was running standard resistors and with the gain set to 25 as Mike/Terry suggested. The PID gain was set to the default value of 45. Map 7.

Can you attach the actual log files?

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by JPSlick

Are you on 2.0? Its still in beta, just send Terry a log of the so called bog and he will advise you on the steps to take.

There is speculation of new maps that should fix this for some.

Again, its still in Beta, so any judgements made about 2.0 are really premature as its not done. My .02

+1, email BMS to test the latest bogfix map they are playing with.

Mike

[OpenFlash]

And since the standard resistors (and recommended settings) were added to the JB3 2.0 tune, I also redid all the testing from page 1.

Debug Word 5 and 6 indicate DME boost target and DME suction pipe pressure respectively. Everything should be self-explanatory.

3rd to 4th gear acceleration runs:

[The car threw an underboost code during the middle of this first run. Interestingly enough, there was no limp. Just an MIL indication and a logged code. I erased it and chalked it up to adaption. It did not happen again during the other runds.]



3rd gear pulls:




All the log files from today's testing attached. You can see which one is which by looking at the run number. A few extra thrown in there as well.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by scalbert

Can you attach the actual log files?

I attached all of them in my last post.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I attached all of them in my last post.

Thanks, saw that and they are downloaded and extracted. Darn RAR format though.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Here are some JB3 customer logs from a fully modded car on map 7, default settings, running through a similar step test. Fully catless with intercooler is the most difficult for partial throttle with the JB3 as the duty cycles are furthest from stock. Overall partial throttle testing was fine as expected although there are some areas for improvement at higher starting RPMs.

Can you also attach the log files?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by scalbert

Thanks, saw trhat and they are downloadedf and extracted. Darn RAR format though.

oops.... sorry. I just got a new laptop and that program came standard

Shiv

[jpsimon]

the DBW throttle movement in those JB3 step tests are really interesting

[Prince ///M]

Great work Shiv!

BTW I can't find the step test datalog for the procede. Have you already posted the file?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by jpsimon

the DBW throttle movement in those JB3 step tests are really interesting

And that is going to explain why the jb3 controls boost so differently (and feels so different) than the Procede.

With v4, anything beyond 50% applied throttle will result in a fully open CAN dbw throttle. So the transitions from say, 50% TPS to 70% TPS and 70% TPS to 100% TPS only induce a boost control target change (boost goes up). There is *NO* actual throttle blade movement.

Which is why the Procede can target boost during transitional partial throttle conditions so well because TMAP pressure is the same as manifold pressure (which is what we care about ultimately). This is only possible once you stabilize the actual throttle blade.

With the actual throttle blade moving about, the process variable (PV) is NOT a accurate representation of what you really want to control (manifold pressure). You're basically close loop controlling based upon a inaccurate data.

This condition isn't very serious at stock boost levels because a transient throttle closure/opening while running 2-5psi results will result in a very different PV errror than the same throttle movement during a 6-10psi condition.

Shiv

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

Great work Shiv!

BTW I can't find the step test datalog for the procede. Have you already posted the file?

I thought I did. But looking back a few pages ago, I did not. And since then, that file was overwritten by the jb3 logs. I did email that old v4 step test log, upon request, to someone. I just sent him an email and asked him to send it back to me. And my sent mail folder was stripped of attachments. As soon as I get it back, I'll post it.

Regardless, I'll be doing more procede and jb3 datalogs today since I think I know how to record wastegate DC with the jb3. So I'll throw more step tests in there as well as it would be a good opportunity to discuss the wastegate DC concerns that Mike@n54 brought up last week with respect to wastegate actuator integrity.

Shiv

[huyner328]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

With v4, anything beyond 50% applied throttle will result in a fully open CAN dbw throttle. So the transitions from say, 50% TPS to 70% TPS and 70% TPS to 100% TPS only induce a boost control target change (boost goes up). There is *NO* actual throttle blade movement.

Shiv

So with v4, are you saying the variable to calculate boost targets is, I guess, more stable, due to the fully open CAN throttle vs. a JB3 which has multiple, different targets based on ______ ? Trying to make sense of all this!