[Sniz]

Originally Posted by rmdvrs

Lets all keep in mind that if it wasn't for Terry and Shiv we would be spending alot more money on Dinan and Helix and dealing with warranty issues and throwing codes that we can't clear. They are the pioneers that brought us to were we are today and we would all do well to remember that rather than be quick to judge.

how did Helix get thrown into that one??

[Ilma]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

. Is riding the system 5 degrees worse than riding it 2 degrees?

Mike

Yes.

You/Terry keep hammering that point.......like it doesn't matter.

Based on my own logs JB timing would dip about twice as often as procede.

So the logical conclusion to me seems to be that adding in a little proactive ignition retard can keep you out of the knock zone more frequently.

It doesn't control or eliminate the knock completely, but it does appear to reduce the number of instances of it.

I think Scalbert also concluded this in his infamous tune comparison.

Both tunes will knock if you push them beyond suggested settings, but if you stay within recommended settings, I find Procede has more of an influence.

And if BMS is now incorporating it, then it just makes your commentary hypocritical at best.

[Enicinitas]

Originally Posted by Ilma

Yes.

You/Terry keep hammering that point.......like it doesn't matter.

Based on my own logs JB timing would dip about twice as often as procede.

So the logical conclusion to me seems to be that adding in a little proactive ignition retard can keep you out of the knock zone more frequently.

It doesn't control or eliminate the knock completely, but it does appear to reduce the number of instances of it.

I think Scalbert also concluded this in his infamous tune comparison.

Both tunes will knock if you push them beyond suggested settings, but if you stay within recommended settings, I find Procede has more of an influence.

And if BMS is now incorporating it, then it just makes your commentary hypocritical at best.

If your retarded, you'll knock first.

[dzenno]

Holy look at this thread!!! Crazy...

Mike, good luck with future JB3 dev..I'm currently very happy with my procede and the performance results I'm getting with it..

Nut huggers, STFU or try to learn about your tunes like JP said or at least try both tunes before you comment..

I will not blink twice to change my tune for something better in the future..better meaning a tune which I'm most comfortable with minus all the BS on this board..

[wonsungnabi]

I don't want to read 10 pages, just wondering how it turned out to the tuner war. This shit is going to last as long as n54 last. lol

[TakeOne]

Originally Posted by wonsungnabi

I don't want to read 10 pages, just wondering how it turned out to the tuner war. This shit is going to last as long as n54 last. lol

well, what do you think... it was 1 of 2 things.

Either 10 pages of JB owners going "YES! Woohoo"
or
10 pages of procede owners going "Hey, wait you can't do that, thats what we have "

The fact is some things change....
Remember when Shiv said "No nitrous for me. Never." What was that... four months ago???
----------------------------

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I'm just pointing out that the JB3 or any non-CPS tune is not physically capable of running the stock timing curve at higher boost levels. Timing always drops proportionally to boost, IAT, octane, etc. And unless your ECU is seeing 10 degrees advance in the midrange and 14 degrees at higher RPM your tune IS riding the knock threshold system. It's always just been a matter of degree. Is riding the system 5 degrees worse than riding it 2 degrees? And on that many disagree.

You know we could go on and on...

Concerning the first statement in bold, the problem here is the DME is not seeing the real boost and does not react accordingly. It beleives stock boost is being run. Granted, IAT increases will result in a reduction of advance, but this is minimal in comparison to what the real increase in boost should result in.

Concerning the remainder, by this notion, those tunes with CPS offsetting should be seeing a target by the DME of over 15 degrees which I have yet to see. And I would say yes, any ability to reduce the frequency and severity of knock is of benefit.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by TakeOne

The fact is some things change....

I would actually say that eventually all things change.

[BavarianBullet]

If woody had gone straight to the police, this would never have happened...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VQfR302sA0

[Ilma]

Originally Posted by scalbert

I would actually say that eventually all things change.

Except for the fact that change is constant

[col4bin]

This thread makes the mac fanboys look like girl scouts,

[ar design]

Originally Posted by col4bin

This thread makes the mac fanboys look like girl scouts,

[AlpineG05]

Originally Posted by ar design

Hahaha

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

^^^^

You guys are too funny

Mike

[robdog6942]

Can't wait to see..

[AltecBX]

"The new board has an advance limiter. Which is what passes for timing control on this forum"

What exactly does this mean?

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by AltecBX

"The new board has an advance limiter. Which is what passes for timing control on this forum"

What exactly does this mean?

CPS offsetting doesn't control timing. It reduces the upper boundary of the ECU's adaptive knock detection system. Even with a CPS offset in place you are still generally riding your knock sensor until you reach an ECU observed 14 degrees of timing up top. So it's more accurately refereed to as an advance limiter. Anyway the new board is the same as other piggybacks in this regard for those that are in to it.

Mike

[usc335]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

CPS offsetting doesn't control timing. It reduces the upper boundary of the ECU's adaptive knock detection system. Even with a CPS offset in place you are still generally riding your knock sensor until you reach an ECU observed 14 degrees of timing up top. So it's more accurately refereed to as an advance limiter. Anyway the new board is the same as other piggybacks in this regard for those that are in to it.

Mike

I've been staying out of this, but you're just trying to obfuscate timing control. It sounds like you are already making excuses for what the "new" JB3 won't be able to do by trying to marginalize how every reputable piggy back manufacturer alters timing by using CPS offsets. For those who weren't around a year and a half ago, read this thread, it's very informative (it's long, but well worth the read since there is excellent technical content):

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

Pay particular attention to "Scalbert" (I think he's probably one of the most well respected guys on this forum -- at least by those who are objective) and "lurker." Timing control using CPS offsets is difficult to do from a hardware design perspective, so belittling what you cannot do is pure marketing. I've been around aftermarket turbocharged cars for over 20 years (yes, since the infancy in the 1980's) and anyone who has done any research or been in the tuning game for awhile knows CPS offsetting works. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant, misinformed, or disingenuous.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by usc335

I've been staying out of this, but you're just trying to obfuscate timing control. It sounds like you are already making excuses for what the "new" JB3 won't be able to do by trying to marginalize how every reputable piggy back manufacturer alters timing by using CPS offsets. For those who weren't around a year and a half ago, read this thread, it's very informative (it's long, but well worth the read since there is excellent technical content):

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

Pay particular attention to "Scalbert" (I think he's probably one of the most well respected guys on this forum -- at least by those who are objective) and "lurker." Timing control using CPS offsets is difficult to do from a hardware design perspective, so belittling what you cannot do is pure marketing. I've been around aftermarket turbocharged cars for over 20 years (yes, since the infancy in the 1980's) and anyone who has done any research or been in the tuning game for awhile knows CPS offsetting works. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant, misinformed, or disingenuous.

The CPS offsetting was added to the new board for just that reason. Many other applications require it. Although not required for the N54 it is there.

Mike

[MisterSkiMask]

Are you tune fanboi b*tches still going on about this!?!

I have no doubt that at one time BMS thought CPS offsetting was unnecessary (maybe it is, maybe it isn't in this case) and Vishnu wanted nothing to do with N2O. This is a result of progress. The more you learn the more you learn. Sometimes you learn that you need to change direction once you reach a major crossroad (like the limits of stock turbos), sometimes (during development) it only costs pennies more to implement a feature that you may or may not need down the road, and it would be bad business to not do it.

[AltecBX]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

CPS offsetting doesn't control timing. It reduces the upper boundary of the ECU's adaptive knock detection system. Even with a CPS offset in place you are still generally riding your knock sensor until you reach an ECU observed 14 degrees of timing up top. So it's more accurately refereed to as an advance limiter. Anyway the new board is the same as other piggybacks in this regard for those that are in to it.

Mike

Got it. Will the new board access this through the canbus or is this design to reduce the upper boundary by itself?

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by AltecBX

Got it. Will the new board access this through the canbus or is this design to reduce the upper boundary by itself?

It also has CAN connectivity which is independent of the CPS offset system.

Mike