[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

Shiv,

How is it far more evident? I looked at logs by Scalbert and both tunes seem to suffer from the same amount and severity of knock retard (byproduct).

That's not what I got from his log. Perhaps he can clarify his findings.

Using the Procede datalogging tool and how the Procede reacts with 0% timing correction to suggest that the JB3 is more susceptible to knock is a hypothetical suggestion. Do you have any Procede datalogs with the JB3?

Yes I do. I have a test PROcede that stays in valet mode (but with CANbus logging active) that allows me to "snoop"/log any wire-in or pnp tuner box. And I've spent some time with the jb3 in the test rig confirming what it does (and doesn't do). The results were plainly obvious.

I believe that you are local to me. If you want to datalog your tune for knock correction activity, i'll be happy to stick the device in your car. Just as long as you are okay with disclosing the results.

Shiv

[mmmotornutz]

Originally Posted by bren335i

One with common sense would say that both could not be plugged in at the same time.

I guess common sense "ain't" so common - Bren

[mmmotornutz]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Yes I do. I have a test PROcede that stays in valet mode (but with CANbus logging active) that allows me to "snoop"/log any wire-in or pnp tuner box. And I've spent some time with the jb3 in the test rig confirming what it does (and doesn't do). The results were plainly obvious.

Shiv

Oooh, that is more like it. Can you post up those logs?

Oh and I forgot to ask, what is the sampling rate of the Procede datalogger and the BT?

[bren335i]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

Oooh, that is more like it. Can you post up those logs?

Oh and I forgot to ask, what is the sampling rate of the Procede datalogger and the BT?

Take him up on his offer if you truely are interested in saying they knock the same.

[beepbeep]

Originally Posted by bren335i

Take him up on his offer if you truely are interested in saying they knock the same.

Trying to bring facts to this discussion is just wrong.

[GTR-Dad]

Running OEM timing with elevated boost and trusting knock sensors to pull timing for you is a risky activity.

Knock sensors sometimes fail. They won't fail on every car, but when they do (and they will somewhere, sometime) someone's going to get some firsthand experience on N54 OEM piston ring land durability.

I hope it happens to someone with the maturity and perspective to shrug and say, oh well - time to upgrade internals and learn a bit more about tuning!

I don't know what goes on in any of these particular engine control units / signal modifiers, but I'll stand by the statements above and add that you should tune slightly rich and let the fuel trim pull fuel to achieve the commanded AFR rather than the other way.

Dan

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

Oooh, that is more like it. Can you post up those logs?

Oh and I forgot to ask, what is the sampling rate of the Procede datalogger and the BT?

I'm not going to post up those logs simply because they will either get attacked for being selective or doctored. Or blamed on a old chip verion (1.2 iirc). For that reason, I'm asking you if you would like to retest on your car. Doing this with the new chip, in front of you, on a 3rd party car would settle this debate. Are you willing?

The Procede samples at 30x per sec regardless of how many channels are being logged at the same time. I don't know what the BT offers but from firsthand experience, it's considerably slower.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by GTR-Dad

Running OEM timing with elevated boost and trusting knock sensors to pull timing for you is a risky activity.

Knock sensors sometimes fail. They won't fail on every car, but when they do (and they will somewhere, sometime) someone's going to get some firsthand experience on N54 OEM piston ring land durability.

I hope it happens to someone with the maturity and perspective to shrug and say, oh well - time to upgrade internals and learn a bit more about tuning!

I don't know what goes on in any of these particular engine control units / signal modifiers, but I'll stand by the statements above and add that you should tune slightly rich and let the fuel trim pull fuel to achieve the commanded AFR rather than the other way.

Dan

If/when significant timing is pulled it gets rolled in to the long term octane adaption and does not come back. There is a short term and long term timing adaption and it is very much a closed loop system.

Mike

[bren335i]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

If/when significant timing is pulled it gets rolled in to the long term octane adaption and does not come back. There is a short term and long term timing adaption and it is very much a closed loop system.

Mike

If the car was tuned correctly in the first place. There should be NO significant long term correction or "learned" correction. Outside of a degree here and there based on fuel quality. I've observed this over many platforms.

And long term correction is not permanent, it slowly tries to come back after the event during a drive cycle, and re-add the timing back in stepped values (better then a full timing ramp up). When this happens the car knocks hard AGAIN, before its put back into long term. This is the cycle that will hammer your motor over. Especially if you are going from race to pump on the same map (hotrod?)

If I tuned on that principle alone, I would NOT sell product to the public.

That's downright irresponsible.

JM2C.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony

So lets say I run either the current jb3 or procede for the next 3 years. Is there a claim that one of the tunes will hurt my engine because of this knock control? Thats all I know to know. Long term reliability issues. Isnt this all speculation at this point?

It depends on what you define as hurt. There is no question that allowing knock to occur (to any degree) and only then have the DME reactively retard timing is bad for the engine. This is common sense and widely accepted by anyone familiar with the fundamentals of engine tuning. Whether, or how long it will take for the detonation will lead to noticeable ring wear, oil consumption or loss of power is the question that no one can answer with the engine being relatively new. The biggest issue here is how the car is driven. During normal use (ie, how all our forum members drive on the street), an engine only sees a few % of its overall use under moderate to full boost where a lack of proactive timing control is desired. So unless you test the tune a race car competing in a 12hr endurance race (on pump gas) which would probably be equivalent to 100k miles of normal driving, the jury is out.

Given the choice, active (not reactive) timing control is always better. Case in point: About 10 years ago, a company by the name of J&S Electronics developed an aftermarket control control system. It consisted of a microphone that bolted to the engine block and a controller. You could adjust the sensitivity and rate of retard for your given application. It was often used in cars with aftermarket turbo systems or in turbo cars running higher boosts and/or larger turbos. This was back in the day when factory DMEs had marginal or nonexistent knock controls systems. I, along with hundreds of others, used this device and it did wonders for keeping our engines in once piece. The only downside was that if you set the sensitivity to high, it would pick up engine noise and start retarding too much and too early (it had LEDs that would show you the degree of retard). And if you set it too low, you could hear an audible tick tick (minor knock) before it jumped in retarded the necessary amount of timing.

Then about 7 years ago, at the suggest of myself and several other tuners using this device, we approached John (the "J" in J&S" about implementing a proactive boost-based timing retard (adjustable via those trim pots you see in the pic). This new feature would then be used to do say 80% of the necessary timing retard work so that the active knock sensor function only jumped in when needed. And when needed, it only contributed to perhaps 1-2 degrees of reactive retard INSTEAD of the 5-6 degrees it had to contribute when it was the only knock control function.

It worked so well, the name was changed from J&S Safeguard to the J&S UltraSafeguard. The same basics apply to the BMW. That is, the benefits of having a tune that is mapped to do most of the necessary timing retard while only relying on a reactive knock sensor from time to time.

Shiv

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by bren335i

If the car was tuned correctly in the first place. There should be NO significant long term correction or "learned" correction. Outside of a degree here and there based on fuel quality. I've observed this over many platforms.

And long term correction is not permanent, it slowly tries to come back after the event during a drive cycle, and re-add the timing back in stepped values (better then a full timing ramp up). When this happens the car knocks hard AGAIN, before its put back into long term. This is the cycle that will hammer your motor over. Especially if you are going from race to pump on the same map (hotrod?)

If I tuned on that principle alone, I would NOT sell product to the public.

That's downright irresponsible.

JM2C.

+1. And the proof for this long term correction not being permanent is shown by how readily the DME response to race gas when previously running in a ignition retarded state (long term negative ignition correction). Within ONE single gear pull, the DME will dump back nearly all of the timing it took out on pump gas. This suggests (if not proves) that the DME is always trying to bump against the knock threshold (which, needless to say, induces knock) when it is running long term negative ign. corrections.

This behavior is limited to just a couple of degrees at stock boost (5-7psi). Any due to knock severity going hand in hand with mean cylinder pressure during normal combustion (ie, boost), a logical tuner would agree that this degree of "slop" should be reduced, not increased when doubling boost pressures.

Shiv

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

+1. And the proof for this long term correction not being permanent is shown by how readily the DME response to race gas when previously running in a ignition retarded state (long term negative ignition correction). Within ONE single gear pull, the DME will dump back nearly all of the timing it took out on pump gas. This suggests (if not proves) that the DME is always trying to bump against the knock threshold (which, needless to say, induces knock) when it is running long term negative ign. corrections.

This behavior is limited to just a couple of degrees at stock boost (5-7psi). Any due to knock severity going hand in hand with mean cylinder pressure during normal combustion (ie, boost), a logical tuner would agree that this degree of "slop" should be reduced, not increased when doubling boost pressures.

Shiv

Actually that is false. It can take many pulls for the long term trim to learn out. It's the short term trim that will learn out rather quickly.

Keep in mind even tuned CPS systems operate under a significant long term trim which is easily proven by resetting the trim and monitoring for knock activity using a BT. The ECU's logic is always present which is basically to advance timing, listen for knock, and then long or short term retard. This is in place and operating whether you are stock, tuned with CPS, or tuned without CPS. The major different between being a tuned CPS and tuned nonCPS being whether you have 1-2 degrees or 3-5 degrees sitting in the long term learns in the most knock prone cels.

IMHO having extra timing in the long term trim is actually safer as the ECU assumes you are on poor octane fuel and attempts to reintroduce that timing at a slower rate.

Mike

[jhershorin]

I guess my confusion lays at why not just get a system that allows you to do what you want whether it is a supplied base map or a user tuned map. I am running 14-15lbs and I (for simplistic purposes of explanation) have essentially linearized pulling 1 degree of timing from 8lbs of boost to pulling 4 degrees of timing by 14-15lbs of boost. Then I get on my dyno and start increasing it till I feel close enough to leaving a conservative realm. Simultaneously I am playing with fuel, tps control, and the different other options i can manipulate in the Standback I am running. I will have a documented "plight" posted up here in the coming weeks as I begin to install the full list of bolt ons i have and dyno before and after each with tune numbers (gotta love having a friend who owns a dyno). I guess with my background and knowledge I have compiled over the cars I've built and tuned I can't fathom just trusting a box I don't have details or control over.

[mmmotornutz]

Originally Posted by jhershorin

I guess my confusion lays at why not just get a system that allows you to do what you want whether it is a supplied base map or a user tuned map. I am running 14-15lbs and I (for simplistic purposes of explanation) have essentially linearized pulling 1 degree of timing from 8lbs of boost to pulling 4 degrees of timing by 14-15lbs of boost. Then I get on my dyno and start increasing it till I feel close enough to leaving a conservative realm.

This was the same method I used with another platform. But with this particular platform, I knew it wasn't dynamic and didn't "ride the knock sensor."

[mmmotornutz]

Originally Posted by bren335i

Take him up on his offer if you truely are interested in saying they knock the same.

Bren, I am way too busy to take up his generous offer. I am only limited to reading the forums nowadays. But enough about me, if you truly believe that they don't knock at the same frequency, why don't you supply us with logs to prove it? I only basing my opinion based upon the logs that were presented on this site since the JB3 was introduced. The weird thing about the logs I have seen is that both tunes seem to have ignition retard at roughly the same spot in the powerband.

[cn555ic]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

This was the same method I used with another platform. But with this particular platform, I knew it wasn't dynamic and didn't "ride the knock sensor."

Since your so close to Shiv, why don't you just go there and meet up with him..I would like to see the results myself....Plus you probably can try the RevII also...You have nothing to lose.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

It worked so well, the name was changed from J&S Safeguard to the J&S UltraSafeguard. The same basics apply to the BMW. That is, the benefits of having a tune that is mapped to do most of the necessary timing retard while only relying on a reactive knock sensor from time to time.

The long and short term timing trims the factory ECU provides are similar to what you described with the J&S Ultra-safeguard. Long term trims hold the majority of the timing reduction and only short term trims are moving around much from run to run. This is also done on a cylinder by cylinder basis not unlike the J&S.

Mike

PS.
If you want to refer to the JB3 as safe and the V3 as ultra-safe then I'm happy to leave it at that. The only reason I get involved in these threads is because the real "hard evidence", the 1500+ customers running the JB3 for tens of million of miles, strongly support that the JB3 is safe. Much more so than any conceptual discussion ever will.

[mmmotornutz]

Originally Posted by cn555ic

Since your so close to Shiv, why don't you just go there and meet up with him..I would like to see the results myself....Plus you probably can try the RevII also...You have nothing to lose.

The idea is not out of the question but at the moment I am too busy. The only time I can actually work on my car is after 10pm.

I PM'd Shiv for the logs as I know if he posted it, it would be under a microscope for viruses. I am curious to see the logs as I am open to new information, I am not scared of being proven wrong and look for good and bad things.

Once free time is available, sure I can take him up on his offer but I don't know when that will be.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The long and short term timing trims the factory ECU provides are similar to what you described with the J&S Ultra-safeguard. Long term trims hold the majority of the timing reduction and only short term trims are moving around much from run to run. This is also done on a cylinder by cylinder basis not unlike the J&S.

Mike

PS.
If you want to refer to the JB3 as safe and the V3 as ultra-safe then I'm happy to leave it at that. The only reason I get involved in these threads is because the real "hard evidence", the 1500+ customers running the JB3 for tens of million of miles, strongly support that the JB3 is safe. Much more so than any conceptual discussion ever will.

So as per your post, you admit there there are timing trims being adjusted up and down on a run to run basis. By your safe and ultrasafe comment, you also admit that the proactive timing offset approach applied by the Procede is safer than the method (or lack there of) applied by the JB3.

The only difference I can see is our definition of what minimal degree of safety is required before a tune can be considered to be safe. I can live with that. I'm not sure I expect complete agreement between experienced tuners and technically inexperienced salespeople. No offense but let's just call it for what it is.

shiv

[StartupJunkie]

Originally Posted by mmmotornutz

The idea is not out of the question but at the moment I am too busy. The only time I can actually work on my car is after 10pm.

I PM'd Shiv for the logs as I know if he posted it, it would be under a microscope for viruses. I am curious to see the logs as I am open to new information, I am not scared of being proven wrong and look for good and bad things.

Once free time is available, sure I can take him up on his offer but I don't know when that will be.

With all the time being invested on this debate (by both sides), it would do the community a great justice if this "joint" testing can be done and the results disclosed publically. The problem with just asking Shiv to post his testing results is that it will invariably lead to an arguments questioning its "truthiness" (to borrow from S. Colbert). And then more debate.

I understand that you are busy. But sometimes one just needs to see how much time he invests in arguing in a thread (or multiple threads on the same subject) and realize that just one evening of doing actual joint testing, with proper equipment, suddenly sounds like a good investment in time.

Junk

[Zeph]

Originally Posted by StartupJunkie

With all the time being invested on this debate (by both sides), it would do the community a great justice if this "joint" testing can be done and the results disclosed publically. The problem with just asking Shiv to post his testing results is that it will invariably lead to an arguments questioning its "truthiness" (to borrow from S. Colbert). And then more debate.

I understand that you are busy. But sometimes one just needs to see how much time he invests in arguing in a thread (or multiple threads on the same subject) and realize that just one evening of doing actual joint testing, with proper equipment, suddenly sounds like a good investment in time.

Junk

He is holding out for some pay

[Terrance28]

Originally Posted by GTR-Dad

Running OEM timing with elevated boost and trusting knock sensors to pull timing for you is a risky activity.

Knock sensors sometimes fail. They won't fail on every car, but when they do (and they will somewhere, sometime) someone's going to get some firsthand experience on N54 OEM piston ring land durability.

I hope it happens to someone with the maturity and perspective to shrug and say, oh well - time to upgrade internals and learn a bit more about tuning!

I don't know what goes on in any of these particular engine control units / signal modifiers, but I'll stand by the statements above and add that you should tune slightly rich and let the fuel trim pull fuel to achieve the commanded AFR rather than the other way.

Dan

I would think when a sensor fails on this car you would get a ses light, letting you know something is wrong. You can't even drive with a light out without the car telling you.