E90Post
 


TNT Racewerks
 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > E90 / E92 / E93 3-series Powertrain and Drivetrain Discussions > N54 Turbo Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust Modifications - 335i > JB3 VS V3 .. which one is best ?



Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-22-2009, 04:43 PM   #265
beepbeep
Private First Class
United_States
1
Rep
151
Posts

Drives: 2007 335i sedan E90
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Corrales,NM

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by StartupJunkie View Post
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
Again, you guys are trying to ruin this thread with facts. Cut it out!
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 04:59 PM   #266
Mike@N54Tuning.com
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Canada
5042
Rep
116,174
Posts

Drives: 2007 335i, 2015 M3
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N54tuning.com

iTrader: (89)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony View Post
With no long term n54s around and the fact that most people arent gonna be keeping their cars into the 100k+ mileage, this debate is useless. Now for those that are keeping their cars a long time, and not on a lease, then you need to do your homework on the technical aspects of each tune, or better yet, not tune at all.

Neither tune has made a n54 fail. Your much more likely to get a hpfp failure from bmw before an aftermarket tunes knock sensor screws things up.
I think there is more than enough data to draw initial long term conclusions. Many JB3 tuned cars have 40-50k miles with the tune, some as many as 80k. The reliability issues for this platform have not proven to be knock related (headgasket, piston rings, etc). It's just a red herring brought up for scare tactics.

The real long term risk with this platform is turbo failure. And in that arena the JB3 offers a more comprehensive two-layer hardware and software based safety system. As time goes on you will be hearing a lot more about engine failure as the result of compressor failure than blown head gaskets or ring lands.

On CPS datalogging, I have plenty of V3 and JB3 logs showing interesting and surprising things. I can bump the thread or repost them here if anyone is interested in discussing them. At the time all the technical gurus seemed to take the week off.

Mike
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 05:03 PM   #267
mmmotornutz
Lieutenant
5
Rep
479
Posts

Drives: Montego 335i
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NorCal

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by StartupJunkie View Post
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
I'll put it this way, I'de rather spend whatever time I have left after work with my family.

Even if I conducted the test w/ Shiv, people will still have doubt behind the testing methods - debate will still follow. The debate will only end when someone with a JB3 pops a headgasket or puts a hole through a block. That is why I asked Shiv to send the logs to me, for my own education.

You are fairly local, why don't you run the test with him? It looks like he has a JB3 on hand.
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 05:13 PM   #268
mmmotornutz
Lieutenant
5
Rep
479
Posts

Drives: Montego 335i
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NorCal

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com View Post
On CPS datalogging, I have plenty of V3 and JB3 logs showing interesting and surprising things. I can bump the thread or repost them here if anyone is interested in discussing them. At the time all the technical gurus seemed to take the week off.

Mike
Mike,

Can you bump those threads?

Thanks!
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 05:15 PM   #269
StartupJunkie
First Lieutenant
StartupJunkie's Avatar
United_States
30
Rep
314
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i Sedan+2 Baby Seats
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SF South Bay Area, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmotornutz View Post
I'll put it this way, I'de rather spend whatever time I have left after work with my family.

Even if I conducted the test w/ Shiv, people will still have doubt behind the testing methods - debate will still follow. The debate will only end when someone with a JB3 pops a headgasket or puts a hole through a block. That is why I asked Shiv to send the logs to me, for my own education.

You are fairly local, why don't you run the test with him? It looks like he has a JB3 on hand.
Yes but due to the partisan nature of this forum, any resultant findings would likely be dismissed given the tune that is currently in my car. Right or wrong, I will be labelled as a "Procede guy" (or more likely as a more colorful conjuction involving gonads ). Testing with someone on the other side of the argument makes far more sense.

Besides, Ive already run a JB3 in my car. I already know what it does and how it does it. I don't need any more convincing.

Junk
__________________
11.535@124.423mph (1.641 60') - AutoTune 7-27, Race+Meth, Best ET w/ only 80% throttle 1st and 2nd
11.647@121.356mph (1.590 60') - AutoTune (beta pre-5-15), Race Gas, No METH

Perf Mods: Vishnu PROcede Rev3 v5, Vishnu PWM Meth Kit, AR Design DPs, AE Exhaust, Helix FMIC, Vishnu DCI, Forge DV, WaveTrac LSD (Best Trap - 124.665mph)
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 05:42 PM   #270
Mike@N54Tuning.com
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Canada
5042
Rep
116,174
Posts

Drives: 2007 335i, 2015 M3
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N54tuning.com

iTrader: (89)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmotornutz View Post
Mike,

Can you bump those threads?

Thanks!
I'll just post the original logs here for reference. The debate focused on whether or not timing drop outs were reduced/prevented with CPS as implemented, and whether timing drops always indicate knock retard. As often happens people were more focused on the colors in the chart than the actual data. Which to me was very interesting. The test car was BMS' 135i with 91 octane fuel, ~100 degree ambient, default Stage 3 maps for the V3 and map 7 for the JB3. Basically aggressive setups on 91 octane fuel in hot weather. Worst possible conditions. The V3 logs do not reflect the timing the V3 is taking out via CPS as the timing advance is read right from the DME. So actual V3 timing is 3-4 degrees lower. In the end, both systems were running almost identical actual timing and exhibited similar drop outs.

Mike
Attached Images
    
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 05:45 PM   #271
Mike@N54Tuning.com
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Canada
5042
Rep
116,174
Posts

Drives: 2007 335i, 2015 M3
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N54tuning.com

iTrader: (89)

In addition to those logs I just posted, here was some supporting data on the discussion of whether timing drop outs actually represent knock. Or something else. To prove this point I took dynos published by Vishnu themselves and their corresponding logs. It just didn't add up. Serious knock on the logs, yet smooth charts. So there is something else going on here IMHO.

Mike
Attached Images
    
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 06:02 PM   #272
bdkevoIX
Captain
bdkevoIX's Avatar
18
Rep
739
Posts

Drives: 06 Evo IX Mr
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Maryland

iTrader: (0)

oh snap, its a war!
__________________
03 Golf TDI w/ r32 conversion - 120bph/40mpg ftw for now..
06 Evo IX MR - 500whp,,,sold.....
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 06:14 PM   #273
OpenFlash
United_States
1809
Rep
17,960
Posts

Drives: A Lot
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SF Bay, CA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com View Post
In addition to those logs I just posted, here was some supporting data on the discussion of whether timing drop outs actually represent knock. Or something else. To prove this point I took dynos published by Vishnu themselves and their corresponding logs. It just didn't add up. Serious knock on the logs, yet smooth charts. So there is something else going on here IMHO.

Mike
Mike,
Here's the funny thing about tuning: When you know something about it, it all makes sense.

When you are on the top of the MBT curve, torque output is reasonably insensitive within a reasonably wide range of ignition advance.



There are plenty of books on the subject. Not the best substitute for experience but it will do in a pinch.

shiv
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 06:57 PM   #274
mmmotornutz
Lieutenant
5
Rep
479
Posts

Drives: Montego 335i
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NorCal

iTrader: (0)

Mike, thank you for the logs! Aside from seeing, at the time, JB3 had better boost targeting control - timing advance from both tunes are fairly similar in profile. That is why I get confused when it is mentioned that the Procede will knock less w/ CPS offset.

What is strange to me is that the timing drops occur roughly at the same spots in the powerband regardless of tune. I saw the same drops in Scalbert's series of logs back when he was testing both the JB3 and V3. The only time I don't see those drops are with the stock timing advance profile.

Last edited by mmmotornutz; 10-22-2009 at 07:26 PM..
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 07:19 PM   #275
Mike@N54Tuning.com
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Canada
5042
Rep
116,174
Posts

Drives: 2007 335i, 2015 M3
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N54tuning.com

iTrader: (89)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmotornutz View Post
Mike, thank you for the logs! Aside from seeing, at the time, Procede had better boost targeting control - timing advance from both tunes are fairly similar in profile. That is why I get confused when it is mentioned that the Procede will knock less w/ CPS offset.

What is strange to me is that the timing drops occur roughly at the same spots in the powerband regardless of tune. I saw the same drops in Scalbert's series of logs back when he was testing both the JB3 and V3. The only time I don't see those drops are with the stock timing advance profile.
I thought the JB3 boost control looked better in those logs, as its right under target (but not over) but that stuff is easy to fix/change and wasn't really the focus of the logs. To me the drop outs looked similar and indicate that CPS is not doing what its claimed to do in these conditions. I also found it interesting to see the DME could safely run negative timing advance. It had been suggested that the DME would only pull so much timing and would let knock happen once it got to that floor. These logs showed that was not the case.

Mike
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 07:27 PM   #276
mmmotornutz
Lieutenant
5
Rep
479
Posts

Drives: Montego 335i
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NorCal

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com View Post
I thought the JB3 boost control looked better in those logs, as its right under target (but not over) but that stuff is easy to fix/change and wasn't really the focus of the logs. To me the drop outs looked similar and indicate that CPS is not doing what its claimed to do in these conditions. I also found it interesting to see the DME could safely run negative timing advance. It had been suggested that the DME would only pull so much timing and would let knock happen once it got to that floor. These logs showed that was not the case.

Mike
Ooops, I meant JB3. I confused the order of the logs.
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 08:10 PM   #277
usc335
First Lieutenant
67
Rep
383
Posts

Drives: 21 M2C|24 X3 M40i|08 E92 335
Join Date: May 2008
Location: so cal

iTrader: (1)

FWIW from my experience and what others have posted there is always a timing drop at ~4500 rpm on tuned cars. I think we all hypothesize that it occurs there due to the vanos timing shift. But, a stock car doesn't do that. I think most of us that datalog ignore the 4500 rpm timing drop as indication of knock. Now, when it occurs elsewhere, that's a different story.

As far as adaptation and the DME increasing timing making CPS offsets irrelevant, I totally disagree from my personal experience. I did 5 back to back third gear pulls and the timing from 4500 to 7000 rpm were right on top of each other and did not "creep up" to the DME "uncorrected" timing curve. I also believe there is a limit to how much timing the DME can add, so the procede can prevent too much timing advance with the CPS offset (which prevents knock from otherwise occurring).
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 08:50 PM   #278
mmmotornutz
Lieutenant
5
Rep
479
Posts

Drives: Montego 335i
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NorCal

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by usc335 View Post
As far as adaptation and the DME increasing timing making CPS offsets irrelevant, I totally disagree from my personal experience. I did 5 back to back third gear pulls and the timing from 4500 to 7000 rpm were right on top of each other and did not "creep up" to the DME "uncorrected" timing curve. I also believe there is a limit to how much timing the DME can add, so the procede can prevent too much timing advance with the CPS offset (which prevents knock from otherwise occurring).
Interesting observations. Now were these 5, back-to-back, 3rd gear pulls immediately after switching maps or were they fully adapted already? Also could it be that the your timing advance graphs did not creep up because the DME already reached the optimal timing advance?

Your last statement can be true if we assume the DME doesn't advance until it either hits a maximum value or knocks.
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2009, 10:52 PM   #279
usc335
First Lieutenant
67
Rep
383
Posts

Drives: 21 M2C|24 X3 M40i|08 E92 335
Join Date: May 2008
Location: so cal

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmotornutz View Post
Interesting observations. Now were these 5, back-to-back, 3rd gear pulls immediately after switching maps or were they fully adapted already? Also could it be that the your timing advance graphs did not creep up because the DME already reached the optimal timing advance?

Your last statement can be true if we assume the DME doesn't advance until it either hits a maximum value or knocks.
The first 4 were fully adapted and the last one was after I lowered user torque.
Appreciate 0
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 AM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST