[csu87]

I'm not sold on that yet. Just by looking at the logs, they are clearly 2 different tunes.

But, to test it out, i have a jb4 g4 i can swap in to see if there is a difference. Will have to wait a couple days though.

[csu87]

Put in an e75-e80 blend. Not exactly sure how much e40 was left in the tank, and I didnt fill all the way up. Used the BMS e85 Flash and Map 7 again.

It has some more power than the BMS e85 + Map 7 runs, but not much more than the MHD e40 runs. However, with FBO, I feel that you will see a lot more power gains, as the turbos are basically working as hard as they can, but boost falls off rather quickly due to the restrictions in the stock system + high IATs in the upper RPM range. However, completely stock except for LPFP Stage 2 Kit, Chargepipe and Intake w/ NGK Plugs, it still made 20.5psi and 398whp/454wtq.

Here are the Dyno Graphs

All Maps (Sorry, had to reload VD and the dynos all swapped colors on me.)


All the BMS Backend Maps (Stock vs 91oct vs e40 vs e80)


e80 vs e40 maps


and the log from the run.
http://www.datazap.me/u/csu87/log-14...log=0&data=1-4


Also, if anyone is interested, I have all the CSV Files unfiltered and you can see 3rd to 4th shifts and recoveries and anything else you want to look at from the runs. Just PM me your email and I'll shoot them over.

[MHD Tuning]

Props to you for trying to make a fair comparison.

In my own opinion, you should compare MHD stg1 to the jb4 map 1, not 5. Or compare jb4 map 2-5 to MHD stage 2 - because of their respective "exhaust" requirement.

One thing that would be nice if you can add that, would be the stg1+fmic map results since you already own it (comes with stg1 map).

[MasterWang]

Thanks for the comparisons!
I pretty much have the exact same mods and my logs look different compared to yours. Your boost does fall pretty hard and timing is a lot lower. Do you have the latest jb4 firmware and backend flash?

My mods are JB4 G5 ISO, Intake, LPFP Stage 1, Chargepipe, NGK plugs, e85 backend flash, map 7.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by MHD Tuning

Props to you for trying to make a fair comparison.

In my own opinion, you should compare MHD stg1 to the jb4 map 1, not 5. Or compare jb4 map 2-5 to MHD stage 2 - because of their respective "exhaust" requirement.

One thing that would be nice if you can add that, would be the stg1+fmic map results since you already own it (comes with stg1 map).

Only reason I did it that way was because I know of lots of people with completely stock cars running Map 5 on the JB4. Where as with the MHD, Map 1 is noted as good for completely stock cars, and Map 2 is for cars with FMIC and Exhaust. My car has no FMIC or DPs and I didnt get a chance to install anything this weekend, and next weekend will have even less time.

I wouldnt mind doing a few runs on Map 2 without those, however, I just filled up with full e85 this afternoon after those latest runs and will drop down to an e40 blend for some more e40 map testing. Give me about a week, and I can do a Stage 2 Test. If you want to give me a discount on the Stage 2 map, that would be cool too since I am only going to use it for some testing.

[csu87]

Also, some updates.

I may have found a shop that will let me rent out their dyno for a decent price. The owner of the shop is out of town until after the holiday, but I was told he is a big BMW fan. If this happens, I will get actual dynos of the e40 blend maps, and probably be FBO by then and could spray meth as well.

[JC888]

What are your settings on VD? I'm trying to do some comparison and my numbers are unrealistic.

Current settings:
335xi Coupe Auto
Gear: 3
Tire ht: 25.25
Weight: 3801 + 145
Final Drive: 3.46
CF: 1.1
Smoothing: 3
Elevation: Sea level

My numbers on straight JB4 ISO G5 (no flash) map 5 e30: 428hp/545lbs/ft and Map 5_92 Oct (no flash): 377hp/407lb/ft. I know VD may not be completely accurate but I'm curious why my numbers are that off.

[csu87]

So many variables to consider when using virtual dyno. And without an actual dyno to compare it to and correct as needed, your going to be off.

First thing is have you weighed your car? 2nd is are you using a smooth straight flat road? Tires, correction factor... All need to be accounted for as well. Using my correction factor may not be right for you

[JC888]

Both runs were on the same road/tires. Weight was identical as well. I understand each car varies and I'm not looking for end game numbers but rather delta. Maybe I'm just not seeing 150 ft/lbs tq difference is plausible between the two maps when all else being equal.

[csu87]

Same exact spot? That is the key.

[JC888]

Yup, it was. I will log again as well. I'm just trying to get baseline prior to flash.

[MHD Tuning]

Originally Posted by csu87

If you want to give me a discount on the Stage 2 map, that would be cool too since I am only going to use it for some testing.

PMed. 100% discount to make up for the time you devoted to testing.

[Murf]

Awesome work, thank you for this comparison. Would love to see JB4 + Race backend map comparison on E40 or so.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by Murf

Awesome work, thank you for this comparison. Would love to see JB4 + Race backend map comparison on E40 or so.

Ill have to look into the Race Map some more but definitely doable.

More data coming soon. Been busy the last few days, but I have some slow time coming up.

[Murf]

Originally Posted by csu87

Ill have to look into the Race Map some more but definitely doable.

More data coming soon. Been busy the last few days, but I have some slow time coming up.

I only mention it because it is slotted between Pump and E85 in terms of power. Was a little surprised you jumped straight from Pump to the E85 map. But thank you

[csu87]

Originally Posted by Murf

I only mention it because it is slotted between Pump and E85 in terms of power. Was a little surprised you jumped straight from Pump to the E85 map. But thank you

Well I went from 91oct to an e40 blend. Ive always read for e40 to use the e85 backend and map 7.

for those that are curious, I have been running full e85 for a few days with no issues. I am running on a customized map 6 with the e85 backend that targets lower boost at higher rpms so I dont max out the HPFP. Not a ton of gains over the e40 or e80 logs i posted, but it is much easier to fill up with 100% e85 than mixing it with 91.

[csu87]

Some new maps and updates.

Been testing out the New MHD e40 v5 Map and have some results to share. Map will be available soon. Good gains over the previous map, 10whp/38wtq. Also noticing car is holding boost longer, and it boost higher; in the 19-20psi range. Obviously, with a FBO car, you will be able to hold boost longer into the RPMs and make more power. Driveability is similar to the v4 e40 map, just has more power later in the RPMs and more torque. Definitely a nice tune and Id recommend it if you are only interested in a flash tune.

Heres the Virtual Dyno.



Also, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I had been running 100% e85 for a few days. Power is up from e40 maps/blends, but not as much as I would have expected. Drives similar to the e40 v5 map, with similar power numbers, but the ease of just filling up with only e85 is the biggest selling point. However, boost does drop off a tad faster than the MHD map, and the power doesnt hold at the top end like the MHD map.

Heres that VD



Overall, I am very happy with both the results with the MHD/Wedge Maps and with the JB4 + Backends.

[Sgop335]

Good job csu.

On pg1, why is the stock boost log so choppy?

[csu87]

No idea. Guessing maybe i over boost, then it corrects, then over boost and so on.

[bnd]

Thank you for the comparison testing and time spent, you did a great job!

Couple things I've noticed as a previous JB4 G5 ISO owner is that although the 4/3 option on map 4 works, it was limiting my MHD maps which became clear after removing the JB4. Car feels stronger and smoother without the JB4 piggy backed. Also, typically Map 5 would need a couple adaption runs to auto tune... maybe consider Map 1 or 2 for future comparison and consistency?? Also, do you reset fuel(option 1/7)? Not that big of a deal, just thought I would throw these out in case it matters for future comparisons or paid dyno time.

IMO and based on my butt dyno, the E40 map is noticeably more powerful and smooth(linear throttle) compared to the BMS E85 flash running Map7. I ran both with E50 fuel.

Looking forward to V5 maps! Anyone know if there's an ethanol limit to using the E40 map and if Wedge incorporated the knock tables? Or would we need a custom E# map?

[csu87]

Originally Posted by bnd

Thank you for the comparison testing and time spent, you did a great job!

Couple things I've noticed as a previous JB4 G5 ISO owner is that although the 4/3 option on map 4 works, it was limiting my MHD maps which became clear after removing the JB4. Car feels stronger and smoother without the JB4 piggy backed. Also, typically Map 5 would need a couple adaption runs to auto tune... maybe consider Map 1 or 2 for future comparison and consistency?? Also, do you reset fuel(option 1/7)? Not that big of a deal, just thought I would throw these out in case it matters for future comparisons or paid dyno time.

IMO and based on my butt dyno, the E40 map is noticeably more powerful and smooth(linear throttle) compared to the BMS E85 flash running Map7. I ran both with E50 fuel.

Looking forward to V5 maps! Anyone know if there's an ethanol limit to using the E40 map and if Wedge incorporated the knock tables? Or would we need a custom E# map?

I made sure to get a few pulls with each map to allow proper adaptations.

The final e40 graph is with the JB4 removed as well. I didnt notice much difference in the before/after with the exact same map, and the logs are almost identical.

As far as E content, E40-E50 is acceptable for the e40 maps.

[Tiago@VRSF]

Nice comparison, very informative!