[btrav1226]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Scalbert, the difference of over 10 mpg is not possible with slight fuel changes and timing advances. I wonder how that gauge is calculating mpg. Can someone try their setup run in bypass mode and then in their favorite map for a full tank to see if there are real mpg differences. I almost cannot conceive a way that you will end up getting better mpg per tank. This came up on numerous other cars I owned and it was found that the MPG on the gauge with aftermarket tunes were grossly in error.

i am in the process of doing this right now. i will report back in a few days. i drive the exact same route to work and home everyday with all back roads no highway. right now my gauge is reading 23.2mpg average as opposed to stock which was 20.4mpg. i filled up yesterday and want to run about 100 miles or so and do out the math to see if the computer is still accurate. will report back soon

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by branabolic

i am in the process of doing this right now. i will report back in a few days. i drive the exact same route to work and home everyday with all back roads no highway. right now my gauge is reading 23.2mpg average as opposed to stock which was 20.4mpg. i filled up yesterday and want to run about 100 miles or so and do out the math to see if the computer is still accurate. will report back soon

That will be interesting. I will look for the post.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Scalbert, the difference of over 10 mpg is not possible with slight fuel changes and timing advances. I wonder how that gauge is calculating mpg. Can someone try their setup run in bypass mode and then in their favorite map for a full tank to see if there are real mpg differences. I almost cannot conceive a way that you will end up getting better mpg per tank. This came up on numerous other cars I owned and it was found that the MPG on the gauge with aftermarket tunes were grossly in error.

The difference is not 10mpg. All things equal, we've seen an improvement of 10% during conservative driving. And 15% during strict no-boost cruising on the highway.

There's a pretty big dip in the factory timing curve just above 8" of vacuum that no doubt a compromise to tailpipe emissions. With that fixed, and the engine being tuned the way it wants to be tuned, the engine just feels "right" and the fuel economy improvements show this.

The on-board computer reads as accurately as it does with the stock tune just as long as TPS is below 50% at which FP starts to rise. But even then, the FP doesn't rise much until engine speed is above 4500rpm.

Kelvin- Thanks for the unbiased review. And thanks for taking the time to document your findings in a way that shouldn't get anyone riled up. We should all be happy that there is more than 1 choice of tunes. If there wasn't, I can say for sure that our tune may not have been as developed as it is

Shiv

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

The difference is not 10mpg. All things equal, we've seen an improvement of 10% during conservative driving. And 15% during strict no-boost cruising on the highway.

There's a pretty big dip in the factory timing curve just above 8" of vacuum that no doubt a compromise to tailpipe emissions. With that fixed, and the engine being tuned the way it wants to be tuned, the engine just feels "right" and the fuel economy improvements show this.

The on-board computer reads as accurately as it does with the stock tune just as long as TPS is below 50% at which FP starts to rise. But even then, the FP doesn't rise much until engine speed is above 4500rpm.

Kelvin- Thanks for the unbiased review. And thanks for taking the time to document your findings in a way that shouldn't get anyone riled up. We should all be happy that there is more than 1 choice of tunes. If there wasn't, I can say for sure that our tune may not have been as developed as it is

Shiv

Shiv, thanks for the info. 10% sounds much more reasonable.

[Makushr1]

Excellent review. Much thanks.

[Ilma]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Scalbert, the difference of over 10 mpg is not possible with slight fuel changes and timing advances. I wonder how that gauge is calculating mpg. Can someone try their setup run in bypass mode and then in their favorite map for a full tank to see if there are real mpg differences. I almost cannot conceive a way that you will end up getting better mpg per tank. This came up on numerous other cars I owned and it was found that the MPG on the gauge with aftermarket tunes were grossly in error.

Difference of 10 mpg????

Huh - where?

When I drive my JB3 on the highway and cruise at 65-70 mph my calculated mileage is around 30 mpg if I don't dip into the throttle.

It's a difference of 10% not 10 mpg by the looks of it.


edit: I see that has already been determined - sorry for the repost.

[munters]

Originally Posted by Ilma

Difference of 10 mpg????

Huh - where?

When I drive my JB3 on the highway and cruise at 65-70 mph my calculated mileage is around 30 mpg if I don't dip into the throttle.

It's a difference of 10% not 10 mpg by the looks of it.


edit: I see that has already been determined - sorry for the repost.

Having 10% or not having 10% is already 20%

[GAaaAR]

Dyno the JB3 with DCI so its more apples to apples. Great review BTW!

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Shiv, thanks for the info. 10% sounds much more reasonable.

I think that is what Kelvin was reporting. And his numbers seem right on target. I've actually seen as high as 40-45mpg when cruising at 55mph in 6th gear. But who really cruises on the highway at that speed these days besides your grandparents.

Shiv

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

Shiv, thanks for the info. 10% sounds much more reasonable.

Has anyone asked why BMW wouldn't incorporate these fuel & timing changes themselves if a 15% @ steady-state cruise gain were to be had? Are emissions the ONLY reason?

[Kelvin1000]

Originally Posted by Sniz

good review! Glad you are finally happy w your tune after your Dinan issues. Enjoy!

one question, those dyno's you posted, are those from the same shop? I'm assuming you dont have a baseline, but next time you go back there to dyno try running a baseline w/ the Procede....valet mode or whatever would be the most "stock" in HP.

I tried to re-dyno at the new shop with the JB3 but I ran into a problem and could not do so yesterday. I will go back to the same dyno and try the JB3 again out now that I have DCIs installed. Hopefully I can also try the Procede Stage 2.

As I stated before, the opening post will be updated with any new information to keep things organized.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

Has anyone asked why BMW wouldn't incorporate these fuel & timing changes themselves if a 15% @ steady-state cruise gain were to be had? Are emissions the ONLY reason?

I don't think anyone outside of the BMW motor division can answer that with 100% authority, but that is usually the case. Emissions compliance is the final determinator of the efi calibration that makes it into production. Having less-than-idea fuel economy wont prevent a car from being sell-able. But emissions non-compliance certainly will. This isn't unique to BMW either. Almost every other turbo car can see significant power AND fuel economy gains by remapping fuel/timing. We are seeing the same 10-15% mpg improvements with our Evo X flash as well. Nothing out-of-the-ordinary. Just need a minimal amount of hardware and good software in order to carry this out with a piggyback.

Shiv

[Sniz]

Originally Posted by Kelvin1000

I tried to re-dyno at the new shop with the JB3 but I ran into a problem and could not do so yesterday. I will go back to the same dyno and try the JB3 again out now that I have DCIs installed. Hopefully I can also try the Procede Stage 2.

As I stated before, the opening post will be updated with any new information to keep things organized.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I don't think anyone outside of the BMW motor division can answer that with 100% authority, but that is usually the case. Emissions compliance is the final determinator of the efi calibration that makes it into production. Having less-than-idea fuel economy wont prevent a car from being sell-able. But emissions non-compliance certainly will. This isn't unique to BMW either. Almost every other turbo car can see significant power AND fuel economy gains by remapping fuel/timing. We are seeing the same 10-15% mpg improvements with our Evo X flash as well. Nothing out-of-the-ordinary. Just need a minimal amount of hardware and good software in order to carry this out with a piggyback.

Shiv

Reasonable answer. Main reason I asked is that when you emit more NOx, your cylinder temperatures typically go up. I would be curious by how much, and if this would have any impact on emissions components downstream.

[Sniz]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

Reasonable answer. Main reason I asked is that when you emit more NOx, your cylinder temperatures typically go up. I would be curious by how much, and if this would have any impact on emissions components downstream.

can't imagine its that big of a difference.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

Reasonable answer. Main reason I asked is that when you emit more NOx, your cylinder temperatures typically go up. I would be curious by how much, and if this would have any impact on emissions components downstream.

You can estimate relative cylinder temp by monitoring EGTs. And they are several hundred degrees cooling during this cruise condition than they are under high rpm load. So despite being sustained, I think it's pretty safe to say that there is no measurable impact on engine safety or actual emissions hardware integrity. The only thing that should be compromised is the amount of post-catalyst NOx emissions. But you should also see lower hydrocarbon emissions with the more complete burn and improved thermal efficiency. But the factory calibration was already compliant on that front.

Shiv

[Proper Motion LLC]

6at or 6mt?

[Kelvin1000]

Originally Posted by 335iAW

So different dynos, and one was done with a DCI and the other wasnt? Go ahead and throw that part of the comparision out the window.

Good review for the driving perspective though. Congrats on finding the tune that you like best.

This will be corrected soon enough...

[bubbletea 4 me]

great reviews. i'm trying to get a more apple to apple comparison (transmission, mod, etc.) myself as well, but from my very brief experience with the V3, it's inline with how you feel between the tunes.

kudos

[Xander]

Originally Posted by 335iAW

So different dynos, and one was done with a DCI and the other wasnt? Go ahead and throw that part of the comparision out the window.

Good review for the driving perspective though. Congrats on finding the tune that you like best.

Dual cone intakes are worth how much horsepower?

I am looking at doing some "real world" testing on a "closed section" of road over the next few days same cars, one with the Procede, One with the Juice box. In fact we might throw a car with the older V2 Procede in the mix too.

X...

[sflgator]

Very nice, honest, and detailed review, Kelvin1000!!!! Glad you're enjoying it. Check...add another convert over to v3.2.

[Xander]

Originally Posted by 335iAW

DCI is probably worth 10rwhp with tunes that take advantage of it.

The only was a DCI would not be worth any power on the dyno is if you dyno with the stock airbox lid off.

That's about what I figured. Thanks

X...