[enrita]

Originally Posted by Puderzo

I'll second the opinion that the upgrade process has to become smoother.

I ordered the (free) 1.22 upgrade on the 20th of January, which cost me $28.01 USD for shipping to Finland. I'm just now receiving the upgrade chip by mail (sent out last Saturday by USPS according to Paypal), and it's taking its time getting here. When it does, it'll probably get caught in the customs, with me having to go down there and explain what it is and show them receipts and stuff, just to get it home, at which point I can start taking my car apart to exchange the chip (with odds being I manage to break it in the process ).

Ok, I know that's a bit pessimistic, but I'd still much rather just download something off a web site, plug in my laptop, and be done with it, all in half an hour, instead of this half-a-month long process.

if you are getting the chip only is not going through custom , you will just get it in the mail .
Sorry to say but if you like to upload maps through laptop why didnt you go with procede?

[dlbrooks18]

Originally Posted by Septro

I thought the turbo melter map was map 8 with FMIC, DCI, and DPs?

No, I think the turbo melter map is custom and even more powerful than map 8.. Mike?

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by dlbrooks18

No, I think the turbo melter map is custom and even more powerful than map 8.. Mike?

Exactly.. Its not onboard the current chip. Map 7/8 are race maps, with map 8 being a little more torquey down low..

Mike

[mmmotornutz]

Originally Posted by kenneth

Well, first both these are not "issues" as jb3 is making great power, just preferable to have perhaps. I know the official line is it does control timing, hasn't been verified. The torque targetting refers to throttle closures.

BTW, I am one for continued progress, so seeing both major tunes compete closely is a win for everyone!

Torque targetting is such a nifty phrase to prevent throttle closures. Regarding timing control, how come it is taking so long to be verified???

[Payroll]

perhaps I'm the only cheap bastard on this forum, but I think a high MPG map would be cool to have for long drives.

Agree with the other comments about smoothness - map 3 on 1.22 has all the power I need, but increased linearity and predictability would perfect it.

[enrita]

you should have got a diesel than kidding

[ezatnova]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Exactly.. Its not onboard the current chip. Map 7/8 are race maps, with map 8 being a little more torquey down low..

Mike

Hmm. You know more than I do about this, but, I could have sworn map 8 was LESS torque down low than 7. I thought it was a good race map for those on street tires...easier to get traction and get going.

[enrita]

Originally Posted by ezatnova

Hmm. You know more than I do about this, but, I could have sworn map 8 was LESS torque down low than 7. I thought it was a good race map for those on street tires...easier to get traction and get going.

yeah thats what i have been reading too, map 8 less torque down low but more power up .

[ezatnova]

To get back on topic from my mild OT, I would recommend two things for 1.3, one of which was mentioned above:

- visual confirmation of chosen map via an indicator already in the car. Just as an example, the blue high beam light indicator could flash the appropriate amount of times after the map was changed and the car was started.

- different maps for 91 and 93 octane users. More powerful maps for those who can get 93 every time.

- flashy silver metal case for the JB unit, instead of the black plastic one.

[Prince ///M]

In my opinion the worst thing about Jb3 is the "laziness" you feel when used at partial throttle. I'm not talking about no-boost/boost transition, but of an "heavy" behaviour very noticeable respect to stock tune.

In fact I think that due to the lack of direct timing management, the ECU set itself on a "low-spark advance mode" not only at high engine loads, but on the whole boost-rpm timing table.

The timing retard introduced by Procede is still insufficient in order to avoid knocking at high boost levels (13-14psi)... 2 deg are almost negligible in this regard, but the possibility to re-introduce 4deg while cruising is in part able to return values near to stock.
In addition 2 deg less in full boost are always better than 2 more...

Doing basic math (that does not apply to the specific case but can help to understand) 6deg (2+4) of total timing control actuated on most cases by V3 lead to a more efficient engine in low speed cruise mode.

On my Jb3 in fact I also noticed a fuel consumption increase (10%) also in stabilized conditions (60-70mph) mainly due (IMHO) to sub-optimal timing curve... i can not find other explaination to the facts.

P.S.
I tested several times (with 200miles adaptation time each) jb3 map4 / stock always with the same subjective (feeling) and objective (mpg) results.

[Prince ///M]

Conclusion:

PLEASE, ADD SOME FUCK.ING REAL SPARK ADVANCE CONTROL IN 1.3!

V3 implementation is still flawed (the best you can achieve with piggyback), but better than nothing... waiting for some .81reliable reflash here in Italy.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by enrita

yeah thats what i have been reading too, map 8 less torque down low but more power up .

Sorry, Map 8 is the low torque race map.. meant to say less torquey down low...

Mike

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

In my opinion the worst thing about Jb3 is the "laziness" you feel when used at partial throttle. I'm not talking about no-boost/boost transition, but of an "heavy" behaviour very noticeable respect to stock tune.

In fact I think that due to the lack of direct timing management, the ECU set itself on a "low-spark advance mode" not only at high engine loads, but on the whole boost-rpm timing table.

The timing retard introduced by Procede is still insufficient in order to avoid knocking at high boost levels (13-14psi)... 2 deg are almost negligible in this regard, but the possibility to re-introduce 4deg while cruising is in part able to return values near to stock.
In addition 2 deg less in full boost are always better than 2 more...

Doing basic math (that does not apply to the specific case but can help to understand) 6deg (2+4) of total timing control actuated on most cases by V3 lead to a more efficient engine in low speed cruise mode.

On my Jb3 in fact I also noticed a fuel consumption increase (10%) also in stabilized conditions (60-70mph) mainly due (IMHO) to sub-optimal timing curve... i can not find other explaination to the facts.

P.S.
I tested several times (with 200miles adaptation time each) jb3 map4 / stock always with the same subjective (feeling) and objective (mpg) results.

The adaptive timing system is setup by load, so changes under boost for example should not impact vacuum timing. With map 4 there is nothing that should impact economy (positive or negative) during a steady state cruise @ say 60-70mph. Tell me a little more about the test? If you set the cruise control at 70mph with map 0 for 10 miles, and then on a similarly level road do the same with map 4, the average should be identical I think?

Mike

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

In my opinion the worst thing about Jb3 is the "laziness" you feel when used at partial throttle. I'm not talking about no-boost/boost transition, but of an "heavy" behaviour very noticeable respect to stock tune.

In fact I think that due to the lack of direct timing management, the ECU set itself on a "low-spark advance mode" not only at high engine loads, but on the whole boost-rpm timing table.

The timing retard introduced by Procede is still insufficient in order to avoid knocking at high boost levels (13-14psi)... 2 deg are almost negligible in this regard, but the possibility to re-introduce 4deg while cruising is in part able to return values near to stock.
In addition 2 deg less in full boost are always better than 2 more...

Doing basic math (that does not apply to the specific case but can help to understand) 6deg (2+4) of total timing control actuated on most cases by V3 lead to a more efficient engine in low speed cruise mode.

On my Jb3 in fact I also noticed a fuel consumption increase (10%) also in stabilized conditions (60-70mph) mainly due (IMHO) to sub-optimal timing curve... i can not find other explaination to the facts.

P.S.
I tested several times (with 200miles adaptation time each) jb3 map4 / stock always with the same subjective (feeling) and objective (mpg) results.

I agree with everything you say except the bit about the PROcede. I think you are operating on inaccurate info as far as that is concerned.

All the current maps retard anywhere from 2-6 degrees of timing (not 2 deg) depending on boost and IAT. Most users, in moderate conditions, will see about 3-4 degrees of timing retard under max boost. And most of that will be at higher engine speeds.

Doesn't sound like much until you realize that the factory DME mapping is 2-3 degrees under-advanced under boost (and even more so off-boost/in vacuum). Ie, we can add 2-3 deg of timing under boost with other stock boost/fuel maps and not induce any knock retard activity.

On the other end of the spectrum, we pull out 6-7 degrees of timing on Porsche 996 turbos by simply going from a peak boost of 0.7-.8bar to 1-1.1 bar. And most of that is in the midrange.

You obviously "get it" but I think you were just missing a couple of factoids

Shiv

[enrita]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

Conclusion:

PLEASE, ADD SOME FUCK.ING REAL SPARK ADVANCE CONTROL IN 1.3!

V3 implementation is still flawed (the best you can achieve with piggyback), but better than nothing... waiting for some .81reliable reflash here in Italy.

all assumptions on your side . Calmati! :-) Check the ESS flash .

[Prince ///M]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The adaptive timing [HTML]
system is setup by load, so changes under boost for example should not impact vacuum timing. With map 4 there is nothing that should impact economy (positive or negative) during a steady state cruise @ say 60-70mph. Tell me a little more about the test? If you set the cruise control at 70mph with map 0 for 10 miles, and then on a similarly level road do the same with map 4, the average should be identical I think?

Mike

Mike, I know that intercepted signals are not manipulated by Jb3 below stock boost values, but in my opinion (sadly I can not log timing... and it seems to me that no one still can do it in a reliable way) once adapted to higher boost values, something changes also to the lower part of ignition map.

Fuel consumption is measured on 10 miles of flat road at steady speed (no cruise) by reset of trip computer.

[Prince ///M]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I agree with everything you say except the bit about the PROcede. I think you are operating on inaccurate info as far as that is concerned.

All the current maps retard anywhere from 2-6 degrees of timing (not 2 deg) depending on boost and IAT. Most users, in moderate conditions, will see about 3-4 degrees of timing retard under max boost. And most of that will be at higher engine speeds.

Doesn't sound like much until you realize that the factory DME mapping is 2-3 degrees under-advanced under boost (and even more so off-boost/in vacuum). Ie, we can add 2-3 deg of timing under boost with other stock boost/fuel maps and not induce any knock retard activity.

On the other end of the spectrum, we pull out 6-7 degrees of timing on Porsche 996 turbos by simply going from a peak boost of 0.7-.8bar to 1-1.1 bar. And most of that is in the midrange.

You obviously "get it" but I think you were just missing a couple of factoids

Shiv

Dear Shiv,
my factoid are based on logs some Proecde owner posted in another thread... so they seems to me "facts" .

If you say that V3 can reterd more than 4 deg, good, I'm glad to hear that and I will test it on MY Procede as soon as I receive it .

Bye.

P.S.
BTW my concern is not related to HOW MUCH the hardware can shift CPS signal (for sure more than needed ), but how much it is SAFE to lose coherence between real and "fake" crank position... and, moreover, if the "safe" value is still sufficient. In this regard, and you can not say otherwise, a flash tune is a better option (with obvious drawbacks...).

[Mr. 5]

I'm excited about the 1.3 version.
Woohoo!

[Septro]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

Dear Shiv,
my factoid are based on logs some Proecde owner posted in another thread... so they seems to me "facts" .

If you say that V3 can reterd more than 4 deg, good, I'm glad to hear that and I will test it on MY Procede as soon as I receive it .

Bye.

Do you type as angry as you sound? If so, I hate to be the keys on your keyboard.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

Dear Shiv,
my factoid are based on logs YOU posted in another thread... so they seems to me "facts" .

If you say that the Procede can reterd more than 4 deg in, good, I'm glad to hear that and I will test it on MY Procede V3 as soon as I receive it .

Bye.

Yes, but as mentioned in the post, they were taken on my full stage 3 set up, in cold weather, (with helix FMIC) and showed virtually no increase in IAT during a run. Not really typical as you will probably see with your own datalogging when you get the PROcede. Have fun!

[Prince ///M]

Originally Posted by Septro

Do you type as angry as you sound? If so, I hate to be the keys on your keyboard.

Nope... maybe some statements that in italian are "ironic" (see the smiles), translate in "anger" because of my bad english.

[1clean335i]

cant wait