[OpenFlash]

This forum cracks me up sometimes

Jason-- Your AFRs are perfectly safe. The Map0 run tested on the dyno runs richer than a truly stock tune since the Procede is still physically installed and still applies the AFR target offset. If you ran the car without the Procede, you'd see the stock tune run considerably leaner than what is shown in your baseline (15-15.5:1 in the low end/midrange).

Forgive some of the lesser informed people on this forum who will try to convince you that your engine is suffering and on the verge of meltdown. I think they forget that you are only running 10-12psi down low, not the 16-18psi that some people are now running to make the same (or less) power. That said, the new maps run considerably richer down low than the old map you are running. But that was done mainly to satisfy those who, after 4 years, suddenly feel that running richer is mandatory.

Your dyno curve looks solid and smooth. Enjoy your car. I think those are the strongest Tune-Only results we've ever seen on this forum.

Shiv

[dzenno]

Actually Shiv you just cracked me up with that comment...just address his AFR targeting man, would ya? there's nothing here that's trying to spread BS about anything...i can't believe you just said he's fine with 14+ AFR down low and midrange...wow!

he's also on rev2

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by dzenno

Actually Shiv you just cracked me up with that comment...just address his AFR targeting man, would ya? there's nothing here that's trying to spread BS about anything...i can't believe you just said he's fine with 14+ AFR down low and midrange...wow!

he's also on rev2

Yes, running those AFR is fine down low and in the midrange when you are only running low to moderate boost in that range. I've been tuning these engines since 2007. And engines, in general, since 1999. You can call out as often and as vocally and as with as many "wows" as you want. The fact remains that this is how 99% of the tuned n54s have run since 2007. And they have done pretty well for themselves.

In the past few months, it's become popular to run considerably richer with considerably higher boost pressures. That is certainly a viable approach. But can you tell me what approach has a longer track record of success?

Funny how the OP is making nearly 370 with only a tune yet all you can do is tell him that is engine is about to blow up Are you really trying to be helpful or are you just trying to grind an axe?

shiv

[MKE_M3]

back on topic... props to the OP on the nice HP gains.

[dzenno]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Yes, running those AFR is fine down low and in the midrange when you are only running low to moderate boost in that range. I've been tuning these engines since 2007. And engines, in general, since 1999. You can call out as much as you want. The fact remains that this is how 99% of the tuned n54s have run since 2007.

In the past few months, some are running considerably richer with considerably higher boost pressures. Can you tell me what approach has a longer track record of success? Funny how OP is making nearly 370 with only a tune yet all you can do is tell him that is engine is about to blow up

shiv

That's not "all" I can tell him, read my first post again...i said great numbers but to pay attention to AFRs which is what really does need some attention..

your comment about 2007 and the number of N54s running this has no merit here as others and your most current AFR targeting don't target 14+ AFR but richer than 13...what's gotten into you man? You're now sounding like Terry when he was saying that JB3's boost control was fine as there were and still are many cars with engines holding up with that boost control...its not about whether engines are holding together, just help the guy run it safer, what's wrong with that

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by dzenno

That's not "all" I can tell him, read my first post again...i said great numbers but to pay attention to AFRs which is what really does need some attention..

your comment about 2007 and the number of N54s running this has no merit here as others and your most current AFR targeting don't target 14+ AFR but richer than 13...what's gotten into you man? You're now sounding like Terry when he was saying that JB3's boost control was fine as there were and still are many cars with engines holding up with that boost control...its not about whether engines are holding together, just help the guy run it safer, what's wrong with that

Stick a wideband, in a tailpipe, after 4 cats and tell me what you see. If you don't have the time to test this, I'll tell you. You'd see AFR reading considerably leaner than actual. Especially when exhaust flow is low (ie, low RPM). As exhaust flow increases, you will see less free air induced contamination. And an even bigger free air induced error if the wideband sniffer was located in the driver's side tailpipe which has the exhaust flapper closed at low RPM. But either way, you will always see a significant AFR error component caused by catalytic effects. So long story short, OP's actual AFRs are richer than what is logged by the dyno. Unless, of course, they mounted the wideband sensor in the downpipe, before the cats. Or unless his car is fully catless which I don't believe is the case.

Pretty basic stuff for those who are experienced with this topic. Hope that helps.

Shiv

[mithiral67]

10-12 psi down low, thats sounds lower boost than any procede I have ran or see on here.

[dzenno]

I'm actually quite experienced with it having mounted and run both of my external widebands Let's pretend this was screwed up and what you're saying is all correct, just how rich is he running up top then? It shows 12 up top...maybe there was a guy that half way through the pull pulled the sniffer quickly out of the driver's side tailpipe and switched it over to the passenger side LOL

flapper isn't closed at WOT and especially not at 4k rpm! why are we having this conversation honestly man, this just sucks seriously...

Jason, I don't think something is 100% there, I'm done discussing this...can't believe you Shiv

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by mithiral67

10-12 psi down low, thats sounds lower boost than any procede I have ran or see on here.

The old 12-17 maps did not target full boost until 5500rpm. And by 2500rpm, it was only targeting ~10psi of boost. Boost was rise linearly from that point onwards. Actual boost will depend on boost setting but that is easy enough to calculate by just looking at the 0% and 100% boost tables and the autotuned boost setting. Either way, they most certainly never ran anything close to the 16-18psi that some are running (in the low end/midrange) today, albeit with richer AFRs.

Shiv

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by dzenno

I'm actually quite experienced with it having mounted and run both of my external widebands Let's pretend this was screwed up and what you're saying is all correct, just how rich is he running up top then? It shows 12 up top...maybe there was a guy that half way through the pull pulled the sniffer quickly out of the driver's side tailpipe and switched it over to the passenger side LOL

flapper isn't closed at WOT and especially not at 4k rpm! why are we having this conversation honestly man, this just sucks seriously...

Jason, I don't think something is 100% there, I'm done discussing this...can't believe you Shiv

Dzenno- With all due respect, please dyno a car with a 100% stock exhaust and put the sniffer in the driver's side tailpipe. Then dyno again with it in the passenger side. Compare the AFR logs of the two runs and then tell me what you see. You will see a big AFR deviation down low, getting smaller throughout the midrange and only matching up at higher RPM, well above the switchover point of the exhaust flapper. Which suggests that air is actually coming in to the passenger side exhaust tip due to Ventury effect and only starts to flow out when exhaust backpressure exceeds the negative pressure generated by the Venturi.

I'm kinda done here too. But in the future, I'd suggest at least considering that you don't have all the piece to the puzzle. Your eagerness to jump headfirst into what shouldn't even be a debate is indicative of something with just enough knowledge to get him into trouble but not enough knowledge to get him out unscathed.

Shiv

[mithiral67]

Interesting, didnt realize it was so low on some maps. Mine autotuned to 15psi (thank 93 oct) down low on the v4 maps. Impressive power for such low boost.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by mithiral67

Interesting, didnt realize it was so low on some maps. Mine autotuned to 15psi (thank 93 oct) down low on the v4 maps. Impressive power for such low boost.

If you were seeing 15psi @ say 3000rpm, you were probably running 16-17psi at 5500rpm. Which is certainly possible with additional mods, 93oct and good ambient conditions. To be fair, we don't know what boost setting the OP is running. But since his car is stock and running on what is presume is pump gas, it can't be very high. Especially considering how nice the power curve looks (no torque drop outs caused by knock events/throttle closures).

shiv

[boom]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Stick a wideband, in a tailpipe, after 4 cats and tell me what you see. If you don't have the time to test this, I'll tell you. You'd see AFR reading considerably leaner than actual. Especially when exhaust flow is low (ie, low RPM). As exhaust flow increases, you will see less free air induced contamination. And an even bigger free air induced error if the wideband sniffer was located in the driver's side tailpipe which has the exhaust flapper closed at low RPM. But either way, you will always see a significant AFR error component caused by catalytic effects. So long story short, OP's actual AFRs are richer than what is logged by the dyno. Unless, of course, they mounted the wideband sensor in the downpipe, before the cats. Or unless his car is fully catless which I don't believe is the case.

Pretty basic stuff for those who are experienced with this topic. Hope that helps.

Shiv

This is complete crap. OP dyno'd with the same setup on stock vs procede 4 minutes apart. The procede run was MUCH too lean to be safe in any platform. You're argument here is bs. It's the exact same setup with the only difference being the tune. It's unsafe as hell and you should be ashamed for defending it (and spreading false confidence) and not jumping on the phone to help OP fix his CLEARLY improper AFR.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by boom

This is complete crap. OP dyno'd with the same setup on stock vs procede 4 minutes apart. The procede run was MUCH too lean to be safe in any platform. You're argument here is bs. It's the exact same setup with the only difference being the tune. It's unsafe as hell and you should be ashamed for defending it (and spreading false confidence) and not jumping on the phone to help OP fix his CLEARLY improper AFR.

Maybe you didn't understand. The baseline run isn't stock. It's Procede map0 which still runs richer than stock due to the AFR offset still being active. A truly stock tune would target a leaner AFR that either AFR traces shown on the OP's dyno sheet. I understand that you "feel" that his tuned run is unsafe. But keep in mind that these maps were not calibrated to satisfy your feelings. But rather for testable long-term results which have proven themselves for years.

I feel many things right now but ashamed is not one of them. I understand the need to be vocal about something you think is right. But, on the other side of the coin, that overwhelming need should be balanced with the acceptance of what you think to be right isn't always correct. Especially when the subject matter isn't your day job, let alone your particular area of expertise. There are many things in life that I don't even attempt to debate. What is the best kitchen sink cleaner? What is the best lint brush? What color pants go best with my sneakers? I'll have my opinions. But I will rarely yell "that's crap!" to those who know more than I on these subjects. Doesn't mean that my opinions are any less valid. But they are just opinions. Not facts which, by definition, are supported by evidence.

Shiv

[cwn23]

Either way I am glad the new offerings will be rich down low.

[boom]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Maybe you didn't understand. The baseline run isn't stock. It's Procede map0 which still runs richer than stock due to the AFR offset still being active. A truly stock tune would target a leaner AFR that either AFR traces shown on the OP's dyno sheet. I understand that you "feel" that his tuned run is unsafe. But keep in mind that these maps were not calibrated to satisfy your feelings. But rather for testable long-term results which have proven themselves for years.

I feel many things right now but ashamed is not one of them. I understand the need to be vocal about something you think is right. But, on the other side of the coin, that overwhelming need should be balanced with the acceptance of what you think to be right isn't always correct. Especially when the subject matter isn't your day job, let alone your particular area of expertise. There are many things in life that I don't even attempt to debate. What is the best kitchen sink cleaner? What is the best lint brush? What color pants go best with my sneakers? I'll have my opinions. But I will rarely yell "that's crap!" to those who know more than I on these subjects. Doesn't mean that my opinions are any less valid. But they are just opinions. Not facts which, by definition, are supported by evidence.

Shiv

Puhhleeaassse. Spare us the phsychobabble bullshit. The "stock" run is much richer than the "tuned" run at probably double the boost. The argument of "I've done this numerous times before" is a cop out deflection of the reality that running 15.5:1 at 150% stock boost is stupid risky and likely to cause harm.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by cwn23

Either way I am glad the new offerings will be rich down low.

The new Aggressive rev2.5/3 maps run considerably more boost down low and in the midrange (16-18psi instead of 11-13psi). They also run considerably lower timing targets (on pump gas). And with AFR in the mid to high 12s tapering down to high 11s by redline.

One really needs to look at the whole recipe instead of focusing on one single ingredient. Because, in reality, this recipe is substantially more "aggressive" than the old maps that run a bit more advance with far less boost with leaner low rpm AFRs. But it takes a bit of understanding to recognize this.

Originally Posted by boom

Puhhleeaassse. Spare us the phsychobabble bullshit. The "stock" run is much richer than the "tuned" run at probably double the boost. The argument of "I've done this numerous times before" is a cop out deflection of the reality that running 15.5:1 at 150% stock boost is stupid risky and likely to cause harm.

Case in point.

Shiv

[Syndicategt]

He's only about .15 leaner than stock at max pwer and running less lean the stock during most of the power band, I doubt this is a tune issue. I would expect to see AFR's, with your mods/settings, between 13-14.

Is it just me or did those 12-17 maps feel amazing with the power delivery?

[Keik E92 M3]

My money is on Shiv... I have not heard of any Procedes blowing up engines. Shiv knows what he is talking about.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by keikdasneak

My money is on Shiv... I have not heard of any Procedes blowing up engines. Shiv knows what he is talking about.

While I appreciate it, I wouldn't go that far There have been engine failures since 2007. Stock and tuned alike. Not nearly enough to be statistically significant (less than .01%?). And out of those 2-3 tuned failures that I know of, none of them were caused by low/mid RPM AFR targets. But rather by other factors that would have taken their toll, regardless of tune used.

[nitehawk]

This may be a n00b question but, what's wrong with taking AFR readings from the O2 sensors pre-downpipe?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by nitehawk

This may be a n00b question but, what's wrong with taking AFR readings from the O2 sensors pre-downpipe?

Nothing. Is where the DME takes it from after all. But in the case of piggybacks which adjust AFR targets by biasing the signal voltage, the readings won't be accurate unless they are compensated for. Also, a Dynojet has its own wideband o2 sensor unit that integrates with with their Dynojet computer. Importing AFR from 3rd party wideband sensors is very difficult due to logistics and sensor calibration differences.