[scheherazade]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I guess the marketing campaign continues. The JB3 runs much less timing than stock and timing is proportionally reduced as a function of increased boost as all BT logs have shown. You keep trying to hitch your wagon on to Sevak's horse but he's running methanol injection at 18+psi almost no taper with full advance. Just like your meth customers. If he knocked it was because he didn't have enough meth at some point and allowed the ECU to encounter full boost and full advance with insufficient pump gas. Likely given the misuse of the safety system. If someone misconfigured your safety they would have the same problem.

Mike

Mike, unless Sevak told you/Terry something he didn't tell us, it's probably best that you not fan your own fire.
Let it go.

If you feel like JB3 timing/safety control is insufficiently understood/advertised, then make a good "get to know our products" page with nice graphs and explanations, and introduce it to the forum as a whole.

It's been 25 pages... This isn't an argument anyone can win.

-scheherazade

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Mike, unless Sevak told you/Terry something he didn't tell us, it's probably best that you not fan your own fire.
Let it go.

If you feel like JB3 timing/safety control is insufficiently understood/advertised, then make a good "get to know our products" page with nice graphs and explanations, and introduce it to the forum as a whole.

It's been 25 pages... This isn't an argument anyone can win.

-scheherazade

Sevak said himself in his post it has been fine for a long time, that he recently raised the boost by removing the already aggressive 18ohm hardware safety for a 12 ohm safety, did not raise the meth safety minimum for the new boost levels, and sometimes would turn the safety off. What else is there to need to know? 18psi+full advance+low octane is the recipe for disaster and the only way to get full advance at that boost level is with meth coming on enough to silence the knock threshold system but then suddenly not flowing at the start of the next run or cutting off during a run.

Mike

[scheherazade]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

What else is there to need to know?
Mike

Raising the "safety minimum" would only matter if the "raised safety minimum" would have been violated.

Q) Was the meth flow low enough to trip what would have been the "raised safety minimum?"



(Or are you trying to say that he raised boost and did not increase meth flow at all?)



Disabling the safety would only have mattered if there was a meth flow stoppage/shortfall.

Q) Was there a meth flow stoppage/shortfall?




My impression from reading Sevak's post was that he doesn't know if there were any issues at all with the meth flow.
All he told us is that the safety wasn't configured properly.

A stock-turbo upper-extreme-boost car broke. Ok.
At this stage, anything could have happened.


If you want to play the presumptions game, then you all can have at it for 100 more pages.
Anyways, your call.

-scheherazade

[TheTwinz]

This is very similar to overclocking your computer to run at a higher speed or using a higher multiplier or unlocking extra cores on your CPU.

CPUs are shipped with a set multiplier and set speed (FSB). Some CPUs even have cores turned off to sell at a cheaper price. For those that overclock your CPUs, do you blame the motherboard manufacturers for including options in the BIOS to allow you to overclock? Overclocking could fry your cpu and damage all the other internal parts without proper cooling or air flow, but some people still do it knowing there could be a failure or constant reboots or glitches/graphic problems.

I don't ever hear motherboard or CPU manufacturers being blamed for what the end-user decides to do when they overclock it.

[techlogik]

Originally Posted by Sevak

Here is my short story. I have been running Stage3 with meth 17psi to
14psi at redline with 18 ohm mod for some time now without problems
and the car was running strong. I wanted some more power so I
installed 12 ohms to increase boost up a little a month ago and it has
been around 18-18,5psi but holding that until 6500rpm.

I have a Coolingmist meth kit with M8 nozzle and 95% meth with a flow
safety system but when logging I turn the safety off. Also I recently
learned I had the safety setup too weak with only 150ml/min safety
when it should be four times that for these higher boost levels I run
now. But I dont thinkt this is the problem.
Also I have nerver log timing.

My problem was noticed when I started the car one morning and it ran
rough. Like small vibrations during idle.
I thought bad injector or coil. Next morning was same thing. I drove it
and the car started to shake. I saw smoke come from the enginge so I
stopped and opend the hood. Oil had come out from the oilcap and the car didnt
go on all cylinders. So I took it to the dealer and
they said there was oil on #6 plug and probably small crack in a
piston. They tid a compresion test and on cylinder 6 it was zero.
If I could go back I would not change to 12 ohm and run CM10 nozzle and monitor
timing but who knows when the damage happened, what is broken, or what really caused it.
Maybe that piston was weak all along with a small crack and got worse over time.

BMS has been kind to me whit support and everything. Im the one wanted the car faster.
I think if you dont want to break anything run stage3 max boost 16 psi and 13,5 at redline.
If you run meth you must have a failsafe and max boost 17 psi and 14.5 at redline.

Also BMW limits power much lower for a reason so who knows
how long it will last even if everything is done perfectly.

I will be fixing car and have other things going on so won't be back
to the forums.

Moderators close this thread ASAP.

He speaks.

[Terrance28]

Originally Posted by scheherazade

For an evo/sti, anything over 400 whp and you'd only be 'safe' with new pistons/rods.
Not just for the compression reduction.
I've seen engines in the ~500 whp range on stock internals, and they *eventually* threw a rod or cracked a land.
Sometimes 6 months, sometimes a year, sometimes less.
It didn't happen due to ping.
It was too much power on stock internals, and something eventually broke.


You can't blame anything on ping without looking at the piston and finding the signs.
For all we know this guy had a poorly manufactured piston and it came to bare after he ran a tune.
God knows we have people with leaky blocks, what else could be poor from time to time...

Until you do look at the insides, just chill.
You're using fear to run a propaganda campaign with this failure against BMS.
Anyone could have suffered this failure - one of YOUR customers could have had a 'relatively poor' piston, and could have broken - then what? Is Procede crap?
It's dirty to use it against your competitor.
Especially with THOUSANDS of cars running tuned, and this particular car being ran to the extreme, you're blowing this way out of the water.

Like everyone else, YOU should wait to pass judgment until you have something to judge.
Who knows, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.
If you don't know, you shouldn't speak.

I wouldn't have a single issue with you saying everything you're saying, if you had some data to back it up.
Pictures of this car's internals, logs of this car, etc.
But you don't. No one does.

Frankly, no one can say that the meth ever stopped. *Maybe* it worked fine the entire time...

Let's all keep in mind that <almost> 20 PSI all the way to redline is not the typical tune.
This is <almost> 2.5 times the normal pressure (+plenty of heat).
This *could possibly* be a much more common story - all around - if <almost> 20 psi were common.
We just don't know.

For that matter, there are a few (very few) cars running BMS tunes with more aggressive setups - and they're still in one piece - and have been for longer.
That alone speaks to uncertainty from one car to another.

-scheherazade

WOW +1 You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Raising the "safety minimum" would only matter if the "raised safety minimum" would have been violated.

Q) Was the meth flow low enough to trip what would have been the "raised safety minimum?"



(Or are you trying to say that he raised boost and did not increase meth flow at all?)



Disabling the safety would only have mattered if there was a meth flow stoppage/shortfall.

Q) Was there a meth flow stoppage/shortfall?




My impression from reading Sevak's post was that he doesn't know if there were any issues at all with the meth flow.
All he told us is that the safety wasn't configured properly.

A stock-turbo upper-extreme-boost car broke. Ok.
At this stage, anything could have happened.


If you want to play the presumptions game, then you all can have at it for 100 more pages.
Anyways, your call.

-scheherazade

According to his post he said minimum flow trigger point was set to 150ml/min. This means JB3 will allow the full boost once 150ml/min has been achieved in terms of meth flow. This would need to be 800-900ml/min to sustain 18-19psi full advance without knock. This alone will allow knock on spool up even if the meth system is working perfectly. Interesting how when you have the facts you can normally spot the problem without all the drama.

Mike

[ar design]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I'll say it again for those who havent gotten it get. The only thing that is certain here is the DME tries to target 10-13 deg of timing with a jb3. Regardless of how much or how little boost it is adding. 10-13 deg of timing is mapped by BMW to support 5-8psi of boost. With the power kit, BMW increases boost by approx 2-3psi. And with that small change, they reduce the timing target 2 degrees in the midrange. Just as basic engine theory would suggest.

By contrast, A JB3 increases boost by 6-12 psi and doesnt actively induce any change in timing advance target. Too much timing is the cause of knock. Knock is the cause of piston damage. You do the math.

Or if you feel comfortable with blaming things on a bad block or defective piston, that's cool too.

He also could have lost an injector..... In which case, all the tuning in the world can't really do much can it?

[dzenno]

How many of you in North America have access to air strips where you can run your cars under full boost for close to 60 seconds at a time...in Canada I know we don't, pretty sure not many do in US either...seems like in this part of Sweden where Sevak and enrita are from they do and they go there quite often...

in any case even this is just adding to the whole "assumption" phenomenon and given that there are too many "maybe"s in this thread about what really caused the failure other than he ran pump+meth at 18-20psi to red line for extended periods of time (not 11-12 seconds like at the strip) with the meth safety disabled often times...

in the end, and he even said it himself, he did enough "wrong" and highly unrecommended things with his tune that the blame here is totally with him...i don't blame the tuner or the tune at all...if I ran 20psi to redline with the procede and asked shiv for that map and I poured pump gas without a meth safety in place and my engine blew while doing multiple long-running pulls (around 60secs at a time) somewhere I don't think I or anyone else should be blaming my tune/tuner for that...ESPECIALLY if I was told about the risks and I'm sure he was...

it wasn't his tuner that was negligent, it was HIM who was negligent in not having the recommended safeties including the most important: race gas

...oh, and yeah I know I keep repeating myself as a broken record when I say this, marketing is diiiiirttttyyyy don't expect this to play out nice...they are competition and what do you do when you have competition? You try to WIN! I'm not saying shiv or anyone here has valid/invalid points...just trying to remind everyone about marketing 101: be dirty!

peace!

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by ar design

He also could have lost an injector..... In which case, all the tuning in the world can't really do much can it?

So it's not the absolutely ridiculous tuning approach that no legitimate engine tuner would ever adopt or recommend. But rather a failed injector?

When StartupJunkie's AR brake line split on him at the end of a 125mph 1/4 mile pass, neither of us were quick to blame anyone. Because we both knew that no one intentionally design an faulty brake line. It was just a fluke. And sh%t happens. We were just happy no one got hurt. And it didn't stop either of us from ordering more lines from you.

But in the case of the JB3, you have a completely inadequate tune. One that is promoted to be a "max power" tune capable of supporting methanol and (gasp) nitrous. Yet it simply ignores 1 out of 3 ingredients that even the most basic tunes should have. That, my friend, is marketing. Not the stuff I'm saying. Everything I'm saying here is supported by basic engine theory.

I know BMS sells your parts but you can't honestly tell me that simply raising boost on a turbo engine will no regard for output (AFR, ignition timing, engine temp, etc,) is anything close to a sound approach. Does it work well enough for most people who have never tried a proper tune? Yes sure. But that doesn't make it any less incomplete than it is. Because engines will fail. Sure it may take some rough operating conditions as enrita and sevak have shown. But even their failures can be avoided by using a tune that conformed to basic tuning principles that even the most n00bish tuner learns at this first day on the job.

Shiv

[onesuperboi]

Isn't kinda retarded that in order to log timing on the JB3, you have to disable the fail safes?

So, what happens if a customer were disable their fail safes to log their timing during a high boost run and the motor blows? Is it the customer's fault?

[TakeOne]

Originally Posted by onesuperboi

Isn't kinda retarded that in order to log timing on the JB3, you have to disable the fail safes?

So, what happens if a customer were disable their fail safes to log their timing during a high boost run and the motor blows? Is it the customer's fault?

I think YOU disabled your fail safes when you posted this^

[TheTwinz]

We stlil dont know if this happened suddenly or if it happened gradually... This could happen soon enough to everyone running a tune/ at high boost. Sevak just pushed his harder and in a shorter amount of time. All of this could be happening slower and gradually to everyone elses car. Only time will tell.

[scheherazade]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

... you can't honestly tell me that simply raising boost on a turbo engine will [with?] no regard for output (AFR, ignition timing, engine temp, etc,)
...
Shiv

You exaggerate BMS' inadequacies.
There has to be some regard for those things for the product to even work.
The attention to these items is not executed in the way you believe it needs to be, which does not mean that it is definitively lacking to get the job done 'well enough'.

Keep in mind that saying that X product is not good enough is a slippery slope.

Flash tuners can say that your piggy is not good enough.

Then what, Motec shows up and says that you're all inadequate?
Starts pushing a replacement ECU that's both flashable and more powerful than stock?

'Good enough' is 'good enough' when it's 'good enough'.

If you have any proof that this is fundamentally, and unquestionably, a JB3 failure - then present it.

-scheherazade

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by scheherazade

You exaggerate BMS' inadequacies.
There has to be some regard for those things for the product to even work.
The attention to these items is not executed in the way you believe it needs to be, which does not mean that it is definitively lacking to get the job done 'well enough'.

The attention to those items is zero. Zilch. Nada. In other words, there is absolutely no AFR, timing/knock or engine temp data being read/monitored by the JB3. This is not opinion. This is fact. There is nothing "well enough" about this.

[Ilma]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I guess the marketing campaign continues. The JB3 runs much less timing than stock and timing is proportionally reduced as a function of increased knock as all BT logs have shown.

Seems like a more accurate representation.........

By what method otherwise?

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by onesuperboi

Isn't kinda retarded that in order to log timing on the JB3, you have to disable the fail safes?

So, what happens if a customer were disable their fail safes to log their timing during a high boost run and the motor blows? Is it the customer's fault?

Uh, why would you have or want to disable your failsafes when logging???

Mike

[onesuperboi]

Uh, why would you have or want to disable your failsafes when logging???

Mike

Oops. I'm sorry. I misread it:

"I have a Coolingmist meth kit with M8 nozzle and 95% meth with a flow
safety system but when logging I turn the safety off. "

I don't know why he disabled the fail safe of the meth kit while logging...

[AlterZgo]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I guess the marketing campaign continues. The JB3 runs much less timing than stock and timing is proportionally reduced as a function of increased boost as all BT logs have shown.
Mike

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

The attention to those items is zero. Zilch. Nada. In other words, there is absolutely no AFR, timing/knock or engine temp data being read/monitored by the JB3. This is not opinion. This is fact. There is nothing "well enough" about this.

On the surface, these statements seem contradictory. As a person interested in purchasing a flash or a piggyback unit, I would appreciate a technical explanation.

According to Mike/Terry, the JB3 runs much less timing and it is readily apparent in the BT logs. Yet Shiv indicates the JB3 does not monitor of A/F ratios, timing/knock, engine temps, etc.

Shiv and/or Mike/Terry - Please answer the following to help me make a purchase decision:

1. Even if the JB3 does not monitor those critical functions, doe the JB3 still pull timing? If so, does it do this purely based on the level of boost? If it doesn't pull timing based on boost, what is used to calculate the amount of timing retard to apply?

2. Shiv - Assuming the JB3 is pulling timing dependant on boost, while not as sophisticated as what your auto tune is doing, in your opinion, is this still a reasonable approach (assuming people are not pushing their cars to the ragged edge)? If not, why? Would there be a relatively safe level of max boost where boost dependent timing controls would be a reasonable approach?

3. Mike/Terry - You've stated previously in this thread that the Procede V4 does absolutely the same thing with timing that the JB3 does and this is confirmed in the logs. Shiv indicates the logs do not accurately record exactly what the Procede is doing (there's an inference that additional timing is being pulled in a manner that cannot be logged as a way to protect his technology). Mike/Terry - Can this be factually disproved by you? (Shiv, I'm not asking you to share how this is done as it would defeat the purpose of hiding it in the first place.) Is there a way timing can be accurately measured in another method that can validate or disprove Shiv's claim that the Procede V4 is indeed adjusting timing in a different manner than the JB3?

Thanks.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by AlterZgo

On the surface, these statements seem contradictory. As a person interested in purchasing a flash or a piggyback unit, I would appreciate a technical explanation.

According to Mike/Terry, the JB3 runs much less timing and it is readily apparent in the BT logs. Yet Shiv indicates the JB3 does not monitor of A/F ratios, timing/knock, engine temps, etc.

Shiv and/or Mike/Terry - Please answer the following to help me make a purchase decision:

1. Even if the JB3 does not monitor those critical functions, doe the JB3 still pull timing? If so, does it do this purely based on the level of boost? If it doesn't pull timing based on boost, what is used to calculate the amount of timing retard to apply?

The JB3 cannot pull any timing. In fact, all timing retard you log is from the factory DME sensing knock and reacting accordingly. It was discovered via independant test (over a year ago) that despite the claims by BMS, the JB3 has no CPS offsetting feature. Which means NO ABILITY to change DME timing targets.

2. Shiv - Assuming the JB3 is pulling timing dependant on boost, while not as sophisticated as what your auto tune is doing, in your opinion, is this still a reasonable approach (assuming people are not pushing their cars to the ragged edge)? If not, why? Would there be a relatively safe level of max boost where boost dependent timing controls would be a reasonable approach?

There is no assuming. The JB3 doesn't pull timing dependent on boost or otherwise. The only form of knock control is the factory knock sensor. At this point, BMS won't/can't even deny this. Despite their initial claims otherwise.

3. Mike/Terry - You've stated previously in this thread that the Procede V4 does absolutely the same thing with timing that the JB3 does and this is confirmed in the logs. Shiv indicates the logs do not accurately record exactly what the Procede is doing (there's an inference that additional timing is being pulled in a manner that cannot be logged as a way to protect his technology). Mike/Terry - Can this be factually disproved by you? (Shiv, I'm not asking you to share how this is done as it would defeat the purpose of hiding it in the first place.) Is there a way timing can be accurately measured in another method that can validate or disprove Shiv's claim that the Procede V4 is indeed adjusting timing in a different manner than the JB3?

All you need is a scope to compare the original and the modified Crank angle sensor waveform to confirm that the Procede retards timing. Any suggestion from Mike/Terry that the Procede does the same thing as the JB3 is a blatant lie and an attempt to save a rapidly sinking ship. The fact that some people still think the Jb3 has any form of timing control is a testament to false marketing and misinformation.

Regards,
Shiv

[Ilma]

Not related to meth in any way......but on pump gas.

Here is a procede datalog running 14+ psi on a stock exhaust system. 3rd to 4th gear pull WOT.

Notice there is zero ignition correction. It is a straight flat line all the way across, so there is no active timing being retarded.

The result is a knock event at 6K rpm with timing being pulled by the DME from 12 degrees down to 8 degrees of advance.

Thereafter, into 4th gear, the timing stays low at around 4.5 degrees.

[Ilma]

Next log is same boost, but with 30% of ignition correction which pulls about 1 degree of timing out of the advance curve.

Notice no knock events in 3rd gear and timing is actually higher going into 4th gear (7.5 degrees) than it was with no timing control at all because having some ignition correction probably avoided a knock
event from occuring in the first place.



I like this second graph better.......how about you?