[csu87]

Id say just troll the General Section for all the "Just bought a 335 need help" threads and sell them your Cobb for full price. They obviously dont search and will have no idea about the MHD

Like 135Pats said, its not that Cobb is bad, it is that what you see now is the best you will get. If that is enough for you, then stick with it. If you want to get in with MHD now and grow with them, then make the switch.

[derrick603]

Originally Posted by 135Pats

Cobb has stopped development on our platform, I can't say I really blame them seeing as how they had their source code blatantly stolen.

I'm probably out of the loop, but what's the story behind this?

[BQTuning]

Originally Posted by ksalih

Wedge or BuraQ...does this mean that your maps for the MHD will be different than the maps you will support for the Cobb..seeing that the tables are limited with Cobb? Aren't tables independent of the hardware used to upload them??? Currently I am receiving an e30 map from you guys (great power btw), but for the Cobb. If I can get a "better" map with more tables through the MHD, I will do so... but I am unsure if I am understanding the differences correctly.

It is really difficult to answer this question as I dont want to show favor to either side. I have been able to tune cars successfully with 0 timing corrections, 0 issues without the need for addtional tables. Those tables are there for cars with highly sensitive events, or shweety gas, that makes it diffult to optimise performance.

There is no such thing as "better" map with either side in my view, what matters is what is needed for your car to perform optimally and safely (had to mention this for the party crashers), and what is more convienient for you and your pocket.

Some cars it doesnt matter what back flips I do with the DME or what TCU software you have they just throw an attitude that you want to run them off a cliff, so access to the additional tables are there to help remedy this if needed with MHD and not something first immediately to touch cause its there IMO.

I have both the COBB AP v3 and MHD. I use both, I cant see myself going without the COBB AP v3 (just too sexy to give up) and I cant see myself not going without MHD.

I use COBB for flashing maps, and I use ATR's live tracing (a tuner toy), for detailed tuning when on the road, but I use MHD to log and upload to datazap on the fly (with a better refresh rate) while tuning on the road. This is also good for whoever is your tuner if you need to send something on the fly rather than having to wait to get to a computer and not have no internet or your computer is bloated with viruses or crapware or you just have a POS computer sorry Im blunt.

Since I have the newer DME I can flash to a compatible ROM to use M-Boost with MHD and then add Q-logic in ATR, and then Flash with the COBB AP

Another benefit with MHD is you can reset comon specific adaptations, like in the BMW INPA, that the COBB AP cannot do.

If you got a COBB v2 oh well I would have thrown that thing out long time ago just because it feels cheap and looks cheap, but hey this is my personal preference, Im a picky guy, ghost, minion or whatever people think of me.

[Lambobimmer]

Originally Posted by BuraQ

It is really difficult to answer this question as I dont want to show favor to either side. I have been able to tune cars successfully with 0 timing corrections, 0 issues without the need for addtional tables. Those tables are there for cars with highly sensitive events, or shweety gas, that makes it diffult to optimise performance.

There is no such thing as "better" map with either side in my view, what matters is what is needed for your car to perform optimally and safely (had to mention this for the party crashers), and what is more convienient for you and your pocket.

Some cars it doesnt matter what back flips I do with the DME or what TCU software you have they just throw an attitude that you want to run them off a cliff, so access to the additional tables are there to help remedy this if needed with MHD and not something first immediately to touch cause its there IMO.

I have both the COBB AP v3 and MHD. I use both, I cant see myself going without the COBB AP v3 (just too sexy to give up) and I cant see myself not going without MHD.

I use COBB for flashing maps, and I use ATR's live tracing (a tuner toy), for detailed tuning when on the road, but I use MHD to log and upload to datazap on the fly (with a better refresh rate) while tuning on the road. This is also good for whoever is your tuner if you need to send something on the fly rather than having to wait to get to a computer and not have no internet or your computer is bloated with viruses or crapware or you just have a POS computer sorry Im blunt.

Since I have the newer DME I can flash to a compatible ROM to use M-Boost with MHD and then add Q-logic in ATR, and then Flash with the COBB AP

Another benefit with MHD is you can reset comon specific adaptations, like in the BMW INPA, that the COBB AP cannot do.

If you got a COBB v2 oh well I would have thrown that thing out long time ago just because it feels cheap and looks cheap, but hey this is my personal preference, Im a picky guy, ghost, minion or whatever people think of me.

BuraQ, you have helped me tune my Z4 using Cobb and I am planning on upgrading to hybrids soon, either Pure Stage 2 or RB EVOs. I have been reading a lot lately that there are significant safety advantages and features to use JB4 with a MHD BEF. Can you comment on this because I am curious if it makes sense to consider a different tuning option when I upgrade.

[BQTuning]

Originally Posted by Lambobimmer

BuraQ, you have helped me tune my Z4 using Cobb and I am planning on upgrading to hybrids soon, either Pure Stage 2 or RB EVOs. I have been reading a lot lately that there are significant safety advantages and features to use JB4 with a MHD BEF. Can you comment on this because I am curious if it makes sense to consider a different tuning option when I upgrade.

Whatever turbos you go with it doesnt matter for me, I will still out perform any other tuner on a N54 DCT platform or any N54B30TO car up to the max boost limit of the DME which is 21-22 PSI with a N20 TMAP sensor

21-22 PSI is usually something some people will laugh at if you have upgraded turbos. However they wont laugh at 600 whp on E60 at 21-22 PSI. I already got a 335xi on RB turbos street tuned gear for gear at 530 whp / 555 @ 21 PSI tappered to 18 PSI with just inlets installed without re-tune.

Now the advantage of the JB4 to me at this point, performance wise, it can push boost exceeding 22 PSI on the "JB4 radar" of controlled boost by the JB4 well above the DME's allowed limit; BUT, still blinding the DME from seeing true boost while making more power

We are currently working on a solution to immulate this same behavior with MHD, but allowing the DME "full controll of boost" but not seeing actual boost as the MHD will report actual boost all the way to 36 PSI. Much people will be shocked who we are working with on this also

With COBB, well, to make it simple, your limit is 21-22 PSI until someone finds a way to remove the limit.

Just keep in mind your DCT system limit is at 850nm with more likely another 100 nm of headroom. 850nm is very very easy for me to hit on stock turbos with E60 on a DCT N54 car provided they dont have any preexisting issues and are healthy and got good fuel.

Edit: There is nothing safer than whats already in the BMW DME

[WedgePerformance]

OK... OFT Owner Listen up... Cough, Cough...

Download BRZ/FRS/GT86

Download MX-5

Flash your stock map back on your car to unlock the OFT. Then you can clear and reset the OFT to support other platforms supported by Vishnu. After downloading the selected template, from the OpenFlash Manager, load up the selected template. After rebooting, reconnect the OFT to the OpenFlash Manager and let the OFT download all the latest updates for the version you just installed so who ever buys your OFT, will have all the latest firmware and updates available.

Good luck...

[ksalih]

Thanks BuraQ for the detailed explanation.

[BigHoncho]

Originally Posted by WedgePerformance

Sorry, but that's where you're wrong... COBB has less functionality today. MHD can log 31 channels of data at a very high refresh rate. Has adaptation reset. Options to select N20 or Stock TMAP on flash. Option to set stock or linear throttle on flash. XDF files have all of the same tables that COBB has to include knock tables and disable additional options. Stay tuned for more tables in the future. Bottom line, MHD is just better all around.

But they both use the same tables, so the maps should be more or less equal? MHD doesn't have access to more tables... thats my point.

[BigHoncho]

Originally Posted by 135Pats

Cobb is no longer developing anything for our platform, so a lot of the table discovery isn't relevant for those of us still in ATR land.

Any official announcement on that or just guessing?

[135Pats]

Originally Posted by derrick603

I'm probably out of the loop, but what's the story behind this?

Not going to hijack the thread any further but OFT came out of the woodwork, and Cobb packed up their tents. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened there. I wouldn't spend time developing software that I knew was just going to be stolen and re-purposed as an "open" flashing solution.

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

But they both use the same tables, so the maps should be more or less equal? MHD doesn't have access to more tables... thats my point.

MHD has superior functionality at this point and certainly going forwards. Will that matter for most cars? No, not in my mind. So far I like MHD but I have about 20 miles on it.

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

Any official announcement on that or just guessing?

It's not guessing. Cobb hasn't touched this platform in at least a year and have no plans to do so. Like I said, I don't blame them.

[Lambobimmer]

Originally Posted by BuraQ

Whatever turbos you go with it doesnt matter for me, I will still out perform any other tuner on a N54 DCT platform or any N54B30TO car up to the max boost limit of the DME which is 21-22 PSI with a N20 TMAP sensor

21-22 PSI is usually something some people will laugh at if you have upgraded turbos. However they wont laugh at 600 whp on E60 at 21-22 PSI. I already got a 335xi on RB turbos street tuned gear for gear at 530 whp / 555 @ 21 PSI tappered to 18 PSI with just inlets installed without re-tune.

Now the advantage of the JB4 to me at this point, performance wise, it can push boost exceeding 22 PSI on the "JB4 radar" of controlled boost by the JB4 well above the DME's allowed limit; BUT, still blinding the DME from seeing true boost while making more power

We are currently working on a solution to immulate this same behavior with MHD, but allowing the DME "full controll of boost" but not seeing actual boost as the MHD will report actual boost all the way to 36 PSI. Much people will be shocked who we are working with on this also

With COBB, well, to make it simple, your limit is 21-22 PSI until someone finds a way to remove the limit.

Just keep in mind your DCT system limit is at 850nm with more likely another 100 nm of headroom. 850nm is very very easy for me to hit on stock turbos with E60 on a DCT N54 car provided they dont have any preexisting issues and are healthy and got good fuel.

Edit: There is nothing safer than whats already in the BMW DME

Thanks for the explanation. 850nm on Stock Turbos? We pushed my car pretty hard and did not get close to that number and my car ran flawlessly on E50. I am not saying that it is not possible but that seems like a high number to stockers. Regardless, I don't want to exceed what the stock DCT clutch can hold so I want to stay below whatever that number is.

[BigHoncho]

Originally Posted by 135Pats

It's not guessing. Cobb hasn't touched this platform in at least a year and have no plans to do so. Like I said, I don't blame them.

But it's just your interpretation, isn't it? I'm just wondering why should they stop further development? Maybe they will get on it again if there is more competition on that platform? As you said yourself, there is a market for people that don't need the MHD features, but just want a "full" and matured product (not getting a device and cable separatly).

[135Pats]

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

But it's just your interpretation, isn't it? I'm just wondering why should they stop further development? Maybe they will get on it again if there is more competition on that platform? As you said yourself, there is a market for people that don't need the MHD features, but just want a "full" and matured product (not getting a device and cable separatly).

I've talked to Jason, you can give him a call as well if you'd like Cobb's perspective. But I can tell you with 200% confidence that for the last year +, they haven't spent any time working on discovery or functionality for the N54. There have been some very tiny firmware updates for bugs but that's just product support.

I should add that Cobb will happily sell you their AP, it still works great, and they still support end users. When I say they've "stopped", I mean they are not longer putting forth energy towards active development and table discovery.

Personally my experience with Cobb was outstanding. I'm selling my V2 AP and i'm sure whomever ends up with it will be just as pleased as I was.

[BQTuning]

Originally Posted by Lambobimmer

Thanks for the explanation. 850nm on Stock Turbos? We pushed my car pretty hard and did not get close to that number and my car ran flawlessly on E50. I am not saying that it is not possible but that seems like a high number to stockers. Regardless, I don't want to exceed what the stock DCT clutch can hold so I want to stay below whatever that number is.

There are those who come to me and want exactly what I have, so I grant them their wish. Here is a sample

http://datazap.me/u/musc/buraq-base-...0&zoom=205-430

and here is the my torque testing on my own car in its premature development days

http://www.datazap.me/u/buraq/torque...data=2-5-13-17

I have about a dozen DCT cars that are runing over 800 nm on stock turbos, and just recently brought into the fold a Euro N54 DCT with RB with over 600 wtq whom participates in a lot of events.

So one thing to be wary about in the N54 scene is vendors will make up folklore beliefs due to their own limitations.

Couple of the rumors were:

The DCT is weaker than the 6AT
The DCT starts slipping after 500 wtq (revised later after proven wrong)
The DCT starts slipping after 550 wtq (revised later, tuner flaw)
The DCT start to slip ?????? now back to unknown

[Lambobimmer]

Originally Posted by BuraQ

There are those who come to me and want exactly what I have, so I grant them their wish. Here is a sample

http://datazap.me/u/musc/buraq-base-...0&zoom=205-430

and here is the my torque testing on my own car in its premature development days

http://www.datazap.me/u/buraq/torque...data=2-5-13-17

I have about a dozen DCT cars that are runing over 800 nm on stock turbos, and just recently brought into the fold a Euro N54 DCT with RB with over 600 wtq whom participates in a lot of events.

So one thing to be wary about in the N54 scene is vendors will make up folklore beliefs due to their own limitations.

Couple of the rumors were:

The DCT is weaker than the 6AT
The DCT starts slipping after 500 wtq (revised later after proven wrong)
The DCT starts slipping after 550 wtq (revised later, tuner flaw)
The DCT start to slip ?????? now back to unknown

Thanks. So this is engine torque and not wheel.

So what is your estimate on the limit of the DCT. 600 wtq

[derrick603]

Originally Posted by 135Pats

Not going to hijack the thread any further but OFT came out of the woodwork, and Cobb packed up their tents. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened there. I wouldn't spend time developing software that I knew was just going to be stolen and re-purposed as an "open" flashing solution.

That's an assumption, though, right? If the source code was truly stolen and not independently developed, there would at least be a lawsuit I would assume.

[135Pats]

Originally Posted by derrick603

That's an assumption, though, right? If the source code was truly stolen and not independently developed, there would at least be a lawsuit I would assume.

You can use whatever semantics you'd like, their source code was stolen. I'm not privy to any legal action on their part, that's completely their business.

I'm not sure why folks find this so hard to believe, but Cobb hasn't touched this platform in well over a year. That's not speculation, it's just where we are at right now. I would be shocked if they ever returned to active development - though i'd welcome it with open arms. I was very happy with Cobb for the 3 or so years I had it.

[CarAbuser]

Originally Posted by 135Pats

You can use whatever semantics you'd like, their source code was stolen. I'm not privy to any legal action on their part, that's completely their business.

I'm not sure why folks find this so hard to believe, but Cobb hasn't touched this platform in well over a year. That's not speculation, it's just where we are at right now. I would be shocked if they ever returned to active development - though i'd welcome it with open arms. I was very happy with Cobb for the 3 or so years I had it.

What makes you think their code was stolen?

Do you think that all devices that flash the DME on the N54 are all based on COBBs source?

[BQTuning]

Originally Posted by Lambobimmer

Thanks. So this is engine torque and not wheel.

So what is your estimate on the limit of the DCT. 600 wtq

Yes around 600 confirmed shifting gear to gear with no slippage and not just some dyno claim without a gear to gear confirmation of that power especially when coming from a Dynojet

For example: the power you had put down on the dyno is your realistic actuall min-max numbers being put down on the road gear to gear.

These are the types of verifications I go by to confirm if the DCT can handle xyz amount of power.

[derrick603]

Originally Posted by CarAbuser

What makes you think their code was stolen?

Do you think that all devices that flash the DME on the N54 are all based on COBBs source?

I'd love to see any evidence that the code was stolen (as in someone took the actual source code that Cobb wrote, copied it to an external drive or uploaded it somewhere without authorization, then modified that code to produce their own product). I'm curious as a software engineer by trade and as a former user of both OFT and Cobb.

[n54door]

Originally Posted by derrick603

I'd love to see any evidence that the code was stolen (as in someone took the actual source code that Cobb wrote, copied it to an external drive or uploaded it somewhere without authorization, then modified that code to produce their own product). I'm curious as a software engineer by trade and as a former user of both OFT and Cobb.

Of course you would. So would Cobb, which would lead to incriminating the offender(s).

Cobb is a pioneer in the business, and it would make sense for them to remain competitive in this market given their initial investment and potential future business with the growing BMW community. However, it doesn't make much sense to compete if your intellectual property for the market has been compromised to the point that any other option is better and cheaper. It's a lost cause at this point. There is not rational explanation for abandoning the platform otherwise.

[MHD Tuning]

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

But they both use the same tables, so the maps should be more or less equal? MHD doesn't have access to more tables... thats my point.

Now MHd does have more tables to play with. The first wave of new tables (9 tables) got released a few weeks ago, and their use has been illustrated by Wedge in the first post. Less to no timing corrections, including postshift, all other things being equal.
Table discovery status is maintained here:
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1126481