[GeorgiaTech335coupe]

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

So your tune only is faster than a Lamborghini Reventon and a New Z06?
I'm having a very hard time believing this.

I know our cars are fast, but we really need to see a comparison between the way the procede calculates speed vs the way the Vbox calculates speed.

I'm pretty sure a z06's second gear ends around 92 mph and the Reventon ends at 94, so they will have a shift involved so that would make sense.

[GeorgiaTech335coupe]

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

No worries man. It's not anything against you at all.
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of why there is such a difference between the 60-100 times from the procede data logs and the vbox times.

We don't know that there is a difference until someone uses both.

[Vince@ V K Motorwerks]

I just ordered a V-box, it is the bench mark for testing for the 996 crowd. If we didn’t have 2 feet of snow and 20 degree temps I would let someone try it out here. For comparison sake 60-130mph would be a much better indicator of power. You can see your power over a 70mph span vs a 40mph span. Also there is plenty of published and verified data for 60-130. That said I think it would make for a better test.

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by kenneth

Running the Procede using a vbox would shed light into this! Has this been done?
I have a feeling that if the procede logger is proven to be accurate, that might mean the Procede has gotten to be extremely fast.....

Can't wait for the answer!

I would agree with this.

[hotrod182]

Originally Posted by Vince@ V K Motorwerks

I just ordered a V-box, it is the bench mark for testing for the 996 crowd. If we didn’t have 2 feet of snow and 20 degree temps I would let someone try it out here. For comparison sake 60-130mph would be a much better indicator of power. You can see your power over a 70mph span vs a 40mph span. Also there is plenty of published and verified data for 60-130. That said I think it would make for a better test.

Exactly....

And if someone with a Procede logger around here wants to compare their logs with their Vbox numbers, PM me and we can set it up in your car and run down here.

[dtp3347]

Originally Posted by hotrod182

Exactly....

And if someone with a Procede logger around here wants to compare their logs with their Vbox numbers, PM me and we can set it up in your car and run down here.

fly to atl

[JerzeySux]

I have a xi with tune Rev 1 procede and dci only and BEST i can get is 0-60 4.3s n 5.5s 60~100 and 12.7 60~130 with vbox how are people pulling these times or is the xi that slow lol.

[JerzeySux]

Just found these. How accurate are these times?
http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?pid=mph60_100

You guys are in the GT2 range WOW lol

[Prince ///M]

Probably my English is not perfect but I already stated that my Procede times have been verified with Vbox.

The results are the following:

Procede V3 log: 60-100 4.9s

Vbox 100hz log: 5.35s

Difference on time 0.45s

Average error on V3 logged speed 3.75%

Car:
135i tune only
V3 stage 1 map 10-2 ut 70% ic 100%
Ambient temperature 81F

I performed the same 'experiment' for another car...

On a full bolt on Jb3 map7 the same error on speed estimation would lead to a decrease of logged time by 0.35s in the same 60-100 pass.

So, as logical, the more the car is tuned the less the error... but still noticeable.

In both cases the difference in acceleration times is equivalent to 30-35whp.

If you do not believe me the test is quite simple. Multiply your Procede speed logs by 0.96 and check the results before and after.

[maui86]

im just praying my tall tires(26.3') are the reason my car averages 4.8-5secs 60-100mph... or the scaling is off enough to scew things. haha.

[Pry]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

If you do not believe me the test is quite simple. Multiply your Procede speed logs by 0.96 and check the results before and after.

So, someone with a datalog should give us a time between 62 and 104 mph and give a 60-100 mph time for comparison. I just don't believe that everyones procede shows exactly 3.75% off just because it is that much off on your 135i.
To give an accurate reading shouldn't you just check with a gps how much off your procede speed reading is at 60 and 100 mph and then compensate the difference in the datalogs?
And then do the run for both directions and give us the average.

[jcarlucci1]

This is what I was looking for..so the procede log read .45 seconds faster than your vbox, correct? That makes MUCH more sense given the numbers I see posted from procede users. What was the vbox time for the fully modded JB3?

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

Probably my English is not perfect but I already stated that my Procede times have been verified with Vbox.

The results are the following:

Procede V3 log: 60-100 4.9s

Vbox 100hz log: 5.35s

Difference on time 0.45s

Average error on V3 logged speed 3.75%

Car:
135i tune only
V3 stage 1 map 10-2 ut 70% ic 100%
Ambient temperature 81F

I performed the same 'experiment' for another car...

On a full bolt on Jb3 map7 the same error on speed estimation would lead to a decrease of logged time by 0.35s in the same 60-100 pass.

So, as logical, the more the car is tuned the less the error... but still noticeable.

In both cases the difference in acceleration times is equivalent to 30-35whp.

If you do not believe me the test is quite simple. Multiply your Procede speed logs by 0.96 and check the results before and after.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

Car:
135i tune only

Correct me if I am wrong, aren't the 135i overall wheel/tire diameter about 1.2 inches smaller? Did you rescale the PROcede data logger to account for this? That is about a 4.5% difference and could account for the error.

[GeorgiaTech335coupe]

Originally Posted by scalbert

Correct me if I am wrong, aren't the 135i overall wheel/tire diameter about 1.2 inches smaller? Did you rescale the PROcede data logger to account for this? That is about a 4.5% difference and could account for the error.

I was just about to ask that.

[edo]

I have veryfied Proceede logs with PerformanceBox too.
I measured 60-130 mph times and the difference was ~1 second.

[jcarlucci1]

wow..

Originally Posted by edo

I have veryfied Proceede logs with PerformanceBox too.
I measured 60-130 mph times and the difference was ~1 second.

[OpenFlash]

This shouldn't come as a surprise. But if your wheelspeed calibrations are off, your times will be off too. So if you care about comparing your time to others, you will NEED to calibrate your settings. If you do this, your acceleration times will be 100% accurate.

Shiv

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

This shouldn't come as a surprise. But if your wheelspeed calibrations are off, your times will be off too. So if you care about comparing your time to others, you will NEED to calibrate your settings. If you do this, your acceleration times will be 100% accurate.

Shiv

So are you saying that your 3.7 second 60-100 was calibrated and 100% accurate?

[dsswain]

Coming from the Audi world we used extrapolated time stamps from out logs from 4,200-6,500 rpm's in 3rd gear (~58-91mph (our speedo's are accurate too ; ), my car did this in 3.7seconds, with some big turbo's going deep into the 2.5 second range).

This method will take out any variables of spedo's being off, as it is an in-gear pull. Though it can not compensate for differing tire sizes, and road grade. It is extreamly accurate from measuring the performance of one's own vehicle, and measuring gains from particular performance mods. Standardizing your particular road and habits before each pull make the comparison for your car even more accurate.

The "acceptable" range would have to be different for AT vs MT, as the gear ratios are significantly different, but it would allow direct in gear comparison of AT vs AT, and MT vs MT acceleration.

I have yet to get the BT tool, but I think a drop in CSV template by BMS or other would be a great help to this community. The charts that you see below were created by a indivitual in the B5 S4 Audi community and were adopted and are the standard for evaluating a vehicles performance, and for the most part create a set of data that can be used to compare any car regardless of mods. (there are about 10 other charts from this log, but these are some of the key ones)

Here is an example of my car on two different runs. My favorite charts are the accelation charts, as it show's where the powere is, as well as repeatability, especailly in the top end. Also two cars could get there in the same amount of time, but have significanly different acceleration curves. i.e. more top or bottom end.

Not sure if this is helpful, but though I'd throw it out there. Because one thing that is standard is your gear-box, so might as well have that be the constant. 60-130 is fine, but it has a huge variable, and that is a shift. This is the most basic form, and has been the benchmark of our community for a long time.

I now have a 2008 335i, and hope to get some of my performance back in the near future, and will absolutely be using this method.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

So are you saying that your 3.7 second 60-100 was calibrated and 100% accurate?

Within a percent I'd say. I calibrated my speed signal during road and track mag testing last year. And I'm still running the same wheel/tire combo. So the only variable is thread depth which, admittedly, is a little low these days.

Shiv

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by dsswain

Coming from the Audi world we used extropolated time stamps from out logs from 4,200-6,500 rpm's in 3rd gear (~58-91mph (our speedo's are accurate too ; ), my car did this in 3.7seconds, with some big turbo's going deep into the 2.5 second range).

Former B5 S4 owner here which is the reason I made the following:

http://www.hopesystemsinc.com/bmw_fats.asp

http://www.hopesystemsinc.com/bmw_fats_procede.asp

[dsswain]

Originally Posted by scalbert

Former B5 S4 owner here which is the reason I made the following:

http://www.hopesystemsinc.com/bmw_fats.asp

http://www.hopesystemsinc.com/bmw_fats_procede.asp

Now you need to get MarkP to make some pretty charts and this community would be off and running with more data than it can handle. If and when I start modding this 335i I will definatley take a stab at creating a charting template to make these comparisions easier. Though I don't even know how many channles the BT tool can log, hopefully it's more than 3 and has a decent sample rate.