[derrick603]

Originally Posted by n54door

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.

So if, without evidence, you believe that competing products were developed only by stealing Cobb's code, do you believe that MHD's product is also the result of stolen code? If not, why is MHD capable of independent development, but not the other product in question? Not trolling, genuinely curious.

[CarAbuser]

Originally Posted by derrick603

So if, without evidence, you believe that competing products were developed only by stealing Cobb's code, do you believe that MHD's product is also the result of stolen code? If not, why is MHD capable of independent development, but not the other product in question? Not trolling, genuinely curious.

I'm not completely clear on the raw process of DME tuning itself, this is just my understanding of what is happening;

I think the code they are referring to is just the interface to the DME. Reading and writing to the DME is the only part which I think would be hard to reverse engineer from BMW software like WinKFP and ISTA/P. You need to be able to correct the checksum before writing back to the DME and the method of doing that I think is what people are referring to when they use the term source code.

It would be fairly easy to work out what memory areas in the DME are used for the setpoint tables once you have the ability to upload the entire contents of the DME. I imagine some of the initial R&D by COBB involved uploading a map from something like BMWs own performance package or Dinan who had full access to the DME for their tunes and comparing changes vs a stock ROM. Hence why tables for knock sensitivity which an OEM map would never change from stock values are only just being mapped out.


The new developments are possible because there's a helpful chap called Jaymona who I think is reverse engineering the code from the DME. The new tables he is finding could easily be added into COBBs ATR if they were so inclined. It's not really new tables that are being manipulated as such, it's tables we have had access to for years but have never actually had their function mapped out.

From what I understand Jaymona is also looking into altering the logic of the DME rather than just changing setpoints. That would be the next huge step forward for the platform and would allow people to run custom code.



I've got tons of questions about the whole process but I think most like to keep the information close to their chest. One of the main things I can't get my head around is the write protecting of the ECU that COBB manage to perform when you load one of their maps.

[WedgePerformance]

I always find the argument of code ownership to be funny because most people don't really look at the big picture. Who's intellectual property is it really? All of the companies who remap the ECU need to know how to talk to the ECU to put the ECU into write mode. Companies pay big money on the black market to get that information early so they can dominate the market. Once acquired, yes they try to protect that information, but that information doesn't really belong to them. If anything, they could be in violation of copy right protection by having that information.

Same thing with table mappings, COBB spent time and money rooting out tables and changing source code to implement race logic, or did they? Maybe they just paid someone for the information. Remember, they don't own the ECU logic and the tables were added for a reason at one point in time... The code within the rom would have allowed the boost ceiling to be increased at one point in time. I was told by someone in Germany that when the 335 hit the test tracks in 2006, they were making over 400 hp and were faster than the M3. This changed and so did the logic which should have prevented the 335 from taking it's place over the M3 with regard to performance. I think it's only a matter of time and we'll have logic within the other roms to enable boost ceiling increases.

Bottom line, we are better off today for the development we have done and we will continue to push the limits. We might never see 9s or 1000 whp, but who really cares. This car is a blast to drive and we should all be thankful there are people who are willing to make it a reality.

[WedgePerformance]

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.

Again, that's where you're wrong. MHD has more tables not to mention more functionality. It will continue to grow. If you haven't seen the XDF files I released, take a look. That was the entire point of this thread to show off the developments regarding knock tables and how we can tune them to help reduce false knock that high timing and high boost causes. These are all good questions and I'm glad you are asking them because we have a choice. COBB is still very functional, but not likely to spend any time and resources to further this platform. There just is no ROI for them to allocate the resources.

[BigHoncho]

Originally Posted by WedgePerformance

I was told by someone in Germany that when the 335 hit the test tracks in 2006, they were making over 400 hp and were faster than the M3.

That's just a rumor that keep being repeated by many people. Yes the engine was tested up to 400hp but just for theoretical max out on the motor stand. There was no testing intending to hit 400hp on daily street-use. Alpina had to lower compression to hit 400hp+ safely by BMW standards (WOT on long distances on v-max autobahn speed).

Although N54 is over-engineered, it was never intended and never tested against E9x M3.

[BigHoncho]

Originally Posted by WedgePerformance

Again, that's where you're wrong. MHD has more tables not to mention more functionality. It will continue to grow. If you haven't seen the XDF files I released, take a look. That was the entire point of this thread to show off the developments regarding knock tables and how we can tune them to help reduce false knock that high timing and high boost causes. These are all good questions and I'm glad you are asking them because we have a choice. COBB is still very functional, but not likely to spend any time and resources to further this platform. There just is no ROI for them to allocate the resources.

Knock-table are the most dangerous ones, right? Question is, does manipulating those dangerous areas do any good? Does anything that is or will be discovered yield into substantial gower gains?

In short – does it matter?
Fact is, most of us (= the worldwide community) uses pumpe gas and stock turbos with FBO setting. So all those features und "advance" might not make a difference to most of us. Additionally the OTS-maps are not matured yet, so you need individual tuning more than on cobb (cost+time). Also you need you own hardware –*why isn't MHD packaging everything as a complete product for those of us that are willing to buy a complete solution?

Happy to see progress though, but also questioning some arguments here!

[csu87]

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

Knock-table are the most dangerous ones, right? Question is, does manipulating those dangerous areas do any good? Does anything that is or will be discovered yield into substantial gower gains?

In short – does it matter?
Fact is, most of us (= the worldwide community) uses pumpe gas and stock turbos with FBO setting. So all those features und "advance" might not make a difference to most of us. Additionally the OTS-maps are not matured yet, so you need individual tuning more than on cobb (cost+time). Also you need you own hardware –*why isn't MHD packaging everything as a complete product for those of us that are willing to buy a complete solution?

Happy to see progress though, but also questioning some arguments here!

Even with the additional hardware and individual tuning; if you want it, Ive seen quite a few guys running the MHD Maps with no issues pushing some decent power, it still comes out cheaper than COBB.

MHD App $80, Cable $60-100 (for the right one depending where you get it), Android Tablet $75 (If you are one of the few with no Android Device), Custom Dyno Tune $300. Total of $555

Cobb V3 - $900

[135Pats]

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

Knock-table are the most dangerous ones, right? Question is, does manipulating those dangerous areas do any good? Does anything that is or will be discovered yield into substantial gower gains?

In short – does it matter?
Fact is, most of us (= the worldwide community) uses pumpe gas and stock turbos with FBO setting. So all those features und "advance" might not make a difference to most of us. Additionally the OTS-maps are not matured yet, so you need individual tuning more than on cobb (cost+time). Also you need you own hardware –*why isn't MHD packaging everything as a complete product for those of us that are willing to buy a complete solution?

Happy to see progress though, but also questioning some arguments here!

That's for a very specific segment of cars - high WHP, single turbo motors and/or built motors which suffer from what appears to be phantom knock.

For those of us in that boat (more like a raft if we're talking size), it's very important and the next frontier of tuning. But it's for a narrow and specific purpose, so be extremely mindful before messing with that.

[WedgePerformance]

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

That's just a rumor that keep being repeated by many people. Yes the engine was tested up to 400hp but just for theoretical max out on the motor stand. There was no testing intending to hit 400hp on daily street-use. Alpina had to lower compression to hit 400hp+ safely by BMW standards (WOT on long distances on v-max autobahn speed).

Although N54 is over-engineered, it was never intended and never tested against E9x M3.

I understand it is rumor, but this person was a tester for BMW who drove the car in development and although not directly tested against the M3, the guys on the track testing were faster in the 335 test car. Maybe just a better drivers. We were not there so we can both make assumptions. Good story though.

[WedgePerformance]

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

Knock-table are the most dangerous ones, right? Question is, does manipulating those dangerous areas do any good? Does anything that is or will be discovered yield into substantial gower gains?

In short – does it matter?
Fact is, most of us (= the worldwide community) uses pumpe gas and stock turbos with FBO setting. So all those features und "advance" might not make a difference to most of us. Additionally the OTS-maps are not matured yet, so you need individual tuning more than on cobb (cost+time). Also you need you own hardware –*why isn't MHD packaging everything as a complete product for those of us that are willing to buy a complete solution?

Happy to see progress though, but also questioning some arguments here!

Making changes to any one of the tables without knowledge can be dangerous. What I have demonstrated with my car, we can running aggressive timing and boost and minimize false knock while running fuel that is not prone to knock. (I do not recommend this for users on lower octane pump fuel) BMW tuned the knock tables to accommodate low quality fuel and it pulls timing prior to a knock event. As we increase power, the sensors pick up engine noise and misinterpret that noise which causes loss of power due to excessive timing pull. The results to me are substantial.

I have a question... Are you on this forum to learn how to tune your car or argue in short trying to say that advancements on this platform just do not matter?

I get the feeling your logic is impartial to COBB and feel COBB is a better solution because it's a complete package and more mature. We appreciate your input, but your opinion seems to be based solely on the majority (the worldwide community) of users who are happy with 12 to 16 psi, stock, running pump fuel, which is clearly not why we are making advancements. We push the limits so people like 135Pats can run his car at 30 psi without the limitations of stock torque, stock boost ceiling, and stock knock sensor settings which were not tuned for a car making 600+ whp. We also provide OTS maps that accommodate the majority of users who don’t need a full custom tune, but yet can enjoy our OTS maps without spending a lot of money on a custom tune or a hand held device which is a one trick pony.

Bottom line, if you're happy with were you are that's perfectly acceptable. But the handful of people who think outside the box and want to push the limits, we will continue to make advancements.

[MHD Tuning]

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

Knock-table are the most dangerous ones, right? Question is, does manipulating those dangerous areas do any good? Does anything that is or will be discovered yield into substantial gower gains?

In short – does it matter?
Fact is, most of us (= the worldwide community) uses pumpe gas and stock turbos with FBO setting. So all those features und "advance" might not make a difference to most of us. Additionally the OTS-maps are not matured yet, so you need individual tuning more than on cobb (cost+time). Also you need you own hardware –*why isn't MHD packaging everything as a complete product for those of us that are willing to buy a complete solution?

Happy to see progress though, but also questioning some arguments here!

To me the MHD maps are already better than Cobb OTS maps.
Your suggestions to sell a complete package is a good one. So far all ressources were devoted to feature development, since MHD doesn't require a specific piece of hardware to run and handling hardware sales takes time. Plus most of the customers already own either a K/Dcan cable, and/or an Android device.

As for "the worldwide community" - today MHD added a wastegate rattle fix option. This is just an example of development effort targeted at everyone.

Originally Posted by csu87

Even with the additional hardware and individual tuning; if you want it, Ive seen quite a few guys running the MHD Maps with no issues pushing some decent power, it still comes out cheaper than COBB.

MHD App $80, Cable $60-100 (for the right one depending where you get it), Android Tablet $75 (If you are one of the few with no Android Device), Custom Dyno Tune $300. Total of $555

Cobb V3 - $900

Well if you want to compare cost of a dyno tuned car on MHD vs a dyno tuned car on Cobb, might as well add $300 to the Cobb device.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by MHD Tuning

Well if you want to compare cost of a dyno tuned car on MHD vs a dyno tuned car on Cobb, might as well add $300 to the Cobb device.

I just showed it on the MHD because he said the maps weren't good on the MHD and you need a custom tune instead and not on the Cobb. As inaccurate as that is, even if you got a custom tune, it is still cheaper which was my point.

[BigHoncho]

Originally Posted by csu87

I just showed it on the MHD because he said the maps weren't good on the MHD and you need a custom tune instead and not on the Cobb. As inaccurate as that is, even if you got a custom tune, it is still cheaper which was my point.

The MHD OTS maps are not as matured as the Cobb OTS maps, I think that's common sense. Thats why I said that you are more in need of a custom tuning than on Cobb right now. Remember MHD and all their OTS maps are beta! But in the near future MHD might catch up, as they are getting better.

As for your bill... well, you could also spent $200 more on the device itself. However I don't think that price will matter a lot, regarding the amount of money most of us spend up on their cars ;-)

WedgePerformance As I already wrote, I'm happy to see progress and competition, it's always good to have choices. However not every development makes sense, so we are here to discuss that, right? Really appreciate your feedback though!

[CarAbuser]

I haven't ever used COBB or MHD OTS maps but from what logs I've seen so far the MHD maps look like they are more powerful and don't suffer the boost oscillations I see on the aggressive cobb maps.

The COBB maps were always said to be inferior to the OTS maps that came with the OFT. Since the OFT maps were all free and unlocked then you can just use them on the MHD since they both use the binary files.

If you use the OFT OTS maps with the flasher module of MHD you can get a very strong stage 1 map on your car for £50.

[BigHoncho]

Originally Posted by WedgePerformance

I understand it is rumor, but this person was a tester for BMW who drove the car in development and although not directly tested against the M3, the guys on the track testing were faster in the 335 test car. Maybe just a better drivers. We were not there so we can both make assumptions. Good story though.

If he really was a BMW testdriver he wouldn't have told you ;-)

On most tracks suspension and brakes do matter more than power, that is where a M3 is a class of its own. But yeah on the straight line a tuned N54 will be faster. However I don't want start arguing 335i vs. M3...

[csu87]

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

The MHD OTS maps are not as matured as the Cobb OTS maps, I think that's common sense. Thats why I said that you are more in need of a custom tuning than on Cobb right now. Remember MHD and all their OTS maps are beta! But in the near future MHD might catch up, as they are getting better.

As for your bill... well, you could also spent $200 more on the device itself. However I don't think that price will matter a lot, regarding the amount of money most of us spend up on their cars ;-)

WedgePerformance As I already wrote, I'm happy to see progress and competition, it's always good to have choices. However not every development makes sense, so we are here to discuss that, right? Really appreciate your feedback though!

I've seen plenty of logs of the MHD ots maps to believe they are just as good, if not better than the Cobbs.

And $200more still puts it at $750 w/ custom tune vs $900 and ots map

[BigHoncho]

Originally Posted by csu87

And $200more still puts it at $750 w/ custom tune vs $900 and ots map

Don't spend your saved money all at once!

[WedgePerformance]

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

If he really was a BMW testdriver he wouldn't have told you ;-)

On most tracks suspension and brakes do matter more than power, that is where a M3 is a class of its own. But yeah on the straight line a tuned N54 will be faster. However I don't want start arguing 335i vs. M3...

When a dyno shop owner tells me his best friend is a test driver for BMW, well you have your opinion.

I agree, a stock suspension open diff 335 won't hang with an M3 on the track, but upgrade your suspension, brakes and diff, it's a different story.

[WedgePerformance]

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

The MHD OTS maps are not as matured as the Cobb OTS maps, I think that's common sense. Thats why I said that you are more in need of a custom tuning than on Cobb right now. Remember MHD and all their OTS maps are beta! But in the near future MHD might catch up, as they are getting better.

As for your bill... well, you could also spent $200 more on the device itself. However I don't think that price will matter a lot, regarding the amount of money most of us spend up on their cars ;-)

WedgePerformance As I already wrote, I'm happy to see progress and competition, it's always good to have choices. However not every development makes sense, so we are here to discuss that, right? Really appreciate your feedback though!

I have to differ with you regarding the COBB OTS maps. I think because they have been around longer the correct term is they have aged on the shelf longer and maturity doesn't mean they are better. Maybe your assumption is because you haven't tested both to have a true opinion. The one thing that MHD and myself agreed to was there wouldn't me as many versions to select from as we both found it to be confusing to say the least. I also don't think the main selling point of MHD is the OTS maps. I could do a bunch of side by side comparisons, but it would be a waist of my time. I think the big picture here is the fact that you can get a map that performs well with an application that is more functional and convenient.

[Nonecure]

Originally Posted by BigHoncho

The MHD OTS maps are not as matured as the Cobb OTS maps, I think that's common sense. Thats why I said that you are more in need of a custom tuning than on Cobb right now. Remember MHD and all their OTS maps are beta! But in the near future MHD might catch up, as they are getting better.

Cobb OTS maps are very mature, when I had a Cobb my car drove very mature. Since I am immature, I decided I wanted more power, so Shiv set me up with an OFT with his tune back when they first came out. That was much better, but then Wedge gave me a custom tune that was awesome. Wedge teamed up with BQ and provide tuning that keeps getting better and more powerful. Yes MHD is a new device, but the tunes are not new, but they continue to be improved.

Now if you don't believe me on how much better the MHD tunes are, then fill free to check out the logs posted by MHD users and Cobb users.

[derrick603]

I've used both the Cobb and OFT OTS maps, and I much preferred the OFT ones. The Cobb maps were far too conservative for my liking. How do the MHD OTS maps compare to the OFT ones in terms of aggressiveness?

[WedgePerformance]

This was a pull I did this morning going up a hill. So I'm sure the virtual dyno is a bit low on power in comparison to what a pull without an incline would be, but gives you a good idea how the power curve looks. This is the OTS E40 v5 I'm working on and once I finish testing a few VANOS changes I'll have MHD send it to a few people for testing. Spools quicker and has adjusted knock tables for better post shift timing recovery. It's a monster flash and pulls really well. I think everyone will be very happy...

derrick603 Does that help answer your question?