[SIKH335]

Originally Posted by nafoo

Everyone needs to take it to the track. Sikh and myst, get on it.

As soon as I can deal with the weather I hate the heat. Born in the UK so I don't tolerate it well. But as a wise man said good things come to those who wait.

[mithiral67]

The hp/$ of the n54 is pretty amazing, you should all enjoy what you can safetly get out of these cars regardless of the mods and tunes you run. Arguing over it isnt going to make anyone happier in the end, just stress you out.

I wish I could spend $3k and bump my power 50%+ Instead an exhaust, filters, and a dyno tune run me over $8k for maybe a 25% bump with a new $6k clutch required in a 10k miles after the oem burns out at that level. Its all about perspective.

[Rob@Cobb]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I would love to be proven wrong on day so I could read the ROM and see what they did.

This is quite disheartening to read. Is this where your current MAF fix came from? I guess I should not be surprised.

The PID system is seeded with a WGDC value which is manipulated by the PID system in realtime to hit the requested boost. If the seed is good for the mechanical bits there should not be much need of manipulation. That does not mean the system cannot keep up or is too slow or too slow to react the way it's programmed. The system is actually working too quickly on too small of a window causing oscillations. If you send the overactive PID system large changes in WGDC, it is going to have a big reaction with the stock PID tuning. We have simply smoothed out the seeded WGDC and changed the parameters in the PID system to be a bit less sensitive. We have fixed another issue the factory calibration had.

PID systems have a huge range of adjustment and are a bit of a black art to tune. It's neat that your run lots of gain in your particular system. Cool for you and your device to strut around about, but it does not mean much for anything else.

With that said please show me the ECU is too slow with the current PID parameters to respond quickly to boost request changes. Actual data and evidence, no guessing or stabs in the dark. I can appreciate you are all about your product, but please stop commenting on what the ECU can or cannot do if you don't know.

Saying flash tunes have an Achilles heal which is the oscillations as a whole is blatantly wrong. The current limitation is the boost datatypes that are limited to 23ish psi relative limiting big turbo work. We are going to rewrite those datatypes to be able to read and control boost up to 38ish psi. These things take time. There is no reason the PID system in the ECU cannot control higher boost levels. It's simply math and processing power. Neither are an issue in the current ECU.

Cheers,
Rob

[Rob@Cobb]

Originally Posted by Laguna Seca Blue

Are you serious man? Did you read the first paragraph? Rob was talking about some unsubstantiated "hiccup" he feels during throttle transitions. I'm running stage 3 aggressive maps tune only on ~95 octane gas and ive never felt any of what he's talking about. As a tuner, the professional approach would be to find a way to log this phenomenon and prove it. What Rob is doing is extremely disingenuous

I'll give the guys at Cobb one thing, they are extremely subtle in their attacking style, but it's attacking non the less. After theyve had their dig, they like to take the high road and claim theyre not trying to start an argument. Jake does the same thing.

The purpose of this thread is to give a personal feeling of the two methods of tuning the N54 and relate that to the community. I am relating my experience with the Procede which is my personal impression. It's not pretending that I know less that I really do or making false claims. I am sorry if what I felt offends others as it was not meant to.

Cheers,
Rob

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Rob@Cobb

This is quite disheartening to read. Is this where your current MAF fix came from? I guess I should not be surprised.

The PID system is seeded with a WGDC value which is manipulated by the PID system in realtime to hit the requested boost. If the seed is good for the mechanical bits there should not be much need of manipulation. That does not mean the system cannot keep up or is too slow or too slow to react the way it's programmed. The system is actually working too quickly on too small of a window causing oscillations. If you send the overactive PID system large changes in WGDC, it is going to have a big reaction with the stock PID tuning. We have simply smoothed out the seeded WGDC and changed the parameters in the PID system to be a bit less sensitive. We have fixed another issue the factory calibration had.

PID systems have a huge range of adjustment and are a bit of a black art to tune. It's neat that your run lots of gain in your particular system. Cool for you and your device to strut around about, but it does not mean much for anything else.

With that said please show me the ECU is too slow with the current PID parameters to respond quickly to boost request changes. Actual data and evidence, no guessing or stabs in the dark. I can appreciate you are all about your product, but please stop commenting on what the ECU can or cannot do if you don't know.

Saying flash tunes have an Achilles heal which is the oscillations as a whole is blatantly wrong. The current limitation is the boost datatypes that are limited to 23ish psi relative limiting big turbo work. We are going to rewrite those datatypes to be able to read and control boost up to 38ish psi. These things take time. There is no reason the PID system in the ECU cannot control higher boost levels. It's simply math and processing power. Neither are an issue in the current ECU.

Cheers,
Rob

Is it? Can any given flash account for variance in wastegate stiffness? You know as well as I that the you need a good start DC map AND a high-as-possible proportional gain value to achieve fast and accurate boost targeting. And variances in wg stiffness will make that static start DC map to aggressive or too conservative. Either causing overshoot or undershoot. Similarly, variances in wg stiffness will also make that proportional gain value too aggressive which will result in oscillation or too conservative which will result in slow boost targeting. This is why I call boost control/stability the Achille's heel of flash tunes. I think others will agree with this.

Given that we are still on this topic, are you now ok with comparing logs with respect to boost targeting speed? We can use customer supplied datalogs if you like to avoid the "spin" that you are concerned with. All we need to specify is what channels to log and what conditions to capture.

Shiv

[themyst]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Is it? Can any given flash account for variance in wastegate stiffness? You know as well as I that the you need a good start DC map AND a high-as-possible proportional gain value to achieve fast and accurate boost targeting. And variances in wg stiffness will make that static start DC map to aggressive or too conservative. Either causing overshoot or undershoot. Similarly, variances in wg stiffness will also make that proportional gain value too aggressive which will result in oscillation or too conservative which will result in slow boost targeting. This is why I call boost control/stability the Achille's heel of flash tunes. I think others will agree with this.

Given that we are still on this topic, are you now ok with comparing logs with respect to boost targeting speed? We can use customer supplied datalogs if you like to avoid the "spin" that you are concerned with. All we need to specify is what channels to log and what conditions to capture.

Shiv

With all due respect, the whole idea is for the base WGDC to be dialed in properly and allow the PID to make granular changes as the example you are describing (the extreme example being RB turbos which are designed to have stiffer-than-stock wastegates). Your wastegate comp autotune still requires manual adjustment if the necessary adjustment needed is greater than 5% on your scaling.

For stock turbo cars, the V402 logic is damn perfect for virtually every car out there and I haven't heard yet of a single issue with them. Heck, the OTS maps worked fantastic for my RB turbo car too with very little base WGDC adjustment needed. I'd continue to run them, but there's a tank of E85 blend in my car that I need to finish off

I was, and still am a fan of the throttle feel of the Procede when I ran it, especially with the 6AT. However, the Cobb ST V402 maps replicate that tip-in throttle feel that I quite enjoyed while running your tune.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by themyst

With all due respect, the whole idea is for the base WGDC to be dialed in properly and allow the PID to make granular changes as the example you are describing (the extreme example being RB turbos which are designed to have stiffer-than-stock wastegates). Your wastegate comp autotune still requires manual adjustment if the necessary adjustment needed is greater than 5% on your scaling.

Actually, the total auto-compensating adjustment range is 10% (-5 to +5). That's covers just about any range of wastegate stiffness on the stock turbos.

For stock turbo cars, the V402 logic is damn perfect for virtually every car out there and I haven't heard yet of a single issue with them. Heck, the OTS maps worked fantastic for my RB turbo car too with very little base WGDC adjustment needed. I'd continue to run them, but there's a tank of E85 blend in my car that I need to finish off

It appears that different people have different opinions of what "damn perfect" is. Some are happy with a slower responding power response. Others would rather have it follow the throttle as quickly (or as slowly) as it is pressed. You love arguing. That is great. But let's see some data sometime.

Shiv

[Rob@Cobb]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Is it? Can any given flash account for variance in wastegate stiffness? You know as well as I that the you need a good start DC map AND a high-as-possible proportional gain value to achieve fast and accurate boost targeting. And variances in wg stiffness will make that static start DC map to aggressive or too conservative. Either causing overshoot or undershoot. Similarly, variances in wg stiffness will also make that proportional gain value too aggressive which will result in oscillation or too conservative which will result in slow boost targeting. This is why I call boost control/stability the Achille's heel of flash tunes. I think others will agree with this.

Given that we are still on this topic, are you now ok with comparing logs with respect to boost targeting speed? We can use customer supplied datalogs if you like to avoid the "spin" that you are concerned with. All we need to specify is what channels to log and what conditions to capture.

Shiv

That is an opinion trying to group me and others in with it by association. The burden is on you to prove what you are saying.

We have recently fixed an issue that solved almost all of our customers issues with regards to boost oscillation. I know of one customer that our v40x mapping didn't take care of and I didn't get a chance to work with him. For that I apologize. As you know we all have customers that have issues, you included. We do try to get to all of them and make them all happy. We take care of people, our customers.

If there are customers who are having issues point me to them and I will get them taken care of.

Cheers,
Rob

[themyst]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

You love arguing. That is great. But let's see some data sometime.

Shiv

I don't see how telling you to how to make adjustments to the base WGDC is arguing, but duly noted. Thank you for correcting me on your amended autotuning wastegate comp feature.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Rob@Cobb

That is an opinion trying to group me and others in with it by association. The burden is on you to prove what you are saying.

Likewise when you said in this thread regarding a piggyback (I don't even know if you were talking about the Procede):

I have not logged the transition points that felt disjointed. As I mentioned the car felt great most of the time, it was the odd transitioning hiccups that I am speaking of and the aggressive throttle. Almost like the piggie goes out of sync with the ECU for a little bit. To be able to catch something of that nature we would need to log what the ECU was trying and the piggie at the same time.

Specifically, I'd like to hear more about it "going out of sync" with the ECU for a bit.

shiv

[Rob@Cobb]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Likewise when you said in this thread regarding a piggyback (I don't even know if you were talking about the Procede):


Specifically, I'd like to hear more about it "going out of sync" with the ECU for a bit.

shiv

I can appreciate you wanting to know more. Hit me up offline. We can swap numbers and chat.

Cheers,
Rob

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Rob@Cobb

I can appreciate you wanting to know more. Hit me up offline. We can swap numbers and chat.

Cheers,
Rob

Since you brought it up publicly, I think its only fair to discuss it publicly. And maybe, as you suggest, provide proof of such an phenomenon so the rest of us can benefit. In the spirit of full disclosure and reciprocity, I'll attempt to collect some logs comparing Cobb boost control to that of the Procede.

Shiv

[Laguna Seca Blue]

Originally Posted by Rob@Cobb

The purpose of this thread is to give a personal feeling of the two methods of tuning the N54 and relate that to the community. I am relating my experience with the Procede which is my personal impression. It's not pretending that I know less that I really do or making false claims. I am sorry if what I felt offends others as it was not meant to.

Cheers,
Rob

Rob, it's perfectly acceptable for a customer to post his or her impressions of a specific tune. However, as professional tuners, I hold you and Shiv to higher standards. You guys have business interests in the mix, so what you say should be backed with hard facts; otherwise you're going to find yourself cornered when called out.

[Raman335i]

Competition is good for consumers, it pushes all competing parties harder, leading to a better product for everyone, but let's not forget to have fun!

[BMWsky]

I have a similar story but have been reluctant to bring it up for fear of yet another tuner war. I was a fairly happy Cobb user for over a year except for a few issues here and there. I DON'T take my car to the drag strip, I'm strictly a road course track guy. I had nothing but issues with my Cobb AP on the track once I went to Stage 2+. (Yes, I also used the 4.02 current maps.) Even before going to stage 2+, I could never get used to the throttle response (linear or stock) on the track. On my car (and I'm thinking it was an isolated issue with my car) I could never get that smooth throttle response that I was supposed to get with the AP. The customer service with Cobb was always top notch and I have NOTHING but GOOD things to say about them as they always tried hard to get my issues sorted out. I'm sure that if I went with a ProTune or ATP, there's a chance that I could've fixed the issue.

With that being said, I ordered a PROceed and have been testing the crap out of it. This is how my car felt when it was bone stock, except MORE. The throttle response is exactly what I expect. On the track, no more limp modes, codes, etc. My timing looks great, car is happy, and all is good. Running the Stage 3 Aggressive maps and the Stage 3 Aggressive E85 maps just continue to impress me. The biggest issue I see coming is that I'll need a new clutch soon, the car puts down incredible amounts of power.

Let's face it, there really isn't a bad tune for our N54's; it's just a matter of which one suits our needs the best. For me, PROceed fits that bill perfectly. I still have the AP and may decide to give it another shot down the road, who knows. Right now the PROceed does everything I want and need it to and my car runs great with it. My tech has driven both tunes on my car and agrees that it runs better with the PROceed. He was actually pretty shocked at how the car ran and was more than a little pissed that my car now pretty much walks his E92 M3 (and his isn't stock).

[3-Serious]

I know most people hate these kind of debates, but I love them! Lol They're interesting and informative to a degree. Competition will keep this platform moving forward.

[jippii ensio]

Originally Posted by themyst

I don't know what you're expecting. 480-500 whp through the stock catback (typical RB turbo numbers) without having to rely on stacking anything is fine by me.

Twins have been dynoed way above 500WHP with Procede, so those numbers would not be special. Moreover, as you put it, you should have a baseline. Now that this is an imaginary figure and not a real dyno figure, I guess you could come up with an imaginary baseline

I'd suggest for all to stop speculating and someone show us a Cobb tuned RBs dyno no matter if the numbers are low or not.

[Bash]

Unsubscribed

[Laid Black 335i]

Originally Posted by SIKH335

Wow either u installed your RB's yourself or you didn't pay any install.

Why do you keep bringing up the cost of the tune? Who cares if one cost more than the other. The discussion is intended to be results driven.

[farb]

[SIKH335]

Originally Posted by Laid Black 335i

Why do you keep bringing up the cost of the tune? Who cares if one cost more than the other. The discussion is intended to be results driven.

I guess you have not heard any arguments against the cost of the Single Turbo kit and in basic the Procede rev 3. But hey I guess it's not an issue now lol!

[CaptainInsano]

OP, you did start a thread about tunes. Look what you've caused.