[rflow]

Originally Posted by ArmyBimmerDude

Nope. Stock exhaust running on 91 oct. I looked specifically for those, I mean come on....why would I lie when all the dynos have been on the forum for months now?

Is that TT dyno with an exhaust or 93 oct? Since you asked first

You missed interpreted my question, I did not know about any of the cars including the turbo tuner. Thanks , my bad to lazy to read the whole thread.

[ArmyBimmerDude]

Originally Posted by rflow

You missed interpreted my question, I did not know about any of the cars including the turbo tuner. Thanks , my bad to lazy to read the whole thread.

No biggy, I wouldnt read the whole thing thread either.

[Jeff@Eurobahn.us]

our car was stock 6MT with sport package only, yep it's a base model

Jeff
Eurobahn

[Blk07335i]

Shiv or anyone else...Why the concern over the AFR with the TT when the AFR plot for the TT seems identical to the stock one? Or are you saying that the stock AFR is running too lean at lower rpms as well?

[PresaMat]

LoL... i wish i had a scan of my dyno... 350HP/400TQ with my procede. I need to find my dynosheet and scan it. That is without any other mods but procede WITH the OLD 1.2 map... 1.4 should be even higher.

[ArmyBimmerDude]

Originally Posted by PresaMat

LoL... i wish i had a scan of my dyno... 350HP/400TQ with my procede. I need to find my dynosheet and scan it. That is without any other mods but procede WITH the OLD 1.2 map... 1.4 should be even higher.

Hey bro, is that with 91 or 93?

[RiXst3r]

Originally Posted by PresaMat

LoL... i wish i had a scan of my dyno... 350HP/400TQ with my procede. I need to find my dynosheet and scan it. That is without any other mods but procede WITH the OLD 1.2 map... 1.4 should be even higher.

and you are on 93 octane, we are comparing 91 right now... a turbo tuner 93 octane dyno is coming soon

[PresaMat]

93 - ill be interested to see a TT 93 dyno.

[Jeff@Eurobahn.us]

Originally Posted by RiXst3r

and you are on 93 octane, we are comparing 91 right now... a turbo tuner 93 octane dyno is coming soon

It will definitely be interesting to see what the car does. External Temperature and humidity will also be a factor but the dyno should compensate for those parameters.

Jeff
Eurobahn

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Blk07335i

Shiv or anyone else...Why the concern over the AFR with the TT when the AFR plot for the TT seems identical to the stock one? Or are you saying that the stock AFR is running too lean at lower rpms as well?

Good question. The stock AFR, under full boost, is a compromise for emissions and fuel economy. They ran it as lean as possible for the power output they targeted. This is why the stock car only runs 5-6psi through most of the low end/midrange. It's only when the car starts to richen up at higher engine speeds does boost ramp up to 8psi (at ~6000rpm). This is no coincidence as richer AFRs play a big role in in-cylinder cooling and knock resistance.

BMW powertrain engineers felt it was important to run 12.5:1 AFR at peak hp. This peak hp is ~270whp which occurs at 6000rpm in a stock car. Basically, they said to themselves "they engine is doing quite a bit of work and generating quite a bit of heat at this point we need to keep it cool and happy."

At what RPM are the PROcede/Turbo Tuner'd cars making 270whp?
Right around 4500rpm.
Using the same logic, it would make sense to offer similarly conservative fueling strategies at this lower RPM. After all, the engine is doing the same work and generating the same kind of heat at 4500rpm as the stock car is doing at 6000rpm (minus some frictional losses of course). In other words, relying on the stock AFR curve for an engine that is running considerably more boost and making considerably more power isn't a great idea. Especially when your starting from a not-so-rich AFR to start with.

That's fueling in perhaps an overly simplistic nutshell. But it should explain why the approach to making power is even more important than making power.

Hope that helps...
Cheers,
Shiv

[Blk07335i]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Good question. The stock AFR, under full boost, is a compromise for emissions and fuel economy. They ran it as lean as possible for the power output they targeted. This is why the stock car only runs 5-6psi through most of the low end/midrange. It's only when the car starts to richen up at higher engine speeds does boost ramp up to 8psi (at ~6000rpm). This is no coincidence as richer AFRs play a big role in in-cylinder cooling and knock resistance.

BMW powertrain engineers felt it was important to run 12.5:1 AFR at peak hp. This peak hp is ~270whp which occurs at 6000rpm in a stock car. Basically, they said to themselves "they engine is doing quite a bit of work and generating quite a bit of heat at this point we need to keep it cool and happy."

At what RPM are the PROcede/Turbo Tuner'd cars making 270whp?
Right around 4500rpm.
Using the same logic, it would make sense to offer similarly conservative fueling strategies at this lower RPM. After all, the engine is doing the same work and generating the same kind of heat at 4500rpm as the stock car is doing at 6000rpm (minus some frictional losses of course). In other words, relying on the stock AFR curve for an engine that is running considerably more boost and making considerably more power isn't a great idea. Especially when your starting from a not-so-rich AFR to start with.

That's fueling in perhaps an overly simplistic nutshell. But it should explain why the approach to making power is even more important than making power.

Hope that helps...
Cheers,
Shiv

It does...I'm considering both products and want to understand the trade-offs. So you are saying that in order support higher boost (than stock) at lower rpms you felt it was prudent to alter the AFR curve to ensure the longevity of the engine, correct? How does one control alter the AFR curve exactly?

[RiXst3r]

Originally Posted by Blk07335i

It does...I'm considering both products and want to understand the trade-offs. So you are saying that in order support higher boost (than stock) at lower rpms you felt it was prudent to alter the AFR curve to ensure the longevity of the engine, correct? How does one control alter the AFR curve exactly?

Obviously the more boost (and more torque) you add at low RPM's, the more fuel you need. This is one reason the PROcede makes more power down low... because it has better control over fueling, and can richen it up

[j|rz44]

So to sum it all up....

TT = bad for your car

&

PROcede = good for your car

is that what your saying shiv?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Blk07335i

It does...I'm considering both products and want to understand the trade-offs. So you are saying that in order support higher boost (than stock) at lower rpms you felt it was prudent to alter the AFR curve to ensure the longevity of the engine, correct?

Absolutely. This is basic engine tuning practices. I'm not promoting anything than any other competant tuner wouldn't do.

How does one control alter the AFR curve exactly?

By influencing more than just the T-MAP signal. Specifically, the AFR signals that the factory ECU sees and responds to. But that's only a portion of the job. A equally important job is to have actual 3D mappable control over spark timing. We retard as much as 6-7 degrees of timing under boost in certain conditions. I couldn't ever imagine not having this control. In fact, we don't even start tuning cars until we get solid control over timing. Then boost and fuel.

[RiXst3r]

Originally Posted by jmramos44

So to sum it all up....

TT = bad for your car

&

PROcede = good for your car

is that what your saying shiv?

Every tuning mod will cause excess wear and tear on your car... the PROcede is no exception... its not "good" for your car

Neither is going to flat out hurt your engine as far as we know... they might make your tires go bald, or help you ruin your driveline...

Both products are so new, longterm effects are impossible to see... but both tuners have cars with over 10k tuned miles

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by jmramos44

So to sum it all up....

TT = bad for your car

&

PROcede = good for your car

is that what your saying shiv?

Probably the best summary of why fuel, timing and boost control is important can be found here:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...53&postcount=1

And yes, the PROcede is the safest approach that I know of at this time for the car. This thread will explain why. It's several months old but it should give you an idea of why/how we can up with the current tuning solution. "Safe" and "Unsafe" are terms that are shrouded in subjectivity. What is safe for some is unsafe for others. Some people expect 50k miles of problem free driving. Others expect 100k miles. So we don't even bother trying to quantify how much safer one approach is to the other since the biggest contributor to safey is how the car is driven. I assume that everyone drives as hard as me. That everyone puts 100 dyno runs per month on their car. That everyone runs on our junky 91oct fuel. That everyone drives 30k/year. With 50% of that being on boost So we designed an engine control system with that in mind. Others may not drive their car like that. But if they chose to, they can be confident that their car can handle it. And if they don't, they know that they have as much margin for safety as possible given the power output. And we're always making improvements to performance, drivability and safety. Not just little ones. But big ones. As you guys will see with the upcoming v2 map and firmware update

Cheers,
shiv

[PresaMat]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Probably the best summary of why fuel, timing and boost control is important can be found here:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...53&postcount=1

And yes, the PROcede is the safest approach that I know of at this time for the car. This thread will explain why. It's several months old but it should give you an idea of why/how we can up with the current tuning solution. "Safe" and "Unsafe" are terms that are shrouded in subjectivity. What is safe for some is unsafe for others. Some people expect 50k miles of problem free driving. Others expect 100k miles. So we don't even bother trying to quantify how much safer one approach is to the other since the biggest contributor to safey is how the car is driven. I assume that everyone drives as hard as me. That everyone puts 100 dyno runs per month on their car. That everyone runs on our junky 91oct fuel. That everyone drives 30k/year. With 50% of that being on boost So we designed an engine control system with that in mind. Others may not drive their car like that. But if they chose to, they can be confident that their car can handle it. And if they don't, they know that they have as much margin for safety as possible given the power output. And we're always making improvements to performance, drivability and safety. Not just little ones. But big ones. As you guys will see with the upcoming v2 map and firmware update

Cheers,
shiv

V2 map?!?! Firmware update?!?! Damn shiv give us some more details!!!

[RiXst3r]

maybe if eurobahn would have called it the "turbo tooner" shiv would be happy

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by RiXst3r

maybe if eurobahn would have called it the "turbo tooner" shiv would be happy

[Jeff@Eurobahn.us]

Originally Posted by RiXst3r

maybe if eurobahn would have called it the "turbo tooner" shiv would be happy

I guess we will have to consider a name change then

Jeff
Eurobahn

[Corey]

I think the point of all this is as Shiv and Jeff have said:
1. Safety is subjective
2. These are two products for two different people

If you just want something you can throw in your car once a month to do a few runs down a drag strip then maybe the Turbo Tuner is for you. The margin of safety is lower, and this is reflected in the cost and ease of use. If you're looking for a more permanent solution then it's probably time to look at the Procede. But hell, I run a standalone, what do I know about these.

[OpenFlash]

Ah the voice of reason