[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by RambleJ

Wow! Does someone piss in your cheerios every morning or what? You have got to be the grumpiest poster on here! If you don't like this thread, you don't have to read it.

I wouldn't take this guy with 30 posts too seriously. Just another troll.

Originally Posted by Skyline

...and I have yet to choose my tuning partner or my methanol delivery system, so if you believe I am bias by way of my ego and choices already made, you are incorrect.

Originally Posted by Skyline

So as someone who bought a Procede days before v5 came along, where can I grab the v5 firmware with which to update?

(07 e90 6AT)

Thanks!

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...2&postcount=62


hmmmmmmm

[Brey335i]

^ owned lol

On another note. This thread was meant for logs, not another silly debate

[Skydive]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I wouldn't take this guy with 30 posts too seriously. Just another troll.




http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...2&postcount=62


hmmmmmmm

...yet uninstalled. Don't be so quick there, Slick. Guess what? In point of fact I own a JB4, and recently a Cobb AP too. As a guy who cut his teeth on flash tuning, I'm still sorting things out with OLS on my own. However, the availability of the PWM integration with the Vishnu integration becoming available, I may well do so. Theoretically, it allows a much tighter integration than do simple map calibrations, and say, an HFS-3, that I can do with OLS. (If Shiv's team decides to allow end-user mapping, It may just be nirvana for me.) When I finish my own mapping effort, I'll be able to compare and make some decisions about what makes the most sense for me, though given your escapades in this thread, I'm pretty sure it won't be the Juice Box. Not once have I commented about the quality of the respective tunes themselves, but rather the methanol injection systems they employ, based upon my knowledge of those systems, and my observations of the technical acuity, and forthrightness of their respective purveyors.

[themyst]

Speaking of which, has Cobb ever indicated that they could monitor ignition in all 6 cylinders or if it is even possible? I know the Procede JB4 and BT cable monitors timing off cylinder 1.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by themyst

I haven't had a methanol related failure ever since I finally dumped the labonte flow sensor for a SnowPerformance unit which was 7 months ago. The whole point of the boost bypass solenoid is for it to cut boost altogether when there IS a methanol failure. If flash tunes retain the stock logic, the dme will throw an underboost code relatively quickly before any knock retard occurs. The good news is, you can reflash to stock mapping relatively quickly while the meth failure is diagnosed. Like I said it's to save you IF there's a failure, not for use as training wheels which should happen infrequently if ever.

I would like to see exactly how quickly things happened though and logs to verify how the DME would react. I agree with your logic though.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

I would like to see exactly how quickly things happened though and logs to verify how the DME would react. I agree with your logic though.

Like dzenno said, a good example is how fast the dme throws an underboost code when your charge pipe blows off.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by themyst

Like dzenno said, a good example is how fast the dme throws an underboost code when your charge pipe blows off.

I would think someone like you would think the same as me? Show me first, then I will believe it works.

[slowSwede]

If anyone cares, water/methanol is usually considered a compressible fluid.

"The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know"
I've always liked that phrase and the older I get, the more I like it.

[Skydive]

Originally Posted by slowSwede

If anyone cares, water/methanol is usually considered a compressible fluid.

Umm... technically water is compressible, but compressibility of water is small. An increase of pressure by 1 atmosphere (= 1013mbar = 14.7 psi) causes a decrease of the water volume by 5.3*10-5 of the original volume. I was unable to find a compressibility index for methanol, but... it's not going to be significantly different.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

I would think someone like you would think the same as me? Show me first, then I will believe it works.

I am merely talking in theory of course. As long as the stock fault detection is the same, I think it'll work well, but we'll see.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by htt760

I am not defending for Shiv but I believe after reading the many many threads regarding this issue, even if Shiv where to provide the Logs for the PPS system, there will be someone out there that will not agree and will still think that their meth kit works with the same principles, which is true but with the added safety net of integrating the fail safes is the key features why I would pay for the PWM kit.

SKydive nailed it with the last post.

I'm quite sure there will be some who will claim that any a/b testing done by me will be tainted. The same people that will never go to the effort of testing it themselves. Still, I'm doing it away. Both a PWM and a PPS meth kit are installed in the same customer car. Same pump. Same flow system (900-1000cc/min) as verified on the test bench. PPS kit has a solenoid and a progressive controller. Both kits use the same Aquamist flow meter so that we can have an apples-to-apples comparison on raw flow signal. Both kits use the same stock chargepipe with our old elbow. Both kits have the pump and bottle are trunk mounted. Should have it wired up tomorrow and be log-able by Monday. More pics and info to come....

[DaFish]

Originally Posted by Focus

Shiv,

I for one am someone truly interested in this kit do to ease of install. But on the same token saving an hour or so of time would not be worth $100's of dollars more over a competitors product if the proposed gain and " benefits " are minimal. Most consumers and people nowadays need to truly SEE the benefit that you speak of over the other conventional system, consider me one of them. If logs are posted showing the PWM system to be well worth it's money, i have $$ sitting in my account waiting to hit the submit button on the purchase screen. Until then not providing such logged differences between the 2 systems but only talking about how better yours is keeps someone like me who WANTS this system from you actually purchasing it. Todays purchaser needs to see facts and proof, that's one reason i chose to go to procede route because to do facts/testimonials/logs it seemed to be the best choice for what I want to do with my vehicle.

^ This is all i feel the masses are asking for...

I second this - exactly the same position. I have the money, just waiting to purchase. I do want to see side by side testing old and new with logs. Just as the title of the thread states... man these threads get derailed so quick.

Shiv/Vishnu - the time you are spending on responding in ALL of these threads is better spent doing the side by side testing on the same car.

I also want a delivery date on when we can purchase this kit.... Robert told me in a phone call this was last week in APRIL.

[Graystone]

Originally Posted by dzenno

I've run 100% meth more than a few times in the washer fluid tank in the past 1.5 years of having my meth kit and there are no leaks. I don't run 100% meth in the car daily as that'd be absurd. 50/50 is more than adequate for a daily driver setup. Higher concentrations are track setups and should be emptied out once done at the track.

In terms of PWM vs PPS the benefits I personally see are basically that you'll end up using less meth over time and probably achieve the same benefit of charge cooling. When it comes to octane enhancement through meth injection it really doesn't matter which kit you use. In the end, if I were to buy a meth kit TODAY and it was my first one I would definitely go for the PWM kit as it provides finer control. I might change (note I didn't say "upgrade") to a PWM kit down the road if I get into auto-x racing. So far I've only been a 1/4 mile junkie and for that a PWM kit doesn't make a measurable difference against PPS.

From reading all,... this is what i come out with also.
The thing is, what Shiv seems to do is overcomplicate everything and that leads me to worry that it will not be reliable. The simple things work best.
That said if Shiv wasnt pushing the bounds of overcomplication we might not have come up with some of the things we have. And i would press on to say things we will have. so i thank him for his overindulgentses..lol

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Graystone

From reading all,... this is what i come out with also.
The thing is, what Shiv seems to do is overcomplicate everything and that leads me to worry that it will not be reliable. The simple things work best.
That said if Shiv wasnt pushing the bounds of overcomplication we might not have come up with some of the things we have. And i would press on to say things we will have. so i thank him for his overindulgentses..lol

If you think this kit is overcomplicated, you don't have solid understanding of it.

It's actually FAR less "complicated" than a traditional PPS system. There is virtually no additional wiring/circuitry (no pump controller, no failsafe electronics). Just a mechanical relay that triggers the pump via mechanical pressure switch. The flow sensor is a mechanical device which reads turbine RPM via hall effects sensor just like a crank position sensor. The meth valve is PWM control liked a fuel injector or boost control solenoid. That's it. And since the meth hardware comes from Aquamist, it's going to be dead nuts reliable. The whole idea behind this system was to simplify the system as a whole, remove various points of potential failure and to improve hardware quality/functionality.

By comparison, a progressive PPS system has a meth pump controller box which reads a boost signal that is routed from the front of the car and outputs a very high output PWM signal to dictate pump speed. Another output that triggers an on/off solenoid to reduce dribbling. With meth being routed through a failsafe box that isn't 100% meth compatible and will degrade/fail over time- even with 70/30 mixtures of meth/water. With the failsafe outputting a converted 0-5v signal representative of meth flow, behind feed to the tuning computer for it to adjust boost/meth accordingly.

Which approach seems more reliable/simpler?

Shiv

[EastBayE90]

Yea it's not complicated at all even my girlfriend understands how it works and the concept behind it. Took her maybe 3 min.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I'm quite sure there will be some who will claim that any a/b testing done by me will be tainted. The same people that will never go to the effort of testing it themselves. Still, I'm doing it away. Both a PWM and a PPS meth kit are installed in the same customer car. Same pump. Same flow system (900-1000cc/min) as verified on the test bench. PPS kit has a solenoid and a progressive controller. Both kits use the same Aquamist flow meter so that we can have an apples-to-apples comparison on raw flow signal. Both kits use the same stock chargepipe with our old elbow. Both kits have the pump and bottle are trunk mounted. Should have it wired up tomorrow and be log-able by Monday. More pics and info to come....

No complaints but understand you are testing only the most basic PPS configuration. For an apples to apples test the tune itself should be setting the duty cycle and running the solenoid based on more than just boost criteria. You should set it up just like you're doing with your PSO kit. Remember electricity moves at close to the speed of light which is much faster than a boost signal going through 12 feet of vacuum line to a pressure reader on the old Labonte PPS box. Also in the real world those flow sensors all cause headaches. Choppy unreliable readings. Leaks. Seizing up. Just ask your Labonte customers. Fortunately there are better, more reliable, less expensive, and easier to install alternatives.

Mike

[Skydive]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

No complaints but understand you are testing only the most basic PPS configuration. For an apples to apples test the tune itself should be setting the duty cycle and running the solenoid based on more than just boost criteria. You should set it up just like you're doing with your PSO kit. Remember electricity moves at close to the speed of light which is much faster than a boost signal going through 12 feet of vacuum line to a pressure reader on the old Labonte PPS box. Also in the real world those flow sensors all cause headaches. Choppy unreliable readings. Leaks. Seizing up. Just ask your Labonte customers. Fortunately there are better, more reliable, less expensive, and easier to install alternatives.

Mike

LOL. "No complaints but..."

I would say that the man has stepped up pretty well here, if he produces results as promised. If you would like to run the test differently, why don't you run one of your own, when your kit is ready, given that you are certain of its equity, and you stand to profit from such equity?

[jippii ensio]

Originally Posted by Skydive

LOL. "No complaints but..."

I would say that the man has stepped up pretty well here, if he produces results as promised. If you would like to run the test differently, why don't you run one of your own, when your kit is ready, given that you are certain of its equity, and you stand to profit from such equity?

Actually Vihsnu and other forum members have provided a lot of logs already of the previous Vishnu meth system and they are showing excellent results maximizing timing and cooling the IATs. Also the subjective driving experiences have been great. So there is not much to improve here other than the longevity problems of Labonte components. That, however, is a great improvement.

[jippii ensio]

Originally Posted by dzenno

you'll end up using less meth over time and probably achieve the same benefit of charge cooling.

If the management is the same, the volumes sprayed are the same.

Introducing other than boost only management parameters is a refinement.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

No complaints but understand you are testing only the most basic PPS configuration. For an apples to apples test the tune itself should be setting the duty cycle and running the solenoid based on more than just boost criteria. You should set it up just like you're doing with your PSO kit. Remember electricity moves at close to the speed of light which is much faster than a boost signal going through 12 feet of vacuum line to a pressure reader on the old Labonte PPS box. Also in the real world those flow sensors all cause headaches. Choppy unreliable readings. Leaks. Seizing up. Just ask your Labonte customers. Fortunately there are better, more reliable, less expensive, and easier to install alternatives.

Mike

Incorrect. The "most basic PPS configuration" is sans solenoid and involves triggering the pump at 12v based upon a pressure switch. I'm actually testing the most advanced currently available PPS system (progressive controller with on/off solenoid).

After I test this configuration, I will test with the Procede driving the pump directly (through mosfet and rectifier diode) with will eliminate the need for the pump controller and the vacuum/boost signal. This is more "cutting edge" than any PPS based system currently available. At which point we will test the respective benefits of metering meth by PWMing a solenoid or by PWMing a pump.

[Ilma]

MOSFET as in metal oxide semi-conductor field effect transistor???

I run those in my high end audio amp

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I'm quite sure there will be some who will claim that any a/b testing done by me will be tainted. The same people that will never go to the effort of testing it themselves. Still, I'm doing it away. Both a PWM and a PPS meth kit are installed in the same customer car. Same pump. Same flow system (900-1000cc/min) as verified on the test bench. PPS kit has a solenoid and a progressive controller. Both kits use the same Aquamist flow meter so that we can have an apples-to-apples comparison on raw flow signal. Both kits use the same stock chargepipe with our old elbow. Both kits have the pump and bottle are trunk mounted. Should have it wired up tomorrow and be log-able by Monday. More pics and info to come....

So what ever happened to this? Both systems were on the car and ready for testing according to your post.
Sorry but lack of data only leaves me thinking the test was done and the results did not come out as fruitful as you wanted it to be..