[Clap135]

Originally Posted by Sniz

we may have just witnessed the beginning of JB subi, a branch of JB bmw

lmao YEA RIGHT, a subi wouldn't make it out of 2nd gear running a juice box.

[Sniz]

Originally Posted by Clap135

lmao YEA RIGHT, a subi wouldn't make it out of 2nd gear running a juice box.

but Clap, knock doesnt cause damage remember

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by biz77

Meaning it can determine the severity of a knock event?

By “overreacting,” do you mean responding exactly as intended by the BMW engineers based on a serious knock event?

Mike, again:

Here is an explanation on the Subaru knock control system: http://www.romraider.com/forum/viewt...hp?f=25&t=1840

How does BMW’s system differ? I can go and set my timing tables on my Subaru so that it also knocks on pump gas (not that I would.) The knock control system will circumvent the knock through feedback knock correction, fine learning knock correction and IAM adjustment. If I put race gas in, the system will then advance timing back up in response to the higher octane. Again, how is this different from what BMW is doing?

+1

This is exactly what I've been trying to convey to Mike for a while now... these timing features/fundamentals are spread across a large number of platforms.

Originally Posted by Sniz

we may have just witnessed the beginning of JB subi, a branch of JB bmw

I try not to post anything incendiary if possible (unless I'm in an OT section ) but I couldn't help but laugh my ass off at that one haha!

Originally Posted by Clap135

lmao YEA RIGHT, a subi wouldn't make it out of 2nd gear running a juice box.

^^^LMAO!! Debatable... it might make it to 3rd gear (depending on 5MT vs 6MT ratios)


On a somewhat related note, I actually stumbled across an old thread Shiv made about ignition correction/timing control a while back. Man, he pointed it out, clear as day, but still no concession... I won't lie, I have a pretty high tolerance for not getting worked up in a debate, but Shiv has my sympathy for sure, that must have been frustrating. Good read though:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282443

I especially like a couple small clips from that thread. One from a man with a strong understanding of how timing works:

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

In this post, I'm going to explain how the factory Timing/knock control system works. It's no different, in concept, to any modern engine control system (Mitsu, Porsche, Subaru, etc,.) Most of the differences between the different ECU types has to do with response times, adaption logic, etc,....

Shiv

And another small quote that I almost died laughing from:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...5&postcount=62

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

It gets to be a complicated detail oriented topic. For example, it is well understood and agreed by most that there is a ceiling to how much timing the ECU will add. The ECU will add timing up to its "knock threshold" OR that ceiling, whichever is lowest. It is not well known or understood how that ceiling is determined. Octane adaption is a major contributor and the principle method through which the CPS offsets are learned out. And a major contributor to total timing advance, much more so than IAT....

Mike

Apparently he didn't realize these cars have timing tables (aka "that ceiling") haha... like just pretty much every other modern performance car out there.


Sorry, this was really unnecessary, but I really couldn't help myself on this one.

-Brandon

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

+1

This is exactly what I've been trying to convey to Mike for a while now... these timing features/fundamentals are spread across a large number of platforms.




I try not to post anything incendiary if possible (unless I'm in an OT section ) but I couldn't help but laugh my ass off at that one haha!




^^^LMAO!! Debatable... it might make it to 3rd gear (depending on 5MT vs 6MT ratios)


On a somewhat related note, I actually stumbled across an old thread Shiv made about ignition correction/timing control a while back. Man, he pointed it out, clear as day, but still no concession... I won't lie, I have a pretty high tolerance for not getting worked up in a debate, but Shiv has my sympathy for sure, that must have been frustrating. Good read though:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282443

I especially like a couple small clips from that thread. One from a man with a strong understanding of how timing works:



And another small quote that I almost died laughing from:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...5&postcount=62




Apparently he didn't realize these cars have timing tables (aka "that ceiling") haha... like just pretty much every other modern performance car out there.


Sorry, this was really unnecessary, but I really couldn't help myself on this one.

-Brandon

welcome to my personal hell.

[shifterboy45]

i think that oversimplifcations attributed to the DME and is operation as a whole, and with that the idea of reactive timing control has become a mantra.

for instance, the DME can and does listen to each cylinder for knock events (on a seperate basis) so it can detect and isolate the event to an individual cylinder -- we know that all cylinders do not run at the same temp -- so pulling the timing a "good" running cylinder is looked at as sub-optimal.

since no one has noted it yet, the temp in the engine block can be varied by the use of MAP cooling - the thermostat is electronically controlled to allow or inhibit coolant flow to keep engine efficiency high.

timing is also set per cylinder, based on requirement (speed, load, temp, etc.) so i am guessing that the use of a "boost controller" alone could be viable for increase power production, but as noted so many times before -- its shouldnt be consider the "best" approach.

yes, this electronic engine management system is sophisticated, yes is reacts quickly -- again restating the restated point -- tuning is not suppose to be reactive -- yes there needs to be a failsafe -- proper tuning is not a "trickle down" game, eg. lets throw this at the system and see what happens -- its should be a graduated -- measured -- safe approach to more power.

if some one could direct me to an article from a respected forced induction tuner that preaches getting anywhere close to knocking -- id like to read it -- maybe im behind the times

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

Mike,

I think you missed the point buddy A large majority of modern performance cars have adaptive timing systems. Let's review here:

-Most modern cars have load vs RPM timing tables.
-The N54 has a load vs RPM timing table (I added it to the first post if you care to take another look ).

-Most modern cars have knock induced timing correction (Subaru's refer to this as IAM).
-The N54 also corrects timing based on knock.

-Most modern cars have compensation tables for a variety of environmental conditions (IAT, Baro, ect).
-The N54 has compensation tables for a variety of environmental conditions.


^^^I understand that you're having some difficulty understanding this, but the N54's timing system is not that different from every other modern performance car out there. It simply has a slightly faster DME and more sensitive knock sensors (thank goodness!!). The principles are the same. I've seen plenty of cars that knock from the factory (especially at my elevation- 5200 ft on 91 octane piss water), this is never optimum, and any tuner worth their salt will work to ensure no knock is present at any point if at all possible.

We've all seen enough logs to know that yes, in fact these cars do knock, many from the factory, and many more when tuned. This is never optimum, under any condition, regardless of how fast the DME is at pulling timing to avoid major catastrophic failure. I would agree that many OTS maps/tunes knock (this much is true in many communities, N54/N55's are not alone in this regard), which is why I'm not advocating OTS maps, and am a firm believer in custom tuning (always have been).

Those massive drops in timing seen in numerous logs (caused by knock, regardless of the severity), those translate to dips seen in torque curves, and in the real world, not only do they have the potential to increase normal wear, they also lead to reduced consistency.

I would also respectfully disagree that "no one does this", as many respected tuners attempt to adjust timing in regards to load (i.e. Shiv). While an OTS map often does not hit this target, it is attempted nonetheless. You will find as user adjustability increases, and these cars become tuned by a larger number of professional tuners, they will follow the same strategy. As a matter of fact, it might not be a bad idea to consult the guys at Cobb for their thoughts on the matter (I already have ). If a tune is happy, you should be seeing maximum/base timing values (most professional tuners would agree with me on this).

Have you ever taken a political science or critical thinking course? If so, you would know that the argument in your last paragraph is what can be referred to as an argumentum ad populum, which is appealing to popularity as opposed to logic. It's a nice move in order to appeal to people that have poor critical thinking skills, and are not used to wading through rhetoric. This holds a considerable amount of sway over the uneducated population, that is not familiar with the more basic (as well as advanced) theories of tuning. However on individuals that have a bit more experience in this realm than yourself, this type of fallacy holds little sway.

Last I heard (and correct me if I heard wrong), Terry was working on a "Proboard" for "more advanced users", and this unit will supposedly have the ability to alter timing. Is this true, sir? Or have I been misinformed? If so, based on your beliefs about playing with timing tables being a waste (not a view shared by most reputable tuners), why would your benefactor be working on a system that addresses these shortcomings? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to, you can allow it to be rhetorical, but it's just food for thought friend

I respect that you have a difficult, demanding job, and from what I understand, you are phenomenal in the realm of customer service, so please don't take any of this personal, as it is not meant to be. This is merely a technical discussion, one that I believe benefits all the members of this community.

Cheers,

-Brandon

Such long replies with off topic rants and veiled insults are not really necessary.

1) You've failed to show stock, CPS, and flash tune cars don't ride the knockthesold system.
2) You've failed to explain how "autotuning" works without knock.
3) You've failed to understand that the load/timing tables are advance limiters or maximum advance set points, not base timing tables.
4) You've made the claim that cylinder by cylinder timing drops lead to "massive" torque drops which hasn't proven to be the case with dyno testing. We can get in to that if you're interested.
5) You've failed to acknowledge or explain the large number of JB4 charts posted without timing dips.

Finally in reference to Cobb I'll offer this quote which directly contradicts you:

Originally Posted by Rob@Cobb

The ECU is overly ambitious when it comes to pulling timing. Logging stock or modified, it's not unusual to see seemingly random 3-6 degree pulls of timing on different cylinders throughout a pull. During the seemly random timing pulls there is not any excessive movement on the knock sensor voltages. When a few to all cylinders start to "talk" or pull timing in the same location, then the engine is likely working up to a detonation event. Seeing a timing hit of 3 degrees on cylinder 1 randomly really does not mean much. If it happens on every pull in the same place, then yes, the ECU might be detecting a detonation event on the horizon and is proactively pulling timing. Looking into tuning the knock thresholds is another item on my to-do list.

Actual detonation in the N54 is very noticeable both audibly and how the ECU react to the event where is seems like the car stalls for an instant. Not a happy time.

Regarding the PRO board it does include CPS as well as a variety of
other features but not because they are required or beneficial for the
average N54 user. It's simply to make it a more universal product.

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Such long replies with off topic rants and veiled insults are not really necessary.

1) You've failed to show stock, CPS, and flash tune cars don't ride the knockthesold system.
2) You've failed to explain how "autotuning" works without knock.
3) You've failed to understand that the load/timing tables are advance limiters or maximum advance set points, not base timing tables.
4) You've made the claim that cylinder by cylinder timing drops lead to "massive" torque drops which hasn't proven to be the case with dyno testing. We can get in to that if you're interested.
5) You've failed to acknowledge or explain the large number of JB4 charts posted without timing dips.

Finally in reference to Cobb I'll offer this quote which directly contradicts you:



Regarding the PRO board it does include CPS as well as a variety of
other features but not because they are required or beneficial for the
average N54 user. It's simply to make it a more universal product.

1. You have been here long enough to see all of the following.
2. Autotuning ont he procede works by increasing cps offsets based on knock events, so the knock doesnt happen again.
3. Base timing and max set timing, we all know what he meant.
4. He didn't say all drops equal power looses, how bout this mikey, video tape this to shut every one. Drive your car on the stock tune, strap it to the dyno, log it while on the dyno. Switch over to map whatever, start the engine and dyno it.
5. A large number? A large number of them looks like a rollercoaster at six flags.
6. Why did cobb drop ignition 3-6 degrees then?

[Jake@MOTIV]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

1) You've failed to show stock, CPS, and flash tune cars don't ride the knockthesold system.
2) You've failed to explain how "autotuning" works without knock.
3) You've failed to understand that the load/timing tables are advance limiters or maximum advance set points, not base timing tables.
4) You've made the claim that cylinder by cylinder timing drops lead to "massive" torque drops which hasn't proven to be the case with dyno testing. We can get in to that if you're interested.
5) You've failed to acknowledge or explain the large number of JB4 charts posted without timing dips.

I gotta say you honestly amaze me with either your stupidity or lack or morals. I think finding out it is stupidity would shock me more. You are the kid that studies so he can make sure he answers all the questions wrong. You are seriously going that extra yard to understand enough of what your talking about to make completely incorrect statements sound plausible to people who don't know any better.

You also shouldn't point out that people avoided answering something. You are famous for it. I have asked you multiple times what timing values you would run at say 15psi if you had a standalone for this car. The correct answer would be a few degrees shy of where power stops increasing at that load point on the dyno. Guess what mike - flash tunes allow you to enter the max advance at each load point and rpm the car will run. You know what that means? I'd leave it open for you to answer but you would just avoid it - that means they aren't riding the knock threshold.

You act like this car has new unique technology that sets it apart from every aspect of tuning theory / fact that has ever been written. You really need to go read maximum boost and take some of the tuning courses offered by efi101 and other reputable places.

I hope the proboard is at least a direct replica of the procede. At least then it will have some tuning logic incorporated in its design.

EDIT: I am tempted to post up to the admin and instructors on efi101 (one of the most respected tuning forums and courses around)...that way Mike can tell us that info straight from the authorities is wrong too. http://www.efi101.com/forum/

[Clap135]

Why does the jb4 drop boost now with its new autotuning? I though the ecu takes care of everything from a timing point of view? You implented a system that goes AGAINST everything you preach.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by Clap135

Why does the jb4 drop boost now with its new autotuning? I though the ecu takes care of everything from a timing point of view? You implented a system that goes AGAINST everything you preach.

First I didn't design the system but I can clearly understand how it works. Larger timing dips indicate the DME is having a hard time finding a plausible timing curve for the boost requested / octane provided. You can remedy that by reducing boost pressure as the JB4 autolearning does or you can lower the advance limiter so low that it's forced to operate under the knock threshold. For every boost curve, mods/conditions, and octane there is a perfect timing curve and the DME will do its best to find that. But that doesn't mean you can run 20psi on 87 octane. No timing curve will allow that to work. As the DME starts to become less stable with timing you know its time for less boost or more octane.

Mike

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Such long replies with off topic rants and veiled insults are not really necessary.

1) You've failed to show stock, CPS, and flash tune cars don't ride the knockthesold system.
2) You've failed to explain how "autotuning" works without knock.
3) You've failed to understand that the load/timing tables are advance limiters or maximum advance set points, not base timing tables.
4) You've made the claim that cylinder by cylinder timing drops lead to "massive" torque drops which hasn't proven to be the case with dyno testing. We can get in to that if you're interested.
5) You've failed to acknowledge or explain the large number of JB4 charts posted without timing dips.

Finally in reference to Cobb I'll offer this quote which directly contradicts you:



Regarding the PRO board it does include CPS as well as a variety of
other features but not because they are required or beneficial for the
average N54 user. It's simply to make it a more universal product.

While I tried to be friendly, I think I might have somehow gotten under your skin.... I apologize about that

1. I have not advocated the use of an OTS tune (stock, piggy or flash)... not once. In your haze of anger over your own lack of understanding, realize from my original post I have advocated custom tuning (road or dyno) as a method of optimizing a vehicle. You shouldn't be riding the knock threshold as a means of limiting timing. You've missed the entire point.

2. ^^^See 1st question.

3. I hope you're joking.... I doubt you are... if you're serious, you've learned nothing. This type of knock correction based timing adaptation is not new, and it is not optimal, no matter what Terry tells you. It's a failsafe.

4. I've seen several dynos of cars on this forum that have torque drops at random RPM's running JB's.... hell, a person doesn't even have to search this board, a quick Google image search is very revealing. However, in many cases the timing drops are not always evidenced on a torque curve, but we have all seen them (even though it is not hard to simply not post a run with a drop).

5. Yes I did... in my first post in this thread. The combo of good gas, low IAT's and a random lucky pull is the all explanation needed.



The quote from Cobb is out of context (not speaking about a car they have dyno tuned personally, which is what I have been advocating), but with his permission I would gladly post an IM from Rob (at Cobb) clearly stating that as long as the tune is happy, you should be getting base table values.

LMAO @ the PRO board explanation. That is hypocrisy at its most base form sir. At that I rest my case. Either you can choose to try and learn something from this entire discussion, or you can continue to spew misinformation, and ignore pertinent questions other knowledgeable members have asked.

I hope that when the PRO board is released, that you (as well as Terry) can actually realize the benefits of having timing control. I think you'll enjoy it once it becomes an available feature on your system.

Best of luck in all of your endeavors.

-Brandon

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

First I didn't design the system but I can clearly understand how it works. Larger timing dips indicate the DME is having a hard time finding a plausible timing curve for the boost requested / octane provided. You can remedy that by reducing boost pressure as the JB4 autolearning does or you can lower the advance limiter so low that it's forced to operate under the knock threshold. For every boost curve, mods/conditions, and octane there is a perfect timing curve and the DME will do its best to find that. But that doesn't mean you can run 20psi on 87 octane. No timing curve will allow that to work. As the DME starts to become less stable with timing you know its time for less boost or more octane.

Mike

Based on terrys log of his fully bolted car, it is having a hard time to stabalize even at 12 psi. Can you go into more detail about this advance limiter?

[AlterZgo]

Originally Posted by DesertDude

You're right Mike. The ability of the N54 to protect itself in all conditions is quite impressive. Those BMW engineers really know what they are doing.

But...those same BMW engineer saw fit to reduce the timing tables in the IS version of the engine. Why would they do that if the system that they created was so good at adaptation that it shouldn't have been needed based on your reasoning? They increased boost in the IS and reduced the maximum timing allowed under certain load conditions. We are increasing boost even more with the aftermarket tunes, yet you suggest that we don't need to adjust the timing tables? I would think it would be prudent to follow BMW engineerings lead since they know the abilities of this engine and DME better than anyone.

Chirp chirp... I hear crickets b/c Mike's MO is to ignore posts that he can't refute.

[shifterboy45]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Regarding the PRO board it does include CPS as well as a variety of
other features but not because they are required or beneficial for the
average N54 user. It's simply to make it a more universal product.

i try to take a broad view of stuff, especially other folks technology -- but the last paragraph regarding a "universal" product is baffling. sorry but i had to say something

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by shifterboy45

i try to take a broad view of stuff, especially other folks technology -- but the last paragraph regarding a "universal" product is baffling. sorry but i had to say something

Please explain. Are you suggesting a universal box like the Haltech Interceptor should not be developed or are you suggesting platform specific products should not be developed?

Mike

[Clap135]

lol, I think you are a little "off" on what shifterboy meant....

[shifterboy45]

Originally Posted by Clap135

lol, I think you are a little "off" on what shifterboy meant....

no i didnt mean that other technologies should not be developed and explored

[scottp999]

Originally Posted by shifterboy45

i try to take a broad view of stuff, especially other folks technology -- but the last paragraph regarding a "universal" product is baffling. sorry but i had to say something

Remember - Canbus was nothing more than a couple of wires, otherwise useless.
auto tuning was a hoax
timing control through CPS offsetting is a joke

but hey, now they will offer it. Not because they believe in it, but because customers want it, and they need to universally sell to all. Must be those customers have been fooled into believing it, like the tooth fairy or bigfoot.

[mithiral67]

Originally Posted by Clap135

My timing curve under wot usually goes to 4-5 degrees and comes up to 9-10 by the reve limiter. The stock car never falls under 10 if you arnt knocking. So cobb essential lowered ignition anywhere from 3-6 degrees depending on the boost maping. Which sounds about perfect.

Off topic, stock car, 93 oct tune, i am seeing 4 rising to 9, then 11 for the last 800rpms. So am I am also hitting the preset max?

[shifterboy45]

Originally Posted by scottp999

Remember - Canbus was nothing more than a couple of wires, otherwise useless.
auto tuning was a hoax
timing control through CPS offsetting is a joke

but hey, now they will offer it. Not because they believe in it, but because customers want it, and they need to universally sell to all. Must be those customers have been fooled into believing it, like the tooth fairy or bigfoot.

now i understand "universal"

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by mithiral67

Off topic, stock car, 93 oct tune, i am seeing 4 rising to 9, then 11 for the last 800rpms. So am I am also hitting the preset max?

stock car as in no tune? If so, the no you are not maxing out timing.

[ZTUNER]

too all the all the jb timing theory guys. Take a cattle prod, set it to half voltage and poke a cow 5 times at 10 sec intervals. Then bump it up to max and do the same 5 times at 10 sec intervals. Which set of prods does more damage ?

Same goes for bumping off the knock limit. If you do it at stock boost it hurts less, hurts more if you do it at 2x boost.

This is about as simple as this theory can be made. Yes its true even if its a invincible bavarian cow.

Harry