[ExpensiveTaste]

Originally Posted by Clap135

So is that your way of saying you can't prove me wrong?

Haha ok, back to square one. I think someone should create a thread about Clap needing therapy.

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by ExpensiveTaste

Haha ok, back to square one. I think someone should create a thread about Clap needing therapy.

I will take that as a yes. Thanks for proving my point though.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by ExpensiveTaste

Laloosh is a joke.

What does that make your knowledge on how to tune cars?

Go find me a datalog a 14 PSI car, in any place of the world on 93 PUMP maximum octane holding the same ignition a stock boosted car.

Let me know when you give up. We will all be here to say, "I told you".

[ExpensiveTaste]

Originally Posted by JPSlick

What does that make your knowledge on how to tune cars?

Go find me a datalog a 14 PSI car, in any place of the world on 93 PUMP maximum octane holding the same ignition a stock boosted car.

Let me know when you give up. We will all be here to say, "I told you".

Can you please clarify your post? It's a little hard to read. Are you saying that you want to see comparative logs of timing with a car running at 8psi and a car running at 14psi in the same conditions?

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by ExpensiveTaste

Basically its not needed unless you're running more than 14 or so pounds of boost without meth or race gas on a hot humid day at an elevation of 6000+ feet lol

You said here ignition offset is not needed unless your running 14 PSI + of boost without meth or race gas ETC ETC

Originally Posted by Clap135

Not even close, plus 3 degrees is not even enough to sustain 14-15psi on a fully bolted car.

Clap said incorrect.... and you went on to bicker about it and derail the thread.

Originally Posted by ExpensiveTaste

Can you please clarify your post? It's a little hard to read. Are you saying that you want to see comparative logs of timing with a car running at 8psi and a car running at 14psi in the same conditions?

I'm asking you...

Since you say you dont need ignition offset for say 12-14 PSI Pump gas...

Where do you come up with this logic?

The interpretation of your post directly related to clap's response has the assumption that you can hit maximum timing on 12-14 PSI.

DO you have datalogs showing that stock timing tables and values can reach its maximum sent point on pump gas at 12-14 PSI? I find that hard to believe.

Again, the wording you used is up for interpretation. So feel free to clarify.

[ZTUNER]

Originally Posted by Litos

i've been following this thread since it came out.

is this going to control timing !?!?

It will allow cps offset, 3 degrees at a time.not 1 deg or half deg. If i understand correctly (maybe i don't), every tooth in the cas is 3 deg and thats the best resolution they can provide.

I think after reading again, that they will basically retard the cas by one tooth effectively pulling timing by 3 deg BUT its not clear if there is a 1:1 relationship between the cas and timing. This is like adjusting base timing on old motors where you rotated the cas relative to its mounting point. E ecu expects a base timing but you can globaly advance or retard the timing. Its a crude way to adjust base timing.
Harry

[fisherbln]

Originally Posted by Terry@N54tech

To be honest I'm sort of happy he kicked us in the ass to get it done. I was reading that thread on e90post a couple days ago catching up, and thought to myself, I could probably make a CPS module for these guys in less time than I've spent reading this 70 pages of bull****. Turns out I was about right.

Glad that they're finally adding CPS offset. The quote above is from the other forum and actually shows Terry giving credit to clap and this thread (sort of) for getting him to do it. Good job Terry, I'll give credit where it is due.

[ExpensiveTaste]

Originally Posted by JPSlick

I'm asking you...

Since you say you dont need ignition offset for say 12-14 PSI Pump gas...

Where do you come up with this logic?

The interpretation of your post directly related to clap's response has the assumption that you can hit maximum timing on 12-14 PSI.

DO you have datalogs showing that stock timing tables and values can reach its maximum sent point on pump gas at 12-14 PSI? I find that hard to believe.

Again, the wording you used is up for interpretation. So feel free to clarify.

I'm saying that "CPS Offsetting" is useless at these low boost levels. The timing tables are a maximum setpoint. BMW engineered this car to run at the most aggressive ignition advance for a given measured condition and that's why the timing advance varies during normal operation in varying load conditions. Yes, the piggybacks trick the ECU into thinking the calculated load is less. However, the adaptation logic BMW included in their factory tuning serves as a custom tune for all conditions. Don't try and remove this feature by saying, trick the ECU into removing 3 degrees of timing accross the entire curve to try and limit knock events. The ECU will do that by itself, while still having the ability to use higher timing curves during optimum conditions.

[ZTUNER]

Originally Posted by fisherbln

Glad that they're finally adding CPS offset. The quote above is from the other forum and actually shows Terry giving credit to clap and this thread (sort of) for getting him to do it. Good job Terry, I'll give credit where it is due.

Be aware this is not a dynamic table, its a global change which might have impacts in other areas. Only time will tell. This is NOT a 2 d timing table based on load or anything. Just wanted to make this clear.

Harry

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by ExpensiveTaste

I'm saying that "CPS Offsetting" is useless at these low boost levels. The timing tables are a maximum setpoint. BMW engineered this car to run at the most aggressive ignition advance for a given measured condition and that's why the timing advance varies during normal operation in varying load conditions. Yes, the piggybacks trick the ECU into thinking the calculated load is less. However, the adaptation logic BMW included in their factory tuning serves as a custom tune for all conditions. Don't try and remove this feature by saying, trick the ECU into removing 3 degrees of timing accross the entire curve to try and limit knock events. The ECU will do that by itself, while still having the ability to use higher timing curves during optimum conditions.

So what your saying is you rather use a REACTIVE Tuning process to reduce timing, other then a PROATIVE approach.

Hopefully you see the light on the benefits of the latter.

Might I add that the implementation of CPS offset doesnt negate the use of the stock DME logic. It simply puts it on the back burner if indeed the CPS offset wasnt enough ignition pull.

Just like everytune out there even Cobb, if ignition wasnt tuned low enough the stock DME knock sensor and logic will still pull timing on a reactive basis, so its never eliminated.

[ZTUNER]

Originally Posted by ExpensiveTaste

I'm saying that "CPS Offsetting" is useless at these low boost levels. The timing tables are a maximum setpoint. BMW engineered this car to run at the most aggressive ignition advance for a given measured condition and that's why the timing advance varies during normal operation in varying load conditions. Yes, the piggybacks trick the ECU into thinking the calculated load is less. However, the adaptation logic BMW included in their factory tuning serves as a custom tune for all conditions. Don't try and remove this feature by saying, trick the ECU into removing 3 degrees of timing accross the entire curve to try and limit knock events. The ECU will do that by itself, while still having the ability to use higher timing curves during optimum conditions.

I find it interesting when you say what "bmw engineered this car for" . They also engineered it for stock boost and no tunes. I think what you are trying to say is that pulling timing globally will have an adverse effect on the low end and part throttle response. You would be correct in saying that. It should also negatively impact gas mileage. Kinda depends on how much timing the ecu can add back in if any.



Harry

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by ZTUNER

It will allow cps offset, 3 degrees at a time.not 1 deg or half deg. If i understand correctly (maybe i don't), every tooth in the cas is 3 deg and thats the best resolution they can provide.

I think after reading again, that they will basically retard the cas by one tooth effectively pulling timing by 3 deg BUT its not clear if there is a 1:1 relationship between the cas and timing. This is like adjusting base timing on old motors where you rotated the cas relative to its mounting point. E ecu expects a base timing but you can globaly advance or retard the timing. Its a crude way to adjust base timing.
Harry

It goes 0-14 degrees in 1/4 degree increments at the moment. Little video they made yesterday showing it in action.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by ZTUNER

Be aware this is not a dynamic table, its a global change which might have impacts in other areas. Only time will tell. This is NOT a 2 d timing table based on load or anything. Just wanted to make this clear.

Harry

You must have misread or misunderstood something. It's a fully dynamic variable CPS offset.

Mike

[ZTUNER]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

It goes 0-14 degrees in 1/4 degree increments at the moment. Little video they made yesterday showing it in action.

Are you can add or delete timing in .25 deg of timing ? Just confirming.

Harry

[ExpensiveTaste]

Originally Posted by JPSlick

So what your saying is you rather use a REACTIVE Tuning process to reduce timing, other then a PROATIVE approach.

Hopefully you see the light on the benefits of the latter.

Might I add that the implementation of CPS offset doesnt negate the use of the stock DME logic. It simply puts it on the back burner if indeed the CPS offset wasnt enough ignition pull.

Just like everytune out there even Cobb, if ignition wasnt tuned low enough the stock DME knock sensor and logic will still pull timing on a reactive basis, so its never eliminated.

Ignition timing needs to vary depending on conditions. Lowering the global timing or even maximum setpoint at various load and RPM levels is not what needs to be done in my opinion. What needs to be done is to lower the aggression level of adaptive timing advance in relation to boost. So for example let's say manifold pressure is P and timing aggression is a variable A. For argument purposes, say temperature is constant.

A = 1 / P

So if pressure increases from 1 atmosphere to 2 atmospheres the aggression slope should decrease by half. However, I think the increase aggression should follow this logic and the decrease aggression should remain the same. The equation might even need to be A = 1 / (P^2). I'm not sure and it would require testing and obviously temperature and air mass would need to be included in the equation because those items vary as well.

[ZTUNER]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

You must have misread or misunderstood something. It's a fully dynamic variable CPS offset.

Mike

Fair enough. It did not seem apparent in the points you listed . So you are saying that you can set load points and specify how much timing you can pull fby rpm and load ? Or whatever change you make affects the entire rpm / load range ?

Harry

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by ZTUNER

Fair enough. It did not seem apparent in the points you listed . So you are saying that you can set load points and specify how much timing you can pull fby rpm and load ? Or whatever change you make affects the entire rpm / load range ?

Harry

You plug it in to the JB4 and then map the amount of offset based on boost, RPM, IAT, gear, or whatever.

Mike

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by ExpensiveTaste

Ignition timing needs to vary depending on conditions. Lowering the global timing or even maximum setpoint at various load and RPM levels is not what needs to be done in my opinion. What needs to be done is to lower the aggression level of adaptive timing advance in relation to boost. So for example let's say manifold pressure is P and timing aggression is a variable A. For argument purposes, say temperature is constant.

A = 1 / P

So if pressure increases from 1 atmosphere to 2 atmospheres the aggression slope should decrease by half. However, I think the increase aggression should follow this logic and the decrease aggression should remain the same. The equation might even need to be A = 1 / (P^2). I'm not sure and it would require testing and obviously temperature and air mass would need to be included in the equation because those items vary as well.

I would consider that reinventing the wheel when the typical Load VS RPM ignition tables work just fine when tuned. But tuning is combination of physics (science) and art.... so there is more then one way to do it.

[BrianMN]

So a couple questions that should be pretty easy:

Q: Will CPS offsetting (Proactively reducing ign. advance) help the car reduce knock and related timing dropouts?

Q: Is this suggested to be added to JB3/4 tunes?

Q: If it was so easy to make, why not do it until now?

Q: The consensus for 3 years has been that CPS offsetting is not needed nor desirable...what changed?

[ExpensiveTaste]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

You plug it in to the JB4 and then map the amount of offset based on boost, RPM, IAT, gear, or whatever.

Mike

Mike, how will offsetting the crank position sensor (CPS Offsetting for the nubes) affect injector pulse timing as well as cam timing? Will CPS offsetting have a negative affect on these events?

[ExpensiveTaste]

Originally Posted by JPSlick

I would consider that reinventing the wheel when the typical Load VS RPM ignition tables work just fine when tuned. But tuning is combination of physics (science) and art.... so there is more then one way to do it.

Well its not really reinventing the wheel. It's using the full functionality of the factory ECU. Why would you pick constantly tuning the car manually when the ECU has the ability to pick the best tune for the given conditions? Obviously, you could lower the timing to nothing and then you would never show timing dropouts but why leave power/efficiency on the table? How do we know that the factory ECU isn't very conservative with these 3 degree timing dropouts? Any kind of knock sensed and drop the timing. And we all know that the internal combustion engine always knocks but we try and avoid larger knock events. There is no perfect "boom".

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by ExpensiveTaste

Mike, how will offsetting the crank position sensor (CPS Offsetting for the nubes) affect injector pulse timing as well as cam timing? Will CPS offsetting have a negative affect on these events?

Most of those technical questions are better asked to BMS directly. My personal opinion is there are negative drawbacks on injection and VANOS timing and I don't want to see the misfire problem plaguing the other system crop up with the JB4. That real misfire problem is much worse than the imaginary knock problem in my opinion. Thankfully by having it optional it's not a fight about whether to get a JB4 or get another system. It's a fight about whether the JB4 CPS add on module is worth getting. I asked BMS re: potential cost and they said it's not finalized but probably in the $50-80 range depending on a couple variables to be determined. So if you believe in CPS you get a fully unlocked (all maps, user tunable, and no VIN lock) CAN piggyback with CPS for $530-560. If you don't believe in it you save a few bucks at $479. Pretty good prices if you ask me.

Mike