[RMRC]

Conditions:
SSTT: 61 degrees F, 30.39 in-Hg, 23% humidity
JB2: 66 degrees, 30.26 in-Hg, 43% humidity

91 octane
100 Stock except for tune
Best run of each graphed

Same Dyno

*The curve illustrates what the butt feels. The SSTT drops off/flattens after 5,000 rpm where the JB2 just keeps building and pulling.
*JB2 much nicer AFRs in the midrange (my opinion anyway)
*JB2 runs LOWER boost 10.84 psi vs. 11.58 psi.

In summary: JB2 has LOWER boost, slightly better HP and TQ, better curve and richer AFRs in the midrange.
*JB2 is $200 cheaper.

[5soko]

good job man.
i guess this reinforces the races me and my cuzin have with our tunes (sstt vs jb2) being neck and neck.
hard to beat the easy install of the SSTT.
i believe on 93 octane they are even closer in HP and TQ wise. but there about the same power wise as is.
boost wise the SSTT boosts a bit more from 3.5k-5k than the jb2.
seems like the jb2 is a bit fatter from 3k-5k and the sstt becomes a bit fatter after , and than same the rest of the way.

price vs ease of install.

[RMRC]

Originally Posted by 5sokol335icoupe

good job man.
i guess this reinforces the races me and my cuzin have with our tunes (sstt vs jb2) being neck and neck.
jhard to beat the easy install of the SSTT.

Yep they are neck and neck. Both are great options for those looking for a more mild tune.

[bulletproofuno]

pretty good numbers for the price of the chips... where did you find the dyno that also shows the boost if you dont mind me asking

[OpenFlash]

Good tests. FWIW, the torque difference is more attributable to the how the run was started than the actual tuning devices. In the case of the JB2, the run started (car when WOT) at a 1600rpm. So it caught the torque peak at 2400rpm. Whereas the SSTT test didn't start until 500rpm later and missed out on the opportunity to have full boost by 2400rpm. The rest of the curves look nearly identical and well within the range of run-to-run variance, IMHO.

Shiv

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Good tests. FWIW, the torque difference is more attributable to the how the run was started than the actual tuning devices. In the case of the JB2, the run started (car when WOT) at a 1600rpm. So it caught the torque peak at 2400rpm. Whereas the SSTT test didn't start until 500rpm later and missed out on the opportunity to have full boost by 2400rpm. The rest of the curves look nearly identical and well within the range of run-to-run variance, IMHO.

Shiv

I was going to say the exact same thing.
They should have (and needed too) start the dyno pulls at the same rpm.
Don't know why they started the SSTT's so late in the rpm range.

Once again, this shows that even on the same dyno you can have different readings.

You can clearly see that the JB2 run that started earlier allowed it to peak in it's torque at 2300 rpms whereas the SSTT's run was just getting started there so it didn't have a chance to boost up as high there, otherwise I'm sure the SSTT would of had basically the identical torque ratings as the JB2 (and maybe a bit more as it shows ever so slight advantage from 3000-4300 rpms).


Other than the 5000-6400 rpm range where the JB2 seems to hold boost and power a bit better there, the two basically overlay each other.

That's probably why the SSTT feels stronger down low and the JB2 pulls a bit better up top...though from 6500-7000 rpm they both show the exact same power.

This is probably why it's a drivers race between the two, with a slight advantage to the JB2 as it pulls a bit harder up top.

[BeAmW335i]

Thank you for the comparison. Any explainations on why the SSTT lost some power between 5K-6K rpm, while JB2 maintained it?

[Driver72]

That dip there in the SSTT looks odd and probably an anamoly.
I don't see how or why the SSTT would cut power a bit at 5000 rpm, but then boost it again a bit at 6000 rpm causing that drop in power at 5000 rpm, but then the clear rise in power at 6000 rpm again.

[Driver72]

Well, I guess it's not an anamoly afterall.

In Mr. 5's comparison between the stock tune, JB2, SSTT, and PROcede v1.4
You can see that the JB2 also made more power than the SSTT between 5000-6000 rpms.
But what's odd about his comparo is the SSTT actually made a touch more power than the JB2 from 6500-7000 rpms.

Check it out again:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...highlight=dyno


Overall, the JB2 and SSTT seem to be neck in neck in dyno results.

[BeAmW335i]

Here is Reb03's previous dyno of SSTT, http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104223, and it looks like it did the same thing at 5K rpm. However, other SSTT dyno's don't show that. Oh well, again thanks for the comparo.

[radgator1]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Good tests. FWIW, the torque difference is more attributable to the how the run was started than the actual tuning devices. In the case of the JB2, the run started (car when WOT) at a 1600rpm. So it caught the torque peak at 2400rpm. Whereas the SSTT test didn't start until 500rpm later and missed out on the opportunity to have full boost by 2400rpm. The rest of the curves look nearly identical and well within the range of run-to-run variance, IMHO.

Shiv

They look similar, not nearly identical to me. It looks like the SSTT is causing the knock retard to pull timing around 5000 rpms where you see a sharp drop in the torque, inflection point in the HP, and drop in the AFR.

[RMRC]

Originally Posted by BeAmW335i

Here is Reb03's previous dyno of SSTT, http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104223, and it looks like it did the same thing at 5K rpm. However, other SSTT dyno's don't show that. Oh well, again thanks for the comparo.

Right. I was just going to say all three pulls looked the same. I wonder why it does this with my car and didn't with Mr. 5's car?

I'll post up all three JB2 pulls.

[radgator1]

Originally Posted by reb03

Right. I was just going to say all three pulls looked the same. I wonder why it does this with my car and didn't with Mr. 5's car?

I'll post up all three JB2 pulls.

Could be octane. Not sure what Octane Mr5 was using. With higher octane you probably wont see this drop. Here is my SSTT dyno with 95 Octane:

[RMRC]

Here are the all the JB2 pulls. He sure started early on #5.

[RMRC]

And all 3 of each.

1-3 = SSTT
4-6 = JB2.

[RMRC]

Originally Posted by bulletproofuno

pretty good numbers for the price of the chips... where did you find the dyno that also shows the boost if you dont mind me asking

MD automotive in Westminster. Mr. 5 turned me on to Mark who owns the place. This is the dyno Edmunds.com uses and I think the dyno they ran Shiv's car on for their Procede article.

[bmwzimmer]

I think their Dyno reads a bit on the low side. This is all I could muster with 91 Octane + Octane booster (I'm assuming I'm making 93 Octane).
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104227
I'll go there again since I was able to increase my settings to 95% with 14.7PSI Max now @ 4400rpms and 14.0PSI @ 5500rpms. I'm just waiting for a good time to go when Shiv and perhaps Mr. 5 does their dyno comparisons. I can therefore get mine done right after to see how it compares... It would be good if V2.03 comes out by then so I don't have to spend another $85 and Dyno again...

[Jeff@Eurobahn.us]

Nice comparison runs there. I will have to keep that Dyno in mind when we run the third party tests on the upgrade unit when we are ready.

Jeff
Eurobahn

[e90AW335i]

Originally Posted by Jeff@Eurobahn.us

Nice comparison runs there. I will have to keep that Dyno in mind when we run the third party tests on the upgrade unit when we are ready.

Jeff
Eurobahn

Good to hear that it is representative of SSTT...

[hotrod182]

Do you know if they used the corrections for the difference between the ambient test conditions between the tunes? Otherwise, there is a pretty big DA difference between the two. 61F vs 66F, 30.39" vs 30.26", and 23% vs 43%. This coupled with intercooler efficiency, etc, etc, could amount to a good 5hp or so.

[RMRC]

Originally Posted by hotrod182

Do you know if they used the corrections for the difference between the ambient test conditions between the tunes? Otherwise, there is a pretty big DA difference between the two. 61F vs 66F, 30.39" vs 30.26", and 23% vs 43%. This coupled with intercooler efficiency, etc, etc, could amount to a good 5hp or so.

Standard correction was used. I can post uncorreected if there's interest.

[5soko]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Good tests. FWIW, the torque difference is more attributable to the how the run was started than the actual tuning devices. In the case of the JB2, the run started (car when WOT) at a 1600rpm. So it caught the torque peak at 2400rpm. Whereas the SSTT test didn't start until 500rpm later and missed out on the opportunity to have full boost by 2400rpm. The rest of the curves look nearly identical and well within the range of run-to-run variance, IMHO.

Shiv

run to run variance is key esp with such small degree of changes.

btw here is another dyno to compare the small drop after 5k rpm, doesnt show up in these dynos could have been a number of things...
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...48&postcount=7
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...40&postcount=1