[csu87]

So Ive been curious as to the differences between the MHD OTS Maps vs the JB4 + Backend Flashes, so I decided to do some testing.

Car: 2009 335xi
Mods: Intake, LPFP Stage 2, NGK Plugs
Stock FMIC, Stock DPs

Bought the MHD Stage 1 OTS Map and the MHD e40 OTS Map and used the latest BMS Pump and e85 flashes. Used 91oct for the stock, Stage 1 and Pump + JB4 M5. ~e40 blend for the e40 map and e85 + JB4 M7.

All runs were on the same road, started at the same spot and I tried to start at the same RPM for all of them.

For the Stock Log it was about 85 degrees ambient
For the 91 Logs, it was about 85 degrees ambient
For the e40 Logs, it was about 75 degrees ambient

Did my best to let the car cool down between runs and between Map Changes. For the 91 runs, I flashed MHD Stage 1, then did the BMS Pump after. For the e40 runs, I flashed BMS e85, then did MHD e40 after.

Review:
MHD Stage 1:Had some low throttle issues, but once I got on the gas, throttle was smooth. No complaints, however it is definately a Stage 1 tune in all sense of the word. Can tell a small difference in power vs stock, but would leave me wanting more if this was my tune. Max Boost 14psi 319whp/349wtq

BMS Pump + JB4 Map 5:None of the low throttle issues, and definitely had more power than the Stage 1. However, this combo was boosting to 16psi vs the 14psi of the Stage 1 so that is the difference in power. I chose the Map 5 vs Map 1 or 2 since that is the Map I have used since I bought the car. Max Boost 16psi 346whp/382wtq

MHD E40: Lots of POWA!!! No throttle issues with this map. Noticeable difference vs both 91 octane maps. Timing was fairly stable until the upper RPMs where Cyl 5 dropped timing a few degrees. Timing curve followed a different curve than I am used to however. Started high and slowly declined. Max boost ~18.5 392whp/425wtq

BMS e85 + JB4 Map7: Pretty much the same as the MHD e40 in driveability and feel. Timing followed the curve Im used to with my car, where it starts low and slowly builds. Max Boost - Just under 20psi. 385whp/449wtq

Overall, if you are running an e40 blend, either option isnt a bad choice. Not much difference in terms of power.

Below are some Virtual Dynos to show a comparison. I calibrated the VD by using a baseline I have of my car on a Dynojet where I put down 271whp. However the wtq number of 308 shown in VD is high by about 20. I put down 285wtq. So keep that in mind with the torque figures.

1st Graph has stock vs 91 vs e40 (All Maps)


2nd Graph has stock vs 91 maps


3rd Graph has Stock vs e40 maps


Last Graph is 91 maps vs e40 maps


Stock Log on Datazap
http://www.datazap.me/u/csu87/log-14...log=2&data=1-4

91 Logs on Datazap
http://www.datazap.me/u/csu87/log-14...log=1&data=1-4
http://www.datazap.me/u/csu87/log-14...log=0&data=1-4

e40 logs on datazap
http://www.datazap.me/u/csu87/log-14...log=0&data=1-4
http://www.datazap.me/u/csu87/log-14...log=1&data=1-4


Take this for what it is. I wish I was able to do all this on an actual dyno, but I didnt feel like paying several hundred to rent out a dyno. Ill add a 100% e85 log tomorrow. Ran out of daylight to do it. If someone has a Map for e60+, give it to me and ill compare it to e60 with jb4. Not really wanting to pay much for a map that Im not going to use. Already spent $80 on Maps.

[csu87]

Forgot to add this. This is of the Timing on all 6 cylinders for the e40 maps. Top is BMS e85 + JB4 M7, bottom is MHD e40. Bottom wouldnt display right, but the 2 plots above the rest are actually the same values as the lower ones.

[335NJ]

Awesome comparisons here, it's nice to see 1 car testing numerous common tuning setups, instead of 10 different opinions from 10 different people.

Thanks for taking the time to put this together!

[csu87]

No problem. I've been wanting to do this for some time now, and today i finally got to empty on my gas tank.

If someone wants to come install my dps for me, I'll do some fbo runs

[jlcf22]

nice work man...Im impress with the e40 ots map looks like you don't even need a custom tune to run e40

[Billit335]

Sweet, I'll be doing my downpipes on Saturday

[e92_boost]

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR without Downpipes haha thanks for the comparison ill be soing this soon also FBO with stage 2 lpfp

[csu87]

Originally Posted by e92_boost

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR without Downpipes haha thanks for the comparison ill be soing this soon also FBO with stage 2 lpfp

I wanted to get a new dyno baseline so i went back to stock and am not wanting to do them again. So hard to do on the xi and I'm so lazy.

[e92_boost]

Originally Posted by csu87

I wanted to get a new dyno baseline so i went back to stock and am not wanting to do them again. So hard to do on the xi and I'm so lazy.

Gahaha im messing, ill be flashing today kinda anxious to see how better it is compared to jb4.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

What's your elevation?

[mex2309]

Great job!

Kinda disappointing stage 1 numbers though. Those are 335IS or ppk numbers. E40 is crazy though.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

What's your elevation?

4900ish

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by csu87

4900ish

That's something for folks to keep in mind.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by mex2309

Great job!

Kinda disappointing stage 1 numbers though. Those are 335IS or ppk numbers. E40 is crazy though.

Numbers arent the main thing here. Virtual Dyno has proven to be fairly accurate compared to actual dynos, but with each car, things vary and your actual power numbers will vary. Stage 1 does have a noticeable power increase vs stock, and if you only want a small bump without doing any mods to your car, then it will work for most.

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

That's something for folks to keep in mind.

Yes. This is not a "Look at the power numbers you will see with x tune". This is a "Look at the differences over stock, the differences in the logs and the overall driveability comparison".

Im sure there will be some people that look at the graphs only and dont look through the logs or anything else.

I dont recommend running either e40 tunes without being FBO, and there is probably quite a bit of power being left on the table by not being FBO.

Also, going to the gas station for more e85 in a little bit. Will post up logs of some e70-75ish shortly.

[mex2309]

Originally Posted by csu87

Numbers arent the main thing here. Virtual Dyno has proven to be fairly accurate compared to actual dynos, but with each car, things vary and your actual power numbers will vary. Stage 1 does have a noticeable power increase vs stock, and if you only want a small bump without doing any mods to your car, then it will work for most.



Yes. This is not a "Look at the power numbers you will see with x tune". This is a "Look at the differences over stock, the differences in the logs and the overall driveability comparison".

Im sure there will be some people that look at the graphs only and dont look through the logs or anything else.

I dont recommend running either e40 tunes without being FBO, and there is probably quite a bit of power being left on the table by not being FBO.

Also, going to the gas station for more e85 in a little bit. Will post up logs of some e70-75ish shortly.

It's very true about not comparing X to Y and these are virtual dynos at a high elevation. But unless your new to E90, bottom line is you are going to instantly compare to other tunes. Whether it be jb4, cobb, or other. Most who are familiar know the baseline power numbers of these and will naturally compare numbers to the newer tune. It's cool you put this together, no numbers (virtual or dyno) have been published by MHD or Wedge (that I know of, please correct me). So there is no easy comparison.

I'm still on open flash tablet stage 1 shiv map and use BT cable to flash.
It's cheap for me, ALOT of power and been running great for almost two years.
If anybody can find this scenario with whatever tune they choose, that's all that matters.

All that said, I'd like to try MHD in the future, its got ton of features, cheap and reviewers praise it. Just numbers you posted of Stage 1, if "ballpark accurate", are on the low side of what I'm use to seeing in other baseline tunes.

[biz77]

CSU87, Your Stage 1 numbers seem to be pretty similar to mine based on similar testing.

My VD baseline on my completely stock 2010 535i XDrive (based on published weights for my car) was ~250 AWHP. The stage 1 91 octane MHD OTS MAP showed ~310 AWHP and the 93 octane MAP showed just a bit more at about 315 AWHP, although I'm running 92-octane and there were minor timing corrections on multiple cylinders running this MAP. It looks like my absolute numbers are a bit lower, but the delta a bit greater. Probably attributable to the fact that I'm at approximately half your elevation (2,300 ASL).

Working on a custom tune with Wedge for E50 now. We are in the early stages, but so far, the gains are huge. +150AWHP and +210 LBS. FT. with just DCI, Wedge Tune and some ethanol. Everything else is stock.

[JC888]

Sorry for a possible obvious question. For the MHD runs, JB4 is disabled? and for BMS maps, you put the put on 5 and 4/2 in the steering console?

[mike@x-ph.com]

Thank you for taking the time to do this comparison

[csu87]

Originally Posted by jcy335xi

Sorry for a possible obvious question. For the MHD runs, JB4 is disabled? and for BMS maps, you put the put on 5 and 4/2 in the steering console?

Jb4 disabled for the mhd map runs.

91oct was map 5 with 4/2

E40 run was map 7 with 4/2

Filled up to e80 today. Will get a log in the morning

[absolootbs]

Originally Posted by csu87

Jb4 disabled for the mhd map runs.

Disconnected? Or with passive firmware flashed? Or map 0 or 4 with option 4/3 set? I only ask because it apparently does make some difference. With map 0 or 4 and 4/3 the jb4 is still controlling boost (using the tune's targets) and I've seen where Wedge has said that the way the jb4 controls boost is different than how his OTS MHD maps control boost and he feels the way his maps control boost work better with the rest of the tune. Not sure what the explanation for that is as I don't know the intricacies of the n54 boost control system, but thats what I've read. He's also claimed that even with the passive firmware flashed to the jb4 he's seen it cause some funky behavior with his OTS maps.

FWIW I still think this is a fantastic comparison regardless of the answer. I actually kind of hope you used the easy button and did map 4 with 4/3 as I've been thinking about trying one of the MHD maps in place of the BMS backend, but I likely wouldn't go through the hassle of removing the jb4 all together.

[csu87]

I had no boost issues with the mhd and jb4 in map 4 and 4/3 settings. I have heard that there have been some issues, but i did not experience them.

Also, judging by the logs, i don't think the jb4 had any affect on the boost control. The boost targets were completely different than jb4 maps.

I'll have to leave the jb4 this way for testing, because i don't want to spend Another $50 just to log.

[absolootbs]

In map 4 with 4/3 it is using the flash tunes targets, but the jb4 is still controlling boost (telling the car what to do to achieve those targets). Ever since the jb4 went to its "iso" setup, if it's hooked up and doesn't have passive firmware, it's controlling boost. Even in map 0. Where as map 0 used to completely remove the jb4 from the equation back in the old days, with iso firmware/board the only difference between map 4 and map 0 is that map 0 un-hijacks the can bus (unblocks obdII port, disables logging, disables gauge hijacking, etc).

Oh yea, ha, I always forget no jb4 = no ability to log (unless you buy the mhd license, of course). Anymore I just think of logging as being built into the car (you mean not everyone has a magic usb cable in their glove box? no way!). Thats another reason i won't be removing my jb4 either, if i decide to try out one of the MHD/Wedge flashes.