[roninsoldier83]

So, I need to preface this by saying I am running 91 octane at 5200 ft elevation, so this is a fairly "worse case scenario". I also need to say that I previously tested & datalogged my car with a JB4 on it, both on their map 5 (autotuning) as well as on map 1 and map 4 (stock bypass with CAN active so I could log stock). In order to really see the differences, please check out my previous threads:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=500597
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=497869

I've been driving around with the Cobb AP for a couple of days now (big thanks to Jeff at Top Gear Solutions!), have previously posted a multi-gear log, and was able to get a full 3rd gear pull/log in tonight on an open road.

So far my thoughts on the Cobb AP vs the JB4:

-Feels significantly faster (it should, it's pushing significantly more boost)
-Better throttle response
-Smoother
-More consistent

Seriously, I know people say things like this all the time, but this really is how the car should have come from the factory. It pulls like a freight train, it's extremely smooth, excellent throttle response and to say I'm impressed by Cobb's OTS map is an understatement. Granted, I still think there's a bit of improvement to be made with the release of ATR software, so I'll still be tuning the car, but overall, I don't think there's going to be as much power left of the table as I originally expected.

I want it to be noted that I logged stock values as well as JB4 values in previous threads... for reference, here are the cliff notes:

Stock (JB4 map 4/bypassed to stock):

-9-10psi peak (DME pushes more boost at my elevation to attempt to make-up for power losses at altitude/achieve target torque load)
-AFR's around stoich (~14.7:1) in midrange, tapering to around ~13.5:1 up top.
-Attempts to ramp quickly to ~10 degrees of timing down low, multiple ~3 degree timing drops (knock) occur, at redline able to hit around ~10-11* of timing.

JB4, map 1:

-13psi peak boost
-AFR's around stoich down low, tapering into the low 13's/high 12's up top.
-Attempted to mimic stock timing, but with massive 5-6 degree drops in timing.

JB4, map 5 (autotuning):

-Eventually neutered itself down to ~11psi peak after a few days of driving (lowest boost setting).
-Nearly identical AFR's as map 1.
-Also attempted to hit stock timing, also with multiple 3 degree timing drops, just like stock.


So, with all of that said.... the AP stage 1 is pushing significantly more boost than the JB4 (around ~16psi peak), but it's also running considerably richer AFR's (close to the 12:1 range), and not targeting nearly as much timing (haven't seen it hit over ~6 degrees under full load in 3rd gear in the upper RPM's). The car really does feel considerably faster than stock, as well as the JB4 (maps 1 & 5), and I'll be confirming this on a dyno within the next few weeks when I get the time. Rather than going into the details, I'll let the log speak for itself:




^^^Going through the CSV's, I noticed the occasional 0.5* timing drop, but nowhere near the ~3 degree timing drops experienced running stock & JB4 map 5 (drops were even larger running map 1). Overall, the car feels very smooth, and very consistent.... and yes, you read that right, the car appears to knock/drop timing LESS than stock, while pushing an extra ~6psi of boost over stock up here (5200 ft) on 91 octane piss water.

This confirms most of my thoughts on tuning this car, as it appears to be similar to most other turbo cars I've played with in the past: richening up AFR's & tuning a proper timing table (less ignition advance at higher loads) will produce more power at higher boost pressures without knock. This really is basic tuning 101. Even under my conditions, pushing ~16psi on 91 octane at 5200 ft, the car still isn't even experiencing as many drops in timing as it did stock up here. Kudos to Cobb for making an outstanding OTS map, I'll have my work cutout for me when you guys release ATR software

Overall, here is my breakdown of pros and cons for the AP:

Pros:

-Significantly more power than stock (the butt-dyno says significantly more power than JB4 maps 1/5, to be confirmed on the dyno soon)
-Awesome throttle response (I know there was some debate on this subject, but let's just say when ATR is released, I won't be touching Cobb's throttle mapping, as I'm extremely happy with it to say the least).
-Convenient datalogging (no need to bring the laptop)
-Future ability to CUSTOM TUNE the car via ATR software!!! (I'm psyched to play with this motor!!)
-Less timing drop/knock than stock
-No need to get into the engine bay to "install"
-Can uninstall anytime you please (unlike GIAC or DINAN)
-Although I haven't needed to use it per se (other than to send in my stock ROM, which, support was added in under 24 hours!!), in the past, I know Cobb's overall support level is beyond reproach!!
-Direct mapping/no need to manipulate sensor voltages to get desired input/just flash OEM DME directly.
-Resale value (unlike other flashes)
-Ability to update firmware/software/maps without need to update hardware.

Cons:

-Priced a bit higher than the piggybacks (JB4 & PROcede)
-Even while just cruising/no WOT, oil temps seem to run about ~15 degrees higher than stock & JB4... Cobb?!?
-Took almost ~20 minutes to wait for AP to pull stock ECU/DME data & reflash (this was expected lol, it's just I can put a piggyback in, in the same amount of time haha)
-No "autotuning"
-Not directly setup to control an external device (i.e. meth, for those who are running meth/plan on it).


Overall, for the money, I really don't think the AP can be beat, and even at it's fairly steep MSRP compared to other cars ($895), I still think it's a pretty good value considering it's competition in my opinion.

I'll have dyno graphs up within the next few weeks, following by eventually tuning the car via ATR software with my results as well.

Happy modding!

-Brandon

[mithiral67]

great review, crazy what you mountain folk have to deal with in low o2 levels.

[KC335]

Great review! been looking forward to it since I last PM'd u

[secretsquirrel]

What mods do you have? How are you running 16 psi that high up (5200ft).

[forza1976]

Nice review ronin

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Thanks for the order and review. Logs do look great.

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by secretsquirrel

What mods do you have? How are you running 16 psi that high up (5200ft).

Bone stock/no mods. If you notice previous logs/or my post above, my DME targets around ~10psi up here (considerably higher than stock cars at sea level) to make-up for power losses at altitude. My assumption is that with the higher target torque load (via AP programming), the DME is pushing more boost than it would at sea level in order to attempt to reach target torque loads/compensate for elevation. Although, since I'm pushing more boost, and I'm sure there's likely a compensation table for barometric pressure & IAT's somewhere, you'll notice my DME is not pushing as much timing advance as most of the other guys running AP's at sea level.

Realize that ambient air pressure at sea level is about ~14.7psi, whereas up here, our air density is closer to around ~12psi (close to a 3psi/20% pressure loss). Boost is only a measurement of pressure over atmospheric pressure, so if you do the math, my car isn't actually seeing any higher cylinder pressures than the sea level guys running AP's (actually still a bit lower if most of them are hitting ~15psi). However, since the air isn't as dense up here, my turbos have to spin a bit faster to produce the same boost pressures, meaning even though I'm not running the same overall cylinder pressures, my IAT's are going to be higher than the guys at sea level.

At sea level, 15psi boost + 14.7psi atmospheric pressure = 29.7psi total pressure.

By comparison, up my elevation, 16psi boost + 12psi atmospheric pressure = 28psi total pressure.

Make sense? There's more to it than that, but that's the basic breakdown.

Fortunately, due to Cobb's fuel enrichment and conservative timing tables on their 91 octane stage 1 map, the higher IAT's don't appear to be translating into as large of timing drops/knock as stock up here.

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by maxnix

I would like to see you log oil temps with OEM tune and Cobb tune with the AP and see if what you report is indeed true.

Thanks for the high altitude review.

The AP logs the following:

Time
Load Act (Load). (which was hitting as high as ~160 or so)
TPS (it was right around 80 everytime I went WOT/no throttle plate trimming)
Req. Boost Abs (absolute/requested, as in total manifold pressure requested)
Boost Abs (absolute. It never hit over 28.42psi)
WGDC
Intake manifold temps (IAT's)
AFR
Boost
Timing
RPM

Unfortunately, after logging and moving the CSV's onto my laptop, it did not log oil temps, and I sold my old BT scanner a while ago, so you're out of luck on that one. For reference, on days like yesterday, my oil temps used to sit around ~225-230, whereas with the AP, they're sitting around ~240-245. Although I'm not sure what other guys at this elevation are seeing for oil temps when cruising... ?!?

[Alan l.]

Cool. This pretty much confirms that as conditions get worse (warmer weather) we will start to see boost rise a bit from the early logs that most of us put up.

Did you see any throttle closures in your logs? Seems like there are half of us that show TC while others don't. I don't feel them but my logs always shows it early i the rpm band.

Alan

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Alan l.

Cool. This pretty much confirms that as conditions get worse (warmer weather) we will start to see boost rise a bit from the early logs that most of us put up.

Did you see any throttle closures in your logs? Seems like there are half of us that show TC while others don't. I don't feel them but my logs always shows it early i the rpm band.

Alan

No sir, TPS was right around 80% under WOT (between 79-81), no throttle plate closure/trimming to speak of.

[mithiral67]

Mine runs 10-15 degrees cooler with the Ap, so not sure.

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by mithiral67

Mine runs 10-15 degrees cooler with the Ap, so not sure.

Yeah, I'm honestly not too worried about it, it's nowhere close to limp-mode oil temps (around ~280 IIRC?!? vs. around 240 for me with Cobb AP) and since it's my daily driver, I won't be tracking it, I was more or less just curious what settings they would have played with that would have caused oil temps to rise at cruise/no WOT. Not a big deal to me, just an observation.

Had my injectors replaced under recall right before I installed the Cobb AP (they gave me a 550i GT as a loaner, and man do I love that TT V8!!), so maybe that's a contributing factor that I just didn't notice... hard to see how, but it's a possibility. Oh well, haha.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

On stock tune I could get my oil temps just as hot at 245. Although it took a little longer to do so.

If I just cruise tuned now I still get 235-245.

Thermostat doesnt kick in till ~240 so as long as your not exceeding 250 its the best you can do.

BMW should really offer a thermostat solution for these cars.

Between the ~210-220 coolant thermostat and ~240 Oil thermostat this car is hotter then the gates of Hell.

All other cars like to keep their coolant and oil at or below 200.

As far as for emissions purposes or gas mileage, thats bologna. This car gets horrible gas mileage and mine is breathing through 4 cats so emissions shouldnt be a problem.

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Jeff@topgearsolutions

On stock tune I could get my oil temps just as hot at 245. Although it took a little longer to do so.

If I just cruise tuned now I still get 235-245.

Thermostat doesnt kick in till ~240 so as long as your not exceeding 250 its the best you can do.

BMW should really offer a thermostat solution for these cars.

Between the ~210-220 coolant thermostat and ~240 Oil thermostat this car is hotter then the gates of Hell.

All other cars like to keep their coolant and oil at or below 200.

As far as for emissions purposes or gas mileage, thats bologna. This car gets horrible gas mileage and mine is breathing through 4 cats so emissions shouldnt be a problem.

+1



Yeah, those seem like most of the reports I've seen on here, and I used to be shocked that I only saw 225-230 degree oil temps, but didn't complain about it haha! Now, I'm just seeing what everyone else seems to be reporting, so I'm not too concerned about it.

I agree about BMW addressing oil & coolant temps via thermostat, I'm not used to seeing oil temps this high on any of my previous turbo cars unless I was at the track/autoX course or road course... but I'm not going to hold my breath and wait for them to offer a solution

[Rob@Cobb]

Thank you for the information.

To answer your question about the temps while cruising, we don't change any of the steady state parameters that would affect the temperature of the oil. The car should still be running the same timing, fuel set point, and airflow.

Attached is a graph of a JB4 on a 2007 335i Auto running Map 5 (autotuning), then Map1, then a stage 1 93 octane v201 tune. Pulls completed until the power is consistent on each tune. Looks to be the same as what you have posted.


Cheers,
Rob

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Rob@Cobb

Thank you for the information.

To answer your question about the temps while cruising, we don't change any of the steady state parameters that would affect the temperature of the oil. The car should still be running the same timing, fuel set point, and airflow.

Attached is a graph of a JB4 on a 2007 335i Auto running Map 5 (autotuning), then Map1, then a stage 1 93 octane v201 tune. Pulls completed until the power is consistent on each tune. Looks to be the same as what you have posted.


Cheers,
Rob

Thanks Rob!

Yeah, I didn't think you guys would have changed any settings that would have changed oil temps at partial throttle/cruise... but again, my temps were always lower than others reported, and are now inline with what people seem to be seeing, so I'm not too worried about it. Maybe something to do with recent recalls/OEM part replacements?!? No idea, but I'm not concerned with it.

I am expecting to see similar dyno results compared to stock & JB4 maps 1 & 5 when I hit the dyno in the next few weeks. On a local Dynojet (fully corrected at high elevation/"peak numbers" are "inflated" for a turbo car, but I only care about curves & delta so it doesn't matter), my car put down 287whp/342 stock, 304whp/360whp JB4 map 5 & 341/400wtq map 1, and judging by my logs & butt-dyno, I am anticipating that with your stage 1 91 octane map, I'll likely put down somewhere in the range of ~360whp & 420+wtq on the same dyno if I had to guess. We'll find out shortly I suppose haha.

Honestly, at this point, given the logs & dynos I've seen floating around, I thought there was going to be more power left on the table when it came time to tune the car haha! I guess we'll see eventually, but I doubt I'll be able to make much more power custom tuning the car up here (I'm thinking maybe ~10-20whp over stage 1 91 map), but again, I guess we'll see soon

I'm usually not a big fan of OTS maps at this altitude (you guys used to be based on SLC, so you're familiar with the issues high elevation brings), but this is a pretty decent OTS map to say the least. Thanks again for all the hard work and feedback!

-Brandon

[Joshboody]

Brandon, you mentioned boost based on lower baro. The dme measures absolute and the tune takes out baro... does Cobb take out measured baro in the logging tool? Do you log negative boost when cruising?

From your timing, looks like there is correction for IAT... which no one can confirm yet. you mentioned a multi-gear log for Cobb; can you post it?

This maybe the first 91oct map logs i've seen.

One of the things i've noticed in logs is that after changing gears (3rd to 4th) the timing is reduced. My thought has always been that it's because of knock sensors dropping timing, but we can't see this in the logs due to a lot going on in the shift, load changing, timing being reduced, boost unstable, etc. Anything different from 3rd to 4th in the stock, flash mapping... i'm sure there won't be a definit answer on this currently.

I've noticed very slight timing changes of .5 deg, and thought this was just due to load difference... but never tried to match them.

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

Brandon, you mentioned boost based on lower baro. The dme measures absolute and the tune takes out baro... does Cobb take out measured baro in the logging tool? Do you log negative boost when cruising?

From your timing, looks like there is correction for IAT... which no one can confirm yet. you mentioned a multi-gear log for Cobb; can you post it?

This maybe the first 91oct map logs i've seen.

One of the things i've noticed in logs is that after changing gears (3rd to 4th) the timing is reduced. My thought has always been that it's because of knock sensors dropping timing, but we can't see this in the logs due to a lot going on in the shift, load changing, timing being reduced, boost unstable, etc. Anything different from 3rd to 4th in the stock, flash mapping... i'm sure there won't be a definit answer on this currently.

I've noticed very slight timing changes of .5 deg, and thought this was just due to load difference... but never tried to match them.

The Cobb map appears to be requesting absolute manifold pressure (torque load) rather than simple boost pressure (pressure above atmospheric). Technically, the AP does not really measure "negative" boost per se (although I have seen -0.02psi, but it seems to be more of a fluke). However it does measure absolute pressure, so you can do the math for yourself to see total pressure, so technically, yes it does measure "negative" pressure per se, just not displayed as a negative value.

Here's the full log of the run above so you can see what I'm talking about. Didn't post it above as it is fairly convoluted for people who aren't looking at every parameter:



I posted the multigear log I pulled in another thread, but here it is (edited to add IAT):



The 0.5 degree drops in timing could very well be a decrease in load (as the car can't maintain peak boost up top), but without carefully comparing my RPM vs load vs their timing map, can't say for sure.

EDIT: notice on the multigear log timing is lower in 3rd gear than in my 2500-6500rpm 3rd gear log. Could be due to the shift, but it could also be due to higher IAT's if there's a compensation table for them, as the run started and ended with higher manifold temps due to going through three gears. However, I ran out of road, and wasn't able to take that pull up to 6500rpm, so we don't know how much advance it would have pushed if I would have kept going.

[DRed60]

I also live at 5200 ft and I just drove up to the mountains with my freshly reflashed 335xi. I have been driving around at elevations between 8,200 and 11,000 ft. The car is performing amazingly. With approximately 800 lbs of extra weight in the car I was still lighting up all four wheels all the way through first gear.

The car was running very strong up the mountain passes. I was able to try out the passing power with some wrxs, and a Volvo R, needless to say there was no competition. I would imagine nothing short of a 911 turbo or insanely tuned evo or sti would touch it up here.

[BrokerE93M3]

Wow great review. Cobb seems to be a great tuning solution like it is for most other platforms they support. Great job!

[raceyBMW]

Great write-up!

One question I am curious about, and its hard to tell from your graphs because of the RPM scaling...Up here at our altitude I feel like stock boost doesn't really come on strong until about 3000-3200 rpm. Is this different with Cobb AP?

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by raceyBMW

Great write-up!

One question I am curious about, and its hard to tell from your graphs because of the RPM scaling...Up here at our altitude I feel like stock boost doesn't really come on strong until about 3000-3200 rpm. Is this different with Cobb AP?

I've actually been to the dyno a couple of times, one of which had a stock run where we pretty much hit full boost/peak torque almost instantaneously after starting the pull at around ~2500rpm:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=500597

Due to our lack of air density, it typically does take a bit longer for a turbo to spool than it would at sea level, but I find that generally spool time is pretty variable based on gear (load) and weather. The boost threshold doesn't really seem to come-on any sooner (although I never really thought these cars had much lag to begin with, as I've owned several turbo 4 cylinders that had considerably more lag than the N54), although if anything, when it hits, you'll feel even more of an off/on boost transition. With that said, the throttle is more responsive, so while on a graph, spool time won't appear to decrease, in real life, the car will feel more responsive to throttle inputs. Some people have complained that the AP map is "too eager" to boost under partial throttle, but I personally enjoy it. In reality, it's subjective.

Just my $.02