Originally Posted by Propagator
Thanks for the summary, I was following the thread quite closely, but it's nice to have all the info in one thread.
But let me rephrase my criticism against your binning hypothesis in a clearer form. I am not rejecting the notion that there would be some binning. I am arguing that that alone is not enough to explain why the low output version cannot be made to generate higher output for long enough for someone to develop and sell the software.
In other words, if you apply a cut on a continuous distribution with one maximum, most of the failed cases will come from just below the cut line, meaning that they will be very similar to the ones that barely passed the cut. Now, we know that the ones that pass the cut is very likely capable of withstanding high output for 100K miles or longer. Then there is no way that the ones that barely failed the cut, which is the most likely case, will be so different from the ones that barely passed, that no tuner can tune it up long enough to market a product.
I understand ur point, & no, I don't think it's the be all & end all in this case. Binning is only the starting point for engine selection.
Firstly, I think partly it depends on the variance distribution of those engines, which nobody outside of BMW will know. That is to with with the inherent tuneability of those engines.
Secondly, there can also be sensors which are inaccessible to piggy-back modules, in which case the DME will receive unadultered data for those parameters.
I don't know whether any tuner have managed to obtain a low compression U0 for development purpose, as the first thing they can try is to fit a O0 DME & then bench the engine.