[42pilot]

Originally Posted by jamoka3

It is nice to see some dyno charts...like i stated in another post, there are too many variation with the crank and wheel hp/tq gains across all tuning manufactures.
Dinan - rates crank
RC- I assume rates crank
BMS- shows dyno as wheel gains.
BP-R - Emailed about if hp / tq gains are crank or wheel, did not get back to me ...so?

Let make is simple people! ALL DYNOS SHOULD BE WHEEL HP/TQ GAINS!
Non of this "crank" hp/tq gains. Wheel hp/tq gains are what the car is putting down to the street so im my mind thats the REAL world gains

Sorry to say, it's not simple - that's why all the debate here.

I tune hot rod late '70's/early '80's turbo Porsche's converting the engines to full sequential EFI using Link ECU's (www.linkecu.com).

When building an engine, I always start with an engine (or crank) dyno to set the basics and break in the engine - from here, I know what peak wide open throttle HP/torque values will be. Then I move to a quality chassis dyno like Mustang. As far as others who tune similar motors like me, we consider Dynojet to be Dynojunk. It is nearly impossible to get consistent results on the same dyno because this is an inertia drum dyno and the hotter the environment or higher the number of runs back to back, the more inconsistent the results.

The real value of a Mustang dyno is that it can load the engine and you can tune any cell of the fuel and timing tables easily.

But the real problems in comparing dyno's are all the variables: ambient temp, altitude, humidity, age of the dyno, has it been serviced correctly, is your car getting sufficient cooling while running wide open throttle standing still, what correction factors is the operator using, ECT, AFR, IAT and IAT2, and on and on.

I agree with Dinan to use crank HP/torque. That is what all manufacturers use, so why not use the same since the baseline is somewhat accepted by you when you purchase the car? And there is no good formula to use for drivetrain drop. I've seen as low as 5% and as much as 35% depending ambient temps, cooling fans used on the car, oil/fluid viscosity, differential setup and so on.

I also think chassis dyno's are good for getting the car close to real world in the tuning phase. But nothing compares to street tuning for the final drivability touches. But comparing dyno runs using chips from people around the US, around the world or around the city is not going to give you a clear answer. There are too many variables and correction factors can be used to give any result the operator wants to see - period. Therefore, any reseller, chip maker, etc, can claim anything they want, and you'll never be able to validate their claims conclusively. Including Dinan - there are too many variables.

By the way, focus on torque, not HP. Torque is what you feel and horsepower is defined as work over time. My 4000 lb 550i beat my 2600 turbo Porsche for the first 1/8 mile because it had 450 lb ft of torque at 1750 rpm and my Porsche had 496 lb ft at 3900 rpm. Torque should start big and end big - then HP takes over. After the 1/8 mile, the Porsche walked away big time, but how many real drag races do we really experience on the road?

And if you buy a chip that requires you to splice into your wiring harness, you better have a damn good idea how to install quality weather/oil resistent connectors. The crimp tool I use cost $180 by itself because you never solder these connections. But I digress....

[K320]

I did install BMS stage 1 with my car completely stock. The car pulled very good. Later i added a DP, KN filter,Afe air scoop and noticed little improvement. Then i upgraded to JB4 and the car felt completely different. My last upgrade was the EWG cable and the car seems to pull to high rev more smooth. After that my car got to service because of something wrong with the battery cables getting hot (fixed by warranty).Now i added some sound (remus muffler) and the RC ultimate. In comparison with the BMS stage 1 all i can say is good things, more power at the low revs with defaults settings. The ability to adjust power on the RC with the box only is a great advantage. BMS JB4 is still the king of tuning and support in my own experience because the car felt faster. So any of the mentioned tunes here are comparable.

[jamoka3]

If you had decent results with the jb4 setup, why did you eventually go with the RC piggyback? Just curious...

[K320]

Originally Posted by jamoka3

If you had decent results with the jb4 setup, why did you eventually go with the RC piggyback? Just curious...

Comments in europe about RC were very good, so good companies like ac schitzer and kelleners use it. Remus also start using it on the powerizer product. Simplicity of tunning is a great with only tools provided by the manufacturer. So why not test something coming from germany? I still have my jb4 and will finish tunning with it once Terry finish doing his magic with the n20 software.

My comments are USA = BMS, Europe = RC

[Everman31]

I ran the bms stage 2 for about a year with zero issues. Night and day difference and pulled really strong all across the rev range on a 328i m sport. Highly recommend it. Paired really well with the zf 8 speed. IMO the n26 and that auto are truly a remarkable combination.

[FSociety]

Originally Posted by Everman31

I ran the bms stage 2 for about a year with zero issues. Night and day difference and pulled really strong all across the rev range on a 328i m sport. Highly recommend it. Paired really well with the zf 8 speed. IMO the n26 and that auto are truly a remarkable combination.

so what happened after the year or so ?

[S4NoMore]

Originally Posted by ROBNYC

it just came out of beta under 3 months

I'm under the impression that it's still in beta, at least that's what the BMS product page reads.