[thejeremyman9]

So for those of you who love looking at logs and having quantitative data, this post is for you.

I have logged my car at pretty much every step of the way, including taking logs 100% stock before installing any hardware or tuning, and then subsequent logs after any hardware or software change (and in between hardware and software changes). Not only is this data extremely useful to determine the source/cause of any odd behavior that suddenly shows up (i.e., was it he IC I just installed or was it the change of tune), but it allowed me to create the figures below using Virtual Dyno.

I updated the data in virtual dyno as much as possible, but they don’t have a 2015 335i in the version I downloaded (I could only get the 32 bit version to work which is a little more outdated), so don’t get fixated on the actual numbers, although they should be pretty close to accurate since I input gear ratios, tire size, weight (including my weight), drag coef, etc, into Virtual Dyno. They are also consistent with actual numbers I have seen floating around. They are probably more representative of crank HP rather than wheel HP, but again, the point is not the actual numbers themselves but rather the delta between the different curves with different hardware and software changes.

2015 335i Msport, 8AT, RWD. About 40-44k miles in all logs. OEM plugs, never changed yet. OEM intake (non MP) with AFE pro dry drop in filter in all logs. The mods are noted on the plot. IC+CP are VRSF (5’’ stepped). Fabspeed catted DP. Stock exhaust (non MPE). No other mods besides IC+CP+DP and drop in filter. 19’’ OEM wheels, 255/35/19 rear. Most logs were sea level around 75F ambient, one I think was about 1500’ elevation. Basically always the same road and similar conditions. All logs running CA 91 pump gas, and all tunes are MHD 91 octane (varying stages).

View post on imgur.com

Red line – Completely stock car.
https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/s...&data=3-4-5-19

Blue line – After installing IC+CP (and fixing boost leaks) and flashing MHD Stage 1. I don’t have a good log with just IC+CP install (before the tune) because I had a bunch of boost leaks at the time. Probably not a difference anyways. So the difference between red and blue is IC+CP and stock to stage 1 tune.
https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/f...og=0&data=4-25

Green line – Same as blue line (IC+CP, Stage 1) but with fabspeed catted DP added. This is still on the stage 1 tune so the only difference between the blue line and the green line is the install of the DP. I think this is pretty solid evidence of the benefit the DP adds even without a tune change (although the benefit may be slightly greater here than on a truly stock car since stage 1 is higher boost than stock).
https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/4...og=0&data=4-25

Orange line – All hardware installed (IC+CP+DP), MHD Stage 2+ tune. Note, this is after driving about 70 miles since the switch to stage 2+. As I will describe below, my initial logs right after switching to 2+ had horrible timing, so much so that the car was “slower” (felt and as evidenced below). So this is a “good” Stage 2+ log. A nice jump from the green line due entirely to the tune change from stage 1 to stage 2+.
https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/4...43-44-45-46-47

NOTE: These are some of the “best” logs I have at each stage. Having said that, timing is not perfectly clean in all of them, so there may be some variation based on that.

Overall, I think it shows a pretty nice progression of what you get from each mod and tune change. Due to how I modded my car I don’t necessarily have every combination (such as no log on stage 1 with stock hardware since I installed IC+CP before tuning), but I think it provides some insight into the FAQ of “how much power can I get from XXXX mod?”


BONUS: How much does timing impact power?

View post on imgur.com

Red line – IC+CP+DP, Stage 1. Same as above green line.

Blue Line – IC+CP+DP, Stage 2+. This was right after I changed to stage 2+ from stage 1 log above. This was on the same road on the same day under exactly the same conditions with the same tank of gas as the stage 1 log above. The only difference was the tune change. You can see that the car didn’t really make any more power due to the crazy amount of timing being pulled. I had only drive like 1 mile since the tune change at this point (car was already warm). So, I think the car needed some time to adjust to the new tune.
https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/4...43-44-45-46-47

Green line – Same as orange line above. This is about 70 miles after the blue line on this graph. Exactly the same tune, same hardware, etc. Same tank of gas. The only difference is that timing is much better.


Bottom line? Timing is extremely important in making power, even more so than throwing extra boost.

Anything else you guys want to see?

Any thoughts?

[thejeremyman9]

A couple of weeks ago i experimented with adding ethanol for the first time. I started with 2 gallons of E85, no changes to tune or hardware, still running MHD stage 2+. I added the ethanol when almost empty, then filled with 91, and drove about 20 miles before the log to make sure everything was mixed and car was adapted. Results werent great, and virtual dyno shows worse power. See first attachment below with comapred to a good stage 2+ log with just pump 91 and no ethanol. Log taken on the same road, etc.

The car didnt feel any different, but timing wasnt really improved (which is what i was going for), so i drove through the rest of that tank and about 1/3 a tank more of 91 to clear out the ethanol.

I decided it was time to give the actual ethanol mix tunes i shot, so when that tank was about out i added 4 gallons of E85 and filled the rest with 91. Drove home, flashed the MHD E20 tune (stage 2+), then went back to my road where i log. The log i used for the 2nd virtual dyno graph below was about 5 miles after the flash/fillup (I live right by the station). The results are pretty clear that the E20 tune is stronger.

I am not sure why there is a dip around 5100-5500 rpm in the E20 tune log; i looked at the log and didnt see any timing being pulled there or anything else that could have caused the drop in power. Log for that is here: https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/4...12&tmax=917.32

Havent driven a ton of the E20 tune yet but it seems solid. I also did some 1-4 logs, and i actually spun 1st in one of them which i havent in a while, but road surface wasnt great. I plan to flash XHP next weekend and put some more miles on the tune/car so will report back if anything changes.

Heres all the logs i took after flashing E20, all within about 3 miles of eachother.

4th: https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/4...&data=23-24-25

1-4: https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/1...&data=23-24-25

4th: https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/4...?log=0&data=25

1-4: https://datazap.me/u/thejeremyman9/1...&data=4-5-6-25

Thoughts?

I did see a bit of a HPFP dip in the 1-4 logs, but not too bad. Odd that it didnt happen in the 4th gear logs.

Note that i refined the virtual dyno parameters for my car compared to the OP so the actual HP/TQ numbers are lower.

[thejeremyman9]

Reserving 1 more.

[AmuroRay]

I think the measurement is happy by about 20-30whp, but I LOVE data. Interesting that intercooler swap gained power, but there again, people have reported gains on FBO cars as well

[Munchi435i]

Pretty sure he made a disclaimer about these numbers being more of a measurement to the crank and not wheel horsepower!

[thejeremyman9]

Bumping because i just updated the 2nd post with results after trying out the E20 2+ tune from MHD.

For the TLDR croud, it seemed to make a noticable difference.

Note that i refined the virtual dyno parameters for my car compared to the OP so the actual HP/TQ numbers are lower.

https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...54&postcount=2

[AmuroRay]

Awesome! Keep doing it, please test a turbo inlet!

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Awesome! Keep doing it, please test a turbo inlet!

You know i have been pondering this idea more and more recently, along with a turbosmart DV. I think a inlet might not be super noticable on virtual dyno for two main reaons:

1. It might be lost in the noise/variation between pulls because i feel like it probably will make the same difference as a few degrees of timing being pulled. So i would really need a perfect run (in terms of timing) both before and after the inlet to try and get a good comparison.

2. I think stock intake even with a drop in filter (which is what i am running) might become the choke point if you get a good inlet. So i might not see as much benefit as someone running an intake for example.

Howerver i do plan to keep this going with any future installs or tune changes. I am trying to resist going beyond FBO, but we will see how long that lasts

[obeeone]

Hello Thejeremyman9,

I have been following a lot of your posts as you have taken a very methodical approach to recording your data during upgrades etc. and as an engineer I love data, most days anyway.

I just started upgrading my car a few weeks ago and wish I had done more data logging while completely stock, but didn't think about just buying the MHD logging feature without buying the flasher module until I had already installed my VRSF DP, CP and 6.5 hd intercooler.

Anyway, I started logging and playing with virtual dyno to start recording things prior to flashing and I am seeing a wide variance between almost identical runs and was curious if you found the same using virtual dyno? Attached are runs only 3 minutes apart, but widely different results. Any ideas? Thanks



Also the associated data logs for reference:

http://https://datazap.me/u/obeeone420/dp-cp-65hd-intercooler?log=1&data=3-16

https://datazap.me/u/obeeone420/dp-c...og=0&data=3-16

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by obeeone

Hello Thejeremyman9,

I have been following a lot of your posts as you have taken a very methodical approach to recording your data during upgrades etc. and as an engineer I love data, most days anyway.

I just started upgrading my car a few weeks ago and wish I had done more data logging while completely stock, but didn't think about just buying the MHD logging feature without buying the flasher module until I had already installed my VRSF DP, CP and 6.5 hd intercooler.

Anyway, I started logging and playing with virtual dyno to start recording things prior to flashing and I am seeing a wide variance between almost identical runs and was curious if you found the same using virtual dyno? Attached are runs only 3 minutes apart, but widely different results. Any ideas? Thanks

Also the associated data logs for reference:

http://https://datazap.me/u/obeeone420/dp-cp-65hd-intercooler?log=1&data=3-16

https://datazap.me/u/obeeone420/dp-c...og=0&data=3-16

First, you need to go into settings and enable more parameters to be logged. You dont even have vehicle speed, MAP, or timing corrections that i saw. You might need to actually install MHD to get some of these, i can't recall.

In terms of the results, it looks like these are not clean runs. You have several jumps in RPM, especially in the 2nd log. Either you were hitting bumps in the road, you were getting wheelspin, or your clutch was slipping if you are 6MT. You need a very smooth road with no bumps or wheel spin to have virtual dyno read correctly. Your RPM need to be a smooth curve.

Aside from that, the other thing i would note that is timing plays a huge role in power, as i described in my posts above. Inconsistent timing between two pulls done back to back will cause a big difference, and i think my post above illustrates that.

[obeeone]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

First, you need to go into settings and enable more parameters to be logged. You dont even have vehicle speed, MAP, or timing corrections that i saw. You might need to actually install MHD to get some of these, i can't recall.

In terms of the results, it looks like these are not clean runs. You have several jumps in RPM, especially in the 2nd log. Either you were hitting bumps in the road, you were getting wheelspin, or your clutch was slipping if you are 6MT. You need a very smooth road with no bumps or wheel spin to have virtual dyno read correctly. Your RPM need to be a smooth curve.

Aside from that, the other thing i would note that is timing plays a huge role in power, as i described in my posts above. Inconsistent timing between two pulls done back to back will cause a big difference, and i think my post above illustrates that.

Thanks for the input. Those logs were my first ones that I took before I realized there were a couple of other parameters that I wanted to log. I do now have the Map and speed, but I don't have the option for timing corrections. I have seen those in a lot of other logs so they either come when you install the flasher or they are gone with the update?

Also, thinking about the road and how I logged these there my be some conditions that explain the jump in rpm and differences in the power. It's interesting how sensitive the logs are to how the Virtual Dyno interprets the data. Consistency in the runs is going to be difficult around where I can obtain a good flat stretch of road so I'll have to see if I can find a better section to log at. Thanks again.

Car is 2015 335i Xdrive AT.

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by obeeone

Thanks for the input. Those logs were my first ones that I took before I realized there were a couple of other parameters that I wanted to log. I do now have the Map and speed, but I don't have the option for timing corrections. I have seen those in a lot of other logs so they either come when you install the flasher or they are gone with the update?

Also, thinking about the road and how I logged these there my be some conditions that explain the jump in rpm and differences in the power. It's interesting how sensitive the logs are to how the Virtual Dyno interprets the data. Consistency in the runs is going to be difficult around where I can obtain a good flat stretch of road so I'll have to see if I can find a better section to log at. Thanks again.

Car is 2015 335i Xdrive AT.

Timing corrections are still a feature, but likely require you to actually install a tune.

Virtual dyno is basically just using RPM and all the parameters that you put into VD itself. Based on all of that (vehicle weight, drag coef, gearing including tire size), it can determine acceleration and estimate how much power it would take to achieve that acceleration. As with any "model", the output is only as good as the input. So you need a clean log.

A good onramp should be sufficient; just wait for a break in traffic and do a 4th gear pull, 2500 to 6500 or 7k. Just make sure you use the same road every time as elevation changes (e.g., downhill or uphill) may show +/- power on virtual dyno. Similar ambient conditions is ideal as well, as is the same tank of gas, but those are harder to control of course.

[FastF30]

thejeremyman9 Have you ran any BM3 logs and compared them ... if so did you adjust parameters etc... very curious about all this now...

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by FastF30

thejeremyman9 Have you ran any BM3 logs and compared them ... if so did you adjust parameters etc... very curious about all this now...

I thought i put in one of Ozy's logs from BM3 before, but he has a 435i GC so i would expect his DC/FA to be different than mine in addition to other parameters like weight and tire height.

Send me a link to one of your logs you want to compare and ill put it in with mine, and let me know what total weight you are using (car + occupants + cargo) and what your tire height is. Aside from those 2 parameters ill keep everything else the same as my car.

The main other thing is whether or not people logged on a road that might have a slight uphill or downhill as that can significantly change results.

[FastF30]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

I thought i put in one of Ozy's logs from BM3 before, but he has a 435i GC so i would expect his DC/FA to be different than mine in addition to other parameters like weight and tire height.

Send me a link to one of your logs you want to compare and ill put it in with mine, and let me know what total weight you are using (car + occupants + cargo) and what your tire height is. Aside from those 2 parameters ill keep everything else the same as my car.

The main other thing is whether or not people logged on a road that might have a slight uphill or downhill as that can significantly change results.

Ozy's log? I very quickly scanned this thread and didn't see it... link? ... as for my log... I don't know if the route I take is flat... how to measure? with phone app beginning/middle/end? It must be enough incline cause my numbers aren't the same as yours... lol... I figure yours would be possible best to compare to for now... best would be in Florida late January... seems that's where all the quickest times come from... lol.... car going in the shop in about a week for coilovers and plug change... we'll see how my logs look after that... probably add XHP also...

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by FastF30

Ozy's log? I very quickly scanned this thread and didn't see it... link? ... as for my log... I don't know if the route I take is flat... how to measure? with phone app beginning/middle/end? It must be enough incline cause my numbers aren't the same as yours... lol... I figure yours would be possible best to compare to for now... best would be in Florida late January... seems that's where all the quickest times come from... lol.... car going in the shop in about a week for coilovers and plug change... we'll see how my logs look after that... probably add XHP also...

It's not in this thread. I have ton's of logs from ozymandias435 when i was helping him sort some issues with his car. Most were 93, some were E30 (BM3 stage 2). I may have downloaded some, i would need to check on my home computer.

[Jnat]

Sorry in advance for off topic but how in the heck to you get the car editor to integrate. I have done the editor multiple times and saved it, then it's no where to be found. Very frustrating and obviously i'm missing something.

[FastF30]

Originally Posted by Jnat

Sorry in advance for off topic but how in the heck to you get the car editor to integrate. I have done the editor multiple times and saved it, then it's no where to be found. Very frustrating and obviously i'm missing something.

Lol... drove me nuts also... very simple... do your editing...save... close the program and re-open... it will then re-load the info under custom ...

[Jnat]

[QUOTE=FastF30;26809439]Lol... drove me nuts also... very simple... do your editing...save... close the program and re-open... it will then re-load the info under custom ...[/QUOlO

Wow, how'd i miss that. Unreal, thanks!

[FastF30]

Looks like I'm eating my words.... did a log run and didn't think it was gonna be special... car must of adjusted to new tune... shift into 5th was nice and hard... timing wasn't the best but can't deny the results still.... this is on smoothing of 6 which is the smoothest graph... the E20 was smooth on 2 but to get a better reading against the 95 map I'm posting the smooth 6 graph due to 95 didn't smooth out until smooth 6... logs included below...

Red is MHD stage2+ E20
Blue is MHD stage2+ 95map



https://datazap.me/u/fastf30/log-160...og=0&data=4-22

https://datazap.me/u/fastf30/log-160...og=0&data=3-19

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by FastF30

Looks like I'm eating my words.... did a log run and didn't think it was gonna be special... car must of adjusted to new tune... shift into 5th was nice and hard... timing wasn't the best but can't deny the results still.... this is on smoothing of 6 which is the smoothest graph... the E20 was smooth on 2 but to get a better reading against the 95 map I'm posting the smooth 6 graph due to 95 didn't smooth out until smooth 6... logs included below...

Red is MHD stage2+ E20
Blue is MHD stage2+ 95map

https://datazap.me/u/fastf30/log-160...og=0&data=4-22

https://datazap.me/u/fastf30/log-160...og=0&data=3-19

P.s. DA adjusted would be 1% added to 95map Hp... which would be 381whp total...

I think those gains are in line with what MHD says the difference between the maps would be.

[FastF30]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

I think those gains are in line with what MHD says the difference between the maps would be.

I edited my last post and added percentage in difference of AP and IT's ... It was easiest to do... I'll have to go thru the whole thing to verify it... I'll do it later just to see for my own curiosity...