[jrdoming]

What is required to run Stage 2? Would love to see some customer dynos of stage 2 with supporting mods to see what the HP/TQ numbers look like.

[Napster846]

Originally Posted by EricVR4

This could a really long-winded answer but to keep it shorter.....air/fuel ratio is the mass of air relative to the mass of fuel being combusted. The higher the number (say, 15:1), the leaner the mixture (much more air compared to fuel). This improves fuel economy but decreases performance/power, and can be dangerous depending on a lot of circumstances/tolerances. A lower number (10:1) is a rich mixture, meaning more fuel, less fuel economy, and can also be dangerous for other reasons.

Different engines (naturally aspirated or forced induction) run better on different AFRs. But for the turbo engines like ours, AFR is vital along with boost pressure, timing, and air temperature because all of that ultimately equates to how efficient the engine is running and how much power it will be able to produce.

Ah I see. Thank you for detailed explanation!

[B58]

Originally Posted by jrdoming

What is required to run Stage 2? Would love to see some customer dynos of stage 2 with supporting mods to see what the HP/TQ numbers look like.

At least a downpipe and probably a simple intake.

[GT500R]

Originally Posted by TreDirtyFive

Quick question...with an MPPSK car such as my X3 M40i...is it worth getting the stage 2 instead, since the stage 1 numbers are so marginal for the value? Is that too high risk without a DP or 93? I'm in Cali so 91 is what I'm stuck with

Was this ever answered? What are the gains with stage 1 if we are already at 355 hp?

[TreDirtyFive]

Originally Posted by GT500R

Was this ever answered? What are the gains with stage 1 if we are already at 355 hp?

I actually finally got my file to flash but it didn't work because I'm on elder Gxx firmware and Alex needs to tweak the Flasher to get it working properly. I need to go in to his office this weekend if I can find the time. Luckily I'm in SoCal.

[TxHornX3M40iGuy]

Originally Posted by MissionPerformance

Finally, after a very long week we have official dyno results, and numbers look pretty darn good in my opinion.

The vehicle used was a 2016 340i with 40K miles. Nothing done to the car aside from oil changes. Original plugs, not gapped, no exhaust mods, and original intake.

After doing few street pulls in stock form, it was clear that the car is pulling timing due to some carbon build up and unknown/questionable batch of fuel as it was seen by nearly 30 knock counters per short run (acceptable is 0 - 4). So solution: a bit of E85. With that inside, all parameters in stock form were back to normal and car was dyno-worthy.

Here are the numbers put down in stock form: 294/325 wheel as per SAE correction. On WinPep7, STD correction showed 309whp, but WinPep8 has finally adapted SAE correction and now locks that as standard. With that in mind, stock 340i is rated at 320crank. Taking into account a 10-12% loss, that translates to roughly about 290whp, and that is exactly the numbers we got:




Now, we have ability to make a fully stock MPPSK flash work on Non-MPPSK car via some eeprom mods. So, since we have had a lot of MPPSK related questions, we opted out to building a MPPK car. The outcome is a MPPSK 340i, just without the sound/exhaust package. So a 340i MPPK.
Putting that car on a dyno showed a solid 331/352 wheel. That is a 37/27 wheel gain for just software/no exhaust, which is right where it supposed to be at the crank.


With base runs in hand, it was time to do some actual tuning. Remember, with MPPK already pushing limits of the stock exhaust, I didin't expect too much gains left on a table. But after few revisions, I clearly was wrong with my first impression. A stage 1 came out in at solid 65whp/36trq peak gain over stock, but with a much longer torque band that you can feel through the pull with 55-65 wheel torque gains until 5.5k :



Knowing there is more room on a table, we pushed the car even further. Keep in mind, this should only be used as a stage 2 option for all of you with high flow/catless exhaust system since back pressure is climbing a bit too high due to stock cat. But even though, with a bit higher back-pressure, the mighty B58 help up well and gave us solid 372whp/392wtrq, a 78whp/67wtrq gain over stock with 90wtrq gain over stock at 4K rpm. Compared to stage 1, the gain was 13whp/31wtrq. But dont forget, this stage 2 was tested on stage 1 vehicle with very restrictive exhaust. With proper exhaust the numbers will be closer to 400 wheel.




After having a well built stage 1 and 2 version, I just wanted to push the limits of stock hardware and see where that can take us. Raising up boost, relaxing knock control, more timing and many more modifications, we were able to squeeze out 382whp/407wtrq build. Reviewing logs, I can see that this is not something that should even be attempted for stock hardware daily drive, but could be a viable option for a FOB vehicle with minimum of 93octane.




Another graph showing Stock Vs MPPK VS Stg1:


And one more Stock vs Stg1 Vs Stg2




Take a look at the Stage 1 and Stage 2. Notice how smooth they both are compared to MPPK or even stock.


Here is a simplified datalog from today if someone is actually interested in seeing how the backend part runs. :
https://datazap.me/u/missiontuning/3...ta=7-8&solo=11

Forgive me if this has been covered, but the thread is pretty intense. I'm a total noob and have the 2018 X3 M40i. I saw the Dyno you did, but the hp/torq on that car is different than our B58 (Dinan recently released a Dyno) and with ours being x-drive as well...can you explain how this tune might impact our car differently (for better or worse)?
I'm assuming we will lose more from crank to the wheels with the x-drive?
I am looking for a solid tune that will be smooth but offer the best hp/torque gains as well. No other mods to the car yet, M exhaust on, etc. I wasn't super thrilled with the recent Stage 1 Dinan numbers of 30 or so hp/torque and wondering if you think we could see more than that with the MP tune?

[chris-c]

On my remap (not this one) I've monitored my AFR on a cool-ish morning hitting a low of 12.0 but normal hard pulls hit a low of 12.8 for a bit.

Normally it sits at around 14.9 give or take 0.5

[j1980mac]

Originally Posted by TxHornX3M40iGuy

Forgive me if this has been covered, but the thread is pretty intense. I'm a total noob and have the 2018 X3 M40i. I saw the Dyno you did, but the hp/torq on that car is different than our B58 (Dinan recently released a Dyno) and with ours being x-drive as well...can you explain how this tune might impact our car differently (for better or worse)?
I'm assuming we will lose more from crank to the wheels with the x-drive?
I am looking for a solid tune that will be smooth but offer the best hp/torque gains as well. No other mods to the car yet, M exhaust on, etc. I wasn't super thrilled with the recent Stage 1 Dinan numbers of 30 or so hp/torque and wondering if you think we could see more than that with the MP tune?

Great question ... MissionPerformance we can't wait to see where this goes for our X3 M40i's!

[riskmaker76]

Anyone have emissions measured to see if it will pass inspection (like in NY)?

[ceedawg]

Originally Posted by riskmaker76

Anyone have emissions measured to see if it will pass inspection (like in NY)?

Why would it not pass? If there are no CELs I can’t see why there would be an issue.

[Araemo]

Originally Posted by ceedawg

Why would it not pass? If there are no CELs I can’t see why there would be an issue.

Couple reasons:
#1: Some states actually sample the gas coming out of the exhaust, so even if your tune says all is good, it may not pass the physical test.
#2: Most tunes that handle a catless/high flow DP suppress the CEL, they don't set the readiness code that says the cat is detected and functional. I think this is for legal reasons - it's illegal to provide a 'defeat device' that lies about the state of the emissions hardware. But suppressing the CEL on a 'track only' product is fine, as long as it doesn't lie about being road-worthy to the electronic scanners.

[B58togo]

Originally Posted by Araemo

Couple reasons:
#1: Some states actually sample the gas coming out of the exhaust, so even if your tune says all is good, it may not pass the physical test.
#2: Most tunes that handle a catless/high flow DP suppress the CEL, they don't set the readiness code that says the cat is detected and functional. I think this is for legal reasons - it's illegal to provide a 'defeat device' that lies about the state of the emissions hardware. But suppressing the CEL on a 'track only' product is fine, as long as it doesn't lie about being road-worthy to the electronic scanners.

Exactly. Prior to v8 firmware on the JB4, the CEL was suppressed if you had a catless DP, but it still would still fail inspection. An angled spacer usually works in this situation.

[ceedawg]

Originally Posted by B58togo

Exactly. Prior to v8 firmware on the JB4, the CEL was suppressed if you had a catless DP, but it still would still fail inspection. An angled spacer usually works in this situation.

Spacers have not worked on these cars. If you have a stg 2 tune and tell them you have a high flow cat they really have no reason to suppress.the CEL in the tune. In cases of tuned cars with high flow cats I have not heard any reports of failed NY inspection. I did not see where you specified catless dp and tune hence my response. However I think we are in agreement on most points.

[ceedawg]

Originally Posted by Araemo

Couple reasons:
#1: Some states actually sample the gas coming out of the exhaust, so even if your tune says all is good, it may not pass the physical test.
#2: Most tunes that handle a catless/high flow DP suppress the CEL, they don't set the readiness code that says the cat is detected and functional. I think this is for legal reasons - it's illegal to provide a 'defeat device' that lies about the state of the emissions hardware. But suppressing the CEL on a 'track only' product is fine, as long as it doesn't lie about being road-worthy to the electronic scanners.

Read my post but yes I Understand that it would be the case if the car was tuned for a catless dp. AA and BM3 have such tunes for the N55 for folks whose concern is emissions inspections when their cars are equipped with high flow cats.

For.this tuner's(MP) B58 tunes I guess I am assuming that is the case. In NY I have never seen gasoline inspection in my 30 plus years of driving and owning. A sniffer For high CO2 and NO2 Emissions yes which is perhaps what you mean. Perhaps we are saying the same thing but gasoline would be under emissions ,no cat or damaged cat/muffler and other car equipment would be under physical.

[B58togo]

Originally Posted by ceedawg

Spacers have not worked on these cars. If you have a stg 2 tune and tell them you have a high flow cat they really have no reason to suppress.the CEL in the tune. In cases of tuned cars with high flow cats I have not heard any reports of failed NY inspection.

There are plenty B58 cars running catless DP's with angled spacers, not getting a CEL, hence invalidating your first statement. I was referencing catless DP's, not high flow cats, so not sure how high flow cats even came into the equation. That said, my previous car had high flow cats (200 cell count) and both catalyst monitors would always be in a ready state for NYS inspection, so generally, yes, no trickery needs to be employed when running high flow cats. (Although 100 cell have been known to cause a CEL).

Originally Posted by ceedawg

Read my post but yes I Understand that it would be the case if the car was tuned for a catless dp. AA and BM3 have such tunes for the N55 for folks whose concern is emissions inspections when their cars are equipped with high flow cats.

For.this tuner's(MP) B58 tunes I guess I am assuming that is the case. In NY I have never seen gasoline inspection in my 30 plus years of driving and owning. A sniffer For high CO2 and NO2 Emissions yes which is perhaps what you mean. Perhaps we are saying the same thing but gasoline would be under emissions ,no cat or damaged cat/muffler and other car equipment would be under physical.

Of course he was talking about the exhaust gasses, not the gasoline.

[riskmaker76]

So this all begs the question - putting a DP aside as its questionable always whether you will pass, will it pass the basic inspection emissions tests (ie computer hook up and exhaust probe) without a DP - Stage 1? Stage 2?

Maybe MissionPerformance can shed some insight..

Originally Posted by B58togo

There are plenty B58 cars running catless DP's with angled spacers, not getting a CEL, hence invalidating your first statement. I was referencing catless DP's, not high flow cats, so not sure how high flow cats even came into the equation. That said, my previous car had high flow cats (200 cell count) and both catalyst monitors would always be in a ready state for NYS inspection, so generally, yes, no trickery needs to be employed when running high flow cats. (Although 100 cell have been known to cause a CEL).



Of course he was talking about the exhaust gasses, not the gasoline.

[ceedawg]

Originally Posted by B58togo

There are plenty B58 cars running catless DP's with angled spacers, not getting a CEL, hence invalidating your first statement. I was referencing catless DP's, not high flow cats, so not sure how high flow cats even came into the equation. That said, my previous car had high flow cats (200 cell count) and both catalyst monitors would always be in a ready state for NYS inspection, so generally, yes, no trickery needs to be employed when running high flow cats. (Although 100 cell have been known to cause a CEL).



Of course he was talking about the exhaust gasses, not the gasoline.

I should have clarified my first statement is accurate concerning the N55 cars. Also my AMG with tuner software and spacers with two 200 cel metal cats.

I brought up high flow cats because catless dps and not passing emissions was a no brainer tuned or not.I did not see where you specified catless dps so thats why I mentioned passing emissions with a high flow cat. No arguement because I think we agree on most points.

[jrdoming]

Am I paranoid for being hesitant on this and wanting to wait and see if any issues arise with transmission or maybe another "weak" link?

[dereksM3]

Originally Posted by jrdoming

Am I paranoid for being hesitant on this and wanting to wait and see if any issues arise with transmission or maybe another "weak" link?

Sooner you find the weak link the sooner you can fix it

All joking aside these ZF 8 speeds are pretty darn robust (assuming you are 8AT) and this model used in our 340's are used in many vehicles that have tuned the piss out of them. For reference the 335's have had this transmission for awhile that even has a lower Tq rating and they have been running those well above normal flash tunes (upgraded turbos, E85, meth, etc.)

The weak link becomes the overly soft suspension and lack of tire under the car. Factory 255's don't cut it all for this power level.

[Beek]

Originally Posted by jrdoming

Am I paranoid for being hesitant on this and wanting to wait and see if any issues arise with transmission or maybe another "weak" link?

That depends how deep your pockets are.

[jrdoming]

Originally Posted by Beek

That depends how deep your pockets are.

Not deep enough to buy a new transmission for a MY17...

[dereksM3]

Originally Posted by jrdoming

Not deep enough to buy a new transmission for a MY17...

You'll be pushing the factory turbo outside it's efficiency zone before you start having to worry about the factory AT. If you run a PS2 turbo and E85 or something then I might start thinking about that. Stock turbo power levels not so much. The factory 8HP45 and 8HP50 have been pushed pretty far and across numerous platforms and you rarely if even hear the 8AT fail, they are robust.