[insane11]

Originally Posted by ronanz

Same here, I’ve travelled in and around the Rocky Mountains and Utah...have gone anywhere from 2000’ to 10,000’ with zero bm3/tune related issues

However, I have experienced misfires at high altitude in which a plug change resolved.

.

What did you gapped them at?

[ronanz]

Originally Posted by insane11

What did you gapped them at?

NGK’s @ .20

[insane11]

Mine at 0.020 and still misfire..

[ronanz]

Originally Posted by insane11

Mine at 0.020 and still misfire..

Hmmmm....I’ve been gapped the same for years with no issues. Plenty of runs up and through Los Alamos into Jemez Springs back to Santa Fe.

Not sure if it’s fuel quality related, but...for whatever it’s worth 90% of my fillups are with Shell highest octane available (91oct to E30). Where you filling up?

.

[insane11]

Originally Posted by ronanz

Hmmmm....I’ve been gapped the same for years with no issues. Plenty of runs up and through Los Alamos into Jemez Springs back to Santa Fe.

Not sure if it’s fuel quality related, but...for whatever it’s worth 90% of my fillups are with Shell highest octane available (91oct to E30). Where you filling up?

.

I used shell 91.. My tuner suggest I try gapping them 018.. I'll try it later and see how it goes..

[ronanz]

Originally Posted by insane11

I used shell 91.. My tuner suggest I try gapping them 018.. I'll try it later and see how it goes..

Are you running E85 at all? If not, gap closer to .24


Sorry OP...thread Jack over...

.

[MTWO]

Originally Posted by insane11

Bm3 doesn't have ps2 map.. I'm running ps2 with the xdi pump on Bm3 with custom map.

Yes it does. They have the 2H maps for hybrid turbos.

[bimmerace]

Good to hear! Thanks for all your help guys, I will update the first post when I get home.

[Korvo]

Is there someone that can comment on the tune quality of each? I'm currently running BM3 and am somewhat dissatisfied. The new map revisions are fast, but I'm stuck running an older revision in order to avoid the HPFP dip seen in the newer revisions. I've always had issues with cold start RPM fluctuating while driving away form my garage... like a novice manual driver that jerks the car when taking off (only happens once per cold start). Data logging is dangerous with having to click the mouse while you're driving, so having it done automatically sounds awesome. New map revisions introduced a drone in comfort that is not present in sport and wasn't present in older maps.

The tune itself works great and I don't have any issues once the car is warm.

I'm tired of all my minor issues being blamed on octane. Anyone made the switch? Anyone run both? iPhone user, so now MHD is even more appealing.

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by pdegene

Is there someone that can comment on the tune quality of each? I'm currently running BM3 and am somewhat dissatisfied. The new map revisions are fast, but I'm stuck running an older revision in order to avoid the HPFP dip seen in the newer revisions. I've always had issues with cold start RPM fluctuating while driving away form my garage... like a novice manual driver that jerks the car when taking off (only happens once per cold start). Data logging is dangerous with having to click the mouse while you're driving, so having it done automatically sounds awesome. New map revisions introduced a drone in comfort that is not present in sport and wasn't present in older maps.

The tune itself works great and I don't have any issues once the car is warm.

I'm tired of all my minor issues being blamed on octane. Anyone made the switch? Anyone run both? iPhone user, so now MHD is even more appealing.

I think you pretty much summed up the differences... both tunes work fine in the general sense, but BM3 pushes the envelope a little further, operating right on the edge of what the HPFP is capable of for example. They release revisions more frequently, which is appealing to some as you feel like you are getting continuous "improvements". However, those revisions are not without potential quirks or issues [for some cars in particular], but that's the price you pay for pushing the envelope.

MHD on the other hand is a bit more conservative, doesnt update the tunes as much, probably makes a little less power, but the benefit of all that is that is just works. If you just look at the MHD threads vs. BM3 threads you will see exactly what i mean; the MHD threads are usually people who messed up the flash (user error), while the BM3 threads are tons of datalogs of people trying to figure out why their car didnt seem to run right after the update (which may not necessarily be only due to the tune, however).

As a MHD user myself, i primarily chose it becuase of (1) android platform and app-based tuning and logging, (2) slightly more conservative approach, and (3) way less frequent issues based on threads. If i wanted to push my hardware to the absolute limit i would just get a custom tune.

Please note, i am not bashing one or the other or saying one is "better" than the other. "Better" is highly subjective depending on what you want to get out of your tune.

[Korvo]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

Please note, i am not bashing one or the other or saying one is "better" than the other. "Better" is highly subjective depending on what you want to get out of your tune.

I agree and am not attempting to bash either. No hate towards anyone, I just want to find the best option for my specific wants/needs. I did look through the MHD thread and have been reading BM3s' since day one and would have to agree with your comment.

It sounds to me like I might have made the wrong choice. I'm running a 91 map with 93 octane because my gas sucks and I'm trying to keep it reliable. I'm FBO, but am not on a quest to make this a 600hp machine. Based on those wants/needs, MHD sounds like the better fit for me.

On the bright side, BM3 can be resold. One of the reasons I initially went with it. Pros and cons, people! Thanks for the reply!

[Beko1994]

I've had MHD stage 1 on my BMW X3 N55 for year now. I never had issues, 5k miles before i tuned it i replaced the spark plugs, i'm at 100k miles now with original coils, i never had check engine light or anything on that car. I wanted to switch to bm3 just because you can get little more hp, but after reading on forums i guess i will be staying with mhd. At the end of the day, i would sacrifice little hp for reliability.

[FastF30]

MHD came out with a OTS E30 map for upgraded fuel pump for the B58 and getting 500+whp dyno runs ... so I'm hoping it's not to far away for the N55

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by FastF30

MHD came out with a OTS E30 map for upgraded fuel pump for the B58 and getting 500+whp dyno runs ... so I'm hoping it's not to far away for the N55

Whaaaaaat. This makes me optimistic. If they do release such a map for the N55, I will almost certainly get a HPFP. I am in no rush though, especially given how little i am driving the car right now, so i can be patient . I almost want to email them and ask.

[FastF30]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

Whaaaaaat. This makes me optimistic. If they do release such a map for the N55, I will almost certainly get a HPFP. I am in no rush though, especially given how little i am driving the car right now, so i can be patient . I almost want to email them and ask.

I contacted MHD on facebook about running meth and this is what they said...

I wrote:
Love your product... I have 2015 335i xdrive Fbo... running stage2+E20map but E85 is hard to get for me... want to run methanol... what would you suggest for a setup including failsafes etc... Thank you in advance..

Reply:
you can simply run the ST2+ 102 ron and add like 3-4L meth to a full tank of 93 to bump up your octanes

I replied back and waiting for an answer:
Actually wanted to run 50/50 boostjuice that I can get from Amazon... So I'm figuring I gotta spray it separate or no?... problem is stock fuel can only run E20 max... was looking for more plus cooling effects..

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by FastF30

I contacted MHD on facebook about running meth and this is what they said...

I wrote:
Love your product... I have 2015 335i xdrive Fbo... running stage2+E20map but E85 is hard to get for me... want to run methanol... what would you suggest for a setup including failsafes etc... Thank you in advance..

Reply:
you can simply run the ST2+ 102 ron and add like 3-4L meth to a full tank of 93 to bump up your octanes

You didn't phrase your question correctly, or at least they didnt interpret it the way you meant it. They were assuming you were asking about adding methanol to your fuel tank, not spraying meth aka running meth injection. The two are completely different in the sense that the former (that they thought you were talking about) does not really impact fueling (aside from the small impact the meth would have on the energy content of the fuel in your tank, which fuel trims can easily account for, similar to adding E85 to fuel to raise octane). On the other hand meth injection does more dramatically affect fueling since you are spraying on top of the DME already using DI to meet fuel targets, which it has to correct for reactively when it sees all this extra fuel it wasnt expecting. Indeed some people run race gas/high octane OTS maps with meth injection but their logs clearly demonstrate how much fuel correction is needed by the DME.

You would need to more specifically phrase your question around running methanol injection via the CP.

[FastF30]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

You would need to more specifically phrase your question around running methanol injection via the CP.

Yea I see that now... I had no idea you could run meth in the tank...

[FastF30]

Originally Posted by Pray for Mojo

I live at 3200 ft, drive up to 5,500ft through the mountains. Never had an issue with BM3.

Good to know... but I've read it doesn't adjust for the cold and causes issues when running E85 mixes...

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by FastF30

Yea I see that now... I had no idea you could run meth in the tank...

You can run any 'fuel' in the tank lol. Ive seen videos of people running everything from avgas to everclear (the alcohol) with varying degrees of success (not F30). I actually saw a miata dyno tuned on E85 then on everclear and it made a few more HP on the everclear lol. I'm sure the sugar and additives were not great for the fuel system though, nor is the $/gal. That's youtube for ya.

[hardneoark]

I'll leave my thoughts that I made on MHD vs BM3 on another thread here:

https://www.2addicts.com/forums/show...9&postcount=13

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by hardneoark

I'll leave my thoughts that I made on MHD vs BM3 on another thread here:

https://www.2addicts.com/forums/show...9&postcount=13

I can't seem to reply to your thread there cause its a different forum, but i'll add a few things based on a quick read and look at the stage 2 MHD log vs stage 2 BM3.

First, stage 2+ MHD is supposed to be compared to stage 2 BM3 as those are the "equivalent" tunes. Stage 2 MHD is inbetween stage 1 and 2 BM3; its just a different rating of the "stages".

Second, you talked about the timing corrections in your MHD log vs BM3 log and claimed the car "adapted better" to the BM3 tune. However, the IATs in the MHD log are nearly 30 degrees higher which is a huge factor in timing correction. It also raises the question as to whether or not you logged on the same tank of gas or not. There's also natural variability from log to log so unless you collected 3 of each, and all 6 on the same tank of gas, and under similar IATs/ambient conditions, it's not really a fair comparison. The timing in the MHD log recovered quite a bit by the upper RPM as well even though IATs dropped only a few degrees below 100F. (BM3 is also potentially less sensitive to timing corrections but i wont get into that).

The reason MHD said the log is too aggressive for your ambient pressure is because they dont recommend running the turbo in the upper 90% WGDC. If you compare boost in the two logs, the MHD log is actually targeting higher boost then BM3, which is typically not the case, but because it is load-based it is adjusting for your lower ambient pressure. You revved out the BM3 log further, but the MHD log was making basically exactly the same or slightly more boost than the BM3 one. In the upper RPM the MHD falls off less because its trying to meet load target, but you can see why they dont recommend it due to high WGDC. BM3 of course has not problem with WGDC near 100% because their OTS maps push the stock turbo that hard anyways. If they had the same more conservative approach as MHD they would have also recommended you not run the stage 2 map.

So what evidence do you actually have that the BM3 map adapted better to your engine - "From the beginning, the stage 2 93 octane map adapted much better to the engine...". Aside from the timing corrections, because that is a moot point given the IAT differences and questions about fuel.

The bottom line is that MHD support just recommended not to run a map that is maxing the turbo due to your altitude, whereas BM3 said it was just fine.

[lens]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

I can't seem to reply to your thread there cause its a different forum, but i'll add a few things based on a quick read and look at the stage 2 MHD log vs stage 2 BM3.

First, stage 2+ MHD is supposed to be compared to stage 2 BM3 as those are the "equivalent" tunes. Stage 2 MHD is inbetween stage 1 and 2 BM3; its just a different rating of the "stages".

Second, you talked about the timing corrections in your MHD log vs BM3 log and claimed the car "adapted better" to the BM3 tune. However, the IATs in the MHD log are nearly 30 degrees higher which is a huge factor in timing correction. It also raises the question as to whether or not you logged on the same tank of gas or not. There's also natural variability from log to log so unless you collected 3 of each, and all 6 on the same tank of gas, and under similar IATs/ambient conditions, it's not really a fair comparison. The timing in the MHD log recovered quite a bit by the upper RPM as well even though IATs dropped only a few degrees below 100F. (BM3 is also potentially less sensitive to timing corrections but i wont get into that).

The reason MHD said the log is too aggressive for your ambient pressure is because they dont recommend running the turbo in the upper 90% WGDC. If you compare boost in the two logs, the MHD log is actually targeting higher boost then BM3, which is typically not the case, but because it is load-based it is adjusting for your lower ambient pressure. You revved out the BM3 log further, but the MHD log was making basically exactly the same or slightly more boost than the BM3 one. In the upper RPM the MHD falls off less because its trying to meet load target, but you can see why they dont recommend it due to high WGDC. BM3 of course has not problem with WGDC near 100% because their OTS maps push the stock turbo that hard anyways. If they had the same more conservative approach as MHD they would have also recommended you not run the stage 2 map.

So what evidence do you actually have that the BM3 map adapted better to your engine - "From the beginning, the stage 2 93 octane map adapted much better to the engine...". Aside from the timing corrections, because that is a moot point given the IAT differences and questions about fuel.

The bottom line is that MHD support just recommended not to run a map that is maxing the turbo due to your altitude, whereas BM3 said it was just fine.

I also feel that if he had the upgraded inlets and turbosmart BOV, it would help reduce WGDC, just slapping on the CTS inlet reduced my WGDC by 5%, I used to have about 65% past 5800-6000rpm, and now it never goes past 60% at all. PWG of course already comes with lower WGDC, but with the combination of everything there was a huge difference.