[OzBMR]

Here's a proper 4th gear pull with updated Ver3 MHD 95_102 OTS with E30

https://datazap.me/u/ozbmr/m140i-mhd...22-23-24-25-26

There are some nice gains over Ver2 particularly low down, feel a nice push in the back About 10 wheel HP and 20 Nm increase. I aim to test it at the drag strip in a couple of weeks. They have the Nitro Funny Cars and Drag Racing Championships this Saturday.

Below is a Virtual Dyno chart from the above run comparing V2 (blue) and V3 (red) There's a bit of a boost dip at 3200 RPM with Ver 3, and this coincides with a torque limiter value being recorded, (Edit: MHD/Pureboost checked the logs and said that the 131072 code where boost dips is DSC, turning traction control completely off and the code and boost dip would be gone) but I think better ignition timing more than makes up for it and it feels smooth and strong. Dyno indicates 442 HP at the rear wheels, about 495 HP at the engine.

[kern417]

I went in for a recall DME update, so i took that opportunity to log the stock flash before going back to stage 1 93. Log is below.

http://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5dc6f88fae729b231c6c2ae9

- I'm really surprised to see 17.5° of timing
- I'm also really surprised to see cylinder 1 still pulling timing, so at least I know it's not the tune causing issues on cyl 1.
- Also I'm experiencing throttle closure when the boost pressure is more than 1psi above target. I can't feel anything in the car though.

[B58BULLY]

Seems like it's a b58 issue, I was getting misfires thought it was from e85 I was on empty tank so I flashed back to stage 1 93 and still under heavy load in manual shifting 3rd especially car misfires sounds like Zeus and spits flames hopefully there's a solution as it seems a few of us are going thru it...my plugs were bad 3/6 I'm at 17k miles but on new plugs I tried again and from a dead stop pull no problems but low mph roll pull if I wot in third its breaking up

[OzBMR]

Originally Posted by kern417

I went in for a recall DME update, so i took that opportunity to log the stock flash before going back to stage 1 93. Log is below.

http://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5dc6f88fae729b231c6c2ae9

- I'm really surprised to see 17.5° of timing
- I'm also really surprised to see cylinder 1 still pulling timing, so at least I know it's not the tune causing issues on cyl 1.
- Also I'm experiencing throttle closure when the boost pressure is more than 1psi above target. I can't feel anything in the car though.

Cool info, such low boost and Load and high 14+ AFR's all the way to redline.

The ignition timing should be high as the Load is so low. The Timing/Load table would look similar to the one below. At a set RPM point low Load would result in more timing advance and high Load less timing advance.

From what I've seen of the various off the shelf tunes I don't think the stock timing maps are touched, only fueling and target Load/boost.

[enemigo13]

Originally Posted by OzBMR

Cool info, such low boost and Load and high 14+ AFR's all the way to redline.

The ignition timing should be high as the Load is so low. The Timing/Load table would look similar to the one below. At a set RPM point low Load would result in more timing advance and high Load less timing advance.

From what I've seen of the various off the shelf tunes I don't think the stock timing maps are touched, only fueling and target Load/boost.

timing touched of course, knock detection also

[kern417]

Yeah good feedback, but I'm not sure it's accurate. I'm not sure how else they'd compensate for varying octanes of fuel.

[OzBMR]

I was told by a quite well known tuner that they don't touch the ignition timing maps for the basic off the shelf tunes (in their case at least) Why touch them if they accommodate a wide range of Load and octane levels.

For my Australian delivered car BMW says the car with the stock tune is designed to use RON95 but can safely use anything from RON91 - RON98 (88 - 94 octane AKI)

To me it makes sense, when I tuned EVO's there were two ignition timing maps, high octane and low octane and depending on feedback from the engine the DME/ECU will adjust timing scaling it as required. That was with old school open loop systems.

More modern cars like these have very sophisticated closed loop systems that are able to tune themselves on the fly e.g. I use E30 fuel with a standard 95 octane map and the DME makes adjustments to increase fuel to maintain the same target AFR as when using 93 octane. I stick 93 octane in and the timing is less than with E30, same 95 octane map.

I expect there are many timing tables in the maps for the B58 accounting for many variables including temperatures (IAT, charge temps etc), knock and so on.

For custom tunes where people are pushing the limits there would be benefit in adjusting timing maps. Adjusting knock sensitivity values for off the shelf tunes, well that would be a bit risky.

[enemigo13]

not all ignition timing maps are well optimized for higher loads from factory.
e.g. if you would look in N55 ignition maps from 335i F30 you will see it is
quite retarded in higher loads/rpms zones comparing to N55 M135i, so copying that map from M135i makes sense. In B58 case factory map has 10 degrees of advance at e.g. 5500rpm/180% load. This means it is max ecu will ask in good conditions. I'm running 12. As you probably know B58 loves timing

Originally Posted by OzBMR

I was told by a quite well known tuner that they don't touch the ignition timing maps for the basic off the shelf tunes (in their case at least) Why touch them if they accommodate a wide range of Load and octane levels.

For my Australian delivered car BMW says the car with the stock tune is designed to use RON95 but can safely use anything from RON91 - RON98 (88 - 94 octane AKI)

To me it makes sense, when I tuned EVO's there were two ignition timing maps, high octane and low octane and depending on feedback from the engine the DME/ECU will adjust timing scaling it as required. That was with old school open loop systems.

More modern cars like these have very sophisticated closed loop systems that are able to tune themselves on the fly e.g. I use E30 fuel with a standard 95 octane map and the DME makes adjustments to increase fuel to maintain the same target AFR as when using 93 octane. I stick 93 octane in and the timing is less than with E30, same 95 octane map.

I expect there are many timing tables in the maps for the B58 accounting for many variables including temperatures (IAT, charge temps etc), knock and so on.

For custom tunes where people are pushing the limits there would be benefit in adjusting timing maps. Adjusting knock sensitivity values for off the shelf tunes, well that would be a bit risky.

[kern417]

Originally Posted by OzBMR

More modern cars like these have very sophisticated closed loop systems that are able to tune themselves on the fly e.g. I use E30 fuel with a standard 95 octane map and the DME makes adjustments to increase fuel to maintain the same target AFR as when using 93 octane. I stick 93 octane in and the timing is less than with E30, same 95 octane map.

I expect there are many timing tables in the maps for the B58 accounting for many variables including temperatures (IAT, charge temps etc), knock and so on.

You can do all of those, but unless you have a sensor, you cannot adjust timing based on octane. Our knock sensor helps protect the engine by pulling timing, but it can't advance infinitely. Again, that's why there are different maps for different octane ratings.

[MyNameIsNotSure]

Originally Posted by kern417

So one of the reasons I made this thread is being shown. I'm having trouble seeing the difference between Stage 1 and Stage 2. Are there any other stage 2 logs out there? I thought it had a higher boost target. And I don't really see how it's taking advantage of a downpipe or why it's needed.

Kern just wondering if you figured this out. I have BM3 and I haven't been entirely satisfied with the Stage 1 so I'm thinking that if Stage 2 won't make much difference once I get a DP then maybe I should switch to MHD or MP before the 30 day refund policy runs out.

[kern417]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNotSure

Kern just wondering if you figured this out. I have BM3 and I haven't been entirely satisfied with the Stage 1 so I'm thinking that if Stage 2 won't make much difference once I get a DP then maybe I should switch to MHD or MP before the 30 day refund policy runs out.

I haven't. People say they feel a difference, but I'm not sure what the difference is from the logs. Dynos indicate ~20hp increase as well. I'd say swap downpipes, try stage 2, and see for yourself. Myself, I switched to E30 and definitely felt a difference. And logs show increased timing, so if you have E85 available I highly recommend it.

[kern417]

Time to keep beating a dead horse. I just saw another post where BM3 claims that stage 2 is +1.5psi from stage 1. Has anyone seen their stage 2 logs target 18psi? And has anyone that has the same 16.5psi target, reached out to PTF support to see why the boost is low?

[OzBMR]

Originally Posted by kern417

Time to keep beating a dead horse. I just saw another post where BM3 claims that stage 2 is +1.5psi from stage 1. Has anyone seen their stage 2 logs target 18psi? And has anyone that has the same 16.5psi target, reached out to PTF support to see why the boost is low?

I've gone back through this thread and looked at BM3 Stage 1 vs BM3 Stage 2 data logs and I agree with you, no difference between the tunes.

Boost Target and Load Target, both have boost target of 16.5 PSI across the board and ask for Load of 190 at 3500 RPM and then 170 from 4000 RPM and 165 from 5000 RPM.

Both versions experience the boost spike between 3200 - 3500 RPM (coinciding with the Load Target of 190), although the Stage 1 seems to spike a bit later at around 3500 RPM and about 18.7 PSI and Stage 2 about 3200 RPM at about 19.8 PSI This may be due to DP or Timing/Fueling variations. Lower timing/more fuel at spool up can generate boost earlier.

Based on the data you'd have to question the need and expense (if there is any extra cost) for upgrading from Stage 1 to Stage 2.

[kern417]

Originally Posted by OzBMR

I've gone back through this thread and looked at BM3 Stage 1 vs BM3 Stage 2 data logs and I agree with you, no difference between the tunes.

Boost Target and Load Target, both have boost target of 16.5 PSI across the board and ask for Load of 190 at 3500 RPM and then 170 from 4000 RPM and 165 from 5000 RPM.

Both versions experience the boost spike between 3200 - 3500 RPM (coinciding with the Load Target of 190), although the Stage 1 seems to spike a bit later at around 3500 RPM and about 18.7 PSI and Stage 2 about 3200 RPM at about 19.8 PSI This may be due to DP or Timing/Fueling variations. Lower timing/more fuel at spool up can generate boost earlier.

Based on the data you'd have to question the need and expense (if there is any extra cost) for upgrading from Stage 1 to Stage 2.

Thanks for the feedback. Mine doesn't spike at all on 93 or E30. I also feel like downpipes are reducing the car's ability to control boost effectively, and that's why people experience throttle closures and torque spikes on stage 2.

I do have a couple stage 1 test maps that they sent me back in the day, i think they targetted 19-20psi on stage 1. It felt fast as hell but was still in their beta stages so I didn't feel comfortable running it long term.

[OzBMR]

Today I purchased the MHD E85 mix maps pack, was only $145.

I'll post up some data logs soon to compare the MHD Stage 2 95_102 that I have running on E30 blended fuel on for a while now.

I'm expecting AFR's to be a bit leaner, maybe closer to 13.0 up top, have similar boost profile, perhaps a little less than the 95_102 map, and more timing advance.

I'm thinking if I can run E30 at the lower AFR 95_102 map and maintain close to target rail pressure I should be able to run a higher E blend with the E85 mix map with the higher target AFR's.

[kern417]

Originally Posted by OzBMR

Today I purchased the MHD E85 mix maps pack, was only $145.

I'll post up some data logs soon to compare the MHD Stage 2 95_102 that I have running on E30 blended fuel on for a while now.

I'm expecting AFR's to be a bit leaner, maybe closer to 13.0 up top, have similar boost profile, perhaps a little less than the 95_102 map, and more timing advance.

I'm thinking if I can run E30 at the lower AFR 95_102 map and maintain close to target rail pressure I should be able to run a higher E blend with the E85 mix map with the higher target AFR's.

What blends are in the E85 map pack? My BM3 E30 tune runs just as rich as the 93 tune. Some people are running E40-E50 with all stock fueling.

[OzBMR]

Originally Posted by kern417

What blends are in the E85 map pack? My BM3 E30 tune runs just as rich as the 93 tune. Some people are running E40-E50 with all stock fueling.

The map pack includes Stage 1 and Stage 2 maps, both designated as E30.

The level of ethanol possible will be determined by boost levels at various RPM points, target AFR's at those same points and the individual car. With port injection cars the consensus target was 11.5 - 11.8 AFR on 93 fuel and 12.4 AFR for E85. For direct injection if we are at 12.5 - 12.8 AFR tuned for 93 then a low 13 AFR for E85 seems about right.

With the current HPFP limitations you can run higher E blends by ramping the boost profile and e.g. 12 PSI boost 2500 - 4500 RPM and ramp up after that as the cam shaft speeds increase, enabling the high pressure pump to flow more fuel.

[OzBMR]

Here's a 4th gear MHD Stage 2 E30 log

https://datazap.me/u/ozbmr/m140i-mhd...22-23-24-25-26

AFR is quite a bit higher especially through the mid-range.

The image below is a Virtual Dyno comparing the Stage 2 95_102 (red lines) with E30 fuel vs the Stage 2 E30 (blue lines) vs Stock (green lines) The Stage 2 E30 map seems to use the stock map fueling up to 4600 RPM then they add a bit more, but still less than the Stage 2 95_102 map. Timing, I can't see any difference between the 95_102 map and the E30 map. The lower boost through the mid-range allows the HPFP to maintain target

I think I'll revert to the 95_102 map and try increasing the ethanol content. Worth a look though.

[kern417]

Originally Posted by OzBMR

The level of ethanol possible will be determined by boost levels at various RPM points, target AFR's at those same points and the individual car. With port injection cars the consensus target was 11.5 - 11.8 AFR on 93 fuel and 12.4 AFR for E85. For direct injection if we are at 12.5 - 12.8 AFR tuned for 93 then a low 13 AFR for E85 seems about right.

With the current HPFP limitations you can run higher E blends by ramping the boost profile and e.g. 12 PSI boost 2500 - 4500 RPM and ramp up after that as the cam shaft speeds increase, enabling the high pressure pump to flow more fuel.

Target AFR for E85 should be lower, not higher. But since our cars are lambda based, the target will be the same. Usually I see targets 0.86-0.88 lambda on direct injection cars. That's 12.6-12.9 AFR on 93 or 8.4-8.6 AFR on E85. with E30 is somewhere in the middle, probably in the low 11s. But since our logs automatically convert to AFR, it shows 12.6-12.9 regardless of the fuel. At least on BM3, the Lambda targets are the exact same. The only time I've seen it raised is people pushing E50 on custom tunes. I posted my logs in here and the parameters in the 2nd post of the thread for reference.

Originally Posted by OzBMR

Here's a 4th gear MHD Stage 2 E30 log

https://datazap.me/u/ozbmr/m140i-mhd...22-23-24-25-26

AFR is quite a bit higher especially through the mid-range.

The image below is a Virtual Dyno comparing the Stage 2 95_102 (red lines) with E30 fuel vs the Stage 2 E30 (blue lines) vs Stock (green lines) The Stage 2 E30 map seems to use the stock map fueling up to 4600 RPM then they add a bit more, but still less than the Stage 2 95_102 map. Timing, I can't see any difference between the 95_102 map and the E30 map. The lower boost through the mid-range allows the HPFP to maintain target

I think I'll revert to the 95_102 map and try increasing the ethanol content. Worth a look though.

Thanks for the data. Yeah, I'm not a fan of how long it stays above 14AFR. I feel like a lot of people have different results with the E30 maps and I'm not sure why. I haven't had an issue, where others see hpfp dips and fuel cuts. I'm wondering if it's the E85 mix not being done right or something else. For me, I target E32-E33 and have no fueling issues.

[OzBMR]

Originally Posted by kern417

Target AFR for E85 should be lower, not higher. But since our cars are lambda based, the target will be the same. Usually I see targets 0.86-0.88 lambda on direct injection cars. That's 12.6-12.9 AFR on 93 or 8.4-8.6 AFR on E85. with E30 is somewhere in the middle, probably in the low 11s. But since our logs automatically convert to AFR, it shows 12.6-12.9 regardless of the fuel.

I was referencing gas scale AFR not lambda. For 4G63T tuning for E85 it was found that gas scale AFR's around 0.5 higher (e.g. 12.0 vs 11.5) resulted in less knock and more torque. Personally I'm happier with the gas scale AFR of the MHD 95_102 map for an E30 blend.

[kern417]

Originally Posted by OzBMR

I was referencing gas scale AFR not lambda. For 4G63T tuning for E85 it was found that gas scale AFR's around 0.5 higher (e.g. 12.0 vs 11.5) resulted in less knock and more torque. Personally I'm happier with the gas scale AFR of the MHD 95_102 map for an E30 blend.

I don't see how that could be the case. It's lean for E85. It'll make more power but not for long.

[neonnblack]

A little late to this party.. Kern, at least for MHD any bit of boost above target will get you throttle closer, and no, you shouldn't feel it at all. My car does it frequently when reviewing logs.

My most recent log. MHD stage 2, revised 91 octane map. Max requested boost 18.1. Timing advance 9.5. 12.5 AFR

https://datazap.me/u/neonnblack/log-...ta=4-5-6-20-23