[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke

So I replaced the plugs today with the stock Bosch gaped at stock specs. I'm still getting the similar kinda reading on ignition timing as before(bad). Should I be switching to 91 octane map now? Right now I'm on stage 1 93 octane. I also have the CTS turbo intake, could that be causing this? I believe it doesn't need time to adjust to anything after replacing the plugs?
thejeremyman9 ozymandias435

Have a 4th gear log? Its most likely fuel quality.

Also, did you actually confirm the gap before putting them in?

You can try the 91 map and see if timing is more consistent. You might make more power on a 91 map with clean timing than a 93 map with poor timing if there is more timing being pulled than the difference in target timing between the maps. The 91 map would also be "safer" and more consistent power delivery.

If you have access to race gas somewhere around you, you can confirm its a octane issue by adding a few gallons of 100 octane to a otherwise almost empty tank and log again.

Intake should not affect timing.

I speculated about there being some adaptations, but cannot confirm. I thought there might be for coils/ignition system, but there is no such adaptation to reset in MHD at least. I reset all mine after the plug install and drove for 50 miles and logged again, timing was around the same, with 1 or 2 random cylinder getting timing pulled in my 4th gear logs, and a different cylinder each time.

[thatBimmerBloke]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

Have a 4th gear log? Its most likely fuel quality.

Also, did you actually confirm the gap before putting them in?

You can try the 91 map and see if timing is more consistent. You might make more power on a 91 map with clean timing than a 93 map with poor timing if there is more timing being pulled than the difference in target timing between the maps. The 91 map would also be "safer" and more consistent power delivery.

If you have access to race gas somewhere around you, you can confirm its a octane issue by adding a few gallons of 100 octane to a otherwise almost empty tank and log again.

Intake should not affect timing.

I speculated about there being some adaptations, but cannot confirm. I thought there might be for coils/ignition system, but there is no such adaptation to reset in MHD at least. I reset all mine after the plug install and drove for 50 miles and logged again, timing was around the same, with 1 or 2 random cylinder getting timing pulled in my 4th gear logs, and a different cylinder each time.

Yes, my indy shop mechanic did it in front of me, all were already gaped at 0.029-0.030 and he didn't change anything. I barely drove 10 miles before going for the logs. The third gear run looks much better, here are couple of the runs:

4th gear: https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eea...0b431db2fb43fc

3rd gear: https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eea...90c62a22b5a6c9

I could try resetting the adaptation and doing more runs this weekend.
I think I could get hold of octane booster also.

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke

Yes, my indy shop mechanic did it in front of me, all were already gaped at 0.029-0.030 and he didn't change anything. I barely drove 10 miles before going for the logs. The third gear run looks much better, here are couple of the runs:

4th gear: https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eea...0b431db2fb43fc

3rd gear: https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eea...90c62a22b5a6c9

I could try resetting the adaptation and doing more runs this weekend.
I think I could get hold of octane booster also.

Yeah mine were the same, installed them at 0.030.

Honestly it looks like a fuel/octane issue. I took a quick scroll through the logs. 3rd gear looks better for two reasons - boost is lower, both actual and target, and IATs are a little lower as well. Easier to maintain timing in that situation. Also, the DME targets higher timing at lower boost, which is why the actual values are higher.

The 4th gear log timing is pretty bad and all over the place still. I would definitely switch to the 91 map. Infact i would probably switch to the 91 map, reset adaptations, drive maybe 30-50 miles after that, then do 2 4th gear logs. That should give enough time for any adaptations needed for the plug change and tune change.

Another side note/question - does BM3 always target lower boost in 3rd? I dont see that with MHD... wondering if you are hitting torque limits or something? Do you have them removed with BM3 trans flash or XHP?

[thatBimmerBloke]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

Yeah mine were the same, installed them at 0.030.

Honestly it looks like a fuel/octane issue. I took a quick scroll through the logs. 3rd gear looks better for two reasons - boost is lower, both actual and target, and IATs are a little lower as well. Easier to maintain timing in that situation. Also, the DME targets higher timing at lower boost, which is why the actual values are higher.

The 4th gear log timing is pretty bad and all over the place still. I would definitely switch to the 91 map. Infact i would probably switch to the 91 map, reset adaptations, drive maybe 30-50 miles after that, then do 2 4th gear logs. That should give enough time for any adaptations needed for the plug change and tune change.

Another side note/question - does BM3 always target lower boost in 3rd? I dont see that with MHD... wondering if you are hitting torque limits or something? Do you have them removed with BM3 trans flash or XHP?

yeah I haven't done any transmission flash yet, could be it hitting the torque limiter. Will get the map pack and flash 91 octane tonight.
I'll first fix the timing before going stage 2 or getting the transmission flash 😭

[thatBimmerBloke]

Alright guys, so after a bad day yeaterday ending with me being in a bad mood resulting in a fight with my girlfriend, here's what I did:

• Bought the map pack.
• Topped off the tank with 93 octane but added 3 gallons of E85.
• Flashed stage 1 91 octane map.
• Immediately went for logging and noticed the car is a bit slower or maybe it is more smooth now hence the feeling.
• I did notice the engine being a tad bit louder but I'm not sure about it, could just be me trying to notice everything more keenly.

Here are the three logs, timing is way more consistent, in the second log I see cylinder 3 pulling about 1-2 degrees but catching up after 5500rpm, please narrow it down to the beginning half, takes a while to stop logging when you're merging at high speed, also the roads are not so smooth, could that also impact timing, I read somewhere it should be done on even road, doing it on ramps with a little bit of downward incline also:

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...90c62a22b5a9eb

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...729b70aebc0c5b

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...729b702a79f171

Does this mean the bad timing with stage 1 93 octane map was all due to the fuel or does it mean the car can't handle a little bit extra boost available in 93 octane map? Will it be fine to move on to stage 2 map now which most probably will be custom for more reliability?
Will be interesting to see the logs on 93 octane map with added E85 but don't want to be doing that every time I fill up. Also need to log with a fresh tank of 93 octane without E85, I believe it should be good with 91 octane map.
thejeremyman9 ozymandias435

[1QuikWS6]

The only way to tell is to change only one thing at a time instead of changing all at the same time

[ozymandias435]

Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke

Alright guys, so after a bad day yeaterday ending with me being in a bad mood resulting in a fight with my girlfriend, here's what I did:

• Bought the map pack.
• Topped off the tank with 93 octane but added 3 gallons of E85.
• Flashed stage 1 91 octane map.
• Immediately went for logging and noticed the car is a bit slower or maybe it is more smooth now hence the feeling.
• I did notice the engine being a tad bit louder but I'm not sure about it, could just be me trying to notice everything more keenly.

Here are the three logs, timing is way more consistent, in the second log I see cylinder 3 pulling about 1-2 degrees but catching up after 5500rpm, please narrow it down to the beginning half, takes a while to stop logging when you're merging at high speed, also the roads are not so smooth, could that also impact timing, I read somewhere it should be done on even road, doing it on ramps with a little bit of downward incline also:

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...90c62a22b5a9eb

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...729b70aebc0c5b

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...729b702a79f171

Does this mean the bad timing with stage 1 93 octane map was all due to the fuel or does it mean the car can't handle a little bit extra boost available in 93 octane map? Will it be fine to move on to stage 2 map now which most probably will be custom for more reliability?
Will be interesting to see the logs on 93 octane map with added E85 but don't want to be doing that every time I fill up. Also need to log with a fresh tank of 93 octane without E85, I believe it should be good with 91 octane map.
thejeremyman9 ozymandias435

Hey man keep the girl and the poor timing values separated lol. They should not intersect lol.

I didnt really look at the other variables in the logs but yes your timing looks WAYYYY better. Actually have a linear build up towards the top which looks nice. Car had to feel faster/healthier. I know you said slower but hard for me to believe that with the before and after logs. I would say it is most likely the fuel but I dont know exactly what the E20ish mixture youre running will do to timing. thejeremyman9 would have a better answer for you there. Hard to discern the difference between the logs when you changed two variables. Did produce some nice results though.

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke

Alright guys, so after a bad day yeaterday ending with me being in a bad mood resulting in a fight with my girlfriend, here's what I did:

• Bought the map pack.
• Topped off the tank with 93 octane but added 3 gallons of E85.
• Flashed stage 1 91 octane map.
• Immediately went for logging and noticed the car is a bit slower or maybe it is more smooth now hence the feeling.
• I did notice the engine being a tad bit louder but I'm not sure about it, could just be me trying to notice everything more keenly.

Here are the three logs, timing is way more consistent, in the second log I see cylinder 3 pulling about 1-2 degrees but catching up after 5500rpm, please narrow it down to the beginning half, takes a while to stop logging when you're merging at high speed, also the roads are not so smooth, could that also impact timing, I read somewhere it should be done on even road, doing it on ramps with a little bit of downward incline also:

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...90c62a22b5a9eb

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...729b70aebc0c5b

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...729b702a79f171

Does this mean the bad timing with stage 1 93 octane map was all due to the fuel or does it mean the car can't handle a little bit extra boost available in 93 octane map? Will it be fine to move on to stage 2 map now which most probably will be custom for more reliability?
Will be interesting to see the logs on 93 octane map with added E85 but don't want to be doing that every time I fill up. Also need to log with a fresh tank of 93 octane without E85, I believe it should be good with 91 octane map.
thejeremyman9 ozymandias435

These logs look much better. Timing is great, just a little bit randomly pulled on one cylinder, even though you have IATs around 100F. Boost control looks pretty good as well. Overall no issues that i see. Did you log these on the same road? I could try and put them in virtual dyno later compared with the 93 logs and i am willing to wager they show more power.

3 gallons of E85 is quite a bit for a non-ethanol map if your E85 has high ethanol content, but surprisingly your STFT are only about 6% positive at the highest value. So i think you could realistically run 3 gallons on the 91 or 93 maps without an issue, but i know you said you didnt want to do that.

Having said all that i agree with WS6 - you should have only changed one thing at a time lol. In other words you should have added the E85 and left it on the 93 map, OR, switched to the 91 map without any E85. You could just flash back to the 93 map now, with the E85 still in the tank, and see if timing is better. That would confirm it was indeed a fuel/octane issue. But again, if you dont want to constantly mix ethanol, i would probably just keep it on the 91 map and use 93 pump gas going forward. Once you finish this tank (go as low as possible) and fill up with normal 93, get another log on the 91 map to confirm timing is sustainable without the E85 added.

I am actually surprised that BM3 seems to run less boost on the 91 map than the 93 with the same "stage" tune... I dont think MHD does that.

You should be fine to switch to stage 2. I would definitely go with the stage 2 91 map though if you dont plan to run ethanol. I would not recommend a custom tune in your situation - you wont really get anything out of it when you are already limited by fuel quality on the OTS maps.

It all comes down to how much additional testing you want to do, but if you have the supporting hardware, i would say go ahead and flash the stage 2 91 map now, drive around a little, and get 4th gear logs. If those look good, finish the tank of gas, fill with 93, drive a little, and get 2 more 4th gear logs on the stage 2 91 map to confirm it looks good with just pump 93 and no ethanol.

[thatBimmerBloke]

Originally Posted by ozymandias435

Hey man keep the girl and the poor timing values separated lol. They should not intersect lol.

I didnt really look at the other variables in the logs but yes your timing looks WAYYYY better. Actually have a linear build up towards the top which looks nice. Car had to feel faster/healthier. I know you said slower but hard for me to believe that with the before and after logs. I would say it is most likely the fuel but I dont know exactly what the E20ish mixture youre running will do to timing. thejeremyman9 would have a better answer for you there. Hard to discern the difference between the logs when you changed two variables. Did produce some nice results though.

haha yes, that was not good of me, will try to do better next time
We finally patched things up this morning She knows more about cars than I do, drives a Civic Type R.

Originally Posted by 1QuikWS6

The only way to tell is to change only one thing at a time instead of changing all at the same time

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

These logs look much better. Timing is great, just a little bit randomly pulled on one cylinder, even though you have IATs around 100F. Boost control looks pretty good as well. Overall no issues that i see. Did you log these on the same road? I could try and put them in virtual dyno later compared with the 93 logs and i am willing to wager they show more power.

3 gallons of E85 is quite a bit for a non-ethanol map if your E85 has high ethanol content, but surprisingly your STFT are only about 6% positive at the highest value. So i think you could realistically run 3 gallons on the 91 or 93 maps without an issue, but i know you said you didnt want to do that.

Having said all that i agree with WS6 - you should have only changed one thing at a time lol. In other words you should have added the E85 and left it on the 93 map, OR, switched to the 91 map without any E85. You could just flash back to the 93 map now, with the E85 still in the tank, and see if timing is better. That would confirm it was indeed a fuel/octane issue. But again, if you dont want to constantly mix ethanol, i would probably just keep it on the 91 map and use 93 pump gas going forward. Once you finish this tank (go as low as possible) and fill up with normal 93, get another log on the 91 map to confirm timing is sustainable without the E85 added.

I am actually surprised that BM3 seems to run less boost on the 91 map than the 93 with the same "stage" tune... I dont think MHD does that.

You should be fine to switch to stage 2. I would definitely go with the stage 2 91 map though if you dont plan to run ethanol. I would not recommend a custom tune in your situation - you wont really get anything out of it when you are already limited by fuel quality on the OTS maps.

It all comes down to how much additional testing you want to do, but if you have the supporting hardware, i would say go ahead and flash the stage 2 91 map now, drive around a little, and get 4th gear logs. If those look good, finish the tank of gas, fill with 93, drive a little, and get 2 more 4th gear logs on the stage 2 91 map to confirm it looks good with just pump 93 and no ethanol.

I know, my initial thought was to keep the 93 octane map hence E85 but later realized I can't keep doing that every time I fill up. However, I do plan to switch back to 93 octane and run logs again later.

I don't think I can flash 91 octane stage 2 without the DP, I have the FMIC and CP right now.

I logged this on the same stretch of the road, I keep exiting and then do the logging on the immediate ramp that joins back to the same freeway(it's like a major highway, one step below a freeway).

Will update later with new logs on 93 octane map.

EDIT: thejeremyman9 ozymandias435 Flashed 93 octane stage 1 map and gathered a few logs, not as good as 91 octane map readings but WAY better than my previous 93 octane map run without 3 gallons of E85, I believe this confirms the timing is related to the fuel? I'm not sure how much the fuel has improved with 3 gallons of E85 and if the dilution is uniform but the timing has definitely improved a lot, can I keep running 93 octane map with timings like these?
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...0b431e3b5cf759
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...0b431e3b5cf758
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...0b431db2fb4800 (something up with cylinder 4 here)
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=5eeb...729b702a79f281

I don't see any particular cylinder holding back timing, it seems random. I was also pushing it beyond 6k rpm this time, up to around 62-6300rpm.
Also, 93 octane map feels much better and noticeably faster than 91 octane map.

[thatBimmerBloke]

I think editing a post and tagging someone doesn't notify them again
Any thoughts guys? Edited the last post and added the 93 octane map logs on the same fuel tank with E85 added. Whenever you are free
thejeremyman9 ozymandias435

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke

I think editing a post and tagging someone doesn't notify them again
Any thoughts guys? Edited the last post and added the 93 octane map logs on the same fuel tank with E85 added. Whenever you are free
thejeremyman9 ozymandias435

Ok there were way too many logs to look at in detail, but here's what i did...

Put the following logs in VD (see the log name and check back through posts to confirm which is which). Note, i did not update parameters for your car, so the actual numbers wont be quite right - look at the delta between lines although they are probably reasonably close for stage 1

- first one should be the last 93 log in 4th gear before e85
- next two are 91 octane tune e85
- next 5 are the ones just posted, 93 with e85

You can see the red line, the 93 map with no E85, lost a TON of power up up. because of timing being pulled. I mean we are talking 50hp difference by just adding at e85 into the tank on the same map.

The other thing is that the 91 map with good timing made about the same power as the 93 map with bad timing... i suspect thats because BM3 also lowered boost on the 91 map.

There's two ways to make power (basically) - boost and timing. If you don't want to continue mixing ethanol, get a DP and go to stage 2 91 octane map and call it there.

If it were me, i would get the DP and run the stage 2 93 map with some e85, or the stage 2 ethanol map, because you will probably make substantially more power than the stage 2 91 map. But, all depends on your E85 access and willingness to do that.

Taking a quick look through the log with the pink line, it does look pretty good overall. Some misc timing corrections but i get the same thing. Its hard to get perfect timing, and striving for that in every log just leads to disappointment lol.

You can keep running the 93 map yes, but you will need to keep up with the e85 for the octane. And yes, i think this pretty much confirms the bad timing before was due to bad quality 93.

[thatBimmerBloke]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

Ok there were way too many logs to look at in detail, but here's what i did...

Put the following logs in VD (see the log name and check back through posts to confirm which is which). Note, i did not update parameters for your car, so the actual numbers wont be quite right - look at the delta between lines although they are probably reasonably close for stage 1

- first one should be the last 93 log in 4th gear before e85
- next two are 91 octane tune e85
- next 5 are the ones just posted, 93 with e85

You can see the red line, the 93 map with no E85, lost a TON of power up up. because of timing being pulled. I mean we are talking 50hp difference by just adding at e85 into the tank on the same map.

The other thing is that the 91 map with good timing made about the same power as the 93 map with bad timing... i suspect thats because BM3 also lowered boost on the 91 map.

There's two ways to make power (basically) - boost and timing. If you don't want to continue mixing ethanol, get a DP and go to stage 2 91 octane map and call it there.

If it were me, i would get the DP and run the stage 2 93 map with some e85, or the stage 2 ethanol map, because you will probably make substantially more power than the stage 2 91 map. But, all depends on your E85 access and willingness to do that.

Taking a quick look through the log with the pink line, it does look pretty good overall. Some misc timing corrections but i get the same thing. Its hard to get perfect timing, and striving for that in every log just leads to disappointment lol.

You can keep running the 93 map yes, but you will need to keep up with the e85 for the octane. And yes, i think this pretty much confirms the bad timing before was due to bad quality 93.

Thanks a lot man! Your username always makes me think about Jeremy Clarkson

I put up all 5 runs on E85 mix just to show that timing pulls back only on one cylinder that too randomly, nothing consistent, which I believe is good. Just removed one log, too much data

According to the virtual dyno, the average difference between 91 and 93 is around 10-20hp, with E85 added, some runs are touching even 348 and 358hp, which is interesting.

The E85 station is just 10 minutes from me but I've read it can cause corrosion in the fuel system over the long term. If I don't find good quality 93 octane fuel then I'll have to stick to 91 octane map. I was just worried something was wrong with the engine, now I can move on to stage 2 and also sleep better

What's interesting is that even the bad 93 map run felt faster than the good 91 map run, maybe because the power delivery was smoother. I think I am done logging for now and will do it again with a clean 93 octane tank without E85, should be able to match them with my today's logs.

[DreamerJoe]

Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke

Thanks a lot man! Your username always makes me think about Jeremy Clarkson

I put up all 5 runs on E85 mix just to show that timing pulls back only on one cylinder that too randomly, nothing consistent, which I believe is good. Just removed one log, too much data

According to the virtual dyno, the average difference between 91 and 93 is around 10-20hp, with E85 added, some runs are touching even 348 and 358hp, which is interesting.

The E85 station is just 10 minutes from me but I've read it can cause corrosion in the fuel system over the long term. If I don't find good quality 93 octane fuel then I'll have to stick to 91 octane map. I was just worried something was wrong with the engine, now I can move on to stage 2 and also sleep better

What's interesting is that even the bad 93 map run felt faster than the good 91 map run, maybe because the power delivery was smoother. I think I am done logging for now and will do it again with a clean 93 octane tank without E85, should be able to match them with my today's logs.

I've also read about e85 fouling fuel systems that aren't designed to run it, that's why I only run my e maps once in a while, that and I have 65k and probably original clutch that might give me some issues, hasn't yet though *knock wood

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke

Thanks a lot man! Your username always makes me think about Jeremy Clarkson

I put up all 5 runs on E85 mix just to show that timing pulls back only on one cylinder that too randomly, nothing consistent, which I believe is good. Just removed one log, too much data

According to the virtual dyno, the average difference between 91 and 93 is around 10-20hp, with E85 added, some runs are touching even 348 and 358hp, which is interesting.

The E85 station is just 10 minutes from me but I've read it can cause corrosion in the fuel system over the long term. If I don't find good quality 93 octane fuel then I'll have to stick to 91 octane map. I was just worried something was wrong with the engine, now I can move on to stage 2 and also sleep better

What's interesting is that even the bad 93 map run felt faster than the good 91 map run, maybe because the power delivery was smoother. I think I am done logging for now and will do it again with a clean 93 octane tank without E85, should be able to match them with my today's logs.

Yeah this is a good plan.

Originally Posted by DreamerJoe

I've also read about e85 fouling fuel systems that aren't designed to run it, that's why I only run my e maps once in a while, that and I have 65k and probably original clutch that might give me some issues, hasn't yet though *knock wood

To both of you, i wouldn't really be worried about realtively low ethanol mixes in a modern car. Yes it is true that ethanol is corrosive to rubber and other components that are not designed to resist it, but all modern cars are built to cope with ethanol in fuel. Pump gas has up to 10% across the country, and its not like they are building components to only resist 10% ethanol; they just use rubbers and make other fuel system components that are compatible with ethanol fuel blends. Plus, people have been running e85 mixes for years on this platform (including back to N54), and some people running full e85, which is significantly more 'harsh' than a E20-30 mixes in terms of both affecting rubber and having less lubricity than gasoline. The only other thing to be aware of really is that ethanol absorbs moisture more readily than gasoline, but shouldnt be an issue unless your car is in storage or something (in which case i wouldnt keep ethanol in the tank).

It's a little different for cars build in the 90s that were made before ethanol was a normal part of our fuel blend, but even still i run E50 in my 3000gt on a completely stock fuel system include fuel lines from 1991, just upgraded pump and injectors.

Ultumately your decision of course but i wouldn't lose sleep about it, and now than i am running the E20 map, i have no plans to ever not mix ethanol unless i am taking a trip and wont have access.

[thatBimmerBloke]

Originally Posted by DreamerJoe

I've also read about e85 fouling fuel systems that aren't designed to run it, that's why I only run my e maps once in a while, that and I have 65k and probably original clutch that might give me some issues, hasn't yet though *knock wood

Seems like MHD has more options for E maps? Bm3 has just one stage 2 E map with different variants of it.

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

Yeah this is a good plan.
To both of you, i wouldn't really be worried about realtively low ethanol mixes in a modern car. Yes it is true that ethanol is corrosive to rubber and other components that are not designed to resist it, but all modern cars are built to cope with ethanol in fuel. Pump gas has up to 10% across the country, and its not like they are building components to only resist 10% ethanol; they just use rubbers and make other fuel system components that are compatible with ethanol fuel blends. Plus, people have been running e85 mixes for years on this platform (including back to N54), and some people running full e85, which is significantly more 'harsh' than a E20-30 mixes in terms of both affecting rubber and having less lubricity than gasoline. The only other thing to be aware of really is that ethanol absorbs moisture more readily than gasoline, but shouldnt be an issue unless your car is in storage or something (in which case i wouldnt keep ethanol in the tank).

It's a little different for cars build in the 90s that were made before ethanol was a normal part of our fuel blend, but even still i run E50 in my 3000gt on a completely stock fuel system include fuel lines from 1991, just upgraded pump and injectors.

Ultumately your decision of course but i wouldn't lose sleep about it, and now than i am running the E20 map, i have no plans to ever not mix ethanol unless i am taking a trip and wont have access.

That makes sense, definitely running the stage 2 OTS E30 map. I don't see an OTS E20 map, probably available with MHD? I'll stay away from E85 for now though as there is no stage 1 E30 map.

I feel better knowing that I won't just have to keep running 91 octane map, I can switch to E30 map anytime and have the same or even more power than 93 octane map Time to get that downpipe, probably doing xph transmission flash before that, it is a bit bumpy, maybe I should try the bm3 transmission flash but I've read it having issues while reverting back to the stock transmission.

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke

Seems like MHD has more options for E maps? Bm3 has just one stage 2 E map with different variants of it.



That makes sense, definitely running the stage 2 OTS E30 map. I don't see an OTS E20 map, probably available with MHD? I'll stay away from E85 for now though as there is no stage 1 E30 map.

I feel better knowing that I won't just have to keep running 91 octane map, I can switch to E30 map anytime and have the same or even more power than 93 octane map Time to get that downpipe, probably doing xph transmission flash before that, it is a bit bumpy, maybe I should try the bm3 transmission flash but I've read it having issues while reverting back to the stock transmission.

I think MHD has stage 1, 2, and 2+ E20. They dont do E30 on EWG because its too close to the limit of the HPFP. I didnt start mixing ethanol until i was FBO, so i have only tried the 2+ E20 map. I ran stage 1 and stage 2+ 91 octane before that. If you check out the virtual dyno thread, you can see the different power i made on each map, and how much the DP alone helped with no tune change.

Yeah, if you have to drive long distances daily, it might be worth it to just run stage 2 91 with 93 pump gas. If at any time you want to switch to the ethanol map for more power, doing the FIRST mix is always easy because even if you are at a partial tank of gas, you just add the amount of e85 needed and fill the rest with pump gas. Its the subsequent mixes that get more complicated when you have to account for a partial tank and the mix already in the tank.

If you are thinking XHP anyways... just skip the bm3 trans flash IMO, and get XHP. Just my opinion; do it once and do it right.

[thatBimmerBloke]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

I think MHD has stage 1, 2, and 2+ E20. They dont do E30 on EWG because its too close to the limit of the HPFP. I didnt start mixing ethanol until i was FBO, so i have only tried the 2+ E20 map. I ran stage 1 and stage 2+ 91 octane before that. If you check out the virtual dyno thread, you can see the different power i made on each map, and how much the DP alone helped with no tune change.

Yeah, if you have to drive long distances daily, it might be worth it to just run stage 2 91 with 93 pump gas. If at any time you want to switch to the ethanol map for more power, doing the FIRST mix is always easy because even if you are at a partial tank of gas, you just add the amount of e85 needed and fill the rest with pump gas. Its the subsequent mixes that get more complicated when you have to account for a partial tank and the mix already in the tank.

If you are thinking XHP anyways... just skip the bm3 trans flash IMO, and get XHP. Just my opinion; do it once and do it right.

I see a huge bump in power with your E20 map. Strange the E85 mix didn't show any positive effects on the non E map.

So for bm3 E30 map, will running it too often cause any issues due to it being close to the HPFP limit?

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke

I see a huge bump in power with your E20 map. Strange the E85 mix didn't show any positive effects on the non E map.

So for bm3 E30 map, will running it too often cause any issues due to it being close to the HPFP limit?

Yeah when i added some ethanol with the rest 91, it didnt really seem to affect my timing. It was only 2 gallons though, and not the station where i normally get it, so it probably was not enough to actually change the octane. Running the actual E20 map with 4 gallons not only raised the octane, but took advantage of the extra timing from the E20 map that makes more power.

Its not really about how often you run it, its about making sure your car can handle the ethanol content in terms of HPFP. Every car is going to be a little different, and IATs/ambient temps is another big factor. You might be able to run it all summer without issue but when its colder in the winter you might have to dial back E content or go back to pump gas. No way to know until you try it and log.

[thatBimmerBloke]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

Yeah when i added some ethanol with the rest 91, it didnt really seem to affect my timing. It was only 2 gallons though, and not the station where i normally get it, so it probably was not enough to actually change the octane. Running the actual E20 map with 4 gallons not only raised the octane, but took advantage of the extra timing from the E20 map that makes more power.

Its not really about how often you run it, its about making sure your car can handle the ethanol content in terms of HPFP. Every car is going to be a little different, and IATs/ambient temps is another big factor. You might be able to run it all summer without issue but when its colder in the winter you might have to dial back E content or go back to pump gas. No way to know until you try it and log.

Is there a guide that I could compare my logs with, e.g. the ideal HPFP, IAT, Engine oil temps for N55? Don't want to keep bothering you guys every time I log Maybe just a few critical parameters with ideal reading range? If you could point me towards any reading material that will be helpful too.

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke

Is there a guide that I could compare my logs with, e.g. the ideal HPFP, IAT, Engine oil temps for N55? Don't want to keep bothering you guys every time I log Maybe just a few critical parameters with ideal reading range? If you could point me towards any reading material that will be helpful too.

I've posted this in a few threads starting back in January so i will repost here. I have thought about doing a more detailed write; something i will get to when i have time.

At a high level:

1. Check boost vs boost target. +/- 1 psi generally considered normal. Significantly below target might be an issue. Overboosting can also be an issue. Make sure you look at MAP (manifold boost in MHD), not pre-throttle boost only.

2. Check HPFP vs target. Dips in actual vs target ("crashing") indicates a fueling issue - i.e., too much boost, too much ethanol, etc. HPFP cant keep up with air demand.

3. Check throttle angle. If its not 100% when you are WOT figure out why. Make sure no unexpected throttle closures, or lack of closure when there should be (e.g., overboost).

4. Check timing/timing corrections and knock. Knock or lots of corrections (pulling timing) points to an octane issue (octane too low).

5. Check WGDC. If it is excessively high, you might have an issue (e.g., boost leak) that is causing your turbo to work harder than it needs to. Note differences with EWG vs PWG "normal" values.

Secondary checks:

6. Check AFR generally speaking and target. Check STFTs for corrections.

7. Check IATs (usually not an issue with IC, but can be helpful when trying to figure out other issues - e.g., very low IAT, high ethanol content could lead to HPFP crash with stock HPFP and a high boost tune or on the flip side, high IATs could lead to timing being pulled).

8. Look for any unusual behavior in any logged parameter - values lower or higher than expected? Curves are erratic and not smooth?

[thatBimmerBloke]

Originally Posted by thejeremyman9

I've posted this in a few threads starting back in January so i will repost here. I have thought about doing a more detailed write; something i will get to when i have time.

At a high level:

1. Check boost vs boost target. +/- 1 psi generally considered normal. Significantly below target might be an issue. Overboosting can also be an issue. Make sure you look at MAP (manifold boost in MHD), not pre-throttle boost only.

2. Check HPFP vs target. Dips in actual vs target ("crashing") indicates a fueling issue - i.e., too much boost, too much ethanol, etc. HPFP cant keep up with air demand.

3. Check throttle angle. If its not 100% when you are WOT figure out why. Make sure no unexpected throttle closures, or lack of closure when there should be (e.g., overboost).

4. Check timing/timing corrections and knock. Knock or lots of corrections (pulling timing) points to an octane issue (octane too low).

5. Check WGDC. If it is excessively high, you might have an issue (e.g., boost leak) that is causing your turbo to work harder than it needs to. Note differences with EWG vs PWG "normal" values.

Secondary checks:

6. Check AFR generally speaking and target. Check STFTs for corrections.

7. Check IATs (usually not an issue with IC, but can be helpful when trying to figure out other issues - e.g., very low IAT, high ethanol content could lead to HPFP crash with stock HPFP and a high boost tune or on the flip side, high IATs could lead to timing being pulled).

8. Look for any unusual behavior in any logged parameter - values lower or higher than expected? Curves are erratic and not smooth?

That's very helpful, thank you.
Here’s what I gathered:

1. For Boost pressure (Target), Boost(Pre-Throttle) and MAP the MAP should be +/- 1 of Target?
   
2. For HPFP Target, HPFP Actual, HPFP Actual (Raw) should the actual or raw be close to target? I also saw actual and raw exceeding by 10 at one place.
   
3. For WGDC what would constitute high? I see it reading at around 85-90%
   
4. Also any desired range for IAT(around 100-104), AFR(around 13.5), STFT(around 1)?

For timing, I think I already know what I should be looking for, thanks to you and ozymandias435

[thejeremyman9]

Originally Posted by thatBimmerBloke

That's very helpful, thank you.
Here’s what I gathered:

1. For Boost pressure (Target), Boost(Pre-Throttle) and MAP the MAP should be +/- 1 of Target?
   
2. For HPFP Target, HPFP Actual, HPFP Actual (Raw) should the actual or raw be close to target? I also saw actual and raw exceeding by 10 at one place.
   
3. For WGDC what would constitute high? I see it reading at around 85-90%
   
4. Also any desired range for IAT(around 100-104), AFR(around 13.5), STFT(around 1)?

For timing, I think I already know what I should be looking for, thanks to you and ozymandias435

1. More than 1psi deviation can be OK, that's just a rule of thumb. Depends on the tune really. You just dont want to be massively below target coupled with high WGDC for example.

2. Were talking about 2k psi, a deviation of 10 is nothing. The only thing to look for is dips of hundreds or 1k+ psi ("HPFP crash")

3. Depends on the tune, your DP, intake setup, etc. That range is fine. You just dont want near or at 100% because that means you are literally maxing the turbo.

4. There is no target range... its going to change with ambient temps. But you dont really want to be more than say, 15-20F above ambient. AFR depends on the tune, just make sure its on target. STFT you want to be as close to 1 as possible. Anything more than 10% deviation in other way i would say something might be up. Again, not a bright line threshold, more a rule of thumb.

EDIT - i already started drafting a "how to" read logs post. Its gonna take a bit of work to do it right. Probably work on that tomorrow, just jotted some ideas down for now. It will be a new thread.