F30POST
F30POST
2012-2015 BMW 3-Series and 4-Series Forum
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BMW 3-Series and 4-Series Forum (F30 / F32) | F30POST > Technical Forums > B58 Turbo Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust Modifications > Is it possible to retrofit the Supra/M340i HPFP?
ARMA SPEED
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-18-2019, 01:26 AM   #1
SC_B5X
Second Lieutenant
SC_B5X's Avatar
United_States
340
Rep
261
Posts

Drives: 2016 BMW 340i
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Greenville, SC

iTrader: (0)

Is it possible to retrofit the Supra/M340i HPFP?

Has anyone looked into retrofitting the Supra/M340i/Z4 HPFP onto our cars?

I'm currently running a E30 + TBI Meth tune on my 340i and i'm maxing out the HPFP and would really like to know if this has been done or if it is possible.

I've attached a couple of logs showing my rail pressure drops.

3rd Gear Log:
https://datazap.me/u/richmichael97/w...53-54-55-56-57

4th Gear Log:
https://datazap.me/u/richmichael97/w...53-54-55-56-57

Edit: Sorry if this has already been covered in another topic, I tried looking around and didn't see anything.

Last edited by SC_B5X; 10-18-2019 at 01:41 AM..
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2019, 02:41 AM   #2
MyNameIsNotSure
Private First Class
32
Rep
157
Posts

Drives: 2018 M3 ZCP
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura, CA

iTrader: (0)

Mission Performance does this. If you send them that new B58TU HPFP they will retrofit it for a regular B58. I believe there are a couple forum members here that have gone that route. I've been curious about a price tag for that myself.
Appreciate 1
eksigned129.50

      10-18-2019, 02:50 AM   #3
SC_B5X
Second Lieutenant
SC_B5X's Avatar
United_States
340
Rep
261
Posts

Drives: 2016 BMW 340i
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Greenville, SC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsNotSure View Post
Mission Performance does this. If you send them that new B58TU HPFP they will retrofit it for a regular B58. I believe there are a couple forum members here that have gone that route. I've been curious about a price tag for that myself.
Have they not posted the price for it?
__________________
Instagram: SC_B5X
2016 BMW 340i M-Sport Pkg
Pure 800 Turbo, Dorch Engineering Stage 2 HPFP, VRSF 4.5" Downpipe, Remus Axleback, CTS Turbo Intake, 8HP70 Transmission Swap w/ XHP Stage 3 Trans Tune, and Custom E50 Wedge MHD Tune
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2019, 06:23 AM   #4
kern417
Cheapskate
United_States
3357
Rep
4,349
Posts

Drives: 2018 440i / 2010 X5
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cincinnati

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC_B5X View Post
Has anyone looked into retrofitting the Supra/M340i/Z4 HPFP onto our cars?

I'm currently running a E30 + TBI Meth tune on my 340i and i'm maxing out the HPFP and would really like to know if this has been done or if it is possible.

I've attached a couple of logs showing my rail pressure drops.

3rd Gear Log:
https://datazap.me/u/richmichael97/w...53-54-55-56-57

4th Gear Log:
https://datazap.me/u/richmichael97/w...53-54-55-56-57

Edit: Sorry if this has already been covered in another topic, I tried looking around and didn't see anything.
What tune is that? You're hitting 21psi so i'm not surprised you're hitting the fuel limit. I haven't seen a tune with that much combined boost and timing. But I'm guessing you went custom to push farther with the WMI? Can you increase the nozzle size to compensate for the extra boost? Probably easier than swapping fuel pumps.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by umizoomi View Post
As long as 3-pedals are an option, I will exercise my right to suffer the handicap and indignity of slower shifts and reaction times.
Instagram/Youtube/TikTok: @kern417
Appreciate 1
      10-18-2019, 07:38 AM   #5
enemigo13
Lieutenant
229
Rep
533
Posts

Drives: F30 340xi
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: LT

iTrader: (0)

stock turbo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC_B5X View Post
Has anyone looked into retrofitting the Supra/M340i/Z4 HPFP onto our cars?

I'm currently running a E30 + TBI Meth tune on my 340i and i'm maxing out the HPFP and would really like to know if this has been done or if it is possible.

I've attached a couple of logs showing my rail pressure drops.

3rd Gear Log:
https://datazap.me/u/richmichael97/w...53-54-55-56-57

4th Gear Log:
https://datazap.me/u/richmichael97/w...53-54-55-56-57

Edit: Sorry if this has already been covered in another topic, I tried looking around and didn't see anything.
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2019, 08:07 AM   #6
BMWILUVU
Major
430
Rep
1,039
Posts

Drives: 340ix
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: The Boibs

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC_B5X View Post
Has anyone looked into retrofitting the Supra/M340i/Z4 HPFP onto our cars?

I'm currently running a E30 + TBI Meth tune on my 340i and i'm maxing out the HPFP and would really like to know if this has been done or if it is possible.

I've attached a couple of logs showing my rail pressure drops.

3rd Gear Log:
https://datazap.me/u/richmichael97/w...53-54-55-56-57

4th Gear Log:
https://datazap.me/u/richmichael97/w...53-54-55-56-57

Edit: Sorry if this has already been covered in another topic, I tried looking around and didn't see anything.
It is possible through minor physical modification and some claim no software changes are necessary but I am unconvinced because of occasional rail pressure spikes and drops in their logs. MP claims a flash is required which is maybe updating the maps associated with the HPFP.
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2019, 09:39 AM   #7
neonnblack
First Lieutenant
136
Rep
323
Posts

Drives: 335i 6MT/e46 330xi
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Reno, NV

iTrader: (0)

MP has theirs if you send it in. XDI should be out around November or December (mhd already has tuning support in their latest release) and spool performance is on the horizon.

And yes, since the hpfp is a mechanical pump the car needs fuel map changes. Otherwise you'll more than likely hydro lock from fuel.
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2019, 10:09 AM   #8
kern417
Cheapskate
United_States
3357
Rep
4,349
Posts

Drives: 2018 440i / 2010 X5
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cincinnati

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWILUVU View Post
It is possible through minor physical modification and some claim no software changes are necessary but I am unconvinced because of occasional rail pressure spikes and drops in their logs. MP claims a flash is required which is maybe updating the maps associated with the HPFP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonnblack View Post
And yes, since the hpfp is a mechanical pump the car needs fuel map changes. Otherwise you'll more than likely hydro lock from fuel.
That still doesn't make sense to me. The fuel pump is mechanical but fuel delivery and actual fuel pressure is electronically controlled. If you have the same fuel mapping, why does more fuel pressure mean more fuel? Why wouldn't the higher pressure pump just maintain the same fuel pressure set point? It should just regulate the same amount and keep the dips from happening. For example, your fuel pressure doesn't increase/decrease depending on fuel demand. It just dips if it can't keep up with the peak demand.

I have yet to read what actually needs to be tuned. Is the fuel pressure regulator at capacity? MP said they account for supply voltage differences, so maybe that's in the tuning somewhere? But it has to be more than just more pressure means more fuel flow into the engine.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by umizoomi View Post
As long as 3-pedals are an option, I will exercise my right to suffer the handicap and indignity of slower shifts and reaction times.
Instagram/Youtube/TikTok: @kern417
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2019, 04:57 PM   #9
neonnblack
First Lieutenant
136
Rep
323
Posts

Drives: 335i 6MT/e46 330xi
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Reno, NV

iTrader: (0)

According to XDI not only is it pressure, its volume along with it. I don't know exactly what needs to change.. only guessing.

The pressure has to go somewhere it can't just be electronically un pressurized. And there's no return back to the tank. So possibly they're altering pulse width? Somehow forcing the lpfp to reduce volume until enough fuel is requested that it fully opens up again? I don't think the cam lobe the pump runs off of is variable. But maybe it is.

I'm really as lost as you are. But 35% more fuel and more pressure has to go somewhere.
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2019, 10:05 PM   #10
Wires
Colonel
Canada
759
Rep
2,949
Posts

Drives: 2016 340i xDrive
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary

iTrader: (0)

In my experience, it is just the pressure that matters. The injector is the limiter for the volume of fuel it can flow. Injectors are rated in #'s/hour based on a specified fuel rail pressure. With more pressure you can force more volume through the injector.
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2019, 02:39 AM   #11
OzBMR
Lieutenant
OzBMR's Avatar
Australia
544
Rep
590
Posts

Drives: BMW M140i
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Brisbane, Australia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kern417 View Post
That still doesn't make sense to me. The fuel pump is mechanical but fuel delivery and actual fuel pressure is electronically controlled. If you have the same fuel mapping, why does more fuel pressure mean more fuel? Why wouldn't the higher pressure pump just maintain the same fuel pressure set point? It should just regulate the same amount and keep the dips from happening. For example, your fuel pressure doesn't increase/decrease depending on fuel demand. It just dips if it can't keep up with the peak demand.

I have yet to read what actually needs to be tuned. Is the fuel pressure regulator at capacity? MP said they account for supply voltage differences, so maybe that's in the tuning somewhere? But it has to be more than just more pressure means more fuel flow into the engine.
Is it that tuning is required in the DME for the solenoid that controls how much fuel is allowed to be compressed during the compression stroke of the HPFP?

The solenoid would have to stay open longer with a bigger bore/stroke HPFP to prevent over pressure condition in the rail for a set Load/cylinder fill/injector opening time compared to the smaller pump.

With the current flash tunes the solenoid must be programmed to close early to pump as much fuel as the HPFP can. Add a bigger capacity pump without changing the solenoid mapping and it's going to overshoot.

The more recent B58 fuel systems are designed for 5000PSI vs our 2900 PSI and therefore the pressure limiting valves in the newer pumps, that allow fuel to pass back to the low pressure side, are by default going to be higher as well, making them unable to assist in keeping pressure under our required 2900 PSI design target.
__________________
Tesla Model 3 Performance 0 - 60mph 3.1s
M140i LCI Mineral Grey
Dorch Stage 2 HPFP, CG Precision DS-1, XHP, MHD Stage 2 HPFP E30 @ E42 100 - 200 6.96s
Quarter mile 10.93@127mph
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2019, 08:57 AM   #12
kern417
Cheapskate
United_States
3357
Rep
4,349
Posts

Drives: 2018 440i / 2010 X5
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cincinnati

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by neonnblack View Post
According to XDI not only is it pressure, its volume along with it. I don't know exactly what needs to change.. only guessing.

The pressure has to go somewhere it can't just be electronically un pressurized. And there's no return back to the tank. So possibly they're altering pulse width? Somehow forcing the lpfp to reduce volume until enough fuel is requested that it fully opens up again? I don't think the cam lobe the pump runs off of is variable. But maybe it is.

I'm really as lost as you are. But 35% more fuel and more pressure has to go somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wires View Post
In my experience, it is just the pressure that matters. The injector is the limiter for the volume of fuel it can flow. Injectors are rated in #'s/hour based on a specified fuel rail pressure. With more pressure you can force more volume through the injector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzBMR View Post
Is it that tuning is required in the DME for the solenoid that controls how much fuel is allowed to be compressed during the compression stroke of the HPFP?

The solenoid would have to stay open longer with a bigger bore/stroke HPFP to prevent over pressure condition in the rail for a set Load/cylinder fill/injector opening time compared to the smaller pump.

With the current flash tunes the solenoid must be programmed to close early to pump as much fuel as the HPFP can. Add a bigger capacity pump without changing the solenoid mapping and it's going to overshoot.

The more recent B58 fuel systems are designed for 5000PSI vs our 2900 PSI and therefore the pressure limiting valves in the newer pumps, that allow fuel to pass back to the low pressure side, are by default going to be higher as well, making them unable to assist in keeping pressure under our required 2900 PSI design target.
pressure limits are mechanical and based on RPM. in the past i've used rebuild kits that increase the stroke of the pump, like changing your diff gearing. so you can make more power with the same pump.

The pressure HAS to be regulated. because WOT at 3000rpm requires more fuel vs. crusing at 3000rpm vs. no throttle at 3000rpm, and all scenarios will produce the same fuel pressure. on my vw for example, the regulator is a part of the fuel filter. without it, the system will over pressurize when demand is low.

regarding the injectors, the reason why pressure drops when demand is too high is because they are open for longer to allow more fuel into the cylinder. you don't have enough supply to match the demand, so pressures drop. more pressure doesn't mean more fuel flows through the same injector timing, because nothing in the injector controls flow. it's only open or closed.

I just know in the past i've swapped high pressure fuel pumps and low pressure fuel pumps without tuning. The only advantage of new software is making use of the additional capacity. Just like our current tune offerings, they aren't doing anything other than taking advantage of the existing hardware's capabilities.

Again, not dogging anyone. But I want to understand what this limit is because i think it's more than what we're guessing. For example with the TU pump, i could see voltage requirements having an effect. But it's disappointing that a drop in pump like XDI would have similar constraints. In theory, it should just supply the same pressure without dips, and allow tuning for more pressure in the future.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by umizoomi View Post
As long as 3-pedals are an option, I will exercise my right to suffer the handicap and indignity of slower shifts and reaction times.
Instagram/Youtube/TikTok: @kern417
Appreciate 1
      10-20-2019, 12:02 PM   #13
Wires
Colonel
Canada
759
Rep
2,949
Posts

Drives: 2016 340i xDrive
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary

iTrader: (0)

What I was meaning is the amount of flow from the injector is governed by it's orifice size, which fixes how much flow it can possibility allow. But like you mentioned, if it's open too long, then the pump cannot deliver set flow if it's undersized.

I can see a need to remap for larger injectors, but not a larger pump (unless we are all missing something on how a direct injection / HPFP setup works version a convention fuel injection system).

Maybe the DME tosses in soft limiters at a certain perceived flow (IE injectors are open too long which might cause a potential lean condition) -- much like the fuel cap on the OEM tune?
Appreciate 1
kern4173357.00

      10-20-2019, 01:53 PM   #14
kern417
Cheapskate
United_States
3357
Rep
4,349
Posts

Drives: 2018 440i / 2010 X5
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cincinnati

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wires View Post
What I was meaning is the amount of flow from the injector is governed by it's orifice size, which fixes how much flow it can possibility allow. But like you mentioned, if it's open too long, then the pump cannot deliver set flow if it's undersized.

I can see a need to remap for larger injectors, but not a larger pump (unless we are all missing something on how a direct injection / HPFP setup works version a convention fuel injection system).

Maybe the DME tosses in soft limiters at a certain perceived flow (IE injectors are open too long which might cause a potential lean condition) -- much like the fuel cap on the OEM tune?
Ok then we're saying the same thing. I'm not sure what the limits are for our stft/ltft adjustment, but that can control how much the DME can compensate for example e85 blends. but I don't think fuel pressure has an effect, as long as it can compensate for cylinder pressures. I'm assuming we're no where close to hitting those limits, even with the stock hpfp pressure set points.

But if the rail pressure limits need to be raised because the pressure regulator can't keep up, that makes sense. running more boost or higher e85 blends could require a higher pressure setpoint. but i'm struggling to believe that it will struggle to keep up on the same OTS tune, just swapping to a better hpfp.

MissionPerformance you seem to have a lot of technical background on B58 fuel delivery and what's needed to make new pumps work. care to shed some light on the limitations of the system?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by umizoomi View Post
As long as 3-pedals are an option, I will exercise my right to suffer the handicap and indignity of slower shifts and reaction times.
Instagram/Youtube/TikTok: @kern417
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2019, 04:46 PM   #15
OzBMR
Lieutenant
OzBMR's Avatar
Australia
544
Rep
590
Posts

Drives: BMW M140i
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Brisbane, Australia

iTrader: (0)

These links provide some good info to help explain why the solenoid may require programming via the DME when changing to a different configuration HPFP.

https://www.underhoodservice.com/dir...olenoid-works/

https://bimmerprofs.com/hpfp/

At idle I see logged pressure of around 1400 PSI but as soon as RPM increase and load increases pressure in the rail heads towards 2900 PSI pretty quickly, even if Load is still relatively low.

Fuel tables in the DME reference Load and RPM to target an AFR which can be achieved by injector pulse width and rail pressure.

Rail pressure itself should be controlled by separate table in the DME which would also reference Load and RPM but is acting on the solenoid in the HPFP.

I think our current tunes and part of the original software "fuel cap" issue relates to adjusting tables in the DME to allow the HPFP to operate at maximum capacity and more often
__________________
Tesla Model 3 Performance 0 - 60mph 3.1s
M140i LCI Mineral Grey
Dorch Stage 2 HPFP, CG Precision DS-1, XHP, MHD Stage 2 HPFP E30 @ E42 100 - 200 6.96s
Quarter mile 10.93@127mph
Appreciate 0
      10-21-2019, 10:26 AM   #16
kern417
Cheapskate
United_States
3357
Rep
4,349
Posts

Drives: 2018 440i / 2010 X5
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cincinnati

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzBMR View Post
These links provide some good info to help explain why the solenoid may require programming via the DME when changing to a different configuration HPFP.

https://www.underhoodservice.com/dir...olenoid-works/

https://bimmerprofs.com/hpfp/

At idle I see logged pressure of around 1400 PSI but as soon as RPM increase and load increases pressure in the rail heads towards 2900 PSI pretty quickly, even if Load is still relatively low.

Fuel tables in the DME reference Load and RPM to target an AFR which can be achieved by injector pulse width and rail pressure.

Rail pressure itself should be controlled by separate table in the DME which would also reference Load and RPM but is acting on the solenoid in the HPFP.

I think our current tunes and part of the original software "fuel cap" issue relates to adjusting tables in the DME to allow the HPFP to operate at maximum capacity and more often
The fuel cap doesn't indicate a limitation of swapping pumps. If you need 3000psi to suppport your tune and the JB4 can't increase the threshold, then you'll get fuel cut. We are past that point now. So we are hitting a fuel limit of the pump itself, not tuning.

Swapping pumps to make the same pressure and hold it steady should support a lot of fueling headroom. Pressure and volume/flow are 2 separate variables.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by umizoomi View Post
As long as 3-pedals are an option, I will exercise my right to suffer the handicap and indignity of slower shifts and reaction times.
Instagram/Youtube/TikTok: @kern417
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2019, 02:39 AM   #17
enemigo13
Lieutenant
229
Rep
533
Posts

Drives: F30 340xi
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: LT

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kern417 View Post
The fuel cap doesn't indicate a limitation of swapping pumps. If you need 3000psi to suppport your tune and the JB4 can't increase the threshold, then you'll get fuel cut. We are past that point now. So we are hitting a fuel limit of the pump itself, not tuning.

Swapping pumps to make the same pressure and hold it steady should support a lot of fueling headroom. Pressure and volume/flow are 2 separate variables.
anyone could explain what is so called "fuel cap" which jb4 developers are talking so much about? all I can see is 1x8 table KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS of max load (%) when rail pressure drops for certain amount of bars (K_MSVANST_DIFFPRAIL).
As I see MHD backend flash raises both of these tables (threshold for rail pressure drop to activate KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS and KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS itself), it that so called fuel cap overcome? then it's not fuel cap but boost cap after rail pressure drop detected, and it is all the same thing as in N55 MEVD17 ecu. Or am I wrong and fuel cap is different thing there?


P.S. here you can see actually what is happening when rail pressure drops and stock KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS table kicks in : https://www.performance-centre.co.uk...g-by-custompro
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2019, 06:50 AM   #18
BMWILUVU
Major
430
Rep
1,039
Posts

Drives: 340ix
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: The Boibs

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by enemigo13 View Post
anyone could explain what is so called "fuel cap" which jb4 developers are talking so much about? all I can see is 1x8 table KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS of max load (%) when rail pressure drops for certain amount of bars (K_MSVANST_DIFFPRAIL).
As I see MHD backend flash raises both of these tables (threshold for rail pressure drop to activate KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS and KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS itself), it that so called fuel cap overcome? then it's not fuel cap but boost cap after rail pressure drop detected, and it is all the same thing as in N55 MEVD17 ecu. Or am I wrong and fuel cap is different thing there?


P.S. here you can see actually what is happening when rail pressure drops and stock KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS table kicks in : https://www.performance-centre.co.uk...g-by-custompro
Long ago, before the flashes, what the JB4 people were talking about was really the software cap in the B58 fueling. Now even with the adjustment in flashed maps, some are running into the physical limits of the HPFP fuel pump just like the N55 people had with theirs. The boost cap may be there to prevent lean conditions after a fueling cut.
Appreciate 1
kern4173357.00

      10-22-2019, 07:36 AM   #19
kern417
Cheapskate
United_States
3357
Rep
4,349
Posts

Drives: 2018 440i / 2010 X5
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cincinnati

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by enemigo13 View Post
anyone could explain what is so called "fuel cap" which jb4 developers are talking so much about? all I can see is 1x8 table KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS of max load (%) when rail pressure drops for certain amount of bars (K_MSVANST_DIFFPRAIL).
As I see MHD backend flash raises both of these tables (threshold for rail pressure drop to activate KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS and KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS itself), it that so called fuel cap overcome? then it's not fuel cap but boost cap after rail pressure drop detected, and it is all the same thing as in N55 MEVD17 ecu. Or am I wrong and fuel cap is different thing there?


P.S. here you can see actually what is happening when rail pressure drops and stock KL_RFMIN_KRSTSYS table kicks in : https://www.performance-centre.co.uk...g-by-custompro
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWILUVU View Post
Long ago, before the flashes, what the JB4 people were talking about was really the software cap in the B58 fueling. Now even with the adjustment in flashed maps, some are running into the physical limits of the HPFP fuel pump just like the N55 people had with theirs. The boost cap may be there to prevent lean conditions after a fueling cut.
Yep. the JB4 "fuel cap" just meant they don't have a connector for fuel pressure to compensate for the OEM limits in the software. With a flash tune it is no longer a limitation in the software, but now the actual hardware limits.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by umizoomi View Post
As long as 3-pedals are an option, I will exercise my right to suffer the handicap and indignity of slower shifts and reaction times.
Instagram/Youtube/TikTok: @kern417
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2019, 08:07 AM   #20
OzBMR
Lieutenant
OzBMR's Avatar
Australia
544
Rep
590
Posts

Drives: BMW M140i
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Brisbane, Australia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kern417 View Post
The fuel cap doesn't indicate a limitation of swapping pumps. If you need 3000psi to suppport your tune and the JB4 can't increase the threshold, then you'll get fuel cut. We are past that point now. So we are hitting a fuel limit of the pump itself, not tuning.

Swapping pumps to make the same pressure and hold it steady should support a lot of fueling headroom. Pressure and volume/flow are 2 separate variables.
I agree that the stock HPFP pump is maxed out on our current flash tunes. I was proposing that I think the adjustment of the values in a DME table related to RPM and Load for when the solenoid for the HPFP closes, has allowed the stock HPFP to operate at maximum capacity, allowing us to run the tunes we currently have with the stock pump.

We know that increasing ethanol content beyond a certain level on the current 16 - 18 PSI maps (stock turbo) with the pump already maxed out results in rail pressure dropping and when it drops too low it triggers the DME to cut boost and timing to protect the engine as it is anticipating that the target AFR is not going to be achieved. I've logged this a few times.

Swapping in a bigger pump will provide more headroom, allowing for more boost and higher E blends, but installing a bigger capacity HPFP pump without adjusting the tables in the DME related to the HPFP solenoid may result in too much fuel going to the rail.

I hope the upcoming XDI HPFP upgrade will have pressure relief valves at 3000 PSI and BM3 and MHD have the calibrations sorted in the DME to maintain a steady 2900 PSI at 20+PSI boost level with E85.
__________________
Tesla Model 3 Performance 0 - 60mph 3.1s
M140i LCI Mineral Grey
Dorch Stage 2 HPFP, CG Precision DS-1, XHP, MHD Stage 2 HPFP E30 @ E42 100 - 200 6.96s
Quarter mile 10.93@127mph
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2019, 12:01 PM   #21
SC_B5X
Second Lieutenant
SC_B5X's Avatar
United_States
340
Rep
261
Posts

Drives: 2016 BMW 340i
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Greenville, SC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kern417 View Post
What tune is that? You're hitting 21psi so i'm not surprised you're hitting the fuel limit. I haven't seen a tune with that much combined boost and timing. But I'm guessing you went custom to push farther with the WMI? Can you increase the nozzle size to compensate for the extra boost? Probably easier than swapping fuel pumps.
Sorry I haven't gotten back to this sooner, been busy the last week.

Yes, it is indeed a custom tune from Wedge. I am trying to get the most out of the stock turbo but currently i'm maxing out the fuel system. I have WMI currently running 2x 504cc ProMeth Nozzles with 50/50 Boost Juice. I found out my local track sells pure methanol so i'm going to try running a 70/30 mix to see if it helps a little more. If that fails i'll be looking into bigger nozzles.
__________________
Instagram: SC_B5X
2016 BMW 340i M-Sport Pkg
Pure 800 Turbo, Dorch Engineering Stage 2 HPFP, VRSF 4.5" Downpipe, Remus Axleback, CTS Turbo Intake, 8HP70 Transmission Swap w/ XHP Stage 3 Trans Tune, and Custom E50 Wedge MHD Tune
Appreciate 0
      10-22-2019, 03:05 PM   #22
kern417
Cheapskate
United_States
3357
Rep
4,349
Posts

Drives: 2018 440i / 2010 X5
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cincinnati

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC_B5X View Post
Sorry I haven't gotten back to this sooner, been busy the last week.

Yes, it is indeed a custom tune from Wedge. I am trying to get the most out of the stock turbo but currently i'm maxing out the fuel system. I have WMI currently running 2x 504cc ProMeth Nozzles with 50/50 Boost Juice. I found out my local track sells pure methanol so i'm going to try running a 70/30 mix to see if it helps a little more. If that fails i'll be looking into bigger nozzles.
Yeah that makes more sense. Anyone that I ask running 20+psi has a custom tune with meth. I just wanted to be sure.

If you're hitting a fuel limit then you need more flow. I'm not sure adjusting the mix will help. More/bigger nozzles are in your future.

Is there a reason people don't just drill/tap the manifold and run 6 nozzles?


Edit: duh. intercooler. nevermind.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by umizoomi View Post
As long as 3-pedals are an option, I will exercise my right to suffer the handicap and indignity of slower shifts and reaction times.
Instagram/Youtube/TikTok: @kern417
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
340i, hpfp, hpfp upgrade, m340i, supra

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:48 PM.




f30post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST