[jdrally]

Boom.

[BBri89]

What's with the dips in the torque on the remapped trace?

Three noticeable dips. Did the tuner explain what's happening there?

Normally want to smooth out the flat spots that they engineer into the stock map, usually for emissions and things like that.


Could be roller slip, but wouldn't have thought that is likely at 335d levels of torque and power, not when the RRs are designed for much higher than that.

[jdrally]

Long story but traction control kept cutting in. Will sort next week when we code out the electronic dampers which have been replaced with Bilsteins.

[BBri89]

Originally Posted by jdrally

Long story but traction control kept cutting in. Will sort next week when we code out the electronic dampers which have been replaced with Bilsteins.

Ahh. Would turning DSC OFF not solve that?

[jdrally]

Originally Posted by BBri89

Ahh. Would turning DSC OFF not solve that?

Car wouldn't allow this to happen.

[t5pilot]

The HP is good, but massive torque sacrifice. My last F30 335d spent a whole day on the dyno being tweaked. In the end, I sacrificed HP, ending up with 'only' 370. But the torque was much higher than yours (780 lb/ft) & very nearly flat (much flatter than above), not tailing off anywhere near so early. No problem at all for the gearbox.
The car was fantastically driveable. 1/4 mile runs at Santa Pod were 12.2s IIRC. It was a long time ago, lol.
With a power hike like this, definitely go for the Alpina Transmission flash. It's night/day better.

[330XDave]

Originally Posted by t5pilot

The HP is good, but massive torque sacrifice. My last F30 335d spent a whole day on the dyno being tweaked. In the end, I sacrificed HP, ending up with 'only' 370. But the torque was much higher than yours (780 lb/ft) & very nearly flat (much flatter than above), not tailing off anywhere near so early. No problem at all for the gearbox.
The car was fantastically driveable. 1/4 mile runs at Santa Pod were 12.2s IIRC. It was a long time ago, lol.
With a power hike like this, definitely go for the Alpina Transmission flash. It's night/day better.

I think you mean 780nm.

That torque is very much on the low side, must feel completely different to drive. My remapped 330d had 650nm of torque and you're not even hitting that.

[t5pilot]

Originally Posted by 330XDave

I think you mean 780nm.

That torque is very much on the low side, must feel completely different to drive. My remapped 330d had 650nm of torque and you're not even hitting that.

No, not Nm. Lb/ft. As depicted by the right vertical scale on the photo above. It's nearly always shown as imperial Lb/ft with HP.
Nm would be shown on a metric graph with KW.

[Eddamoo]

The Dyno looks to be reading ~8% over on your stock, so your Remapped value could also be 8% higher than reality.

DynoDynamics are very odd as they also dont calculate coastdown losses (not that they are accurate either) so ultimately guess at flywheel figures.

[Stainy]

Something is very wrong with the torque figures in here.

If the OP is indeed quoting ft/lb it's not low, it's massive - well over the gearbox safety limits.........and if 780 ft/lb is genuine weeeeeeelllll

Hint - my (well optimistic) 415hp remap got 534 lb/ft (724nm)

[BBri89]

Originally Posted by Eddamoo

The Dyno looks to be reading ~8% over on your stock, so your Remapped value could also be 8% higher than reality.

DynoDynamics are very odd as they also dont calculate coastdown losses (not that they are accurate either) so ultimately guess at flywheel figures.

To be fair, it is known that BMW often undervalue their power and 0-60s quite a bit.

Whether thats the case here or not I don't know

[BBri89]

Just noticed it's done in 4th gear as well. Whilst that'd be normal 1:1 for a manual or 6-speed auto gearbox, the ZF8's 1:1 is 6th gear.

[330XDave]

Originally Posted by t5pilot

No, not Nm. Lb/ft. As depicted by the right vertical scale on the photo above. It's nearly always shown as imperial Lb/ft with HP.
Nm would be shown on a metric graph with KW.

Apologies didn't see that. So your car was kicking out 1050nm torque!? I'm surprised the gearbox didn't explode!

[t5pilot]

Originally Posted by 330XDave

Apologies didn't see that. So your car was kicking out 1050nm torque!? I'm surprised the gearbox didn't explode!

They reckon it can easily handle 800. You have to bare in mind that on the road, youll rarely use full power torque, and for very little time. I had no issues at all in the 3 years + I ran that map. And I sold it to someone I know, so also know it's still going strong, map now on over 6 years.

[Watsey]

As has been said, there's a lot 'wrong' with that dyno plot and the numbers achieved.

Many/most remappers run the ZF8AT in 5th because (AFAIK) 6th is torque-limited by the TCU. Running the RR in 4th is probably not torque-limited but it is unusual.

If the dyno plot is correctly configured the engine is producing 870Nm peak torque, when the AT is rated to 700. Some tuners that I've spoken with regard the 'box as safe to ~800Nm, but no-one has mentioned nearly 900 as a safe peak output. Achievable ? Yes. Sensible ? Probably not.

To be able to exceed the TCU torque limits by such a big margin I assume that the tuner has used scaled outputs, in which case you should be wary of AT clutch slip/wear. Installing XHP, with line pressure bump, could help here.

The power and torque curves are all over the place.

Torque falls away quickly from 2700rpm. My 30d has a fairly flat torque plateau to 3500 - a 35d, with the benefit of sequential turbos, should hold high torque to at least 3500 rpm. I suspect that your remap will feel quite narrow for daily driving, relative to how a diesel 'should' drive.

[330XDave]

Originally Posted by Watsey

As has been said, there's a lot 'wrong' with that dyno plot and the numbers achieved.

Many/most remappers run the ZF8AT in 5th because (AFAIK) 6th is torque-limited by the TCU. Running the RR in 4th is probably not torque-limited but it is unusual.

If the dyno plot is correctly configured the engine is producing 870Nm peak torque, when the AT is rated to 700. Some tuners that I've spoken with regard the 'box as safe to ~800Nm, but no-one has mentioned nearly 900 as a safe peak output. Achievable ? Yes. Sensible ? Probably not.

To be able to exceed the TCU torque limits by such a big margin I assume that the tuner has used scaled outputs, in which case you should be wary of AT clutch slip/wear. Installing XHP, with line pressure bump, could help here.

The power and torque curves are all over the place.

Torque falls away quickly from 2700rpm. My 30d has a fairly flat torque plateau to 3500 - a 35d, with the benefit of sequential turbos, should hold high torque to at least 3500 rpm. I suspect that your remap will feel quite narrow for daily driving, relative to how a diesel 'should' drive.

And yet t5pilot had 1050nm.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by 330XDave

And yet t5pilot had 1050nm.

Transmissions don't suddenly fail (well, not usually), it's all a question of how much additional wear is created within a timeframe.

As he says, engines/transmissions are not driven at peak outputs continuously. A bit of overload (if the TCU will allow it) for overtaking etc may just cause some clutch slip, some additional wear, and over an extended period it may not make a huge difference.

Sustained use of peak torque and power (track days; drag strips; daily abuse on the road) will accumulate the wear far more quickly.

Frequent use of LC on a standard tuned car could arguably cause more wear than spirited driving where the driver has a good awareness of mechanical sympathy.

In terms of the OP's map I'd more concerned about getting the power/torque blips sorted and resolving the narrowness of the torque plateau, than just the peak torque in isolation.

[BBri89]

Originally Posted by Watsey

Many/most remappers run the ZF8AT in 5th because (AFAIK) 6th is torque-limited by the TCU. Running the RR in 4th is probably not torque-limited but it is unusual.

True. I think the variation of ZF8HP as well determines the torque limit by the TCU, which is on 3/6 shaft, I believe because that is the smaller/weaker shaft.

With xHP obviously you can remove or increase that limit. 320d and probably 330d will almost certainly have no issue, nor will petrol. But the higher diesels obviously have a lot more torque.


Definitely with higher torque want to consider things like xHP to better handle it, line pressure bump and maybe adjusting limits and shift points in the lower gears to reduce any slip or loss of traction.

[Kermit]

Originally Posted by Stainy

Something is very wrong with the torque figures in here.

If the OP is indeed quoting ft/lb it's not low, it's massive - well over the gearbox safety limits.........and if 780 ft/lb is genuine weeeeeeelllll

Hint - my (well optimistic) 415hp remap got 534 lb/ft (724nm)

I think the peak torque from the graph is 640 lbft, not 780lbft.

[jdrally]

Originally Posted by t5pilot

The HP is good, but massive torque sacrifice. My last F30 335d spent a whole day on the dyno being tweaked. In the end, I sacrificed HP, ending up with 'only' 370. But the torque was much higher than yours (780 lb/ft) & very nearly flat (much flatter than above), not tailing off anywhere near so early. No problem at all for the gearbox.
The car was fantastically driveable. 1/4 mile runs at Santa Pod were 12.2s IIRC. It was a long time ago, lol.
With a power hike like this, definitely go for the Alpina Transmission flash. It's night/day better.

My car showed 611 lbft. Will have the suspension coded at the weekend so will be able to turn traction control off for another proper run. All I know for now is the car drives better than before with no smoke, which was my main concern.

[Stainy]

Originally Posted by Kermit

I think the peak torque from the graph is 640 lbft, not 780lbft.

I wasn't quoting the graph for the 780 - see post 6

/edit - and I've just been thinking that if HP is achieved by a multiple of torque and rpm. Something bloody strange is happening to 'only' get 370hp out of an engine with 780 lbft of it!

[jdrally]

Originally Posted by Stainy

I wasn't quoting the graph for the 780 - see post 6

/edit - and I've just been thinking that if HP is achieved by a multiple of torque and rpm. Something bloody strange is happening to 'only' get 370hp out of an engine with 780 lbft of it!

780 lbft. Awesome.