[janea1207]

OzBMR: yesterday made again one log on 4 gear MHD stage2 Ron 98 map. Can you check please and make a virtual dyno please(340i rwd, r19)? Last time you showed 477whp (but is too much for OTS map)
https://datazap.me/u/janea1207/bmw-3...&data=5-24

[OzBMR]

Originally Posted by janea1207

OzBMR: yesterday made again one log on 4 gear MHD stage2 Ron 98 map. Can you check please and make a virtual dyno please(340i rwd, r19)? Last time you showed 477whp (but is too much for OTS map)
https://datazap.me/u/janea1207/bmw-3...og=0&data=5-24

The log data isn't good as you didn't maintain 100% accelerator early on and appears to be some up and down slopes.

Based on the data it looks like you might be making about 410 - 420 WHP, but you'd need to provide a few good logs from same flat section of road to verify.

I think you'd make more power with the v3 Stage 2 95_102 OTS map which has less initial boost but more timing.

The timing you're getting looks good and consistent across cylinders, just low as you are using the lower octane map.

[Coeman140]

Hey OzBMR

any chance of a virtual dyno? Actual dyno says 370whp

https://datazap.me/u/coeman/4th-and-...og=0&data=4-26

this is a custom tune for 91(95) on a PPF car. Drives great and I asked for limited torque so it doesn't hit too hard. Very happy but always looking at where to go next. Probably downpipe (with cat) chop out the ppf and put on MHD stage 2 with xHP

appreciate all your input in the thread. It is very interesting to read.

Only thing I would want different is it to hold boost better after 6k, not entirely sure why it dips so much as does cause throttle closures sometimes but not always at around 6k. Perhaps they did this due to being on 91(95). Or maybe to do with the PPF as the pressure sensor is reading around 8psi of back pressure :/ seems a hell of a lot. But I really like the fact it doesn't hit too hard and builds nicely.

[baldeagleman]

Here's another log after the sparkplug install

https://datazap.me/u/dparadis21/mhd-...og=0&data=5-19

Any idea why my boost target is so low? I've had around 18 psi of boost before but this run I'm only around 15. Also should I go back to the 91 tune again since I'm consistently getting around 0.5 degrees of timing correction (better than the 1-1.2 pre sparkplug install though).

[janea1207]

Originally Posted by OzBMR

The log data isn't good as you didn't maintain 100% accelerator early on and appears to be some up and down slopes.

Based on the data it looks like you might be making about 410 - 420 WHP, but you'd need to provide a few good logs from same flat section of road to verify.

I think you'd make more power with the v3 Stage 2 95_102 OTS map which has less initial boost but more timing.

The timing you're getting looks good and consistent across cylinders, just low as you are using the lower octane map.

I am using 100Ron fuel, ok I will try the 102Ron map, hope will note reduce the timing on 100ron fuel.
thanks a lot for info

[OzBMR]

Originally Posted by Coeman140

Hey OzBMR

any chance of a virtual dyno? Actual dyno says 370whp

https://datazap.me/u/coeman/4th-and-...og=0&data=4-26

this is a custom tune for 91(95) on a PPF car. Drives great and I asked for limited torque so it doesn't hit too hard. Very happy but always looking at where to go next. Probably downpipe (with cat) chop out the ppf and put on MHD stage 2 with xHP

appreciate all your input in the thread. It is very interesting to read.

Only thing I would want different is it to hold boost better after 6k, not entirely sure why it dips so much as does cause throttle closures sometimes but not always at around 6k. Perhaps they did this due to being on 91(95). Or maybe to do with the PPF as the pressure sensor is reading around 8psi of back pressure :/ seems a hell of a lot. But I really like the fact it doesn't hit too hard and builds nicely.

4th gear run at 395 WHP is better than the 3rd gear runs (370 WHP). Do you have xHP? There is quite a bit of torque limiter activity in the logs, it looks like you may be hitting the 550Nm limit?

From the 3rd, 4th, 5th log...

100 - 150 3.4 seconds
100 - 200 9.1 seconds

PPF is holding it back for sure, not so much the downpipe.

[OzBMR]

Originally Posted by baldeagleman

Here's another log after the sparkplug install

https://datazap.me/u/dparadis21/mhd-...og=0&data=5-19

Any idea why my boost target is so low? I've had around 18 psi of boost before but this run I'm only around 15. Also should I go back to the 91 tune again since I'm consistently getting around 0.5 degrees of timing correction (better than the 1-1.2 pre sparkplug install though).

I think it looks really good, making good power. Ambient pressure is high, so less boost required to hit Load Target. Your Load Target to Load Actual looks perfect. Let the car settle in to the tune for a while and see how it goes.

[Coeman140]

Thanks for that. That 3rd 4th 5th pull is quite a bumpy road with some uphill and going round a corner so not ideal

no xHP yet. I'm waiting to hear back from the tuner what they did regards torque scaling and whether any scaling was applied to fool the transmission before flashing xHP

I'm just dubious of the PPF as BMW do a lot of calibration incl. transmission cal to look after the filter. There is actually a puma case to tell customers who have PPF cars that there upshifts in manual are lazy to look after the filter if they complain about poor upshifts. And tbh they are terrible, sometimes I use a short shift to stop wheel spin and it always catches me out as there is such a long delay on the shift you can be in a ditch by the time it shifts.

Probably look to delete the PPF and flash xHP at a later date. But would quite like to see what happens in the UK with the first PPF cars getting MoT tests over here whether the rules change or testing criteria changes etc.

anyway car still drives great and is very fast so no complaints.

[kalslasie]

Originally Posted by Coeman140

Thanks for that. That 3rd 4th 5th pull is quite a bumpy road with some uphill and going round a corner so not ideal

no xHP yet. I'm waiting to hear back from the tuner what they did regards torque scaling and whether any scaling was applied to fool the transmission before flashing xHP

I'm just dubious of the PPF as BMW do a lot of calibration incl. transmission cal to look after the filter. There is actually a puma case to tell customers who have PPF cars that there upshifts in manual are lazy to look after the filter if they complain about poor upshifts. And tbh they are terrible, sometimes I use a short shift to stop wheel spin and it always catches me out as there is such a long delay on the shift you can be in a ditch by the time it shifts.

Probably look to delete the PPF and flash xHP at a later date. But would quite like to see what happens in the UK with the first PPF cars getting MoT tests over here whether the rules change or testing criteria changes etc.

anyway car still drives great and is very fast so no complaints.

Exactly that, I also have a M140i PPF and I hate the slow gearbox!!! My dad has a 228i and his gearbox is so so much more responsive. Hope XHP can fix this..

[baldeagleman]

So here are some logs I just made

https://datazap.me/u/dparadis21/mhd-...og=0&data=5-19

This looks really bad, any thoughts? Losing 40+ hp and pulling 3 degrees of timing by the end. Is this just like really awful gas? Just filled up yesterday and my previous logs that looked fine were on a previous fillup.

Edit: Reflashed 91 tune about two hours later after the car cooled down and I got this log

https://datazap.me/u/dparadis21/mhd-...&data=17-19-44

[M140_BCS]

Originally Posted by baldeagleman

So here are some logs I just made

https://datazap.me/u/dparadis21/mhd-...&data=5-19

This looks really bad, any thoughts? Losing 40+ hp and pulling 3 degrees of timing by the end. Is this just like really awful gas? Just filled up yesterday and my previous logs that looked fine were on a previous fillup.

Edit: Reflashed 91 tune about two hours later after the car cooled down and I got this log

https://datazap.me/u/dparadis21/mhd-...;data=17-19-44

How many miles on the car?

You have rail pressure drops of 600psi on every log.

[SC_B5X]

Story of how to blow up a B58 in one simple log:

https://datazap.me/u/richmichael97/s...59-60-61-62-69

[Coeman140]

Originally Posted by SC_B5X

Story of how to blow up a B58 in one simple log:

https://datazap.me/u/richmichael97/s...59-60-61-62-69

41.5psi :/ what happened?

[baldeagleman]

Originally Posted by M140_BCS

How many miles on the car?

You have rail pressure drops of 600psi on every log.

47.5k

[janea1207]

Originally Posted by SC_B5X

Story of how to blow up a B58 in one simple log:

https://datazap.me/u/richmichael97/s...59-60-61-62-69

Who was your tuner??? The DME on normal soft must turn of the power after 5th cyl swiched off. But instead of it the DME trying to compensate 5th cyl and increased the boost to 41psi!

[SC_B5X]

Originally Posted by janea1207

Who was your tuner??? The DME on normal soft must turn of the power after 5th cyl swiched off. But instead of it the DME trying to compensate 5th cyl and increased the boost to 41psi!

Yup, we have no clue why it happened. Previous logs when it misfired it'd always throw into limp mode, but for some reason something happened this time and it decided "na we're just going to compensate for loss of cyl 5"

[Coeman140]

could you explain to me what in the log indicated cyl 5 shutdown / missfire?

sorry it happened though

[weehe126]

I don't understand why people are thinking the tune compensated for cylinder 5 dropping and that caused the wastegate to slam closed and 40+psi. The MAF is before the turbo, so it would read whatever the turbo is sucking in. Having a cylinder that is not firing would still have 40psi flowing through it, it just would be down on power. The slight lean AFR makes sense, but the worst think the tune should do is make all of the other cylinders richer to get AFR on target.

[InstigatorX]

I bought a Dragy for fun and here's first result. 0-60 came in at 4.5s, but as "invalid" on Dragy.

View post on imgur.com

I logged at the same time...any idea what the various limiter values are? i.e. 131072 (I long pressed the traction button)

https://datazap.me/u/instigatorx/log...-43&solo=10-43
https://datazap.me/u/instigatorx/log...-19-43&solo=43

I was running MHD ST1 95oct, but after doing a legit 4th gear log, my car doesn't like it even at E18. So I'll go back to 93oct for now.

[kern417]

Originally Posted by weehe126

I don't understand why people are thinking the tune compensated for cylinder 5 dropping and that caused the wastegate to slam closed and 40+psi. The MAF is before the turbo, so it would read whatever the turbo is sucking in. Having a cylinder that is not firing would still have 40psi flowing through it, it just would be down on power. The slight lean AFR makes sense, but the worst think the tune should do is make all of the other cylinders richer to get AFR on target.

You can different amounts of air with the same PSI, especially if you have one cylinder not firing or adding any energy to the turbo to keep it spooling. So they are not directly related.

Also, the tuner himself said that he thinks that's what happened.

[weehe126]

I saw what the tuner said, people need think.

[kern417]

Originally Posted by weehe126

I saw what the tuner said, people need think.

Like I said, I don't see why it wouldn't make sense. They've been chasing the issue for a while now, because he was overboosting a few weeks ago. If a cylinder was deactivated, you have airflow that isn't being combusted. So now you have WGDC and Lambda targets fighting each other. All of this on the assumption that the car deactivated the cylinder but didn't put the car into limp mode (he was still able to start and drive the car, just saw oil everywhere when it failed). Regardless, you can make more boost at the same maf level depending on the conditions so you can't directly correlate the two (keep in mind he had a pure800 so you can't even compare it to stock maf values).