Close

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 125

Thread: N54 Failure

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    Everyone agrees both systems retard timing. Except the odd users/fanboys who have no technical understanding of the matter and no ability to read logs. The debate is over which system allows more knock and how the timing is reduced. We rely heavily on the DME's long term timing trims while the procede for example relies only moderately on those same trims. But without those trims neither tune would work properly. Make no mistake, both tunes rely on them.
    (Hypothetical situation) - Everyone's idea of what will happen is welcome as I want to learn as well. Terry's input is the most welcome. Shiv, I already know what you will say.

    ASSUME ALL ENVIRONMENTAL AND FUEL VARIABLES REMAIN THE SAME

    Procede
    Initial Installation
    enough WOT runs to allow autotuning to do its thing

    JB4
    Initial Installation
    enough WOT runs to allow DME to adapt

    Which tune will knock more AFTERWARDS (at this point, I'm not interested in the perceived severity of the knock)? I believe there are actual datalogs illustrating this, but I'm too lazy to look them up (edit: actually probably hasn't been done since the release of the JB4).
    Last edited by AtlHarry335; 02-17-2011 at 03:31 PM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,002
    Rep Points
    8,952.0
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    If you fix the JB4 to a map either less or more depending on where you fixed boost at and how conditions change during the runs. But if you use our autotuning map once finalized we will achieve the same low level of timing drops. And as you pointed out timing drops are simply reactions to very small amounts of knock. Hardly dangerous although reducing them is a best practice.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    If you fix the JB4 to a map either less or more depending on where you fixed boost at and how conditions change during the runs. But if you use our autotuning map once finalized we will achieve the same low level of timing drops. And as you pointed out timing drops are simply reactions to very small amounts of knock. Hardly dangerous although reducing them is a best practice.
    Interesting! So after the autotuning map is finalized, the JB4 (not DME) will proactively retard timing to avoid knock? Or is knock prevention achieved in another way, like reducing boost or enriching fuel?
    Last edited by AtlHarry335; 02-17-2011 at 03:47 PM.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,914
    Rep Points
    1,353.5
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    Interesting! So after the autotuning map is finalized, the JB4 (not DME) will proactively retard timing to avoid knock? Or is knock prevention achievedo in another way, like reducing boost or enriching fuel?
    You are talking about piggybacks. They don't retard timing themselves. DME adjusts the timing. Piggyback lies to the DME but it is always DME that calls for timing and engine management in general. Piggyback alone cannot adjust the timing.

    DME works based on the info it gets via the signals. So there is always the reactive element to it. Nothing is only proactive.

    The above is true for all the piggies. Procede and JB included.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Right, but if you tell the DME that the timing is already advanced (via CPS offsetting), the DME will retard in an attempt to meet it's target.

    As a VERY simple example, if the DME target is +4 and the CPS signal from the piggyback is +7, the DME will retard 3... At least, that is my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Strictly speaking, that may be indirect way of doing it, but it has a direct affect on timing. I also understand that there is debate as to whether or not the procede's manipulation produces a 1:1 degree change, but I'm not gonna get into that. Remember, it's a simple example.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,002
    Rep Points
    8,952.0
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    Interesting! So after the autotuning map is finalized, the JB4 (not DME) will proactively retard timing to avoid knock? Or is knock prevention achieved in another way, like reducing boost or enriching fuel?
    The same basic mechanism the JB3 used, the long term octane adaption, will sink the majority of the timing drop. Remember autotuning means advancing up to knock threshold, backing off, and slowing advancing again. In the case of the JB4 it slowly increases boost, listens for knock, if it hears knock richens AFR, backs down boost, and then slowly advances again. The whole time the DME closed loop advance system is ranging advance up to knock threshold. The key is the stopping point. When the JB4 decides it is close enough to the knock threshold and the DME advance curve is stable.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    86
    Rep Points
    82.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    Right, but if you tell the DME that the timing is already advanced (via CPS offsetting), the DME will retard in an attempt to meet it's target.

    As a VERY simple example, if the DME target is +4 and the CPS signal from the piggyback is +7, the DME will retard 3... At least, that is my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Strictly speaking, that may be indirect way of doing it, but it has a direct affect on timing. I also understand that there is debate as to whether or not the procede's manipulation produces a 1:1 degree change, but I'm not gonna get into that. Remember, it's a simple example.
    That is how I understand the procede works but you've forgotten one aspect.

    By the very fact that the piggy can have the ECU reduce / increase timing by means of a CPS signal adjustment back to the ECU the tuner can call for an 'adjustment' based on what it see's in the data. For instance adjusting timing at the first sign of a boost overshoot, or sudden throttle change.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    86
    Rep Points
    82.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    Everyone agrees both systems retard timing. Except the odd users/fanboys who have no technical understanding of the matter and no ability to read logs. The debate is over which system allows more knock and how the timing is reduced. We rely heavily on the DME's long term timing trims while the procede for example relies only moderately on those same trims. But without those trims neither tune would work properly. Make no mistake, both tunes rely on them.
    Terry if every one agreed both systems retard timing then this age old discussion would be mute.

    Procede retards and advances timing via CPS signal adjustment which results in the ECU advancing / retarding the timing = proactive with control.

    JB3/4 uses the ECU to adjust timing based on what it sees = reactive with no control.

    Flash retards and advances timing via the tuners timing maps = direct control.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    No doubt, there are a number of situations that timing manipulation can be helpful. I was just giving a simple example of how the CPS offsetting works to affect DME timing at an instantaneous point in time.

    I think your examples are helpful when thinking of the JB4 logic. While spark can be adjusted almost instantaneously, boost is going to be much harder to control in those situations and is therefore effective only for long term adaptations while still fully relying on the DME to be reactive.

    I know it seems as if I'm bashing the JB, but really, I'm not. I'm over the fanboyism and just want to understand each one fully. The new autotuning maps on the JB4 should be a huge leap forward for BMS.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Valley Stream NY
    Posts
    3,301
    Rep Points
    2,757.2
    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    28


    Reputation: Yes | No
    The other thing from what I've been coming to understand is that the CPS offsetting works well as a failsafe when your meth line suddenly clogs and the system goes lean, as when you inject meth the car pulls fuel in an attempt to keep the AFrs in range. If you suddenly had no meth, now you have a severe lean condition at high boost (because the DME can't react fast enough to add fuel) and it takes nanoseconds to kiss the engine goodbye. With CPS offsetting you can yank the timing back right away, and although this might make it stumble and bog it's better than popping the engine.

    This is why I keep stressing the point, stop using meth as a bandaid for fueling and use it as a power adder. Terry have you thought about using the failsafe to dump all boost immediately if you get a lean condition in addition to going to like map 0?

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,002
    Rep Points
    8,952.0
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Matt@Camber-Toe Click here to enlarge
    The other thing from what I've been coming to understand is that the CPS offsetting works well as a failsafe when your meth line suddenly clogs and the system goes lean, as when you inject meth the car pulls fuel in an attempt to keep the AFrs in range. If you suddenly had no meth, now you have a severe lean condition at high boost (because the DME can't react fast enough to add fuel) and it takes nanoseconds to kiss the engine goodbye. With CPS offsetting you can yank the timing back right away, and although this might make it stumble and bog it's better than popping the engine.

    This is why I keep stressing the point, stop using meth as a bandaid for fueling and use it as a power adder. Terry have you thought about using the failsafe to dump all boost immediately if you get a lean condition in addition to going to like map 0?
    Our progressive meth mapping does just that. If meth stops flowing we drop timing instantly and close the throttle body. Super easy to do. Just tell the DME it's making 15psi when it is targeting 8psi. Also gives a nice rich bump as the AFR adaptions kick over. This system works as fast as CPS offsetting. Remember CPS has to be phased in over many engine revolutions to avoid triggering false misfire codes. Timing/load references are equally fast with no slew rate limitation.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    Our progressive meth mapping does just that. If meth stops flowing we drop timing instantly and close the throttle body. Super easy to do. Just tell the DME it's making 15psi when it is targeting 8psi. Also gives a nice rich bump as the AFR adaptions kick over. This system works as fast as CPS offsetting. Remember CPS has to be phased in over many engine revolutions to avoid triggering false misfire codes. Timing/load references are equally fast with no slew rate limitation.
    That makes sense.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu Click here to enlarge
    You're clueless. You should stop posting about engine tuning, ignition advance and knock.
    I take someone advocating piggy's as having better control than flashes very seriously. As well as someone who actually went so far as to say the Procede offers better control than the factory ecu. Don't even bother writing a response, I can already predict it based on whatever will work best with your bottom line.

    If you had any clue about tuning like how you attempt to portray it why would you be messing around with a piggyback someone else designed instead of doing flash tuning like you used to? Oh, well that market was sort of "blown" out from underneath you, eh?

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SSDD Click here to enlarge
    Also, you have to admit, as much as I credit Terry's honesty and fact that common sense should have prevailed- going back to edit the details of what was required on what map is backfilling, plain and simple.
    I guess I see it more as him being proactive and responsible. If that edit can help out even 1 person down the line, it is a good move. Would you expect him not to do it simply to give off a certain impression at the expense of safety? I know who would do that, but Terry did not.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Ocbimmer Click here to enlarge
    Don't blame it on the tune! You're the only one to blame for your own mistakes.
    Exactly.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by alq80 Click here to enlarge
    Not to be a hater on Shiv but what will you say if the Jb offers timing advance?
    He will find something else, whatever he can. He'll say the tune smells funny and it might make you lightheaded while driving leading to an accident.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    No doubt, there are a number of situations that timing manipulation can be helpful. I was just giving a simple example of how the CPS offsetting works to affect DME timing at an instantaneous point in time.

    I think your examples are helpful when thinking of the JB4 logic. While spark can be adjusted almost instantaneously, boost is going to be much harder to control in those situations and is therefore effective only for long term adaptations while still fully relying on the DME to be reactive.

    I know it seems as if I'm bashing the JB, but really, I'm not. I'm over the fanboyism and just want to understand each one fully. The new autotuning maps on the JB4 should be a huge leap forward for BMS.
    I don't think anyone considers your posts bashing, we could use a lot more of your constructive tone in these types of threads.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    86
    Rep Points
    82.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    Our progressive meth mapping does just that. If meth stops flowing we drop timing instantly and close the throttle body. Super easy to do. Just tell the DME it's making 15psi when it is targeting 8psi. Also gives a nice rich bump as the AFR adaptions kick over. This system works as fast as CPS offsetting. Remember CPS has to be phased in over many engine revolutions to avoid triggering false misfire codes. Timing/load references are equally fast with no slew rate limitation.
    Terry this is misleading, you don't "instantly drop timing". You tell the DME it's over shooting boost / fuel or whatever and it drops timing etc, by what amount is determined by the ECU not the JB tune.

    That is the core difference between a piggy that interfaces via CPS and a piggy that doesn't.

    Will the results be similar, sure, maybe what 99% of the time? It's the 1% that is the issue and your misleading of potential customers by means of your wording.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by WOPALX Click here to enlarge
    Will the results be similar, sure, maybe what 99% of the time? It's the 1% that is the issue and your misleading of potential customers by means of your wording.
    I'm sorry, what are you basing this 99% vs. 1% thing on? Some kind of empirical evidence? Because I don't see any.

    What do you think the Procede does? It influences the DME to manipulate timing and does so in a limited window compared to a flash. Why would it work a higher % of the time?

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    espaņa
    Posts
    749
    Rep Points
    819.7
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlargeClick here to enlarge
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    He will find something else, whatever he can. He'll say the tune smells funny and it might make you lightheaded while driving leading to an accident.
    actually, its the opposite way around, but ill keep that joke to myself as i consider the former proceder a friend and happy to see him in a new car. but the argument can be the same. that there was no "tuner safety" that inhibited him from loosing control of the car, meaning it was the tuners fault and not the drivers Click here to enlarge

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    86
    Rep Points
    82.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I'm sorry, what are you basing this 99% vs. 1% thing on? Some kind of empirical evidence? Because I don't see any.

    What do you think the Procede does? It influences the DME to manipulate timing and does so in a limited window compared to a flash. Why would it work a higher % of the time?
    The point I'm making is that by being proactive it will help the engine last in a higher % of times / cases of something going tits up.

    Proactive is nearly always better than reactive.

    As for the % that was just illustrating the point, had I said 70%, 80%, 90% or 95% you'd still $#@! and moan.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,713
    Rep Points
    31,536.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by WOPALX Click here to enlarge
    As for the % that was just illustrating the point, had I said 70%, 80%, 90% or 95% you'd still $#@! and moan.
    Of course, because you spoke of %'s as if they were facts. You don't have any support for it. You are right with throwing out a bunch of random numbers as that is the equivalent of what you did.

    You said 1% is the issue and customers are being misled. He was proactive, which you agree is a good thing so the misleading characterization was misleading itself.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by WOPALX Click here to enlarge
    The point I'm making is that by being proactive it will help the engine last in a higher % of times / cases of something going tits up.
    Yes, it should help the people who need help. This is not the tone you were using earlier though as you were taking a stance that the JB causes failures but no big deal.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    86
    Rep Points
    82.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Of course, because you spoke of %'s as if they were facts. You don't have any support for it. You are right with throwing out a bunch of random numbers as that is the equivalent of what you did.

    You said 1% is the issue and customers are being misled. He was proactive, which you agree is a good thing so the misleading characterization was misleading itself.

    Yes, it should help the people who need help. This is not the tone you were using earlier though as you were taking a stance that the JB causes failures but no big deal.
    I've never said JB tunes are proactive in respect to timing adjustments. This is simply impossible as they don't have the hardware needed.

    I was illustrating a point that the majority of users may not have an issue with the lack of timing control on the JB platform, but a low % do.

    That % is obviously low as we don't hear of many engines blowing up BUT the ones that have had failures in the last 2 iterations of the major piggy backs have all been running JB tunes. Were the failures all the JB tunes fault it's hard to say, but were they running a tune that does not proactively influence timing.

    I'm not being speculative, I'm not trying to bash the JB product but facts are facts and sales spin should be left out of technical discussions.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,002
    Rep Points
    8,952.0
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    According to the OP maybe you should update the name of your thread to N54 exhaust manifold failure? Click here to enlarge

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •