iND/AMS Alpha F10 M5 Tuning Program Testing and Datalogging Update. 1,000+ HP Goal!

[Nate@IND]

Originally Posted by bmwMcrzy

And why not go with an aftermarket ECU?

Piggy back? Would never install one in a modern BMW. Not safe at all.

[Soorena]

Originally Posted by Nate@IND

Piggy back? Would never install one in a modern BMW. Not safe at all.

Piggys are surely tools of devil. But they sometime work well.

I think what bmwMcrzy means is standalone. I should say firstly there are very few units that can control direct injection V8s. Very high end units from Pectel and Motec which are expensive. Secondly, many of the features that people buy M5 for will be lost like Cruise control; traction control; all the transmission, suspension, steering and engine modes. The dash will light up like a Christmas tree (which means you won't pass smog).
However there is a way that works. Wiring up a standalone as a piggyback. That way you can control the engine via the standalone unit, and let the stock ECU keep cruise control and things like that working.

[bmwMcrzy]

I was referring to a standalone. I know AMS for the ALPHA 12 GTR use a stand alone ECU and are able to integrate almost the electronics on the car.
Wouldn't it possible to keep the BMW ECU and have the standalone for just the engine?

[Soorena]

Originally Posted by bmwMcrzy

I was referring to a standalone. I know AMS for the ALPHA 12 GTR use a stand alone ECU and are able to integrate almost the electronics on the car.
Wouldn't it possible to keep the BMW ECU and have the standalone for just the engine?

Originally Posted by Soorena

However there is a way that works. Wiring up a standalone as a piggyback. That way you can control the engine via the standalone unit, and let the stock ECU keep cruise control and things like that working.

But don't expect anyone doing this. As i said, units that can control 8 DI injectors are very pricey at this moment.

[IND-Distribution]

Unfortunately the F10 M5 is highly CAN integrated, and even the use of a good standalone as an engine control alone would require a significant investment in R&D. At this point unlocking the OE DMEs is still a possibility. Some of the best tuners on the planet are working hard to crack that nut as we speak, so our stance at IND is that we will wait. An unlocked DME solution would be the best possible scenario.

[wisesoul]

Originally Posted by Nate@IND

Upgraded turbos are in but the ECU's are out of the car now. It's a waiting game right now. Solid updates coming soon

Sweet! It's a waiting game, but it will be a game changer.

[Timberwolf]

Originally Posted by Nate@IND

Piggy back? Would never install one in a modern BMW. Not safe at all.

[Orange fever]

Originally Posted by m3 guy

You think they will work with a X5M?

^ what he said

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by Nate@IND

Piggy back? Would never install one in a modern BMW. Not safe at all.

I guess the BMS, Vishnu, Hartge, TMC better stop then. I hope your joking. If anything they are safer then tunes because the DME can correct if the engine is in danger.

[Spinny02]

Word has it that Dinan's tune is also a piggy back.

The new setup looks awesome =)

[AlphaAlpineM6]

Hi Nate, Any updates?

[IND-Distribution]

Originally Posted by buildbright

I guess the BMS, Vishnu, Hartge, TMC better stop then. I hope your joking. If anything they are safer then tunes because the DME can correct if the engine is in danger.

While it's possible to make power improvements using a piggy back computer, you are ultimately changing input values to the DME by modifying sensor outputs.

Even when considering only one parameter- boost, for example- a piggy back solution is far from ideal. By modifying sensor output a piggy back will allow for the engine to create additional boost pressure. If a DME's target boost pressure is X psi, the piggy back will send a signal to the DME that equates to X - 5 psi. In an effort to maintain boost pressure, the DME will then close the wastegates to force the engine to produce X + 5 psi, giving the driver a power gain over stock.

The trouble with this scheme is that modern BMW DMEs are not simply Air/Fuel/Boost calculators like the performance car ECUs of 15 years ago, and take literally hundreds of sensor's inputs into account, across thousands of tables. Input boost pressure, air flow, and other factors that piggy back computers typically modify are only a small fraction of the bigger picture, and by modifying those factors without affecting any additional parameters you substantially handicap the DME's ability to control the engine safely.

A piggy back computer cannot modify a host of systems controlled by the BMW DME like the top speed limiter, air/water heat exchanger water pump control (important for maintaining the lowest possible IATs, and something few tuners have even looked at thus far), cold start, secondary O2 sensor sensitivity (important for using catless or high flow cat downpipes), the torque limit built into the DME from the factory, etc...

While it's possible to raise boost pressure over stock and maintain a safe air fuel ratio (in normal operating conditions) by using a piggy back computer, it is absolutely not a good way to control a modern BMW engine. The DME makes decisions based on data that is outright false, and as a tuner someone who uses a piggy back is introducing variables that can lead only to a decrease in long term reliability.

For this reason we will wait until a true control of the original BMW DMEs is possible, prior to offering any sort of modified software for the M5.

It would be easy for IND to sell software modification via piggy back right now, and it is of course tempting to begin to recoup the sizable investment we've made into the F10 M5 program right now, we must stand by our core values and therefore cannot deliver what we know is a poor compromise of an engine control solution to our clients. The S63tu is a very expensive engine, and I have no interest in controlling one via piggy back.

[B-1Pilot]

^
Integrity is a beautiful thing

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by Ilia@IND

While it's possible to make power improvements using a piggy back computer, you are ultimately changing input values to the DME by modifying sensor outputs.

Even when considering only one parameter- boost, for example- a piggy back solution is far from ideal. By modifying sensor output a piggy back will allow for the engine to create additional boost pressure. If a DME's target boost pressure is X psi, the piggy back will send a signal to the DME that equates to X - 5 psi. In an effort to maintain boost pressure, the DME will then close the wastegates to force the engine to produce X + 5 psi, giving the driver a power gain over stock.

The trouble with this scheme is that modern BMW DMEs are not simply Air/Fuel/Boost calculators like the performance car ECUs of 15 years ago, and take literally hundreds of sensor's inputs into account, across thousands of tables. Input boost pressure, air flow, and other factors that piggy back computers typically modify are only a small fraction of the bigger picture, and by modifying those factors without affecting any additional parameters you substantially handicap the DME's ability to control the engine safely.

A piggy back computer cannot modify a host of systems controlled by the BMW DME like the top speed limiter, air/water heat exchanger water pump control (important for maintaining the lowest possible IATs, and something few tuners have even looked at thus far), cold start, secondary O2 sensor sensitivity (important for using catless or high flow cat downpipes), the torque limit built into the DME from the factory, etc...

While it's possible to raise boost pressure over stock and maintain a safe air fuel ratio (in normal operating conditions) by using a piggy back computer, it is absolutely not a good way to control a modern BMW engine. The DME makes decisions based on data that is outright false, and as a tuner someone who uses a piggy back is introducing variables that can lead only to a decrease in long term reliability.

For this reason we will wait until a true control of the original BMW DMEs is possible, prior to offering any sort of modified software for the M5.

It would be easy for IND to sell software modification via piggy back right now, and it is of course tempting to begin to recoup the sizable investment we've made into the F10 M5 program right now, we must stand by our core values and therefore cannot deliver what we know is a poor compromise of an engine control solution to our clients. The S63tu is a very expensive engine, and I have no interest in controlling one via piggy back.

I can respect that piggybacks are not for you but don't spew incorrect info. Any aftermarket item that changes engineered variable's can put increased stress on the engine. Thus causing decreasing reliability. This could be a simple exhaust or air intake.

If you don't like piggybacks don't sell them but don't say they are not safe because you personally don't like them. I personally am going to trust Hartge that has been tuning since 1971. Turner Motorsports which actually has a successful Motorsport record. BMS and others which have 10's of 1000's piggybacks installed and successfully working. What is you experience?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by buildbright

I can respect that piggybacks are not for you but don't spew incorrect info. Any aftermarket item that changes engineered variable's can put increased stress on the engine. Thus causing decreasing reliability. This could be a simple exhaust or air intake.

If you don't like piggybacks don't sell them but don't say they are not safe because you personally don't like them. I personally am going to trust Hartge that has been tuning since 1971. Turner Motorsports which actually has a successful Motorsport record. BMS and others which have 10's of 1000's piggybacks installed and successfully working. What is you experience?

What sort of "incorrect info" was posted about piggybacks?

Any tune that increases output will increase stress on engine and transmission components, no one is arguing that.

The post by Ilia@IND only pointed out some of the limitations of a piggyback, giving examples of which parametres not being able to be controlled by a piggyback. Hardly any news in that at all, kinda like pointing out the difference between a DC9 and a F16 fighter jet...

For a mild tune a piggyback ala Hartge, AC Schnitzer etc works fine, since it only adds a mild increase in power that is well within safety limits (I assume). If you want a serious tune, you need to change the software.

One other major reason German tuners often use a piggyback is because that makes homologation for road use easier and cheaper (as required in EU). With a piggyback you can use stock software in the DME/ECU for the emissions test cycles, meaning the car will still comply with EU emissions legislation without need for expensive complete new tests. The piggyback only becomes active outside the EU-cycle criterias (like at full throttle, above certain RPM's etc).

In Germany it's illegal to market or sell any tuning items that isn't accompanied by a certificate of compliance with German/EU-legislation (according to a ruling by a German court).

So piggybacks are preferable to German tuners also because of ease of homologation, not because they are better. And they use one type/brand of piggyback that is adapted to fit different models. That means that things like ElectroMagneticalCompatability etc. don't have to be tested and documented for every installation. They can use the same documentation since the piggyback hardware is similar.

AC Schnitzer M5 piggyback fitting instructions:

http://preisliste.ac-schnitzer.de/ac.../121410710.pdf

520d TÜV approval (took this one since it's both in German and English):

http://preisliste.ac-schnitzer.de/ac.../121490170.pdf

Interesting that the description reads:

"Modification of the injected fuel quantity at full load"

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by Boss330

What sort of "incorrect info" was posted about piggybacks?

Any tune that increases output will increase stress on engine and transmission components, no one is arguing that.

The post by Ilia@IND only pointed out some of the limitations of a piggyback, giving examples of which parametres not being able to be controlled by a piggyback. Hardly any news in that at all, kinda like pointing out the difference between a DC9 and a F16 fighter jet...

For a mild tune a piggyback ala Hartge, AC Schnitzer etc works fine, since it only adds a mild increase in power that is well within safety limits (I assume). If you want a serious tune, you need to change the software.

One other major reason German tuners often use a piggyback is because that makes homologation for road use easier and cheaper (as required in EU). With a piggyback you can use stock software in the DME/ECU for the emissions test cycles, meaning the car will still comply with EU emissions legislation without need for expensive complete new tests. The piggyback only becomes active outside the EU-cycle criterias (like at full throttle, above certain RPM's etc).

In Germany it's illegal to market or sell any tuning items that isn't accompanied by a certificate of compliance with German/EU-legislation (according to a ruling by a German court).

So piggybacks are preferable to German tuners also because of ease of homologation, not because they are better. And they use one type/brand of piggyback that is adapted to fit different models. That means that things like ElectroMagneticalCompatability etc. don't have to be tested and documented for every installation. They can use the same documentation since the piggyback hardware is similar.

AC Schnitzer M5 piggyback fitting instructions:

http://preisliste.ac-schnitzer.de/ac.../121410710.pdf

520d TÜV approval (took this one since it's both in German and English):

http://preisliste.ac-schnitzer.de/ac.../121490170.pdf

Interesting that the description reads:

"Modification of the injected fuel quantity at full load"

Why are you troll following me from one thread to another?

Saying that piggybacks are not safe. Saying that piggybacks reduce reliability but not tunes.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by buildbright

Why are you troll following me from one thread to another?

Saying that piggybacks are not safe. Saying that piggybacks reduce reliability but not tunes.

Where did I say that Piggybacks reduce reliability and not tunes? In fact I said that ANY tune that increase output also stresses engine and drivetrain more... And I ALSO said that for a mild tune a piggyback was ok (in fact agreeing with you).

And I'm not "Troll following" you. But since you are active at two threads, that's where we can discuss...

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Where did I say that Piggybacks reduce reliability and not tunes? In fact I said that ANY tune that increase output also stresses engine and drivetrain more... And I ALSO said that for a mild tune a piggyback was ok (in fact agreeing with you).

And I'm not "Troll following" you. But since you are active at two threads, that's where we can discuss...

I'll help out here as well .
Fact: piggybacks are a cheaper easy way to make power with minimal R&D .
Fact: having complete control over ALL engine variables can produce more power AND be safer .
End of discussion .
George

[HP Autosport]

Originally Posted by Ilia@IND

While it's possible to make power improvements using a piggy back computer, you are ultimately changing input values to the DME by modifying sensor outputs.

Even when considering only one parameter- boost, for example- a piggy back solution is far from ideal. By modifying sensor output a piggy back will allow for the engine to create additional boost pressure. If a DME's target boost pressure is X psi, the piggy back will send a signal to the DME that equates to X - 5 psi. In an effort to maintain boost pressure, the DME will then close the wastegates to force the engine to produce X + 5 psi, giving the driver a power gain over stock.

The trouble with this scheme is that modern BMW DMEs are not simply Air/Fuel/Boost calculators like the performance car ECUs of 15 years ago, and take literally hundreds of sensor's inputs into account, across thousands of tables. Input boost pressure, air flow, and other factors that piggy back computers typically modify are only a small fraction of the bigger picture, and by modifying those factors without affecting any additional parameters you substantially handicap the DME's ability to control the engine safely.

A piggy back computer cannot modify a host of systems controlled by the BMW DME like the top speed limiter, air/water heat exchanger water pump control (important for maintaining the lowest possible IATs, and something few tuners have even looked at thus far), cold start, secondary O2 sensor sensitivity (important for using catless or high flow cat downpipes), the torque limit built into the DME from the factory, etc...

While it's possible to raise boost pressure over stock and maintain a safe air fuel ratio (in normal operating conditions) by using a piggy back computer, it is absolutely not a good way to control a modern BMW engine. The DME makes decisions based on data that is outright false, and as a tuner someone who uses a piggy back is introducing variables that can lead only to a decrease in long term reliability.

For this reason we will wait until a true control of the original BMW DMEs is possible, prior to offering any sort of modified software for the M5.

It would be easy for IND to sell software modification via piggy back right now, and it is of course tempting to begin to recoup the sizable investment we've made into the F10 M5 program right now, we must stand by our core values and therefore cannot deliver what we know is a poor compromise of an engine control solution to our clients. The S63tu is a very expensive engine, and I have no interest in controlling one via piggy back.

Well stated information! I would never let a piggy control my racecar's ECU. Maybe for a street car and if I really didn't care, but I don't want a 3rd party managing my boost/timing/everything when I am constantly WOT around a track.

-Mike

[Rob///M5]

Originally Posted by buildbright

I can respect that piggybacks are not for you but don't spew incorrect info. Any aftermarket item that changes engineered variable's can put increased stress on the engine. Thus causing decreasing reliability. This could be a simple exhaust or air intake.

If you don't like piggybacks don't sell them but don't say they are not safe because you personally don't like them. I personally am going to trust Hartge that has been tuning since 1971. Turner Motorsports which actually has a successful Motorsport record. BMS and others which have 10's of 1000's piggybacks installed and successfully working. What is you experience?

I think you just highlighted Ilia's point. "[They] have been tuning since 1971".

When meeting with the BMW engineers, it was rather astounding to me just how many inputs the F10 DME receives from various components throughout the car. Definitely not as simple as it used to be.

[wzj519]

The problem is not piggyback or Ecu tuning.
It is when will Dinan or other tuner will release some real tune for N63tu/S63/S63tu.

[bmwMcrzy]

My buddy has a F10 M5 with a eurocharged tune with NO piggyback.

Why is it so difficult to write a tune for the S63tu?