M5POST
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   M5POST - BMW M5 Forum > F10 M5 Forum > Engine, Exhaust, Drivetrain Modifications

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      03-13-2014, 03:45 PM   #67
M5Rlz
Colonel
249
Rep
2,202
Posts

Drives: R8, f10m59(Rip), m4, GTR
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: MD

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dapple View Post
let alone the cooling systems used during the dyno pulls.
The last thing I'm worried about is the cooling system haha I did 7 back to back highway pulls with a gt500 from 40-140+ and only around the 8th did my temp gauge creep over the midpoint.
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 03:53 PM   #68
dapple
Banned
35
Rep
122
Posts

Drives: F10 M5 and F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk

iTrader: (0)

Cooling during dyno testing is probably the single most important variable. Inadequate cooling makes dyno testing a waste of time.
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 03:55 PM   #69
Boss330
Major General
Boss330's Avatar
No_Country
1712
Rep
5,108
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dapple View Post
Im really suprised by some of the comments people are posting here, much of which are about very vauge dyno graphs that have little to no real information on them regarding what actually is happening during the run, the conditions, logs from the car etc... let alone the cooling systems used during the dyno pulls.

Many of the 'facts' about how a DME actually works that people are posting also seem to have been pulled straight from the first link that came up on google when they went searching for information to help them put together a reply.

P.s Im an experienced ECU software tech with many years of experience and I spend 6 days a week developing software on a dyno, mainly for BMW and VAG cars.
Really surprised that someone with your knowledge doesn't elaborate a bit more on which facts you are referring to and explain us mere mortals on how the DME works then...

P.S I'm an automotive engineer working with modified vehicles and have taken several courses on engine management basics. I'm NOT an expert on engine management though.
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 04:03 PM   #70
IANNUZZI
Banned
Canada
31
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 2016 GoDZilla
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Powerland

iTrader: (0)

Owned Supra, rx7, 3000gt, 300zx, and 335i, all were the turbo versions and none of their ecus reduced boost as a result of knock(they all had knock sensors); the f10 m5 is no different as it manipulates timing to deal with knock:

"Knock has a lot to do with the octane rating of the gas that you put in the car. The recommended gasoline octane rating for the F10 M5 is AKI (Anti-Knock Index) 93 with AKI 91 as a minimum to not impair performance. Actually "octane rating" is a misnomer. While higher octane can prevent knock, it is not the only way of doing so. So AKI is the correct term.

However, as the engine is knock controlled, the lower ratings will not damage the engine. Higher AKI ratings mean the fuel can be compressed more before detonation, which means that more energy can be extracted during detonation. An overly low AKI will require the DME to retard timing to prevent knock which is inefficient and long-term damaging. Higher AKIs are of no use, since the car cannot increase compression ratios past its design point"

I have been following the bms boost controller since the beginning and it was made clear that the default setting of 2.25 was to be used with a min of 91 octane and the 3.00 setting was reserved for race gas. Given that, using 94 octane with the 3.00 setting can certainly cause a dyno chart like the one in question if timing is being pulled as a result of detonation. I doubt the computer is trying to protect the tranny.... Cheers

Last edited by IANNUZZI; 03-13-2014 at 04:18 PM..
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 04:17 PM   #71
DrewM5
Captain
53
Rep
739
Posts

Drives: SG E60 M5
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by IANNUZZI View Post
Had Supra, rx7, 3000gt, 300zx, and 335i, all were the turbo versions and none of their ecus reduced boost as a result of knock(they all had knock sensors); the f10 m5 is no different as it manipulates timing to deal with knock:

"Knock has a lot to do with the octane rating of the gas that you put in the car. The recommended gasoline octane rating for the F10 M5 is AKI (Anti-Knock Index) 93 with AKI 91 as a minimum to not impair performance. Actually "octane rating" is a misnomer. While higher octane can prevent knock, it is not the only way of doing so. So AKI is the correct term.

However, as the engine is knock controlled, the lower ratings will not damage the engine. Higher AKI ratings mean the fuel can be compressed more before detonation, which means that more energy can be extracted during detonation. An overly low AKI will require the DME to retard timing to prevent knock which is inefficient and long-term damaging. Higher AKIs are of no use, since the car cannot increase compression ratios past its design point"

I have been following the bms boost controller since the beginning and it was made clear that the default setting of 2.25 was to be used with a min of 91 octane and the 3.00 setting was reserved for race gas. Given that, using 94 octane with the 3.00 setting can certainly cause a dyno chart like the one in question if timing is being pulled as a result of detonation. I doubt the computer is trying to protect the tranny.... Cheers
Who said anything about transvestites? Let's try to stay on topic, OK?
__________________
2014 M5 Competition|Space Grey|Black Merino Full Leather|Anthracite Trim|Executive package|LED Lighting Package|Drivers's Assit Package|B&O Sound System|Bel STiR Plus 9500ci|IND Side Markers and Side Vents|Exhaustmeister|HRE P101 Satin Charcoal/Michelin PSS (Summer)|601/Pirelli Sottozero Serie II (Winter)|Coded by V12
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 04:21 PM   #72
IANNUZZI
Banned
Canada
31
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 2016 GoDZilla
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Powerland

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewM5 View Post
Who said anything about transvestites? Let's try to stay on topic, OK?
Are you what they call 'a troll' ? Lol
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 04:26 PM   #73
DrewM5
Captain
53
Rep
739
Posts

Drives: SG E60 M5
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by IANNUZZI View Post
Are you what they call 'a troll' ? Lol
Nope. Just a car enthusiast with a warped (and not necessarily good) sense of humor. But I make up for that in my choice of cars.
__________________
2014 M5 Competition|Space Grey|Black Merino Full Leather|Anthracite Trim|Executive package|LED Lighting Package|Drivers's Assit Package|B&O Sound System|Bel STiR Plus 9500ci|IND Side Markers and Side Vents|Exhaustmeister|HRE P101 Satin Charcoal/Michelin PSS (Summer)|601/Pirelli Sottozero Serie II (Winter)|Coded by V12
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 04:39 PM   #74
Boss330
Major General
Boss330's Avatar
No_Country
1712
Rep
5,108
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by IANNUZZI View Post
Owned Supra, rx7, 3000gt, 300zx, and 335i, all were the turbo versions and none of their ecus reduced boost as a result of knock(they all had knock sensors); the f10 m5 is no different as it manipulates timing to deal with knock:

"Knock has a lot to do with the octane rating of the gas that you put in the car. The recommended gasoline octane rating for the F10 M5 is AKI (Anti-Knock Index) 93 with AKI 91 as a minimum to not impair performance. Actually "octane rating" is a misnomer. While higher octane can prevent knock, it is not the only way of doing so. So AKI is the correct term.

However, as the engine is knock controlled, the lower ratings will not damage the engine. Higher AKI ratings mean the fuel can be compressed more before detonation, which means that more energy can be extracted during detonation. An overly low AKI will require the DME to retard timing to prevent knock which is inefficient and long-term damaging. Higher AKIs are of no use, since the car cannot increase compression ratios past its design point"

I have been following the bms boost controller since the beginning and it was made clear that the default setting of 2.25 was to be used with a min of 91 octane and the 3.00 setting was reserved for race gas. Given that, using 94 octane with the 3.00 setting can certainly cause a dyno chart like the one in question if timing is being pulled as a result of detonation. I doubt the computer is trying to protect the tranny.... Cheers
On a modern ECU, it's easier and faster to alter timing than to reduce boost. So pulling ignition timing and/or altering fuelling is preferred over dropping boost. But in a situation where max ignition timing and fuelling changes doesn't sort the situation, I'm pretty sure the DME can control/drop boost. I'm also pretty sure that the DME adjusts boost, fuelling and ignition together/simultaneously and not separately and without considering the other parametres. And when you didn't see a drop in boost, how do you know that boost wouldn't have been higher without knock? (how did you monitor that BTW? Datalogging that shows knock and boost is pretty much the only way you can confidently claim that knock and boost levels are not related).

Octane rating is not a misnomer but is the official description of a fuels performance. Here in Europe we use the RON rating (which is the most widely used rating), while in the US the average between RON and MON is used and is called the Anti Knock Index. But AKI is just a product of two octane ratings.

Higher octane ratings has nothing to do with "compressing the fuel". Fuel is a liquid and can't easily be compressed, unlike air. But higher octane numbers allows for a higher CR in the engine as the fuel is more resistant to knock.

Agree that in a situation where the BMS is providing more boost and knock occurs that the DME is pulling timing and dropping power and torque as a result.
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 05:02 PM   #75
Mike@N54Tuning.com
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Canada
4901
Rep
115,955
Posts

Drives: 2007 335i, 2015 M3
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N54tuning.com

iTrader: (89)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post


Don't remember having had arguments with you...

I'm not saying that I know what caused his strange dyno reading, but not everything adds up and some claims just seem to contradict engineering basics on engine management, ignition timing influence on torque, knock only happening at high RPMs and the DME not being able to reduce boost as a function of knock or fuelling.

But, I'm keeping a open mind and look forward to more in detail explanations on what was meant.
Bringing you guys up to speed on proper analysis here is a rather exhausting unpaid job for me. I think the best thing would be for you to strike up a conversation with BMS on their forum if you want more in depth discussion on the subject. I will answer a few final questions for you and bow out of the conversation.

First the DME is perfectly capable of reducing load as a function of knock. It's simply not part of BMW's logic path. It's not programmed to work that way. When knock is detected the DME reduces timing by 3 degrees in the cylinder it was detected in. Boost remains the same. When repeated knock is detected in the same cylinder the DME again reduces timing 3 degrees. If knock continues the DME decides the cylinder is experiencing preignition rather than detonation and a zero boost limp code is triggered. As knock is not detected timing is slowly increased back up to its learned maximum. The learned maximum is based on a long term octane adaption trim.

If you want to test this for yourself monitor boost/timing while on 93 octane, then pump in a few gallons of 87 octane, note how timing shows knock indications, and how boost is unchanged.

When I say torque is largely independent of timing what I mean is that as it goes through this process of reducing timing 3 or 6 degrees those variances have a subtle impact on peak torque figures. But a dramatic impact on peak HP figures. The "torque loss" in the dyno is not consistent with knock in my professional opinion. If you'd like some additional evidence here please take it up with BMS directly on their forum.

Here is a screen shot of the load to knock table from an MSD81 DME. The more negative the index the higher the "knock". As knock increases at lower RPM the DME actually raises boost slightly. Even at it's most extreme boost reduction would be around 6% (this factor is multiplied by a load target that runs from vacuum to full boost). I happen to know the DME limps out with "super knock" codes at around -70 and never actually gets to the point that the logic dictates lowering load significantly. This is how it's been programmed from the factory. The s63tu uses the same basic table values. Again, if you chose to doubt this, please take it up with BMS directly.

Finally, neither of you answered my question as to why the 100% stock M5 running 94 octane, DCT, in 5th gear, "lost" 50 wtq in the midrange in the dyno chart I posted above. There was zero knock during this run. It "lost" torque because the DME decided to lower its load target in the midrange to protect the DCT trans. I believe the same thing happened during the dyno we are discussing.

Mike
Attached Images
 
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 05:30 PM   #76
Boss330
Major General
Boss330's Avatar
No_Country
1712
Rep
5,108
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post


Don't remember having had arguments with you...

I'm not saying that I know what caused his strange dyno reading, but not everything adds up and some claims just seem to contradict engineering basics on engine management, ignition timing influence on torque, knock only happening at high RPMs and the DME not being able to reduce boost as a function of knock or fuelling.

But, I'm keeping a open mind and look forward to more in detail explanations on what was meant.
Bringing you guys up to speed on proper analysis here is a rather exhausting unpaid job for me. I think the best thing would be for you to strike up a conversation with BMS on their forum if you want more in depth discussion on the subject. I will answer a few final questions for you and bow out of the conversation.

First the DME is perfectly capable of reducing load as a function of knock. It's simply not part of BMW's logic path. It's not programmed to work that way. When knock is detected the DME reduces timing by 3 degrees in the cylinder it was detected in. Boost remains the same. When repeated knock is detected in the same cylinder the DME again reduces timing 3 degrees. If knock continues the DME decides the cylinder is experiencing preignition rather than detonation and a zero boost limp code is triggered. As knock is not detected timing is slowly increased back up to its learned maximum. The learned maximum is based on a long term octane adaption trim.

If you want to test this for yourself monitor boost/timing while on 93 octane, then pump in a few gallons of 87 octane, note how timing shows knock indications, and how boost is unchanged.

When I say torque is largely independent of timing what I mean is that as it goes through this process of reducing timing 3 or 6 degrees those variances have a subtle impact on peak torque figures. But a dramatic impact on peak HP figures. The "torque loss" in the dyno is not consistent with knock in my professional opinion. If you'd like some additional evidence here please take it up with BMS directly on their forum.

Here is a screen shot of the load to knock table from an MSD81 DME. The more negative the index the higher the "knock". As knock increases at lower RPM the DME actually raises boost slightly. Even at it's most extreme boost reduction would be around 6% (this factor is multiplied by a load target that runs from vacuum to full boost). I happen to know the DME limps out with "super knock" codes at around -70 and never actually gets to the point that the logic dictates lowering load significantly. This is how it's been programmed from the factory. The s63tu uses the same basic table values. Again, if you chose to doubt this, please take it up with BMS directly.

Finally, neither of you answered my question as to why the 100% stock M5 running 94 octane, DCT, in 5th gear, "lost" 50 wtq in the midrange in the dyno chart I posted above. There was zero knock during this run. It "lost" torque because the DME decided to lower its load target in the midrange to protect the DCT trans. I believe the same thing happened during the dyno we are discussing.

Mike
If it's such a unpaid chore, then why are you bothering posting on these forums at all

Thanks for the info anyway

From what you said then, we can conclude that there is nothing suspicious about the dyno results he got and that his numbers are representative of a BMS set at +3. Further since his dyno numbers and graph is quite normal that it's perfectly safe for him, based on your interpretation of his dyno run, to run +3 on the BMS with 94 octane fuel?

BTW I have seen plenty of dyno charts without that drop of torque in the midrange. Also on DCT cars in 5th gear... But I see your point that some 5th gear dyno runs do provide a drop in torque in the mid range. But I have never seen a torque curve quite like his before... Possibly down to operator and dyno settings as well?
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 06:20 PM   #77
gmd2003
Colonel
gmd2003's Avatar
352
Rep
2,176
Posts

Drives: 2014 CP M6 and 2006 VT 525 Z4M
Join Date: May 2012
Location: South Carolina

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post


Don't remember having had arguments with you...

I'm not saying that I know what caused his strange dyno reading, but not everything adds up and some claims just seem to contradict engineering basics on engine management, ignition timing influence on torque, knock only happening at high RPMs and the DME not being able to reduce boost as a function of knock or fuelling.

But, I'm keeping a open mind and look forward to more in detail explanations on what was meant.
Bringing you guys up to speed on proper analysis here is a rather exhausting unpaid job for me. I think the best thing would be for you to strike up a conversation with BMS on their forum if you want more in depth discussion on the subject. I will answer a few final questions for you and bow out of the conversation.

First the DME is perfectly capable of reducing load as a function of knock. It's simply not part of BMW's logic path. It's not programmed to work that way. When knock is detected the DME reduces timing by 3 degrees in the cylinder it was detected in. Boost remains the same. When repeated knock is detected in the same cylinder the DME again reduces timing 3 degrees. If knock continues the DME decides the cylinder is experiencing preignition rather than detonation and a zero boost limp code is triggered. As knock is not detected timing is slowly increased back up to its learned maximum. The learned maximum is based on a long term octane adaption trim.

If you want to test this for yourself monitor boost/timing while on 93 octane, then pump in a few gallons of 87 octane, note how timing shows knock indications, and how boost is unchanged.

When I say torque is largely independent of timing what I mean is that as it goes through this process of reducing timing 3 or 6 degrees those variances have a subtle impact on peak torque figures. But a dramatic impact on peak HP figures. The "torque loss" in the dyno is not consistent with knock in my professional opinion. If you'd like some additional evidence here please take it up with BMS directly on their forum.

Here is a screen shot of the load to knock table from an MSD81 DME. The more negative the index the higher the "knock". As knock increases at lower RPM the DME actually raises boost slightly. Even at it's most extreme boost reduction would be around 6% (this factor is multiplied by a load target that runs from vacuum to full boost). I happen to know the DME limps out with "super knock" codes at around -70 and never actually gets to the point that the logic dictates lowering load significantly. This is how it's been programmed from the factory. The s63tu uses the same basic table values. Again, if you chose to doubt this, please take it up with BMS directly.

Finally, neither of you answered my question as to why the 100% stock M5 running 94 octane, DCT, in 5th gear, "lost" 50 wtq in the midrange in the dyno chart I posted above. There was zero knock during this run. It "lost" torque because the DME decided to lower its load target in the midrange to protect the DCT trans. I believe the same thing happened during the dyno we are discussing.

Mike
There is a big difference between dropping 50lb feet and dropping 120 lb feet in the midrange though , and the hp loss is even more dramatic. Not even close to the same thing as the stock curve you showed , the curves are not similar at all . The +3 curve has a huge loss of HP in the midrange so you actually supported our point .
Please stop tiring yourself out .
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 07:04 PM   #78
avlnch
Lieutenant Colonel
125
Rep
1,622
Posts

Drives: 2013 Individual M5
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South FL

iTrader: (0)

Lots of interesting info. Never seen a screen of the DME folder tree.

Thanks for the good reads.
__________________
2013 BMW INDIVIDUAL ///M5 {Frozen Black/Amaro Brown/Amaro Brown Alcantara/White Contrast Stitching/Piano Black Trim}
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 08:29 PM   #79
gmd2003
Colonel
gmd2003's Avatar
352
Rep
2,176
Posts

Drives: 2014 CP M6 and 2006 VT 525 Z4M
Join Date: May 2012
Location: South Carolina

iTrader: (2)

And showing a screenshot of the MSD81 ECU 's programming tables from a N54 car proves nothing about the content of the S63 TU's tables or it's control capabilities .
Appreciate 0
      03-13-2014, 09:05 PM   #80
avlnch
Lieutenant Colonel
125
Rep
1,622
Posts

Drives: 2013 Individual M5
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmd2003
And showing a screenshot of the MSD81 ECU 's programming tables from a N54 car proves nothing about the content of the S63 TU's tables or it's control capabilities .
I didn't say that. What I said was I have never seen a screen of an ECU's folder tree. Interesting to see how it's laid out.

Unrelated to anything M5. Just a general statement.
__________________
2013 BMW INDIVIDUAL ///M5 {Frozen Black/Amaro Brown/Amaro Brown Alcantara/White Contrast Stitching/Piano Black Trim}
Appreciate 0
      03-14-2014, 01:19 AM   #81
Boss330
Major General
Boss330's Avatar
No_Country
1712
Rep
5,108
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by avlnch View Post
I didn't say that. What I said was I have never seen a screen of an ECU's folder tree. Interesting to see how it's laid out.

Unrelated to anything M5. Just a general statement.
I think his comment was directed towards Mike, not you
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

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 06:53 AM.




m5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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