DINAN M5 ECU Tune (?)

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The default +2.25psi setting is actually +3.00psi on an s63tu. This is the suggested setting for pump gas. The +3.00psi setting is actually around +4.00psi. The reason for this is the interface shows the increase limit as if there was an n63 2.5 bar map sensor but the s63tu has a 3.5 bar map sensor.

Secondly, you are mistaken that those torque drops on the dyno are tuning related or knock. They are DME torque management related. When dyno testing a DCT especially in 5th gear it sometimes decides to cut boost in the midrange. You can look at the logs and watch boost drop there. It's a dyno only artifact and its not entirely consistent. Some runs it will hold full boost there and other runs it will decide to drop it. It does this both stock and tuned. 4th gear pulls rarely get that issue but the runs are so short you often don't make as much power. So many prefer to do the runs in 5th.

Finally, the other tuners are just adding +3-4psi on top of the competition/press flash. The CP runs a little less peak timing and a little richer AFR so has more room for manipulation. So if you happen to have the CP you can likely go a little more aggressively than the 2.25 pump gas and 3.0 race gas mix settings with a similar safety margin.

Mike

It was a dyno pack which always reads higher than a dyno jet , on some of the runs fuel cut off occurred before 6 k some well after so it wasn't 5th gear fuel cut . The owner isn't a real technical guy and wanted to make the highest numbers possible , and when he heard 3 psi was ok he went at it . He didn't have the AFR or any other logs from the runs . It took me 3 days to convince him to turn it back down , bc he was convinced the + 3psi was ok on pump gas bc of other posts. You have to be very literal and clear on here as a lot of people have little or no experience/ knowledge with tuning and take comments and run with them . The fact that the BMS settings don't equal the actual psi increase bc it was not made for a 3.5 bar TMap is certainly not optimal either . He was certainly at fault for running the + 3 psi setting on pump gas , but I stand by my analysis that his car was sensing dangerous knock and shut things down .

[RPiM5]

This is a great thread. Lots of good info in here. Thanks!

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

It was a dyno pack which always reads higher than a dyno jet , on some of the runs fuel cut off occurred before 6 k some well after so it wasn't 5th gear fuel cut . The owner isn't a real technical guy and wanted to make the highest numbers possible , and when he heard 3 psi was ok he went at it . He didn't have the AFR or any other logs from the runs . It took me 3 days to convince him to turn it back down , bc he was convinced the + 3psi was ok on pump gas bc of other posts. You have to be very literal and clear on here as a lot of people have little or no experience/ knowledge with tuning and take comments and run with them . The fact that the BMS settings don't equal the actual psi increase bc it was not made for a 3.5 bar TMap is certainly not optimal either . He was certainly at fault for running the + 3 psi setting on pump gas , but I stand by my analysis that his car was sensing dangerous knock and shut things down .

Without a stock dyno run there is no way to determine what stock torque should have been under those circumstances. Here is a 5th gear 100% stock run from BMS' car. Anything look familiar? The abrupt cutoff at 6300rpm?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Without a stock dyno run there is no way to determine what stock torque should have been under those circumstances. Here is a 5th gear 100% stock run from BMS' car. Anything look familiar? The abrupt cutoff at 6300rpm?

So, are you saying that his runs with the BMS set to +3Psi is OK? (since it seems you argue that his graphs are "normal").

Agree that a dyno run without before and after runs doesn't really tell you anything about delta gains. But is seems strange that a DynaPack only shows a wheel torque number that never goes above 500lb.ft between 3600rpm to 6000rpm, in fact dropping to just above 450 at 5000rpm. Especially if the boost is increased by 4Psi.

Previously it has been said that the +3Psi setting is only supposed to be used with race fuel. Here we are discussing a dyno run done on 94 octane fuel and the BMS set to +3Psi.

I am confused as to what is being said here...

On one side it has been said that +3 should only be used with race fuel (100 octane). That leads me to believe that running on lower octane will cause detonation/knock and/or other ignition related issues with the +3 setting.

On the other hand it seems that his results/dyno graph is "defended" as being normal as regards the torque curve...

So, is it safe to run the +3 setting and that his results are representative of running the BMS at +3?

If so, then the stock torque numbers on that Dyna Pack must have been way lower than on the Dynojet graph you posted (since his +3 numbers are consistently lower than the stock Dynojet numbers).

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Without a stock dyno run there is no way to determine what stock torque should have been under those circumstances. Here is a 5th gear 100% stock run from BMS' car. Anything look familiar? The abrupt cutoff at 6300rpm?

Leaving the fuel cut out of it ( bc it may have been some other factor )my problem is with the nature of his tq curve not the absolute numbers . He was running the wrong settings on pump gas and it looked ugly . Why are you defending that ?

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by Boss330

So, are you saying that his runs with the BMS set to +3Psi is OK? (since it seems you argue that his graphs are "normal").

Agree that a dyno run without before and after runs doesn't really tell you anything about delta gains. But is seems strange that a DynaPack only shows a wheel torque number that never goes above 500lb.ft between 3600rpm to 6000rpm, in fact dropping to just above 450 at 5000rpm. Especially if the boost is increased by 4Psi.

Previously it has been said that the +3Psi setting is only supposed to be used with race fuel. Here we are discussing a dyno run done on 94 octane fuel and the BMS set to +3Psi.

I am confused as to what is being said here...

On one side it has been said that +3 should only be used with race fuel (100 octane). That leads me to believe that running on lower octane will cause detonation/knock and/or other ignition related issues with the +3 setting.

On the other hand it seems that his results/dyno graph is "defended" as being normal as regards the torque curve...

So, is it safe to run the +3 setting and that his results are representative of running the BMS at +3?

If so, then the stock torque numbers on that Dyna Pack must have been way lower than on the Dynojet graph you posted (since his +3 numbers are consistently lower than the stock Dynojet numbers).

Sigh. 2.25 setting for pump gas, 3.00 setting for race gas, per the manual.

I'd love to see a log of the dyno run in question showing boost and timing. Based on that I could offer tuning advice to the owner and help him determine if there is any issue with the car. I do not posess magically powers though. In the absence of any data I can only guess based on the single dyno chart that this run was done in 5th gear (thus the fuel cutoff), that it is a DCT based on the torque dip, and that the runs were done in 5th gear. I can not deduce from the dyno chart what his settings were, what his fuels octane rating was, whether the dyno operator ran the car properly (many don't floor it at low RPM to avoid the kick down), etc.

Mike

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Reading the manual is good

But it would have been FAR better to have a product that is programmed properly! Having a program interface that requires input of a "+Psi" number that isn't related to the actual boost increase makes no sense. It would have been far better to have a code that made no sense to anyone so that the operator actually HAD to look in the manual to find the correct code for +3Psi. As it is now, the operator is led to believe that a input of +3Psi actually means that.

IMHO, such a method is a disaster waiting to happen as people either loose their manuals or don't read them. That's just how we humans are put together. Legal responsibility is one thing. Reputation is another.

Just imagine having a fuel gauge in your car that, by design, reads different from reality and where the driver has to read the manual to know what a reading of 1/2 tank really means... Does it mean 3/4 or 1/3

Why not do at least that minimum of reprogramming of the BMS interface, so that +3Psi actually means +3Psi?

That isn't my department. I'm just here to remind people what the install guide states. Typing in 2.25 does not mean you are making 2.25psi over stock.

I'm sure BMS could change that with and post a software update but I shutter to think at the mass confusion it might cause at this point. Some would enter say 4.0 on the old software thinking they have the new software, others would enter 2.25 on the new software thinking they had the old, etc.

Mike

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Leaving the fuel cut out of it ( bc it may have been some other factor )my problem is with the nature of his tq curve not the absolute numbers . He was running the wrong settings on pump gas and it looked ugly . Why are you defending that ?

I'm stating the obvious flaw in your analysis. You claim his torque drop is due to running too much boost. The reality is the exact opposite. The torque drop is due to not running enough boost. Because the DME reduced boost / closed the throttles during that part of the run.

If the curve showed top end power rolling off with high frequency jagged edges that resemble stairs going down then I'd say that data points to the conclusion that the DME was pulling timing due to a combination of too much boost and/or not enough octane.

IMHO I think this community needs to take it up a notch or two on the analysis level which is why I'm bothering to continue replying here. It's an exhausting job though.

Mike

PS. Note the stock DCT 5th gear dyno I posted. Why do you think torque is lower at 4500rpm than it is at 3000rpm and 5000rpm?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Sigh. 2.25 setting for pump gas, 3.00 setting for race gas, per the manual.

I'd love to see a log of the dyno run in question showing boost and timing. Based on that I could offer tuning advice to the owner and help him determine if there is any issue with the car. I do not posess magically powers though. In the absence of any data I can only guess based on the single dyno chart that this run was done in 5th gear (thus the fuel cutoff), that it is a DCT based on the torque dip, and that the runs were done in 5th gear. I can not deduce from the dyno chart what his settings were, what his fuels octane rating was, whether the dyno operator ran the car properly (many don't floor it at low RPM to avoid the kick down), etc.

Mike

I know that 2.25 equals 3Psi. No need to sigh over that... The issue is that the owner of the car we are discussing didn't know this. And it seems you don't have any issues with him running the BMS at the +3Psi setting... Even though it has been previously said that the +3Psi setting is for race gas only. THAT is what confuses me. You can't both "defend" his results and at the same time say that the setting he used is only for 100 octane race fuel

He has stated that he ran:

• 94 octane fuel
• BMS at the +3Psi setting
• 5th gear

No need for "magical" powers! Reading his info would suffice...

The dyno graph starts off at 590lb.ft at 2500rpm and drops from that point... Are you saying that the dyno operator only did part throttle at 2500rpm and still managed 590lb.ft

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

That isn't my department. I'm just here to remind people what the install guide states. Typing in 2.25 does not mean you are making 2.25psi over stock.

I'm sure BMS could change that with and post a software update but I shutter to think at the mass confusion it might cause at this point. Some would enter say 4.0 on the old software thinking they have the new software, others would enter 2.25 on the new software thinking they had the old, etc.

Mike

It seems we have "mass confusion" allready, with BMS customers entering wrong numbers.

And surely, in 2014 it should be possible to program safety measures into a device, that doesn't allow more boost gain than the engine can take?

To me it seems that rushing a N63 developed product onto the S63 has caused some confusion anyway...

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by Boss330

It seems we have "mass confusion" allready, with BMS customers entering wrong numbers.

And surely, in 2014 it should be possible to program safety measures into a device, that doesn't allow more boost gain than the engine can take?

To me it seems that rushing a N63 developed product onto the S63 has caused some confusion anyway...

On the tuning end I like the approach BMS takes with their JB4 auto tuning maps. The box monitors various engine parameters and continually adjusts the tuning to maximize the safe performance gains for the conditions at that moment. As far as I know no other piggyback maker other than BMS currently offers a similarly designed system. And at this time they do not offer it for the M5.

The Stage1 is a simpler system. It's functionally identical to every other M5 piggyback I've seen thus far including ones that cost $2500 or more. BMS is the only one of those to offer user logging and user adjustment. The problem is I think people like to make adjustments to things they should not be adjusting.

Having gone through this thread though I will lobby with BMS to adjust the firmware such that 3.0 equals 3.0psi. It may be more confusing short term for those running the current firmware but in the long run it will be easier for new customers. On the user adjustment page it lists the firmware date so those making adjustments will need to note the date before entering a value if they choose to do some custom tuning.

Mike

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I'm stating the obvious flaw in your analysis. You claim his torque drop is due to running too much boost. The reality is the exact opposite. The torque drop is due to not running enough boost. Because the DME reduced boost / closed the throttles during that part of the run.

If the curve showed top end power rolling off with high frequency jagged edges that resemble stairs going down then I'd say that data points to the conclusion that the DME was pulling timing due to a combination of too much boost and/or not enough octane.

IMHO I think this community needs to take it up a notch or two on the analysis level which is why I'm bothering to continue replying here. It's an exhausting job though.

Mike

PS. Note the stock DCT 5th gear dyno I posted. Why do you think torque is lower at 4500rpm than it is at 3000rpm and 5000rpm?

He went from 580 lb feet to 450 almost automatically . His car was very unhappy and may have cut boost after it couldn't retard timing anymore or add more fueling . The damn BMS works by having the ECU dynamically retard timing and add fueling , but it has it's limits . A dyno pack dyno has a ~ 9% loss , and he has DP's and an Akra exhaust , so yeah 450 lb feet is less than what a stock car would make with those mods even considering a 5th gear run . The BMS made his car limp bc of the improper setting + 3 psi on pump gas ! Jesus just admit it .

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I'm stating the obvious flaw in your analysis. You claim his torque drop is due to running too much boost. The reality is the exact opposite. The torque drop is due to not running enough boost. Because the DME reduced boost / closed the throttles during that part of the run.

I think the suspicion was that by running to much boost, the DME detects a strange situation, possibly detonation/knock, and then decides to reduce boost. That's the reason why there is less torque and a really strange torque curve. As stated previously, it starts at 590lbs.ft at 2500rpm, drops to 500lbs.ft by 3800rpm and stays there until 4400rpm. After 4400rpm it falls down to 450lbs.ft at 500rpm before it climbs back to 500lbs.ft at 5800rpm to 6400rpm. It doesn't resemble the curve you posted very much!

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

If the curve showed top end power rolling off with high frequency jagged edges that resemble stairs going down then I'd say that data points to the conclusion that the DME was pulling timing due to a combination of too much boost and/or not enough octane.

With the way that curve looks I suspect there is a high degree of smoothing, quite possibly masking any high frequency jagged edges.

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

IMHO I think this community needs to take it up a notch or two on the analysis level which is why I'm bothering to continue replying here. It's an exhausting job though.

Mike

Ok...

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

He went from 580 lb feet to 450 almost automatically . His car was very unhappy and may have cut boost after it couldn't retard timing anymore or add more fueling . The damn BMS works by having the ECU dynamically retard timing and add fueling , but it has it's limits . A dyno pack dyno has a ~ 9% loss , and he has DP's and an Akra exhaust , so yeah 450 lb feet is less than what a stock car would make with those mods even considering a 5th gear run . The BMS made his car limp bc of the improper setting + 3 psi on pump gas ! Jesus just admit it .

There is no mechanism for the DME to reduce boost as a function of knock or fueling. The logic path doesn't work that way. To understand what is going on here you need to understand the logic the DME applies. The torque "reduction" is a simple DME request to prevent DCT slippage. Running in to knock would show up at higher RPM not lower RPM. Torque is largely independent of timing changes. So this "evidence" does not indicate he ran in to knock or fueling issues at all. If he was running a 3.00 setting on 94 octane it may have been a bit aggressive. If he was running a 3.00 setting on 91 octane he may have gotten major knock/timing pull at higher RPM. But the dyno run doesn't really indicate either. It reflects the DME reducing boost/torque in the midrange.

For a doctor I'm surprised you make such bold and absolute statements with such little evidence and understanding of the systems involved!

Mike

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

On the tuning end I like the approach BMS takes with their JB4 auto tuning maps. The box monitors various engine parameters and continually adjusts the tuning to maximize the safe performance gains for the conditions at that moment. As far as I know no other piggyback maker other than BMS currently offers a similarly designed system. And at this time they do not offer it for the M5.

AFAIK piggybacks such as the AC Schnitzer petrol engine version does the same. For instance it says in their installation manual that the full power won't be achieved until the engine is in normal operating conditions.

Interestingly, the ACS piggyback for the M5 is not a CAN piggyback. But is on other models...

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

There is no mechanism for the DME to reduce boost as a function of knock or fueling.

REALLY????!!!!

I find that hard to believe. Boost is under total control/management of the DME. Surely if it detects a situation where maximum timing adjustment and/or maximum fuelling adjustment doesn't remedy the situation it could reduce boost at any time.

The "mechanism" is certainly in place via the DME boost management software. What you are saying is that the engineers at BMW hasn't programmed the DME to be able to reduce boost as a function of knock or fuelling?

I'd very much like to have further info on that and the logic behind it

For ages the knock detection strategies employed by auto manufacturers have relied on boost management/reduction as one of the key instruments to avoid knock... (Started with SAAB http://books.google.com/books?id=q0qVc8dQrpgC&pg=PA85 )

Seems strange that BMW doesn't want to have control over one of the main contributing factors of detonation/knock???

[gmd2003]

[QUOTE=Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

He went from 580 lb feet to 450 almost automatically . His car was very unhappy and may have cut boost after it couldn't retard timing anymore or add more fueling . The damn BMS works by having the ECU dynamically retard timing and add fueling , but it has it's limits . A dyno pack dyno has a ~ 9% loss , and he has DP's and an Akra exhaust , so yeah 450 lb feet is less than what a stock car would make with those mods even considering a 5th gear run . The BMS made his car limp bc of the improper setting + 3 psi on pump gas ! Jesus just admit it .

There is no mechanism for the DME to reduce boost as a function of knock or fueling. The logic path doesn't work that way. To understand what is going on here you need to understand the logic the DME applies. The torque "reduction" is a simple DME request to prevent DCT slippage. Running in to knock would show up at higher RPM not lower RPM. Torque is largely independent of timing changes. So this "evidence" does not indicate he ran in to knock or fueling issues at all. If he was running a 3.00 setting on 94 octane it may have been a bit aggressive. If he was running a 3.00 setting on 91 octane he may have gotten major knock/timing pull at higher RPM. But the dyno run doesn't really indicate either. It reflects the DME reducing boost/torque in the midrange.

For a doctor I'm surprised you make such bold and absolute statements with such little evidence and understanding of the systems involved!

Mike
Seriously you think nothing was wrong with that curve . I think it was mostly pulling timing , but surely the ECU has full control of boost as well . I'm making an educated deduction , that torque curve looks nothing like a stock car nor a car on the correct BMS settings . The only thing the op changed was the settings so ......

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Running in to knock would show up at higher RPM not lower RPM. Torque is largely independent of timing changes. So this "evidence" does not indicate he ran in to knock or fueling issues at all. If he was running a 3.00 setting on 94 octane it may have been a bit aggressive. If he was running a 3.00 setting on 91 octane he may have gotten major knock/timing pull at higher RPM. But the dyno run doesn't really indicate either. It reflects the DME reducing boost/torque in the midrange.

Detonation/knock can happen at all rpm's, not only at high rpm. It's more frequently happening at higher rpm's, but a high boost/lean fuelling situation can lead to detonation in the mid range as well.

And how can torque be largely independent of timing changes? If you just change the timing slightly (a few degrees) within the optimal range, then you will only see small variations. But if you take a lot of timing out of the engine, power and torque surely will drop...

http://www.daytona-sensors.com/tech_tuning.html


An article on ignition timing:
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=109132

[Boss330]

And coincidentally it seems that the issues Renault have had with the 2014 F1 engines have been related to detonation/knock and boost strategy as well...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112888

Taffin believes the software changes, designed especially to address problems with engine 'knock', would not come at the expense of reliability.

'Knock' refers to the sound made by an engine when its ignition timing is set incorrectly, often leading to damage inside the combustion chamber.

"The main issues we had with power units was due to the nature of how we control the engine and the boost pressure, and how we manage knock basically - which is the step to gain some more performance from this kind of engine," he said.

"It is fair to say that when you are late, you are late on everything. So we maybe suffered a bit of lack of experience in how to deal with this situation.

"We had to be very cautious. We did not have at that time the proper software to prevent this kind of thing.

"But I am not worried about that one now. It is basically giving us some reliability confidence and also some performance confidence."

Eagerly awaiting more info on why the DME in the S63 does not have a mechanism to reduce boost as a function of knock or fuelling...

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by Boss330

And coincidentally it seems that the issues Renault have had with the 2014 F1 engines have been related to detonation/knock and boost strategy as well...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112888

Eagerly awaiting more info on why the DME in the S63 does not have a mechanism to reduce boost as a function of knock or fuelling...

Ha , I think this is the first time we've been on the same side of a discussion in a thread lol . Appreciate the back up .

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Ha , I think this is the first time we've been on the same side of a discussion in a thread lol . Appreciate the back up .

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.

[dapple]

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.