Ordered BMS Stage 1 Tune

[Andym3100k]

Originally Posted by M5stallion

Apparently, any number after 6 does not increase boost any further.

Thanks for posting & hopefully you r not instructed by someone cos your profile show you have just join the forum a few minutes ago & maybe you didn't even have enough time to read thru the topic & this is your 1st post!

We welcome you.

[M5stallion]

Originally Posted by Andym3100k

Thanks for posting & hopefully you r not instructed by someone cos your profile show you have just join the forum a few minutes ago & maybe you didn't even have enough time to read thru the topic & this is your 1st post!

We welcome you.

I read the whole thread. It was mentioned to you by 2 knowledgeable enthusiast members that the 'boost parameter' will accept numbers greater than 6 but will not boost past 6 extra psi. What this means for those who are english-deprived is that putting in a number like 9 will still limit you to only 6psi, this of course was more of safety parameter to protect ignorant fools from effectively boosting too high and blowing up their expensive motors.

After further observation, I do not like your reckless approach, as you stated you are running 5psi more on 93 octane, the bms is designed to run 3psi on low octane fuels 91-93, yes we know the recommended boost was slightly lower at 2.50-2.75 at a certain point, yes we know some members run 3.5, but the ones who have deviated higher from bms' recommended setting have monitored to make sure it is safe. Unlike you who just comes on her and boosts and prays at 5psi with 93, In the meantime not knowing the adaptation process is probably pulling timing to compensate making it a wash after doing more than a few runs. Anyways, I encourage anyone tuning these motors to take a methodogical approach to tuning as many of you have and not be disillusioned by arrogant grandeur.

[Northern X5M]

Originally Posted by Andym3100k

u r really a pain in my ass, if u dont even dare to try on a higher boost to break thru the power then i think just keep it to yr 3.5psi

How about showing a dyno on diff psi level to show others yr findings & not by what is on yr vbox timing cos nothing can denied on a dyno graph!

Just to show u i have the what u so call a very reliable device (Dashcommander & kiwi 2 bluebooth) thats my screenshot. Let me tell u they are useless, even the lease important intake tem is also not functioning well at all, i compare it with my direct plug in gauge to the intake & the tem is out by 4 to 5 deg. just cant believe u can live with this!

Good luck to you & hope u dont start all the nonsense again!!!

Why would you think the values Dash Commander is displaying are inacurate? DC's function is to display the information pulled from the OBD-II port, same sensor information that the ECM relies on. Besides measuring intake temp, what other parameters have you measured against DC displayed values? I too have the DC software and PLX Kiwi Bluetooth, and in due time I plan to install a stand alone boost gauge and AFR gauge to supplement the DC software. Even if there is a factor of error with the DC, I'd wager it is negligible; it is still better than no data at all.

[Andym3100k]

Originally Posted by M5stallion

I read the whole thread. It was mentioned to you by 2 knowledgeable enthusiast members that the 'boost parameter' will accept numbers greater than 6 but will not boost past 6 extra psi. What this means for those who are english-deprived is that putting in a number like 9 will still limit you to only 6psi, this of course was more of safety parameter to protect ignorant fools from effectively boosting too high and blowing up their expensive motors.

After further observation, I do not like your reckless approach, as you stated you are running 5psi more on 93 octane, the bms is designed to run 3psi on low octane fuels 91-93, yes we know the recommended boost was slightly lower at 2.50-2.75 at a certain point, yes we know some members run 3.5, but the ones who have deviated higher from bms' recommended setting have monitored to make sure it is safe. Unlike you who just comes on her and boosts and prays at 5psi with 93, In the meantime not knowing the adaptation process is probably pulling timing to compensate making it a wash after doing more than a few runs. Anyways, I encourage anyone tuning these motors to take a methodogical approach to tuning as many of you have and not be disillusioned by arrogant grandeur.

Your statement sound so familiar, it sounded more like a existing forum member rather then a new join in.

U have been reading the same topic under ( M5 versus...*
(So Surprised No F80 M3 vs F10 M5 races out yet!! Looked everywhere - for the passed few hours without any comments ( just have a look who is the last few user) but swing over to (ordered bms stage 1 tune) this topic to proposely said these few statement??? Hahaha u know who you are! We don't even have to make a guess.

[Andym3100k]

Originally Posted by Northern X5M

Why would you think the values Dash Commander is displaying are inacurate? DC's function is to display the information pulled from the OBD-II port, same sensor information that the ECM relies on. Besides measuring intake temp, what other parameters have you measured against DC displayed values? I too have the DC software and PLX Kiwi Bluetooth, and in due time I plan to install a stand alone boost gauge and AFR gauge to supplement the DC software. Even if there is a factor of error with the DC, I'd wager it is negligible; it is still better than no data at all.

As mentioned the least important intake tem was also out by a few deg( u may not have read the last few post). And the Bluetooth device delay for a short sec so u r not reading the actual value at the very moment. I have a few devices in the car too but some r just not reliable. I'm waiting for the wideband sensor to reach me this week.

Let's wait for gmd2003 dyno numbers n timing so to show the community the real results.

[6underpressure]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

+ 10000
At some point you stop making power and just make heat with added boost via piggyback . Look at my trap speed with 93 octane on + 3.5 psi ( 130mph ) . I've tested and that's optimal for consistency on a CP with catted DP's , above that and too much timing is pulled up top and I actually lose speed . The increase in tq down low still happens but up top you will make less power . The only way to correct that is to run race gas or meth . More isn't always better .
G

That's a good trap speed

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by Andym3100k

As mentioned the least important intake tem was also out by a few deg( u may not have read the last few post). And the Bluetooth device delay for a short sec so u r not reading the actual value at the very moment. I have a few devices in the car too but some r just not reliable. I'm waiting for the wideband sensor to reach me this week.

Let's wait for gmd2003 dyno numbers n timing so to show the community the real results.

I said there are two approaches to proving performance gains and I subscribe to the 2nd ( performance metrics ) You can't fudge trap speeds with STD correction factors and other dyno tricks ( not saying you did but it's become very widespread here, you're dyno data on 3/4 psi is some of the more realistic I've seen ) I have posted my actual Vbox data in many posts but I will summarize for you .
1.)Bone stock 93 octane -1800 DA 0 slope
Trap 127mph x3 runs dead consistent

2.)Intake / 200 cell Catted DP's93 octane -1800 DA 0 slope , 128mph trap x3 runs dead consistent

3.)Intake / DP's BMS set to 3 psi new firmware + 1800 DA 93 octane
Trap 129mph x3 runs dead consistent

4.) BMS set to +3.5 psi 93 octane + 2000 DA
Trap 130mph x 3 runs dead consistent

5.) BMS set to +4 psi 93 octane, + 1700 DA ,
Trap speed 129.5 , 128 , 127
Rapid heat soak and def less pull above 6 rpm .
Bottom line is a car that makes a true 680whp with a DCT should trap 135mph all day long and if someone does no one will dispute that . Dynos have been so manipulated by some shops that I'm actually to the point of totally discounting absolute numbers and only look at deltas from mods and the shape of the power curve .

[M5stallion]

Originally Posted by Andym3100k

Your statement sound so familiar, it sounded more like a existing forum member rather then a new join in.

U have been reading the same topic under ( M5 versus...*
(So Surprised No F80 M3 vs F10 M5 races out yet!! Looked everywhere - for the passed few hours without any comments ( just have a look who is the last few user) but swing over to (ordered bms stage 1 tune) this topic to proposely said these few statement??? Hahaha u know who you are! We don't even have to make a guess.

Your logic is as distorted as your tuning approach.

[M5stallion]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

I said there are two approaches to proving performance gains and I subscribe to the 2nd ( performance metrics ) You can't fudge trap speeds with STD correction factors and other dyno tricks ( not saying you did but it's become very widespread here, you're dyno data on 3/4 psi is some of the more realistic I've seen ) I have posted my actual Vbox data in many posts but I will summarize for you .
1.)Bone stock 93 octane -1800 DA 0 slope
Trap 127mph x3 runs dead consistent

2.)Intake / 200 cell Catted DP's93 octane -1800 DA 0 slope , 128mph trap x3 runs dead consistent

3.)Intake / DP's BMS set to 3 psi new firmware + 1800 DA 93 octane
Trap 129mph x3 runs dead consistent

4.) BMS set to +3.5 psi 93 octane + 2000 DA
Trap 130mph x 3 runs dead consistent

5.) BMS set to +4 psi 93 octane, + 1700 DA ,
Trap speed 129.5 , 128 , 127
Rapid heat soak and def less pull above 6 rpm .
Bottom line is a car that makes a true 680whp with a DCT should trap 135mph all day long and if someone does no one will dispute that . Dynos have been so manipulated by some shops that I'm actually to the point of totally discounting absolute numbers and only look at deltas from mods and the shape of the power curve .

Was run number 1 with bms old firmware along with corresponding boost setting?

Do you believe your 1800 DA has effect on traps?

[beemerbill]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

I said there are two approaches to proving performance gains and I subscribe to the 2nd ( performance metrics ) You can't fudge trap speeds with STD correction factors and other dyno tricks ( not saying you did but it's become very widespread here, you're dyno data on 3/4 psi is some of the more realistic I've seen ) I have posted my actual Vbox data in many posts but I will summarize for you .
1.)Bone stock 93 octane -1800 DA 0 slope
Trap 127mph x3 runs dead consistent

2.)Intake / 200 cell Catted DP's93 octane -1800 DA 0 slope , 128mph trap x3 runs dead consistent

3.)Intake / DP's BMS set to 3 psi new firmware + 1800 DA 93 octane
Trap 129mph x3 runs dead consistent

4.) BMS set to +3.5 psi 93 octane + 2000 DA
Trap 130mph x 3 runs dead consistent

5.) BMS set to +4 psi 93 octane, + 1700 DA ,
Trap speed 129.5 , 128 , 127
Rapid heat soak and def less pull above 6 rpm .
Bottom line is a car that makes a true 680whp with a DCT should trap 135mph all day long and if someone does no one will dispute that . Dynos have been so manipulated by some shops that I'm actually to the point of totally discounting absolute numbers and only look at deltas from mods and the shape of the power curve .

1. Stock???? 127mph?

Then #3. add cold air intake and catted DP and BMS and only gain 2mph??

confused... I thought we were like 121,122 stock???

Bill

[M5stallion]

Originally Posted by beemerbill

1. Stock???? 127mph?

Then #3. add cold air intake and catted DP and BMS and only gain 2mph??

confused... I thought we were like 121,122 stock???

Bill

I think run number one was with the old bms firmware.... I have the same question into him

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by beemerbill

1. Stock???? 127mph?

Then #3. add cold air intake and catted DP and BMS and only gain 2mph??

confused... I thought we were like 121,122 stock???

Bill

Look at the Density altitudes . The 127 was on a near -2000 DA day vs the 129 BMS run on a positive 1800 DA day . That makes a huge effect on trap speed in itself . So in much worse air I picked up 2mph that's a huge deal .

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by M5stallion

Was run number 1 with bms old firmware along with corresponding boost setting?

Do you believe your 1800 DA has effect on traps?

Run 1 was stock on a - 2000 DA day . Remember these are GPS trap speeds not avg the last 60ft like at the strip . This would equate to a 126 with the avg last 60 ft . The M6 CP with carbon ceramics is very fast and over 200 pounds lighter than an M5 . Mine weighs 4195 with a tip top full tank .

[M5stallion]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Look at the Density altitudes . The 127 was on a near -2000 DA day vs the 129 BMS run on a positive 1800 DA day . That makes a huge effect on trap speed in itself . So in much worse air I picked up 2mph that's a huge deal .

Ok that's great

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by M5stallion

He is asking if you were stock on run 1 and so am I!

Yes I was 100% stock . A -2000 DA is as good as it gets conditions wise .

[M5stallion]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

I said there are two approaches to proving performance gains and I subscribe to the 2nd ( performance metrics ) You can't fudge trap speeds with STD correction factors and other dyno tricks ( not saying you did but it's become very widespread here, you're dyno data on 3/4 psi is some of the more realistic I've seen ) I have posted my actual Vbox data in many posts but I will summarize for you .
1.)Bone stock 93 octane -1800 DA 0 slope
Trap 127mph x3 runs dead consistent

2.)Intake / 200 cell Catted DP's93 octane -1800 DA 0 slope , 128mph trap x3 runs dead consistent

3.)Intake / DP's BMS set to 3 psi new firmware + 1800 DA 93 octane
Trap 129mph x3 runs dead consistent

4.) BMS set to +3.5 psi 93 octane + 2000 DA
Trap 130mph x 3 runs dead consistent

5.) BMS set to +4 psi 93 octane, + 1700 DA ,
Trap speed 129.5 , 128 , 127
Rapid heat soak and def less pull above 6 rpm .
Bottom line is a car that makes a true 680whp with a DCT should trap 135mph all day long and if someone does no one will dispute that . Dynos have been so manipulated by some shops that I'm actually to the point of totally discounting absolute numbers and only look at deltas from mods and the shape of the power curve .

It's odd that you are gaining only 1mph with the bms at 3.5 vs no bms! Am I reading that correctly?

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by M5stallion

It's odd that you are gaining only 1mph with the bms at 3.5 vs no bms! Am I reading that correctly?

I gained 2mph at +3.5 in much worse conditions a positive DA. Density altitude is used to correct trap speeds in drag racing . As the more dense the air the greater power a car makes . It's less of a factor in turbo cars but still significant . So I expect 131-132 mph in the same -1800 DA as the first run which would be a + 4 mph gain . It takes a lot of horsepower to go 127 mph to 131mph .

[M5stallion]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

I gained 2mph at +3.5 in much worse conditions a positive DA. Density altitude is used to correct trap speeds in drag racing . As the more dense the air the greater power a car makes . It's less of a factor in turbo cars but still significant . So I expect 131-132 mph in the same -1800 DA as the first run which would be a + 4 mph gain . It takes a lot of horsepower to go 127 mph to 131mph .

On a side note, do you think you gained that extra mph trap with the intake or 200cell cats? Specifically 127->128 mph trap

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by M5stallion

On a side note, do you think you gained that extra mph trap with the intake or 200cell cats? Specifically 127->128 mph trap

Def most of the gain was the DP's . The ECU limits peak gains with DP's but the gains in the midrange and the faster turbo spool up is substantial .

[Andym3100k]

Gmd2003, I think overall u don't sound that bad. Whatever we do are all for the community( sharing info) lets square off.

[beemerbill]

Did not catch the DA diff. Nice!!!!

BB

[Northern X5M]

Lucky with your DA. Best I've seen here is about +2000 and that is around 5-10C. Got to love the mineshaft air. Back when I was running a NA motor the difference between my setup and an identical vehicle at sea level was 0.5 seconds and about 5 mph.