[DreamerJoe]

Originally Posted by BMW335l

https://datazap.me/u/bmw335ie92/log-...37-38-39-40-41
Here are the datazap logs.

So boost is on point, that was my mis-read from not being used to bm3 layout, everything looks on point besides those timing corrections. Idk which region you’re from, but might want to up your e85 a bit

[BMW335l]

Originally Posted by DreamerJoe

So boost is on point, that was my mis-read from not being used to bm3 layout, everything looks on point besides those timing corrections. Idk which region you’re from, but might want to up your e85 a bit

Yeah, cyl 1 definitely has to much correction. Weirdly enough, the car runs much worse then the logs indicate. Feels more like -6 to -8 on all cyl.
I will do a re flash, add some more E and then do another run. I'm located in Sweden, and our fuel is known to be bad. But that doesn't really explain why my stage 1 tune with less E runs better. Maybe higher boost/lower timings.

I'm thankful for any other suggestions.

[DieselDuck]

Originally Posted by aataylor18

What steps would you take in this scenario? I guess run out the tank, reset adaptations, check plug gap. I flashed back to stock. Kind of at a loss. I'm afraid to even do pulls if it's that dangerous.

Yeah as you say, flash stock, use stock gap, check for any fault codes, and do a log while stock. Start from there

[SimonO]

So I had a couple of runs on one of the UK's most conservative dynos at the weekend. First run was MHD Stage 2 HPFP 95 Ron; second run was MHD Stage 2 HPFP 98 Ron. Tesco Momentum 99 Ron fuel was used in both runs and with no ethanol. Only hardware modifications were a 4.5" 200 cell downpipe and TU HPFP.

See both logs below and accompanying chart. Hopefully this might be useful but comments would be welcomed! Note how things seem to plataeu a little early on the 98 Ron map, around 5200rpm? I'm undecided if I should just run the 95 Ron map in the longer term or add ethanol on the 98 Ron. This car is my daily driver and I'm not sure if I want to be adding an extra £15 per tank when the benefit isn't actually that much?

There was an M140i there too with the exact same MHD map, same fuel, same TU HPFP but had a 4.5" decat, rather than 200 cell. His peak power was 456 bhp. His graph looked identical to mine in every way. I have seen his logs too and they are very similar, albeit with slightly worse timing corrections.

Dyno chart is flywheel figures.


https://datazap.me/u/simonocr/2024-0...og=0&data=3-17

https://datazap.me/u/simonocr/2024-0...0&data=3-17-43

[Aplatosz]

Hey y’all, in the middle of tuning my 340i right now, car is on a ds25 and e50 mix, how’s this log look to y’all?
https://bootmod3.net/log?id=664abdced333f04fe73d5dad

[BMW335l]

I have now reflashed stage 2. This time BM3 asked me to download stage 1 map before flashing, which didn't happen before. I also set all the settings to OEM or otherwise without leaving them on "choose".

The log looks a bit better, but I think the power is still down. Do I have to high expectaions or are the timings actually low?
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=664a...2aed60cedf4296

[IMS-340C]

Thanks for the info very useful, both logs say HPFP 98 as there is no HPFP 95 map in existence but surprisingly the 2 maps produce totally different boost levels.

The 2nd log with higher boost doesn't look too good I recommend adding ethanol to fix it.

Did you take that log while the car was on the dyno ?

Originally Posted by SimonO

So I had a couple of runs on one of the UK's most conservative dynos at the weekend. First run was MHD Stage 2 HPFP 95 Ron; second run was MHD Stage 2 HPFP 98 Ron. Tesco Momentum 99 Ron fuel was used in both runs and with no ethanol. Only hardware modifications were a 4.5" 200 cell downpipe and TU HPFP.

See both logs below and accompanying chart. Hopefully this might be useful but comments would be welcomed! Note how things seem to plataeu a little early on the 98 Ron map, around 5200rpm? I'm undecided if I should just run the 95 Ron map in the longer term or add ethanol on the 98 Ron. This car is my daily driver and I'm not sure if I want to be adding an extra £15 per tank when the benefit isn't actually that much?

There was an M140i there too with the exact same MHD map, same fuel, same TU HPFP but had a 4.5" decat, rather than 200 cell. His peak power was 456 bhp. His graph looked identical to mine in every way. I have seen his logs too and they are very similar, albeit with slightly worse timing corrections.

Dyno chart is flywheel figures.


https://datazap.me/u/simonocr/2024-0...og=0&data=3-17

https://datazap.me/u/simonocr/2024-0...0&data=3-17-43

[SimonO]

Originally Posted by IMS-340C

Thanks for the info very useful, both logs say HPFP 98 as there is no HPFP 95 map in existence but surprisingly the 2 maps produce totally different boost levels.

The 2nd log with higher boost doesn't look too good I recommend adding ethanol to fix it.

Did you take that log while the car was on the dyno ?

It is confusing, but MHD did recently advise me that the Stage 2 HPFP 95 Ron map is basically just a Stage 2. It is an option within the Multi-map flash section.

Yes, both logs were taken on the dyno - the 2nd log may have suffered due to increased IATs. I'm going to try another log on the road this week.

Thanks for the advice - I need to go down the rabbit hole on octane booster vs ethanol

[IMS-340C]

Yeah this explains it though confusing as Stage 2 95 is not a HPFP map.

The logs also show the importance of ignition timing, 15.3 psi / 11.5 degrees almost equal same power as 17.3 psi / 9 degrees.

I would definitely go the Ethanol route.

Originally Posted by SimonO

It is confusing, but MHD did recently advise me that the Stage 2 HPFP 95 Ron map is basically just a Stage 2. It is an option within the Multi-map flash section.

Yes, both logs were taken on the dyno - the 2nd log may have suffered due to increased IATs. I'm going to try another log on the road this week.

Thanks for the advice - I need to go down the rabbit hole on octane booster vs ethanol

[BMW335l]

I flashed Stage 2+, the car feels really slow. I have no knock and barely any corrections.
The timings look really low, while boost pressure is quite high. Is this normal?

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=664c...2aed60cedf6f78
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=664f...27982c5534fb2c

[IMS-340C]

With warmer weather the DME corrects timing with higher IAT, those type of corrections are not visible in the log.

So yeah it's normal.

Originally Posted by BMW335l

I flashed Stage 2+, the car feels really slow. I have no knock and barely any corrections.
The timings look really low, while boost pressure is quite high. Is this normal?

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=664c...2aed60cedf6f78
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=664f...27982c5534fb2c

[BMW335l]

Originally Posted by IMS-340C

With warmer weather the DME corrects timing with higher IAT, those type of corrections are not visible in the log.

So yeah it's normal.

Thanks!
Make sense, but my iat are fairly low at around 32c or 88f in the top range. That shouldn't really cause any issues right?. Would "sports cooling" help with this or I guess the sensor is located after the air box?

[IMS-340C]

B58 DME is designed to reduce/correct timing by the following:
- High boost/load above 180% which uses lowest timing.
- IAT/Coolant Temp, IAT above around 30C and Coolant above 110C
- Fuel Octane which is the only correction visible in the logs

Looks like BM3 are using close to stock values for this map so the low timing makes sense.

Yeah you can use sport cooling for engine and it will increase timing but could be on the expense of octane timing corrections, the other sport cooling for intercooler is pretty much useless.

Originally Posted by BMW335l

Thanks!
Make sense, but my iat are fairly low at around 32c or 88f in the top range. That shouldn't really cause any issues right?. Would "sports cooling" help with this or I guess the sensor is located after the air box?