[Skyhigh]

What fuel are you using?

[VVlasy]

Sorry, updated the original post.

95 Ron, so 91 AKI

[bmwenjoyer]

BM3 OTS maps

Stage 2 91 ACN pull:

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=6349...0b43a0ea849179

Stage 2+ 93 pull:

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=6349...0b43a0ea849158

Gas tank is full of 91 octane with 15oz of Lucas Oil octane booster.

Mods: catless downpipe, TU pump

[Skyhigh]

Originally Posted by VVlasy

Hi everyone.
Had my 440i for 6 years. And now I am dabbling into data logging, mainly due to reliability and preventative maintenance concerns. this is my first log, taken on a steep incline.

https://datazap.me/u/vvlasy/stock-mppsk?log=0&data=3-13

2016/03 440i xDrive f36
61k miles
Spark plugs and VANOS Actuators replaced at 59k
No mods, only MPPSK

Edit: fuel 95 Ron, so 91 AKI

It all looks good. Nothing concerning. I don't know if it is a limitation for the logs, since you are not MHD-tuned as such, but if possible - enable logging of "Timing delta for knock" next time.

Also I am sure you are aware that BMW recommend use of (min) RON 98 with MPPSK. It is proven to work fine with less than RON95 as well, but if you want an optimal setup, you should be using min RON98. A good tip for the B58 anyway, especially if tuned (and MPPSK is in reality a BMW tune).

[Skyhigh]

Originally Posted by gpf30335i

BM3 OTS maps

Stage 2 91 ACN pull:

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=6349...0b43a0ea849179

Stage 2+ 93 pull:

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=6349...0b43a0ea849158

Gas tank is full of 91 octane with 15oz of Lucas Oil octane booster.

Mods: catless downpipe, TU pump

Logs/links don't open, at least for me.

[VVlasy]

Originally Posted by Skyhigh

It all looks good. Nothing concerning. I don't know if it is a limitation for the logs, since you are not MHD-tuned as such, but if possible - enable logging of "Timing delta for knock" next time.

Also I am sure you are aware that BMW recommend use of (min) RON 98 with MPPSK. It is proven to work fine with less than RON95 as well, but if you want an optimal setup, you should be using min RON98. A good tip for the B58 anyway, especially if tuned (and MPPSK is in reality a BMW tune).

Enabled, thanks for the tip.

I actually didn’t know about 98RON until two weeks ago. When a dealer installed my mppsk, they never provided me with the pamphlet that specifies 98 RON, I just saw it recently on the forums... Quality eu dealers.

Thank you for the look over. I would assume that the 95RON might be the cause for the timing retardation that can be seen in both logs.

[bmwenjoyer]

Originally Posted by Skyhigh

Logs/links don't open, at least for me.

Weird, try these links:

Stage 2+ 93 octane
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=634c...729b4d69bc89df

Stage 2 91 octane ACN
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=6349...0b43a0ea849179

[vcx]

Originally Posted by gpf30335i

Weird, try these links:

Stage 2+ 93 octane
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=634c...729b4d69bc89df

Stage 2 91 octane ACN
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=6349...0b43a0ea849179

I'm far from being an expert but I would say that your stage 2+ log looks bad.

Poor timing advance, lots of timing corrections, load target is missed by a lot, wastegate is working hard..

One thing I noticed is when I switch between maps, it takes some time for the ECU to adapt. I get crappy logs and then it gets better. Maybe just drive easy for 100-200 km than try to log again.

Just my 2 cents.

[bmwenjoyer]

Originally Posted by vcx

I'm far from being an expert but I would say that your stage 2+ log looks bad.

Poor timing advance, lots of timing corrections, load target is missed by a lot, wastegate is working hard..

One thing I noticed is when I switch between maps, it takes some time for the ECU to adapt. I get crappy logs and then it gets better. Maybe just drive easy for 100-200 km than try to log again.

Just my 2 cents.

From what we're seeing in the Stage 2+ log, do you think there's any engine risk in running the Stage 2+ 93 tune until it *maybe* fixes itself? I'd obviously prefer to run this as the boost target is higher, and it accommodates the TU pump.

Here's another Stage 2+ 93 log I did as well:
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=6349...0b43a0ea849158

[vcx]

Originally Posted by gpf30335i

From what we're seeing in the Stage 2+ log, do you think there's any engine risk in running the Stage 2+ 93 tune until it *maybe* fixes itself? I'd obviously prefer to run this as the boost target is higher, and it accommodates the TU pump.

Here's another Stage 2+ 93 log I did as well:
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=6349...0b43a0ea849158

I would say the risk is probably low, if you don't push the car, but honestly, I don't know mate.

[Skyhigh]

Originally Posted by VVlasy

Enabled, thanks for the tip.

I actually didn't know about 98RON until two weeks ago. When a dealer installed my mppsk, they never provided me with the pamphlet that specifies 98 RON, I just saw it recently on the forums... Quality eu dealers.

Thank you for the look over. I would assume that the 95RON might be the cause for the timing retardation that can be seen in both logs.

Your corrections are negligible and normal! You are perfectly fine as is, but of course would be generally better off with RON98. Typically higher octane fuels also have additives and less or no Ethanol. In my opinion always worth the extra cents, on a performance engine.

[Skyhigh]

Originally Posted by gpf30335i

From what we're seeing in the Stage 2+ log, do you think there's any engine risk in running the Stage 2+ 93 tune until it *maybe* fixes itself? I'd obviously prefer to run this as the boost target is higher, and it accommodates the TU pump.

Here's another Stage 2+ 93 log I did as well:
https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=6349...0b43a0ea849158

Your second Stage 2+ log looks better than the first, but in reality both are pretty bad! Your timing is horrible and you are likely making LESS power on Stage 2+ than on Stage 2 due to that.

I would not drive like that. Especially the first log for me (and I am no expert either) is a very clear signal that the tune (stage) and the fuel are a definitive mismatch. Why push for what's simply not there? It will not come out of nowhere.

Your Stage 2 ACN91 log on the other hand looks perfectly fine to me.

[bmwenjoyer]

Originally Posted by Skyhigh

Your second Stage 2+ log looks better than the first, but in reality both are pretty bad! Your timing is horrible and you are likely making LESS power on Stage 2+ than on Stage 2 due to that.

I would not drive like that. Especially the first log for me (and I am no expert either) is a very clear signal that the tune (stage) and the fuel are a definitive mismatch. Why push for what's simply not there? It will not come out of nowhere.

Your Stage 2 ACN91 log on the other hand looks perfectly fine to me.

Agreed! I only ran the Stage 2+ 93 tune to test the logs. I'm going to stay on the Stage 2 91 ACN tune until I move to a place with ethanol this coming up spring/summer. Thanks for taking a look

[DieselDuck]

Originally Posted by VVlasy

Hi everyone.
Had my 440i for 6 years. And now I am dabbling into data logging, mainly due to reliability and preventative maintenance concerns. this is my first log, taken on a steep incline.

https://datazap.me/u/vvlasy/stock-mppsk?log=0&data=3-13

2016/03 440i xDrive f36
61k miles
Spark plugs and VANOS Actuators replaced at 59k
No mods, only MPPSK

Edit: fuel 95 Ron, so 91 AKI

looks good, probably not much more in it if you gonna keep runnin 91oct

[doubldunce]

Hey guys,
Long time lurker and new to the BMW world. I've grabbed MHD on a stock 2017 340i. Been running the 93 octane stage 1 map for a few months and logs look okay. Had some timing corrections with it and added a gallon or two E85 to clear it up. However, boost pressure averages 15.5-16 during all runs with a target of 17psi. I could post a log but it looks relatively okay besides the slight boost deviation.

Today I gave it a try on the stage 2 93 octane map, without a downpipe. Trying to add that extra psi or two. Pull felt great, the added psi was there. But I'm seeing timing corrections and 100% WGDC during the boost ramp (2500-3000rpm). I only have a gallon of e85 in at the moment, so I'm thinking to add another one or two to see if that clears up timing. But the full WGDC% is a bit concerning and I'm guessing that may be down to the lack of downpipe. However it's happening early in the run and boost pressure seems okay. STFT has always been all over the place for me running the gallon or two of e85 (1-10% through most WOT pulls).

Would someone chime in on their thoughts? Thanks in advance!

Stage 2
https://datazap.me/u/daveywave/mhd-s...49-50-56-60-62

Stage 1
https://datazap.me/u/daveywave/mhd-s...og=0&data=5-26

[DieselDuck]

Originally Posted by gantona

Hello !
Would one of our experts please have a look if everything is good ?
Thank you !

Not an expert lol

but as far as I can see, looks good

[DieselDuck]

Originally Posted by doubldunce

Hey guys,
Long time lurker and new to the BMW world. I've grabbed MHD on a stock 2017 340i. Been running the 93 octane stage 1 map for a few months and logs look okay. Had some timing corrections with it and added a gallon or two E85 to clear it up. However, boost pressure averages 15.5-16 during all runs with a target of 17psi. I could post a log but it looks relatively okay besides the slight boost deviation.

Today I gave it a try on the stage 2 93 octane map, without a downpipe. Trying to add that extra psi or two. Pull felt great, the added psi was there. But I'm seeing timing corrections and 100% WGDC during the boost ramp (2500-3000rpm). I only have a gallon of e85 in at the moment, so I'm thinking to add another one or two to see if that clears up timing. But the full WGDC% is a bit concerning and I'm guessing that may be down to the lack of downpipe. However it's happening early in the run and boost pressure seems okay. STFT has always been all over the place for me running the gallon or two of e85 (1-10% through most WOT pulls).

Would someone chime in on their thoughts? Thanks in advance!

Stage 2
https://datazap.me/u/daveywave/mhd-s...49-50-56-60-62

Stage 1
https://datazap.me/u/daveywave/mhd-s...og=0&data=5-26

Don't run stage2 mhd with a stock downpipe. The wastegate and boostcontrol for a stage 2 (highflow / catless downpipe) is calibrated completely different than a tune with cat.

Run E30 Stage1 OTS and make sure your mix is right if you want to safely make more power.

[Mineralf30_]

Originally Posted by Skyhigh

Your log is as mentioned (extremely) clean, but I noticed the very low torque act clutch in the log! This is not a number that can be trusted, but I would expect it to be adequately scaled in comparison to the rest of the Stages and Fuel settings! This is also what the Sport Displays use as an input.

I think it is worth comparing your torque act clutch values to others running the same map... something is not right there. MHD would not leave that like that on purpose, to get hundreds of emails from people asking why the Sport Display shows values typical for Stage 2 RON 95!

For comparison, MHD Stage 2 RON 98, v 3.6 has torque act. clutch up to just under 600 Nm and makes 450 PS, according to both toque act. clutch and the Sport Display itself.

I'd also contact MHD and ask about it. Please keep us in the loop.... I am very curious why this is!

Thanks for the input I'm fairly new to looking at logs. I don't quite understand what exactly this means. Will contact mhd though.

[Jnat]

MHD Stg2+ 95oct map with 93 octane gas, one shot of boostane and 3 gallons of ethanol... was having a great pull until i had to let off. wish i could have stayed in it as it was pulling hard and i would have loved to see the timing up top...boostane, thumbs up!!!

https://datazap.me/u/nat/log-1666476...35-36-37-38-42

[DieselDuck]

Originally Posted by Jnat

MHD Stg2+ 95oct map with 93 octane gas, one shot of boostane and 3 gallons of ethanol... was having a great pull until i had to let off. wish i could have stayed in it as it was pulling hard and i would have loved to see the timing up top...boostane, thumbs up!!!

https://datazap.me/u/nat/log-1666476...35-36-37-38-42

Your timing was 99% likely going to be good up top seeing how this part of the pull went already

Log looks good! But if those 3 gallons of ethanol were 100% pure ethanol, you should probably thank the ethanol more than the boostane haha

edit question: how do you compare the 95oct vs the E40 map ? I'm also sometimes switching between the two.

When I can't easily go get some E85, I top up my "E40 mixed" tank with 93oct to achieve around ~E25 which gives me good logs on the 95oct map (I don't have flexfuel canbus so I use the mapswitcher). I find the 95oct map to feel a bit more aggressive mid-range but overall the E40 maps seems to pull harder top end.

Also I notice the first 10 seconds of driving after coldstart on 95oct map since I last switched to it the gearswitches seem a bit jerky, but that might be because there's close to E30 in the tank while running a pump gas map.

[Jnat]

Originally Posted by DieselDuck

Your timing was 99% likely going to be good up top seeing how this part of the pull went already

Log looks good! But if those 3 gallons of ethanol were 100% pure ethanol, you should probably thank the ethanol more than the boostane haha

edit question: how do you compare the 95oct vs the E40 map ? I'm also sometimes switching between the two.

When I can't easily go get some E85, I top up my "E40 mixed" tank with 93oct to achieve around ~E25 which gives me good logs on the 95oct map (I don't have flexfuel canbus so I use the mapswitcher). I find the 95oct map to feel a bit more aggressive mid-range but overall the E40 maps seems to pull harder top end.

Also I notice the first 10 seconds of driving after coldstart on 95oct map since I last switched to it the gearswitches seem a bit jerky, but that might be because there's close to E30 in the tank while running a pump gas map.

Agreed on all accounts. I switch between both maps also and your feedback on both i would agree with. 95-low and midrange to me feels stronger and i'll say angrier, E40- feels smoother and stronger up top. the E40 map seems to have better timing and you feel timing up top. I've run the 95 map with no boostane using E40 and don't get as clean logs (probably should be expected), i've run with just boostane and get relatively clean logs. The combination of boostane and just 2 gallons of E seems to be the sweet spot for me getting very clean logs. It's really very convenient using the combination, less trips to get E (it's an hour drive for me) and the boostane is relatively cost effective. Here is a E40 log from the summer with just ethanol and the E40 map.

https://datazap.me/u/nat/log-1666525...35-36-37-38-42

[DieselDuck]

Originally Posted by Jnat

Agreed on all accounts. I switch between both maps also and your feedback on both i would agree with. 95-low and midrange to me feels stronger and i'll say angrier, E40- feels smoother and stronger up top. the E40 map seems to have better timing and you feel timing up top. I've run the 95 map with no boostane using E40 and don't get as clean logs (probably should be expected), i've run with just boostane and get relatively clean logs. The combination of boostane and just 2 gallons of E seems to be the sweet spot for me getting very clean logs. It's really very convenient using the combination, less trips to get E (it's an hour drive for me) and the boostane is relatively cost effective. Here is a E40 log from the summer with just ethanol and the E40 map.

https://datazap.me/u/nat/log-1666525...35-36-37-38-42

You can probably add a bit more E even. My E40 map seems to run with 0 corrections when I'm around ~E47 (that accounts to running 66 to 70% of "E85" that in actuality has like 70% E). That gives me around 20 psi top end with 18° timing, car truly is a missile with that OTS map and as you say it pulls so smooth throughout the whole rev range.

The ethanol map is fun and the E85 is cheap but the fuel consumption is definitely up to 20% higher on the E map. Maybe the 95oct map feels more punchy mid range because pumpgas has more energy/gets hotter faster than ethanol, but ethanol having a much higher cooling effect (and octane) is creating the smoothness and ability to remain consistent with high timing advance top end. That's just my assumption though.