View Single Post
      06-01-2011, 10:49 AM   #144
1
Captain
United_States
16

 
Drives: 991TTs
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Earth


Posts: 977
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dexx View Post
Seriously, when everything is misinformation, correct information is just noise. Do your own damn research instead of claiming to know anything about what I'm saying.

at least one smart person on here:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280965

Anyone who doesn't believe me, feel free to run 87 in your M3. Nothing bad will happen if you run it tank after tank. Really.. *snicker* Correction, run 87, and deleted cats, headers, and straight pipe exhaust.

Doesn't matter, looks like you're about to get schooled anyway, they're working on BMW's.. here come lots and lots of datalogs and user tunes. Knew I should have taken the job with these guys: http://cobbtuning.com/products/?id=5833

http://www.accessecu.com/accessport/...AccessPORT.pdf

"Adjusted boost levels, fuel, ignition timing".... different maps targeting 91 and 93 octane...

Serious frickin right here. The data says I'm right. Good timing Cobb.

Also, just to rub it in a little more "BMW ECU are super awesome and do calculations at 1 jigawatt and fairies know what the right timing is"
http://www.cobbforums.com/forums/sho...libration-Team

Is that a timing map? oh noes!!!
but WTF does any of this have to do with your original argument? you stated that the ECU can't adapt to an aftermarket exhaust system which most likely caused this motoro to blow. forum members ask you to prove your statement and you respond by saying that us "common folk" won't be able to understand because we aren't scientist and engineers. then you state that you are right because you can't 87 fuel? the OP stated that he used 93 . am i missing something here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Singletrack View Post
You mean like the research you did to back up your statements here about the S65? Oh that's right, you haven't done any.



That's really hilarious because Lemans_Blue_M is one of the guys that has repeatedly said that the factory tune will adapt to exhaust changes without issue. He is a smart guy though, and obviously has inside connections at BMW.



I don't follow you at all. Of course the factory tuning can't adjust well to 87, which is why the factory says not to run below 91.



Ok, those are N54 tunes that are increasing power; what does that have to do with the adaption of the factory tune to an exhaust?



Man, you should have quit while you were behind. I'll play since I'm bored.




"As I increased the amount of Load requested to begin raising horsepower, it became obvious that the factory timing table was a bit too aggressive, especially at higher loads. The ECU properly addressed it via timing correction on the noisy cylinder(s), but relying on a prompt response from the ECU during knock events is a dangerous tuning strategy."

-Travis @ Cobb

This is an N54, not the S65 - first of all, and NA tuning is not FI tuning. Even still, the programing was able to adjust even when increasing the power output of the car, which we are not doing here (just changing exhaust and letting it adapt). I fail to see how this supports any of your arguments although, truth be told, I'm having difficulty following you at this point.

The S65 stock tuning can adapt safely to an exhaust - you don't know what you are talking about.
+1