Quote:
Originally Posted by LateBraking
I've had Tom do some coding for me using his AutoLogic, and I have to say I was impressed with how fast and intuitive the system was. Although Tom states that mistakes can happen in any field, and I agree with him, I find it hard to see him ever making a mistake with the tool. The man knows how to use them, and the man uses them well. He also gave me the opportunity to see some before and afters with the OEM software, I think one of them were M3PO's since we were there on the same day, and I was fairly impressed with the gains, especially granted that it was all OEM software updates, not even a purchased OEM performance tune like the BMW Performance tune that they offer for 135i's and 335i's. Not touting one tool's superiority over the other here, just stating that the AutoLogic seems to be a capable tool based off of my previous experience with EAS.
Figured since I see lots of free opinion flying around, I was free to comment on my good experience with Tom and EAS. I personally have no reservations about having my car coded by EAS and their Autologic tool, I actually have to remember to contact EAS about possibly getting an MDM Euro-edition update so I can try it out on the track. I love trying out new things on the track.  |
No worries. Understanding the facts about the tools is part of understanding how all of this works. What we don't need is bickering. This isn't 'my' thread, it's the internet so I'm not gonna be upset about it evolving. My main goal has just been to share my experience for the benefit of the community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Benvo
No worries.. not a big deal sir. Just want to keep it on track if possible.
To answer your questions:
There are many 'maps' in every factory calibration. The file sizes for all software versions are exactly the same. There is the same amount of 'data'. The 'data' area in the M3 is 128KB, and the full Program plus data (calibration) area is just over 5MB. Granted a portion of these areas are filled with FF (filler) values to maintain the proper file size.
When you get a software tune, specific maps are modified based on what the tuner wants to do. There are maps for fueling, timing, vanos, knock sensitivity, etc... Expanding on this further there are part throttle fuel maps, full throttle fuel maps, timing aim maps at part throttle, timing at full throttle, etc... There are tons and tons of maps - I would be here all day if I listed them all.
The OP started with 100E software which is factory BMW software. Sal tuned it, and gained some power by modifying these 'maps'.
Then the OP had newer 231E software fitted, which is also factory BMW software. There was a serious power gain between this and the old version. In fact, the gain was greater than with what was gained from the 100E software with the modified 'tuned' maps.
The final stage was modifying the 231E software to include the 'tuned' maps.
Now, between software versions (at least the later ones as I have no reason to poke around in 80E or 100E and would never use these as a base for a tune) it appears that the map data is the same for the most part. This means that the NON map locations in the DME (meaning the actual program code or 'operating system' per se) of the DME was most likely modified by BMW between versions. The gain that was had could be directly attributed to such changes. 231E might simply be harder to extract power from, because it's a much better starting point than previous versions. It makes more power to begin with, modifying the maps in the same way doesn't appear to achieve the same gain.
I hope this clears up any confusion, let me know if there is anything else I can help clarify. I tried to simplify the explanation as much as possible.
|
Mike's description is correct. Basically, I dynoed stock 100E, tuned 100E, stock 231E (twice), and tuned 231E. Tuned 100E made great gains over stock 100E. Stock 231E made a bit more than tuned 100E. Tuned 231E didn't make much more than stock 231E, if any.