# 335d Torque/BT data collection



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Finally caught the illusive DPF regen event today. 420 miles since the last one. Had my laptop and BT cable in place from the get go so I had the full pre and post event data . . . Here's the 5 fuel injection pulses from the startup until a bit after the regen was completed.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

And this is really neat too. Over the same time frame as the above plot. I love data . . .


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

And then some other interesting stuff. It would be interesting to know how the ECM decides to do a regen. If it's based on the differential pressure, the fuel used, or some combination ...


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

Totally cool - and very geeky! Love it.:thumbup:

The backpressure is very interesting.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Thanks.

Saw some comments in another thread regarding DPF back pressure and since I had data available . . .

Here is some measured data which includes the backpressure on my d from the BT tool during full fuel acceleration runs. The March 10th one was directly after a completed DPF regen, so is likely the lowest possible back pressure condition possible regarding the DPF. The March 4th one would've been as it was getting loaded up previous to the regen.

It's neat that using the recorded rpm and "torque" data you can make a dyno plot. This could be fun  I'll need to increase the recording speed of the data next time (the "dyno plot" has a shift occuring in there and time is too coarse, but it shows some good potential).

Interestingly the pressure across the DPF during full fuel isn't as bad as I would've expected. 140 hPa is ~2 psi.

Oh, and here are the reported "units" for the data I've been taken.

Time	sec
Coolant temperature	C
Exhaust Gas Recirculation duty cycle command	%
Actual boost pressure	hPa
Actual rail pressure	bar
Exhaust gas pressure before particle filter	hPa
Traveled distance with this oil	km
Average engine speed	rpm
Fuel temperature	C
Engine oil temperature communicated on Low CAN	C
Command time for main injection 1	usec
Command time for pre-injection 1	usec
Command time for pre-injection 2	usec
Command time for post injection 1	usec
Command time for post injection 2	usec
Traveled distance since last regeneration (16bit)	km
Actual ash quantity	g
Soot mass in particle filter	g
Differential pressure of the particle filter	hPa
Absolute pressure in particle filter	hPa
Corrected pressure before particle filter	hPa
Fuel quantity consumed since last succesful regeneration	l
Temperature befor oxydation catalyst	C
Temperature before particle filter	C
Ratio between actual and maximal torque output	%
Current engine torque output	Nm
Desired drive torque	Nm
Actual slip torque	Nm


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Just noticed a label error . . . The March 10 lower left "Emission Components" plot the left axis should be Nm . . .


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

So I'm not happy with the update rate on the Torque app for measuring HP/Torque numbers. And the Bavarian Technic ECM reported torque #'s appear to be based on calculations of other engine parameters (and it's update rate is pretty slow as well).

So, I broke out my old GTech Pro. However I was unable to lock-on to an rpm signal when connected to the power outlets due to BMW doing such a good job filtering the noise. So I cludged together a way to power the GTech from the battery and got a crystal clear rpm signal.

Then I found a local car whose owner has a BT and a JBD that is modified for in-cab adjustability.

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=573553

Last night was near perfect conditions. 70F and no wind. Said vehicle had just completed a DPF regen and had a full tank of fuel. The D is supposed to weight ~3804 lbs according to insideline (http://www.insideline.com/bmw/3-series/2009/2009-bmw-335d-full-test.html) and with the driver and some items in the trunk it would be total ~4000 lbs.

The runs below are with the JBD at 0, 1 switch thrown (~65%), both switches thrown (~85%).

Procedure was over the same stretch of flat road (interstate), gently accelerating in 1st to 2nd then getting into 3rd gear before giving it the fuel, then letting up at ~80mph so I didn't run the risk of loosing my license if . . .

The numbers include not only loss of the tranny and tires, like a rolling dyno, but also the loss due to wind resistance. Looks like the Cd and A for the e90 is 0.26 and 2.17m^2. Using this (http://www.gtechprosupport.com/support/AeroDragCalc.php) says that at 80mph there's roughly 21 hp lost due to wind.

I'll post some of the BT data later of some runs that has some interesting data. Unfortunately it was trying to record too much data and the time steps between readings is larger than I'd like. But things like EGT's, DPF pressures, injection timing, etc are there.


----------



## cssnms (Jan 24, 2011)

TDIwyse said:


> So I'm not happy with the update rate on the Torque app for measuring HP/Torque numbers. And the Bavarian Technic ECM reported torque #'s appear to be based on calculations of other engine parameters (and it's update rate is pretty slow as well).
> 
> So, I broke out my old GTech Pro. However I was unable to lock-on to an rpm signal when connected to the power outlets due to BMW doing such a good job filtering the noise. So I cludged together a way to power the GTech from the battery and got a crystal clear rpm signal.
> 
> ...


Interesting... Nice charts. Are these figures suppose to be hp at the wheels? Results seem low or are the peak numbers taking into consideration wind resistance loss?


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

cssnms said:


> Interesting... Nice charts. Are these figures suppose to be hp at the wheels? Results seem low or are the peak numbers taking into consideration wind resistance loss?


Those include wind resistance losses, so they will be lower than a chassis dyno. And doing the runs in 3rd gear is a little less than desirable compared to a ~1:1 tranny ratio doable on a dyno. Wind drag for the e90 at 80mph is ~20 hp based on the Cd and frontal area of the vehicle. So at 85% of the JBD the pwr to the wheels in the 3rd gear pulls is probably somewhere in the ~253 + 20 ~273 hp region. Choose your drivetrain loss % to get to "crank". It's not exact, but gives a quantifiable comparison on the relative change in modifications. It's also closer to the likely uses I'm interested in (legal road speeds) as I don't expect to be traveling at max pwr rpm's in 4th or 5th anytime soon.

Now, here is some of the interesting stuff I haven't seen before . . . .

The BT was selected to "record" prior to the full fueling events and then stopped after the 3rd gear pull, but it was a little hard to do all this data recording and drive safely so it's not perfectly timed . . .

The DPF regen was prior to the runs. I'm showing that to compare exhaust temps to the runs. Temps during regens are significantly hotter than the hottest run with JBD at 85%. In fact, the highest exhaust temps with the JBD full fuel run are lower than I would've expected and seems to indicate, based on other modified diesel drivetrains I'm familiar with, there's more room for further fueling . . .

DPF restriction seems to be a non-issue at these hp levels.

JBD does not, as indicated by the designer, do much of anything to max boost levels.

The intercooler seems like it could be improved a bit? Interested in others opinion on this.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Forgot to mention the ECM calculated torque values. They seem to be based on something other than what is actually being developed by the vehicle in the modified state since they report nearly the same values in the 3 separate runs. I'm guessing it's using things like the rail pressure, injector opening times, boost, etc. to calculate those values. But that's a guess on my part.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

I forgot the main injection event data as well . . .


----------



## cssnms (Jan 24, 2011)

TDIwyse said:


> Those include wind resistance losses, so they will be lower than a chassis dyno. And doing the runs in 3rd gear is a little less than desirable compared to a ~1:1 tranny ratio doable on a dyno. Wind drag for the e90 at 80mph is ~20 hp based on the Cd and frontal area of the vehicle. So at 85% of the JBD the pwr to the wheels in the 3rd gear pulls is probably somewhere in the ~253 + 20 ~273 hp region. Choose your drivetrain loss % to get to "crank". It's not exact, but gives a quantifiable comparison on the relative change in modifications. It's also closer to the likely uses I'm interested in (legal road speeds) as I don't expect to be traveling at max pwr rpm's in 4th or 5th anytime soon.
> 
> Now, here is some of the interesting stuff I haven't seen before . . . .
> 
> ...


This is great information and even more so according to your interprutaion of the data. To be honest I am not 100% sure what I am looking at. Generally speaking I know what the logs represent, but I don't see a baseline to compare a stock log against a JBD log. An overlay comparing against a stock car would be helpful

How much hotter were the exhaust temps by comparision with a stock run full fuel?

I suspected these cars would benefit from additional cooling esp when running the JBD at the higher settings. I notice my car is more prone to heat soak esp during the summer months. Along with a larger intercooler a stock bumper would benefit from opening up the front bumper cover opening a bit to expose more of the IC. The Msport bumper provides a bit better cooling than the stock bumper.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

cssnms said:


> This is great information and even more so according to your interprutaion of the data. To be honest I am not 100% sure what I am looking at. Generally speaking I know what the logs represent, but I don't see a baseline to compare a stock log against a JBD log. An overlay comparing against a stock car would be helpful
> 
> How much hotter were the exhaust temps by comparision with a stock run full fuel?
> 
> I suspected these cars would benefit from additional cooling esp when running the JBD at the higher settings. I notice my car is more prone to heat soak esp during the summer months. Along with a larger intercooler a stock bumper would benefit from opening up the front bumper cover opening a bit to expose more of the IC. The Msport bumper provides a bit better cooling than the stock bumper.


Excellent point, as there isn't a baseline. I wasn't quite sure how successful this experiment was going to be. And I spent a lot of time fussing around trying to get the GTech to lock onto the rpm info. Building the harness and cables to connect to the battery, then getting it synched up took more time than I wanted. But it should be a fairly simple matter now to get that D and redo without JBD, then re-install and re-run in the various conditions. Just a matter of scheduling and having the appropriate environmental conditions. I'd also change the BT so it's not recording so much data so the updates will occur faster.


----------



## cssnms (Jan 24, 2011)

TDIwyse said:


> Excellent point, as there isn't a baseline. I wasn't quite sure how successful this experiment was going to be. And I spent a lot of time fussing around trying to get the GTech to lock onto the rpm info. Building the harness and cables to connect to the battery, then getting it synched up took more time than I wanted. But it should be a fairly simple matter now to get that D and redo without JBD, then re-install and re-run in the various conditions. Just a matter of scheduling and having the appropriate environmental conditions. I'd also change the BT so it's not recording so much data so the updates will occur faster.


Very much looking forward to seeing the JBD data up against stock baselines. Thanks for taking the time to do all of this. :thumbup:

One thing to keep in mind and you may already know this, but the JBD needs to be removed in order to get a stock baseline. The JBD set to 0 still adds more fuel increasing HP 15 - 20hps.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

This is also interesting. The elevated rail pressures for the full fueling runs over such a short time period seems to raising the fuel temps.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

cssnms said:


> Very much looking forward to seeing the JBD data up against stock baselines. Thanks for taking the time to do all of this. :thumbup:
> 
> One thing to keep in mind and you may already know this, but the JBD needs to be removed in order to get a stock baseline. The JBD set to 0 still adds more fuel increasing HP 15 - 20hps.


Yep. Thinking it would be best to do the stock run first, then on the side of the road install the JBD, set at 0, then progressively increase. It's kind of hot in there fussing around with the connectors so I'd prefer to do that sooner rather than later due to building of heat.

Doing all the runs in the same time frame, with the same tank of fuel, same environmental conditions would give the truest data. Otherwise just the fuel variation, fuel temps, air temps, etc. could skew the results. Especially this time of year when we're transitioning from winter to summer fuel blends.


----------



## cssnms (Jan 24, 2011)

TDIwyse said:


> This is also interesting. The elevated rail pressures for the full fueling runs over such a short time period seems to raising the fuel temps.


Where are fuel temps measured during fueling?


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

cssnms said:


> Where are fuel temps measured during fueling?


This is A fuel temp sensor, but I'm uncertain if it's THE sensor being logged. It probably is since there's such a direct and immediate relationship between the slope increase of the temp and the rail pressure peaks and that would indicate close proximity.

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts.do?model=VD71&mospid=49543&btnr=13_1149&hg=13&fg=10


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

The data seems to show similar delta's as these runs: http://www.burgertuning.com/images/JBD_dyno.jpg

And I see it wasn't stated specifically, but the plotted engine parameters correspond to the runs with the JBD at 0, ~65% and ~85%. This is why the parameters like the DPF differential pressure and EGT's for the three peaks are progressively increasing.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Got some more data.

Differences from last data: 67F with 6mph headwinds gusting to 12. The engine cover was off this time so the JBD could be installed after the stock runs. There was no DPF regen previous to runs, and less total time driving previous to runs. Less heat soak?... 

Due to time constraints the runs were: 1) stock 2) JBD 0 3) JBD ~65% (1 switch)

The interface for the GTech to a PC is serial to serial and I don't have a serial port on my home PC's so I'll have to wait 'til Monday to use my work PC to get the GTech graphs. But here's the peak #'s.

Stock ~210 hp 353 lb-ft
JBD 0 ~ 222 hp 367 lb-ft
JBD 65% ~ 240 hp 387 lb-ft

The fact that I'm using 3rd gear pulls and the runs happen so fast is likely why the low rpm #'s are lower than others who are reporting higher tq #'s using 4th or 5th gear pulls on a dyno.

Here's some of the DPF and EGT data for the runs.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Here's the GTech plots of stock vs JBD 0% vs JBD ~65%. The JBD runs were a bit higher hp than the previous ones for the same settings even with a bit of head wind. Think this is due to less heat soak from the DPF regen previous to the other runs. 

Also found this plot of the "actual" vs "calculated" rail pressure interesting. The previous data didn't show the the ECM recording less "actual" pressure at JBD ~65% but seemed like it was at the 85% level. But the time steps were more coarse on those runs so it's hard to see for sure. Wonder if since the fuel temps were also lower on these runs if the HPFP was having a more difficult time flowing enough fuel? And this might also be the reason some people throw codes at the higher settings as the difference between these two readings might exceed an acceptable margin.

P.S. I forgot to set the date/time on the GTech on all these data sets (each time you plug it in it comes up at its "default" date/time which is Jan 17, 2017 . . .).


----------



## cssnms (Jan 24, 2011)

The JBD throws codes because the ECU is being sent a signal that there is not enough rail pressure and hence a fuel pump problem (that is the code). Which makes sense knowing how the JBD operates. As one dials up the JBD, the ECU get a signal that even less fuel is being delivered which in-turn the ECU tells the fuel pump to pump more fuel to compensate. When limp mode/SES occurs in certain instances when the JBD is set at 100% or close to it a fail-safe is triggered to reduce power to the engine in response to what the ECU deems is likely a fuel pump failure.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

I'd love to have access to someone's car who has a BT and the Evolve or RENNtech tunes to compare the rail pressures, injector timing/openings, EGT's, etc. 

Any ideas on what limits the remap's pwr levels? Is it also rail pressure related due to flowing more fuel than the HPFP can feed?


----------



## cssnms (Jan 24, 2011)

TDIwyse said:


> I'd love to have access to someone's car who has a BT and the Evolve or RENNtech tunes to compare the rail pressures, injector timing/openings, EGT's, etc.
> 
> *Any ideas on what limits the remap's pwr levels? Is it also rail pressure related due to flowing more fuel than the HPFP can feed*?


Most of these tunes produce around the same amount of power (hp/torque) depending on which dyno plot you believe.

Regardless of the tune, most of the power is generated by adding more fuel, although some tunes claim to increase boost pressure too (Renntech, Evolve etc), it tends to be only a slight increase in this area. How the fuel is increased/delivered is what likely differentiates some of the tunes vs the JBD.

Many diesel tunes claim to remap the fuel injection timing, hence they increase the amount of fuel by increasing the number of times the fuel pump injects fuel under certain load conditions rather than just increasing fuel pump pressure across the board.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

My other common rail diesel's (Cummins, Liberty CRD) have used methods where they increase the duration of the main pulse (along with increase injection timing) as the main method to get more fuel. I actually prefer this method to the "box" type rail pressure only methods as it's substantially less stress on the injector bodies and HPFP. But you still get to a point where the HPFP can't maintain adequate pressure in the rail due to flow constraints. Hopefully that's not the common limitation in the JBD/Evolve/RENNtech setups. 

The exhaust temps and DPF restrictions don't seem to be limits from the data I'm seeing. Although as the DPF ages it might add more restriction. Also, in the X5 if you're towing into headwinds or going up mountains the EGT's would become substantially higher due to prolonged high demand situations. 

The intercooler seems like it could stand to be improved a bit as the the intake temps are increasing ~ >30C in a matter seconds.


----------



## cssnms (Jan 24, 2011)

TDIwyse said:


> My other common rail diesel's (Cummins, Liberty CRD) have used methods where they increase the duration of the main pulse (along with increase injection timing) as the main method to get more fuel. I actually prefer this method to the "box" type rail pressure only methods as it's substantially less stress on the injector bodies and HPFP. But you still get to a point where the HPFP can't maintain adequate pressure in the rail due to flow constraints. Hopefully that's not the common limitation in the JBD/Evolve/RENNtech setups.
> 
> The exhaust temps and DPF restrictions don't seem to be limits from the data I'm seeing. Although as the DPF ages it might add more restriction. Also, in the X5 if you're towing into headwinds or going up mountains the EGT's would become substantially higher due to prolonged high demand situations.
> 
> The intercooler seems like it could stand to be improved a bit as the the intake temps are increasing ~ >30C in a matter seconds.


All of these tunes require the fuel pump to perform double duty; now weather or not one method shortens the life of the pump anymore than the other is anyone's guess. The tuners claim their method is "safer" while the fuel box camp claim the tuners are full of it. I am of the mind-set that it is 6 of one, half a donzen of the other. That being said, I think anytime the ECU is in control vs being tricked into doing something else would be the preferred method.

The DPF has shown to be little if any restriction as evidenced by an E90Post member that removed his DPF and did not see any hp gain. In fact he reinstalled the DPF because he did not like the increase in soot. This also seems to be supported by an artcile I posted in my exhaust thread on cat back exhaust systems on turbo diesels.

I agree an IC would be a nice add, esp for those that have a tune. Anytime power is increased logic would dictate that temps increase, so one would think there would be a benefit to adding a more efficient IC, not much unlike the benefits the 335i owners see.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

TDIwyse said:


> Also found this plot of the "actual" vs "calculated" rail pressure interesting. The previous data didn't show the the ECM recording less "actual" pressure at JBD ~65% but seemed like it was at the 85% level. But the time steps were more coarse on those runs so it's hard to see for sure.


Well, was I wrong! I hadn't zoomed into the rail pressure data on the previous runs like I did on these recent runs. Here's the "actual" vs "calculated" rail pressure from the previous runs at 0, 65%, 85%. Even with the more coarse time intervals it's obvious that there's an increasing error going on. It seems the pressure relief valve is opening up and keeping the rail pressure in "safe" region even though the ECM thinks it's not making correct pressure.

A lot of the truck guys have in the past plugged the relief valve but this caused a lot of issues with cracked injector bodies. It's good to see this system has some built in protections.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Well, something like this Constant Pressure Relief Valve is a potential way forward other common rail applications have used. It's safer than plugging the PRV but still adds stress to the system.

http://www.dieselpowerproducts.com/...relief-valve-prv-03-07-59l-dodge-cummins.aspx


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

TDIwyse said:


> I'd love to have access to someone's car who has a BT and the Evolve or RENNtech tunes to compare the rail pressures, injector timing/openings, EGT's, etc.
> 
> Any ideas on what limits the remap's pwr levels? Is it also rail pressure related due to flowing more fuel than the HPFP can feed?


Caution: Do not read this if you are impulsive and lack self control.

Based on the things I saw from this (http://introductions.www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6767314&postcount=101) it appeared the limit to the present HP situation was not due to the HPFP.

So, the local vehicle above recently got an Evolve tune. This was somewhat of a gamble as they were not forthcoming on specific questions regarding what parameters they were manipulating to get the gains. Since the presently available "box" options mainly fool rail pressure it was hoped that the tunes were behaving in similar fashions to options from the other common rail vehicles that have been remapped and left the rail pressure alone &#8230;

Turns out that is indeed the case. A lot of the day was spent playing and collecting data. Lots of interesting data.

The Evolve tune appears to be making power by increasing the start of injection and increasing the length of time the injectors are open, as well as increasing boost. It is not increasing rail pressure above the stock 1600 bar. This is exactly what was hoped for.

Because the remap leaves the rail pressure alone, this opens the door for something the common rail truck crowd has done for a long time, which is stacking a pressure box with a timing/duration approach.

And the data shows the JBD plays with the remap. CAUTION: There's now enough low rpm fueling in some circumstances that you could likely break things. This likely eliminates most/all margin in the system. You are your own warranty station. It is not BMW or anyone else's fault if you doing something that breaks things . . .

Now, if one was so inclined to continue down this path here's what you might expect.

The testing ground changed from the above Gtech data to a more isolated place with flatter, smoother roads and mature forests on each side of the road (great wind blocks). On this new location the recorded baseline JBD #'s are a bit lower than above. There was some previously recorded data from a similar day (where initial low level methanol/water injection was being examined) as today that will be used as the pre-remap baseline and labeled as JBD 85%. Also the previous JBD alone data was with a freshly regenerated DPF and today's data is with a DPF approaching a new regen cycle. However, since it's a different day with different fuel in the tank and a different DPF situation a 1:1 comparison is impossible. However, it was within ~6 F temps and very similar wind conditions. Since the Gtech utilizes a Serial port interface and none of my home PC's have one (they're all USB and the serial to USB device I bought doesn't work) it will have to wait until after Monday (when I return to work to use my PC there which has a serial port) for the graphs.

But here's the summation of the hp/tq #'s. The JBD @ ~85% produced similar TQ #'s as the remap, but a bit better HP. Now it might be that the tank of Illinois fuel in the vehicle has lower cetane or BTU's than what was in the vehicle for the previous tests. Don't have a way to test that.

After analyzing the BT data and seeing how the remap worked the owner decided to try the JBD with the remap. This is were things got interesting. On the same day, with the same fuel, with the same temps, with the same testing procedure, the data shows the JBD produced similar delta-HP number increases above the remap as the above data for comparisons of stock vs. JBD. For this test the full fueling was specifically held off at low rpm's to minimize strain on the tranny. This was tested at JBD 0% and with one switch thrown so the JBD was at 65%. 85% was not tested as the BT data needed to be analyzed to see how EGT's and DPF pressures were doing. The 65% JBD setting produced ~30hp on top of the remap and more torque even with careful low rpm fueling. CAUTION: Full fueling with this combo with a locked up torque converter at low rpm's could be detrimental to the health of your vehicle.

So, here's some of the interesting BT data (the hp/tq curves will need to wait 'til I get to work and download the data on the serial port). Note: the JBD only at ~85% were taken with a slightly slower sample rate so it's a bit "compressed" compared to the other data, and also with a freshly regenerated DPF. I tried to cut the data samples for the comparison at the same time the dyno plots (should show up after Monday).

Comments: The remap increases the boost over stock and JBD (which doesn't do anything for boost as the manufacturer states). This appears to help the EGTs (post turbo) #'s. Also, interestingly, the Intake Air Temps for more power a slightly lower with the remap and stacked vs JBD alone.

The JBD at high settings does appear to increase the main injection pulse width and increases the injection timing slightly. But not as much as the remap.

Stacking the JBD with the remap, in my opinion, is showing that it works quite well for these initial tests. The IAT's are lower for more hp (due perhaps to the extra boost). The EGT's are (537C is under 1000F) still in a reasonable area, especially for short durations (see this thread for one of hundreds of example discussions: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=206994). However, if one were to to be at cruising situation at low rpm's with the torque converter locked up and you applied full fuel then this combination could cause negative consequences. Please be cautious with the information and don't do anything stupid.

Having the JBD respond with an additional input from the engine rpm would be ideal. That way it could be held off at low rpm and given some leash at high rpm to make more of a flat torque curve across the rpm range.

Enjoy!


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

One of the plots didn't upload . . . this is the time of the main injection pulse * the injection angel (start of injection). Kind of a way to show the impact of increased duration and timing. Since the JBD fools the ECM into making more pressure, for those situations where the JBD is utilized, for the same injector opening duration, more fuel goes in due to the rail being at higher pressures.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Well, needed to run some errands so I stopped off and downloaded some data.

This is one of the best of the remap only runs (pwr results varied from ~224-230 on multiple runs) compared to the single runs of the remap w JBD at 0% and 65%.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

A couple more pulls were performed after getting some local fuel back in the tank (~1/2 tank added after long drive the previous night). Think the other fuel was less than optimum based on these results.

Temp was more than 10F warmer than previous testing. Below shows comparisons of the remap stacked with JBD at 0 and ~65%. The "Main" and Run 1 are 0%, Runs 2/3 are 65%. Again, was being careful not to give full fuel at low rpm's . . .

Also showing some of the "speed" data which is interesting. For these 3rd gear pulls the full fueling is occuring between ~45-75mph. The 50-70 times are thus right in the main thrust of the test. The reported times are nice.

Also, still not seeing any engine parameters that are over stressed. Although the pulls happen so fast that this is somewhat expected. If you were continuing this kind of stress (towing or racing for example) it would likely be a much different story.


----------



## Concentric190 (Mar 15, 2007)

this is some very interesting data. I'd really like to see what these tranny's can be pushed to.


----------



## hotrod2448 (Jun 2, 2007)

Thanks for gathering all this data. To avoid making potentially wrong assumptions on this chart which run is which? Also, I didn't see the info in there and maybe you don't want to disclose it out of courtesy to Evolve but, would you mind throwing up a plot of stock boost and remap boost vs. RPM? If not that's cool too but, could you at least clarify if it is a significant increase in boost or only a few PSI? I'm not sure if using that low of a gear will even give accurate boost numbers but, I just like to see data.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

The owner has had some interaction with Evolve and they haven***8217;t said to not share any of this info. They, by the way, have been good to work with. Same for VS. And to be clear, they do not recommend stacking the JBD on top of their tune.

The boost info is back here: http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6870998&postcount=49

The JBD run is the same boost as stock. It does not touch boost (one of the previous posts has stock/JBD and verifies that). These numbers are absolute pressure (normal atmosphere + boost). Converting hPa to PSI and subtracting 1 atmosphere brings the numbers to ~ 26psi stock and 30psi remap.

The BT data is on a different computer and it can be plotted vs rpm. Will try to do that tonight. But the boost response is unbelievably fast and occurs right away even at low rpm***8217;s. Most likely due to how BMW has executed the twin turbo setup. Just lovely.

I agree the naming of the Gtech data has been poor. When the Gtech gets powered up it defaults to Jan 17 2017 and the time seems to be random. And I haven***8217;t been good at going in and re-formating the dates/times/conditions etc . . . I tried to correct that starting on post 52 which shows multiple runs with the remap and JBD stack. The plot you showed is Run1 = Evolve (2nd best of multiple runs), Run 2 Evolve+JBD 0% (only 1 run on this combo that day), Run 3 Evolve + JBD 65% (only 1 run on this combo and the last run).

A note on the Gtech data. It includes more losses than a 2 wheel dyno: 4 wheels are turning instead of 2 (more rolling resistance), wind losses (~20 hp at top end of run based on Cd and frontal area), and the pulls are in 3rd gear so there's more drivetrain loss than a ~1:1 gear ratio). And it's subject to variations due to road surface roughness, flatness, the accuracy of the weight, etc . . . But it's been very usefull over the years for testing relative impacts of mods.

From the Gtech data that***8217;s been gathered it appears the remap is acting similar to the JBD at ~65% but with better EGT***8217;s and IAT***8217;s and lower peak rail pressures. The remap with JBD at 0% is similar to the JBD at the max before it throws a limp mode.

Oh, and the owners reported hand calculated mileage for the last two fillups with the remap covering ~300+ mls, including all these full fueling runs, has averaged 39.2 mpg. This is at least 5% better than pre map for similar driving conditions.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Here's an example of the remap boost response. The BT sample rate is only about once per second. The "torque" value is from the ECU "Internally Calculated Torque". This is included to show when the full fueling hits. So somewhere between 1787 and 2251 rpm's (that's the limit on the time step resolution for the BT data) the boost is already at its max value. 

If Evolve would like all this info removed it will be done. However this type of data would seem to be valuable for an informed decision . . .


----------



## hotrod2448 (Jun 2, 2007)

TDIwyse said:


> One of the plots didn't upload . . . this is the time of the main injection pulse * the injection angel (start of injection). Kind of a way to show the impact of increased duration and timing. Since the JBD fools the ECM into making more pressure, for those situations where the JBD is utilized, for the same injector opening duration, more fuel goes in due to the rail being at higher pressures.


So being new to diesel tuning, I'm assuming injection angle references crank position and by beginning injection earlier is not only adding fuel by increasing duty cycle but, it is also similar to adding ignition timing in a gasoline motor, right?

My next question is do we know if the ECU has some type of detonation protection that retards injection timing like a gas car would pull ignition timing if something were to see ridiculously high loads or something go wrong?


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

hotrod2448 said:


> So being new to diesel tuning, I'm assuming injection angle references crank position and by beginning injection earlier is not only adding fuel by increasing duty cycle but, it is also similar to adding ignition timing in a gasoline motor, right?
> 
> My next question is do we know if the ECU has some type of detonation protection that retards injection timing like a gas car would pull ignition timing if something were to see ridiculously high loads or something go wrong?


This place has some good info on tuning turbo direct injected engines and what's involved. It goes into injection timing, boost, EGT's, etc.

http://www.myturbodiesel.com/1000q/TDI-power-mods-chip-tune.htm

Yes, the injection angle data is for the "main" injection event. Up to a point, increasing the start of injection can improve thermal efficiency, power, at the expense of some emissions like NOx.

The car actually has 5 injections it uses. 2 "pre" injections, 1 "main", and 2 "post" events. The "pre" injections tend to fall off and stop at higher rpm's. The "post" events seem to mainly be used for DPF regens to maintain the correct temp in the burn-off. Interestingly I was once driving my car in a heavy downpour on the interstate when it tried to execute a DPF regen. Based on watching the EGR rate and instantaneous mpg gauge it was unable to do it correctly and kept trying for over an over until I reached my destination. Next time it got drove the weather was dry and it immediately went into regen mode and completed successfully. Worst mpg tank by far. This is something to consider if people start venturing into water injection stuff . . .


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Some interesting data collected today on a local 335d with an Evolve remap stacked with JBD on 0 and post IC/pre IAT water/methanol injection. Temps were 98F and ~41% Relative Humidity. Setup utilized a 200psi pump, 550ml/min nozzle, -20F washer fluid (~30% Methanol/70% water), and a Snow 0-5V MAF based controller fed with the MAP sensor. The Map sensor puts out ~1-5V based on intake pressure so the injection response is boost-based, even though it‘s using a MAF controller.

Very significant impact to intake temps during full fuel runs, as well as significantly reduced temp recovery time post runs. Also good impact to HP based on OBD acceleration data and Gtech results (will try to post Gtech plots tomorrow). Max EGT’s measured were 544C with and 537F without injection. Still well below temps seen during DPF regens.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Here's the plots. Was careful at low rpm's and didn't start full fuel until just above 2k on the rpm's. Kind of neat how around the same rpm point that the IAT's in the plots above start to diverge (injection starts), so too the HP diverges. Not a substantially higher amount of HP at these settings, but a lot more area under the curve.

From the looks of the recorded data at these hot conditions, and the safe readings on the EGT's, DPF pressures, etc. it looks like there's more room. . .


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Hmmm, perhaps I can clear up some potential area's where the data, or presentation of the data, wasn't clear.

Important points: The best comparisons of various combo's will come from looking at the data collected on the same day with the same fuel and at the same ambient temps on the same roads with the same winds and same DPF loading and same heat soaked engine conditions (before the H2O/methanol injection this aspect had more effect and could skew results ~10hp). That's a lot of different variables right there even before looking at the different power adder combo's. And there's a lot of different combo's in this thread.

So, the post with the first quote above (page 2 post #27) was with 70F and no wind, stock vehicle with the JBD at 0, ~65 and ~85%. Those results were ~214, 237, 253 hp and 363, 378, 402 ft-lb. No comparison without the JBD.

Post #40/41 shows a comparison of stock vs JBD at 0 and 65%. These were done back to back, so relative to each other they should be pretty close, but not necessarily a great comparison to the post #27 data. This comparison showed ~209, 221, 241hp and 351, 368, 381 lb-ft (slightly more than the #27 data for the JBD at 0 and 65). So the JBD at 0 seemed to add ~12 hp above stock and the JBD at 65% added ~32hp with the GTech hp/tq measurement on this day.

Post #49 starts with the Evolve evaluation. There's several caveat's given for why direct comparisons's to previous data needs to be considered. The general summation I gave was this: "But here’s the summation of the hp/tq #’s. The JBD @ ~85% produced similar TQ #’s as the remap, but a bit better HP. Now it might be that the tank of Illinois fuel in the vehicle has lower cetane or BTU’s than what was in the vehicle for the previous tests. Don’t have a way to test that. "

On this same post it's noted that the stack of the Evolve remap with the JBD at 65% produced ~30hp increase over the remap alone. The curves on post #51 (the tq curves for the remap/JBD stack are not accurate due to not giving full fuel at low rpm's to avoid excessive low rpm torque) show ~ 33.5 hp increase for ~65% and just a few hp for the 0%. However, the remap only data was from a different day/fuel/temp/etc, so an absolute comparison isn't valid. However, what is valid to say is the delta increase of the remap with the JBD follows a very similar trend as that from post #41.

The last quote you put up is from post #52 and includes #'s from post #51 as well as #'s from a different day/fuel/environment condition. The new data showed ~19hp increase from the 0-65% JBD setting instead of the ~30hp from previous data groups. However it was a warmer day and heat soak could've been involved in skewing those #'s for the 65% test, which was performed a few mins after the 0% run.

Clear as mud?


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Also noticed something interesting on the launch data from this weekend. Comparing the HP vs time data to the RPM vs time data, it appears to me the optimum time to do the 2-3 shift is ~ 4300rpm, which is before the car shifts itself (hp is droping fast at the 3.1 sec point but the shift doesn't happen until ~3.6 sec). Also note how much less peak hp is applied to the ground in 2nd than 3rd (more drivetrain loss due to fluid coupling of the TC, and then it locks up in 3rd, might be less boost in 2nd also, haven't looked at that).

The driver was letting up on the skinny pedal at ~4400 rpm at the end of the 3rd gear range which is why the HP is falling off at time ~6.4 sec. However, it might also prove beneficial to do the 3-4 shift a little earlier as well...


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

Did some experimenting with drag slicks yesterday. Significantly easier to control the launch with these and much better 60' and 0-60mph times. Attached is a comparison of 2 of the better street tire launches vs the 2 runs performed with the DR's. Looks like the initial brake boosted rpm's could be increased further and the rate of moving the skinny pedal to the floor could be increased for further improvement.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7147159&postcount=33

Broke into the 12.6's with a trap speed of 109.7 today.


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

An oil sample was pulled this weekend to examine impact of stacked tunes with water/methanol injection. This oil was Mobil 1 5w-40 ESP and had ~6700 mls on it. Seems pretty good.


----------



## 62Lincoln (Sep 26, 2004)

Are you using the Castrol from the dealer?


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

62Lincoln said:


> Are you using the Castrol from the dealer?


Dealer supplied oil for all but the last one. Did a mid-cycle change over to the Mobil 1 5w-40 ESP for the hot summer months.


----------

