Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 136

Thread: E39 540i Me7.2 DME Tuning shenanigans and findings

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Ashgabat
    Posts
    827
    My Cars
    e36 v8 Turbo HX-40
    Hi Gents, glad to see all BMW wolfs here. Good thread which I've been researching years ago. Hope you are the success on that.
    From my experience, I decided never tune OEM ECU due to waste money. Even companies with huge experience (do not want to show name) in tuning can easily burn your engine. I do not know why but, OEM ECU has a very poor Engine protection system (I assume it has, somewhere deep inside) which never prevent engine failure such as cut fuel at least. Sensors such as Engine temperatures, knocking, RPM and etc can give sufficient info to analyze that something goes wrong, but our oem ECU is ignoring them or does not understand.
    e39 540i 6speed Supercharged,
    E36 v8 m62 with m60 headers, Turbp HX-40 0.6-0.5bar or 9psi, custom exhaust & Turbo manifold, injectors 440cc, ECU Invent EMS-2, Mishimoto Intercooler and oilcooler, etc…

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Ashgabat
    Posts
    827
    My Cars
    e36 v8 Turbo HX-40
    Quote Originally Posted by zarboz View Post
    If I may inquire, What management system did you use on the m62tu? I am also curious why you chose X system. (what features made it the choice for you?)
    I googled the Invent EMS-2 and it looks to be all in Cyrillic / Russian

    There is TONS of data for protection methods within the DME I just think that some of those items get "bypassed" in common tunes

    I am hoping soon I can obtain the full functionsrahmen and with that there will be a deeper understanding of what protection programs are available if any to manipulate parameters of
    For my e39 m62b44tu, I used OEM ECU tunned by most famous Tuning companies. I had many problems with them starting from sending me the wrong tools and etc. Even they tunned my car not as per my description sent to them many time. Never mind, it passed story and lessen and learn for me.

    My current ECU is working perfect, even I try many times burn my engine but good thing it is protecting it. Why I tried to burn? That is another story, I just wanted to check the limits of my engine. So, it is holding 1 bar perfectly but time 100-200kmh is not changed in comparing to 0.5bar boost. I assume it is due to limits of cams. Yes, it is for Russian native people, but I think they have a manual in English as well. It has all futures as standalone and manages perfectly if your inputs are correct.

    I agree with you that there are a lot of features to protect the engine in OEM ECU, and BMW engineers should not be stupid guys. But, I think, that they never consider tones of power will be applied to the engine where ECU should react as fast as possible.

    So, I hope you are the success on your doings and many guys can be benefited from your doings soon, but something inside me telling that soon, you will be converted to Dark side and start use Stand Alone. It is awesome to make changes in fueling, ignition, RPM, & etc any time you want. Also, my car is now using Injectors from toyota for 620cc, coils from toyota, wastegait regulator from toyota and many parts from different cars. That also one more benefit of Stand Alone.

    I think I should stop here because it will never end.
    e39 540i 6speed Supercharged,
    E36 v8 m62 with m60 headers, Turbp HX-40 0.6-0.5bar or 9psi, custom exhaust & Turbo manifold, injectors 440cc, ECU Invent EMS-2, Mishimoto Intercooler and oilcooler, etc…

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    DeWitt, Michigan
    Posts
    5,963
    My Cars
    '97 540i/6, '97 328i

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    2,901
    My Cars
    '97 523i5 - 99' 540iA
    Dovlet, I hear your frustration. The Me7.x isn't a bad management per se, it never got the developement it did with other platforms, such as the MS41.x or MSS54 or such because of the limited lifespan it got and the limited platforms that used it for management (540i TU - 740i TU - X5 4.4 M62 - Some Alpinas)

    Regarding your particular issue with FI and increase in boost not correlating to actual measurable improvements, it has nothing to do with standalone vs. OEM engine management. As a matter of fact I think your wild integration of parts, combined with the fact that you're also using a non standard ECU with other sensors are the culprit of you not being able to pinpoint what causes your engine to "peak out" at performance with such an increase in boost.
    Some cars just resist going to the grave.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    DeWitt, Michigan
    Posts
    5,963
    My Cars
    '97 540i/6, '97 328i
    Quote Originally Posted by jicaino View Post
    Regarding your particular issue with FI and increase in boost not correlating to actual measurable improvements, it has nothing to do with standalone vs. OEM engine management. As a matter of fact I think your wild integration of parts, combined with the fact that you're also using a non standard ECU with other sensors are the culprit of you not being able to pinpoint what causes your engine to "peak out" at performance with such an increase in boost.
    Similar to Dov's experiences, I found that after a relatively low boost level, I had trouble continuing to produce additional power commensurate to the increased boost level. I also surmised it was because of cams.

    His .5bar to 1bar comparison definitely strikes a chord with me. Although I was able to add power all the way up to at least 18psi (~1.3bar), the power gains above .5bar were diminishing returns for sure, where others using the same turbo I was using on LS engines were showing good gains if they had moved to a longer duration camshaft. If they had stuck with a stock "truck cam" or something, their power output wasn't too far off from what I was making.

    Also similar to Dov, I did find that the DME M5.2 tried to kill my turbocharged M62 on several occasions by randomly adding timing advance and pulling fuel pulsewidth during conditions of boost. Luckily I was always logging with Pheno's excellent "TestO" program, so when I would feel the power lay over, I could go back and look at the logs to see what happened.

    My feeling is that for the people currently using the M5.2/M5.21, and the ME7.2, the tables just aren't sufficiently identified for us to know what tables might be doing some modification function that we aren't currently understanding, and that is probably where this odd behavior originates. Zarboz is doing such stellar work with this project, that I suspect he may actually crack the nut similarly to how it has been done with the MS4x DMEs.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    DeWitt, Michigan
    Posts
    5,963
    My Cars
    '97 540i/6, '97 328i
    I think that is a very plausible/likely cause of some of the difficulty. It would operate in such a way that would feel "random" in boost, and it would probably do things like I experienced. Engine killing things...

    Conversely, the more linear onset of boost experienced by the centricharger guys wouldn't be so likely to trigger torque management strategies, and would explain why even Chris doesn't have some of these problems while he is actually making more power than I was.

    Also potentially relevant to this discussion, there is a hard-coded load limit in the MS41.1 DME that is a bit of a problem for turbo guys, especially the guys will small, responsive turbos. When I was last dealing with the RomRaider stuff on the 41.1, there was no known answer to that limit, so it was necessary to scale down the signal from the MAF to avoid the load limit.

    For anyone who isn't familiar, the total airmass/airflow that is measured by the MAF is very much connected to the power the engine is making. The calculated load on the other hand is basically airmass*5250/RPM. In other words, load equates closely to torque. So when a turbo spools up to high boost at low RPM, the load(torque) that results is very high.
    Last edited by tptrsn; 04-03-2019 at 02:33 PM.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    DeWitt, Michigan
    Posts
    5,963
    My Cars
    '97 540i/6, '97 328i
    Looks like you and I were posting some stuff at the same time that kind of relates to each other to some degree... I think you're on the right track!

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lansdale, Pa
    Posts
    5,914
    My Cars
    98 540 6, SC'ed, 16psi
    This is getting interesting.
    98 540i 6, 525 whp, 120 mph 1/4, V3 Si S/C'er @16 psi, W/A I/C, Water/Meth, Supersprint, HJS, 3" Ex, UUC Twin Disc, Wavetrac LSD, AEM FP, Aeromotive FPR, AEM Failsafe AFR/Boost, 65's w/275's, M5 Box, Eibach, M3 Shifter, Evans, 85 Deg Stat, PWM Fan, 10" Subs, B.A. speakers, Grom Aux/BT, Still Rolling as my DD!

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    2,901
    My Cars
    '97 523i5 - 99' 540iA
    Probably for a setup like Dovlet's or tptrsn's the alpha-n thing is best way to avoid engine kill measures by DME. I believe the DME torque/speed sensing of the drivetrain also accounts for the hard downwhift to 1st. when coing to a sudden stop after initiating and aborting a hard launch and other stuff like that.
    Have you found code tables for DSC that could be "ironed out", as in removing the DSC if you were inclined?
    Some cars just resist going to the grave.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    10
    My Cars
    2002 x5 4.6is alpina
    New member, first post. I am deep into a x5 project and seem to be pretty lonely in what I am doing. This thread has brought me some good needed info but I am still curious and hopefully I can get some help from y'all.

    I have a 2002 x5 4.6is. Manual swapped with a 6spd out of a 540. One peice driveshaft, reinforced rear subframe and custom trans crossmember. All the "hard" work is done. Now I am onto getting the computer to think it's a manual and non x drive.

    Also, trying to decide if I should continue with my fi plans with my vs7875 billet turbo. Only way I will stick with the turbo plans is if I can use the stock pcm. I do not wanna standalone and deal with other issues involved with that.

    Again so sorry if this is the incorrect place for this. Kind of a 2 part.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Ashgabat
    Posts
    827
    My Cars
    e36 v8 Turbo HX-40
    Quote Originally Posted by tptrsn View Post
    Similar to Dov's experiences, I found that after a relatively low boost level, I had trouble continuing to produce additional power commensurate to the increased boost level. I also surmised it was because of cams.

    His .5bar to 1bar comparison definitely strikes a chord with me. Although I was able to add power all the way up to at least 18psi (~1.3bar), the power gains above .5bar were diminishing returns for sure, where others using the same turbo I was using on LS engines were showing good gains if they had moved to a longer duration camshaft. If they had stuck with a stock "truck cam" or something, their power output wasn't too far off from what I was making.

    Also similar to Dov, I did find that the DME M5.2 tried to kill my turbocharged M62 on several occasions by randomly adding timing advance and pulling fuel pulsewidth during conditions of boost. Luckily I was always logging with Pheno's excellent "TestO" program, so when I would feel the power lay over, I could go back and look at the logs to see what happened.

    My feeling is that for the people currently using the M5.2/M5.21, and the ME7.2, the tables just aren't sufficiently identified for us to know what tables might be doing some modification function that we aren't currently understanding, and that is probably where this odd behavior originates. Zarboz is doing such stellar work with this project, that I suspect he may actually crack the nut similarly to how it has been done with the MS4x DMEs.
    Bro, you really had the same issue? I wanted to play with my cams, but I was not a success. So, that means no need future modes until I replace my cams. Also, I retarded my intakes to increase my dynamic compression but, does not help. Then only cams mods.
    e39 540i 6speed Supercharged,
    E36 v8 m62 with m60 headers, Turbp HX-40 0.6-0.5bar or 9psi, custom exhaust & Turbo manifold, injectors 440cc, ECU Invent EMS-2, Mishimoto Intercooler and oilcooler, etc…

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    10
    My Cars
    2002 x5 4.6is alpina
    Quote Originally Posted by zarboz View Post
    There is a decent amount so far of mapped out items for turbo it sounds like as some of the members here experienced we probably dont know ENOUGH YET to use the stock DME for turbo boosting until there is some tuning / real world testing
    Thanks for the reply! I am trying to discover my way around the forums and havente quite found anything yet. I'm confident I can resolve the rwd 6speed issues with ncs or inpa. But I may have to reevaluate turbo till I can grab a ms3 box.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    DeWitt, Michigan
    Posts
    5,963
    My Cars
    '97 540i/6, '97 328i
    Quote Originally Posted by jicaino View Post
    Probably for a setup like Dovlet's or tptrsn's the alpha-n thing is best way to avoid engine kill measures by DME.
    From what I have learned over the years, Alpha-N is not a workable solution for a turbo setup, because of the abrupt non-liniarity in the way the load builds. It's good for a rowdy N/A setup, or a centrifugal supercharger setup, where the load builds in a way that is very predictable from throttle position and engine speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by dovlet View Post
    Bro, you really had the same issue? I wanted to play with my cams, but I was not a success. So, that means no need future modes until I replace my cams. Also, I retarded my intakes to increase my dynamic compression but, does not help. Then only cams mods.
    I believe yes. I didn't move my cam timing around or anything like you did, but I definitely got to a point where it "felt" to me like I just wasn't able to move more air efficiently through the engine by using more boost. I considered that possibly the turbo just needed to be bigger again to be efficient at that power level through a 4.4L, but since there were plenty of people making more power on different engines with the same turbo, I decided most likely I just needed more aggressive cams.

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobryan94 View Post
    Thanks for the reply! I am trying to discover my way around the forums and havente quite found anything yet. I'm confident I can resolve the rwd 6speed issues with ncs or inpa. But I may have to reevaluate turbo till I can grab a ms3 box.
    Saw your comment on my video last night while I was out fabricating the oil system for my ridiculous new turbo setup (on my E36 with LS truck engine), and I saw that zarboz directed you in the right direction!

    To be honest, I think it would be amazing for the E39 community, and other bimmers with V8s and ME7.2s, for you guys to be able to really get a hold of the DME programming. There is no doubt that it is possible. But it's a big job, for people that are true gearheads and really like real life automotive puzzles.

    My additional comment to you would be that it's my understanding that the 4.6L you have can move a lot more air than my M62b44 could. For that reason, if it were me undertaking your project, I would be looking at a bigger turbo than the 7875. Assuming that there was a way for me to make it fit..... In the E39, space was extremely hard to come by, so I had big trouble with anything physically larger than the 7875, so for me the next step might have been something like the 8883. Physically similar externally but flows more air, albeit not the most modern turbo/wheels. That turbo on your engine should be a BEAST. If you have enough room, you could look at something like the 80mm T6 with the large turbine wheel. That's a nice turbo, but physically massive.

    The other big issue I see for you might be limitation of available clutches at reasonable prices. Assuming you have an M62/S62 style flywheel on your 4.6, the diameter of the clutch is limited by the need to fit inside of the trigger wheel on the flywheel. This limits the torque capacity of the clutch that can be easily achieved, and pushes you toward really aggressive single discs (that are still hard to come by), or ungodly expensive twin discs that will still potentially not make the cut when stressed by the combination of torque and weight you will be up against. Of course, this is another reason to bias your build toward a larger turbo, so you can push it toward high end horsepower -- LOTS OF IT -- and somewhat push it away from making a huge lump of low end torque.

    One thing I almost tried was to use an M60 crank trigger wheel on the snout of my M62 crank. No problem with MS3, but could be an issue with the factory DME.... Not sure. Most likely would be a big problem though. Anyway, I have one for sale if anyone wants it.

    Just throwing some thoughts out there!

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    10
    My Cars
    2002 x5 4.6is alpina
    Quote Originally Posted by tptrsn View Post
    From what I have learned over the years, Alpha-N is not a workable solution for a turbo setup, because of the abrupt non-liniarity in the way the load builds. It's good for a rowdy N/A setup, or a centrifugal supercharger setup, where the load builds in a way that is very predictable from throttle position and engine speed.



    I believe yes. I didn't move my cam timing around or anything like you did, but I definitely got to a point where it "felt" to me like I just wasn't able to move more air efficiently through the engine by using more boost. I considered that possibly the turbo just needed to be bigger again to be efficient at that power level through a 4.4L, but since there were plenty of people making more power on different engines with the same turbo, I decided most likely I just needed more aggressive cams.



    Saw your comment on my video last night while I was out fabricating the oil system for my ridiculous new turbo setup (on my E36 with LS truck engine), and I saw that zarboz directed you in the right direction!

    To be honest, I think it would be amazing for the E39 community, and other bimmers with V8s and ME7.2s, for you guys to be able to really get a hold of the DME programming. There is no doubt that it is possible. But it's a big job, for people that are true gearheads and really like real life automotive puzzles.

    My additional comment to you would be that it's my understanding that the 4.6L you have can move a lot more air than my M62b44 could. For that reason, if it were me undertaking your project, I would be looking at a bigger turbo than the 7875. Assuming that there was a way for me to make it fit..... In the E39, space was extremely hard to come by, so I had big trouble with anything physically larger than the 7875, so for me the next step might have been something like the 8883. Physically similar externally but flows more air, albeit not the most modern turbo/wheels. That turbo on your engine should be a BEAST. If you have enough room, you could look at something like the 80mm T6 with the large turbine wheel. That's a nice turbo, but physically massive.

    The other big issue I see for you might be limitation of available clutches at reasonable prices. Assuming you have an M62/S62 style flywheel on your 4.6, the diameter of the clutch is limited by the need to fit inside of the trigger wheel on the flywheel. This limits the torque capacity of the clutch that can be easily achieved, and pushes you toward really aggressive single discs (that are still hard to come by), or ungodly expensive twin discs that will still potentially not make the cut when stressed by the combination of torque and weight you will be up against. Of course, this is another reason to bias your build toward a larger turbo, so you can push it toward high end horsepower -- LOTS OF IT -- and somewhat push it away from making a huge lump of low end torque.

    One thing I almost tried was to use an M60 crank trigger wheel on the snout of my M62 crank. No problem with MS3, but could be an issue with the factory DME.... Not sure. Most likely would be a big problem though. Anyway, I have one for sale if anyone wants it.

    Just throwing some thoughts out there!
    Wow! Thanks for the awesome knowledge, and thanks for bringing me into your thread without criticism. I myself also have a 99 grand Cherokee on 12bolt/Dana 44 axles and 35s. 5.3, th350, np205 gear drive tcase. Runs like a dream. Had the 7875 on it for a bit and it just wasn't useful on the woods so I went back to na. Turbos are not new to me. Done several ls turbo swaps. Bmws are not new to me at all either. They have always been my daily's/projects. But turbo BMW is new to me. My family owns a body shop and I am a fabricator, so my dad allows me to do what I please in my corner with whatever tools I require. So I have limitless opportunities to build. I have a lot of fun. I just lucked into this alpina and it has consumed me. I'm OBSESSED

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    DeWitt, Michigan
    Posts
    5,963
    My Cars
    '97 540i/6, '97 328i
    That's fantastic! With all of that in mind, I'm excited to see what you build!! I actually think the best approach would be to see if there's any way to shoehorn a TH400 in between the engine and transfer case (or better yet a 4L80e, but that will be tricky with the DME) so you can avoid clutch and trans trouble, and just concentrate on making power.

    The 4.6 has more cam and more valve spring than the M62b44, so you are a big step ahead by starting with it.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    10
    My Cars
    2002 x5 4.6is alpina
    Quote Originally Posted by tptrsn View Post
    That's fantastic! With all of that in mind, I'm excited to see what you build!! I actually think the best approach would be to see if there's any way to shoehorn a TH400 in between the engine and transfer case (or better yet a 4L80e, but that will be tricky with the DME) so you can avoid clutch and trans trouble, and just concentrate on making power.

    The 4.6 has more cam and more valve spring than the M62b44, so you are a big step ahead by starting with it.
    It is 6spd swapped. Trans out of a 540 v8. No tcase. Driveshaft is already made and installed. Clutch is installed. Interior is done. Crossmember is made to support 2wd swap. I broke apart the front CV shafts leaving me just the "stub" on the hub side and had the majority of it lathed off so it was out of the way. Had plates welded to the oil pan covering the axle provisions in the pan. It's a big project that I have spent about a year on. It drove around the lot then it started clicking. Found a broken chain guide. 85k miles, not being driven is harder on it than lots of miles. So right now it's in peices again sitting in my house garage. I just finished up my jeep axle swap so I am back at the x5 again. Wife says it has to be finished because she wants to drive it over her x3. (She says the x3 has crappy cup holders.....I think she just wants the alpina status)https://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5ca60ee8...171250_863.mp4

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    10
    My Cars
    2002 x5 4.6is alpina
    Also, it is retimed and ready to go back together. I'm just working over deciding to use this vs turbo or just leave it na and tune the crap out of it. 360hp rwd 6spd with 3.91 gears will be throaty.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    DeWitt, Michigan
    Posts
    5,963
    My Cars
    '97 540i/6, '97 328i
    Well, let's be honest. Even if you only run about 10psi through it from that VS7875 to favor the limited holding capacity of the clutch, you're going to be putting somewhere around 500hp to the wheels, and that will be amazing in an X5. What clutch are you running?

    The only question remaining is whether the mods will want you to make a build thread on this forum so we don't clutter up this thread much more, but keep you around for interaction in terms of the DME ME7.2? Seems like you definitely need to stay abreast of this thread in terms of the DME tuning, but your overall project is killer.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    10
    My Cars
    2002 x5 4.6is alpina
    Quote Originally Posted by tptrsn View Post
    Well, let's be honest. Even if you only run about 10psi through it from that VS7875 to favor the limited holding capacity of the clutch, you're going to be putting somewhere around 500hp to the wheels, and that will be amazing in an X5. What clutch are you running?

    The only question remaining is whether the mods will want you to make a build thread on this forum so we don't clutter up this thread much more, but keep you around for interaction in terms of the DME ME7.2? Seems like you definitely need to stay abreast of this thread in terms of the DME tuning, but your overall project is killer.
    Agreed. But my thread will be slow rolling and I may make people wonder if I am actually making progress I'm not the greatest at remembering to document anything. I'll PM you.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    121
    My Cars
    2000 540i
    the setting to disable knock adaptations has been located
    KRDWA Knock Control Adaptation to differential current ZW map

    SO you can make KRDWA small and if your knock tendancy reduces the adaptation map changes quickly
    I like to pretend I know stuff

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Ashgabat
    Posts
    827
    My Cars
    e36 v8 Turbo HX-40
    Quote Originally Posted by zarboz View Post
    the setting to disable knock adaptations has been located
    KRDWA Knock Control Adaptation to differential current ZW map

    SO you can make KRDWA small and if your knock tendancy reduces the adaptation map changes quickly
    Good job. I remember that there are hundreds of maps. Even base maps for fuelling are about 10 or even more. Based on infos it changes them. Toooooo complicated))))
    e39 540i 6speed Supercharged,
    E36 v8 m62 with m60 headers, Turbp HX-40 0.6-0.5bar or 9psi, custom exhaust & Turbo manifold, injectors 440cc, ECU Invent EMS-2, Mishimoto Intercooler and oilcooler, etc…

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    2,901
    My Cars
    '97 523i5 - 99' 540iA
    Quote Originally Posted by jacobryan94 View Post
    New member, first post. I am deep into a x5 project and seem to be pretty lonely in what I am doing. This thread has brought me some good needed info but I am still curious and hopefully I can get some help from y'all.

    I have a 2002 x5 4.6is. Manual swapped with a 6spd out of a 540. One peice driveshaft, reinforced rear subframe and custom trans crossmember. All the "hard" work is done. Now I am onto getting the computer to think it's a manual and non x drive.

    Also, trying to decide if I should continue with my fi plans with my vs7875 billet turbo. Only way I will stick with the turbo plans is if I can use the stock pcm. I do not wanna standalone and deal with other issues involved with that.

    Again so sorry if this is the incorrect place for this. Kind of a 2 part.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
    Maybe coding it as a 540i manual using the Alpina B10V8 M624.6TU maps written over the corresponding ECU latest flash., PM zarboz for details.

    Quote Originally Posted by zarboz View Post
    Here is what I added / did today.
    Fix offset: TLAFA time delay before driver requested lambda active. Already set to 0 on many files. On others, you may have to reduce it to get LAMFA to take effect in a timely manner.
    Fix offset: DSLOFS MAP pressure sensor offset
    Fix offset: RLSALUN Load threshold for shear detection for suppression of misfire detection
    Fix offset: TEMIN minimum injector on time
    Fix offset: FKKVS Correction factor for fuel supply system
    Fix offset: TVUB Injection time offset (compensate for injector latency)
    Fix offset: KFKHFM Correction map for MAF. Log STFTs at various part throttle positions, RPMs, inclines, and gears to determine where the MAF readings need tweaking. If you are using the stock MAF and intake system, you should not have to touch this.
    Fix offset: MLMAX maximum airflow
    Fix offset: KFMLDMX HFM threshhold for B_maxflr diagnosis
    Fix offset: KFZWOP Re-interpolate if you alter the KFMIOP load axis
    Fix offset: KFMIOP Optimal engine torque map
    Fix offset: TMNSMN
    Fix offset: TANSMN
    Fix offset: MLOFS MAF offset. For Bosch MAFs, it should be 200. For Hitachi, 0. Subtracted from the output of MLHFM.
    Fix offset: MLHFM Voltage to MAF conversion based on MAF sensor and housing diameter
    If I'm not asking for too much, could your "comb" thru the files I sent from the main original Alpina and the cloned DMEs and tell me what they look loke in those aspects? Whenever you've got any spare moment

    Quote Originally Posted by dovlet View Post
    Bro, you really had the same issue? I wanted to play with my cams, but I was not a success. So, that means no need future modes until I replace my cams. Also, I retarded my intakes to increase my dynamic compression but, does not help. Then only cams mods.
    I'm not sure your retardation of intake cams would be helpful on a boosted M62. I'd actually drop the dynamic compression ratio by offseting the exhaust cam a few degrees off centerline so the turbo can "fill in" better over a lower compression (dynamic compression) valve events. this may sound counterintuitive, but if your standalone is pulling timing because your increase in the dynamic compression ratio from retarding intake cams produces some detonation you're f**k'd. You'd be seeing more boost with the same or less compression ratio which means ignition could be kept at a higher level in a safer way, effectively producing more boost.

    Quote Originally Posted by zarboz View Post
    Found more settings today to disable motor slip regulation and the adaptation maps based on knock / torque request
    also found some of the anti judder stuff
    I am getting more excited the more stuff that gets mapped out.
    Ohhhh do tell, do tell!

    Quote Originally Posted by zarboz View Post
    Found some things pertaining to MSR (Motor Slip Regulation) and another setting to disable EGS failure mode
    This is critical, as the more power you're starting to make out of the M62, and removing the steptronic "safety override" of gear selection, you sometimes encounter logic fails between those ecus in some hard launch, hard cornering or some repeated tire rotational difference situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by zarboz View Post
    the setting to disable knock adaptations has been located
    KRDWA Knock Control Adaptation to differential current ZW map
    SO you can make KRDWA small and if your knock tendancy reduces the adaptation map changes quickly
    It's OK to clap hands and cheer out loud?

    Quote Originally Posted by dovlet View Post
    Good job. I remember that there are hundreds of maps. Even base maps for fuelling are about 10 or even more. Based on infos it changes them. Toooooo complicated))))
    Indeed too complicated, but now as more knowledgeable people is contributing we're making progress. Actually, JC and Bryan are making progresses and we're just slowing them down by having to explain to us some of the thigns they're finding. =)
    Some cars just resist going to the grave.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    10
    My Cars
    2002 x5 4.6is alpina
    Quote Originally Posted by jicaino View Post
    Maybe coding it as a 540i manual using the Alpina B10V8 M624.6TU maps written over the corresponding ECU latest flash., PM zarboz for details.



    If I'm not asking for too much, could your "comb" thru the files I sent from the main original Alpina and the cloned DMEs and tell me what they look loke in those aspects? Whenever you've got any spare moment


    I'm not sure your retardation of intake cams would be helpful on a boosted M62. I'd actually drop the dynamic compression ratio by offseting the exhaust cam a few degrees off centerline so the turbo can "fill in" better over a lower compression (dynamic compression) valve events. this may sound counterintuitive, but if your standalone is pulling timing because your increase in the dynamic compression ratio from retarding intake cams produces some detonation you're f**k'd. You'd be seeing more boost with the same or less compression ratio which means ignition could be kept at a higher level in a safer way, effectively producing more boost.


    Ohhhh do tell, do tell!


    This is critical, as the more power you're starting to make out of the M62, and removing the steptronic "safety override" of gear selection, you sometimes encounter logic fails between those ecus in some hard launch, hard cornering or some repeated tire rotational difference situations.


    It's OK to clap hands and cheer out loud?


    Indeed too complicated, but now as more knowledgeable people is contributing we're making progress. Actually, JC and Bryan are making progresses and we're just slowing them down by having to explain to us some of the thigns they're finding. =)
    Thank you. I'm new to all of this coding and what not. Holley and megasquirt is my limit of knowledge with car tuning. Sounds like I need to download some tools and chat with zarboz.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,293
    My Cars
    328i,740i,e36 m3 x2,e46
    Quote Originally Posted by atobe View Post
    I have no idea what's going on but i'm excited !
    Hahahaha


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Posts
    7
    My Cars
    E30 325i
    MtekJosh : Hey Josh! I sent you a pm, please reply.
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by MtekJosh View Post
    Hahahaha


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    (OO=[][]=OO)

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. E39 FS: E39 540i Alpina B10V8 DME, EWS, original 4 keys and full locks
    By jicaino in forum Engines, Performance Parts & Software
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-2015, 01:39 PM
  2. 5 series E39 540i nitrous, tuning & parts questions
    By OTCRacing in forum Drag Racing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-18-2011, 02:52 AM
  3. E39 540i DME help needed!
    By jvfff in forum Diagnostic Software
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-09-2011, 11:46 AM
  4. e39 540i tuning questions...
    By E39bmw in forum 1996 - 2003 (E39)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-14-2010, 09:22 AM
  5. E39 540I DME relay identification
    By BMWDEL in forum 1996 - 2003 (E39)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2009, 09:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •