Best N54 Tuner
- Thread starter Sixbanger
- Start date
Here's the one for the N54, it's pretty much Identical to the N52 (conceptually, though the numbers are slightly different for duration and lift): http://www.exx.se/techinfo/docs/bmw_vanos.pdf
Looking for a current recommendation for a remote street tune (dont have any dynos near me). I have a Stock Block N54, VIE Top Mount with a Comp 68/65, Port Injection, Flash Only with Boost Box, leaning towards Motiv, but If anyone has some recent feedback on GREAT tuners with the Boost Box, I would appreciate it. Cheers!
I'm tuned by @chrisdfv, it's been almost a year. started with upgraded twins and now ST for the past 3 - 4 months. Hit him up and you won't be disappointed. I'm pn the other side of the world and all our tunes are done remotely.
There's no way of stopping people unlocking tunes on the MSD81, legally or physically.
You can only encrypt a tune up until the point at which the data is written. But it has to be written into a set area within the DME so people can either intercept the write or just read back the memory after. You could obfuscate the write process which would make it harder and you could also make extensive changes to the software area of the DME to change call locations and move around functions but that would be a huge amount of work too and only delay people unlocking the tunes.
From a legal standpoint I believe an NDA would be worthless. You'd have the obvious issue of international customers not caring but there's also the fact that tuners are already on unsteady ground with regards to IP. You can't really claim any ownership of someone else's code just because you made a few small changes to it. The entire ROM is 2MB, the tuners basically copy the 256KB cal section and change about 5KB of it.
I've seen unlocked maps of a few popular N54 tuners and there's no secret sauce in any of them. BQ is the worst, his secret sauce involved basically disabling throttle closures and fudging some torque tables to report some absurd amount of torque, the rest was just copy paste. Other tuners have their own quirks but the majority of their changes are still rooted in the changes that COBB made originally. If anyone on this platform has the right to pursue IP theft it would be COBB and I'm guessing they never bothered because of what I've already mentioned regarding modifying the original BMW code.
You can only encrypt a tune up until the point at which the data is written. But it has to be written into a set area within the DME so people can either intercept the write or just read back the memory after. You could obfuscate the write process which would make it harder and you could also make extensive changes to the software area of the DME to change call locations and move around functions but that would be a huge amount of work too and only delay people unlocking the tunes.
From a legal standpoint I believe an NDA would be worthless. You'd have the obvious issue of international customers not caring but there's also the fact that tuners are already on unsteady ground with regards to IP. You can't really claim any ownership of someone else's code just because you made a few small changes to it. The entire ROM is 2MB, the tuners basically copy the 256KB cal section and change about 5KB of it.
I've seen unlocked maps of a few popular N54 tuners and there's no secret sauce in any of them. BQ is the worst, his secret sauce involved basically disabling throttle closures and fudging some torque tables to report some absurd amount of torque, the rest was just copy paste. Other tuners have their own quirks but the majority of their changes are still rooted in the changes that COBB made originally. If anyone on this platform has the right to pursue IP theft it would be COBB and I'm guessing they never bothered because of what I've already mentioned regarding modifying the original BMW code.
Good post. I think the tunes are locked because most tuners are hiding how little they actually do. This is why I like Terry/BMS because they give you a really good starting point. And they have actually had the ability to test things unlike the e tuners on Facebook lol
What happens if you do that? I never needed to adjust my torque tables for my DCT so I don´t know what happens
The aim is to get more clamping pressure from the DCT. The problem is that in doing so you end up messing with the torque management and modelling in the DME. I won't list out everything which is affected by the torque management as that would take days but it's a core component. There's no harm in massaging the "load to torque" table a little but doing things like altering the "torque eff divisor (fuel)" table is foolish, this does cause problems. The "load to torque 1" table is used multiple times in different ways, most people assume it's only used as a lookup of load and RPM as a means to estimate engine torque but it's actually also used a reverse lookup to calculate the effective load required for a setpoint torque reduction.What happens if you do that? I never needed to adjust my torque tables for my DCT so I don´t know what happens
If the car is tuned properly with the correct load reporting then there really should be no need for that. Also with DCT tuning being available there's no need to fudge reported values to alter clutch pressures.
What happens if you do that? I never needed to adjust my torque tables for my DCT so I don´t know what happens
As far as I know, I'm currently one of only a few tuners who actually own or have owned N54, N55 & S55 DCT cars. I have spent countless hours testing and tuning to find a good mix of torque table values and torque actual output to keep the DCT shifts smooth, firm, and as quick as possible while preventing clutch slip post shift with increase line pressure control. Just setting all the torque related tables to max value without knowing what they actually do can be a disaster to the shift quality and the fact that most of the so called tuners who have zero knowledge of DCT just make assumptions that it works for AT/MT it should work for DCT also. That is just not the case. @Twisted Tuning & @BQTuning can vouch for that.
Your assumption probably isn't too far off for most. You have overnight tuners who used my hacked MHD OTS maps to launch there business in scamming customers by posting up free maps like an Internet fishing game, hoping for a quick payday. Tuners who become overnight master tuners on Facebook because the post up a dyno video after making a few tweaks to an existing JB4 map and eventually learn how to flash tune while doing most of there R&D on a friends car, before you know they have fanboys telling the world this guy is the best tuner in the world. What you fail to understand is the fact that I have spent the past 10 years and thousands of hours of R&D learning the ins and outs of the tables we use, not to mention helping to define tables, port, and scale the XDF files everyone uses today. So after scaling, smoothing, testing, modifying table values, I have base maps with custom PID tables which allow for a very controlled and smooth wastegate duty making the car drive as if it rolled off the factory floor with a big set of turbos. Your overall lack of understanding leads you down the path of ease. You have made the assumption that the BMS maps are a really good starting point without understanding how the hardware they use would benefit from a better map to begin with, one that is smooth and has proper table scaling has a big impact overall. We all know piggybacks work, that has never been my argument. I moved away from piggybacks because they are nothing more than a crutch for something the ecu can already do for the vast majority of users, do it better, more consistent and smoother. The ongoing integration only strengthens the foothold it has on users to stay with their current piggyback solution even if there is something better. But I digress. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what you run as long as it works and you're happy with your solution. It's unfortunate this platform takes the simple way out and not the right way. There are multiple products that were integrated into this platform without the foresight of the issues they cause because the people promoting them took shortcuts to bring them to market. But that's an argument for another topic. I have already rambled enough.
This guy tunes my car and my car rules for that reason.
The DCT has been the only tricky part that we have been trying to figure out. Using @JohnDaviz throttle sensitivity tables has cured most of my issues.
@WedgePerformance has dealt with my non stop requests.
I very much appreciate that. The discussion of being able to further tweak a tune from a tuner arose in my head after needing small changes to my tune over and over and over. I'd like to reduce the load that Ken has from me and be able to tweak those minor changes on my own. I feel horrible writing a new email as it feels like I am giving him a ton of work; not only reading my novels but also needing to tweak the map file...Regardless, we have worked through most of the issues. His knowledge has made my car flyyyyyyy.
I'm just confused with why using a jb4 is the wrong way of getting power out of the car ? Fastest 60-130 car on the platform is using a jb4
Who said it's wrong? I think you're reading into my comments with your own bias. I just don't use it and Wedge / MHD held that record for a long time. It's nice to see progression for DCT cars as they make the fastest / quickest cars on the street hands down.
Maybe I just misunderstood I don't have a bias I've used mhd for a long time on my car and was happy with the results.
They (JB4) may hold various records but from a technical perspective it’s more flawed than flash only.
Any JB4 fans are that way because they can get a result with little fuss. That doesn’t mean it’s the best for your engine short or long term.
nothing good is cheap, and nothing cheap is good.
Any JB4 fans are that way because they can get a result with little fuss. That doesn’t mean it’s the best for your engine short or long term.
nothing good is cheap, and nothing cheap is good.
Jb4 does have its saftey benefits though I know some guys on mhd only that don't really understand data logging and the gauges and have got there oil temps up to 290 and warp there oil filter housing. To your nothing cheap is good point I think there are some good cheap things you just have to be very picky with the things you cheap out on. I'm running just a cheap eBay aluminum charge pipe and it is good fits snug takes 30+psi. things like tuning is an area undoubtedly not to cheap out on.
Can you elaborate on the safety benefits? hahah BMS is vague on there website and seem to cast doubt by indicating other tuners reduce knock sensors, but they don't come out and tell everyone they were the ones who introduce knock sensor table reduction to this platform. While I'm sure there are some triggers for safety, there are other things that are removed which to me are concerning. Regardless of what you use to tune your car, there is always risk. So at the end of the day, no one solution is right or wrong, there will always be a divide within the community which is good because it leads to competition and while we agree to disagree we all live for that competition.
Well I mean even the basic if your car exceeds 280 degrees oil temp it's supposed to put the car into a different map would be helpful for some guys who are clueless and just want there car tuned to go fast. Nobody's fault but there own for not understanding how to read the data and know what it means. I guess you could say the jb4 is a little more dummy proof is all not trying to imply it's better just offers some different things. Only reason I could see to pioneer de sensitizing knock tables would be for built motors which some seem to experience false knock, could be wrong.
Similar threads
