MiniTorque.com banner

101 - 120 of 142 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,762 Posts
get the link G4 , end your nightmare
$1200 shipped before april 1st
after that they are going up to $1295
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
I think there are perhaps many more positive stories than those same few concerns that emerge from time to time. I'm sure there could be a lot of information behind each, which might not be made known to all that are told the worst. At the end of the day there is nothing for the money that can touch it. Nobody really doubts a stand alone can give better control of the engine, but it's an expensive installation compared to something economical with actually, very good control. I'd say don't be put off it unless some current information is available directly from users that feel it was responsible for an issue on their car. It was the only software I believe that can alter parameters that stop the traction control warning and full eml under heavy load with small pulleys, maybe that's changed over the last number of years I don't know, and it's the only software only option that anyone can opt for to be able to use themselves, and/or other tuners familiar with it, even by email, plus it's designed to incorporate input from a wide band sensor with that purpose in mind. The only problem I have right now is with the software program itself that stopped opening on both pc's for some reason, which I'm perhaps stuck with if I stay on Win10.

1320 are open about constantly learning how this or that makes a difference to one car or another. I think that despite it getting expensive over time I respect their honesty in that regard. I've now run it for years. I do get frustrated with some conditions that I'd like to be better and the ongoing costs of having them alter it (including a full day of travel and its costs) to get right or re-tweak especially when using a cam they don't have much base information on, or interest in specifically. Now is a perfect example to a degree with the continuing but now worsening of AFR reading a sudden 7% dip @3k-4k with a light to medium throttle angle/engine load that I suspect is costing me performance and wasting fuel plus it's now bringing the main EML on for a rich downstream signal I never get with my angled sensor extender, 'ever', only since this latest map update with another cam they don't really ever use. So for all that they're good with it, I found more than once it's pretty dependent on familiarity with a cam they happen to favour, quite naturally I guess when they're likely spending more time with just that one they feel is a decent fast road cam so then only being limited by other variables car to car. Trouble is I don't want to use the 469 any more at least for now, but my Kent Cam, or now a Newman PH3/4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citro

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Why would BT alone suffer from Siemens ECU re-adapting? Wouldn't it affect every tuning method that alters the maps in the stock ECU? Does BT change the ECU code somehow... it does need to be "loaded on ECU" when doing the initial installation, not quite sure what that means tbh.

I've been running BT for 6 years now, but the longest I've gone without playing with the maps has been like two months, so maybe that has saved me from these re-adapt issues. Only heard rumors of those.
I would be surprised if BT interface could actually change/alter the software... This is serious tweaking.

You are right on the ECU re-adapting. If BT only changes the tune, the result would be not different from any kind of tuning method. It is the quality of the tune that could make the Engine Control go wrong, and for that matter only the tuner is responsible.

An easy way to know if your tune is right is first to check INPA readings. How are Fuel trims? Air trims? Idle trims? fault codes? Injection duration at top end?
Then I would check EGT's, this is very important but you need to install a probe on your exhaust manifold

get the link G4 , end your nightmare
$1200 shipped before april 1st
after that they are going up to $1295
For sure it is a great options for a race car. But for a road car there would be no better engine control than the stock one with appropriate tuning.

Does G4 handles canister purge? airpath adaptions? closed loop lambda control? knock control?

Thanks

I think there are perhaps many more positive stories than those same few concerns that emerge from time to time. I'm sure there could be a lot of information behind each, which might not be made known to all that are told the worst. At the end of the day there is nothing for the money that can touch it. Nobody really doubts a stand alone can give better control of the engine, but it's an expensive installation compared to something economical with actually, very good control. I'd say don't be put off it unless some current information is available directly from users that feel it was responsible for an issue on their car. It was the only software I believe that can alter parameters that stop the traction control warning and full eml under heavy load with small pulleys, maybe that's changed over the last number of years I don't know, and it's the only software only option that anyone can opt for to be able to use themselves, and/or other tuners familiar with it, even by email, plus it's designed to incorporate input from a wide band sensor with that purpose in mind. The only problem I have right now is with the software program itself that stopped opening on both pc's for some reason, which I'm perhaps stuck with if I stay on Win10.

1320 are open about constantly learning how this or that makes a difference to one car or another. I think that despite it getting expensive over time I respect their honesty in that regard. I've now run it for years. I do get frustrated with some conditions that I'd like to be better and the ongoing costs of having them alter it (including a full day of travel and its costs) to get right or re-tweak especially when using a cam they don't have much base information on, or interest in specifically. Now is a perfect example to a degree with the continuing but now worsening of AFR reading a sudden 7% dip @3k-4k with a light to medium throttle angle/engine load that I suspect is costing me performance and wasting fuel plus it's now bringing the main EML on for a rich downstream signal I never get with my angled sensor extender, 'ever', only since this latest map update with another cam they don't really ever use. So for all that they're good with it, I found more than once it's pretty dependent on familiarity with a cam they happen to favour, quite naturally I guess when they're likely spending more time with just that one they feel is a decent fast road cam so then only being limited by other variables car to car. Trouble is I don't want to use the 469 any more at least for now, but my Kent Cam, or now a Newman PH3/4.
I'm interested in BT but I really need to know what it does. If the maps are correctly interpreted and what kind of variables you can read, at what frequency.

Why don't you want to use catcam 469? I was going to buy one...
 

·
Bugger
Joined
·
25,313 Posts
1320 are open about constantly learning how this or that makes a difference to one car or another. I think that despite it getting expensive over time I respect their honesty in that regard. I've now run it for years. I do get frustrated with some conditions that I'd like to be better and the ongoing costs of having them alter it (including a full day of travel and its costs) to get right or re-tweak especially when using a cam they don't have much base information on, or interest in specifically. Now is a perfect example to a degree with the continuing but now worsening of AFR reading a sudden 7% dip @3k-4k with a light to medium throttle angle/engine load that I suspect is costing me performance and wasting fuel plus it's now bringing the main EML on for a rich downstream signal I never get with my angled sensor extender, 'ever', only since this latest map update with another cam they don't really ever use. So for all that they're good with it, I found more than once it's pretty dependent on familiarity with a cam they happen to favour, quite naturally I guess when they're likely spending more time with just that one they feel is a decent fast road cam so then only being limited by other variables car to car. Trouble is I don't want to use the 469 any more at least for now, but my Kent Cam, or now a Newman PH3/4.
Personally I was never a fan of paying to be 1320s test car(s), I know I am in the minority with my views on 1320. However I have seen a lot of people I know spend a lot of money for 1320 to 'figure shit out'.
 

·
Premium Member
2006 R53
Joined
·
10,407 Posts
Personally I was never a fan of paying to be 1320s test car(s), I know I am in the minority with my views on 1320. However I have seen a lot of people I know spend a lot of money for 1320 to 'figure shit out'.
I'm with you on this. Quite agreeable it person, but they can come over badly online. I'm also not a fan of their bytetronik monopoly
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
I understood any adaption the ECU did was in closed loop mode and in open loop it's basically doing as it's told, I've certainly never felt the tune was being affected in any way although I tend to reset all adaptions when going for a remap so I know it's in the same state every time as I also do re-calibrating the wide band sensor. I often do it at the track also. Right now I'm aware the ECU is pulling fuel out low down which is one area 1320 were trying to work with, so that ByteTroniK controlled the fuel better so the ECU didn't need to pull anything, but that's in a closed loop environment.

I can't remember all the tables it has available to change and unfortunately can't post a screen dump while I can't open it, maybe JKo can?

Regarding the 469, I have my own cam that Kent Cams produced for me ~7 years ago that I'd run up until last February when I decided to try the 469. Mine hunted a bit, this hunted more, mine stalled occasionally and needed 50rpm adding, the 469 stalled a lot and needed 150rpm adding, mine never bogged down, the 469 easily bogged down, especially from cold and/or manoeuvring, note this is just on my car, someone already showed me their idle more stable than mine but all cars are different, my car was 230whp and the 469 233whp but only due to adding another 400rpm, I'm certain had we done this with my Kent cam it would have done the same or more likely better. I say that because the shape of the curve during the last 1k says a lot, the 469 was levelling, mine was still climbing at the same rate as the 1k before.

Now, I am an official supplier/installer of Newman Cams too, and I have always been curious about the lack of users of their PH3/4, I fitted one instead of the 469. The map for the 469 that was hunting and temperamental at low rpm was completely the opposite with the PH3/4 on initial start, quite a surprise, but not mapped yet so anything could happen. I drove it for over a week before mapping and it was smooth enough and pulled alright but was flat, I had it mapped and it was much nicer but the rollers have been moved into another building unfortunately being overhauled and calibrated which people had told me was now a bit low in the new location so I couldn't trust the back to back figures. Anyway it showed the same 234/184 @rpm. So a bit of a shame if it didn't make more but considering it being low reading the chances are I'm up. On the road though the difference is clear, and for the few times I've put my foot down now since, the car takes off, or it feels that way, it still feels flat near the middle, say the lower mid range then picks up but it needs more work on the map, I have an AFR dip of 7% between 3-4k which I've always had to a degree but never this much and it's wasting fuel and costing me power I'm certain, 1320 don't know this cam very well they say, they're not really interested in it, similar to my Kent but this one is harder to tune by the looks of it. It's clear they only rate the 469 which is why everyone is buying them and that's fine, they're a good cam, and quite novel on road and track, but track for me needs a better top end, regardless, it means they don't know how to get the best from this just yet but I can tell you even in this state it's better than the 469 was 'in my car'. I'm being picky, but the car actually flies, the cam is in earlier, runs smoother, is more efficient despite the AFR dip. I got over 33mpg calculated on fuel used, on the way down, and just under 33 on the way back, not really going over 85 and mostly 80 so just normal driving. That's at least a 5mpg improvement with a more powerful engine, close to 20% I'm booked to go back and will explore further.

So that is why I don't want to use the 469, there are better cams, even the other cams in Catcams range people don't use, I'll try this on track, if it doesn't do what I want my Kent will go back in to try over the additional rpm but one thing I can say absolutely is that the Newman PH3/4 despite saying it's a 3-7k cam is that it pulls smoothly from 40mph in 6th just fine, not hard obviously but smooth, and all normal town driving is bliss, quiet, fewer vibrations, not so fumy, pulling away, in fact it will pull the cars weight with no throttle in traffic queues, but also change to second! I could never do that with the Catcam 469!! So it needs more work and I at least did sample myself what everyone's talking about in the 469 but the truth is it ain't the best at all as far as I'm concerned, it's popularity is a marketing success and down to recommendations from the most popular tuner, but more so, customer recommendation when many of them identify that their car is much quicker but most also may not have any experience of other cams. When I surveyed Facebook, most responders said they didn't know what cam to use, and second were those saying they'd like to be able to try them, so these people are open to such recommendations for the 469 knowing no other option.

Just my2p ;O)
 
  • Like
Reactions: citro

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,894 Posts
I understood any adaption the ECU did was in closed loop mode and in open loop it's basically doing as it's told, I've certainly never felt the tune was being affected in any way although I tend to reset all adaptions when going for a remap so I know it's in the same state every time as I also do re-calibrating the wide band sensor. I often do it at the track also. Right now I'm aware the ECU is pulling fuel out low down which is one area 1320 were trying to work with, so that ByteTroniK controlled the fuel better so the ECU didn't need to pull anything, but that's in a closed loop environment.
AFAIK stock ECU does add positive LTFT adaptations to open loop operation. So if your tune suddenly seems too rich, then this might be the reason.

So ECU is pulling fuel out in closed loop after swapping the cam? Makes sense as I recall you mentioning that you got better MPG with the Newman...


I can't remember all the tables it has available to change and unfortunately can't post a screen dump while I can't open it, maybe JKo can?
I'll see what I can do...


<yet another long 'CoB rant' about 469/Newman>
Your selling points do make sense. If I was buying a cam now the Newman would be very tempting. Then again I'm still looking forward to rev my 469 closer to 8k one day. :laugh: The slight hesitation with the 469 when warming up is my only gripe atm. And I'm sure it's at least partly caused by E85. Need to test that theory at some point.
 

·
Bugger
Joined
·
25,313 Posts
I'm with you on this. Quite agreeable it person, but they can come over badly online. I'm also not a fan of their bytetronik monopoly
I don't want another cam wars of the old days, but it would be nice if tuners were a bit more truthful and 100% less aggressive online. MT these days is a lot nicer since all the tuners stopped posting on it. Its also nice without the whipped up fan mobs from either side.

I've got three options for my car, for road I have the JCW 210 map, I'd love to find a GP map though. If I ever want to race it I have access to the JCM 225 map, which I may fit once I put a cam in. Dropping 1k on a standalone + calibration isn't on the cards right now for me and I just have no faith in BT or my abilities to maintain a car on BT, it seems like a lot of faff when a P&P would be easier. I wish Lohen would open their solution up again as it looked insane.
 

·
Premium Member
2006 R53
Joined
·
10,407 Posts
I don't want another cam wars of the old days, but it would be nice if tuners were a bit more truthful and 100% less aggressive online. MT these days is a lot nicer since all the tuners stopped posting on it. Its also nice without the whipped up fan mobs from either side.

I've got three options for my car, for road I have the JCW 210 map, I'd love to find a GP map though. If I ever want to race it I have access to the JCM 225 map, which I may fit once I put a cam in. Dropping 1k on a standalone + calibration isn't on the cards right now for me and I just have no faith in BT or my abilities to maintain a car on BT, it seems like a lot of faff when a P&P would be easier. I wish Lohen would open their solution up again as it looked insane.
Is it possible to load a jcm map, I thought the ecu's were supplied mapped and locked down tight as a gnats chuff. Beauty of the 210 map is it's supposed to be loaded retrospectively onto the stock ecu
 

·
Bugger
Joined
·
25,313 Posts
Is it possible to load a jcm map, I thought the ecu's were supplied mapped and locked down tight as a gnats chuff. Beauty of the 210 map is it's supposed to be loaded retrospectively onto the stock ecu
I think it was released once JCM was no more, they needed it for keeping some of the cars running once the old ECU's bricked themselves. Theres two versions of the JCM stuff, the German (European cars) were build by M-Sport while the UK cars used different stuff as it was devised by JCG. The European cars had a lot of different bits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
That’s actually a good question. Do any of the standalones handle these? Does it matter?
Yes, Define air path adaptions, yes, yes. Of them all the only one that really matters is the canister purge, the car would run and be drivable without any of the others imo (open to people telling me I know nothing and that I'm an arsehole)

I don't want another cam wars of the old days, but it would be nice if tuners were a bit more truthful and 100% less aggressive online. MT these days is a lot nicer since all the tuners stopped posting on it. Its also nice without the whipped up fan mobs from either side.

I've got three options for my car, for road I have the JCW 210 map, I'd love to find a GP map though. If I ever want to race it I have access to the JCM 225 map, which I may fit once I put a cam in. Dropping 1k on a standalone + calibration isn't on the cards right now for me and I just have no faith in BT or my abilities to maintain a car on BT, it seems like a lot of faff when a P&P would be easier. I wish Lohen would open their solution up again as it looked insane.
I was led to believe that the challenge car map is a stock Cooper S (non-JCW), a raised/removed rev limit and 380cc injectors.

Lohens solution was very good on paper but would require a lot of working to suit a cam/head set up (again imo)
 

·
Premium Member
2006 R53
Joined
·
10,407 Posts
That’s actually a good question. Do any of the standalones handle these? Does it matter?
Can't really comment on the G4 as i'm not overly familiar with its feature set. That said my ecu does closed loop lambda (wideband or narrowband), knock and purge control. I've never actually used the purge function as it was one of the first things I binned. No idea what you mean by air path adaptions though ......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I'm glad to find guys as interested in engine management as I am :)

You have to keep in mind that putting a newcam without necessary adjustments in the tune disturbs engine control A LOT.
Why? Basic of engine control is putting the necessary amount of fuel versus the amount of air that is coming into the engine. The amount of air (mass, not volume) is a calculation based on the air intake pressure and temperature. The conversion formula air flow = f(air pressure corrected by air temp) is then set at the bench during development and is only true for a given hardware.
When you put a new cam you change the equation, but the ECU doesn't know that unless you modify the equation inside the tune. So the estimated air flow is wrong, and the fuel quantity that is injected is wrong too. In closed loop this is compensated by fuel trim, but not in closed loop.

Talking about fuel trims, it is a limited compensation because it will learn in a certain range (RPM, load) and apply the correction everywhere. But the needed correction is not the same for the whole range! example : if 20% pedal at 3000 rpm gives you -7% of LTFT and you stay for a long time on that point, the ECU will learn it and then apply it at WOT. But maybe at WOT what you need is +5% instead of -7% because of the new cam, and the ECU doesn't know it because he doesn't operate in closed loop at WOT!
So at the end you run lean at WOT, with high EGT and a risk to damage the engine...

Conclusion : you need a tune for almost any serious mod on the air intake (pulley, cam).

About flashing tunes. You can flash any tune in any ECU as long as the software is at the same level, a cheap MPPS cable can do that easily. But he doesn't mean it will work fine. You need to have a tune that matches your hardware! flashing a jcw tune without the JCW injectors and JCW pulley is a non sense and will disturb engine control.
Same for GP tune, because of the more efficient IC.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,894 Posts
Talking about fuel trims, it is a limited compensation because it will learn in a certain range (RPM, load) and apply the correction everywhere. But the needed correction is not the same for the whole range! example : if 20% pedal at 3000 rpm gives you -7% of LTFT and you stay for a long time on that point, the ECU will learn it and then apply it at WOT. But maybe at WOT what you need is +5% instead of -7% because of the new cam, and the ECU doesn't know it because he doesn't operate in closed loop at WOT!
So at the end you run lean at WOT, with high EGT and a risk to damage the engine...
Is negative LTFT really applied in open loop at WOT? I always thought only positive is, and I have been wrong before...
 

·
Premium Member
2006 R53
Joined
·
10,407 Posts
My understanding was that LTFT was a global adjustment applied to everything and short term trims add in (or subtract) the tweaks based upon environmental/load based variables during closed loop. This being based upon feedback from the narrowband lambda sensor
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Is negative LTFT really applied in open loop at WOT? I always thought only positive is, and I have been wrong before...
Yes it is applied. You can see what is applied by looking at Relative Long Term Fuel Trim under INPA
My understanding was that LTFT was a global adjustment applied to everything and short term trims add in (or subtract) the tweaks based upon environmental/load based variables during closed loop. This being based upon feedback from the narrowband lambda sensor
There are 2 adaptions. An additive one : learned and applied in idle only. A factor one, learned from low to medium engine speed and medium load, applied everywhere except idle
 
101 - 120 of 142 Posts
Top