Customer JB3 1.4 - JB3 2.0 - PROcede V4 dyno charts

[Terry@BMS]

Same car, same mods, same fuel. Basically every bolt on with 93 octane.

[LostMarine]

BANG! Exactly what we knew already. More power, and over the whole RPM band, not just up top. Im glad someone finally did a b-b test.

[Terry@BMS]

I'm sure the V4 could get there with enough tweaking.. but this was a customer test. Shiv and I were both 3000 miles away during the runs. Anyway map 7 is no slouch!

[Sticky]

BANG! Exactly what we knew already. More power, and over the whole RPM band, not just up top. Im glad someone finally did a b-b test.

Hold on man... tweaked JB3 maps vs. out of the box V4 maps...

Where are the out of the box numbers for both?

[Terry@BMS]

Both maps were tweaked by user. But the "map 7" numbers on the JB3 are out of the box.

[Sticky]

Both maps were tweaked by user. But the "map 7" numbers on the JB3 are out of the box.

I see... what are the settings or should I say changes made for each?

[Terry@BMS]

I'm not exactly sure. I think he tweaked the ignition correction for the V4 and the user torque for the JB3. Nothing major on either side. Chart 3 is the default JB3 map and his changes.

[[email protected]]

Nice comparison

Mike

[Laloosh]

So in summary, he reduced timing retard on the v4 to try to make more power without knocking
And increased the boost on the jb3 to make more over all power?

Is this really a win for any side? lol Sort of pointless. Tweak out both maps so they run the same boost, same timing and guess what you will get the same results. To get the 400 jb3 number all he would have to do is raise boost or up timing to equal it to the jb3 log. Once again, I fail to see the advantage here lol.

[Terry@BMS]

You can probably custom tune a ham sandwich to make 400rw too but it was interesting that he was able to coax so much more power and torque out of the JB3. Maybe its just our super easy to use tuning interface.

[Laloosh]

Are you impling its easier to the competition? Cause all he had to do to run more boost was go a map higher and reduce the user tq. Sound just as "super easy" me

[Terry@BMS]

Are you impling its easier to the competition? Cause all he had to do to run more boost was go a map higher and reduce the user tq. Sound just as "super easy" me

I was joking with the ham sandwich but on the charts those were his results. Why his V4 results were worse isn't my department. One thing I've noticed is that while you can up the V4 for addl boost no one can ever raise the low end boost on it or change the shape of the curve. Seems worthy of fixing IMHO.

[Laloosh]

I disagree, downlow tq is the most over rated thing when it comes to performance. Maybe its the way i drive, but If i floor a car, its at low rpm in either first or 2nd, or its on the dyno. Other than that, 4.5k and up, or grandma style. Whats the point of all this downlow tq? So you can load up the motor in 6th going up a hill? No thx

[Sticky]

I disagree, downlow tq is the most over rated thing when it comes to performance. Maybe its the way i drive, but If i floor a car, its at low rpm in either first or 2nd, or its on the dyno. Other than that, 4.5k and up, or grandma style. Whats the point of all this downlow tq? So you can load up the motor in 6th going up a hill? No thx

Interesting... someone with an N54 stating that power up top is what is important in performance, heh.

[Terry@BMS]

I disagree, downlow tq is the most over rated thing when it comes to performance. Maybe its the way i drive, but If i floor a car, its at low rpm in either first or 2nd, or its on the dyno. Other than that, 4.5k and up, or grandma style. Whats the point of all this downlow tq? So you can load up the motor in 6th going up a hill? No thx

Just depends how you drive. I personally prefer driving a flat torque curve which is how all of our default maps are setup, but customers have the option to reshape things based on their own needs. If you spend more time at lower RPM it comes in very handy.

[Laloosh]

Both curves are flat lol, one is simply higher cause of more boost.

[Laloosh]

Interesting... someone with an N54 stating that power up top is what is important in performance, heh.

I personally hate down low tq. IMO its good for loss of traction and throwing rods.

[Terry@BMS]

I personally hate down low tq. IMO its good for loss of traction and throwing rods.

Comes in handy for launching autos too.

[Sticky]

I personally hate down low tq. IMO its good for loss of traction and throwing rods.

Wow almost sounds like my argument for modifying the M3 as you make huge power with low torque due to the rev multiplication and flat curve.

[shiv@vishnu]

Peak torque numbers at 2500-3000rpm is a good number to pleasure yourself. And to impress your friends on the internet. But it does little for performance. And often, in fact, works against you. Making big torque down low is simple as running more boost. And that's a game that not everyone plays.

Shiv

[Laloosh]

Wow almost sounds like my argument for modifying the M3 as you make huge power with low torque due to the rev multiplication and flat curve.

I love you tq curve. Like I said I'm not a big fan of "mid range" motors, however Ive had them for the past 4 years. Next car is going to have something that makes peak power stock near redline

[Got PSI]

Look at the smoothness

[LostMarine]

I disagree, downlow tq is the most over rated thing when it comes to performance. Maybe its the way i drive, but If i floor a car, its at low rpm in either first or 2nd, or its on the dyno. Other than that, 4.5k and up, or grandma style. Whats the point of all this downlow tq? So you can load up the motor in 6th going up a hill? No thx

I personally love having the most power available as early as i can. That way it is up to me on how to use it. I see no point in tuning for more power, and then not wanting it. If i don't want to use all 400+, then i don't apply 100%. But i guess thats just me

[Sticky]

I personally love having the most power available as early as i can. That way it is up to me on how to use it. I see no point in tuning for more power, and then not wanting it. If i don't want to use all 400+, then i don't apply 100%. But i guess thats just me

Well, the thing is, with where the revs drop down to on shifts what is the point other than for an abusive launch? You can just rev higher to get to a higher torque peak with a manual... not with an auto though but the brake boosting compensates in this case.

[alpinedevil335]

I personally love having the most power available as early as i can. That way it is up to me on how to use it. I see no point in tuning for more power, and then not wanting it. If i don't want to use all 400+, then i don't apply 100%. But i guess thats just me

+1