[Carl Morris]

Since in the last couple of weeks I took an all-stock-hardware 2008 XI 6MT to the dragstrip and the dyno running the stock Stage 0 map and the 4.01 Stage1+FMIC map I thought I'd share my observations since this data would have interested me a month or two ago. 20% E85 was used to minimize detonation issues with the +FMIC map while using a stock FMIC.

To start with, I believe that Cobb claims a 30% or so improvement in torque and hp compared to stock with Stage 1. I originally interpreted that to mean 30% above peak numbers.

What I saw at the dragstrip: About a 40hp gain (98mph to 102mph in Denver, weighing 4005lbs). While nice, that definitely wasn't a 30% gain.

What I saw at the dyno: A big increase in torque in the 4000rpm range, creating about a 50whp increase at that point, trailing off to about a 30whp increase around 7000rpm.

What I realized: It *is* about a 30% gain for BOTH numbers AT THE TORQUE PEAK. But that doesn't mean you get that much gain at the horsepower peak. Up there you get about 15%. In hindsight it makes more sense than what I was expecting before.

Going forward, I've got an intercooler and intake on order. I don't expect that to get me to a total gain of 30% at the horsepower peak, but if the claims for each are true I might make up about half the difference between that and where I am right now. I don't expect much change at the torque peak from them since that's not where the airflow limitations are making a big difference.

[E90SoFlo]

I think you should buy the recommended parts for the map you choose to run.

[cleex024]

my stock numbers were 270whp and 275wtq...with full bolt on and stg2+fmic im at 370whp and 440wtq so that is a lot more gains than i was expecting. im pretty sure that v301 was making more power than that.

either way im happy with the gains...im not sure if you dynoed the thing but seems like you were doing something wrong.

even when i was stg1 my gains were more than what you are claiming. main gains were from wtq

[Brey335i]

e85 does nothing to help that crap stock intercooler cope with the Stage 1+ maps. There's more to it than just detonation prevention.

Also, COBB claims that Stage 1 gains right around 30% hp / 38% tq more than stock and Stage 2+ gains around 51% hp / 55% tq more hp than stock. So I don't really see how Stage 1+ can possibly make 30% more power than Stage 1...

If I were to guess how much power you should be expecting out of Stage 1+ over Stage 1 then I would say right around 5-10%.

[COMplex]

Don't forget, altitude has an effect on power. Expect less than advertised up here.

[Dr_Dirt]

COBB Dyno's showed a drop in peak power compared to stage 1 aggressive using all the recommended parts.

What we know about Stage 1+...

Stage 1+ gives you more bottom end torque but you will lose about 18 whp up top when compared to Stage 1.

Basically COBB needs to fix their stage 1+ tune this is probably why its still "Beta"

[rudebwoi]

You're running a FMIC map without a FMIC....?

[dfv2]

Originally Posted by Dr_Dirt

Stage 1+ gives you more bottom end torque but you will lose about 18 whp up top when compared to Stage 1.

+/- 5whp on a dyno run can be chalked up to unsmoothed spikes in the data, it's negligible and won't translate car to car.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion about these maps, post up some CSV files and highlight the differences between timing and boost (primarily). Prove out that your car was warm both runs, no torque limit, fuel mode was 2, etc.

Since you're running a stock FMIC on the stg1+, post a CSV with boost error, requested & absolute, charge air temp, WGDC (either bank) and timing in all 6. I have a funny feeling about what happens between 5 and 7krmp with this oversight in running the prescribed mods.

[Carl Morris]

I think some may have missed the point...this is compared against Stage 0/stock. What I'm saying is that versus stock, I do get the advertised gains at 4200rpm. Period.

BUT, I had originally thought I would see that much gain at 5000-7000rpm, but I don't. In hindsight I can see what Cobb was saying versus what I was thinking, and I'm just publishing this so that if someone else is thinking the same thing I was thinking they'll have a better idea of what to really expect.

I have the logs in addition to the dyno sheets and if people really want to dig into this we can, but it may not really be necessary. I'm not complaining, just throwing the results out there in case it's of interest to somebody.

[Carl Morris]

Originally Posted by COMplex

Don't forget, altitude has an effect on power. Expect less than advertised up here.

Yeah, I know. That's why I'm just talking in percentage terms here, because I think that should be valid. But yes, we are working the turbos harder, so it may not be totally valid.

[Carl Morris]

Originally Posted by Dr_Dirt

Stage 1+ gives you more bottom end torque but you will lose about 18 whp up top when compared to Stage 1.

Interesting. I tried the Stage 1 maps at the drag strip, but went faster with the Stage1+ map, so that's why I didn't bother getting dyno data on Stage 1. I guess maybe I should have.

[Dr_Dirt]

My results were with 93 octane and an ETS 5" IC which I initially picked up 18whp by just adding the IC and using the same tune -- stage 1 aggressive, however I lost ~13 whp when I used the stage 1+.



Not sure why the image comes in twice... sorry

However lets discuss why this would happen, 1+ is using more boost in the higher rpms but with less power output and the intake air temperature is relatively low.
Yes there is a boatload more torque down low but less power up top.
According to COBB the logs show nothing wrong with the car so , this tune 'is what it is' ?

[dfv2]

Still need to compare timing on all 6 between the two pulls (stg1 vs stg1+)

If boost, timing, AFR and intake temp are similar between pulls but power is falling off on the newer mapping, I'd start to wonder if vanos tuning is different.

[ajsalida]

Originally Posted by dfv2

Still need to compare timing on all 6 between the two pulls (stg1 vs stg1+)

If boost, timing, AFR and intake temp are similar between pulls but power is falling off on the newer mapping, I'd start to wonder if vanos tuning is different.

Well something is off, I see no logical or engineering reason why the stage 1+ FMIC tune should intentionally make less peak HP than the corresponding stage 1 non-FMIC tune. However the above FMIC install and dynos from Dr D's car were done by Cobb themselves, so who knows.

At one point a Cobb rep here was saying stage 1+FMIC should be just a little tamer than stage 2, and that dynos were forthcoming to prove that, but no further. That was weeks ago. I am frankly a bit annoyed with the situation, having gone the +FMIC route with Cobb and expected a tune that took advantage of it. I do not want to go with DP's yet due to the hassle.

May be time to try a Procede if things do not resolve with the final version of v401.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

There is only so much to gather out of off the shelf maps. If you want to squeeze out all the power custom tuning is needed, on any tune. Conditions are different all around the country, between humidity, elevation, gas quality, mileage on the vehicle, performance parts, heat soak, ETC

One should realize and compare only his car in his conditions against himself. Dyno graphs and estimates especially from someones elses car are only to give a general idea of potential gains. Most if not always manufacturers gains are in ideal conditions.

Any of the popular tunes with custom tweaks should see similar numbers keeping air spark fuel and other conditions similar.

[Carl Morris]

Looked through the logs, to me almost everything looks normal but I don't have all 6 cylinders for timing. CAT is going up as you'd expect with the stock IC and less dense cooling air...starts the pull at about 104 and ends it at almost 170. ECT starts at 207 and ends about 220. No timing pulled specific to cylinder one, but (and I noticed this at the dragstrip, too) it's pulling significant timing in the "Timing Cor. (CAT/ECT) (°)" column. I assume this is because of the high CATs, but if anybody knows the details about the thresholds Cobb uses to control that timing correction I'd be interested to know more about it.

I tried to attach a trimmed version of the .csv but it's an invalid file type for attachments.

[Lulz_M3]

Wow 170 degree IAT is outrageous. You need a front mount.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by Carl Morris

Looked through the logs, to me almost everything looks normal but I don't have all 6 cylinders for timing. CAT is going up as you'd expect with the stock IC and less dense cooling air...starts the pull at about 104 and ends it at almost 170. ECT starts at 207 and ends about 220. No timing pulled specific to cylinder one, but (and I noticed this at the dragstrip, too) it's pulling significant timing in the "Timing Cor. (CAT/ECT) (°)" column. I assume this is because of the high CATs, but if anybody knows the details about the thresholds Cobb uses to control that timing correction I'd be interested to know more about it.

I tried to attach a trimmed version of the .csv but it's an invalid file type for attachments.

170 way too hot.
I'm assuming your at high elevation?

You should really go down to a less aggressive map or look into an aftermarket intercooler.

[Carl Morris]

Helix is already on the way.

Edit. Yes to high elevation. I'd still be curious to know the details if anybody knows specifics on how Cobb calculates the "Timing Cor. (CAT/ECT) (°)" factor.