[bestofjuly]

Hey everyone, i'm new to the BMW world as i just transition from a Q50 VR30 car, so im very big on how my car is running.

I was logging with MHD on Stage 2 93 and i was getting around -8 degrees of timing corrections on nearly all cylinders when I was logging, And that seems very off to me. I took 2 logs, one only pulled around -2 to -4 degrees of timing and the other one was around -8. Could anyone give me some advice?



https://datazap.me/u/bestofj/log-166...og=0&data=3-18


https://datazap.me/u/bestofj/stage-2...og=0&data=3-18

[Skyhigh]

Advice #1: There is a dedicated Log review thread.... --> https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1648722

Advice #2: You are making bad timing. Likely cause: Your fuel quality (octane) is insufficient for the selected map (common issue). Increase fuel octane or go to a less demanding map (e.g. Stage 2 91). Do not drive like that - you are eating up the engine' safety net and possibly making less power than on Stage 2 91.

Advice #3: Enable logging of "Timing delta for knock adaptation" in your future logs.

Advice #4: Use the thread ref. Advice #1 in the future

Welcome to the forum and BMW!!

[Jnat]

Originally Posted by Skyhigh

Advice #1: There is a dedicated Log review thread.... --> https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1648722

Advice #2: You are making bad timing. Likely cause: Your fuel quality (octane) is insufficient for the selected map (common issue). Increase fuel octane or go to a less demanding map (e.g. Stage 2 91). Do not drive like that - you are eating up the engine' safety net and possibly making less power than on Stage 2 91.

Advice #3: Enable logging of "Timing delta for knock adaptation" in your future logs.

Advice #4: Use the thread ref. Advice #1 in the future

Welcome to the forum and BMW!!

Agree with the above, i'll add one and double up on #2

#5) start log at a lower rpm say 2800-3000

add to #2) on these cars when we/i see corrections or poor timing across all cylinders the number one culprit is fuel quality and these cars seem to love ethanol. gen 1's have relatively high static compression so octane and ethanol if available play a huge role in what you can do... i'm using boostane and 2-3 gallons of ethanol and have achieved nice timing logs on stage 2+ 95oct maps... my car does better on this map then the E40 map, not sure why... corrections on one or two cylinders are normal for any car, repeated could mean plug/coil/injector/or a problem...

good luck...

[G.Newt]

Enable timing correction parameters in your log. Use the log review thread. Try the stage 2 91 map and re-log.

[eluded]

A few things can cause timing corrections.

– Bad plugs.
– bad fuel, consider e30
– high intake, temperatures.
– any combination of a above

[retoropak]

Originally Posted by G.Newt

Enable timing correction parameters in your log. Use the log review thread. Try the stage 2 91 map and re-log.

This.


I was reading -3 to-7 across the board with stg2 93 using costco pump gas.

It cleared with around 2-3 gallons of e85 per tank.

I switched to stg2 91 and it is much better with -1 and occasional -3 on some cylinders but it clears after 5kish rpm (straight 93 pump gas).


It was pulling so much timing on stg2_93 that it felt slower than stg2_91

[mike@x-ph.com]

Originally Posted by retoropak

I switched to stg2 91 and it is much better with -1 and occasional -3 on some cylinders but it clears after 5kish rpm (straight 93 pump gas).


It was pulling so much timing on stg2_93 that it felt slower than stg2_91

+1 try the 91 map OP

[Nickski06]

Originally Posted by retoropak

This.


I was reading -3 to-7 across the board with stg2 93 using costco pump gas.

It cleared with around 2-3 gallons of e85 per tank.

I switched to stg2 91 and it is much better with -1 and occasional -3 on some cylinders but it clears after 5kish rpm (straight 93 pump gas).


It was pulling so much timing on stg2_93 that it felt slower than stg2_91

So was the 93 tune with E85 faster or was the 91 tune on 93 fuel still best?

[PeterWT]

Originally Posted by retoropak

This.


I was reading -3 to-7 across the board with stg2 93 using costco pump gas.

It cleared with around 2-3 gallons of e85 per tank.

I switched to stg2 91 and it is much better with -1 and occasional -3 on some cylinders but it clears after 5kish rpm (straight 93 pump gas).


It was pulling so much timing on stg2_93 that it felt slower than stg2_91

Interesting info. Thanks.
I, almost exclusively, use Costco 93 oct. and Shell 93 when not near a Costco. I run the stg2/93 OTS map. I haven't logged because I thought that would be fine. I guess that was an incorrect assumption.
Lesson learned.
I guess I should log and post here. Then, if corrections are too high, use the stg2/91 or add 2 gallons of e85 if I want to use the 93 oct. map.

[Nickski06]

I haven’t had my MHD tune long, but I haven’t logged either. Since I live in the Midwest we have pretty good gas to begin with, plus I add 2 gallons of E85 too just because its readily available and cheap. I assume that theoretical 94.5 octane should be more than sufficient for a 93 tune. If they sell it as a 93 tune and everyone has bad timing corrections, that’s on MHD or BM3, right? You shouldn’t offer a tune based on theoretical perfect fuel coming from every pump around the world, right? Do they have no factor of safety in these tunes?

[gantona]

Weird problem here, I just installed multi map with flex fuel sensor on BM3 stage 1 map
So the tune is adjusting itself by reading ethanol content from sensor.
Since this setup I’m experiencing lot of timing correction, especially in the lower rpm.
Up to -6 (across all cylinders)
Was running perfectly on regular stage 1 93 on pump RON 98…

Considering I can’t add more ethanol to clear correction on FF enabled multi map, I’m stuck…


Any advice welcome

[bestofjuly]

Originally Posted by Jnat

Agree with the above, i'll add one and double up on #2

#5) start log at a lower rpm say 2800-3000

add to #2) on these cars when we/i see corrections or poor timing across all cylinders the number one culprit is fuel quality and these cars seem to love ethanol. gen 1's have relatively high static compression so octane and ethanol if available play a huge role in what you can do... i'm using boostane and 2-3 gallons of ethanol and have achieved nice timing logs on stage 2+ 95oct maps... my car does better on this map then the E40 map, not sure why... corrections on one or two cylinders are normal for any car, repeated could mean plug/coil/injector/or a problem...

good luck...

I was able to log some more, it turns out it was the fuel quality, My timing corrections went from -8 to around max of -3 this is with 1.5 gallons of E85 as well, it seems that 1 log only cyl 1 had timing corrections, but another log Cyl 1 AND 5 were having up to -3 degrees of timing corrections



https://datazap.me/u/bestofj/15-gall...29-30-31-32-33



https://datazap.me/u/bestofj/stage-2...og=0&data=3-18

Both logs are taken with Shell 93 and 1.5 gallons of E85 in the tank

[retoropak]

Originally Posted by Nickski06

So was the 93 tune with E85 faster or was the 91 tune on 93 fuel still best?

Hard to tell. My butt is not calibrated to tell 10hp difference

If it come to the corrections then 93 with a splash of corn juice produced the cleanest logs.

Originally Posted by PeterWT

Interesting info. Thanks.
I, almost exclusively, use Costco 93 oct. and Shell 93 when not near a Costco. I run the stg2/93 OTS map. I haven't logged because I thought that would be fine. I guess that was an incorrect assumption.
Lesson learned.
I guess I should log and post here. Then, if corrections are too high, use the stg2/91 or add 2 gallons of e85 if I want to use the 93 oct. map.

Worth checking. I guess gas quality will depend on location and how good their QA/QC is. I believe the gas "add pack" is mixed right at the station. Might have been a bad luck and got a bit worse batch.

[G.Newt]

Originally Posted by PeterWT

Interesting info. Thanks.
I, almost exclusively, use Costco 93 oct. and Shell 93 when not near a Costco. I run the stg2/93 OTS map. I haven't logged because I thought that would be fine. I guess that was an incorrect assumption.
Lesson learned.
I guess I should log and post here. Then, if corrections are too high, use the stg2/91 or add 2 gallons of e85 if I want to use the 93 oct. map.

The pump gas tunes from most of the tuning platforms require some god-tier fuel quality. I rarely see a 93 log that has clean timing.

And for everyone adding E85 to their pump gas tunes, just run the E30 maps. Less timing corrections, cooler combustion temps, and more power/torque.

[gantona]

Originally Posted by G.Newt

The pump gas tunes from most of the tuning platforms require some god-tier fuel quality. I rarely see a 93 log that has clean timing.

And for everyone adding E85 to their pump gas tunes, just run the E30 maps. Less timing corrections, cooler combustion temps, and more power/torque.

You’re right, however, when running multi map, we can’t use more ethanol without automatically playing with timing…
I have this problem actually, and I’m stuck…
No response yet from BM3.

[Cobra358]

Originally Posted by gantona

Weird problem here, I just installed multi map with flex fuel sensor on BM3 stage 1 map
So the tune is adjusting itself by reading ethanol content from sensor.
Since this setup I’m experiencing lot of timing correction, especially in the lower rpm.
Up to -6 (across all cylinders)
Was running perfectly on regular stage 1 93 on pump RON 98…

Considering I can’t add more ethanol to clear correction on FF enabled multi map, I’m stuck…


Any advice welcome

I think the BM3 maps are aggressive for the E rating. When I ran the 91 map, I had timing pull. I went to the E30 map and had rail pressure drops, so I went to the TU pump. That fixed the rail pressure but I still had timing pull on the E30 map. I increased the fuel to E35 and did not get timing pull on the E30 map. I now run the E50 OTS map, at E50 fuel, there is very little timing pull but rail pressure drops to 2300. At E47ish, rail pressure is at 2600 or better, and some timing pull, maybe a degree sometimes 2 in the lower end.

The premium gas I am running is 91 octane, the E sensors don't read octane just E content. Maybe their E maps are set with 93 octane gas as the mixer with whatever E you are running. That could be why I and others get timing pull on the correct map and E content. I think their maps are a little aggressive but I am not sure how much timing pull or rail pressure drop is acceptable. If you log a stock map, I have seen 3-4 degrees of pull in hot weather. We might all be ok I guess, fingers crossed

[G.Newt]

Originally Posted by Cobra358

I think the BM3 maps are aggressive for the E rating. When I ran the 91 map, I had timing pull. I went to the E30 map and had rail pressure drops, so I went to the TU pump. That fixed the rail pressure but I still had timing pull on the E30 map. I increased the fuel to E35 and did not get timing pull on the E30 map. I now run the E50 OTS map, at E50 fuel, there is very little timing pull but rail pressure drops to 2300. At E47ish, rail pressure is at 2600 or better, and some timing pull, maybe a degree sometimes 2 in the lower end.

The premium gas I am running is 91 octane, the E sensors don't read octane just E content. Maybe their E maps are set with 93 octane gas as the mixer with whatever E you are running. That could be why I and others get timing pull on the correct map and E content. I think their maps are a little aggressive but I am not sure how much timing pull or rail pressure drop is acceptable. If you log a stock map, I have seen 3-4 degrees of pull in hot weather. We might all be ok I guess, fingers crossed

You live in a state with exceptionally poor fuel quality. The ACN (Arizona, California, and Nevada) maps are designed for those states and others with poor quality 91. You're correct to up the E content to combat the timing pull, but then you run against your HPFP limitation. FWIW, here in Texas, I ran the stage 2+ E30 with E32 mixed in with 93 and never saw any rail pressure drop with perfect timing on TU before going DAW and DS2 E40 custom tune.

[gantona]

I was fine on RON 98 (E5) on stage 1 93

I think tunes are definitely too aggressive.
They have to figure out