[rambino]

Can anyone post this?

I keep reading that the torque down low on v2.02 is less than 1.47..

Part of what makes this car so fun is launching it from redlíghts, and quick intercity spurts.. I would really hate to have loss that..

I personally will take all the power i can get and let my foot be the one to control what gets put to the tarmac. I enjoy it when my wheels lay rubber thru 1st and 2nd.

ALthough v2.02 is a major improvement and provides more power..
I really hope that the low rpm power hasnt been removed.. thats part of what makes the car so much fun.. if anything maybe shiv could tweak to map to allow the torque settings down low to be adjusted to give users like me the same Umph down low as. 1.47

[Driver72]

It is less.
I think I may be the first person to actually dyno the v2.0.2 6AT map.
I dynoed it yesterday right after the install.

But I'm going to dyno it again tomorrow after some adaptation time.

But to answer your question again, yes, below about 4500 rpm, at this point with my initial dyno on basically no adaptation time, v2.0.2 6AT map has less torque than v1.47
Stay tuned, I will post the before and after dynos tomorrow from a dynojet after 2 days of adaptation.
I will also note the runs on the Mustang dyno I did yesterday.

[addicted 2 turbo]

I dyno mine last friday i be posting soon 6MT V2.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by boriquaguerrero

I dyno mine last friday i be posting soon 6MT V2.

Did the v2.0.2 6MT map show a drop in torque too?
And are you stock other than the PROcede?

Shiv has posted the comparisons between all the tunes on a 6MT car last week already, but he's also got a catback and intake.
IIRC even with his mods the v2.0.2 showed less torque than the v1.47
but again that was the 6MT map.
I think he detuned the 6AT map a bit from that.
So v2.0.2 6MT guys probably have a decent bit more power than v2.0.2 6AT guys as it stands now.

[CanadianTSi]

Was the general consensus not that 1.47 had "to much" Torque and people wanted it lowered?

[ThomasMartin]

Originally Posted by CanadianTSi

Was the general consensus not that 1.47 had "to much" Torque and people wanted it lowered?

I want that Torque back i cant get anywhere near it fromV2 cause im to high up 5500 ft with V1.47 i had a load of torque without any problems

[down4it]

Originally Posted by rambino

Can anyone post this?

I keep reading that the torque down low on v2.02 is less than 1.47..

Part of what makes this car so fun is launching it from redlíghts, and quick intercity spurts.. I would really hate to have loss that..

I personally will take all the power i can get and let my foot be the one to control what gets put to the tarmac. I enjoy it when my wheels lay rubber thru 1st and 2nd.

ALthough v2.02 is a major improvement and provides more power..
I really hope that the low rpm power hasnt been removed.. thats part of what makes the car so much fun.. if anything maybe shiv could tweak to map to allow the torque settings down low to be adjusted to give users like me the same Umph down low as. 1.47

I dont see how its lower, i now have 441wtq at 3500rpm on V2-2.0.2..

[Lane]

Originally Posted by down4it

I dont see how its lower, i now have 441wtq at 3500rpm on V2-2.0.2..

How much was your torque on 1.47? Was it the same day, same dyno, same gas, same temps, same everything...?

[rambino]

I think I read shiv say that people were complaing about limp modes from driving under 1k rpm in 6 gear and boosting it.. I for one never had this issue and i drive it like a bat out of hell.

BRING BACK THE TORQUE!!! (or let us at least adjust it.. pleeeasseee)

[OpenFlash]

The max torque number on v1.47 was caused by a short-term boost spike. This was one of the side-effects of bypassing one of the solenoids (from not driving the solenoids directly). The peak torque on v2, however, represents a flat plateau. This is why it is proving to be so much quicker on the road, despite having a lower max torque value. It's a better tune with better boost control. I'm not going to purposely induce a boost spike just to achieve a number

Shiv

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

The max torque number on v1.47 was caused by a short-term boost spike. This was one of the side-effects of bypassing one of the solenoids (from not driving the solenoids directly). The peak torque on v2, however, represents a flat plateau. This is why it is proving to be so much quicker on the road, despite having a lower max torque value. It's a better tune with better boost control. I'm not going to purposely induce a boost spike just to achieve a number

Shiv

And, obviously, if we are able to increase the v2.0.2 TQ Curve (from the default values), then we will achieve higher TQ with more boost. Although I have not been able to really test the latest v2.0.2 6AT map (12-11-07), I hope to be able to increase the TQ Curve by 2-4% across the board...that is my goal anyway.

[e.n335]

^ Bottom up. I start with this map at 89% and will increase user torque point by point. Please provide datalogs.

[per]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

The max torque number on v1.47 was caused by a short-term boost spike. This was one of the side-effects of bypassing one of the solenoids (from not driving the solenoids directly). The peak torque on v2, however, represents a flat plateau. This is why it is proving to be so much quicker on the road, despite having a lower max torque value. It's a better tune with better boost control. I'm not going to purposely induce a boost spike just to achieve a number

Shiv

If we raise the torque settings to 100% from 2000-4000rpm ,could it cause any problems?
I also miss the torque kick at half throttle

[rambino]

Well shiv, we certainly dont want a boost spike or full boost coming on at half throttle, hence the benifits of the dual silenoid.. BUT... what about a tune inducing that sort of torque at full throttle instead of half?

Im no technical genius, but wouldnt high torque at all possible rpms be more applicable, fun, and faster than a flat plataeu. ? or at least as a torque setting option?

[Kbueno]

Originally Posted by per

If we raise the torque settings to 100% from 2000-4000rpm ,could it cause any problems?
I also miss the torque kick at half throttle

+1

I know some people on the boards are already running 100% across the board. I
don't have the balls to do that without further instructions from Vishnu.

[e.n335]

Originally Posted by 335lvr

+1

I know some people on the boards are already running 100% across the board. I
don't have the balls to do that without further instructions from Vishnu.

You might not have the appropriate gas ( octane ) to do that ...

Shiv wrote a brief post about tweaking the V2 user torque values.

[Driver72]

Just so you all know, I am running the most current v2.0.2 (12-11-07) map in my car.
I currently have 92 Octane in it and the torque settings are 92% across the board.

I just got back from a 30 mile canyon carving road course like run on the car.
Doing MULTIPLE 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gear redline runs.
Did even 3 back to back 3rd gear to redline and letting the computer shift for itself.
No issues, no limps, nothing.

Car continued to run strong.
It was 49-56 degrees out depending on the elevation I was at.
Car never got above 250 degrees on the temp gauge.

[e90AW335i]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Just so you all know, I am running the most current v2.0.2 (12-11-07) map in my car.
I currently have 92 Octane in it and the torque settings are 92% across the board.

I just got back from a 30 mile canyon carving road course like run on the car.
Doing MULTIPLE 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gear redline runs.
Did even 3 back to back 3rd gear to redline and letting the computer shift for itself.
No issues, no limps, nothing.

Car continued to run strong.
It was 49-56 degrees out depending on the elevation I was at.
Car never got above 250 degrees on the temp gauge.

Man that sounds like fun....

[Kbueno]

Originally Posted by e.n335

You might not have the appropriate gas ( octane ) to do that ...

Shiv wrote a brief post about tweaking the V2 user torque values.

Already tweaked to 94 across the board on 91 octane. 100 octane is available to me, just want to know what's safe. If someone has logs with the 100% settings...I'd love to see them.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by 335lvr

Already tweaked to 94 across the board on 91 octane. 100 octane is available to me, just want to know what's safe. If someone has logs with the 100% settings...I'd love to see them.

So you are on 94% settings across the board on 91 Octane, and you've had no issues?? I thought Shiv said 93% settings on 91 would be max, but is recommending 92%.
Are you on the most recent v2.0.2 map?

[bmwzimmer]

Did Shiv put in a bit of a safety factor?

[addicted 2 turbo]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Did the v2.0.2 6MT map show a drop in torque too?
And are you stock other than the PROcede?

Shiv has posted the comparisons between all the tunes on a 6MT car last week already, but he's also got a catback and intake.
IIRC even with his mods the v2.0.2 showed less torque than the v1.47
but again that was the 6MT map.
I think he detuned the 6AT map a bit from that.
So v2.0.2 6MT guys probably have a decent bit more power than v2.0.2 6AT guys as it stands now.

i have a little bit less torque 10 ft lb.