Welcome to Bimmerfest -- The #1 Online Community for BMW related information! Please enjoy the discussion forums below and share your experiences with the 200,000 current, new and past BMW owners. The forums are broken out by car model and into other special interest sections such as BMW European Delivery and a special forum to voice your questions to the many BMW dealers on the site to assist our members!

Please follow the links below to help get you started!

Go Back   Bimmerfest - BMW Forums > The Best of Bimmerfest! > BMW Diesel Owners / Enthusiasts

BMW Diesel Owners / Enthusiasts
Do you own a diesel powered BMW? Maybe a 335d or a BMW x35d? Come and talk about what makes your car great!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 03-12-2012, 01:20 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
Just noticed a label error . . . The March 10 lower left "Emission Components" plot the left axis should be Nm . . .
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-22-2012, 12:02 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
So I'm not happy with the update rate on the Torque app for measuring HP/Torque numbers. And the Bavarian Technic ECM reported torque #'s appear to be based on calculations of other engine parameters (and it's update rate is pretty slow as well).

So, I broke out my old GTech Pro. However I was unable to lock-on to an rpm signal when connected to the power outlets due to BMW doing such a good job filtering the noise. So I cludged together a way to power the GTech from the battery and got a crystal clear rpm signal.

Then I found a local car whose owner has a BT and a JBD that is modified for in-cab adjustability.

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=573553

Last night was near perfect conditions. 70F and no wind. Said vehicle had just completed a DPF regen and had a full tank of fuel. The D is supposed to weight ~3804 lbs according to insideline (http://www.insideline.com/bmw/3-seri...full-test.html) and with the driver and some items in the trunk it would be total ~4000 lbs.

The runs below are with the JBD at 0, 1 switch thrown (~65%), both switches thrown (~85%).

Procedure was over the same stretch of flat road (interstate), gently accelerating in 1st to 2nd then getting into 3rd gear before giving it the fuel, then letting up at ~80mph so I didn't run the risk of loosing my license if . . .

The numbers include not only loss of the tranny and tires, like a rolling dyno, but also the loss due to wind resistance. Looks like the Cd and A for the e90 is 0.26 and 2.17m^2. Using this (http://www.gtechprosupport.com/support/AeroDragCalc.php) says that at 80mph there's roughly 21 hp lost due to wind.

I'll post some of the BT data later of some runs that has some interesting data. Unfortunately it was trying to record too much data and the time steps between readings is larger than I'd like. But things like EGT's, DPF pressures, injection timing, etc are there.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	GTech_335d_03_21_2012_A.jpg
Views:	183
Size:	137.2 KB
ID:	317958  
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-22-2012, 03:55 PM
cssnms cssnms is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Murland
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 715
Mein Auto: '11 335d
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIwyse View Post
So I'm not happy with the update rate on the Torque app for measuring HP/Torque numbers. And the Bavarian Technic ECM reported torque #'s appear to be based on calculations of other engine parameters (and it's update rate is pretty slow as well).

So, I broke out my old GTech Pro. However I was unable to lock-on to an rpm signal when connected to the power outlets due to BMW doing such a good job filtering the noise. So I cludged together a way to power the GTech from the battery and got a crystal clear rpm signal.

Then I found a local car whose owner has a BT and a JBD that is modified for in-cab adjustability.

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=573553

Last night was near perfect conditions. 70F and no wind. Said vehicle had just completed a DPF regen and had a full tank of fuel. The D is supposed to weight ~3804 lbs according to insideline (http://www.insideline.com/bmw/3-seri...full-test.html) and with the driver and some items in the trunk it would be total ~4000 lbs.

The runs below are with the JBD at 0, 1 switch thrown (~65%), both switches thrown (~85%).

Procedure was over the same stretch of flat road (interstate), gently accelerating in 1st to 2nd then getting into 3rd gear before giving it the fuel, then letting up at ~80mph so I didn't run the risk of loosing my license if . . .

The numbers include not only loss of the tranny and tires, like a rolling dyno, but also the loss due to wind resistance. Looks like the Cd and A for the e90 is 0.26 and 2.17m^2. Using this (http://www.gtechprosupport.com/support/AeroDragCalc.php) says that at 80mph there's roughly 21 hp lost due to wind.

I'll post some of the BT data later of some runs that has some interesting data. Unfortunately it was trying to record too much data and the time steps between readings is larger than I'd like. But things like EGT's, DPF pressures, injection timing, etc are there.
Interesting... Nice charts. Are these figures suppose to be hp at the wheels? Results seem low or are the peak numbers taking into consideration wind resistance loss?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-22-2012, 06:13 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssnms View Post
Interesting... Nice charts. Are these figures suppose to be hp at the wheels? Results seem low or are the peak numbers taking into consideration wind resistance loss?
Those include wind resistance losses, so they will be lower than a chassis dyno. And doing the runs in 3rd gear is a little less than desirable compared to a ~1:1 tranny ratio doable on a dyno. Wind drag for the e90 at 80mph is ~20 hp based on the Cd and frontal area of the vehicle. So at 85% of the JBD the pwr to the wheels in the 3rd gear pulls is probably somewhere in the ~253 + 20 ~273 hp region. Choose your drivetrain loss % to get to "crank". It's not exact, but gives a quantifiable comparison on the relative change in modifications. It's also closer to the likely uses I'm interested in (legal road speeds) as I don't expect to be traveling at max pwr rpm's in 4th or 5th anytime soon.

Now, here is some of the interesting stuff I haven't seen before . . . .

The BT was selected to "record" prior to the full fueling events and then stopped after the 3rd gear pull, but it was a little hard to do all this data recording and drive safely so it's not perfectly timed . . .

The DPF regen was prior to the runs. I'm showing that to compare exhaust temps to the runs. Temps during regens are significantly hotter than the hottest run with JBD at 85%. In fact, the highest exhaust temps with the JBD full fuel run are lower than I would've expected and seems to indicate, based on other modified diesel drivetrains I'm familiar with, there's more room for further fueling . . .

DPF restriction seems to be a non-issue at these hp levels.

JBD does not, as indicated by the designer, do much of anything to max boost levels.

The intercooler seems like it could be improved a bit? Interested in others opinion on this.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	BT_March21_Regen_Soot_Temps.png
Views:	130
Size:	42.2 KB
ID:	318058   Click image for larger version

Name:	BT_March21_JBDruns_DPF_Temps.png
Views:	120
Size:	37.6 KB
ID:	318059   Click image for larger version

Name:	BT_March21_JBDruns_Boost_Rail.png
Views:	114
Size:	34.0 KB
ID:	318060   Click image for larger version

Name:	BT_March21_JBDruns_IntakeTemps_DPFpres.png
Views:	111
Size:	35.1 KB
ID:	318061   Click image for larger version

Name:	BT_March21_JBDruns_ECM_TQs.png
Views:	107
Size:	33.3 KB
ID:	318062  

__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-22-2012, 06:20 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
Forgot to mention the ECM calculated torque values. They seem to be based on something other than what is actually being developed by the vehicle in the modified state since they report nearly the same values in the 3 separate runs. I'm guessing it's using things like the rail pressure, injector opening times, boost, etc. to calculate those values. But that's a guess on my part.
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-22-2012, 06:24 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
I forgot the main injection event data as well . . .
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	BT_March21_JBDruns_MainInjec.png
Views:	81
Size:	37.5 KB
ID:	318066  
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-22-2012, 06:57 PM
cssnms cssnms is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Murland
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 715
Mein Auto: '11 335d
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIwyse View Post
Those include wind resistance losses, so they will be lower than a chassis dyno. And doing the runs in 3rd gear is a little less than desirable compared to a ~1:1 tranny ratio doable on a dyno. Wind drag for the e90 at 80mph is ~20 hp based on the Cd and frontal area of the vehicle. So at 85% of the JBD the pwr to the wheels in the 3rd gear pulls is probably somewhere in the ~253 + 20 ~273 hp region. Choose your drivetrain loss % to get to "crank". It's not exact, but gives a quantifiable comparison on the relative change in modifications. It's also closer to the likely uses I'm interested in (legal road speeds) as I don't expect to be traveling at max pwr rpm's in 4th or 5th anytime soon.

Now, here is some of the interesting stuff I haven't seen before . . . .

The BT was selected to "record" prior to the full fueling events and then stopped after the 3rd gear pull, but it was a little hard to do all this data recording and drive safely so it's not perfectly timed . . .

The DPF regen was prior to the runs. I'm showing that to compare exhaust temps to the runs. Temps during regens are significantly hotter than the hottest run with JBD at 85%. In fact, the highest exhaust temps with the JBD full fuel run are lower than I would've expected and seems to indicate, based on other modified diesel drivetrains I'm familiar with, there's more room for further fueling . . .

DPF restriction seems to be a non-issue at these hp levels.

JBD does not, as indicated by the designer, do much of anything to max boost levels.

The intercooler seems like it could be improved a bit? Interested in others opinion on this.
This is great information and even more so according to your interprutaion of the data. To be honest I am not 100% sure what I am looking at. Generally speaking I know what the logs represent, but I don't see a baseline to compare a stock log against a JBD log. An overlay comparing against a stock car would be helpful

How much hotter were the exhaust temps by comparision with a stock run full fuel?

I suspected these cars would benefit from additional cooling esp when running the JBD at the higher settings. I notice my car is more prone to heat soak esp during the summer months. Along with a larger intercooler a stock bumper would benefit from opening up the front bumper cover opening a bit to expose more of the IC. The Msport bumper provides a bit better cooling than the stock bumper.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-22-2012, 07:13 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssnms View Post
This is great information and even more so according to your interprutaion of the data. To be honest I am not 100% sure what I am looking at. Generally speaking I know what the logs represent, but I don't see a baseline to compare a stock log against a JBD log. An overlay comparing against a stock car would be helpful

How much hotter were the exhaust temps by comparision with a stock run full fuel?

I suspected these cars would benefit from additional cooling esp when running the JBD at the higher settings. I notice my car is more prone to heat soak esp during the summer months. Along with a larger intercooler a stock bumper would benefit from opening up the front bumper cover opening a bit to expose more of the IC. The Msport bumper provides a bit better cooling than the stock bumper.
Excellent point, as there isn't a baseline. I wasn't quite sure how successful this experiment was going to be. And I spent a lot of time fussing around trying to get the GTech to lock onto the rpm info. Building the harness and cables to connect to the battery, then getting it synched up took more time than I wanted. But it should be a fairly simple matter now to get that D and redo without JBD, then re-install and re-run in the various conditions. Just a matter of scheduling and having the appropriate environmental conditions. I'd also change the BT so it's not recording so much data so the updates will occur faster.
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-22-2012, 07:34 PM
cssnms cssnms is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Murland
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 715
Mein Auto: '11 335d
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIwyse View Post
Excellent point, as there isn't a baseline. I wasn't quite sure how successful this experiment was going to be. And I spent a lot of time fussing around trying to get the GTech to lock onto the rpm info. Building the harness and cables to connect to the battery, then getting it synched up took more time than I wanted. But it should be a fairly simple matter now to get that D and redo without JBD, then re-install and re-run in the various conditions. Just a matter of scheduling and having the appropriate environmental conditions. I'd also change the BT so it's not recording so much data so the updates will occur faster.
Very much looking forward to seeing the JBD data up against stock baselines. Thanks for taking the time to do all of this.

One thing to keep in mind and you may already know this, but the JBD needs to be removed in order to get a stock baseline. The JBD set to 0 still adds more fuel increasing HP 15 - 20hps.

Last edited by cssnms; 03-22-2012 at 07:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-22-2012, 07:37 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
This is also interesting. The elevated rail pressures for the full fueling runs over such a short time period seems to raising the fuel temps.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	BT_March21_JBDruns_FuelTemp.png
Views:	83
Size:	26.0 KB
ID:	318082  
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-22-2012, 07:47 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssnms View Post
Very much looking forward to seeing the JBD data up against stock baselines. Thanks for taking the time to do all of this.

One thing to keep in mind and you may already know this, but the JBD needs to be removed in order to get a stock baseline. The JBD set to 0 still adds more fuel increasing HP 15 - 20hps.
Yep. Thinking it would be best to do the stock run first, then on the side of the road install the JBD, set at 0, then progressively increase. It's kind of hot in there fussing around with the connectors so I'd prefer to do that sooner rather than later due to building of heat.

Doing all the runs in the same time frame, with the same tank of fuel, same environmental conditions would give the truest data. Otherwise just the fuel variation, fuel temps, air temps, etc. could skew the results. Especially this time of year when we're transitioning from winter to summer fuel blends.
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-22-2012, 08:03 PM
cssnms cssnms is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Murland
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 715
Mein Auto: '11 335d
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIwyse View Post
This is also interesting. The elevated rail pressures for the full fueling runs over such a short time period seems to raising the fuel temps.
Where are fuel temps measured during fueling?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-22-2012, 08:09 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssnms View Post
Where are fuel temps measured during fueling?
This is A fuel temp sensor, but I'm uncertain if it's THE sensor being logged. It probably is since there's such a direct and immediate relationship between the slope increase of the temp and the rail pressure peaks and that would indicate close proximity.

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...49&hg=13&fg=10
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-23-2012, 05:55 AM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
The data seems to show similar delta's as these runs: http://www.burgertuning.com/images/JBD_dyno.jpg

And I see it wasn't stated specifically, but the plotted engine parameters correspond to the runs with the JBD at 0, ~65% and ~85%. This is why the parameters like the DPF differential pressure and EGT's for the three peaks are progressively increasing.
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-24-2012, 04:25 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
Got some more data.

Differences from last data: 67F with 6mph headwinds gusting to 12. The engine cover was off this time so the JBD could be installed after the stock runs. There was no DPF regen previous to runs, and less total time driving previous to runs. Less heat soak?...

Due to time constraints the runs were: 1) stock 2) JBD 0 3) JBD ~65% (1 switch)

The interface for the GTech to a PC is serial to serial and I don't have a serial port on my home PC's so I'll have to wait 'til Monday to use my work PC to get the GTech graphs. But here's the peak #'s.

Stock ~210 hp 353 lb-ft
JBD 0 ~ 222 hp 367 lb-ft
JBD 65% ~ 240 hp 387 lb-ft

The fact that I'm using 3rd gear pulls and the runs happen so fast is likely why the low rpm #'s are lower than others who are reporting higher tq #'s using 4th or 5th gear pulls on a dyno.

Here's some of the DPF and EGT data for the runs.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	BT_March24_JBDvStock_EGTsDPFp.jpg
Views:	109
Size:	98.3 KB
ID:	318323  
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-26-2012, 06:36 AM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
Here's the GTech plots of stock vs JBD 0% vs JBD ~65%. The JBD runs were a bit higher hp than the previous ones for the same settings even with a bit of head wind. Think this is due to less heat soak from the DPF regen previous to the other runs.

Also found this plot of the "actual" vs "calculated" rail pressure interesting. The previous data didn't show the the ECM recording less "actual" pressure at JBD ~65% but seemed like it was at the 85% level. But the time steps were more coarse on those runs so it's hard to see for sure. Wonder if since the fuel temps were also lower on these runs if the HPFP was having a more difficult time flowing enough fuel? And this might also be the reason some people throw codes at the higher settings as the difference between these two readings might exceed an acceptable margin.

P.S. I forgot to set the date/time on the GTech on all these data sets (each time you plug it in it comes up at its "default" date/time which is Jan 17, 2017 . . .).
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	GTech_335d_03_24_2012_A.jpg
Views:	99
Size:	159.9 KB
ID:	318549   Click image for larger version

Name:	GTech_335d_03_24_2012_RailPres.jpg
Views:	82
Size:	52.7 KB
ID:	318550  
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-26-2012, 07:27 AM
cssnms cssnms is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Murland
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 715
Mein Auto: '11 335d
The JBD throws codes because the ECU is being sent a signal that there is not enough rail pressure and hence a fuel pump problem (that is the code). Which makes sense knowing how the JBD operates. As one dials up the JBD, the ECU get a signal that even less fuel is being delivered which in-turn the ECU tells the fuel pump to pump more fuel to compensate. When limp mode/SES occurs in certain instances when the JBD is set at 100% or close to it a fail-safe is triggered to reduce power to the engine in response to what the ECU deems is likely a fuel pump failure.

Last edited by cssnms; 03-26-2012 at 07:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-26-2012, 07:41 AM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
I'd love to have access to someone's car who has a BT and the Evolve or RENNtech tunes to compare the rail pressures, injector timing/openings, EGT's, etc.

Any ideas on what limits the remap's pwr levels? Is it also rail pressure related due to flowing more fuel than the HPFP can feed?
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-26-2012, 07:50 AM
cssnms cssnms is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Murland
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 715
Mein Auto: '11 335d
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIwyse View Post
I'd love to have access to someone's car who has a BT and the Evolve or RENNtech tunes to compare the rail pressures, injector timing/openings, EGT's, etc.

Any ideas on what limits the remap's pwr levels? Is it also rail pressure related due to flowing more fuel than the HPFP can feed?
Most of these tunes produce around the same amount of power (hp/torque) depending on which dyno plot you believe.

Regardless of the tune, most of the power is generated by adding more fuel, although some tunes claim to increase boost pressure too (Renntech, Evolve etc), it tends to be only a slight increase in this area. How the fuel is increased/delivered is what likely differentiates some of the tunes vs the JBD.

Many diesel tunes claim to remap the fuel injection timing, hence they increase the amount of fuel by increasing the number of times the fuel pump injects fuel under certain load conditions rather than just increasing fuel pump pressure across the board.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-26-2012, 08:03 AM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
My other common rail diesel's (Cummins, Liberty CRD) have used methods where they increase the duration of the main pulse (along with increase injection timing) as the main method to get more fuel. I actually prefer this method to the "box" type rail pressure only methods as it's substantially less stress on the injector bodies and HPFP. But you still get to a point where the HPFP can't maintain adequate pressure in the rail due to flow constraints. Hopefully that's not the common limitation in the JBD/Evolve/RENNtech setups.

The exhaust temps and DPF restrictions don't seem to be limits from the data I'm seeing. Although as the DPF ages it might add more restriction. Also, in the X5 if you're towing into headwinds or going up mountains the EGT's would become substantially higher due to prolonged high demand situations.

The intercooler seems like it could stand to be improved a bit as the the intake temps are increasing ~ >30C in a matter seconds.
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-26-2012, 08:38 AM
cssnms cssnms is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Murland
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 715
Mein Auto: '11 335d
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIwyse View Post
My other common rail diesel's (Cummins, Liberty CRD) have used methods where they increase the duration of the main pulse (along with increase injection timing) as the main method to get more fuel. I actually prefer this method to the "box" type rail pressure only methods as it's substantially less stress on the injector bodies and HPFP. But you still get to a point where the HPFP can't maintain adequate pressure in the rail due to flow constraints. Hopefully that's not the common limitation in the JBD/Evolve/RENNtech setups.

The exhaust temps and DPF restrictions don't seem to be limits from the data I'm seeing. Although as the DPF ages it might add more restriction. Also, in the X5 if you're towing into headwinds or going up mountains the EGT's would become substantially higher due to prolonged high demand situations.

The intercooler seems like it could stand to be improved a bit as the the intake temps are increasing ~ >30C in a matter seconds.
All of these tunes require the fuel pump to perform double duty; now weather or not one method shortens the life of the pump anymore than the other is anyone's guess. The tuners claim their method is "safer" while the fuel box camp claim the tuners are full of it. I am of the mind-set that it is 6 of one, half a donzen of the other. That being said, I think anytime the ECU is in control vs being tricked into doing something else would be the preferred method.

The DPF has shown to be little if any restriction as evidenced by an E90Post member that removed his DPF and did not see any hp gain. In fact he reinstalled the DPF because he did not like the increase in soot. This also seems to be supported by an artcile I posted in my exhaust thread on cat back exhaust systems on turbo diesels.

I agree an IC would be a nice add, esp for those that have a tune. Anytime power is increased logic would dictate that temps increase, so one would think there would be a benefit to adding a more efficient IC, not much unlike the benefits the 335i owners see.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-26-2012, 05:37 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIwyse View Post
Also found this plot of the "actual" vs "calculated" rail pressure interesting. The previous data didn't show the the ECM recording less "actual" pressure at JBD ~65% but seemed like it was at the 85% level. But the time steps were more coarse on those runs so it's hard to see for sure.
Well, was I wrong! I hadn't zoomed into the rail pressure data on the previous runs like I did on these recent runs. Here's the "actual" vs "calculated" rail pressure from the previous runs at 0, 65%, 85%. Even with the more coarse time intervals it's obvious that there's an increasing error going on. It seems the pressure relief valve is opening up and keeping the rail pressure in "safe" region even though the ECM thinks it's not making correct pressure.

A lot of the truck guys have in the past plugged the relief valve but this caused a lot of issues with cracked injector bodies. It's good to see this system has some built in protections.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	BT_March21_JBDruns_RailPres.png
Views:	82
Size:	54.4 KB
ID:	318627  
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-26-2012, 05:58 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
Well, something like this Constant Pressure Relief Valve is a potential way forward other common rail applications have used. It's safer than plugging the PRV but still adds stress to the system.

http://www.dieselpowerproducts.com/p...e-cummins.aspx
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-01-2012, 07:00 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIwyse View Post
I'd love to have access to someone's car who has a BT and the Evolve or RENNtech tunes to compare the rail pressures, injector timing/openings, EGT's, etc.

Any ideas on what limits the remap's pwr levels? Is it also rail pressure related due to flowing more fuel than the HPFP can feed?
Caution: Do not read this if you are impulsive and lack self control.

Based on the things I saw from this (http://introductions.www.bimmerfest....&postcount=101) it appeared the limit to the present HP situation was not due to the HPFP.

So, the local vehicle above recently got an Evolve tune. This was somewhat of a gamble as they were not forthcoming on specific questions regarding what parameters they were manipulating to get the gains. Since the presently available “box” options mainly fool rail pressure it was hoped that the tunes were behaving in similar fashions to options from the other common rail vehicles that have been remapped and left the rail pressure alone …

Turns out that is indeed the case. A lot of the day was spent playing and collecting data. Lots of interesting data.

The Evolve tune appears to be making power by increasing the start of injection and increasing the length of time the injectors are open, as well as increasing boost. It is not increasing rail pressure above the stock 1600 bar. This is exactly what was hoped for.

Because the remap leaves the rail pressure alone, this opens the door for something the common rail truck crowd has done for a long time, which is stacking a pressure box with a timing/duration approach.

And the data shows the JBD plays with the remap. CAUTION: There’s now enough low rpm fueling in some circumstances that you could likely break things. This likely eliminates most/all margin in the system. You are your own warranty station. It is not BMW or anyone else’s fault if you doing something that breaks things . . .

Now, if one was so inclined to continue down this path here’s what you might expect.

The testing ground changed from the above Gtech data to a more isolated place with flatter, smoother roads and mature forests on each side of the road (great wind blocks). On this new location the recorded baseline JBD #’s are a bit lower than above. There was some previously recorded data from a similar day (where initial low level methanol/water injection was being examined) as today that will be used as the pre-remap baseline and labeled as JBD 85%. Also the previous JBD alone data was with a freshly regenerated DPF and today‘s data is with a DPF approaching a new regen cycle. However, since it’s a different day with different fuel in the tank and a different DPF situation a 1:1 comparison is impossible. However, it was within ~6 F temps and very similar wind conditions. Since the Gtech utilizes a Serial port interface and none of my home PC’s have one (they’re all USB and the serial to USB device I bought doesn’t work) it will have to wait until after Monday (when I return to work to use my PC there which has a serial port) for the graphs.

But here’s the summation of the hp/tq #’s. The JBD @ ~85% produced similar TQ #’s as the remap, but a bit better HP. Now it might be that the tank of Illinois fuel in the vehicle has lower cetane or BTU’s than what was in the vehicle for the previous tests. Don’t have a way to test that.

After analyzing the BT data and seeing how the remap worked the owner decided to try the JBD with the remap. This is were things got interesting. On the same day, with the same fuel, with the same temps, with the same testing procedure, the data shows the JBD produced similar delta-HP number increases above the remap as the above data for comparisons of stock vs. JBD. For this test the full fueling was specifically held off at low rpm’s to minimize strain on the tranny. This was tested at JBD 0% and with one switch thrown so the JBD was at 65%. 85% was not tested as the BT data needed to be analyzed to see how EGT’s and DPF pressures were doing. The 65% JBD setting produced ~30hp on top of the remap and more torque even with careful low rpm fueling. CAUTION: Full fueling with this combo with a locked up torque converter at low rpm’s could be detrimental to the health of your vehicle.

So, here’s some of the interesting BT data (the hp/tq curves will need to wait ’til I get to work and download the data on the serial port). Note: the JBD only at ~85% were taken with a slightly slower sample rate so it’s a bit “compressed” compared to the other data, and also with a freshly regenerated DPF. I tried to cut the data samples for the comparison at the same time the dyno plots (should show up after Monday).

Comments: The remap increases the boost over stock and JBD (which doesn‘t do anything for boost as the manufacturer states). This appears to help the EGTs (post turbo) #’s. Also, interestingly, the Intake Air Temps for more power a slightly lower with the remap and stacked vs JBD alone.

The JBD at high settings does appear to increase the main injection pulse width and increases the injection timing slightly. But not as much as the remap.

Stacking the JBD with the remap, in my opinion, is showing that it works quite well for these initial tests. The IAT’s are lower for more hp (due perhaps to the extra boost). The EGT’s are (537C is under 1000F) still in a reasonable area, especially for short durations (see this thread for one of hundreds of example discussions: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=206994). However, if one were to to be at cruising situation at low rpm’s with the torque converter locked up and you applied full fuel then this combination could cause negative consequences. Please be cautious with the information and don’t do anything stupid.

Having the JBD respond with an additional input from the engine rpm would be ideal. That way it could be held off at low rpm and given some leash at high rpm to make more of a flat torque curve across the rpm range.

Enjoy!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	BMW_E&JBD_boost.png
Views:	190
Size:	29.6 KB
ID:	327540   Click image for larger version

Name:	BMW_E&JBD_IAT.png
Views:	179
Size:	35.3 KB
ID:	327541   Click image for larger version

Name:	BMW_E&JBD_EGTs.png
Views:	162
Size:	37.9 KB
ID:	327542  
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-01-2012, 07:15 PM
TDIwyse TDIwyse is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Midwest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 421
Mein Auto: 4 diesels
One of the plots didn't upload . . . this is the time of the main injection pulse * the injection angel (start of injection). Kind of a way to show the impact of increased duration and timing. Since the JBD fools the ECM into making more pressure, for those situations where the JBD is utilized, for the same injector opening duration, more fuel goes in due to the rail being at higher pressures.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	BMW_E&JBD_ANGxTime.png
Views:	78
Size:	37.6 KB
ID:	327544  
__________________
2011 335d 11.8 sec 120 mph 1/4 mile NHRA certified track

2004 Ram Cummins with lots-o-mods
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Forum Navigation
Go Back   Bimmerfest - BMW Forums > The Best of Bimmerfest! > BMW Diesel Owners / Enthusiasts
Today's Posts Search
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2001-2011 performanceIX, Inc. All Rights Reserved .: guidelines .:. privacy .:. terms