[Gr8ZongB58]

Originally Posted by vrships

So it's holding up just fine with 0W20? I was gonna get Top Tec 6600 but I thought it have better protection with 0w30 ( liquimoly B FE) since I now stress the engine harder than stock?

vrships Here is my buried thread on oil analysis running liquimoly top tec 6600 0w-20 if you're concerned. Just to add, put in 6-1/2L of oil, got 6-1/2L quarts of oil back out at the end.

TL;DR
You got nothing to worry about.

https://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2085515

[AshtonPJT]

Also heads up torque readings in logs are very inaccurate everytuner has to scale these tables to allow for added power. The only way to really test power is 60-130 or dyno. Also as a heads up since I see this all the time sport gauges are inaccurate after a tune unless you find a tuner willing to dail in the gauges after a dyno pull.

For instance an ots tune and our tune could make identical power but show different torque per load in logs

[suby01]

Originally Posted by AshtonPJT

Also heads up torque readings in logs are very inaccurate everytuner has to scale these tables to allow for added power. The only way to really test power is 60-130 or dyno. Also as a heads up since I see this all the time sport gauges are inaccurate after a tune unless you find a tuner willing to dail in the gauges after a dyno pull.

For instance an ots tune and our tune could make identical power but show different torque per load in logs

For sure. Its a gimmic scale.
Track times. Dragy. Or dyno are your real measurements.

[vrships]

Originally Posted by AshtonPJT

Also heads up torque readings in logs are very inaccurate everytuner has to scale these tables to allow for added power. The only way to really test power is 60-130 or dyno. Also as a heads up since I see this all the time sport gauges are inaccurate after a tune unless you find a tuner willing to dail in the gauges after a dyno pull.

For instance an ots tune and our tune could make identical power but show different torque per load in logs

This is an interesting question. Ever since I noticed the B58 DME has so many torque logs, I started wondering how accurate they can be. The older platforms (F3x F8x etc) torque logs are too flat and smooth so they don't even seem real. But the G series torque logs have bumps and dips following the boost, ignition timing, throttle variations and is never the same between pulls. I feel they are valuable readings.

I thought there may be a "torque meter" somewhere located in the transmission that physically measures the torque (Actual). But that couldn't be real. I asked protuningfreak how these numbers are estimated and if they can be trusted, the answer is like yea it's an estimation so there may be errors here and there... not quite informative

DME has a sophisticated model to calculate torques based on boost, AFR, MAF, ignition timing, and all things considered. It's a simulation, depending on how serious BMW is about it, it may sometimes produce very accurate numbers. Because from factory these numbers are used in real DME and TCU to control real hardware to change tranny line pressure, satisfy certain torque limit, etc. It can't be too wrong.

One thing not to confuse is that the ABSOLUTE numbers are less important. Just like BMW rated the motor for 382bhp but it's actually having >360 whp on multiple models and probably has >410bhp really. I rely on it more to tell how RELATIVELY different tunes and different running conditions change the torque/power output. And I have tested repeatedly that the maximum power from torque log indeed reflects the slight fuel quality change (stage 2 93 pump vs pump mixed with E85), which could be as small as 10 hp but repeatable from multiple runs.

For example, my bone stock tune runs ~362 hp from the log, and with stage 2 93 (w/o XHP), it is around ~440hp (22%), with stage 2 93(w/ XHP) (31%), stage 2 E30 (36%). Will these percentages be verified on a dyno? I think the results could be close. But if I were to measure all these numbers on a dyno, and at least 3 runs each condition, with different fuel quality. Think about the rent I have to pay the shop!

But one thing you must make sure is that there is no additional scaling factor that intentionally bends the torque reading. That means with JB4, these numbers are meaningless. With MHD, BM3, it depends on if the map wants to report it truthfully, or bend it to evade the torque limit. The tuner should know and clarify which way the map uses. Some users from m340i forum said that they confirmed, for some maps or settings MHD/BM3 does bend the torque reading.

[vrships]

Originally Posted by suby01

This was before XHP existed on the M40i. I can show you the time stamp of the datalog. So no XHP installed at all here...

That is a ton of torque! 569 lb ft while I am only getting 404 at maximum (550Nm). Pretty sure your TCU torque limit is long gone from this tune.

Do you mind sharing the link to this log?

I heard (again from M340i forum) that either TCU can redefine all the torque limits, or an engine tune can command the DME to ignore the TCU's request to cut fuel/boost/etc at the torque limit. Both ways should act the same

[noblinka]

Originally Posted by vrships

I am not sure why this is not discussed widely before. I may have seen some posts mentioning in the m340 forum, but only slightly related

TLDR:

For those that have Bootmod3 and stage 2 or higher engine tune, you may really need the XHP to lift the torque limit to fully harvest the additional power. If you don't, the torque is gonna be limited <550nm all the way (under LC, it's even <500nm), while stg2 torque can easily go beyond 620nm.

=============================
Before XHP, I had been running stage 2 93 on a 2020 model for a few weeks. One thing I noticed is that the boost target and boost, when doing a 3rd gear WOT pull, was only around 16-17 psi at < 6000 rpm. This is as low as the stock boost, and much lower than the ACN91 boost (which is all the way >20 and boost target is 22.4). I was confused why stg 2 93 was so much more conservative than stg 1 ACN 91. It made no sense to me.

Although with stg 2 93 the car certainly runs faster, but the displayed "torque actual / target after clutch" is merely <550nm, while the torque predrivedynamics is 670nm. This is abnormal since with stock tune or ACN91 stg 1, these 3 torque values are within 30 nm different. Also these estimated torque values should be relatively accurate when compared between maps, meaning a 20% gain in these values should reflect on a real dyno run.

The facts are implying that the engine held up power somehow while it could do much better. I have asked ptf but they didn't find anything wrong, or explain the reasons why torque is limited

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=65dd...bc901ce26e3fe6
======================

And then I installed the XHP. I didn't even purchase the TCU map and was just trying out basic settings to fine tune shift behavior. And then immediately I did a BM3 stg 2 93log with updated XHP settings, and the car felt obviously faster. Upon checking the log I realized now the torque can easily go above 550nm, reaching 650nm easily. And boost target was right on at a constant 22.4 with actual boost 21-23 mostly.

I then did a 0-100 pull. Guess what, even with the wet road under the rain and an entire wheel spinning 1 st gear, it did 0-100 (62mph) in 3.68s, easily beating smoking the fastest time I did before XHP on perfect road 3.97s.

https://www.bootmod3.net/log?id=65e5...912436fb2ff41a

Now things make sense. Somehow the BM3 stg2 93 map did not remove the torque limit inherently from ZF8HP51. It achieved this by pre-calculate how much boost it should reduce, and apply the different boost target curve when you do the pull. Every pull is very repeatable and you won't find a sign that it cuts off power abruptly because DME redefines the curve in advance.


So it is still confusing why PFT did not make a simple switch in BM3 so you can switch off the global or by gear torque limit (it does allow you to further REDUCE torque, though). From what I know, if you get a custom tune, your tuner should be able to control if the torque limiter is active, and for that reason, a lot of people sing custom tune do not need to resort to XHP to release the hidden torque.

If you stick with OTS BM3, this is a must If you want to use true stage 2 or even Ethanol maps. And maybe this is B58TU specific issue? But anyway if not for XHP I would never realize what the true power of BM3 OTS map.

Any update on this? All points (even bm3 interface) say 550nm torque limit is eliminated with tune. This is the first positive seen saying otherwise. I’m stage 2 91 and I’m considering Xhp but not so keen on doing it yet if it doesn’t offer increase torque etc as I can live without faster shifting for now

[vrships]

That's my experience with BM3 and XHP on gen 2 B58. Where did you see the 550nm is overridden in BM3? I found no any mention of this in BM3.

Before I had XHP, I was quite confused that all my numerous log runs from ACN 91 stg1 to stage 2 93 cannot exceed ~570nm in the log, while stage 2 93 power is much higher at high RPM. At some point I suspected if this torque estimate was distorted with the tune so the number didn't make sense. But the car was no faster at lower rpm and my 0-60 time barely reached 3.8s with stg2 93 vs stock at 4.3s. and my boost target looks intentionlly limited before 5000rpm. that just doesn't feel right.

XHP solves all this mystery. I ran it with map 0 and I only paid for flash license. Now I can easily do 3.4s 0-60 with BM3 stage 2.

[spaceman12]

Thanks so much for this. I actually posted last year asking for help as my 0-60 time looked slow with BM3 Stage 2 91. I never figured it out but I knew the car was faster from butt dyno at speed. It just didn't feel different with a launch.

I thought it was boost leak or hot ambient temps (TX) so I just left it. I came across this thread and checked my old logs and saw my torque was limited to 550nm.

I had a shop do my BM3 tune and xHP stage 3 tune... they actually walked me through it and to teach me how to do it myself too. So I went back to XHP app and flashed stage 3 again verified torque limit was removed - did a light pull and saw 593nm on the logs but my burble tune was gone.

I flashed the same BM3 tune I have always been using and it seems now I have the burble tune back and the torque limit is still removed too. Not sure why but seems at least in my experience BM3 and xHP not exactly working well together.

Edit: Oh also when I reflashed the BM3 tune, the auto start/stop feature came back which is supposed to be disabled by xHP if you flash OTS without making any custom changes... at least I was still able to verify torque limit has been removed but clearly BM3/xHP is conflicting in some way

[vrships]

Originally Posted by spaceman12

Thanks so much for this. I actually posted last year asking for help as my 0-60 time looked slow with BM3 Stage 2 91. I never figured it out but I knew the car was faster from butt dyno at speed. It just didn't feel different with a launch.

I thought it was boost leak or hot ambient temps (TX) so I just left it. I came across this thread and checked my old logs and saw my torque was limited to 550nm.

I had a shop do my BM3 tune and xHP stage 3 tune... they actually walked me through it and to teach me how to do it myself too. So I went back to XHP app and flashed stage 3 again verified torque limit was removed - did a light pull and saw 593nm on the logs but my burble tune was gone.

I flashed the same BM3 tune I have always been using and it seems now I have the burble tune back and the torque limit is still removed too. Not sure why but seems at least in my experience BM3 and xHP not exactly working well together.

Edit: Oh also when I reflashed the BM3 tune, the auto start/stop feature came back which is supposed to be disabled by xHP if you flash OTS without making any custom changes... at least I was still able to verify torque limit has been removed but clearly BM3/xHP is conflicting in some way

I do not use any XHP maps, only XHP flash license so I can change all the settings including launch torque and geary torque limiter on stage 0 map. For this purpose so far I haven't found any conflict between BM3 and XHP stage 0.

If you flash OTS XHP maps, it could be that some configurable settings disabled the burble.
For example, the ignition cut shift is responsible for upshift brappp, and the upshift torque reduction cannot be set too negative if you wanna keep the upshift noise. To my understanding stage 3 XHP probably sets upshift torque reduction too small.