When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Not saying it isn't a good healthy bump, but 80whp/100wtq looks pretty disingenuous. Torque looks to be up about 50wtq throughout the entire powerband, but the claimed 80whp/100wtq bump is for about 200RPMs right at the very end when the turbo runs out of steam. It's a number that in practice doesn't really matters much at all, but I understand why they did that: big numbers sell, and most people don't know how to read dyno curves.
Tuning a first gen drivetrain with no long term testing of durability is very risky if you care about warranty claims. Unless of course you don’t care to pay the bill if something goes bad within the drivetrain whether you thinkit was caused by the tune or not.
Not saying it isn't a good healthy bump, but 80whp/100wtq looks pretty disingenuous. Torque looks to be up about 50wtq throughout the entire powerband, but the claimed 80whp/100wtq bump is for about 200RPMs right at the very end when the turbo runs out of steam. It's a number that in practice doesn't really matters much at all, but I understand why they did that: big numbers sell, and most people don't know how to read dyno curves.
so when people quote power numbers which are generally peak numbers are they being disingenuous about the power because its only at peak? so should be quote average horsepower and torque instead of peak? just asking for a friend.
so when people quote power numbers which are generally peak numbers are they being disingenuous about the power because its only at peak? so should be quote average horsepower and torque instead of peak? just asking for a friend.
so when people quote power numbers which are generally peak numbers are they being disingenuous about the power because its only at peak? so should be quote average horsepower and torque instead of peak? just asking for a friend.
Most company's take the dyno numbers and claim them to the crank not to the wheels. Main reason for this, is because numbers sale. We all know crank numbers are always higher than numbers to the wheels. If you were to sell your product, you list higher numbers, which are crank numbers. Provide a dyno chart as proof but most don't know how to read a simple chart. So they will just see before and after lines and say WOW, that's impressive.
In the video OP posted, based on the numbers on the graph, 48.8 whp & 28.88 wtq gained from the baseline numbers vs the highest numbers.
They claim JB4 tune 365whp 387wtq ( Power gains of up to 80whp/100wtq)
Problem I have with the TLX-S, thus far all the dyno baseline numbers are all over the place. I'm no stranger to any of this.
The very 1st dyno pull for the TLX-S 284 whp and 296 wtq.
The 3rd and 4th TLX-S baseline numbers are more realistic to being true. I hope some of these TLX-S owners get on rollers to provide more proof of baseline numbers.
I have nothing against JB4 but i'm not a fan of piggy back tunes. Reflash tunes are more reliable and feel more OEM. Maybe the piggy back tunes have gotten better? Regardless, piggy back tunes are easily spotted unless you can hide somewhere under the hood that's not as easily noticeable. Reflash tunes are only detected with a scan (If the scan tool has the ability to detect a tune). I'd personally steer clear from any tune, unless it's been proven.
so when people quote power numbers which are generally peak numbers are they being disingenuous about the power because its only at peak? so should be quote average horsepower and torque instead of peak? just asking for a friend.
Apples to oranges here. They're claiming a GAIN of X, which is totally different from a peak of Y. But keep licking the boots of the master who feeds you .
Apples to oranges here. They're claiming a GAIN of X, which is totally different from a peak of Y. But keep licking the boots of the master who feeds you .
Most company's take the dyno numbers and claim them to the crank not to the wheels. Main reason for this, is because numbers sale. We all know crank numbers are always higher than numbers to the wheels. If you were to sell your product, you list higher numbers, which are crank numbers. Provide a dyno chart as proof but most don't know how to read a simple chart. So they will just see before and after lines and say WOW, that's impressive.
In the video OP posted, based on the numbers on the graph, 48.8 whp & 28.88 wtq gained from the baseline numbers vs the highest numbers.
They claim JB4 tune 365whp 387wtq ( Power gains of up to 80whp/100wtq)
Problem I have with the TLX-S, thus far all the dyno baseline numbers are all over the place. I'm no stranger to any of this.
The very 1st dyno pull for the TLX-S 284 whp and 296 wtq.
2nd TLX-S dyno results 324 whp and 342 qtq. Though the dyno graph on this one is very questionable so the numbers would be false.
3rd TLX-S dyno results 309 whp and 336 wtq
4th and current TLX-S dyno results 310whp and 345wtq
The 3rd and 4th TLX-S baseline numbers are more realistic to being true. I hope some of these TLX-S owners get on rollers to provide more proof of baseline numbers.
I have nothing against JB4 but i'm not a fan of piggy back tunes. Reflash tunes are more reliable and feel more OEM. Maybe the piggy back tunes have gotten better? Regardless, piggy back tunes are easily spotted unless you can hide somewhere under the hood that's not as easily noticeable. Reflash tunes are only detected with a scan (If the scan tool has the ability to detect a tune). I'd personally steer clear from any tune, unless it's been proven.
Actually baseline is within 10whp-10wtq in all the videos except first, (heat soak maybe?). 2nd video is dyno error-blip which is perfectly reflected in dyno graph. Eliminate blip and it falls in to same bracket.
And yes, custom tunes is the best way to go, just need to find good tuner. All my cars are tuned but I have met few bad apples...
Has anyone placed an order and purchased this piggyback system? I have no prior experience with JB4 products but it sounds like reviews are positive from what I have read.
Actually baseline is within 10whp-10wtq in all the videos except first, (heat soak maybe?). 2nd video is dyno error-blip which is perfectly reflected in dyno graph. Eliminate blip and it falls in to same bracket.
And yes, custom tunes is the best way to go, just need to find good tuner. All my cars are tuned but I have met few bad apples...
im guessing that p2R’s brutal numbers were done before the car was fully broken in (this coincides with their bad quarter mile time as well). I noticed a significant gain in performance after 1200 miles on the car. The 324 i also dont believe, theres an abnormal blip on the graph where it hits the max hp, looks like it was done without any smoothing, and it doesnt really show up the same on any of the others dyno runs. 310 to the wheels at a moderate temperature and altitude seems like a believeable number through a drivetrain with awd and a 10 speed auto.
im guessing that p2R’s brutal numbers were done before the car was fully broken in (this coincides with their bad quarter mile time as well). I noticed a significant gain in performance after 1200 miles on the car. The 324 i also dont believe, theres an abnormal blip on the graph where it hits the max hp, looks like it was done without any smoothing, and it doesnt really show up the same on any of the others dyno runs. 310 to the wheels at a moderate temperature and altitude seems like a believeable number through a drivetrain with awd and a 10 speed auto.
I would have looked to 300 to 305 whp baseline at the wheels on a DynoJet. AWD will pull it down over what a RWD will run. The transmission should not matter. Readings should be taken in whatever gear gives a ratio 1:1. Torque converter is locked up so its out of play. Have no problem with 310 whp as a baseline in the first run. Would like to know what settings, fuel, &/or parts the second & third JB4 runs were using.
Agree run 2 is a throwaway, would not use it. Best you can do with it is cut off the blip.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-18-2022 at 10:25 PM.
Not saying it isn't a good healthy bump, but 80whp/100wtq looks pretty disingenuous. Torque looks to be up about 50wtq throughout the entire powerband, but the claimed 80whp/100wtq bump is for about 200RPMs right at the very end when the turbo runs out of steam. It's a number that in practice doesn't really matters much at all, but I understand why they did that: big numbers sell, and most people don't know how to read dyno curves.
The dyno for this car seems to start doing some weird things above 5300RPM. Looking at the other graphs, it seems to be similar in all of them ... I don't know what they were thinking, but they really must have been focused on low & mid-range responsiveness and completely compromised the top end to do so. It already has a low redline at 6000RPM, but the car honestly may have been made quicker if they lowered the redline even more to ~5750RPM. A bigger turbo and re-worked cylinder heads and this thing will finally make some decent power.
That being said, I don't even see 80wHP anywhere on the graph. Top numbers are 310wHP vs 359wHP. Looking at the graph, it appears the largest disparity in the curve is around where the graphs are making their peak power, so I don't know where they're getting 80wHP from.
The dyno for this car seems to start doing some weird things above 5300RPM. Looking at the other graphs, it seems to be similar in all of them ... I don't know what they were thinking, but they really must have been focused on low & mid-range responsiveness and completely compromised the top end to do so. It already has a low redline at 6000RPM, but the car honestly may have been made quicker if they lowered the redline even more to ~5750RPM. A bigger turbo and re-worked cylinder heads and this thing will finally make some decent power.
That being said, I don't even see 80wHP anywhere on the graph. Top numbers are 310wHP vs 359wHP. Looking at the graph, it appears the largest disparity in the curve is around where the graphs are making their peak power, so I don't know where they're getting 80wHP from.
Look at around 5800RPMs. In the stock curve, the power is falling like a rock while with the tune it's staying put. So yes technically there's a 80whp gain there...but it's totally meaningless since you'll get to experience it for about 0.1s.before the car upshifts. That's why I say it's disingenuous for them to claim 80whp gains, even if it technically is a true statement.
It takes a bit of time & a lot of work but you need to find the best shift point in each gear to maximize the power under the curve. When the cars shifts or you shift it you don't want the rpms to fall out below the power band. At the same time near the top of the rpm scale you also need to determine how long in time the RPM runup is. You might get more power but it might take too long to get it its not worth it. Its a balancing act. Having an accelerometer is also a good tool for finding you way to the best times.
IIRC this was the start of a N54 chart in WHP. Factory rating was 320BHP Crank. Eventually got to 402WHP.
Found a lot of times short shifting is the quick way in street cars. 7500 RPM might be fun at a bar or cars & coffee but if it takes too long to get to 7500 then 7000 may be a better bet. The most run JB4 turbo car I had was the 2011 & its redline was 7000 but after a lot of work the optimum shift point for most gears was 6250. Car had a 7DCT & the shifts were pretty instantaneous. The JB4 turned on my turn signal indicator lights as a shift light. Was totally settable. Set for 6100RPM to account for reaction time
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-20-2022 at 02:00 AM.
My buddy just posted his video with the jb4. He was the beta tester
Without any more power if they could cut the 60 ft time from 2.02, traction, into the 1.70 range they would have nice numbers. Typically one of your goals should be as low a 60ft number as you can get. Does the car use 1st on a lunch?
Having a lot of experience with JB4 and my m240 I’ll say you will run into issues with fueling and sensors going off. I worked with them for 1 year to get mine tuned correctly to map 6 and I also needed to upgrade my Fuel pump. If you run map 2 or even 3 with the type s you will see a difference since it raising the boost a little. Remember this does not manage fueling and that is where you will need an ecu tune. I hit my limit with this device topping out around close to 500 hp and tq to the wheels and I’m also running E40 fuel. Once I get an ECU tune and run E50 I will be at least 590 to the wheels on the stock turbo and engine. Has anyone reached to Ktuner to do some logging?
Show your buddy that video of hondamobilemechanic with supposedly only a catless downpipe mod. I'd love to see what a JB4 + DP TLX-S could do.
I believe he’s done a few more things than just a DP; last video he posted he’s now using the PRL drop-in filter and the P2R throttle body (70mm IIRC). Aside from that he upgraded the intake tube right before the throttle body. Overall minor things, the biggest being the DP, but I would also love to see what his car will do with a JB4.
On another note, on his last video he is using KTuner for logging - maybe testing for KTuner? That’s my speculation.
Also, another question that I don't think has been addressed as of yet ... were these runs with 91 Octane that the car was tuned for from the factory, or 93 Octane?
I believe he’s done a few more things than just a DP; last video he posted he’s now using the PRL drop-in filter and the P2R throttle body (70mm IIRC). Aside from that he upgraded the intake tube right before the throttle body. Overall minor things, the biggest being the DP, but I would also love to see what his car will do with a JB4.
On another note, on his last video he is using KTuner for logging - maybe testing for KTuner? That’s my speculation.
Ideally, to be efficient with the gains and to reflect the down pipe upgrade, the JB4 has to have a map setting to benefit the down pipe. Hence why I said a proper tune is a reflash tune and one that will account for the additional modifications. JB4 is a reputable company and it's one used when there are limited options for tuning as what @kuzdu (other BMW owners with locked DME) are dealing with. Overall, most will prefer a reflash tune which is more OEM like vs a piggy back tune. When I got into the BMW world 3 years ago, I did extensive research on available tunes, many said go JB4 or Dinan. I wanted to go with Dinan as I felt they were more reputable, however after my research, talking to piggy back owners and performance shops, they thing that really turned me off with the piggy back tunes was simply how the vehicle drove. Most said they had strange boost lag / boost spikes. Some said they had strange shifting. All agreed the power gains were noticeable and while a small few had suffered some type of failure with Dinan and BMW declined the warranty work.
I found a few shops in NJ / NYC that had reliable and proven reflash tunes. My 1st tune was from codemycar which his tunes were custom from guys in Germany. These reflash tunes were mild and well within the safe limits. I went to BM3 which has a bit more aggressive stage 1 and 2 reflash tunes. For my base X3, I am running a stage 1 93 tune. On my M40i i'm running a custom stage 2 tune which accounts for my down pipe. BMW flagged both vins and already warned me that if the tunes cause any issues down the road (engine failure) I will be liable. I have my own opinion on why i'm highly against piggy back tunes and nothing against anyone that wants them. To be clear, any modification done, the stock ecu can only adjust parameters so much. With a high flow down pipe, you risk a CEL. If you run a catless down pipe, you're guaranteed a CEL. A reflash tune will resolve this and you will get the full benefit of a proper tune. JB4 tune for the tlx-s is masking the sensors and there's zero proof thus far on reliability (long term) and what's actually going on with fuel trims, boost pressure, fuel pressure ect. It's a bit more complex and as of now it's in beta stage. I'd really consider waiting til it's been finalized and proven reliable and safe.
Ideally, to be efficient with the gains and to reflect the down pipe upgrade, the JB4 has to have a map setting to benefit the down pipe. Hence why I said a proper tune is a reflash tune and one that will account for the additional modifications. JB4 is a reputable company and it's one used when there are limited options for tuning as what @kuzdu (other BMW owners with locked DME) are dealing with. Overall, most will prefer a reflash tune which is more OEM like vs a piggy back tune. When I got into the BMW world 3 years ago, I did extensive research on available tunes, many said go JB4 or Dinan. I wanted to go with Dinan as I felt they were more reputable, however after my research, talking to piggy back owners and performance shops, they thing that really turned me off with the piggy back tunes was simply how the vehicle drove. Most said they had strange boost lag / boost spikes. Some said they had strange shifting. All agreed the power gains were noticeable and while a small few had suffered some type of failure with Dinan and BMW declined the warranty work.
I found a few shops in NJ / NYC that had reliable and proven reflash tunes. My 1st tune was from codemycar which his tunes were custom from guys in Germany. These reflash tunes were mild and well within the safe limits. I went to BM3 which has a bit more aggressive stage 1 and 2 reflash tunes. For my base X3, I am running a stage 1 93 tune. On my M40i i'm running a custom stage 2 tune which accounts for my down pipe. BMW flagged both vins and already warned me that if the tunes cause any issues down the road (engine failure) I will be liable. I have my own opinion on why i'm highly against piggy back tunes and nothing against anyone that wants them. To be clear, any modification done, the stock ecu can only adjust parameters so much. With a high flow down pipe, you risk a CEL. If you run a catless down pipe, you're guaranteed a CEL. A reflash tune will resolve this and you will get the full benefit of a proper tune. JB4 tune for the tlx-s is masking the sensors and there's zero proof thus far on reliability (long term) and what's actually going on with fuel trims, boost pressure, fuel pressure ect. It's a bit more complex and as of now it's in beta stage. I'd really consider waiting til it's been finalized and proven reliable and safe.
Yup those with locked DME's or who doesn't have a flash tune out yet will need to stick with a piggyback. JB4 does not supress the check engine light for catless downpipe. since the product is made in USA they have to follow some regulations. every other day my check engine light comes on i learned to live with it. It's a good product but the ECU flash is 1000000 times better. it took me almost 9 months of logging and making changes to finally get this thing stable with the right fuel bias parameters and boost pressure. Everyone should push Ktuner to gather logs and start working on a reflash im sure you can reach 400 whp with the reflash. Now next thing you guys will need to look up is your HPFP, see how much the psi output is to see how much E or racing gas you can run. 04WDPSeDaN is 10000 percent right on all of his comments, we got to meet up one day Bro 😊
As of now I’m satisfied for now with the JB4, I run Map 6 custom settings and Map 5 driving to cruise. The car is a complete beast just ripping it up all over I can’t imagine what the ecu tune will do it.
On a side not I got my RDX reflashed stage 2 ktuner, it hauls asss lol, went to Canada with it and was a breeze to drive. Feels like a powerful V6. Also for those with the Type S how’s the turbo lag is there is any?
Also, another question that I don't think has been addressed as of yet ... were these runs with 91 Octane that the car was tuned for from the factory, or 93 Octane?
. When I got into the BMW world 3 years ago, I did extensive research on available tunes, many said go JB4 or Dinan. I wanted to go with Dinan as I felt they were more reputable, however after my research, talking to piggy back owners and performance shops, they thing that really turned me off with the piggy back tunes was simply how the vehicle drove.
Just a few things. I went with JB4 because Dinan was advertising CHP while BMS used WHP. Dinan used CHP to get numbers that looked better than the industry all of whom AFAIK were using DynoJet WHP. The numbers below are numbers supported by time slips from Drag Times. We were both testers one for Dinan & one for BMS when the 335is came out. It had two actual turbos VS a single, a different ECU than the standard 335i, was an N54 vs N55 engine.
At the time of this posting I would have had about $600 in the car if I paid retail. Only paid retail for the FMIC ETS-5". Tune was an early Alpha Map 2 but without Downpipes. Fuel standard premium 93 octane. The Dinan tester had near $2500 worth of hardware, as he was testing did not know his out of pocket.
The MPH tells the story as to which package was generating more power. Bang for the buck thing. Referring to an earlier post on ET they are close because he had a better ET that mine even with less power. He was exterminating with the LC system & did some very good work. Became common usage. I was using a 2nd gear launch due to traction loss.
Later versions of the JB4 firmware allowed you to reduce boost in both 1st & 2nd to your choice limiting the loss of traction. Later in the process BMS developed a methoid to stack the Piggy Back & Flash into a single tune. Each part covered the holes in the other system. All three test cars improved. Two other got into the 11.7's mine which did not mod as far, no downpipes due to state visual inspection got to 12.0
These were a steerable cars in the 2011/2013 time frame. Car was replaced with a 2014 435 MPPS/MPE Coupe
According to the thread, baseline was done on 91 octane and they later added one gallon of E85 to try and mimic 93 octane.
Tricky stuff. One gallon to how much 91? When I could not get 100 for the street custom Map2 (50/50 100/93) I mixed 5-6 gallons of E85 & then filled the tank the rest of the way with 93 & ran Map 5.
Not exactly a perfect mix as I still had a small amount of fuel in the tank but close enough for government work. The small amount in the tank became more & more E85 as you were adding to a prior mixed fuel not base stock. After a few tanks you need to lessen the E85 & start over. Did not want to get into the pumping requirements that a heavy E85 mix required.
For a specific event ran Map 7 with 100% 100 octane. $7.50 a gallon was not the stuff for a daily driver.
Also, another question that I don't think has been addressed as of yet ... were these runs with 91 Octane that the car was tuned for from the factory, or 93 Octane?
Yeah the torque peak is overstated. You need to look at the flat line as the usable number. The hump at the beginning is over run from flooring the throttle takes a few hundred MPN till its reigned in. You will see a version of it on most of the graphs. Also a lot of graphs will have a up tick when the the throttle is released. Don't know why but again its not a number of any value.
Tricky stuff. One gallon to how much 91? When I could not get 100 for the street custom Map2 (50/50 100/93) I mixed 5-6 gallons of E85 & then filled the tank the rest of the way with 93 & ran Map 5.
Not exactly a perfect mix as I still had a small amount of fuel in the tank but close enough for government work. The small amount in the tank became more & more E85 as you were adding to a prior mixed fuel not base stock. After a few tanks you need to lessen the E85 & start over. Did not want to get into the pumping requirements that a heavy E85 mix required.
For a specific event ran Map 7 with 100% 100 octane. $7.50 a gallon was not the stuff for a daily driver.
Just a few things. I went with JB4 because Dinan was advertising CHP while BMS used WHP. Dinan used CHP to get numbers that looked better than the industry all of whom AFAIK were using DynoJet WHP. The numbers below are numbers supported by time slips from Drag Times. We were both testers one for Dinan & one for BMS when the 335is came out. It had two actual turbos VS a single, a different ECU than the standard 335i, was an N54 vs N55 engine.
At the time of this posting I would have had about $600 in the car if I paid retail. Only paid retail for the FMIC ETS-5". Tune was an early Alpha Map 2 but without Downpipes. Fuel standard premium 93 octane. The Dinan tester had near $2500 worth of hardware, as he was testing did not know his out of pocket.
The MPH tells the story as to which package was generating more power. Bang for the buck thing. Referring to an earlier post on ET they are close because he had a better ET that mine even with less power. He was exterminating with the LC system & did some very good work. Became common usage. I was using a 2nd gear launch due to traction loss.
Later versions of the JB4 firmware allowed you to reduce boost in both 1st & 2nd to your choice limiting the loss of traction. Later in the process BMS developed a methoid to stack the Piggy Back & Flash into a single tune. Each part covered the holes in the other system. All three test cars improved. Two other got into the 11.7's mine which did not mod as far, no downpipes due to state visual inspection got to 12.0
These were a steerable cars in the 2011/2013 time frame. Car was replaced with a 2014 435 MPPS/MPE Coupe
Got a lead on a seemingly well maintained E93 335is. Good info.
Most company's take the dyno numbers and claim them to the crank not to the wheels. Main reason for this, is because numbers sale. We all know crank numbers are always higher than numbers to the wheels. If you were to sell your product, you list higher numbers, which are crank numbers. Provide a dyno chart as proof but most don't know how to read a simple chart. So they will just see before and after lines and say WOW, that's impressive.
In the video OP posted, based on the numbers on the graph, 48.8 whp & 28.88 wtq gained from the baseline numbers vs the highest numbers.
They claim JB4 tune 365whp 387wtq ( Power gains of up to 80whp/100wtq)
Problem I have with the TLX-S, thus far all the dyno baseline numbers are all over the place. I'm no stranger to any of this.
2nd TLX-S dyno results 324 whp and 342 qtq. Though the dyno graph on this one is very questionable so the numbers would be false. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2-jGsNNIBI
The 3rd and 4th TLX-S baseline numbers are more realistic to being true. I hope some of these TLX-S owners get on rollers to provide more proof of baseline numbers.
I have nothing against JB4 but i'm not a fan of piggy back tunes. Reflash tunes are more reliable and feel more OEM. Maybe the piggy back tunes have gotten better? Regardless, piggy back tunes are easily spotted unless you can hide somewhere under the hood that's not as easily noticeable. Reflash tunes are only detected with a scan (If the scan tool has the ability to detect a tune). I'd personally steer clear from any tune, unless it's been proven.
I think Acura ECU is cutting a lot of stuff and preventing this car from really going at it. I'm surprised even with the JB4 it's not touching 400+. Ohhh and the biggest liars about crank and whp is bmw. stock car says it's 340 from the factory but really dyno's 368? hmmmmmm lol.
i really need to drive a Type S i may go to my old Acura dealership and take one for a spin.
Got a lead on a seemingly well maintained E93 335is. Good info.
Check to see if it has a catch can. Mine caught a lot of blowby. Due to the way the fuel is injected the back face of the valves are not washed by the incoming charge. They can coke up in as little as 35K miles & need a walnut blast to clean them. A good can is very effective & if drained as necessary can push the walnuts back over 100,000 miles.
My 335is still turns up in the occasional AutoX. Still running most of the original parts including the CC I left on it..
01-17-2022, 10:21 PM
.
