SUPRA ULTIMATE B58 JB4 GUIDE AND LOG REVIEW (V1)

[i3igpete]

It doesn't look like they mixed very much E85 in, here's how the trims look across both pulls:

Sponsored

 

[Dven11]

keep going, here's the diff between wgdc and ff for both pulls:

Draw a line through the middle of those two curves, and add it to your last duty bias curve. Note that if the JB4 isn't doing anything (during part throttle or spool up) then both curves just report 50.

Not a coincidence that it's starting to look like the table in adam's first post

	duty_15	duty_20	duty_25	duty_30	duty_35	duty_40	duty_45	duty_50	duty_55	duty_60	duty_65	duty_70
old	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50
new	50	50	50	50	50	50	52	55	55	57	57	57
new2	47	47	47	47	47	50	56	59	61	61	63	63

duty_15	duty_20	duty_25	duty_30	duty_35	duty_40	duty_45	duty_50	duty_55	duty_60	duty_65	duty_70
32	32	32	32	35	36	39	48	55	57	62	62

FF= 35~40 ballpark But its good to see the process as a demonstration

catless and hi flow dp cars have a big drop off of duty under 5k typically.

I initially did plug in the settings from the first page to see how the car would feel. I then decided against it in case something went wrong lol But I do see the process and how we are getting there. I will try new2 and report back.

Question, @ColonelAdama @i3igpete if I plan to run an E-Blend, should I just do that now or keep working on the logging first? I am installing a Fuel It kit and will be integrating it into the JB4.

 

[ColonelAdama]

I initially did plug in the settings from the first page to see how the car would feel. I then decided against it in case something went wrong lol But I do see the process and how we are getting there. I will try new2 and report back.

Question, @ColonelAdama @i3igpete if I plan to run an E-Blend, should I just do that now or keep working on the logging first? I am installing a Fuel It kit and will be integrating it into the JB4.

I would just tune for E blend right away honestly. Usually it is best to select your boost targets before doing WGDC tuning. I recommend starting at E25 blend.

It doesn't look like they mixed very much E85 in, here's how the trims look across both pulls:

This person typically mixed 2 gallons in, but I will confirm that its the same with this tank of fuel. 91 with 2 gal E should not have knock/pre-ignition issues on Map 1.

The higher ecu_psi is, the less trims change with added boost or ethanol. Presumably because the fuel tables are more generous at higher boost levels. lower lambda/etc.

+4 psi additive on a car running ecu_psi of 12 psi is going to have dramatically higher trims than +4 psi additive on a car running ecu_psi of 16 psi. JB4 would be spoofing 25% of total boost compared to 33% on the lower boost car.

 

[Erty]

I remember mixing 4.2 gallons of E (I wasn't paying attention I usually do 3 max) and the rest with 91 but my fuel-it app was only reading E32 kinda weird no?

 

[i3igpete]

I remember mixing 4.2 gallons of E (I wasn't paying attention I usually do 3 max) and the rest with 91 but my fuel-it app was only reading E32 kinda weird no?

seems correct to me?

 

[razorlab]

Timing does not reduce/advance according to cylinder fill needs. That is not the logic. I described what it is actually happening a couple pages back in this thread I believe.

 

[swrdply400mrelay]

https://www.jb4tech.com/forum/model...-jb4-b58-gen2-port-injection-manifold-testing

Cool news!! PI coming to JB4 for locked ECU cars!

650 whp on a hybrid turbo M340i LOCKED. Interested to see more on this.

Do you plan on getting the PI kit with a hybrid/larger turbo? Interested in seeing how it would be do compared to unlocked ECU.

 

[Dven11]

Ok did some more logging and ran E25. I kept it in Map 1 still:

https://datazap.me/u/dven11/log-172...28-29-33&solo=14&trim=0&tmin=2.00&tmax=673.87

@ColonelAdama @i3igpete

Also, genuinely appreciate the help guys. Thank you

 

[ColonelAdama]

Ok did some more logging and ran E25. I kept it in Map 1 still:

https://datazap.me/u/dven11/log-172...28-29-33&solo=14&trim=0&tmin=2.00&tmax=673.87

@ColonelAdama @i3igpete

Also, genuinely appreciate the help guys. Thank you

No problem! Try with FF set at 40 next. Brings the whole boost curve down a bit. Manage the throttle closures.

 

[ColonelAdama]

Do you plan on getting the PI kit with a hybrid/larger turbo? Interested in seeing how it would be do compared to unlocked ECU.

I personally don't plan on it. Being an MT, I'm not chasing 60-130 times or 1/4 mi. Pretty happy to be around 440-460whp right now. I know that BMS has a big turbo PI JB4 M340 with over 800whp though.

 

[razorlab]

Here are the ignition timing maps for 2020 and 2021+ for reference. I figure at the least this will help to see how much ignition retard you might be seeing.

2020:

2021+:

 

[Dven11]

No problem! Try with FF set at 40 next. Brings the whole boost curve down a bit. Manage the throttle closures.

Also, im still on map 1. That is fine right? Ill try FF set at 40.

 

[ColonelAdama]

Also, im still on map 1. That is fine right? Ill try FF set at 40.

Correct.

 

[ColonelAdama]

Timing does not reduce/advance according to cylinder fill needs. That is not the logic. I described what it is actually happening a couple pages back in this thread I believe.

Here are the ignition timing maps for 2020 and 2021+ for reference. I figure at the least this will help to see how much ignition retard you might be seeing.

2020:

2021+:

Thanks for sharing. I have seen these tables on the ecutek guide I shared earlier.

To me, it still looks like base timing drops as relative filling % goes up. That is just cylinder fill right? And cylinder fill % is directly correlated to boost, and in the case of the JB4, that is ecu_psi. So I feel like the logic I presented still holds?

I know there are other timing reduction tables, primarily the IAT/coolant temp one, so it makes sense to me that a car will run little to no timing at all if IATs are high and the cylinder fill% is too high. Even if its not an octane issue.

 

[razorlab]

To me, it still looks like base timing drops as relative filling % goes up. That is just cylinder fill right? And cylinder fill % is directly correlated to boost, and in the case of the JB4, that is ecu_psi. So I feel like the logic I presented still holds?

I know there are other timing reduction tables, primarily the IAT/coolant temp one, so it makes sense to me that a car will run little to no timing at all if IATs are high and the cylinder fill% is too high. Even if its not an octane issue.

What you are seeing is a combo of preemptive knock control and the reduction tables working. The OEM timing is pretty aggressive and even more so when you start adding additional boost. Remember the car is calibrated to run in all different environments, who knows what kind of fuel quality, driving style, etc

When you tune the car with a timing table that makes more sense for a more controlled environment. Example, knowing you will have E40 in all the time, knowing you are beating the hell out of the car on track as it's main purpose, etc, you will see that the ignition timing is pretty consistent to the tables, unless the reduction tables come into effect.

I have purposely set fill target very very high to see the affect and the car will not add timing above the base ignition, it will however push the boost PID hard to add boost to hit that target. Unless you pull PID down.

Fun fact when doing this, if you set the torque target super high, the throttle gets very very twitchy, since the throttle tables are mapped to the torque request, it tries to hit that torque request and the throttle snaps open. It feels great.

One thing to note is some tuning guides are taking Gen 1 B58 tuning into account as well and some of the Gen 1 vs Gen 2 DME strategies are different.

Sponsored