JB4 - Map 5 Dyno Testing

[Reach]

This last week I was able to secure some dyno time to test the latest JB4 firmware (v1_57) in a variety of maps, gears, and situations. One of the things I was most curious about was Map 5. Map 5 has been called the "///M map", the "low torque" map, the "linear map" and a number of other things, but I haven't seen much data on it. What I have seen is that it limits low end torque while preserving a smooth torque increase for a more linear power response, and possibly even greater top end than available in other JB4 maps. I wanted to know how my car would respond, as I thought this map might be the best map to do spirited track day driving in.

The results were fantastic, both compared to bone stock and other maps. First, the car is a 2016 F80. The fuel is standard pump 93 octane. No higher ethanol blends or methanol injection. The dyno pulls were conducted in 4th gear except where noted. The only hardware mods on the car are front mount intakes from MaximumPSI and solid charge pipes from RK-Tunes.



I had these dynos performed on a Dynojet 224x at Bimmer Performance Center in Raleigh, North Carolina.

First, a look at Map 5 vs. stock baseline:


This shows clearly what Map 5 is doing over a stock car. The added torque between 3500 and 5500 gives the car a noticeable increase in pulling power, while delivering predicable straight-line increases in power without any big spikes. From 5500 to 7500 the car continues to make more power, developing about an additional 25hp during that range, whereas the stock mapping stays flat. There are peak power gains well over 40hp, with a gap that large developing and staying consistent from about 5500 to redline.

I did multiple pulls, in 4th and 5th gear. Although 5th gear posts higher peak #s, the curves are similar, and 5th gear pulls tended to be a little rougher in the detailed data, as the car spent more time at the edge of fueling capacity. There was more variance in the higher RPMs if you turn down the smoothing. Here are multiple Map 5 pulls, with the green line being done in 5th gear:

Now, let's look at Map 5 vs Map 1, and Map 5 vs Map 2. In each of the below graphs, Map 5 is in red:



Map 2 is a torque monster. There's no way around it, if you have to kill something from a roll, this is your map, you just better have the tires to put down the power. However, track drivers often prefer the more consistent power delivery seen in Map 5. The great thing about the JB4 is it offers you both, and with the Connect Kit changing between them is as easy as a menu selection from your phone.

[CaryTheLabelGuy]

In theory, on your particular car, Map 5 should be faster than map 2 or map 1 on 93 octane.

Did you datalog at all on these pulls?

I'm sure your DME is pulling a good amount of timing at peak torque that never recovers in the upper RPM on map 1 and 2 on 93 octane. On Map 5, the DME probably isn't pulling nearly as much timing at peak torque and is able to keep timing advanced up-top.

I'd be interested to see how much timing you were able to run on each map. An E30 mix would have significantly different results from the ability to run more ignition timing due to the increased knock resistance of the added ethanol.

[FC4]

Originally Posted by CaryTheLabelGuy

In theory, on your particular car, Map 5 should be faster than map 2 or map 1 on 93 octane.

Exactly. Map 5's 10-15 RWHP advantage over Map 2 from 6300 RPM to redline will have a much greater impact than one would think. As speed, air resistance, and RPM are climbing, you're not fighting it all with less and less power with each additional RPM.

Great data. I was hoping more would start adopting Map 5 and we'd have a practical look into it. I think it's the way to go.

[Lojs]

Finally! something i was looking for for ages! Thank you!

[Lojs]

Originally Posted by FC4

Exactly. Map 5's 10-15 RWHP advantage over Map 2 from 6300 RPM to redline will have a much greater impact than one would think. As speed, air resistance, and RPM are climbing, you're not fighting it all with less and less power with each additional RPM.

Great data. I was hoping more would start adopting Map 5 and we'd have a practical look into it. I think it's the way to go.

I guess instead of guessing, someone just needs to hit the strip with a map5

[Lojs]

BTW this is consistent with a dyno someone has posted here a couple of months ago (sorry can't credit the OP, as i just saved it on my computer)

Map5 beats map1 on the top.

[AM4ZING]

Map 2 made some serious torque! I wonder how Map 7 with better fuel will alter these figures

Is MAP 5 recommended for 91octane fuel?

[CaryTheLabelGuy]

Originally Posted by AM4ZING

Map 2 made some serious torque! I wonder how Map 7 with better fuel will alter these figures

Is MAP 5 recommended for 91octane fuel?

No, map 3 is the recommended when using 91 octane.

[CaryTheLabelGuy]

Originally Posted by AM4ZING

Map 2 made some serious torque! I wonder how Map 7 with better fuel will alter these figures

Is MAP 5 recommended for 91octane fuel?

Map 2 with better fuel would probably beat map 5 up top (on E30 as well). Map 2 on my car with E30 in the tank pulls like a freight train up top as the DME is able to keep ignition timing up through the rev range. On 93, not so much. My car will run close to 10* peak timing (upper RPM range) on an E30 blend, where it barely gets to 5* peak timing on 93 octane on map 2. This is a pretty big difference in timing and can make the difference of 15-20whp easily at same boost pressure.

The DME is very advanced and is really good at ignition timing management in relation to knock threshold.

I'll do some datalogs with Map 5 and compare to Map 2 on E30 and see what I come up with. Map 5 might actually also increase boost pressures up top as well (compared to Map 2). In that case, Map 5 might still be faster than Map 2 all things being equal on E30.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by CaryTheLabelGuy

In theory, on your particular car, Map 5 should be faster than map 2 or map 1 on 93 octane.

Did you datalog at all on these pulls?

I'm sure your DME is pulling a good amount of timing at peak torque that never recovers in the upper RPM on map 1 and 2 on 93 octane. On Map 5, the DME probably isn't pulling nearly as much timing at peak torque and is able to keep timing advanced up-top.

I'd be interested to see how much timing you were able to run on each map. An E30 mix would have significantly different results from the ability to run more ignition timing due to the increased knock resistance of the added ethanol.

I do, was saving it for more analysis but might as well post.

Below is the JB4 logging graph, and attached to this post is the datalog from the dyno run I used as the Map 5 measurement above.

[mike@x-ph.com]

Thank you for the dyno, amazing results!!

Map 5 is a really good map and map 2 makes serious torque

Would like to know how they would compare on a 1/4 mile, pretty sure map 2 will suffer from traction loss

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Lojs

I guess instead of guessing, someone just needs to hit the strip with a map5

I'll be doing a 1/2 mile event in 4 weeks. I'll be logging as well. I plan to run Map 2 and Map 5.

I should also mention, I just did a 2 day track weekend at VIR with Tarheel BMW CCA. I used Map 5 for the car exclusively and it felt fantastic all weekend. There were no comparable cars in my run group to gauge it against, but in short the car is a rocket.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by mike@x-ph.com

Would like to know how they would compare on a 1/4 mile, pretty sure map 2 will suffer from traction loss

I'll be doing a 1/2 mile soon, and I have 285 NT05R's waiting. I've decided I'm going to have fun with it and do some 1/4 mile after. One thing about North Carolina is lots of places to go fast.

[mike@x-ph.com]

Originally Posted by Reach

I'll be doing a 1/2 mile soon, and I have 285 NT05R's waiting. I've decided I'm going to have fun with it and do some 1/4 mile after. One thing about North Carolina is lots of places to go fast.

[CaryTheLabelGuy]

Originally Posted by Reach

I do, was saving it for more analysis but might as well post.

Below is the JB4 logging graph, and attached to this post is the datalog from the dyno run I used as the Map 5 measurement above.

Just as I thought. Much more timing advance and slightly more boost up top.

Do you have a map 1 and map 2 datalog as well?

Thank you for the data.

[Reach]

Let's keep this thread about Map 5, but if anyone is curious, see here for details and datalogging my car on Map 2 with 93 octane. There doesn't seem to be as big of a timing pull as predicted, I'm reaching over 10 at high rpm.

http://www.n54tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38243

[CaryTheLabelGuy]

Originally Posted by Reach

Let's keep this thread about Map 5, but if anyone is curious, see here for details and datalogging my car on Map 2 with 93 octane. There doesn't seem to be as big of a timing pull as predicted, I'm reaching over 10 at high rpm.

http://www.n54tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38243

My question is in regards to comparing Map 5 with Map 2. Why post comparisons of dyno charts of the three maps of you don't want to back it up with datalogs in this particular thread?

Why make it harder to discuss the differences? I've reviewed the datalogs you posted at Terry's website, but why not just post them here?

That said, you were running less timing on less boost on Map 2 as compared to Map 5 in the upper RPMs.

Also, keep in mind that the loads the engine sees on the dyno are not what the engine will see in real world testing on the street/strip/track. It is highly unlikely you will run this type of ignition timing on the street on 93 octane. I suggest you do some datalogging to see for yourself.

[AM4ZING]

Originally Posted by Reach

I'll be doing a 1/2 mile event in 4 weeks. I'll be logging as well. I plan to run Map 2 and Map 5.

I should also mention, I just did a 2 day track weekend at VIR with Tarheel BMW CCA. I used Map 5 for the car exclusively and it felt fantastic all weekend. There were no comparable cars in my run group to gauge it against, but in short the car is a rocket.

Originally Posted by CaryTheLabelGuy

I'll do some datalogs with Map 5 and compare to Map 2 on E30 and see what I come up with. Map 5 might actually also increase boost pressures up top as well (compared to Map 2). In that case, Map 5 might still be faster than Map 2 all things being equal on E30.

I'll be doing a 1/2 mile this month at Shift S3ctor... Would you guys think MAP 7 on 100 octane stands a better chance than E30 MAP 2/5?

[Reach]

Originally Posted by CaryTheLabelGuy

My question is in regards to comparing Map 5 with Map 2. Why post comparisons of dyno charts of the three maps of you don't want to back it up with datalogs in this particular thread?

Why make it harder to discuss the differences? I've reviewed the datalogs you posted at Terry's website, but why not just post them here?

That said, you were running less timing on less boost on Map 2 as compared to Map 5 in the upper RPMs.

I'm certainly not trying to make it harder to have the discussion, I've posted more data in this thread than I've seen collectively on the topic of Map 5 vs Map 2. I'm just trying to keep this thread about Map 5 and let people make their own determinations. I've already decided it's the superior map for my usage, with pump 93 octane. Lots of people discuss Map 2 elsewhere and pursue the big torque #s, I just didn't want to go down that road.

Originally Posted by CaryTheLabelGuy

Also, keep in mind that the loads the engine sees on the dyno are not what the engine will see in real world testing on the street/strip/track. It is highly unlikely you will run this type of ignition timing on the street on 93 octane. I suggest you do some datalogging to see for yourself.

Completely true. Personally, I won't be doing any 4th or 5th gear pulls to redline on the street. So, dyno and track are where I can log.

[Acree]

What software are you guys using to log?

[JoeyBananas]

No Downpipes correct?

[ShlemonboostedM]

This is the map to rock !! You'll still have m feeling with more power on top .. As I see it this car stock have plenty of torque.. Just adding 40-50whp on top end is all you need ..