[Terry @ BMS]

Couple runs on our development 2020 M340. The car is RWD so traction limited, we drop boost 5psi in 1st gear to help get it off the line. Fuel is 91 craptane + 3-4 gallons of E85 (~E20). Roughly equivalent to 93 octane. Car is factory other than a JB4 and BMS intake.

Our best run on map0 (JB4 disabled) is 12.38@113mph, best run on map3 so far 11.96@120mph, both traction limited. 7mph trap speed gain JB4 only is solid though. There is probably more in it with map6 and a little more E85 mixed in so we'll keep at it!

[KnifeEdge87]

Maybe going forward the best practice would be to give runs on different maps on the same day at the same place on the same tank of fuel

Makes results much more comparable

Its the same logic for dyno charts, no one would ever accept two dyno graphs from a tuner or parts manufacturer from different days as verification of the efficacy of their product.

Single day repeat runs far better isolates the variable we're concerned in. Of course there are still things we cannot control (one run having a slight tailwind but at least temperature, humidity, slope grade, track condition etc are as controlled as we can get them)

[KnifeEdge87]

Originally Posted by KnifeEdge87

Maybe going forward the best practice would be to give runs on different maps on the same day at the same place on the same tank of fuel

Makes results much more comparable

Its the same logic for dyno charts, no one would ever accept two dyno graphs from a tuner or parts manufacturer from different days as verification of the efficacy of their product.

Single day repeat runs far better isolates the variable we're concerned in. Of course there are still things we cannot control (one run having a slight tailwind but at least temperature, humidity, slope grade, track condition etc are as controlled as we can get them)

I'd like to reiterate I'm not saying jb4 doesn't work

I'm saying there are good ways of representing data and bad ways of representing data

[VipinLJ]

I agree. What I've noticed is a lot of people (including myself at times) compare two different cars (sometimes in two entirely different places such as america and europe) and then expect huge differences.

Eg. I've noticed my stock 330i always did 0-60 in the late 5s with launch control whereas others have been getting mid 5s or even early 5s! Just saying. Comparing the same car at the same time is the best way.

[Terry @ BMS]

Originally Posted by KnifeEdge87

Maybe going forward the best practice would be to give runs on different maps on the same day at the same place on the same tank of fuel

Customers are always welcome to test their cars using whatever criteria is best for them. The above runs were done on the same tank of gas, same road, a couple hours apart.

We've done some quicker runs in higher mapping but it's not perfected yet so no reason to share it. But the power gain based on the trap speed gain stock vs. map3 with the M340 is significant which was our point all along.

[KnifeEdge87]

Originally Posted by Terry @ BMS

Customers are always welcome to test their cars using whatever criteria is best for them. The above runs were done on the same tank of gas, same road, a couple hours apart.

We've done some quicker runs in higher mapping but it's not perfected yet so no reason to share it. But the power gain based on the trap speed gain stock vs. map3 with the M340 is significant which was our point all along.

This is fair but it's very difficult for customers and potential customers to rely on other customer's info. Let's face it, most people don't know what they're doing. They "feel" effects that don't exist and don't "feel" ones that do. Their data gathering methodology is spotty at best and laughably bad at worst.

Getting good data from the product maker is the gold standard (even though it's super clear historically speaking that there are ****ty manufacturers that cherry pick info to fit the narrative they're trying to sell)

For the most part you guys have been quite good at being open and transparent about your product and its capabilities and shortcomings, I wouldn't have bought one if you weren't. The performance parts industry is full of snake oil salesmen (of which you guys and the jb4 clearly are not). With that said there is always room for improvement when it comes to communication and data analysis (separate items).

[Terry @ BMS]

My point is really that us gaining 7mph just showcases the JB4's potential. If someone needs help with their specific tuning they'd want to post their logs, back to back runs, etc, for advice.

[Jeff @ BMS]

Very impressive Terry!! It's not far off F80 numbers stock and tuned! I know you left some on the table, tuning wise, but for just map 3 and E20 that's moving!

[ls3c6]

I just did 7.54@93mph stock 2020 m340i xdrive 93oc e10 map3 v18 firmware, was same as stock on v16 firmware dragy or drag strip.. will try at track tommorow.

[KnifeEdge87]

Originally Posted by ls3c6

I just did 7.54@93mph stock 2020 m340i xdrive 93oc e10 map3 v18 firmware, was same as stock on v16 firmware dragy or drag strip.. will try at track tommorow.

got your logs for this ?

really helpful to see map0 log vs map2/3 log

otherwise we're just running around like headless chicken

[Terry @ BMS]

Logs are always useful for evaluating tuning!

[ls3c6]

Ended up running a 11.99@112, the car knows what jb4 is trying to do. Seems to add power for a few hits after you disconnect battery / reset adaptions, quickly reverts to stock output.