[snapcall]

As the title says. I will be running shell 93 that has 10%E, dinan intake, Dp and thinking muff delete with some resonators. I'm thinking map 3 should be fine and 2 would be extra safe. Any opinions welcome

[BeemerBaron]

With a DP try the Alpha software and Map 6 - absolutely PSI target of 22

You'll likely find Map 2 or map 3 causes a very brief timing pull around 2,800rpm which causes the car to momentarily surge under max throttle.

[mike@x-ph.com]

Per BMS, do not use additive maps on the new chassis. Use absolute maps instead.

i recommend you use map 5

[XC3LLR8]

Originally Posted by mike@x-ph.com

Per BMS, do not use additive maps on the new chassis. Use absolute maps instead.

i recommend you use map 5

Is BMS really telling everyone using a JB4 on a G chassis they need to run at least 30% E85 fuel? Can the majority of G chassis owners even find E85 in their area? I feel like I'm missing something.

Map5: Absolute target map with peak target of 22psi (30% E85+ fuel, EWG connector suggested)

[mike@x-ph.com]

Originally Posted by XC3LLR8

Is BMS really telling everyone using a JB4 on a G chassis they need to run at least 30% E85 fuel? Can the majority of G chassis owners even find E85 in their area? I feel like I'm missing something.

Map5: Absolute target map with peak target of 22psi (30% E85+ fuel, EWG connector suggested)

It's confusing because the same maps are used for F and G chassis cars since they use the same engine

The significant difference between the two chassis is the stock boost. G chassis applications run a much higher boost.

Back to the recommendation

Running map 5, 22 PSI on the F chassis is a considerable PSI increase. You should only do it if you are running an E85 mix.

Running map 5, 22 PSI on the G chassis is not adding much since the stock application can reach up to 20 PSI on its own in optimal conditions. Correction: If you are not mixing with E85, start with map4. For a clean log, map5, in most cases, will require some mix of E85.

No matter which map you run, send the datalog to BMS for map approval.

[XC3LLR8]

Originally Posted by mike@x-ph.com

It's confusing because the same maps are used for F and G chassis cars since they use the same engine

The significant difference between the two chassis is the stock boost. G chassis applications run a much higher boost.

Back to the recommendation

Running map 5, 22 PSI on the F chassis is a considerable PSI increase. You should only do it if you are running an E85 mix.

Running map 5, 22 PSI on the G chassis is not adding much since the stock application can reach up to 20 PSI on its own in optimal conditions. You do not need E85 in this case.

No matter which map you run, send the datalog to BMS for map approval.

Thanks for the explanation. It would've been nice if BMS had explained it like that on their website.

[mike@x-ph.com]

Originally Posted by XC3LLR8

Thanks for the explanation. It would've been nice if BMS had explained it like that on their website.

That's why I'm here

[335i E92]

Taking into account the the G platforms are already pushing 20psi it makes sense that running map 2 or 3 with a JB4 is asking for trouble pushing 24/26 psi.


I'm only looking for a slight boost increase without bolt ons and would be happy with a max 22psi.

I'm looking at a JB+ but turning it down from the standard 3 o'clock position to 12 o'clock which will be around 2 psi so 22psi total.

[XC3LLR8]

Originally Posted by 335i E92

Taking into account the the G platforms are already pushing 20psi it makes sense that running map 2 or 3 with a JB4 is asking for trouble pushing 24/26 psi.


I'm only looking for a slight boost increase without bolt ons and would be happy with a max 22psi.

I'm looking at a JB+ but turning it down from the standard 3 o'clock position to 12 o'clock which will be around 2 psi so 22psi total.

You may be right, but having spoken with both BMS about the JB+ and Dinan with their Sport Tuner, they both refer to these as "mild" tunes. Are they just trying to sell products? Maybe.

Also keep in mind the B58 is now a closed deck, and I really doubt BMW carried over the same turbo from the F series. Point being this isn't the same B58 as day 1 with just more factory boost.

[335i E92]

Originally Posted by XC3LLR8

You may be right, but having spoken with both BMS about the JB+ and Dinan with their Sport Tuner, they both refer to these as "mild" tunes. Are they just trying to sell products? Maybe.

Also keep in mind the B58 is now a closed deck, and I really doubt BMW carried over the same turbo from the F series. Point being this isn't the same B58 as day 1 with just more factory boost.

Agree, the G series B58's must also carry a few hardware upgrades to accommodate the higher boost.

I'll go with the Jb+ at halfway setting, K&N panel filter and 99 octane fuel 'UK'. Should be safe enough!

[XC3LLR8]

Originally Posted by 335i E92

Agree, the G series B58's must also carry a few hardware upgrades to accommodate the higher boost.

I'll go with the Jb+ at halfway setting, K&N panel filter and 99 octane fuel 'UK'. Should be safe enough!

Sounds like a plan.

I order the AA DP today and will try it out with the JB+ (default position), and then eventually trade-in the JB+ for the JB4. I wanted to try each of the 3 mods one at a time to get a feel for their individual contribution.

[mike@x-ph.com]

Originally Posted by XC3LLR8

Sounds like a plan.

I order the AA DP today and will try it out with the JB+ (default position), and then eventually trade-in the JB+ for the JB4. I wanted to try each of the 3 mods one at a time to get a feel for their individual contribution.

[danallxt]

Originally Posted by XC3LLR8

Sounds like a plan.

I order the AA DP today and will try it out with the JB+ (default position), and then eventually trade-in the JB+ for the JB4. I wanted to try each of the 3 mods one at a time to get a feel for their individual contribution.

excellent , be sure to report back here on your findings.

[M240SLC]

Originally Posted by 335i E92

Agree, the G series B58's must also carry a few hardware upgrades to accommodate the higher boost.

I'll go with the Jb+ at halfway setting, K&N panel filter and 99 octane fuel 'UK'. Should be safe enough!

Remember, when it comes to octane ratings, the UK and US use different measurement systems. The US uses AKI (aka (R+M)/2) to come to the figures like 87, 91, and 93 octane. The UK uses RON. So, 99 RON is technically the same as 93 AKI octane here in the States.

[335i E92]

Originally Posted by M240SLC

Remember, when it comes to octane ratings, the UK and US use different measurement systems. The US uses AKI (aka (R+M)/2) to come to the figures like 87, 91, and 93 octane. The UK uses RON. So, 99 RON is technically the same as 93 AKI octane here in the States.

Yes, that was my understanding that US 93 is equivalent to UK 99.

My point was that with the JB+ in halfway setting which is circa +2psi, it should be safe enough to run with UK 99 octane and wouldn't boost higher than the 22psi ceiling in some of the safer JB4 maps.

[M240SLC]

Originally Posted by 335i E92

Yes, that was my understanding that US 93 is equivalent to UK 99.

My point was that with the JB+ in halfway setting which is circa +2psi, it should be safe enough to run with UK 99 octane and wouldn't boost higher than the 22psi ceiling in some of the safer JB4 maps.

Agreed.

[XC3LLR8]

Originally Posted by 335i E92

Yes, that was my understanding that US 93 is equivalent to UK 99.

My point was that with the JB+ in halfway setting which is circa +2psi, it should be safe enough to run with UK 99 octane and wouldn't boost higher than the 22psi ceiling in some of the safer JB4 maps.

If US 93 = UK 99, and BMS says 4 PSI is safe for 91/93, then default position/boost of 4 PSI should be fine for UK 99.

[mike@x-ph.com]

Originally Posted by XC3LLR8

If US 93 = UK 99, and BMS says 4 PSI is safe for 91/93, then default position/boost of 4 PSI should be fine for UK 99.

BMS does not say its safe to run +4 PSI on the new chassis with 93 only

Please review my post again.

If you are running 93 on the new chassis, you need to start with map 4 , datalog, then map 5 and datalog.

Originally Posted by mike@x-ph.com

It's confusing because the same maps are used for F and G chassis cars since they use the same engine

The significant difference between the two chassis is the stock boost. G chassis applications run a much higher boost.

Back to the recommendation

Running map 5, 22 PSI on the F chassis is a considerable PSI increase. You should only do it if you are running an E85 mix.

Running map 5, 22 PSI on the G chassis is not adding much since the stock application can reach up to 20 PSI on its own in optimal conditions. Correction: If you are not mixing with E85, start with map4. For a clean log, map5, in most cases, will require some mix of E85.

No matter which map you run, send the datalog to BMS for map approval.

[XC3LLR8]

Originally Posted by mike@x-ph.com

BMS does not say its safe to run +4 PSI on the new chassis with 93 only

Please review my post again.

If you are running 93 on the new chassis, you need to start with map 4 , datalog, then map 5 and datalog.

I don't want to come across as argumentative, but I'd suggest BMS does say, or at least strongly imply, that up to 4.5 PSI is safe (even mild) on the G chassis.

Below is my recent chat with BMS and I made it clear I have the new chassis and an otherwise stock car with plans to order a DP (delivered today - THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT SERVICE! ). If 4 PSI is not safe with 91/93 on the G chassis, BMS has said nothing to suggest otherwise on their JB+ page where the G chassis is not only listed, but shipped in the 4 PSI default position (3 o'clock).

Something else that causes me a little confusion is if our cars hit 20 PSI in optimum conditions while stock, and the JB4 on Map 5 only offers 22 PSI, and only 20 PSI on Map 4, then why bother spending $530 - $680 on a max gain of 2 PSI?

[mike@x-ph.com]

Originally Posted by XC3LLR8

I don't want to come across as argumentative, but I'd suggest BMS does say, or at least strongly imply, that up to 4.5 PSI is safe (even mild) on the G chassis.

Below is my recent chat with BMS and I made it clear I have the new chassis and an otherwise stock car with plans to order a DP (delivered today - THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT SERVICE! ). If 4 PSI is not safe with 91/93 on the G chassis, BMS has said nothing to suggest otherwise on their JB+ page where the G chassis is not only listed, but shipped in the 4 PSI default position (3 o'clock).

Something else that causes me a little confusion is if our cars hit 20 PSI in optimum conditions while stock, and the JB4 on Map 5 only offers 22 PSI, and only 20 PSI on Map 4, then why bother spending $530 - $680 on a max gain of 2 PSI?

Originally Posted by XC3LLR8

I don't want to come across as argumentative, but I'd suggest BMS does say, or at least strongly imply, that up to 4.5 PSI is safe (even mild) on the G chassis.

Below is my recent chat with BMS and I made it clear I have the new chassis and an otherwise stock car with plans to order a DP (delivered today - THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT SERVICE! ). If 4 PSI is not safe with 91/93 on the G chassis, BMS has said nothing to suggest otherwise on their JB+ page where the G chassis is not only listed, but shipped in the 4 PSI default position (3 o'clock).

Something else that causes me a little confusion is if our cars hit 20 PSI in optimum conditions while stock, and the JB4 on Map 5 only offers 22 PSI, and only 20 PSI on Map 4, then why bother spending $530 - $680 on a max gain of 2 PSI?

That's not how I understood the transcript but I can't speak on behalf of bms.

As for the last question , please remember 20 psi is in optimal conditions and only during a short rpm range. In most cases the car will be running below 20 ( my stock m4 should be running 25 psi stock , during the summer it was running 18 psi)



When you set the jb4 at 20 or 22 , now the car will target this psi under all conditions and for most of your rpm range . It's a big difference between stock and the mildest Jb4 map, making it well worth the $529

[idontsave]

Originally Posted by XC3LLR8

I don't want to come across as argumentative, but I'd suggest BMS does say, or at least strongly imply, that up to 4.5 PSI is safe (even mild) on the G chassis.

Below is my recent chat with BMS and I made it clear I have the new chassis and an otherwise stock car with plans to order a DP (delivered today - THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT SERVICE! ). If 4 PSI is not safe with 91/93 on the G chassis, BMS has said nothing to suggest otherwise on their JB+ page where the G chassis is not only listed, but shipped in the 4 PSI default position (3 o'clock).

Something else that causes me a little confusion is if our cars hit 20 PSI in optimum conditions while stock, and the JB4 on Map 5 only offers 22 PSI, and only 20 PSI on Map 4, then why bother spending $530 - $680 on a max gain of 2 PSI?

I would certainly be very careful running +4 PSI on 91 and running any higher boost than that with an additive map on 93 without proper logging.

Despite what BMS says, people have blown their turbos when running the more aggressive additive options. Not to knock them, but I have seen them advise some of the Supra guys to run JB4 map 3 only for disaster to result.

Mike's advice on the other hand seems to be spot-on. Definitely would be the safer way to go.

[XC3LLR8]

Originally Posted by idontsave

I would certainly be very careful running +4 PSI on 91 and running any higher boost than that with an additive map on 93 without proper logging.

Despite what BMS says, people have blown their turbos when running the more aggressive additive options. Not to knock them, but I have seen them advise some of the Supra guys to run JB4 map 3 only for disaster to result.

Mike's advice on the other hand seems to be spot-on. Definitely would be the safer way to go.

I only run 93 (unless unavailable on a road trip) and even try to be picky where I get my gas. I have not made any adjustments to the JB+, so my additional boost should be limited to 4 psi or less. I really hope the BMS and Dinan tech guys are being honest when they say their +/Sport tuners are "mild" and "perfectly safe" on a G chassis.

Once I go the JB4 route I'll likely skip the Maps 1-3 and leave it on Map 4 with logs sent to BMS as Mike suggests.