That's correct in terms of overall power, but mostly due to timing. Catless downpipes are recommended for stage 2 maps due to the extra backpressure produced from the boost tuning on stage 2 maps, however as long as an upgraded intercooler is present he should be just fine running stage 1+ with catted downpipes.
The + maps have higher peak power due to timing advance staying higher for longer, stage 2 maps "just" run higher boost levels than their stage 1 counterparts so the power will likely be felt quicker with faster spooling and you'll see higher peak boost, however timing is what makes the peak power difference on OTS maps. Stage 2 = more backpressure so catless downpipes are recommended in order to prolong the life of your turbos etc, Stage 1+/2+ an intercooler is necessary due to the timing pull you will experience if your car suffers from heat soak; it doesn't have anything to do with intakes or ambient temps like many people think either. You'd likely have more (though definitely have more consistent) power simply running a non + map if a FMIC isn't present; the same isn't necessarily true when comparing stage 1 vs stage 2 maps, though obviously the proper supporting mods are always going to keep the car happy and healthy.
Last edited:
Yep, what he said....
I'm stock turbos and dp`s, and a monster ic. Running s1+ is just right till I'm closer to a station with e85, then all bets are off.
I'm stock turbos and dp`s, and a monster ic. Running s1+ is just right till I'm closer to a station with e85, then all bets are off.
I cant supply feedback vs other previous version, what I do know is that the v9 has checked boxes for parameters...how you change those isnt clear I just installed v9 today so haven't had much time to play with it..what I do know is WOW...what a change...no codes pop up.. exhaust sounds deeper. Than stock. I had the wifi connection so install time was 19 minutes 40 sec..super impressed by the power gains...haven't hit highway speeds just short bursts and Holy Sheeps nuts. Took my wife to taco bell and her only reply was.."Yeah your going to jail"
I tuned the 9.0 beta on my n54 and it feels a lot more responsive and reliable so far pulls like a freight train of course still (FBO Stage2+ but the tune it’s self feels really healthy. Doesn’t break up after 130 anymore not sure if it’s cause the tunes still fresh. I like it
I messaged @WedgePerformance and explained that I was having some surge issues on sustained part throttle on the v9b maps. He explained that it was caused by the lean cruise feedback loop common to the N54 platform and that a fix was to be pushed out.
Another thing I spoke to him about was 1M throttle maps and whether they are kept stock on the OTS IKMOS tunes. He’s going to check and come back to us. Really responsive I wish he had more time to hang out with us in here
Another thing I spoke to him about was 1M throttle maps and whether they are kept stock on the OTS IKMOS tunes. He’s going to check and come back to us. Really responsive I wish he had more time to hang out with us in here
Generally yes but follow the recommendations around supporting mods and log to make sure as each car is different
I tried running the V9 Stage 2+ E50 tune.....but it didn't feel nearly as strong on the Stage 2+ V5 E40 tune I've ran for a long time.
Recently, I decided to fill up with an E50 fuel mix, and try the newest V9 E50 tune….it’s got to be better than the V5 E40 tune…right? More ethanol content, and 4 revisions of changes should be making more power…right?
Right after flashing the V9 tune, the first thing I noticed right off the bat just driving around was that the tune seems pretty “soft”……and you can see why when you look at the two 3rd gear pulls that I logged (RED is the V5 E40 tune, BLUE is the V9 E50 tune) on virtual dyno. I’m not sure if the HP/TQ numbers are accurate, but it’s a good way to compare multiple tunes. Corrections are being made for the different intake temps. (see difference below)
1. TQ/HP Curves: The V9 tune gives up a massive amount of HP/TQ under 3,700rpms. Close to 80ft/lbs and 50hp difference at 2,700rpms (if you trust virtual dyno to be correct). The V9 E50 tune does seem to make a little more TQ/HP above 3,800rpms though….maybe handy if you are roll racing? For a street car, all that grunt downlow from the V5 E40 tune really comes in handy, and you can really feel it when you are driving around. It would be nice to get a ¼ mile draggy run from each tune to see if the low end grunt of the V5 tune would be faster than the extra top end over of the V9 tune?
2. Boost Targets: The V9 tune only targets 18psi boost on the upper end, while the V5 tune targets close to 21psi. Especially in the lower RPMs, the V5 really puts the boost to the motor. I’m sure that’s the main reason why it’s got so much more grunt downlow vs. the V9 tune. I’m not sure why MHD pulled so much boost out of the V9 tune considering the higher ethanol content the tune was designed for.
3. Fueling: The V9 tune starts out richer than the V5 tune, and then they swap at around 4,000rpms and the V9 tune gets leaner than the V5. I got a couple of small timing corrections with the V5 E40 tune during shifts (which I’ve heard is normal), but with the V9 E50 tune…..during the pull there were up to -5 degrees of timing corrections, which seems like a lot to me. I’m guessing the leaner fueling was the cause of that? The slightly leaner fueling could be why the V9 picked up some more power on the top end?
I was really hoping that after 4 more revisions, the newest V9 E50 tune would be something special……but to me it looks like MHD just traded big lower end power, for a little top end push. Who knows, maybe that might work better for some people.
Recently, I decided to fill up with an E50 fuel mix, and try the newest V9 E50 tune….it’s got to be better than the V5 E40 tune…right? More ethanol content, and 4 revisions of changes should be making more power…right?
Right after flashing the V9 tune, the first thing I noticed right off the bat just driving around was that the tune seems pretty “soft”……and you can see why when you look at the two 3rd gear pulls that I logged (RED is the V5 E40 tune, BLUE is the V9 E50 tune) on virtual dyno. I’m not sure if the HP/TQ numbers are accurate, but it’s a good way to compare multiple tunes. Corrections are being made for the different intake temps. (see difference below)
1. TQ/HP Curves: The V9 tune gives up a massive amount of HP/TQ under 3,700rpms. Close to 80ft/lbs and 50hp difference at 2,700rpms (if you trust virtual dyno to be correct). The V9 E50 tune does seem to make a little more TQ/HP above 3,800rpms though….maybe handy if you are roll racing? For a street car, all that grunt downlow from the V5 E40 tune really comes in handy, and you can really feel it when you are driving around. It would be nice to get a ¼ mile draggy run from each tune to see if the low end grunt of the V5 tune would be faster than the extra top end over of the V9 tune?
2. Boost Targets: The V9 tune only targets 18psi boost on the upper end, while the V5 tune targets close to 21psi. Especially in the lower RPMs, the V5 really puts the boost to the motor. I’m sure that’s the main reason why it’s got so much more grunt downlow vs. the V9 tune. I’m not sure why MHD pulled so much boost out of the V9 tune considering the higher ethanol content the tune was designed for.
3. Fueling: The V9 tune starts out richer than the V5 tune, and then they swap at around 4,000rpms and the V9 tune gets leaner than the V5. I got a couple of small timing corrections with the V5 E40 tune during shifts (which I’ve heard is normal), but with the V9 E50 tune…..during the pull there were up to -5 degrees of timing corrections, which seems like a lot to me. I’m guessing the leaner fueling was the cause of that? The slightly leaner fueling could be why the V9 picked up some more power on the top end?
I was really hoping that after 4 more revisions, the newest V9 E50 tune would be something special……but to me it looks like MHD just traded big lower end power, for a little top end push. Who knows, maybe that might work better for some people.
It could be that overall power wasn’t the goal but refinement may have been... horses for courses.
Seeing people review the OTS tunes is like watching a gypsie reading tea-leaves. There's not much logic in the OTS tunes. I sometimes think he just puts random values into tables and logs, if it looks good then push it out as an OTS map. The difference you see in boost target is related to whatever random values were entered into tables that influence volumetric efficiency.
They seem to work for what most people want. You're not going to get perfection but it'll get you boost and timing.
They seem to work for what most people want. You're not going to get perfection but it'll get you boost and timing.
Agreed. But, they are definitely different between the different revision versions. I now know that I don't want to run any of the V9 E-tunes, way to "Soft" feeling.
Hey guys I just bought a 2009 bmw 335i xdrive and ran the MHD stage 1 map on it I loved how it turned out and had to use the v8.0 instead of the v9.0, does anyone know why the 9.0 didn't work on my car or?
Thanks
Thanks
