[shoei]

Originally Posted by limeypride

SHOEI! You're alive... I was getting worried.

Evil doesn't die, Limey... Don't worry...

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by shoei

Evil doesn't die, Limey... Don't worry...

Keep your eye on this thread, I think it might be diffe... nah, scratch that--it's already going the same way.

[shoei]

Doesn't matter what they show today, at least not for me... Mathematically their claims are next to impossible, the way they handled it, the bullshit edits to their policies and warranties (no dyno ever) and the shills they had positing was enough for me...

Truthfully, couldn't care less. They could have the best tune in the history of tunes and the bullshit we've gone through is my reasoning...

How the M8? I'd rather hear about that...

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by shoei

Doesn't matter what they show today, at least not for me... Mathematically their claims are next to impossible, the way they handled it, the bullshit edits to their policies and warranties (no dyno ever) and the shills they had positing was enough for me...

Truthfully, couldn't care less. They could have the best tune in the history of tunes and the bullshit we've gone through is my reasoning...

How the M8? I'd rather hear about that...

Here you go in case you missed it:

https://f92.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...00&postcount=1

[JBA87]

I posted the m data on your 2019 M5 w 92 octane

It was 7.7 seconds

Here is mine on just a flash on a very hot day in Florida ..

Someone else on same tune did 6.94

This is good evidence on times that are less affected by road conditions

[limeypride]

Blah blah blah... I showed you a better time, you chose to ignore it and make excuses... again.

Where are your 1/4 mile and launch times (0-60, 1/8th mile)—there's nothing more to say; post your data or don't, you understand well enough how its absence will be interpreted.

[shoei]

Originally Posted by limeypride

Here you go in case you missed it:

https://f92.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...38;postcount=1

You can't just cliffnote it??!!!

"Here's what I like more than my F90s and here's what I like less than my F90s..." Note it's plural lol...

[Hockeytyme]

Just so happens I ran DME and Evolve's stage2 tunes last night while testing something else.

These are both normal stage2 93 octane tunes with nothing else special. Of course my car is modded and I was running MS101 pump fuel. DME ran a 6.63 and Evolve 6.64.

I'm too lazy but if you really need me to I can post the Dragy screen shots.


In comparison on JB4 MS101 I ran a 6.78

If you want to go with more aggressive tunes running race fuel you can see my sig which shows my best on each tune using MS109.

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by shoei

You can't just cliffnote it??!!!

"Here's what I like more than my F90s and here's what I like less than my F90s..." Note it's plural lol...

You can't just click it and read ya lazy ba$...

Oooh, wait, I thought of something I like less: the M5 had a much better sunroof.

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by Hockeytyme

Just so happens I ran DME and Evolve's stage2 tunes last night while testing something else.

These are both normal stage2 93 octane tunes with nothing else special. Of course my car is modded and I was running MS101 pump fuel. DME ran a 6.63 and Evolve 6.64.

I'm too lazy but if you really need me to I can post the Dragy screen shots.


In comparison on JB4 MS101 I ran a 6.78

If you want to go with more aggressive tunes running race fuel you can see my sig which shows my best on each tune using MS109.

Thanks. Nothing surprising (well, not surprising anymore... it was at the time) or new there, though!

I was trying to get <I've forgotten his name--insert it here> to post his DME ECU-only comparable 60, 1/8th, 1/4 results when no additional bolt ons are in play. He's made a lot of excuses (which fits this thread perfectly I suppose) and posted no results of his own or anyone else's.

So in the absence of any data, the conclusion is equally befitting of this thread.

[JBA87]

Limey

I think you are just sad that you are wrong

The 1/4 times and 0-60 times are way to condition dependent and you know it

The 60-130s provide a much better comparison for this purpose

We have both showed you 60-130 times on comparable platforms that do better than jb4

I don't see what's the issue other than denial

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by JBA87

Limey

I think you are just sad that you are wrong

The 1/4 times and 0-60 times are way to condition dependent and you know it

The 60-130s provide a much better comparison for this purpose

We have both showed you 60-130 times on comparable platforms that do better than jb4

I don't see what's the issue other than denial

I don't care what you think, I care what you can prove. I've asked you repeatedly for something data-backed and you've supplied nothing. I see it, and others reading your posts over the coming years will see it, too. In my opinion, your attitude here has done nothing but lessen DME's reputation--data, not excuses; facts, not opinions.

I don't agree with any of your ill-informed assumptions. You post excuses and assertions and back it with nothing.

When you've got data, say something. Until then, work on your car and the tune... loop your spelling, grammar and punctuation in while you're at it--it may help me understand you.

To close, consider grabbing a Noelle tune instead--you deserve one another.

[JBA87]

You get so offended

I posted 60-130 times of you vs me

They show me faster than you (by a lot)


That's called evidence

Let's do it again

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by JBA87

You get so offended

I posted 60-130 times of you vs me

They show me faster than you (by a lot)


That's called evidence

Let's do it again

Good one! <— that's punctuation by the way.

[JBA87]

Here is 60-130 just a strong tune w DME .. 60-130 on pump 93 .. this was my best


Now yours (on just pump gas w no boostane)

[JBA87]

Post it ...

Just 93 octane

No boostane

On the M5

Not the m8 ...


Waiting .....

[JBA87]

Also we should post logs of the runs to compare boost and other variables for full transparency

Actually I have a better idea:

I have DME / HCP / JB4 / and (soon) Evole

How about you tel me the settings you want on my JB4 ..

and I'll just compare them all on my car

[limeypride]

... alrighty, needed to finish watching Star Trek Picard; it was more factual than most of your posts--so cool!



Let me know if I missed some data you actually cited or if I got anything wrong, I'm happy (well, willing'ish I guess ) to include the data that you should already have...

[Hockeytyme]

Originally Posted by JBA87

Limey

I think you are just sad that you are wrong

The 1/4 times and 0-60 times are way to condition dependent and you know it

The 60-130s provide a much better comparison for this purpose

We have both showed you 60-130 times on comparable platforms that do better than jb4

I don't see what's the issue other than denial

One thing I will mention is that JB4 will beat most of the tunes stage1 tunes. Being that you guys are comparing 93oct and no mods, I think JB4 will be out perform in this instance.

Honestly, JB4 is a beast and I bet if I redid my runs now having better knowledge and meth that I could probably dip into the high 9's with it

[JBA87]

That's not your M5 times

It's your m8 times

Stop playing charades

And what fuel?

[JBA87]

And what map and boost are you running ?

Is this map 2?

Or some custom map with enhanced boost ?

[JBA87]

And if your using this time for your 60-130

The dragy graph is all fucked up ... and questionable

What were you holding it in your hand ?

What fuel? And Map? And boost target ?