[limeypride]

Originally Posted by Vic55

No chance the RC gets to 136 traps, that car was done up on race gas and JB4. The RC is really as I stated and Tom and Miko will chime in, an easy peazy plugger that gains maybe 3-4 mph in trap on a non CE car. And thats what I wanted, plus it was out back in Sept I think and Ben, the retailer lives very close so I went to him for the easy install. What I like are the liveable adds in my drives which are 30 to 120 bursts and city dig stomps

The JB4 time was indeed recorded with race gas albeit only 100 octane.

As Vic and I have concluded before, I tend to lean slightly more towards the 'push the envelope' camp when it comes to tuning hence the JB4 is appealing to me. However, what is the difference here between the stage 1 JB and the RC? They're the same price (or the JB is cheaper depending on the RC model). Installation is, I ?assume?, identical, they both offer selectable maps controlled via
a cellphone app and they're both proven plug'n'play/set'n'forget devices. On that basis, I think they're in direct competition.

The stage 2 JB4 is quite definitely a different animal: it entails a more complex install requiring you to intercept the electronic wastegate lines in addition to the TMAPs. It's also extremely beneficial (though optional) to hook it up to the OBD II port (requires running a wire through the heat shield) allowing the JB (and I quote) to perform more advanced tuning functions, diagnostics/logging, and in the near future in dash map changes and controls.

[onfireX5]

Originally Posted by limeypride

The JB4 time was indeed recorded with race gas albeit only 100 octane.

As Vic and I have concluded before, I tend to lean slightly more towards the 'push the envelope' camp when it comes to tuning hence the JB4 is appealing to me. However, what is the difference here between the stage 1 JB and the RC? They're the same price (or the JB is cheaper depending on the RC model). Installation is, I ?assume?, identical, they both offer selectable maps controlled via
a cellphone app and they're both proven plug'n'play/set'n'forget devices. On that basis, I think they're in direct competition.

The stage 2 JB4 is quite definitely a different animal: it entails a more complex install requiring you to intercept the electronic wastegate lines in addition to the TMAPs. It's also extremely beneficial (though optional) to hook it up to the OBD II port (requires running a wire through the heat shield) allowing the JB (and I quote) to perform more advanced tuning functions, diagnostics/logging, and in the near future in dash map changes and controls.

I've used them both and you've pretty much summed it up. One MAJOR advantage (for me), is the bypass plug on the RC. I've never read of a failure on JB or RC, but my wife can easily install the RC bypass in 30 seconds if it ever happened. Slick trick .

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by onfireX5

I've used them both and you've pretty much summed it up. One MAJOR advantage (for me), is the bypass plug on the RC. I've never read of a failure on JB or RC, but my wife can easily install the RC bypass in 30 seconds if it ever happened. Slick trick .

I don't know what the bypass plug is but I think I can make a reasonable guess--I assume it restores the native physical connections bypassing the RC's brains. Assuming so, the JB has a pass-through mode which is intended to provide the same functionality. From the sound it, though, the RC's is a 'physical' restoration of the natural TMAP path whereas the JB equivalent is implemented in software.

[Vic55]

Originally Posted by limeypride

I don't know what the bypass plug is but I think I can make a reasonable guess--I assume it restores the native physical connections bypassing the RC's brains. Assuming so, the JB has a pass-through mode which is intended to provide the same functionality. From the sound it, though, the RC's is a 'physical' restoration of the natural TMAP path whereas the JB equivalent is implemented in software.

Pretty much.

You could have used that...

I joke. Daredevil.

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by Vic55

Pretty much.

You could have used that...

I joke. Daredevil.

Arse.

[onfireX5]

Originally Posted by limeypride

I don't know what the bypass plug is but I think I can make a reasonable guess--I assume it restores the native physical connections bypassing the RC's brains. Assuming so, the JB has a pass-through mode which is intended to provide the same functionality. From the sound it, though, the RC's is a 'physical' restoration of the natural TMAP path whereas the JB equivalent is implemented in software.

If the hardware has failed.....software doesn't matter....

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by onfireX5

If the hardware has failed.....software doesn't matter....

Ah, true enough. I wasn't thinking of this capability in that scenario, rather, preventing or reducing the risk of detection.

A little story since it's kinda cool and relevant: I bought my first JB for a 2012 F10 550xDrive that I had for a year. When I sold that one because of mileage, I bought another and transferred my JB to the new car. A year later, I sold it and bought an F10 M5... which I installed that same JB into requiring that I make one SW config change and gained 90 wheel hp and over 100 ft Ibs of wheel torque. That car lasted me embarrassingly-enough only 7 days since I wrapped it around a tree. A few days later, I went to the local dealer to meet with my tech and we uninstalled the JB which I then took home. 6 weeks later, All State handed me a check for $115,000 that I used to get another M5. This story continues with yet another M5, a 2015 M6 Gran Coupe then a 2016 M6 Gran Coupe and finally a brief stint in an X5M. The JB went along with that car when I sold the lease. At the time, that was a $400 investment that lasted 5 years across 8 vehicles--that's value for money!

[vtknight]

Originally Posted by onfireX5

You can only evaluate the delta's in my numbers due to my elevation. I could take a pure stock Comp M5 to Palm in January on a -2000DA day (or ATCO or BeechBend or Cecil, etc) and beat my RC times at my elevation,,,,it's all relative.

BEST pure stock was 11.23 at 124.20mph with a 3.01 0-60mph

BEST RC is 10.86 at 129.04mph with a 2.76 0-60mph.

On Pump 93 RC adds a lot of power to the M5.

Wow - that is really solid! That is almost four tenths and 5 MPH...This is the RC - easy plug in? Seems the way to go...

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by vtknight

Wow - that is really solid! That is almost four tenths and 5 MPH...This is the RC - easy plug in? Seems the way to go...

They are great numbers.

I feel like I'm on a soapbox at this point so I'll say this and then get off of it: compare it to the Burger Tuning JB stage 1 or JB4 and then make your decision. Installation is identical for the setup that matches the high-end RC.

</stepping down...>

[vtknight]

Originally Posted by limeypride

They are great numbers.

I feel like I'm on a soapbox at this point so I'll say this and then get off of it: compare it to the Burger Tuning JB stage 1 or JB4 and then make your decision. Installation is identical for the setup that matches the high-end RC.

</stepping down...>

I recognize the flexibility of the JB4 - I have a stand alone Motec ECU on the car I race - and for higher end performance you always want the bigger tuning palette. That said - and I am still not modding my daily - if I were - I would go as simple as possible. For that scenario anyway...

[Pimpsy]

Information on this topic seems all over the place.

It would be helpful to see definitive dyno gains and charts for each product. I used to do hundreds of dyno runs on motorcycles...it's not rocket science: base line run or two, install mods, then a few tweaking runs.

I do not at all understand the lack of detailed information regarding the numbers for various configurations. Dynojet (for one) will actually simulate races between various runs, etc. I'm actually surprised we don't have more gear heads posting numbers and configurations.

[soooma]

Originally Posted by vtknight

I recognize the flexibility of the JB4 - I have a stand alone Motec ECU on the car I race - and for higher end performance you always want the bigger tuning palette. That said - and I am still not modding my daily - if I were - I would go as simple as possible. For that scenario anyway...

Why? "As simply for your DD"

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by Pimpsy

Information on this topic seems all over the place.

It would be helpful to see definitive dyno gains and charts for each product. I used to do hundreds of dyno runs on motorcycles...it's not rocket science: base line run or two, install mods, then a few tweaking runs.

I do not at all understand the lack of detailed information regarding the numbers for various configurations. Dynojet (for one) will actually simulate races between various runs, etc. I'm actually surprised we don't have more gear heads posting numbers and configurations.

The before and after numbers for the Burger product are posted front-and-center on their web site as are their 1/4 mile times. I have my own numbers from a DynoPack per-wheel hub dyno but the car didn't play ball until a couple of hours in when we'd already installed the JB4. We then ran out of time and the plan was to go back but my Christmas Eve debacle put a stop to that.

The RC's numbers are cited (without a dyno plot and without stock numbers) on their web site. I haven't seen any RC-owner numbers but I've not exactly gone looking with vigor.

FWIW and conscious of my apparent bias: I'm not a fan of any tuning product that cites gain relative to manufacturer's claimed numbers because it artificially inflates the apparent gains of the tune... especially with BMW's reputation for understatement when it comes to factory power figures.

[soooma]

Originally Posted by Pimpsy

Information on this topic seems all over the place.

It would be helpful to see definitive dyno gains and charts for each product. I used to do hundreds of dyno runs on motorcycles...it's not rocket science: base line run or two, install mods, then a few tweaking runs.

I do not at all understand the lack of detailed information regarding the numbers for various configurations. Dynojet (for one) will actually simulate races between various runs, etc. I'm actually surprised we don't have more gear heads posting numbers and configurations.

Me too
Seriously !!!

[limeypride]

Originally Posted by soooma

Me too
Seriously !!!

I really don't understand what it is you guys are not seeing... unless you're commenting specifically about the RC?

[Pimpsy]

Originally Posted by limeypride

I really don't understand what it is you guys are not seeing... unless you're commenting specifically about the RC?

For starters, a simple list of products with actual dyno gains and charts next to each. Instead it seems I am forced to wade through a large quantity of conflicting information, manufacturers claims that appear to be flat out false, and a general lack of verified data.

Then, in an enthusiast forum, I would expect to see real dyno comparisons into infinity for every possible combination of performance mods.

[onfireX5]

RC Maha STOCK F90 M5 555rwhp dyno sheet :

[Pimpsy]

Call me crazy but we used to make microscopic changes to motorcycles and test various runs practically into infinity for weeks and months on end.

I truly don't understand how a global forum of high end performance enthusiasts driving 6 figure hi-perf vehicles isn't absolutely flooded with this sort of information.

[soooma]

Originally Posted by onfireX5

RC Maha F90 M5 555rwhp dyno sheet :

English please
Assuming all of us here graph geniuses

[Pimpsy]

Originally Posted by soooma

English please
Assuming all of us here graph geniuses

Haha!

This guy is ON FIRE ok. Love the detailed info, ty.

[onfireX5]

RC Maha dyno RC on SP7 at 622RWHP. A 67RWHP gain PLUS extended the HP curve up top. Pump gas decent gain.

I personally ignore all the "engine" corrected graphs. Rear Wheel was actually measured and not plugged into a "formula".

[soooma]

Originally Posted by onfireX5

RC Maha dyno RC on SP7 at 622RWHP.

I personally ignore all the "engine" corrected graphs. Rear Wheel was actually measured and not plugged into a "formula".

So
That's 622+ the 15% AWD driver-train loss? So about 730-740 HP at the crank?