The one thing that is subjective as opposed to objective between the stock map from my cars origin to the stock v.101 is that at 6k my stock map always dropped off to the point that its obvious. The stock v.101 map doesnt. I have no dynos to prove this but on this car it is obvious when the ECU drops the power at 6k.

I will disagree with you that they are the same simply because of this. If the donor car that provided the "Cali stock style v.101 map" had been flashed by a dealer when the whole "fuel pump issues came out" then just by that it would be different than mine since I have never taken the car in for a re-flash. If a 2008.5 car donated that stock v.101 map then one could assume it could be different than an 07 model. (could be doesnt mean it is though)

Also, Christian stated that the maps released as stock were the latest revisions made available at the time. If they were the "latest" it implies a difference or else they would be the same.

Last, I have not compared my original map vs stock v.101.... I do have plenty of G-tech runs on my original map but they were done at different "test tracks" and in low 60 high 50 degree weather (big difference).

So my comparisons between the original stock map and the stock v.101 map are mainly subjective, so I will give you that, the power dropoff at 6k is so obvious that I dont think you need a gauge to tell the difference but....... I should do the right thing and test the og map as well.

I had a couple of days off this week so I finally tested the stage 1 + ms CAI v.102 msf map vs stock style v.101 (I will use MSF as the abbreviation for the map I just tested)

MSF map

LTFT -10/-12 idle +/-1 under all other conditions
knock .3 and .7 occasionally under moderate load and part
throttle. Heavier load and high rpm up to 2.5
AFR's low 12's to high 11's between 3750rpm and 6k
Boost can hold finally 16psi between 3500 and 5200 rpm in 3rd 4th
and 5th. (1st doesnt last long enough to accurately
eyeball it)

Stock style v.101 map

LTFT -2 idle +6/7 partial throttle +4/5 WOT
knock no knock at partial throttle. Heavier load and high rpm 2.5
AFR's low 12's to mid/high 10's between 3750 and 6k
Boost hold 16psi between 3500 and 5k in 3rd 4th 5th and 6th


My LTFT's are a bloody mystery to me at idle, most Cobb maps make me run like that. AFR's are richer on stock yet I get better MPG? Knock is worse on the MSF map but only at part throttle, I would assume a by product of making the turbo boost sooner as my MPG decreased as well.Finally boost, I am finally happy I have a map that holds at least the same as the stock v.101

Performance info from the G-tech

0-50 the MSF reached 50mph .150 seconds quicker
0-60 mph stock v.101 caught up to MSF
0-70 stock v.101 .100 seconds sooner
0-80 stock v.101 .150 seconds sooner
0-90 stock v.101 .180/.200 seconds sooner

60 ft times were a lot closer than ever before but for me personally how fast each map reaches 100mph is more important than anything else.

Opinions, I thought this map felt incredible......touch the gas and the car reacts, feels like another 30 ft lbs of torque were added (I seriously doubt it, it just comes in so much sooner that it plays tricks with your expectations)
I still dont feel the peak hp that lets you pull away from an equally powered car when you are on the fwy but its the closest I have tested a map comapred to stock v.101. 5th gear felt great on the fwy but 6th was pretty anemic. I ran the map for 300 miles and truthfully the LTFT's after 50 miles stayed the same so I don't think another 300 miles would have made a difference. If I did not have the G-tech to measure performance I would have put my life on this map being faster to 100 mph.

Take this post for what it's worth, these are MY results and only apply to ME. Now you guys put some data on the table......because no matter how we all look at this, agree or disagree there is 1 fact that we can all agree on. These maps are improving, and they will keep improving as long as we provide feedback, negative/positive results and a positive outlook on the DIRECTION we are going , not necessarily where we are at right now. Hope this helps some.

i think we are finnaly going in the right direction. The ltft's you are seeing are deff a little wierd, mine are within 5% at any time. I wonder if that is throwing the car off any.

I wish there was a way to measure accel. in one gear only....im betting the cobb map would be faster from 2.5k to redline in a single given gear simply b/c of the shape of the powerband.

thx for all the work you've done man

my ltft's have been nearly identicle on every map, I wonder if you have some kind of leak or something at idle.

Mine LTFT's have been nearly identicle on every map as well.

well...... what would leak at idle as opposed to any other time?? the diverter valve? I have both the stock one and a Turbo xs hybrid and they both behave the same on the long term trims. I honestly dont know enough about this car to begin to suspect where the problem might be. I just know that for me for some reason the stock v.101 map performs best, its the only map I run that consistently outruns more powerful cars on the fwy (where traction is not an issue or even driving skill) I ran a e46 m3 2 nights ago from 70 to about 135 and put a car on him, just floored it in 6th, same with an 08 335i...... (yeah I am 35 years old but I got plenty of stupid left in me stil!!!)

Anyways I am going to start working with Christian to figure out why my ride isnt reacting the same. I almost wish people would run the same tests as myself to actually see if I do need to concentrate on my cars condition rather than the AP.

well, the g-tech allows me to look at this:

0-150mph (maybe more but never tried it)

I can see 10mph increments , I can see highest G's achieved in any direction, I can see 60ft, 330' , 1/8mile, 1000ft and 1/4 mile times and speed.

I can see a hp graph for every gear , even to when it drops when you shift gears (mind you the HP calculated by the G-tech is not the same as a dyno simply because it measures hp to the ground while moving a 3k lbs + car through the air which obviously takes HP away from the final numbers) I dont really care how it compares to your guys' dynos because its a different way to measure, I only care how it compares to itself when testing multiple maps.

As far as acceleration in each gear , I dont pay too much attention to a 0-60 simply because traction, clutch slippage (based on style of driving) and the fact that you cannot go WOT until you feel there is enough traction. But from 60-100 I have done comaprisons between every map I have tested vs stock style v.101 on runs that were within .01-.05 on the 0-60 to accurately pretend it was a comparison from a roll instead of a standing start and in every test the stock v.101 left the other maps behind...... that is the main reason why I stand behind the stock v.101 map....... because when all variables that cause inconsistencies are eliminated the map always outruns the others.

I need a better IC though because that would make it easier to keep the tests even more consistent for myself.

quick update on the v102 OTS stg 1 + MSCAI Map - So far, it's a very smooth map and I'm pleased w/ the results. pretty decent and equal power in all gears. I can tell this isn't a FT map though. My LTFT's are the best I've seen.

1% at idle, 4% at decel, 5% at tip in throttle and 1% at WOT.

Tonight I'll flash to the MSF version of the map, drive around a bit and post up another update. Then I'll start foolling w/ my Mods!

I'm thinking I'll test the mods in steps. Stg 1 + MSCAI w/ the TMIC first. Then, I'll take that off and put on the RP. Then I'll try both together. I'll post my results on here so everyone including Christian can see how the car reacts. After that, I'll pick up a Cobb SRI, throw on my DP and got stg2 + SRI + FMIC.

I went to the track tonight. My best time was 13.6 at 104. My highest trap was at 105.

CS DP, CS RP, SRI, AP, CS inserts, and Forge BPV. The car sputtered a lot tonight and was not holding 18psi. The temp was around 65*. This is with the V102 S2 MSF map.

While keeping an eye on the AP, boost is not cut, no spike, no AFR abnormality, either.

What the heck is going on?

I am now pushing black smoke from the tail pipe. The clutch went very soft on me tonight, too. Not at the track, but on the way home when I tried to take off briskly from a stop light.

sound sjust like me when i went 13.4 @ 106 stuttering....the fuel pump that cobb says that you dont need, fixed my problems

IM guessing its boost related. I bet if you watched WGDC as it sputtered you would see it being pegged at zero.

I cant wait for my pump internals show up. That should put a lot to rest. Im getting ticked.

Loosh, why do you figure your car was sputtering? Whats your highest trap?

EDIT* Just flashed back to stock tyle. The car seemed to pull much harder. To make sure it wasnt just me, I picked up my cousin on my way to get gas. He thought it pulled much harder as well, especially up top. No sputtering. I think I did hit fuel cut, WOT, up hill, 5th gear, around 4500RPM... stupid move on my part, but it did pull nicely!

Ive came to the conclusion that these cars are way too different to all run the same OTS map.

Sorry Cobb, keep trying.

my higest trap is 113, but i started stuttering around 105-106
my highest dh trap is 118, but thats off due to tire size

Went back to the track tonight. My first run was 13.5 at 105 on the stock map. 2nd run I hit fuel cut twice. It was below 60*. I went home.

Im assuming it was fuel cut. Very noticable, like DSC interference but didnt last near as long.

you guys gotta admit....this is getting kinda funny

Which is why im an advocate for custom tunes on each and every vehicle. No 2 cars are alike by any means.

Must be nice to have that problem. I had wanted to go back out to the track Friday, but temps here didn't even drop under 100 until after 9:30.

What you're describing does sound like fuel cut, tho. I used to have the same thing happen when I went full TBE last winter. Luckily for me, I only live a couple miles from Jon (mrlilguy) and the problem taken care of quickly.

didnt you post running 13.484 at 103.99mph running a stock map and stage 1 mods??? mph hasnt picked up much if you say 105 is the highest you have acheived running stage 2 mods .....ay caramba!!!

Maybe we're looking at this all wrong. It seems evident that most cars don't pick up too much HP after a certain point of mods. The big gains come after the addition of an upgraded FP. Maybe we're going to see the "big" gains come after some upgraded CDFP's. I'd be curious to know what cars were trapping before CDFP's and after (non AP cars).

could be true, my question though..... do u guys hit fuel cut in all gears or mostly in 4th 5th vs 1st and 2nd because there is a higher load on the engine in the taller gears? if so maybe we should be comparing 1/8th mile traps on 4thstroke's runs....... just n I D R

I've only hit fuel cut once. It was back in january, and it was in 3rd gear at the top of the RPM band. Only mod was MSCAI at the time. Luckily, I'm not having any fuel cut issues so far.

man, you must have patience. I would have installed all that shit you own but isnt in your car yet, especially the TMIC

Yes I did (103.98, close enough).

It is confusing the hell out of me.

My fuel pump internals shipped last week (30th), so I should have them this week some time, it would be nice to run with all the guys coming down from Seattle and surrounding areas who are making the drive to Portland on the 9th. I'll be there either way. Im hoping that is what puts me in the low 13s on the stock tune. Maybe the AP MSF tune will be a little better once I get this pump in there.

Fuel cut in 4th and 5th, not any other gear. I hit it twice during the same run in the same gear! Got on the freeway, no cut at all in 4th or 5th.

Thats preciselly my point, look at your 1/8th mile trap speeds then and you WILL be able to compare the performance between maps without fuel cut coming into play.

I was running 8.7-8.8 1/8ths, my 13.4 was also a 8.7 1/8th.

Patience??? nope. I'm short on that but I'm especially short on TIME!!!!
all sitting on the floor waiting to be installed lol...Oh yea, I'm a bit lazy too.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...0623081315.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...0623081324.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...0628081541.jpg

what about mph on the eight.....how do those compare? Measure of HP is best arrived at with the 1/4 mile mph because by then tire spin , bogging and every other scenario that affects the initial speed of the car averages out and for the most part does indicate an increase or decrease in horsepower.

The 1/8th mile mph is obviously more affected by what happens at the launch but can still yield a consistent enough "story" that some conculsions can be drawn. When I do most of my tests now I run 1/8th mile just because (well a ticket on a 60 at 80mph is a wee bit different than my car being taken away from me for doing 100mph) but they show conclusive enough results to where I have cut down on my 0-100mph tests and saved those only for the "final reults" .

I actually have improved my testing to where I am now more interested in the time it takes for a map to go from 60-70mph, or from 70-80mph, or 80-90mph etc etc..... because it is not affected by initial launch. From idle or a 3k drop of the clutch the difference in time between 10mph increments at higher speeds (like between 70-80mph) remains constant, the only variable from the vehicle's point of view is gear changes from 3rd to 4th and while logging that info with the g-tech .150 is the time I always take to do such a gear change +/- .010 seconds. (2nd to 3rd on the other hand takes me as much as .450 seconds...YIKES!!!!)

To be consistent and to just test the car's power, why not pick a gear like 3rd or 4th and just see how long it takes to accelerate from speed x to speed y encompassing most of the rev range between speed x and y. This avoids the starting/launching problem and will be able to give you a difference between the maps.

well, I am limited by the gizmo I use and I cannot start a test when the car is moving because it will detect the slightest fraction of a G in any direction and it will abort the test, but based on what you are asking you could argue that I am not testing for a complete HP curve from 1k rpm to 6k rpm.

I am only showing the improvements (or differences if you may) of a limited rpm "section" of this engines performance say more from 4500rpm to 6k rpm (I am guessing at the numbers because I havent logged to what rpm the engine drops to every time you shift gears say at 6k) But for my purposes which is just about drag racing I only really care about a very limited powerband, where If I was a road racer my results could be less applicable.

But I think what I am doing now is as accurate is it will get (within this very limited powerband that you have made me re-evaluate, rightfully so) because like I said, if you take off from idle and bog or launch at 5k......by the time you are doing 60mph in 3rd gear you will be at the same speed, rpm etc etc in either scenario to where now the difference between each 10mph increment will tell how fast the engine is generating power and one can be compared to the other, since on both runs 60mph is at the same rpm and on the same gearand WOT...... but hey.....all test are never 100% right?

I was not disproving your test at all, I was simply suggesting perhaps an easier way to simply test for power differences between the maps that involves less variables. With a dashhawk or other logger you can datalog a run and use the datalog to look at vehicle speed, RPM, and time it took to get there for a given gear. I see a lot of controversy regarding the maps and whether they help or not.

I have tried it that way as well. The G-tech "measures" hp and torque as well, the test starts from a standstill and you take 1st gear to an rpm that when shifted into 2nd gear it will drop to about 2k -2500rpm then you go WOT from basically 2000rpm til redline and it's done. Those test for me have been all over the place so I dont use this device for measuring HP in that manner, I just use it to measure how quickly it can achieve a given mph starting from a common mph which in itself will leave all other variables the same (provided you are in the same gear)