[NRG]

Has anybody been tracking this thread. Very cool stuff is already available for S65 motor with the help of BT tool and around the corner for our N54. Click here for Virtual Dyno

[fast4door]

nice

[Donald-335i]

sweet i gotta get a bt tool..

[DJKhan85]

I always wondered if it was possible to do this with the BT tool. I can't wait to try this out.

[NRG]

IMO BT with it's already winning abilities coupled with this software is the ultimate solution.

[mkato13]

Nice tool

[OpenFlash]

Nice. Looks like it interprets standard excel files which means that it could easily be made to work with Procede logs as well.

[smellfish]

[scalbert]

The problem, mainly with the N54, is the torque value. This is calculated based on many parameters and one of those most likely is the MAP value. Without that being true in the DME, which it isn't with piggys, the torque value would be off.

[alextremo]

would AFR still be accurate?

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by alextremo

would AFR still be accurate?

Nope, that is touched with piggys as well.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by scalbert

The problem, mainly with the N54, is the torque value. This is calculated based on many parameters and one of those most likely is the MAP value. Without that being true in the DME, which it isn't with piggys, the torque value would be off.

But is it really using the can torque reading for it's torque calculations. Because is pretty inaccurate from what I've seen. Better solution (and what I assumed is being uses) is to calculate torque from the incremental change in rpm over time. Just like all other software based road dynos on the market.

The AFR wouldn't necessarily be very inaccurate because a nominal offset could be applied based upon signal bias amount.

Shiv

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

But is it really using the can torque reading for it's torque calculations. Because is pretty inaccurate from what I've seen.

That was my assumption.

[Topless///M]

Originally Posted by scalbert

The problem, mainly with the N54, is the torque value. This is calculated based on many parameters and one of those most likely is the MAP value. Without that being true in the DME, which it isn't with piggys, the torque value would be off.

that probably explains why the 135 Virtual dyno had a lower torque reading rather than level with or higher than HP...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...=331488&page=3


but it's still reading higher than stock.

[NRG]

Originally Posted by scalbert

The problem, mainly with the N54, is the torque value. This is calculated based on many parameters and one of those most likely is the MAP value. Without that being true in the DME, which it isn't with piggys, the torque value would be off.

I'm guessing that won't be the case with flashed ECUs?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Topless///M

that probably explains why the 135 Virtual dyno had a lower torque reading rather than level or higher than HP...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...=331488&page=3


but it's still reading higher than stock.

Looks like it's sampling at just 2/sec? Is that right?

[Topless///M]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Looks like it's sampling at just 2/sec? Is that right?

not sure, you'd have to ask PencilGeek, the originator, but he already stated 3rd gear pulls would give you better results, or even fourth for that matter, because the BT would sample for longer.

edit:
just reread his post (#65), he's saying it takes 50 samples in second, so it's gotta be more than 2/sec. 25 seconds in second gear would be one slow car....lol


happy I bought the Pro version, the BT keeps getting better and better.