[FriedPiston]

03/16/14 | Sacramento Raceway - 4th and last pass
75+ degree weather

12.9721 second 1/4 mile
109.22 mph
2.1304 60'
2000 rpm launch
50/50 91 and 100 octane mix


03/19/14 | Sonoma Raceway - 2nd pass
65 degree weather

13.025 second 1/4 mile
109.40 mph
2.121 60'
2500 rpm launch
50/50 91 and 100 octane mix

The time slips don't quite make sense, but it looks like Sacramento is a better track for the 1/4 mile.

Mods:
Cobb Stage 2+ FMIC Aggressive
VRSF 3.5" Downpipe
VRSF 5" FMIC with upgraded up-pipe
CP-E Chargepipe
K&N FMIC
ARC-8 18x9.5 +35 all around
Michelin Pilot Super Sport 235/40/18 (F) | 265/35/18 (R)
Rear tires set to 30 psi cold for Sacramento and 29 psi cold for Sonoma

Shout out to @zanax at the track!

[Chocolate Apocalypse]

Some drag radials will help get those 60' times down. With that MPH and a good 60' don't see why you shouldn't be solidly in the 12s

[FriedPiston]

I might just have to resort to slicks or DRs. The sad part is, I ran into a 2008 535xi (w/ JB4 most likely) and he was running 12.6 all day. It was an ATP turbo shop car and the driver didn't really know much about the vehicle he was driving.

[JETmn]

Yeah, work on that launch and get those 60's down and you will be mid 12's. As a general rule when you shave .1 off your 60' you will shave .2 off the 1/4 time.

[FriedPiston]

Link to data log: http://www.datazap.me/u/narstune/04-...log=0&data=1-4

Finally got a chance to go back to the track with JB4 installed. Traction issues still exist. That's my fault for staying with the Michelin PSS street tires.

Changes made:
Swapped Cobb Stage 2+ with JB4 Stage II running 50% E85
Swapped stock air box and K&N air filter setup with BMS CAI

Technical difference:
Cobb (109mph) vs JB4 (110mph) trap speed.

Car feels much stronger, but a little bit leaner with JB4. Got a pending code for engine too lean. Other than that, both Cobb and JB4 seem to be equals when it comes to putting power to the ground.

[Everfly]

I was running JB4 ISO, 5" VRSF, Berk DP, K&N drop in filter and crappy continental DW and my time was consistent 12.5-12.6 with. 2.2 60 foots on my 135i just shift at 5k

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

If using E85 be sure the JB4 is running N55 ISO firmware/board mod, the flex fuel connector, and test out maps 5 & 7. Should be a lot faster than 110mph!

Mike

[FriedPiston]

Originally Posted by Everfly

I was running JB4 ISO, 5" VRSF, Berk DP, K&N drop in filter and crappy continental DW and my time was consistent 12.5-12.6 with. 2.2 60 foots on my 135i just shift at 5k

135i > 335i when it comes to straight line racing.

[FriedPiston]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

If using E85 be sure the JB4 is running N55 ISO firmware/board mod, the flex fuel connector, and test out maps 5 & 7. Should be a lot faster than 110mph!

Mike

Yes, sir. Everything you mentioned is there. I'm sure it can go a lot faster than 110 mph with everything dialed in.

[JETmn]

Drop your rear tire pressure too. I would start around 22psi and not hesitate to go lower. They aren't RFT's, are they?

[FriedPiston]

Originally Posted by JETmn

Drop your rear tire pressure too. I would start around 22psi and not hesitate to go lower. They aren't RFT's, are they?

22 psi might just be a little too low for low profile tires. Rear tires were set to 26 psi (cold) - Michelin PSS 265/35/18.

[sy2767]

I am by no means bashing your car or the numbers you're getting at the strip but my car is bone stock and i'm getting better numbers than you based on my accessport. Is the accessport that inaccurate in regards to performance data or am i just lucky and have an oddly fast stock N55? Im sure xdrive makes a difference where traction is concerned.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=961393

[FriedPiston]

Originally Posted by sy2767

I am by no means bashing your car or the numbers you're getting at the strip but my car is bone stock and i'm getting better numbers than you based on my accessport. Is the accessport that inaccurate in regards to performance data or am i just lucky and have an oddly fast stock N55? Im sure xdrive makes a difference where traction is concerned.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=961393

AccessPort is off by about 20-30%, but only way to tell is to take it to drag strip and find out.

[sy2767]

Originally Posted by narstune

AccessPort is off by about 20-30%, but only way to tell is to take it to drag strip and find out.

WOW! Thats a huge difference....

[biz77]

Originally Posted by narstune

Finally got a chance to go back to the track with JB4 installed. Traction issues still exist. That's my fault for staying with the Michelin PSS street tires.

Changes made:
Swapped Cobb Stage 2+ with JB4 Stage II running 50% E85
Swapped stock air box and K&N air filter setup with BMS CAI

Technical difference:
Cobb (109mph) vs JB4 (110mph) trap speed.

Car feels much stronger, but a little bit leaner with JB4. Got a pending code for engine too lean. Other than that, both Cobb and JB4 seem to be equals when it comes to putting power to the ground.

So you changed the intake, ran a different fuel and you are trying to make a comparison of the two tunes? Why don't you leave everything the same and just swap between the Cobb and JB4?

Still have the AccessPORT? Be interesting to see what your trap speed is with it by leaving the E50 in the tank and just adjusting your fuel scalar in Accesstuner Race.

Originally Posted by narstune

AccessPort is off by about 20-30%, but only way to tell is to take it to drag strip and find out.

Off by 20-30%?

So you're suggesting if the AccessPORT claims a 13.00 second run, it will be closer to a 16-second run on an actual drag strip?

It's pretty accurate on ET. The mph is a bit inflated. Usually 2-3mph.

[sy2767]

Originally Posted by biz77

So you changed the intake, ran a different fuel and you are trying to make a comparison of the two tunes? Why don't you leave everything the same and just swap between the Cobb and JB4?

Still have the AccessPORT? Be interesting to see what your trap speed is with it by leaving the E50 in the tank and just adjusting your fuel scalar in Accesstuner Race.



Off by 20-30%?

So you're suggesting if the AccessPORT claims a 13.00 second run, it will be closer to a 16-second run on an actual drag strip?

It's pretty accurate on ET. The mph is a bit inflated. Usually 2-3mph.

I had a GMC Syclone and that was a very quick truck, my car feels every bit as quick as that so i am certainly NOT running 16 or so in the 1/4.

[jayzF30]

I would advise getting a protune to properly take advantage of your higher octane.

[sy2767]

Originally Posted by jazze90

I would advise getting a protune to properly take advantage of your higher octane.

I certainly look into that

[sy2767]

Originally Posted by sy2767

I certainly look into that

Then i'm assuming my numbers would be on par or better?

[FriedPiston]

Originally Posted by biz77

So you changed the intake, ran a different fuel and you are trying to make a comparison of the two tunes? Why don't you leave everything the same and just swap between the Cobb and JB4?

Still have the AccessPORT? Be interesting to see what your trap speed is with it by leaving the E50 in the tank and just adjusting your fuel scalar in Accesstuner Race.

Cobb is gone. Comparison isn't 100% the same, and no comparison ever will be unless if it's done back to back in the same weather condition. But 50% 100 octane (it was actually more) and 50% E85 is pretty close in octane mixture.

Originally Posted by biz77

Off by 20-30%?

So you're suggesting if the AccessPORT claims a 13.00 second run, it will be closer to a 16-second run on an actual drag strip?

It's pretty accurate on ET. The mph is a bit inflated. Usually 2-3mph.

Sorry, was at work and wanted to make a quick response. 20-30% IS a bit too much, but as far as an overall performance barometer, Cobb AP is way off in many aspects pertaining to power reading, 0-60 times and other things. Anyone who has used it in the past know not to use it as a basis for an accurate reading.

[FriedPiston]

Originally Posted by sy2767

Then i'm assuming my numbers would be on par or better?

Take it to the track or stop by a dyno shop. Only way to really look at numbers safe and accurately.

[biz77]

Originally Posted by narstune

But 50% 100 octane (it was actually more) and 50% E85 is pretty close in octane mixture.

Actually it's not.

Straight E85 tunes like oxygenated 116 octane race fuel.

E30 tunes like straight 100-octane gasoline.

I'd ask anyone looking at this comparison of JB4 and Cobb to take it with a huge grain of salt. It would be like someone coming on here and showing lap times of two different sets of tires, but running stock suspension with the first set and coil overs with the second set and trying to make a comparison between the two.