Which Calibration Platform?
Scope
This article is written with regard to choosing one of the three commonly used calibration platforms for late model BMWs. We will follow up with an additional article in the future looking at other ECU’s for other platforms we commonly use. The engines in question here are n55/s55/s58/b58. We often get questions about why we suggest one platform or another for your specific project. This article will give you some general background knowledge on our perspective of each platform, and then summarize it with what platform is suggested for each configuration.
Approach
These latest series of engines are exceptional performers and roughly half our day-to-day work involves working with these platforms. We feel we are experts in this particular field and have really developed a program for each of these platforms that is thorough, comprehensive, with good hardware and software support.
Our approach is unique in this genre because we maintain OEM functionality of torque, load, and boost control strategies and enhance them. Common techniques for these platforms are to essentially “remove limits” and send everything to the moon, and let the DME sort things out. While this works, and certainly can produce fast cars, you’ll often hear that cars we calibrate “drive so much better” and it is not any special function we use, but simply massaging the OEM strategy rather than wiping it and running everything at the limit.
One example of this is that modern cars use throttle control to manage torque and load in all circumstances. OEM Porsche, Mclaren, and BMW will often run without the throttle wide open and this is not a “problem”. The goal is not always to have the throttle open; the goal is nice, consistent, smooth torque delivery and having throttle reserve available is completely imperceptible. You will not know when the throttle is all the way open, or partially closed.
Here’s an example of a 700hp A90 with the throttle closed halfway, and all the way open. Can you guess which is which? If you guessed the red line (higher) was 50% open, you’d be correct. Depending on the turbine calculations and WG position, sometimes running the throttle not fully open makes the same… or more power. The throttle on these modern cars are oversized with the purpose of having airflow reserve and using the throttle to manipulate pre and post throttle pressures. It takes a lot of throttle closure to create a pressure differential, which is why you’ll see alarming throttle movement in logs. As you can see by the above dyno, this is imperceptible from the driver’s seat.
Software Platforms
Ecutek
Ecutek is a professional calibration platform with a long and storied history for those who’ve been around (we are old). Starting in the early 2000’s, Ecutek developed OBD ECU calibration software for the likes of ProDrive (remember them?). Starting with JDM ecu’s such as the Subaru, Nissan, and Mitsubishi products, they eventually became mainstream with their extremely capable R35 GTR platform. They now offer a wide array of software for various platforms including the newer BMW engines. They were the first to bring true flex fuel, a professional, laptop (not cloud) based calibration program with good datalogging and architecture familiar to professionals. With RaceRom came custom maps and CAN input and output connectivity, and these things really changed what we could functionally do with our work.
Custom maps allow 16 multi dimensions maps to be created from scratch. These are ground up maps with every axis selected by the calibrator. These are not recalibrated factory maps, and cannot be replicated by adjusting factory mapping. Here’s an example: You can have a map triggered only in mode 2, but when in sport mode, and traction control in track mode, that adjusts the maximum throttle opening depending on wheel slip. This map can be triggered by the result of another map, which could, say, look at your wheel speed and boost, and create a multiplier for how aggressive the output function is. See the pictures below
Motiv Reflex Integration. This is one of the most critical advantages Ecutek as a platform has to offer over other software options. The OEM DI (direct injection) systems are very limited in how much fuel can be delivered. Because of this, it is common to add a port injection system to add additional injection capability that exceeds the DI fuel system’s ability. When this is happening, the fuel delivery is being shared between two systems, the DI, and PI system. The way this is handled on other platforms is the ECU commands a certain balance of DI and PI to keep everything within reasonable hardware limits and provide the required fueling. With newer BMW’s, the tuners, before we arrived on the scene, were recommending, and using “AIC” which stands for “additional injector controllers” to control the port fuel (PI) fuel injectors based on boost and RPM, with no connectivity to the OEM DME (which was controlling the DI system). The AIC was popular in the mid 90’s for use on DSM’s and certainly we’ve come a long way in 30 years.
Let me put that into perspective by giving you an example. Imagine the PI system is your left leg, and the DI system is your right leg. Both systems are critical to your ability to walk, and especially run, right? The OEM DME is controlling the left leg, and the “AIC” is controlling the right leg. How well will you be able to walk? What if your left leg trips on a pebble, will your right leg know and catch your fall? You can extrapolate our thoughts on the importance of the right leg knowing what the left leg is doing.
When using DI + PI with our Ecutek + Motiv Reflex program, the DME is commanding both the DI and PI system, and balancing the delivery between the two systems. The DI system starts and runs the car just like stock and you’d never know it was modified cruising around. Under heavy load, the PI system comes online, but is controlled by the DME and the duties are shared between the DI and PI systems. The Ecutek is constantly requesting that the DME review the delivery parameters of both systems to keep both within healthy operating limits. If one system has an error, both are shut down. Why is this important? If you had say, one PI injector lose connectivity, but the DI injector for that cylinder continued to fire, you’d have an extreme lean condition. When the DME controls both DI + PI, if fuel is cut to both, there is no chance of engine damage.
A third item I want to touch on with regard to Motiv Reflex integration is the ability to see additional sensor inputs (such as exhaust back pressure, low pressure fuel pressure) and control outputs (such as fuel pumps and boost solenoids). What this means is that, again, Ecutek with their RaceRom firmware, has developed tables we can use to control boost, additional pumps, etc for true DME based control of additional equipment.
The above are just a couple of examples of how critical full integration of DI and PI systems are for modern cars. The question we think the community should be asking many popular calibrators is, why are they ok without this type of integration? We know there is a better solution, so why are we still recommending a disconnected program?
There are some situations where a client may be on another calibration platform and we suggest moving to Ecutek. The explanations above are some of the reasons we may suggest that. For example, with N55, there are specific tables that only exist in the Ecutek program we use for particular fuel system limitations and we will only do N55 on Ecutek in that case.
An example of a custom map, which is very different from custom tuning existing tables.
An example of map activation options; so a custom map can be enabled only in certain circumstances.
BM3
BM3 is a popular calibration platform that is a newer, cloud based software. BM3 custom rom has flex fuel, map switching, and many customizable options which can be handled from your laptop or phone. BM3 offers OTS or “off the shelf” tuning which is popular and a common upgrade. We tune the BM3 platform frequently and have found the support to be quite good and always evolving.
If you have a car that is already on the BM3 platform, we can tune it on pump fuel or flex fuel, and provide multiple maps that can be switched on the fly. Our custom tuning via BM3 offers some advantages over the OTS maps. We can smooth out the power and torque delivery which is sometimes a bit aggressive with stock or OTS mapping. Many clients really like our pedal mapping. We can also dial in the boost, fuel, and ignition targets for your specific air and fuel quality. OTS maps are limited in that they have to be designed to work with a huge variety of circumstances, fuel, and air quality. Therefore, by moving to custom tuning by one of our calibrators, we can make sure the mapping is not too aggressive, and also not leaving power on the table.
The BM3 flex fuel setup works well and will seamlessly blend between any ethanol content.
The BM3 app allows you to make adjustments for sensor changes and sound tuning from the app.
We offer custom tuning for S55, certain B58, and S58. A majority of the S58’s we do are on the BM3 platform since BM3 makes it easier to get your car tuned, and we really appreciate that about the tuning platform. The functionality and usability of the map editor is getting continuous improvements.
So if I’m running BM3 OTS tuning now, do I really need a custom tune?
Generally, simple answers don’t satisfy complicated questions and, well, it’s complicated. :-) Thousands of people run BM3 OTS tunes with good success. That said, here are some circumstances where custom tuning by ourselves or another qualified, experienced calibrator might make sense:
It’s really hot where you live; high IAT’s are tough for a turbocharged engine to handle, and put the engine at risk of knock
You have low fuel quality; wile there are various options for OTS mapping, we find most of them more aggressive than we run our own personal cars and would dial in your car with a little more room for a bad tank of fuel
You have low air density, high humidity, or really cold air. All of these environmental factors will affect how the turbo control works. There are mechanisms in place to correct for error, but there has to be an error, in order to correct for errors. The goal of our work is to get your engine running very close to optimal with minimal need for correction
You want to optimize your fuel system on higher ethanol content. The OTS mapping leaves room for optimization at medium to high ethanol contents
You want the Bend Linear Throttle TM. You probably just want this, and might be worth a google
You track the car, and want to manage the way torque, and torque per gear is delivered
We aren’t in the business of needs, so you probably don’t need any of our services. But if your car is used for fun and or competition, you may want what we have to offer. If you’re not sure, simply send us a few logs of how its running and we’d be happy to give you our feedback at no cost to you.
BM3 map editor
MHD
2024-2-26 Update:
MHD has indeed taken a significant leap forward with its MHD+ release for S58 equipped cars, positioning itself as the most advanced tuning platform.
The introduction of MHD+ has brought several noteworthy features to the forefront, such as on-the-fly multimap switching, flex-fuel capabilities, exhaust flap control from the steering wheel, reflex integration, antilag, and boost by gear capabilities. These enhancements not only improve the performance dynamics of the vehicle but also offer a level of customization and control that was previously more challenging to achieve. The combination of advanced features, ease of use, and comprehensive support makes MHD a compelling choice for BMW owners looking to unlock the full potential of their vehicles.
We have been tuning some cars on MHD lately due to their support for single bank control on S55, single turbo cars. The interface is not as professional as the Ecutek because it uses Tuner Pro. Tuner Pro depends on a definition file to essentially define what map functionality is, where as with Ecutek and BM3, the functionality is defined by the platform. This can be good and bad. On the downside, it’s a little bit clunkier to use since it’s not a dedicated program that is purpose built for one use. It is slower to use, and doesn’t have basic math functionality that more modern programs have.
On the plus side, MHD support has been absolutely exemplary. Their handling of tickets via WhatApp, professionalism, friendliness, and availability have been class leading without a doubt and have impressed us.
At the moment, we are using MHD for single turbo S55 platforms which we are approaching (our own) high standards of implementation. Once we feel we have a mastery of this specific MHD setup, we will consider taking on additional configurations to be calibrated using the MHD platform.
Each platform has their strengths and weaknesses and are ideal for certain situations. We do not believe they are all “created equal” and definitely have our preferences, but they are situation dependent. Blanket support for one option as the answer to every problem shows lack of knowledge or understanding of other platforms, unwillingness to use or learn it, or an outlying, self-serving reason for suggesting one platform as a blanket statement.
There are circumstances where we would suggest each of the three platforms discussed above, and we explain more, below. Finally, let me say that this is not at all a reflection on MHD, but a reflection on some of the tuners and shops who use this platform.
Is my engine more likely to blow on XYZ platform?
The short answer is no. Any qualified, experienced calibrator can use any of the above platforms to dial in your car with some reasonable safety margin. I will mention that many of the cars you see are tuned with no margin for safety whatsoever and this does work, until it doesn’t. The person handling the calibration, the process they use, and the hardware configuration of the car are going to be more responsible than the tuning platform used to the car’s long term health. That said, some of the custom tables we build are only available on Ecutek which do prevent the engine from getting into a situation that could cause damage, rather than re-actively trying to manage a situation.
So which platform for my engine?
N55 Ecutek only
B58 Gen 1 Ecutek only
B58 Gen 2 Ecutek preferred, its the best platform for this, very comprehensive, and highly suggested.
We can do BM3 for Stock, Stage 1, and Stage 2 cars on a per client basis
MHD + we are looking to expand our support/offerings for B58 Gen 2 and this should be a great solution
S55: Stock/Stage1/Stage 2/Hybrid (stock style turbo upgrades) Can be done on BM3 or Ecutek. The Ecutek is more refined for specific needs, safety features, and or track cars. The BM3 work well for clients with less specific needs and we do countless S55 BM3 cars with good success.
S55 With Reflex/PI Ecutek only.
MHD + is coming and this will be supported
No BM3 + PI as they don’t talk
S55 Single turbo Ecutek or MHD
S58
S58 via MHD+ is now the most advanced program offered on the S58 and given their exemplary customer service this is now our recommendation for Motiv Reflex and Clone DME cars.
BM3 Custom Rom; we do a lot of tuning this way; when using PI there is no communication between the BM3 and PI controller, this is a downside
S58 Ecutek requires a cloned DME which is expensive to acquire and a bit of a process to setup. We pushed the platform very early and acquired many records using this initially, however other tuning platforms have continued to push while this development at Ecutek has been stagnant. We no longer support Ecutek on early 2020/2021 F97/F98 X3M/X4M due to a power issue that Ecutek has not resolved on Motiv Reflex equipped cars. G8X clone cars only but MHD+ will be our main recommendation for clones at this moment.
So if my engine is supported by multiple options above, is there a power difference based on what software we go with?
Typically it is not the power number that changes with software, it’s everything that brings the calibration together that makes for a good calibration. That will either speak to you, or it won’t, and either is ok!
The reason why a better matched platform doesn’t make “more power” than another software platform is that power is usually limited by:
Fuel system limitations such as low pressure fuel pump, high pressure fuel pump, or injection
Airflow such as turbochargers, restrictive stock airflow components (this is rarely a concern at moderate power levels with a modern BMW)
Fuel-octane. This is the most common limitation and has to do with how much knock resistance your fuel has. The better quality fuel (and air), the more power can be safely generated given the above two limits do not interfere
If all you care about is maximum power, any of the software platforms should be able to get you there, and a wide variety of calibrators will be able to, as well.
So where does JB4 stand in this?
The JB4 is not custom tuning; it just fools OEM sensors to try to get the DME to do what it wants. Generally, the power delivery and safety of the JB4 is not ideal or optimized and is really not worth comparison to the above options. We strive to do the best work with the best tools, and this just isn’t it. Understandably, the reason some people run the JB4 is because of the convenience and easy of install and removal. Our business is geared towards clientele who want the best for their vehicles.
Summary of software platforms
We use all of the above with success because we only take on work where we know the software platform can support the goals. If you send an inquiry, and we suggest switching, or will not calibrate the car with your existing software, it is because we feel it does not give us the tools to do the job properly. As in any trade, different tools have different strengths and in general, we want to use the best tools for the job. We find our ideal clientele also want us to use the best tools for the job. We have written this article to try to explain a small part of our methodology and save some time in explaining each situation to each potential client. Hopefully it gives you a better understanding of why we choose and/or suggest a certain software in certain circumstances.
There will be some instances where we don’t have the tools or experience to deliver the results you are looking for. In that case, you can expect us to tell you just that. It is not that we don’t want to help you, it’s that we want all of our work to be as reasonably well done as can be. With the right selection of components and reasonable expectations, with any of the above platforms we should be able to deliver!