Race Chip on X35i

[possib1edoc]

Can anyone who has race chip on their X35i post reviews? I am looking to get it but wanting to see if spending $700+ is worth it.

Here are a couple questions I have:

1. Is it as easy to put on/take off? Useful before going to service the car.

2. What improvements have you guys seen in terms of 0-60 times/HP/MPG?

3. Any disadvantages?


Thanks for your help in advance!

[opasha]

I replied on the other post, let me know if you have time. I'll walk you through it.

[Drgunn]

I'm interested in that too if it doesn't void the warranty

[opasha]

My feedback comes from friends owning RC TB Ultimate for their (2014 X3 28i, 2014 F15 35d, and obviously my own). I forget who but one member had it for his 35i and it performed very well.
1. Is it as easy to put on/take off? Useful before going to service the car. - Yes.
2. What improvements have you guys seen in terms of 0-60 times/HP/MPG? - About 3-5mpg depending on your driving habits. Everyone I've spoken to has seen improvement to some degree
3. Any disadvantages? - No, because the installation is just like the 35d and BMS Stage 1 - it takes literally 1-3 minutes to install or remove. This is why it's easier to just take it off before you take your car for your regular service. That's the one big advantage you all have compared to anyone with a 50i. Our install is a bit more complex.

@possib1edoc is ordering the TB Ultimate for his from RacingPowerSports (they are an official RaceChip Germany HQ vendor and have a better price than RaceChip USA - just another vendor for RaceChip Germany). You can wait on his review, but it's def worth the upgrade for unlocking your BMW's potential in my opinion. Being a first time user of the chip, I'm very impressed/happy so far with mine.

[Roundown]

Originally Posted by opasha

My feedback comes from friends owning RC TB Ultimate for their (2014 X3 28i, 2014 F15 35d, and obviously my own). I forget who but one member had it for his 35i and it performed very well.
1. Is it as easy to put on/take off? Useful before going to service the car. - Yes.
2. What improvements have you guys seen in terms of 0-60 times/HP/MPG? - About 3-5mpg depending on your driving habits. Everyone I've spoken to has seen improvement to some degree
3. Any disadvantages? - No, because the installation is just like the 35d and BMS Stage 1 - it takes literally 1-3 minutes to install or remove. This is why it's easier to just take it off before you take your car for your regular service. That's the one big advantage you all have compared to anyone with a 50i. Our install is a bit more complex.

@possib1edoc is ordering the TB Ultimate for his from RacingPowerSports (they are an official RaceChip Germany HQ vendor and have a better price than RaceChip USA - just another vendor for RaceChip Germany). You can wait on his review, but it's def worth the upgrade for unlocking your BMW's potential in my opinion. Being a first time user of the chip, I'm very impressed/happy so far with mine.

3-5mpg? 10-20% improvement is remarkable... particularly if it's running higher boost levels. Has anyone looked at AF logs? Must be running a lot leaner (or the timing is more aggressive).

I'd almost feel better if it was unchanged to slightly worse...

[opasha]

Originally Posted by cSurf

3-5mpg? 10-20% improvement is remarkable... particularly if it's running higher boost levels. Has anyone looked at AF logs? Must be running a lot leaner (or the timing is more aggressive).

I'd almost feel better if it was unchanged to slightly worse...

It depends on the setting. They have it set at their stock settings, which give best performance vs gas mileage.

What you do with those settings is entirely up to you. I've only bumped mine up one tick to S2=C. I've seen the mpg go from 13-14mpg to 17mpg with the similar driving I do between all modes. No difference in driving habits or changes. I'm not the only one who has noticed this change. It's great that they were actually able to pull this off with just changes in the fuel consumption. I'm not sure exactly how it's working, but it's working well so far. I have zero complaints aside from the 50i install/removal.

[r33_RGSport]

3-5mpg? 10-20% improvement is remarkable... particularly if it's running higher boost levels. Has anyone looked at AF logs? Must be running a lot leaner (or the timing is more aggressive).

I'd almost feel better if it was unchanged to slightly worse...

Well, the way these piggy back tuning designed, it won't cause the engine to run lean.
All it did is to tell the computer that the turbo is boosting under the appointed target. So, the stock ECU keeping the wastegate close and the turbo keep building up the boost, until the piggy back tuning tells the ECU that the turbo boost is on a correct target.
With that says, the engine still provides the Air and Fuel based on the appointed boost target.
For example; you step on the gas to push 8 psi of boost, the piggy back intercepted the signal coming from the sensor to the ECU and alter it -3 psi. So the ECU thinks that the turbo is only boosting 5 psi on 8 psi parameter given to the engine. So, the ECU send signal to engine to produce more boost to reach the 8 psi that is originally requested (or 11 psi in the altered signal). When the actual boost reaches 11 psi, the piggy back send a signal to the stock ECU that the turbo indeed reached 8 psi already.
Those are on the simple TMAP / MAP connected piggy back tuning.
While, on BMS JB4 Stage 2, it can alter more sensors than just the TMAP and MAP sensors.

[opasha]

Originally Posted by r33

Well, the way these piggy back tuning designed, it won't cause the engine to run lean.
All it did is to tell the computer that the turbo is boosting under the appointed target. So, the stock ECU keeping the wastegate close and the turbo keep building up the boost, until the piggy back tuning tells the ECU that the turbo boost is on a correct target.
With that says, the engine still provides the Air and Fuel based on the appointed boost target.
For example; you step on the gas to push 8 psi of boost, the piggy back intercepted the signal coming from the sensor to the ECU and alter it -3 psi. So the ECU thinks that the turbo is only boosting 5 psi on 8 psi parameter given to the engine. So, the ECU send signal to engine to produce more boost to reach the 8 psi that is originally requested (or 11 psi in the altered signal). When the actual boost reaches 11 psi, the piggy back send a signal to the stock ECU that the turbo indeed reached 8 psi already.
Those are on the simple TMAP / MAP connected piggy back tuning.
While, on BMS JB4 Stage 2, it can alter more sensors than just the TMAP and MAP sensors.

Solid explanation . How is the ECU communicating with the chip in regards to the fuel parameters? Isn't boost being changed via the TMAP for those of you have three sensors being changed (MAP, TMAP, and MAF)? For the 50i, we only had alterations to the Dual MAF or Dual MAP sensors - no alterations to any other sensor. MAP being the Manifold Absolute Pressure (dealing with the amount of fuel injected if I recall correctly), TMAP (dealing with boost - not sure the exact info), and MAF being Mass Air Flow (mass flow sensor for the amount of air being allowed into the engine). I wonder which is the most important of these three and how they differ since RaceChip only utilizes the MAP for the 50i while BMS Stage 1 utilizes only the MAF for the 50i. Are all three sensors used for the 35i and 35d?

[r33_RGSport]

Originally Posted by opasha

Solid explanation . How is the ECU communicating with the chip in regards to the fuel parameters? Isn't boost being changed via the TMAP for those of you have three sensors being changed (MAP, TMAP, and MAF)? For the 50i, we only had alterations to the Dual MAF or Dual MAP sensors - no alterations to any other sensor. MAP being the Manifold Absolute Pressure (dealing with the amount of fuel injected if I recall correctly), TMAP (dealing with boost - not sure the exact info), and MAF being Mass Air Flow (mass flow sensor for the amount of air being allowed into the engine). I wonder which is the most important of these three and how they differ since RaceChip only utilizes the MAP for the 50i while BMS Stage 1 utilizes only the MAF for the 50i. Are all three sensors used for the 35i and 35d?

Well, I am not really sure why BMS only utilize the MAF sensors on the N63tu.
Probably that's the easiest way to get power out of the N63tu motor and they don't want to develop anything further since it is much smaller demand than the N55 or N20 motor.
Even the 35d motor setup, as @42pilot mentioned, it is the simplest tuning compares to the RaceChip. The BMS JBD for the 35d is just tricking the ECU to deliver more fuel which in result gives more power.
As on the 35i N55 motor, it used to use the MAP1 and MAP2 sensors on top of the TMAP. They BMS decided not to use the MAP2.
For the amount of the delivered fuel, these stock ECU the one that send a signal to the fuel pump on the amount of fuel needed. Of course there is a limit on the amount of fuels the ECU can tell the pump to deliver. That's why there is a limit on the amount of power gain on the 2 sensors piggy back.
While on the JB4 Stage 2 with EWG and FF harness, the EWG got tricked to stay close so you can achieve a higher boost (I believe it is max'ed at 14.5psi, without it, only 12.5psi and the wastegate will be opened by stock ECU to maintain the pressure at 12.5psi). The FF tricked the ECU to deliver more fuel to avoid fuel starvation at 14.5psi of boost. The JB4 has access to the CAN system to alter more data returned to the stock ECU than other piggy back tunes that doesn't have access to the CAN.

[Roundown]

Thanks.

For non-CAN piggybacks (where fueling isn't touched), isn't requesting more boost but the same amount of fuel definitionally running lean (or at minimum, "leaner")? Have you ever run logs?

[r33_RGSport]

Originally Posted by cSurf

Thanks.

For non-CAN piggybacks (where fueling isn't touched), isn't requesting more boost but the same amount of fuel definitionally running lean (or at minimum, "leaner")? Have you ever run logs?

No, because the stock ECU will deliver enough fuel to avoid the engine being too lean since the piggy back alter the signal that the engine didn't produce enough boost. So the stock ECU send a signal for more fuel to produce higher boost. But of course, there is a chance to be slightly leaner, since the AFR on 8psi and 10psi would be different a little.

[OuKEnFoLdMX]

well i do not understand to much english, but for clarify wich its better jb1 or reace chip ultimate? i am between this 2.

[Mikli]

This is good info.

[Roundown]

Originally Posted by r33

No, because the stock ECU will deliver enough fuel to avoid the engine being too lean since the piggy back alter the signal that the engine didn't produce enough boost. So the stock ECU send a signal for more fuel to produce higher boost. But of course, there is a chance to be slightly leaner, since the AFR on 8psi and 10psi would be different a little.

The ECU might adjust timing, sure- but not clear to me why it would adjust fueling on its own in the presence of more boost than is being requested/measured.

Not trying to be a pain, but I have a hard time believing in free lunches (or, in this case, riskless 20-30% increases in fuel economy and power).

[emdeuce]

I'm looking to order the racechip ultimate next year(2015) and plan to run it in the dyno for a baseline, default racechip ultimate setting and the race chip at a higher setting. I will post results.

Also, anyone able to hook it up with a subsidized price on the Race chip ultimate for my f15 35d? 6 dyno runs will cost me approx $200

[42pilot]

Originally Posted by cSurf

The ECU might adjust timing, sure- but not clear to me why it would adjust fueling on its own in the presence of more boost than is being requested/measured.

Not trying to be a pain, but I have a hard time believing in free lunches (or, in this case, riskless 20-30% increases in fuel economy and power).

What the chips to isn't too difficult to understand, if you understand a typical ECU is simply a computer taking in information via sensors and producing outputs (to fuel injectors, spark plugs, variable cams and variable geometry turbos) based on tables.

Every single piece of information is built into a table. The tables in these cars are 3D and/or 4D tables, meaning, for example, they use RPM on one axis, MAP (manifold air pressure) on another axis, throttle position on another and engine coolant temp on another, for example. The two primary tables are always fueling and ignition. There are literally dozens of other tables such as acceleration enrichment, crank enrichment, cam angle, accel decay, ignition retard, ignition advance, turbo geometry, fuel pressure, and so on.

Every single ECU I have ever worked (and I just tuned another Porsche today for <3500 rpm drivability issues) has tables that exceed normal operating parameters. For example, the Porsche today uses a fuel and ignition table that go to 10,000 rpm and 2 bar of boost (both of which cannot be used for the Porsche motor but they are still there). I will eventually tune this motor to .8 bar of boost up to 6,000 rpm and hopefully achieve +600 hp and 550 torque. The motor can safely take up to 1 bar of boost to 6,500 rpm, but longevity will then become an issue.

What RC and others do (not for the diesel), is to tell the stock ECU that MAF (mass air flow) is higher. Not by too much, but higher. The stock ECU fuel and ignition tables probably go to 10,000 rpm, and the MAP (boost) probably goes to 1 bar or about 14.5 psi. The ECU or software (not the data or tuning info contained in the tables) is pretty standard across most BMW models (except diesel). Therefore, the RaceChip just needs to intercept the actual MAF signal, modify it to show a bit more, and the stock ECU interprets the signal as actual, adjusts the outputs, and you have no problems - as long as the modified signal is within normal operating range. Otherwise, the ECU will throw a code (CEL) and default to limp mode or safe mode until re-set.

Now how the RaceChip modifies the signal is bit tricky as it has to understand the relationship between all the other corresponding sensors for the MAF. In other words, if the RC chip says there is more MAF but does not modify temp, for example, you might have problems and throw a CEL. This part of the piggy-back system is something I don't clearly understand. And in my opinion, for a gas turbo-charged motor, this is a bit risky due to the risk of detonation, poor fuel quality, lean fuel conditions (holes in pistons, etc), and so on.

There is no way RC alters ignition timing. There is no need for this and is very risky for a gas turbo car. One or two degrees too much and your motor is toast. There is just no need to alter timing.

The best tuners out there for the BMW motor are Dinan - full stop. They are expensive, but they actually tune the motor using all the tables. This is extremely time consuming which means high costs. But they look at everything rather than tricking the motor with MAF or dumping more fuel. For example, I spent 3 hours tuning drivability for this Porsche in 60 degree ambient temps, at normal engine operating temps, looking at just the fueling and timing tables. I did not touch acceleration tables, crank tables, advance/retard tables and so on. It take hundreds of hours and varying conditions to tune a motor correctly, especially for drivability.

Do not expect to buy a RC chip for a gas motor and expect better economy or life stock life expectancy on your motor. You can expect more power (notice I did not say better performance) but it's at a cost. Diesels are very different.

[pdawg]

I have an x35i and ordered the RC Ultimate. I'll slap it in next week and let you the results.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by 42pilot

What the chips to isn't too difficult to understand, if you understand a typical ECU is simply a computer taking in information via sensors and producing outputs (to fuel injectors, spark plugs, variable cams and variable geometry turbos) based on tables.

Every single piece of information is built into a table. The tables in these cars are 3D and/or 4D tables, meaning, for example, they use RPM on one axis, MAP (manifold air pressure) on another axis, throttle position on another and engine coolant temp on another, for example. The two primary tables are always fueling and ignition. There are literally dozens of other tables such as acceleration enrichment, crank enrichment, cam angle, accel decay, ignition retard, ignition advance, turbo geometry, fuel pressure, and so on.

Every single ECU I have ever worked (and I just tuned another Porsche today for <3500 rpm drivability issues) has tables that exceed normal operating parameters. For example, the Porsche today uses a fuel and ignition table that go to 10,000 rpm and 2 bar of boost (both of which cannot be used for the Porsche motor but they are still there). I will eventually tune this motor to .8 bar of boost up to 6,000 rpm and hopefully achieve +600 hp and 550 torque. The motor can safely take up to 1 bar of boost to 6,500 rpm, but longevity will then become an issue.

What RC and others do (not for the diesel), is to tell the stock ECU that MAF (mass air flow) is higher. Not by too much, but higher. The stock ECU fuel and ignition tables probably go to 10,000 rpm, and the MAP (boost) probably goes to 1 bar or about 14.5 psi. The ECU or software (not the data or tuning info contained in the tables) is pretty standard across most BMW models (except diesel). Therefore, the RaceChip just needs to intercept the actual MAF signal, modify it to show a bit more, and the stock ECU interprets the signal as actual, adjusts the outputs, and you have no problems - as long as the modified signal is within normal operating range. Otherwise, the ECU will throw a code (CEL) and default to limp mode or safe mode until re-set.

Now how the RaceChip modifies the signal is bit tricky as it has to understand the relationship between all the other corresponding sensors for the MAF. In other words, if the RC chip says there is more MAF but does not modify temp, for example, you might have problems and throw a CEL. This part of the piggy-back system is something I don't clearly understand. And in my opinion, for a gas turbo-charged motor, this is a bit risky due to the risk of detonation, poor fuel quality, lean fuel conditions (holes in pistons, etc), and so on.

There is no way RC alters ignition timing. There is no need for this and is very risky for a gas turbo car. One or two degrees too much and your motor is toast. There is just no need to alter timing.

The best tuners out there for the BMW motor are Dinan - full stop. They are expensive, but they actually tune the motor using all the tables. This is extremely time consuming which means high costs. But they look at everything rather than tricking the motor with MAF or dumping more fuel. For example, I spent 3 hours tuning drivability for this Porsche in 60 degree ambient temps, at normal engine operating temps, looking at just the fueling and timing tables. I did not touch acceleration tables, crank tables, advance/retard tables and so on. It take hundreds of hours and varying conditions to tune a motor correctly, especially for drivability.

Do not expect to buy a RC chip for a gas motor and expect better economy or life stock life expectancy on your motor. You can expect more power (notice I did not say better performance) but it's at a cost. Diesels are very different.

Can u xplain why diesel is different with RC? Thx

[42pilot]

Originally Posted by ocman

Can u xplain why diesel is different with RC? Thx

The RC simply increases fuel pressure (more fuel to the cylinders) and when the fuel is injected (timing). If you want more power with a diesel, add fuel. It's pretty straight-up as long as you stay within the EGT range of the ECU.

If you want more torque, add fuel early in the compression cycle. This is a bit more tricky, but tuned on a dyno, you can see where it peaks, then back it off a couple of degrees while monitoring EGT. Too early (in the quest for more torque - this is what counts, not horsepower) and you will burn pistons or at the very least, put big holes in the tops of the pistons.

Anyway, this is why there are two switches on the RC chip box. RC embeds 88 tune combinations to suite your driving style. With enough patience, you can find a combination on the switches that you and your motor will like.

[Bimar]

I get the feeling from above Race Chip seems more advantageous to Burger Tuning tunes.

[greentrbo95gst]

Originally Posted by X4guy

I get the feeling from above Race Chip seems more advantageous to Burger Tuning tunes.

They are both really good products, but it comes down to how much adjustment you want and how picky you are as far as the hp/tq curve.
I have a Burger tune on my M5 and Racechip on my x5d. Love them both.

[42pilot]

Originally Posted by X4guy

I get the feeling from above Race Chip seems more advantageous to Burger Tuning tunes.

It does - it has 88 possible settings for customized power application. The Burger is plug and play, and more economical. One important point here is that RC warrants their products (against engine damage) in about 5 European countries, showing they have solid research and skin in the game. These two points, even considering the cost spread, is why I would choose the RC. Important - my comment is based on my use of both on my 35d.