N63TU 50i tunes, mods, numbers (1/4, 0-60 etc) dyno thread

[Doberman16]

I had the same concern. Did a little research and it looks like other models will keep the suspension firm and the throttle changes to comfort for more precise throttle control. I'm at the track right now so don't have the source on that. After doing some tests myself, it seems accurate.

[DuSh]

Maybe we'll see 11.9

[ArmyRn33]

Wondering the mileage on their vehicles when they installed the Bootmod tune? I'm at 31K and pondering an install... Any info is appreciated. Ive had no mechanical issues crop up on my 16 X5....

[frenchie1013]

Originally Posted by Doberman16

I had the same concern. Did a little research and it looks like other models will keep the suspension firm and the throttle changes to comfort for more precise throttle control. I'm at the track right now so don't have the source on that. After doing some tests myself, it seems accurate.

Have you resolved the codes that you were pulling with the tune ?

[Maverik259]

Originally Posted by Doberman16

Okay guys. Although I didn't make it to the track last night, I found a shortcut to Mexico and a nice straight road for a couple tests. Times were recorded using Torque App and OBD Bluetooth adapter plugged into the car. So this is unofficial, but still.

Sport+, Shifter in S, Launch Control:
0-60 = 5.1sec
1/4mi = 12.46sec

DSC Fully off, Shifter in S. Launch control not available in this mode, but I still brake boosted to just over 3k rpm:
0-60 = 3.6sec
1/4mi = 12.1sec

I am chirping the tires at launch, so without logging, I'm pretty confident traction control was hurting all of my previous times (tuned, at least).

Keep in mind I'm running All Season tires. Continental ExtremeContact DWS.

Stay tuned as I just learned of an event tonight at the track where I could win some money. I'll have some slips to post up later tonight to confirm the above time.

Wait did you mean 4.6sec? Cuz 3.6 is a bit insane.

[AZTWW]

Originally Posted by Maverik259

Wait did you mean 4.6sec? Cuz 3.6 is a bit insane.

That sounds about right. 50i does 4.6 stock.

[perry8912]

Originally Posted by Doberman16

Okay guys. Although I didn't make it to the track last night, I found a shortcut to Mexico and a nice straight road for a couple tests. Times were recorded using Torque App and OBD Bluetooth adapter plugged into the car. So this is unofficial, but still.

Sport+, Shifter in S, Launch Control:
0-60 = 5.1sec
1/4mi = 12.46sec

DSC Fully off, Shifter in S. Launch control not available in this mode, but I still brake boosted to just over 3k rpm:
0-60 = 3.6sec
1/4mi = 12.1sec

I am chirping the tires at launch, so without logging, I'm pretty confident traction control was hurting all of my previous times (tuned, at least).

Keep in mind I'm running All Season tires. Continental ExtremeContact DWS.

Stay tuned as I just learned of an event tonight at the track where I could win some money. I'll have some slips to post up later tonight to confirm the above time.

Can't wait to see some time slips!!! I hope you could get stock X5M time, 12.2sec with 114mph.

[Maverik259]

Originally Posted by AZTWW

That sounds about right. 50i does 4.6 stock.

Ya but he said he was getting over 5sec in the other 0-60. So dropping nearly 1.5 seconds from a tune seemed excessive. But idk. Haven't seen anyone else talk much about numbers. Just curious.

[AZTWW]

Originally Posted by Maverik259

Ya but he said he was getting over 5sec in the other 0-60. So dropping nearly 1.5 seconds from a tune seemed excessive. But idk. Haven't seen anyone else talk much about numbers. Just curious.

Dush posted a timed 0-60 of around 3.7 seconds on video after his BPC tune. I have seen a couple others around. I have yet to do a timed run but hope to soon. Tuned 50is seem to be in the X5M territory.

Wonder how Doberman did at the track?

[pits200]

Someone needs a vbox to get more accurate times. Do 4 people want to each toss in $100 bucks with me and share. Can't justify spending that kind of money on something so rarely used.

[DuSh]

Originally Posted by pits200

Someone needs a vbox to get more accurate times. Do 4 people want to each toss in $100 bucks with me and share. Can't justify spending that kind of money on something so rarely used.

Pits there's also a Dragy box - some say it's even more precise than Vbox. I was thinking buying it - since it costs $149 https://www.amazon.com/dragy-10Hz-Ba.../dp/B077KKPMTB. Or $145 with free shipping on ebay: https://www.ebay.com/i/292548316422?chn=ps

Here's a comparison of Vbox vs Dragy vs track done by Audi forum member: https://www.audizine.com/forum/showt...-Dragy-results

What do you think of this? It can measure distance, slope, build graphs etc. - it has a free app for phone and has more options than vbox.

[pits200]

Originally Posted by DuSh

Pits there's also a Dragy box - some say it's even more precise than Vbox. I was thinking buying it - since it costs $149 https://www.amazon.com/dragy-10Hz-Ba.../dp/B077KKPMTB. Or $145 with free shipping on ebay: https://www.ebay.com/i/292548316422?chn=ps

Here's a comparison of Vbox vs Dragy vs track done by Audi forum member: https://www.audizine.com/forum/showt...-Dragy-results

What do you think of this? It can measure distance, slope, build graphs etc. - it has a free app for phone and has more options than vbox.

Hm, doesnt look half shabby, I never really knew there were other reliable alternatives and the audi post is good supporting evidence but one run isn't enough of a sample size.

If it proves out to be a good product it might be worth the money.

[Doberman16]

Okay, my bad for taking so long to post these slips. I was angry at myself for red lighting at the track

Maverik259 Yes, I mean 3.6 seconds. And yes, it is insane! Lol. The post referring to the 5.0sec 0-60 was not talking about stock vs. tune. That was launch techniques. I was attempting to prove that traction control was intervening during launch and absolutely killing my 0-60. So to run your best 0-60 in this car, you want to hold the DSC button until it shows DSC off and flip the shifter into M/S mode. If you have launch control, it will not activate in this mode, but it will still launch like a bat outta hell. I do miss the flag icon a little...

On the accuracy of Torque: It's probably inaccurate, however it appeared to be consistent at the very least. So, the differences in the times would be the focus rather than the times themselves.

If I missed anything else anyone asked, let me know.

As stated above, I'm really annoyed with myself with my track day. I was instantly eliminated due to red light in the first round. Completely my noob mistake. For that reason, I only have two slips and they were at the hottest point of the day. It was about 80F and about 50% humidity. I was really wanting to see what I'd get later in the evening when it was closer to 60F.

TLDR; Show me the time slips!

[AZTWW]

Originally Posted by Doberman16

Okay, my bad for taking so long to post these slips. I was angry at myself for red lighting at the track

Maverik259 Yes, I mean 3.6 seconds. And yes, it is insane! Lol. The post referring to the 5.0sec 0-60 was not talking about stock vs. tune. That was launch techniques. I was attempting to prove that traction control was intervening during launch and absolutely killing my 0-60. So to run your best 0-60 in this car, you want to hold the DSC button until it shows DSC off and flip the shifter into M/S mode. If you have launch control, it will not activate in this mode, but it will still launch like a bat outta hell. I do miss the flag icon a little...

On the accuracy of Torque: It's probably inaccurate, however it appeared to be consistent at the very least. So, the differences in the times would be the focus rather than the times themselves.

If I missed anything else anyone asked, let me know.

As stated above, I'm really annoyed with myself with my track day. I was instantly eliminated due to red light in the first round. Completely my noob mistake. For that reason, I only have two slips and they were at the hottest point of the day. It was about 80F and about 50% humidity. I was really wanting to see what I'd get later in the evening when it was closer to 60F.

TLDR; Show me the time slips!

Not sure what to make of your times. Your MPH is around stock 50i yet your ET is low. I can't really see your 60ft time so I imagine you weren't able to improve it any? Also, what is your elevation?

[perry8912]

Originally Posted by Doberman16

As stated above, I'm really annoyed with myself with my track day. I was instantly eliminated due to red light in the first round. Completely my noob mistake. For that reason, I only have two slips and they were at the hottest point of the day. It was about 80F and about 50% humidity. I was really wanting to see what I'd get later in the evening when it was closer to 60F.

Thanks for showing the result. even though the mph is a bit low but the time is promising. Maybe try 60-100mph or 60-120mph time? That could eliminate the launch techniques and show some real power.

[Doberman16]

Originally Posted by AZTWW

Not sure what to make of your times. Your MPH is around stock 50i yet your ET is low. I can't really see your 60ft time so I imagine you weren't able to improve it any? Also, what is your elevation?

If you click on the image, it should become full sized and show 60ft.

With the limited sample I got, I really feel heat was the issue here. Mine ran 104-105 stock (<100 when I was learning and temps were hot). I had one run at 106 which was at night, much cooler, in the low 60s. The next time I go (probably 8/3/18), hopefully I'll get some numbers at night as well for a better overall comparison. Either way 12.32 is my lowest ET yet and still approaching X5M level. I will be interested to see what things look like in the fall and I can get some temps in the 50s.

Elevation: 650ft

Originally Posted by perry8912

Thanks for showing the result. even though the mph is a bit low but the time is promising. Maybe try 60-100mph or 60-120mph time? That could eliminate the launch techniques and show some real power.

I'm happy to share! I don't know if I'll have the chance to log those. The problem is, I don't have the most accurate tool to measure that data. I think the track is my best bet for consistency with temp and humidity being the exception. I can slightly mitigate that by getting both day and night times.

[ArmyRn33]

Is running 93 with ethanol blend be ok with this tune and much difference between it and regular 91?

[CT335xi]

Originally Posted by ArmyRn33

Is running 93 with ethanol blend be ok with this tune and much difference between it and regular 91?

Actually 93 with 10% ethanol blend is fine and any 93 is better then 91 period.

[DuSh]

Originally Posted by ArmyRn33

Is running 93 with ethanol blend be ok with this tune and much difference between it and regular 91?

If you are talking about E85 mix to add couple gallons to 91 or 93 - then I don't know. In theory it should increase the octane number, but in reality tune has to account for it (like increase fuel mix and/or take advantage of timing etc). Tune can adjust within some limits, but I'm not sure it can take benefit of E85 unless it's a tune made for E85.
I haven't tried yet putting 3-4 gallons of E85 to my 91 tank to see if this will work.

[perry8912]

Originally Posted by ArmyRn33

Is running 93 with ethanol blend be ok with this tune and much difference between it and regular 91?

It depends on which tune you are running. If you choose 91 octane map, then you don’t really need 93 gas. Personally, I would choose 91 with 0% ethanol over 94 with 10% ethanol any day.
According to bm3, there are only +-10hp difference between 91 and 93 map. So for me, not really worth it.
It’s your car, choose whichever you feel comfortable, it won’t be any issues either one.

[ArmyRn33]

Originally Posted by perry8912

It depends on which tune you are running. If you choose 91 octane map, then you don’t really need 93 gas. Personally, I would choose 91 with 0% ethanol over 94 with 10% ethanol any day.
According to bm3, there are only +-10hp difference between 91 and 93 map. So for me, not really worth it.
It’s your car, choose whichever you feel comfortable, it won’t be any issues either one.

The reason I asked here in the midwest IE Iowa 93 with ethanol is fairly plentiful, Thanks for the help...

[CT335xi]

Originally Posted by perry8912

It depends on which tune you are running. If you choose 91 octane map, then you don’t really need 93 gas. Personally, I would choose 91 with 0% ethanol over 94 with 10% ethanol any day.
According to bm3, there are only +-10hp difference between 91 and 93 map. So for me, not really worth it.
It’s your car, choose whichever you feel comfortable, it won’t be any issues either one.

Although there are cons to running ethanol based fuels as they dry up seals and rubber components due to its alcohol content , the one thing it doesn’t do is rob you of power. Ethanol runs cooler , higher octane, and less resistant to knock which anyone running a turbo or boosted vehicle wants. As far as power it’s more then a 10 whp difference from 91 to 93. I would think on our n63tu engines with tune running 17-18 psi it’s more like 20 whp at least. I’ll take the 94 with 10% ethanol all day, wish we could get that in the states, and if I had e85 near by I would run that in my evo don’t know how the 50i would like it though but I’m sure 3-4 gallons of e85 would work nice with 91 or 93.