Poorly Z4M, Idle bounce and poor throttle response/misfire

ga41 said:
Have you tried running this again with DSC off to see if it the AFR in 1st gear changes?

I was just editing my post above to make that same point at the same time you made your post. :thumbsup: Great minds! :D

When I'm datalogging, I don't really pay any heed to the information that's being recorded other than to satisfy myself that the datalogger is in fact recording: it would be too distracting/dangerous to give it any more attention. I can then download the data to my computer and examine it at my leisure. I have no idea at the time of recording if any of the data will reveal anything interesting so it's only when I can see it in graphical form, that I might have an idea to investigate certain PIDs in different scenarios. Although the DashDyno Software on the PC is useful, I find that using the same information in Excel allows me to do my own calculations and produce graphs so that I see the information in a way that I can get my own mental picture as to what is going on.
 
ga41 said:
Have you tried running this again with DSC off to see if it the AFR in 1st gear changes?

This was my first question too...

The traction control element of the DSC seems to have an effect before the warning light comes on, I've noticed this most with full bore standing starts - the car is much more lively with the DSC switched off than it is with DSC switched on but the warning light not illuminated.

exdos said:
...I have noticed that under full throttle in 1st gear, the DSC of the Z4MC doesn't seem to intervene, whereas it will often do in my Z3MC, so I think that this would seem to confirm my observation.

Different gearing / diff ratios / wheel size / tyre compound and age / weight distribution / suspension set up etc will all influence this. It's a shame that the Z3M datalogs don't allow you the same detail as with the Z4M.
 
Whenever you have the time give it a go as you described. Gathering some good info here. :thumbsup:
 
Adam D said:
To satisfy my OCD I went and bought and fitted a set of Denso IXU 24 spark plugs (e
Adam,

I'm curious; why did you choose a single electrode type of spark-plug when the original spark-plugs have multi electrode tips?
 
BMWZ4MC said:
Also, was there any difference between the two pairs of three cylinders with respect to AFR?

Here's the plot for all 4 AFRs. Bear in mind that the "poll rate" (speed at which the ECU will release data to a datalogger) is affected by the number of PIDs being recorded, and that it is massively slower than the actual speed of the ECU is making its active control responses to engine fuelling, what we see is only a series of a small number of "snapshots" on a timeline. Therefore, the actual fuelling of each cylinder fill will be far more variable than this graph shows, but we can still get a very good idea of what's going on.


Z4MCAFR.jpg
 
BMWZ4MC said:
ga41 said:
Have you tried running this again with DSC off to see if it the AFR in 1st gear changes?

This was my first question too...

The traction control element of the DSC seems to have an effect before the warning light comes on, I've noticed this most with full bore standing starts - the car is much more lively with the DSC switched off than it is with DSC switched on but the warning light not illuminated.

exdos said:
...I have noticed that under full throttle in 1st gear, the DSC of the Z4MC doesn't seem to intervene, whereas it will often do in my Z3MC, so I think that this would seem to confirm my observation.

Different gearing / diff ratios / wheel size / tyre compound and age / weight distribution / suspension set up etc will all influence this. It's a shame that the Z3M datalogs don't allow you the same detail as with the Z4M.

I don't think that the DSC of the Z3MC is as sophisticated as that of the Z4MC. In the Z3MC the DSC is either off or on, with no in-betweens. When I bought my Z3MC in 2003 it was completely OEM and the DSC appeared to be very intrusive and would come on quite a lot, so each time it operated, I spent a bit of thought in analysing what I'd done which brought the DSC into play. I used the DSC as a "teacher" and learned to anticipate the situations that might bring the DSC into play, and by being proactive in anticipating the DSC, I completely modified my driving style so that I found that I was on the same "wavelength" as the way in which the DSC operates. The Z3MC has dreadful OEM suspension where the springs, dampers and ARBs are way too soft, with too much vertical component allowing dramatic weight-shifting, which permits excessive pitching, squatting and bodyroll, which gives the Z3MC its deserved reputation as a "handful" (= easily gets sideways)! I discovered that the most influential input into the DSC was the yaw sensor, and I learned that by anticipating situations that would lead to excessive yaw, if I lifted off the throttle immediately before I'd expect to get yaw, and then allow the car to settle before reapplying the throttle, the DSC doesn't cut in and I can therefore drive the car much quicker (and safer).

During my ownership, I've done a lot of suspension mods to my Z3MC, all of which have considerably reduced pitch, squat and bodyroll and which have dramatically improved handling which prevent the tendency to yawing and coupled with my modified driving style, the DSC never seems to come on now.

With the Z4MC, I find that the front suspension is way too soft and under hard acceleration, the front end lifts which makes the steering light with a tendency to bump steer and wander, but this doesn't seem to bring the DSC on because there's plenty of traction at the rear and with no tendency to yaw in these situations. I would also expect that my driving style will also stop the Z4MC's DSC intervening for me too.
 
exdos said:
Adam D said:
To satisfy my OCD I went and bought and fitted a set of Denso IXU 24 spark plugs (e
Adam,

I'm curious; why did you choose a single electrode type of spark-plug when the original spark-plugs have multi electrode tips?

Multielectrode plugs are all about extending service life - it takes longer to foul or wear down two bits of metal than one, only one of the prongs will spark each cycle anyway so its not as if you get a monster spark by adding more prongs; if anything they get in the way of the expanding explosion and absorb heat.

The iridium alloy has a higher melting point than platinum so they can afford to make the plug tip much finer which reduces the voltage required to fire the plug. Thats handy if the ignition system is weak or if your asking a lot of the ignition components.

NGK have a good FAQ explaining the design features of modern plugs.

http://ngkntk.co.uk/index.php/technical-centre/spark-plugs/alternative-electrode-designs/
 
Adam,

I appreciate the logic. I know of three instances of spark plugs breaking inside the cylinder, with one case causing damage to the piston and cylinder. I think that they were all the "multi-electrode" type and had spark eroded and fallen apart
 
Conversely I know quite a few people who won't touch the 0.4mm Denso plugs as they are less hardy than a 0.7mm NGK iridium or the Denso iridium tough range (also 0.7mm). Mainly because in a turbo car with user added bolt on's stretching the fuelling of the stock map/fuel system (or running a generic stage 1/2/3 map) can lead to detonation which kills the thinner plug tips quickly. That said would you rather kill a plug and be warned of a problem or keep on pushing and put a hole in a piston :D




---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?opvpqz
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've done a bit more datalogging and here's one of 1-2-3 gear acceleration with the DSC turned OFF and the Sport Mode turned ON. The road was dry. It looks to me that the fuelling in 1st gear is definitely restricted by the ECU and that turning the DSC off/on makes no difference unless the road conditions are conducive to wheel slip where the DSC would intervene if it were on.

AFRwithDSCoff.jpg
 
Adam D said:
Conversely I know quite a few people who won't touch the 0.4mm Denso plugs as they are less hardy than a 0.7mm NGK iridium or the Denso iridium tough range (also 0.7mm). Mainly because in a turbo car with user added bolt on's stretching the fuelling of the stock map/fuel system (or running a generic stage 1/2/3 map) can lead to detonation which kills the thinner plug tips quickly. That said would you rather kill a plug and be warned of a problem or keep on pushing and put a hole in a piston :D

Another question : why Denso other NGK ?
I'm considering myself changing the OEM plugs with NGK Iridium ones.
 
Shortly after I got my Z4MC, I did a couple of Dyno runs, using my DashDyno SPD, to give me baseline figures from which I could compare all the mods that I intended to do to the car.

To do this, it's necessary to load the following information into the Dashdyno for the profile of each individual car before you do any Dyno runs.
<weight>3296</weight> in Pounds
<temp>52</temp> in Fahrenheit
<elevation>100</elevation> in Feet
<humidity>57</humidity> in Percent
<pressure>29.707</pressure> in Inches of Mercury
<cd>0.35</cd>
<frontal_area>20.559</frontal_area> in square Feet
<gear_ratio>6.0092</gear_ratio> (in 3rd gear = gear ratio x diff ratio)
<tire_dia>26.031</tire_dia> in Inches

I use the same facility (relatively level tarmac) each time I do a Dyno run for any car that I test and I make 2 separate runs in opposite directions, and use the average of both runs for my figures so that this should equalise the undulations and any head or tail winds. In recording the baseline figures, I only made the two runs and because I couldn't go to the redline on one of the runs, I wasn't able to produce average figures beyond 7000rpm.

The figures that the DashDyno produces are "at the wheels" figures and are produced entirely from a formula in the DashDyno software based on the "live data" figures that it obtains from the car's ECU and the bespoke parameters,for the vehicle (as given above). Before I do any runs, I check the local weather stations for the temperature, humidity and pressure.

I understand that most static Dynos add a correction of 16% for frictional losses to give their "at the flywheel" figures. So, I've produced both sets of figures on a graph. The graph is as below.

I think I have finally cracked the problem of why my car doesn't seem to be showing any changes (for better or worse) and did some Dyno runs today which seem to prove that I've solved it. But before I reveal those figures and the solution to the problem, I'd like to ask anyone to comment, criticise or challenge the methodology or results for my baseline figures given.

Z4MCBaselineaveragedDyno.jpg
 
Exdos, would that I had more time to expound on my criticism of your methods but, as you know, something else is rather demanding of my time at present :P
Certainly, you are being rigorous in your attempts to control any sources of error or confounding, and it is highly likely that you are generating reproducible and reliable data. However, I would suggest that the values you have obtained for both power and torque are useful only in as much as they provide a comparator for any given modification, or between vehicles of the same model (so same cd / frontal area etc). I would take the absolute values for power and torque with a pinch of salt (as is true of rolling road dynos). It will be in the changes following modification that the really interesting data will lie.

Oh, and thanks for providing an interesting distraction from the books :D
 
BMWZ4MC said:
However, I would suggest that the values you have obtained for both power and torque are useful only in as much as they provide a comparator for any given modification, or between vehicles of the same model (so same cd / frontal area etc). I would take the absolute values for power and torque with a pinch of salt (as is true of rolling road dynos). It will be in the changes following modification that the really interesting data will lie.

I am not a fan of static dynos, especially for assessing BMWs with air intakes which harness ram effect, because the blowers they place in front of the car don't replicate the changes in pressure that occur with movement.

Before I bought my DashDyno SPD, I was rather sceptical about the "Dyno" feature and other performance features, but I have to say that it has proven to be very reliable and all the results are "standardised" so that a run in hot conditions at altitude in the Tropics is directly comparable with a run at sea level, in dry freezing conditions. Likewise, since I am always the driver and system operator for every test, I can be sure that I always run the tests in the same way. I do find that the results that I get for OEM vehicles of any make model are very close for the published figures though, so I think it is a pretty good yardstick. Anyway, as you say, even if the results I get from the DashDyno bear no relation to actual values, the fact is, I can compare the values that I obtain from this device to each other.

BMWZ4MC said:
Oh, and thanks for providing an interesting distraction from the books :D
You shouldn't be reading any of this yet! :wink:
 
When I bought my Z4MC it was my intention to modify the air-intake and exhaust systems in a similar fashion to what I’ve found to be very successful with my Z3MC.

Before I describe the mods I’ve done, I think it’s worthwhile giving a bit of theoretical background to the way the OEM air intake works.

When an object (Z4MC) moves through air, the air provides an opposing force which can be measured as an increase in static air pressure. This is known as the “ram effect”. Everyone knows that this happens because when you stick your hand out of the window of a moving car you can feel the air against your hand. The faster you travel the greater the force. However, the increase in force does NOT increase in a linear fashion, but instead, it increases exponentially with increase in speed. The graph below shows how the increase in pressure occurs with an increase in speed, and the pink plots are from actual recordings that I’ve made, just to check that the theory works in practice!

Frontalpressureincrease.jpg

When a car moves through air, the movement causes different air pressure zones around the entire car; some of these zones are at relatively higher static air pressure than ambient pressure, and such zones experience increases in pressure as shown in the graph above. The Z4MC’s OEM air intake system has been designed to utilise the increase in pressure that occurs with increase in speed by locating the mouth of the air-intake system in a zone of high pressure, just under the bonnet. I’ve previously datalogged the pressure inside the air-filter box during driving conditions and found that the pressure inside does relate to the speed and that pressures above ambient are seen. In real world driving, this means that the engine operating at any specific RPM will perform more efficiently at a higher speed in a higher gear, because the static air pressure will be higher for each fill of the cylinder, which means that more air can enter the cylinder so more fuel can be added, which in turn, increases the power output.

Although the OEM air-intake is well located to harness the “ram effect”, the system can be improved by providing even more air at higher than ambient pressure. When the engine is operating at higher RPMs, the engine is “draining” the zone of high pressure, so as engine speeds increase, the pressure of air starts to reduce. Therefore, if you can provide more air at higher than ambient pressure, to supplement the zone of high pressure where the OEM intake is located, then it is possible to partially reduce the “draining” of the original zone of high pressure. This has been the ethos of modifying the air intake of my Z3MC and so I wish to do similar modifications to my Z4MC.
Since a normally aspirated engine (S54) is an “air pump”, in order to get the engine to operate most efficiently, it’s important to ensure that the flow of air through the engine is as unobstructed as possible, on both intake and exhaust sides. So, as my starting point, I bought a pair of OEM silencers to modify.

I’d not opened a set of Z4MC silencers before, but from my experience of exhaust modding the Z3MC, I could “read” the construction method from looking at the weld marks on the silencers. I wanted to do all my “surgery” from the upper side of the silencers, so that my work would be invisible when the silencers were fitted to the car. So, I cut the largest window that I could, which would not affect the integrity of the silencer after I’d removed various parts from inside. The photos below show the process that I followed.


IMG_8073.jpg
The window has been cut.


IMG_8074.jpg
When I removed the window I thought Marilyn Monroe's head had been left inside! :o In fact the inside of the exhaust is packed with fibre glass for sound deadening.


IMG_8076.jpg
This photo shows the internal layout. I was surprised to find that the entire route of exhaust travel was piped through the box, whereas I was expecting the end chambers to be empty of pipe work.


IMG_8081.jpg
I removed all the pipe work in the central section and the "U" bends at both ends of the silencers. I then welded blanking plates over the holes into the end chambers so that the flow of exhaust is now "straight through" in the middle chamber. I welded the windows back to make the silencers leak-proof.


For the air intake, I want to increase the size of the area of the zone of high pressure, so I made a pair of scoops from aluminium with a neoprene pipe which interconnects them. The photos below show the process. I have measured the operating temperature of the radiator with an Infra-red thermometer (a great device for taking tyre temperatures for setting up suspension) to ensure that they don't impair the flow of air to the radiator.

IMG_8113.jpg
Visible in trial stage during fabrication.

IMG_8112.jpg
The interconnecting pipe visible at this stage.

IMG_8114.jpg
The parts.

IMG_8115.jpg
After painting


The OEM air intake has an upward facing "mouth" which means that air has to take a more tortuous route into the system than if it were not there. So I removed it. The photo below shows the part.
IMG_8126.jpg

You can now see straight into the air intake system as shown below.
IMG_8122.jpg

IMG_8121.jpg
The finished parts.


During the process of fitting these mods, I've been datalogging to assess the advantage or disadvantage of any of them, but I've not been able to see any significant change which has been irritating the life out of me! :evil: I've been giving this problem considerable thought and I had a "Eureka Moment" a few days ago. The answer has been staring me in the face. So I have done the necessary mod and I took my car for a Dyno run yesterday and I believe I've cracked it!
 
Back
Top Bottom