Originally Posted by Znod' post='240385' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:10 AM

Thanks for reading 700700, and thanks in general. Yep, the g-man is way ahead now. His car liked 20.01, and mine hated it. I hope my car now, after 20.01, likes not having the mods better than it liked having them.

Originally Posted by 700700' post='240388' date='Feb 14 2006, 09:19 PM

on your suggestion of rolling back software i had a word of a similar thing a couple of weeks ago when i was home. It cannot be done (you know that), but if you know the service people they could replace the whole control unit of the car and then flash it with another version(through warranty). It is very expensive to buy it yourself (around e3400) , but you could always slip them $100 or something
I came to ask them because i had some problems with the whole system resetting itself after the car had gone to sleep, turned out the flash memory was fried and so it could not save the settings. Regardless to say they replaced everything for me

Originally Posted by Znod' post='240393' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:43 AM

Thanks very much for the great info. If all else fails, then maybe I can get my dealer to do what you suggest. Or, maybe I can convince BMW that 20.01 has had such a bad effect on my car that the Company will do it. Not likely though.

Originally Posted by Znod' post='240325' date='Feb 14 2006, 07:40 PM

Hi g-man:

I though about what you were saying. I did some work, and I am not sure that your inference is going to turn out to be general. I've attached a chart showing a number of possibilities that could be correct given that time and speed are correct. I pretty much have to assume that they are correct since they should be the primary outputs of the meter, itself. The chart contrasts what RPM would be assuming time and speed are correct under 3 assumptions: (1) the 6126 value you mentioned is correct, (2) my calculation of RPM, which are based on my calculation of tire diameter, are correct, and (3) my calculations of RPM, which are based on revs per mile of 814, are correct.

Before today, I would have had no insight into which is correct. However, on my way to my dealer, I recalibrated my Pro RR while moving (rather than just reving my engine)--since it is somewhat hard to hold revs constant when the engine is not under load. After leaving my dealer, even though it was hot, I did a 1/8 (not reportable). After coming home, I found that the meter now is recording values consistent with my car not shifting until about, or a bit above, 6400 RPM--more or less consistently with what my tach is telling me.

So, I am led to believe that (3) gives the best indication of what is going on with my car. I have downloaded the recorded data, and it confirms the higher RPM values although there still are speed/time-related discrepancies. I am not yet sure how the discrepancies compare to before-recalibration runs.

Regardless, if my inference is correct, then the news essentially is good assuming I ultimately regain my lost HP, deal with slow Step shifting, or deal with DSC/DTC not shutting off completely. At least some of the mysteries will be going away if my inference is correct.

Happy thinking.

P.S: I am not sure the the column labeled "Grogan's Calcs ..." ought to be so labeled. I inferred everything but the 6,126 value in this column based on proportionality. We seem to be getting slightly different results when calcs about my car are based on its tire diameter.

Originally Posted by Znod' post='240367' date='Feb 14 2006, 08:53 PM

Hi g-man. I did a relative analysis of our cars before I had my mods removed. So, I'd better get it posted before it becomes completely anachronistic. The tables and a graph are below. The first table should say "Difference in 1/8" rather than "Difference in 1/4."

Originally Posted by 700700' post='240376' date='Feb 14 2006, 09:02 PM

once again i have to spend 30 minutes reading this thread

reminds me of a stats lecture...
Anyways as usual Znod, great work , and i got nothing to say as i dont have a 545i , nor do i have cip 20 installed

/ohh and BTW Grogan545 owns you

Originally Posted by grogan545' post='240408' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:21 AM

I hope you find the info interesting 700700.I know Zman & myself tend to get a little long winded.It must be because we are also getting a little "long in the tooth".

I didn't always "own" Zman.We actually had some very close numbers before Z went to 20.01.

Originally Posted by grogan545' post='240400' date='Feb 14 2006, 10:07 PM

Hi Zman

I was troubled by the diff in tire dia vs rev/mile as shown in the tire manufacturer specs so I did some "donkey" research.I went out and took a tape measure to my tires.Sure enough they are only about 25" high when loaded with car weight.The 25.9" listed in the specs has to be standing height when not installed.Therefore we can believe the published rev's per mile(807 & 814).Using these figures does increase the rpm'svs speed which I peviously calculated.I recalculated 60 mph in second gear for both our cars and came up with the following:
grogan-60 mph=6383 rpm
Zman -60 mph=6438 rpm
Not a big diff but could affect the 0-60 runs if the shifts occur early.

Originally Posted by grogan545' post='240406' date='Feb 14 2006, 10:15 PM

I liked it better when your #s were very close to mine.As I remember you were quicker up to the 1/8.Lets see what happens with your latest changes.I believe I have made improvements in my method which will lower my times on ave.

Originally Posted by 700700' post='240420' date='Feb 14 2006, 10:48 PM

I meant it in a good manner i, and many more im sure, really appreciate the work that you are putting into this test ! keep the good work guys !
BTW Gman and Zman.. we gotta think of a name for that great duo