OpenFlash Headers in 2017 &a Tune -- success & no tune yet

[steve99]

Originally Posted by gskv

I'm coming from a e92 m3 and that car has one of the best torque curves ever.

Changing the headers out makes it quite nice to not have the dip, but honestly the car is so good stock, it doesn't bother me that much. More power, drivability and slightly corrected curves are just nice bonuses.

I've flashed my car with the test as per Shiv's instruction, he informed that he'll need a day or 2 to work out the tune!

I did notice after flashing the test file, my car idled differently. Perhaps maybe I am on a Canadian car? :S

After any flash or ecu reset all learned parameters erased.


always let car idle for a minute or so for initial cam vvt calibration.


Throttle can also be a bit laggy for first couple of drive cycles.


which tune did you flash ?

[steve99]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

Somebody do this ASAP and report back. I'm going to wait for others success before I try again. Hope there is not something wonky with my particular car that caused a failure, but Shiv said all should have been well. Anyway, y'all hurry up and flash!

what was problem?


which file did you flash ?

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by thambu19

Does anyone know how the new 2017 model gets around the torque dip? There has to be a change to the Headers or intake runner length. Tune alone cannot replace lack of airflow from experience.

Loads of info here

[PetrolioBenzina]

Originally Posted by steve99

what was problem?

which file did you flash ?

I sent Shiv the stock ROM from the 17 86. He sent back a test file, flashed OK. Cranked, but no start. Reflashed the stock ROM with errors. OFT reported (IIRC, pics on another PC) VIN mismatch. No crank, but the ECU was showing data on the OFT. The dealer said they had never seen that failure before. The anti-theft(?) system killed the engine. They eventually did the reset listed in your brick guide.

Shiv has all the logs and debugs. All should have been well according to those. Well above my pay grade, but I put it down to shit happens. I'll try again when someone else has a good flash. E85 should be impressive in the MT.

[steve99]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

I sent Shiv the stock ROM from the 17 86. He sent back a test file, flashed OK. Cranked, but no start. Reflashed the stock ROM with errors. OFT reported (IIRC, pics on another PC) VIN mismatch. No crank, but the ECU was showing data on the OFT. The dealer said they had never seen that failure before. The anti-theft(?) system killed the engine. They eventually did the reset listed in your brick guide.

Shiv has all the logs and debugs. All should have been well according to those. Well above my pay grade, but I put it down to shit happens. I'll try again when someone else has a good flash.

Weird oft does not alter vin it just checks it to see it match's vin in oft when you married car and oft.


can you send me the test file ? that caused the issue via pm if you like

[justinco]

Originally Posted by thambu19

Does anyone know how the new 2017 model gets around the torque dip? There has to be a change to the Headers or intake runner length. Tune alone cannot replace lack of airflow from experience.

Gets around the torque dip? The torque dip is still there.

[gskv]

I flashed my car last night with Shiv's TEST K001 file.

Starts, everything seems ok.

Waiting for tune file tonight~

[gskv]

Just want to add that on 2017. The air filter is different. No aftermarket replacement filters currently fit the 2017.

And still awaiting tune!

[Wayno]

In the meantime it would be interesting to see logs of the stock car with stock tune.

[gskv]

Not a bad idea. I shall post it up after driving to and from my bball game.

[Wayno]

Originally Posted by gskv

Not a bad idea. I shall post it up after driving to and from my bball game.

3rd gear WOT por favor

[Nah]

Any updates? lol

[gskv]

had a lot of snow fall and went to swap out my stock for winters instead D:

didn't have a chance to log anything hahaha.

But still no tune!

[thambu19]

Originally Posted by Kodename47

Loads of info here

Thanks for the link. Great read for anyone interested in engine design. If they only increased the diameter of the primary headers and not the length the scavenging should occur more efficiently and also slightly later in engine speed. Could be why the dip has been reduced at least by a touch.