ESS TS1 supercharger/pinging issue

[Blownmind]

Hi all,

I have installed a simple TS1 non-intercooled supercharger in my 2004 330. It is, for the most part, very impressive. However there is one issue that is very troubling:

when I am aggressive with the throttle there is a lot of pinging and the computer backs off the throttle in an attempt to control it. Once the pinging is under control the computer allows the throttle to pick back up. This process repeats rapidly and the results are rather violent surges of power until I physically back off the throttle. To someone watching, it would appear I am being very jerky with the clutch... it's that kind of surging power. Not smooth at all. It doesn't happen all the time, or at any particular RPM range, just when I am mashing my foot down. When I am between 0 and 33% throttle, power is as smooth as silk (and still excessive :))

Pinging (detonation) will destroy the engine, and it can do so without being audible. So, right now, I am just hoping the knock sensors on the engine are good enough to prevent a piston from having a hole melted through it. In the mean-time I am simply driving the car with restraint.

When I was installing the supercharger last week, there was one notable thing; this car does not have an EGR valve. I double checked that once I started having this problem, because pinging is one thing EGR systems try to help. The car was brought to the US under the tourist delivery program and I think that might have enabled BMW to avoid installing the EGR components. The confirmation is that the nipple on the original intake which should feed the vacuum tube for EGR was plugged at the factory. After that; No vacuum line, no port, no EGR...

My next thought is the VANOS system advancing the timing too far. This would at least explain why it only happens when I mash my foot down; it wants to advance the timing, does it too much, then pinging starts, etc... has anyone ever just disabled (unplugged) their VANOS unit? Seems like a simple enough test, but I don't want to mung something up. I think ESS might have a less aggressive program they can install but they haven't gotten back to me yet about this whole deal.

Another alternative would be the gas... I am still on my first tank after install and (*ahem*) illegal immigrant who pumped the gas thought "super" meant "worst" or, more likely, just doesn't care at all. So, I ended up with a tank of garbage. I immediately added a bottle of octane booster, so I would hope that would have more than accounted for the 4 octane points I was missing... time will tell. I hope that's all it is.

Any thoughts? all are appreciated.
-g

[BimmerDude18]

If you got 85 or 87 gas that could be a huge reason for it. I don't know that a small bottle of octane booster would be enough to overcome this.

[Blownmind]

yeah, I hope that's all it is. I'll be using 91 on the next fill and adding a bottle of octane boost on top of that... just to be sure. thanks

[paraklas]

Mine doesn't have an egr either (euro/UK version). Did you properly install the knock sensor plug? When removing the old manifold, you must be carefull not to damage the knock sensor plug/housing, because you have to only lift the manifold 2" at most and then unplug the sensor.

[Blownmind]

I don't recall it being a problem during install. The old intake came out pretty easily and I wasn't doing any tugging.

The instructions only indicate a removal of the metal clip for the knock sensor wire being removed from the intake, not the knock sensor connection itself. So, I don't think it was ever removed from the sensor. Plus, the computer is clearly reacting to pinging that I can hear, so the sensor seems like it's doing it's job

But, again, good thing to point out! I'll check on it just to be sure

[Asbjorn@ESS]

Do NOT get on it hard until the tank of 87 octane is out. This kit is not designed to be driven hard on any thing less than 91 octane. Octane booster will not compensate. Drive car empty and fill up with 91, preferably brand name 91.

[Blownmind]

Thanks Asbjorn, I've been gentle with it (mostly) so far because of this.

I misspoke in the initial post; I am on my first "full" tank since install. The first 250 miles were driven on Chevron 91 that was in the tank since before the install and the car was still doing the pinging thing. That's why I just mention the gas as an afterthought. I'll be putting 91 back in for sure this time AND boosting it, just to be sure that octane is not the cause.

But, again, it's doing basically the same thing both before and after the retard put 87 in the tank, so I think it's something else.

Hans also mentioned that my EGR is not vacuum controlled, which means it should have thrown a code if it was offline or something. Again, my mind goes to the Vanos.

[TxZHP04]

You sure you don't have a vacuum leak causing it to run too lean?

EDIT: on second thought, upon heavy throttle application you would most likely end up with a boost leak (instead of a vacuum leak) and run rich. How many miles on your fuel pump?

[Asbjorn@ESS]

It is likely you have a bad MAF causing a to low load signal. This will result in pinging and uneven pull due to fuel starvation. Try a new MAF or one from another M54B30 MS43 and see if it behaves normally. You should have a 100% smooth pull with no pinging when all is operating properly.

If you have any way of checking AF ratio it should be in the 12's all the way to redline at WOT.

[Blownmind]

I was going to get it dyno'd... maybe they'll have a way of measuring mixture. Thanks. I'd hate to spend $250 on a sensor that was working just fine 400 miles ago.

[Blownmind]

Oh, and I don't think their are any leaks. it is pretty securely siliconed and bolted on the block... The fuel pump has 70k on it, and I think the filter is due to be changed as well. I don't think it was changed all that long ago, but it was advised in the instructions. The car was very strong before all this was bolted on, so I had no reason to think any of the systems were malfunctioning or filters clogged.

[Asbjorn@ESS]

I was going to get it dyno'd... maybe they'll have a way of measuring mixture. Thanks. I'd hate to spend $250 on a sensor that was working just fine 400 miles ago.

You can't really tell if it works properly NA without measuring it as a NA engine is not nearly as sensitive to proper fuelling as a FI engine. If it is 15-20% off NA it will still feel quite normal (a bit lazy), if it is that FI it will hardly run at all. In 99% of cases with pinging on proper fuel quality it is a bad MAF and I suggest you try a new one. A leak would typically not cause pinging.

[Blownmind]

You can't really tell if it works properly NA without measuring it as a NA engine is not nearly as sensitive to proper fuelling as a FI engine. If it is 15-20% off NA it will still feel quite normal (a bit lazy), if it is that FI it will hardly run at all. In 99% of cases with pinging on proper fuel quality it is a bad MAF and I suggest you try a new one. A leak would typically not cause pinging.

Well, here are the dyno results:

<a href="http://www.holyrosarypdx.org/temp/BMW 330 Dyno.jpg" target=_blank>
<img src="http://www.holyrosarypdx.org/temp/BMW 330 Dyno.jpg" width=25% height=25%></a>

What appears to be happening is that the supercharger isn't dumping boost above 7psi like it's supposed to be, which is overcharging the engine (which can cause pinging). It consistently went above 9.5 psi (or 37%) above what it was supposed to. The MAF appears to be ok, but once the boost really kicks in, the fuel mixture gets very, very rich.

I did fill up with 91 octane and some booster yesterday and the pinging has been markedly less pronounced, but the power (as evidenced by the dyno) is still not very smooth (albeit still very strong :) ). I think this is also the result of the overcharging.

I have no idea what the ESS DME software is doing to react to this whole scenario, but the pressure relief is supposed to be all mechanical. Could there be a defect in the waste valve?

Any thoughts Asbjorn?

-g

[TxZHP04]

When exactly do you hear pinging (what rpm, what % throttle, etc) and did you notice it during the dyno run?

I don't see any obvious signs of detonation or of the DME pulling ignition timing in your dyno. It seems to be very rich though which I wouldn't think would be conducive to detonation. Otherwise, your peak output is pretty much on par with advertised values. What size pulley came with your kit (should be etched on the front face of the pulley)? As I understand it, pulley size dictates peak boost at WOT. The bypass valve simply recirculates a portion of the intake charge under partial throttle effectively reducing boost but it doesn't "dump boost" above a certain psi - in other words, the bypass valve basically scales the peak boost relative to the amount of throttle application.

Have you checked for an air leak around the injector o-rings?

[Blownmind]

When exactly do you hear pinging (what rpm, what % throttle, etc) and did you notice it during the dyno run?

I don't see any obvious signs of detonation or of the DME pulling ignition timing in your dyno. It seems to be very rich though which I wouldn't think would be conducive to detonation. Otherwise, your peak output is pretty much on par with advertised values. What size pulley came with your kit (should be etched on the front face of the pulley)? As I understand it, pulley size dictates peak boost at WOT. The bypass valve simply recirculates a portion of the intake charge under partial throttle effectively reducing boost but it doesn't "dump boost" above a certain psi - in other words, the bypass valve basically scales the peak boost relative to the amount of throttle application.

Have you checked for an air leak around the injector o-rings?

Hmmm.... yeah, i guess I didn't think of it that way. The pulley is 83mm, and it is one they shipped me specially for this car, so I am pretty sure it's the correct one.

The pinging is much reduced since getting that 87 gas out of there (as one would expect) and now it pings only under peak throttle conditions, which is expected to some degree. I am willing to say at this point that the pinging is really not a concern any more. I am starting to wonder if they gas that was left in the tank prior to the install wasn't mistakenly 87 also. I've always asked for 91 at the pump, but last week was the first time I went to make sure... they could have been putting in the wrong stuff more often than I had thought.

I haven't checked for leaks around the injectors, but that's the only place I could imagine one would be. I will say that I am absolutely sure that the fuel rail is seated correctly, so I kind of doubt there are any leaks there unless an o ring has gone bad.

Thanks for the advice. At this point, my concern is the mixture. That seems to be the root of all the power spikes and lulls. 5.4 is the low of what the a/f got to today, and it should be much higher. Either air is making it unto the intake after the MAF somewhere (??) or the DME doesn't know what to do with that much airflow...

-g

[Asbjorn@ESS]

Hans Kirkerod will give you a call and go through steps of diagnosing shortly. There is something off as AF ratio should be in the 11-12 range during WOT.

What is the mileage of the car?

Do you have access to another M54B30 MS43 MAF to try? The fuelling is most likely a MAF issue judging from your dynos.

[Blownmind]

Hans Kirkerod will give you a call and go through steps of diagnosing shortly. There is something off as AF ratio should be in the 11-12 range during WOT.

What is the mileage of the car?

Do you have access to another M54B30 MS43 MAF to try? The fuelling is most likely a MAF issue judging from your dynos.


The mileage is 69,000, and I don't have access to another MAF without buying one. The guy running the dyno said he thought the MAF was performing just like he was expecting... but I'm willing to try anything.

[TxZHP04]

Either air is making it unto the intake after the MAF somewhere (??) or the DME doesn't know what to do with that much airflow...

The problem isn't too much air, it's too much fuel relative to the air that is actually entering the cylinders. This is why AJ suspects you are getting a faulty reading from the MAF sensor. After a faulty MAF, the next thing I would suspect would be a boost leak. Since you just installed the kit, I tend to be suspicious that there is some little installation issue that needs to be sorted out. Regardless, Hans and AJ will help you get to the bottom of what's going on.

The guy running the dyno said he thought the MAF was performing just like he was expecting.

Based on what?

[Blownmind]

The problem isn't too much air, it's too much fuel relative to the air that is actually entering the cylinders. This is why AJ suspects you are getting a faulty reading from the MAF sensor. After a faulty MAF, the next thing I would suspect would be a boost leak. Since you just installed the kit, I tend to be suspicious that there is some little installation issue that needs to be sorted out. Regardless, Hans and AJ will help you get to the bottom of what's going on.



Based on what?

Based on his experience and how the MAF was performing under normal and semi-hard run conditions. During those conditions the A/F mixture was correct and the all metrics were normal. There were no install issues; all went according to plan and the dyno numbers are right in the range were they should be (indicating overall system wellness). Further, inspection after install while it was running and being rev'd revealed no leaks, liquid or otherwise.

The issue at hand is simply a possible relationship between the overboost and the WOT rough power response. I spent some time on the phone with Hans from ESS today and they're sending replacement parts for the charger which we both think will address both of these issues. But, stay tuned :)

-g

[TrippinBimmer]

Sounds like a Great Company Backing up there Products...:D So undecided one what to get...TT or TS ugh....

[Blownmind]

Sounds like a Great Company Backing up there Products...:D So undecided one what to get...TT or TS ugh....

Yeah, they're genuinely interested in this thing working. I give them a lot of credit because I originally bought and received a charger for a 325 only to find out that my 325 had a "special" low emissions version of the M54. So, I bought a 330 instead and they shipped all the necessary conversion parts. Pretty cool that they would do that.

[TrippinBimmer]

Well, This is good to here...Keep us/me updated on ur progress gettingn this done. I had a TS at one point of my life time and they are great and usable power....

[NickG@TechniqueTuning]

Well, This is good to here...Keep us/me updated on ur progress gettingn this done. I had a TS at one point of my life time and they are great and usable power....

Sorry for the off-topic, but TrippinBimmer, is your car sporting a dual exhaust?

[Safar]

Blownmind
Registered User

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 28
My Ride: 2003 325 Ci

[...]

What appears to be happening is that the supercharger isn't dumping boost above 7psi like it's supposed to be, which is overcharging the engine (which can cause pinging). It consistently went above 9.5 psi (or 37%) above what it was supposed to. The MAF appears to be ok, but once the boost really kicks in, the fuel mixture gets very, very rich.

[...]

Hmmm.... yeah, i guess I didn't think of it that way. The pulley is 83mm, and it is one they shipped me specially for this car, so I am pretty sure it's the correct one.

Can I just point something out? You said you were getting 9.5psi instead of 7psi.
Also, you have a 83mm pulley on a 2,5l engine, TS1
On my car I have a 95mm pulley on a 2,8l engine, TS2

As I understand the pulley becomes smaller as engine size increases to keep the boost up to spec. And since you have a TS1 at 7psi, that's two reasons why your pulley should be larger than mine, not smaller.

One of us seems to have the wrong size pulley, and since you're getting too much boost, I guess it's you. Can someone from ESS please verify the pulley sizes I mentioned above?

[Asbjorn@ESS]

Can I just point something out? You said you were getting 9.5psi instead of 7psi.
Also, you have a 83mm pulley on a 2,5l engine, TS1
On my car I have a 95mm pulley on a 2,8l engine, TS2

As I understand the pulley becomes smaller as engine size increases to keep the boost up to spec. And since you have a TS1 at 7psi, that's two reasons why your pulley should be larger than mine, not smaller.

One of us seems to have the wrong size pulley, and since you're getting too much boost, I guess it's you. Can someone from ESS please verify the pulley sizes I mentioned above?

The error was on the shipment of the 330 conversion kit for his 325 kit. He received 330 TS2 SC gearing(83mm), TS1 spec is on it's way (90mm).

[Blownmind]

Can I just point something out? You said you were getting 9.5psi instead of 7psi.
Also, you have a 83mm pulley on a 2,5l engine, TS1
On my car I have a 95mm pulley on a 2,8l engine, TS2

As I understand the pulley becomes smaller as engine size increases to keep the boost up to spec. And since you have a TS1 at 7psi, that's two reasons why your pulley should be larger than mine, not smaller.

One of us seems to have the wrong size pulley, and since you're getting too much boost, I guess it's you. Can someone from ESS please verify the pulley sizes I mentioned above?

Yep, good catch. And, just so there is no confusion; I have a 3.0l engine, not a 2.5l. So, the 90mm should do the trick once it gets here.

[Safar]

Ah, my bad. Can I atleast confirm then that my pulley size (95mm) is correct for a 2.8l TS2? Because it seems like a big difference in pulley size for a reasonably small difference in displacement.

[/thread jack :eek:]

[Blownmind]

Ok, here is the new dyno after installing the 90mm pulley:

<a href="http://www.holyrosarypdx.org/temp/new330.pdf" target=_blank>CLICK ME</a>

Even the fuel mix is nearly normal across the band (10.2 is within spitting distance of the optimal 12). The dyno operator indicated that the slight dip in the low-rev line (blue) indicated a spark issue, so I re-gapped them and it seems even smother. I also noticed an occasional hesitation when driving, so if this keeps up after the gap, I will replace the coil packs (the plugs were changed when the supercharger was installed)

At any rate, the car is much, much smoother now. It is a absolute thrill to drive! The only question arising from the dyno is the lower than expected HP/Tourque. It's coming in at 252/225, which puts it at 315/281 at the engine (with a 20% loss). ESS cites 325/300 and considers only a 15% loss, which means I should be measuring 276/255. So, I am hoping the weather here is accounting for the difference (it was almost 100 degrees when the test was run). I am sure that, in the winter, this car will be more fun.

Asbjorn, what's your take on the lower than expected power reading?


In the end, all I can say is: ESS, well done. You've made a great car even better!

[lkstaack]

Ambient temps like that makes a man wish he got the TS2!

[Blownmind]

Ambient temps like that makes a man wish he got the TS2!

Very true... luckily here in Oregon, it gets that hot for about 2 to 4 weeks, then it's somewhere between pleasant and depressing for 11 months. we're in the peak of the hot time right now. I'll definitely have it dyno'd again in november/december

But, yes... I've considered putting the intercooler in but 20 ponies just aren't worth the kind of effort that would take. The car is already obnoxious, and that's fine with me :)

[Asbjorn@ESS]

The kit is rated to 276RHWP DIN at 68F. 100F will cause a significant reduction in power on the non-intercooled TS1 (~20-25HP). I would also reset the adaptation or drive it for a while to let it readapt since you have been running it with more boost than spec for a while which will cause it to default to a lower ign timing setting. The AF ratio will go down ~1 point in extremely hot temperatures to help cool the combustion process. It should be in the 11's under normal temperatures (->85F).

[JackEatsEmoKids]

Next mod for me is from ESS. I see you only have a TS2 for the E39 530, but since it's the same engine in the E46 330. I want to do the TS3( the kit you states makes almost 500hp) for my E39. Any sort of deal for this?

[Asbjorn@ESS]

Next mod for me is from ESS. I see you only have a TS2 for the E39 530, but since it's the same engine in the E46 330. I want to do the TS3( the kit you states makes almost 500hp) for my E39. Any sort of deal for this?

We have built several TS3's on the E39 530 and it is no problem at all to do. Same pricing for components as 330 TS3. The car becomes significantly faster than E39 M5 with much better fuel economy and less weight.

[Blownmind]

The kit is rated to 276RHWP DIN at 68F. 100F will cause a significant reduction in power on the non-intercooled TS1 (~20-25HP). I would also reset the adaptation or drive it for a while to let it readapt since you have been running it with more boost than spec for a while which will cause it to default to a lower ign timing setting. The AF ratio will go down ~1 point in extremely hot temperatures to help cool the combustion process. It should be in the 11's under normal temperatures (->85F).

Yep, that's for sure

One other thing... apparently the ESS software doesn't account for the new fuel injectors when it comes to the trip computer. My car was reading 41.1 MPG after 100 miles of highway driving. After I got back into town and filled up and I did some back-of-the-napkin math, there was no way it was right. I did two more tests after long highway and city tanks, and here is what the latest was: the car says 32.2 MPG, the car actually got 24.95 MPG. So, I guess the ESS DME flash leaves the DME thinking it still has the original fuel injectors, so it isn't accounting for the increased fuel flow of the new injectors... too bad. 41.1 MPG was a nice thought. Also too bad that 2 of the 5 trip computer settings are now useless thanks to this new software.

-g

[lkstaack]

One other thing... apparently the ESS software doesn't account for the new fuel injectors when it comes to the trip computer. My car was reading 41.1 MPG after 100 miles of highway driving. Also too bad that 2 of the 5 trip computer settings are now useless thanks to this new software
Yes, having a OBC that works correctly is important to me too. I have looked into this issue and found:
-the OBC can be recalibrated using INPA or through the instrument cluster menu
-the MS43 and MS45 ECU software can correct MPG
-as I recall, at least one member of this board had MPG corrected ESS software, but the version he had resulted in rough cold engine idle

This thread may interest you: http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=688664

[Blownmind]

Yes, having a OBC that works correctly is important to me too. I have looked into this issue and found:
-the OBC can be recalibrated using INPA or through the instrument cluster menu
-the MS43 and MS45 ECU software can correct MPG
-as I recall, at least one member of this board had MPG corrected ESS software, but the version he had resulted in rough cold engine idle

This thread may interest you: http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=688664

I have rough cold engine idle, that's for sure. ever since I installed this thing, the first minute or two in the morning is a pretty grumbly engine (in a bad way). I just use the pedal to kick up the RPMs to about 1000 and it settles out pretty fast.

Maybe I ended up with a version of the software which ruins my cold engine idle AND doesn't account for the mileage :)

Seriously though, Asbjorn, is there a way to confirm that I was flashed with the right software? I was sent a pulley for a TS2 by mistake after all, so maybe the DME has the wrong calibration too...

Thanks