Cadillac Owners Forum banner

Update at 4k miles / BNR Tune thoughts

17K views 77 replies 22 participants last post by  EnvoyBu 
#1 ·
Hey guys, posted only a few times but wanted to give some updates on my Black Raven 2.0T AT RWD Luxury.

I've had the bnr trifecta tune since break in and while I do like it, I don't feel like it is enough. While comparing Apples to Oranges I had a 2010 Mustang GT before the ATS and when I got it Bamatuned it was a massive difference in throttle response and torque, as well as just the overall feel was way better.

The BNR tune is noticeable but not as great as I had hoped to feel. I have not dyno'ed my car. I tried the AT retune but I didn't like it because of the sloppy, hard shifts. BNR said they could tweak it blind and try to get it better but I've taken it off for now.

The reason I took it off is actually because on start up 3-400 miles ago my ATS would not stay on, I got the reduced engine power message, and check engine light. I flashed my car back to stock (luckily I work at a dealership so I used a car here and ran to my house to grab my laptop) and it worked fine.

I have since flashed the ECU back without the tranny and it is working okay now.

I have been using torque-bhp pro for android to try and get an idea on what kind of power I'm making but the best I can muster fiddling with settings and everything is showing 181 RWTQ at 5k RPM and 181 RWHP at 5k rpm. The highest boost from torque-bhp pro I get is 18 PSI. My settings may not be right but that's what I've gotten. The other thing I forgot which I will update is some numbers from stock data.



Lastly something interesting is that GM's global warranty management does not list the reduced engine power issue. I do have two events that happened, Active Grille Aero Shutter Malfunction in April and an Engine Overheat condition yesterday during the torque-bhp runs from yesterday.


Anyone else using torque-bhp pro, the BNR tune, and some results?
 
See less See more
#3 ·
thats funny cuz i havent flashed the tune yet and completely stock, on 91 octane, with the torque-pro app i got 200 RWHP one time. and 186 RWHP another time. this is all 100% stock. i just have an exhaust but i doubt that makes any difference. as far as boost goes, ive never gone over 16 psi with said app.
 
#4 ·
to be honest sometimes i leave the car in turing mode and it hrdley feels slower. The tune is ok but would definetely like to feel more responce. I am sure BMR can update the file and send it out to us . it should not be a big deal. Especially if GM claims new Regal and malibu will have 295 tq from the factory.
 
#6 ·
maybe u can get BNR to give u a more aggressive tune? im currently in the process of asking for it but it doesnt seem as smooth as i expected. still no straight answer. but hopefully they get me a more aggressive tune for 94 octane or 95. i plan to run a mix of 91 and 100 at all times with a minimum of 95.
 
#5 ·
I have used the torque pro ap and it was ok but not supported very well and am not convinced the data is always correct. I have 2 other devices with much better results.Both gave same data as my old dashhawk. The one I like best is the Dashboss which is a OBDII Bluetooth plugin that talks to most any Apple device like iphone, ipad or ipod. It can log and better yet u can view on plot on device, email data, plot out on paper with Datplot. Your boost levels are low. u should see 21 -22 psi and ushould look for the "delivered torque" pid on torque pro and log it. It is a very accurate calc of torque and I am seeing 335 ft# with some spikes higher and car is a rocket.
 
#7 ·
For me it's a simple flash as far as results go. I'm now getting a taste of what I NEED!
I believe heat soak plays an issue. This engine runs hot. WOW!

I regularly check my oil and I'm amazed at the heat coming off the motor.
Bigger intercooler may help but I don't know?

This tune is a great place to begin SAFELY. also it has been said that removing the stock downpipe is a
Passive mod but IMO its right after the turbo. So it must be a huge source of restriction and heat?.

With a tune + bigger front mount intercooler+ catted high flow downpipe or catless = this is where you feel a solid 80-100 tq gain. If the injectors can handle it an intake too! Don't know where they will max out?
Tuners?
 
#10 ·
Is it hot where you guys are? These cars are really affected by heat and elevation, I mean I'll put it this way, my LNF Cobalt SS will burn the tires off it all the way to 3rd in the winter, but in the summer it will only chirp 2nd gear. We get people calling all the time during the winter telling us how amazing the car is and then they call us during the summer and say they think the tune is gone from the car. The stock intercooler on these things is garbage for high boost, they heat soak so quickly, and once they get hot they pull timing. I think PFADT needs to release that intercooler quick!
 
#13 ·
The engine compartment does get very warm with the boosted engine and turbo churning out heat. Can't pull the oil dipstick without a rag. Could use an aftermarket louvered hood to extract that heat. Does the performance 2.0T manual come with an oil cooler? Anyone? Larger FMIC isn't going to reduce this heat, just the charged air.
 
#17 ·
Good point. I'm in NC and it has been 80s for awhile. As far as fuel grade for me I run 93. When I had my 2010 mustang gt tuned a 90+ day would definitely be noticeable.

Speaking of those using to torque pro, what settings do you use? I'm using 3500 lbs, 2.0l obviously, 85% ve (the default), 0 boost adjustment, faster connection, using a bluetooth dongle.

Also I don't have a delivered torque pid, is that one I need to add and how do I?
 
#28 ·
Possible stupid question: why do some of you want to tune or otherwise increase hp/torque in a sedan!? Why not just buy a car with more hp if you have the need for speed! After all,
if you start out with say 250hp and add 10%, big deal, you now only have 275! What is that going to get you in the real world? Why not start out with a higher hp car to begin with?
Is it really fun to beat on a family hauler that may be capable of taking a twisty or two once in awhile. Just asking here guys, no insult intended. I have owned at least 10 Corvettes and
still drive a high hp C6. No way in h**l are you ever going to tune an ATS to ever get close to me. A CTS-V, sure, but not some 4 banger with or without forced induction. I know about
driving high hp, but like I said, why not start out with higher hp. Higher hp cars are not that much more expensive than an ATS. And yes, I recognize the need for a 4 door car, but at least
start out with one that has balls to begin with...okay, flame me if you like!
 
#29 · (Edited)
Possible stupid question
No such thing as a stupid question, just stupid askers. Or did I get that backwards?

why do some of you want to tune or otherwise increase hp/torque in a sedan!?
I'm gonna guess they need or want 4 doors.

Why not just buy a car with more hp if you have the need for speed!
I'm gonna guess virtually nobody here wants to tune for more speed. Anyone who exceeds the car's stock top speed on the road is an idiot. I can tell you don't understand the concept of wanting to improve something. Buying a car with more horsepower, more brakes, more tire, or more cup holders wouldn't change the human desire to improve it.

Is it really fun to beat on a family hauler that may be capable of taking a twisty or two once in awhile. Just asking here guys, no insult intended. I have owned at least 10 Corvettes and still drive a high hp C6.
Why would you want to beat on anything? And a Honda civic can generates more cornering and braking Gs than your C6 does accelerating. So basically accelerating is a bore compared to turning or stopping. I spent a lot of time on 9 and 10 second street machines that did 2.x 0-60s. Even that was a bore compared to turning or stopping.

No way in h**l are you ever going to tune an ATS to ever get close to me.
I'm not going to ask why you think ANYONE would want to get close to you.

okay, flame me if you like!
No thanks, would be too easy to be fun.
 
#31 ·
Obviously, I left myself open to responses like the above...I did it on purpose! So, there is no answer from Hoosier Daddy as to why some want to get more hp out of an ATS! If So you can go into an s curve with more g's, oh happy day, in a sedan...!! If you don't want to tune for more speed, then why the hell do it? For bragging rights, like a bench racer..now that is stupid! By getting close to me, I meant hp wise, nothing else. What does turning and stopping have to do with increased hp?! Are you implying some ATS owners track their cars??? Then why not buy the V6 ATS...??!!! Most of you must be kids with money looking for I don't know what....
And what, only one know-it-all done-it-all response!!
 
#34 ·
anyway, lets let the loser with the small dick run himself out of breath as he and his douche-bag friends drive their poor man's super car, bragging about it on other forums. back to the real gentleman's car.

i installed my tune and while it did seem like it was faster, i still got the same exact 0-60 time as i did before tuning. also, my HP gain was only about ~20 at best. before tuning i saw 200 RWHP and after tuning ive seen 220 RWHP max. boost was up 21 with the tune and 18 without. not sure if there is something wrong with my tune, but it does seem faster in the mid-range.
 
#36 ·
both samples were run at roughly 65 degrees. at night. all stock at night i managed to get 7 seconds 0-60 at night with 200 max HP. and with tune, at night same temperature, different day, i did 0-60 slightly slower and made 220 hp. hopefully trifecta says something good lol.
 
#38 ·
the bluetooth module and an app (im sure its not accurate as a dyno, but accurate or inaccurate, it should be inaccurate the same amount in all tests. so if its off on the first tune-free run and it made 200 inaccurately, then it made 220 with the tune, also inaccurately, the difference is still minimal. and i think thats the same method you guys use to determine the HP gains, correct? when looking at the data log, im sure you have HP indicators.
 
#40 ·
right. but its not like i only did 2 samples. this was a bunch of runs. the 220 might be inaccurate, but the difference between the 2 tunes should be bigger, regardless of accuracy. am i right to assume that? im just following logic. i dont know much about this to make a final judgement or anything.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top