JB4/BOLT ONS/ALTITUDE THOUGHTS?

[Dspec 1]

So I am about to order the JB4 with all the trimmings. However, before I do wonder how safe the Maps are considering:
1. I have AEM intakes; ARK secondary downpipes; full midpipe/exhaust.

2. I am at 1,048 metres (3,438 feet) above sea level.

The Burger maps are completed at a much lower altitude and not sure if the maps address specific mods as above.

My question is: will the included maps pose mire of a risk to my engines health due the above factors.

Thoughts? And thank you.

 

[Terry@BMS]

3500' is nothing, we have customers at 5500' and some even at 8500'! Just be sure to stay conservative on top end boost the higher you go. So map2 for example is a better choice than say map3, since it has more top end boost taper.

 

[Dspec 1]

Thank you Terry. What considerations should I be aware of, if any, with my current bolt ones? I probably modded in the wrong order.

 

[Terry@BMS]

Just need plug gap lowered and the JB4, beyond that whatever you want to do. I'd start on map1 and evaluate. I expect map2 will be no problem though.

 

[Dspec 1]

Well, just ordered the JB4 with all the goodies and oil catch cans. So now the long wait for arrival begins!

 

[bal]

Well, just ordered the JB4 with all the goodies and oil catch cans. So now the long wait for arrival begins!

Congrats, you won't be disappointed!

 

[Dspec 1]

Now those “show-offy Beemer boys and girls” around here should be ascared!

(...or not...)

But can we get two step and anti lag too?

 

[Michael Hespe]

I’m at 6300’ and map 2 has been working great. Just an injen intake and gapped plugs with 91 octane.

 

[Dspec 1]

Nice-good to know! Thanks

 

[Ahawk1968]

3900 ft. Elevation here. JB4, w Densos gapped at .22 and SSR midpipes. Very happy, runs hard!

 

[Secondchance]

So I am about to order the JB4 with all the trimmings. However, before I do wonder how safe the Maps are considering:
1. I have AEM intakes; ARK secondary downpipes; full midpipe/exhaust.

2. I am at 1,048 metres (3,438 feet) above sea level.

The Burger maps are completed at a much lower altitude and not sure if the maps address specific mods as above.

My question is: will the included maps pose mire of a risk to my engines health due the above factors.

Thoughts? And thank you.

You in Calgary ?

 

[Dspec 1]

You in Calgary ?

I am! You?

 

[Secondchance]

I am! You?

Yes sir. There's a few of us on here.

Max had the jb4w/wires with plugs and intakes on map 2 with 0 issues. I'll be getting mine in the next week as well. There's also a bunch of Volkswagen and BMW guys local running jb4s with great success

 

[Dspec 1]

That’s good to know! Thanks

 

[Revvdmedia]

Yes sir. There's a few of us on here.

Max had the jb4w/wires with plugs and intakes on map 2 with 0 issues. I'll be getting mine in the next week as well. There's also a bunch of Volkswagen and BMW guys local running jb4s with great success

That’s good to know! Thanks

What are you both running for gas, being in Calgary? Shell 91? Been lightly playing with fuels lately. Others in Calgary have posted Shell 91 and Map 2 has been working well. I'm saddened by my JB4 indicated 0-60 that can't break below the 5s mark...

 

[Dspec 1]

JB4 not installed, but I always use Husky or PetroCanada 94. I should try Shell 91...

 

[Revvdmedia]

A lot of people seem to hate on Husky for some reason but I don't know that it is warranted. I may test a tank, and since I think the stations with premium only have 94, not both 91 and 94, those who go there for premium should run the tank empty so it should be fresh.

I'm not seeing a difference between 91 and 94 yet.

 

[Secondchance]

A lot of people seem to hate on Husky for some reason but I don't know that it is warranted. I may test a tank, and since I think the stations with premium only have 94, not both 91 and 94, those who go there for premium should run the tank empty so it should be fresh.

I'm not seeing a difference between 91 and 94 yet.

Husky octane is solid, but the fuel economy is really bad, especially when its compared to shell 91. Petro 94 seems to offer less octane advantages than Husky does, but it has better mileage. Shell 91 is essentially the best of both worlds, and you get airmiles

I ran petro 94 on my Golf R 93 tune(eurodyne), and my Audi s4 93 tune(revo), but ran husky 94 exclusively on my STI tuned for 94, my WRX on a 94 tune, and my mazdaspeed 3 tuned exclusively for husky 94, it all comes down to what you/your car likes more. Just log and see which gives you the best performance / mileage combination.

 

[Talloneus Khan]

Husky octane is solid, but the fuel economy is really bad, especially when its compared to shell 91. Petro 94 seems to offer less octane advantages than Husky does, but it has better mileage. Shell 91 is essentially the best of both worlds, and you get airmiles

I ran petro 94 on my Golf R 93 tune(eurodyne), and my Audi s4 93 tune(revo), but ran husky 94 exclusively on my STI tuned for 94, my WRX on a 94 tune, and my mazdaspeed 3 tuned exclusively for husky 94, it all comes down to what you/your car likes more. Just log and see which gives you the best performance / mileage combination.

The reason you get worse mileage on 94 versus shell 91, is that 94 here in canada has 10%ethanol, which is giving the higher octane rating, but requires more fuel to hit the same amount of power, as the 91, killing your mileage per tank