I have gone into the rabbit hole of finding the sw differences between the S, JCW 200, JCW 210 and the GP I'm currently looking at ignition tables - and there is something interesting to find..

I'm looking at part laod, about 3.000 rpm which is about cruise speed. Now for moderate load there are big differences.

S: 28.8 deg
JCW 200: 28,8 deg
JCW 210: 28,8 deg
GP: 34,13 deg

Now the JCW and the normal S runs the same advance - but the GP runs a massive 5,25 deg more advance. That is massive..
Now if we look at rougly same load, but 4.000 rpm - then they run the same advance again.. and the same goes for ~2.500 rpm.

Normally I'd expect to run more advance at part load to bring in some economy - but 5.25 is _massive_ on the GP. I expect the GP to sill run the same cam and the S and JCW? So why run a massive 5 deg more advanced on the GP for the area where you'd normally be cruising?

If we look at the ideal ignition at WOT - then it makes more sense, and yet not..

at around peak torque (4.000):

S: 24,75
JCW 200: 23,62
JCW 210: 21.00
GP: 22.13

So it makes sense that timing is reduced from the S to the JCW's, as there is more boost - but the GP, the one with the highest boost does not run the less timing, the JCW does..

The GP is an ems5150, and the others are the slightly older ems2000 - so I'd expect that the GP version is the most refined and "well tested" of them, but I might be wrong.

 

Super interesting! Definitely going to follow this.

I'm confused on the statement about more boost from the GP. I thought it ran the same hardware setup as the JCW210, but with the addition of a larger IC. Wasn't the 5150 used in the 210JCW also (and other 2006 R53s)? This is slightly outside my area of expertise, and I'm just basing this on useless data points I've absorbed over the years.

 

The 5150 was used in facelift R53s. Point of fact: It is infinitely more tunable (more mapping capability) than the original EMS2000. Switching to the 5150 is an excellent modification if you're also looking to tune. I had both my EMS2000 and an MS5150 tuned on my R53 and the performance/power difference between the two is extreme with the 5150 far outperforming the 2000.

 

You might be right, I just thought it ran higher boost - since it runs more power. But it might have the same 11% pulley as the JCW. I need to look into this.

Yes it was, and in the latest S'es as well. The files I'm comparing right now are just ems2k versions. Could be interesting to take a look at more ems5150 files to see if there is a pattern.

 

Things do not become facts just because you write it is a fact. I have only seen one person (that is also intensively working with the ems) state this. Based on my investigations they are more or less identical. They have the same processor, thus the same calculation speed, the maps are structured differently, but more or less have the same dimensions/resolution. There *might* be less 8bit maps/axises in the ems5150, but that does not mean less capable. (just means it is heavier to calculate, as 16bit use more space, and it means that some can have better resolution) I do not see any backing in the statement that the ems5150 has "more mapping capability" than then ems2000 in any way.


This is interesting. And unless you're the one tuning the ecu you have _FAR_ to many variables to define one is better than the other. For outright power - there is _no_ difference. The power is limited by the amount of air the engine can pump, and how well you can burn the mixture. The EMS2k gives _loads_ of "adjustability" to the point where it is the hardware of the engine that is the limiting factor. The tuner might have a preference for one over the other, but then we are talking about how the maps have been adjusted, not how capable the hardware is.
If you're not doing the actual remapping, there are far too many variables ot know if "one is better than the other". Each tuner has they own "style", and each of them will bring out different experiences and thus different driveablilities. A lot of tuners use a lot of the GP maps (from the ems5150) in the ems2K when mapping.

The ems2K have a weak point in the pcb, it is a flexible pcb which is not as durable as the printed PCB in the ems5150. And you also have the "downside" of many of the ems2K's running very old revisions of the software. If you take the ems2k on latest sw and the ems5150, then there is not much of a difference.