Shark Injector - no power gain

[mpowerdave]

Ok. So I anted up and bought the shark injector for my 98 M3. Before using it, I basedlined my 3rd gear acceleration from 3k to 6.5k rpms - about 8.0 seconds. I noted that the acceleration from 3k to 4k was faster than 5k to 6k so I put in a new fuel filter before shark injecting. 3k to 6.5k in 3rd grear dropped to about 7.9. Maybe a little faster or simply measurement error but still faster from 3k to 4k than 5k to 6k. Anyways, I use the shark injector and drive the car around for a day before I get around to timing a run. The exact same - 7.9 seconds. The rev limiter is gone so I know it worked... So I read through the forums here and learn that the shark injector doesn't do much unless you have other mods. Why is this!? The 95 JimC chip is touted to provide nearly 20 hp. When I put the JimC chip into my old 95 325i it was night and day and it really did feel like 20hp. I'm really dissapointed to find zero gain after spending $300+ bucks. Is something wrong with my car since it's faster at lower rpms? Or does the S52 really need that M50 intake manifold and other 95 M3 stuff to gain anything from the chip/software? I would have thought the 96+ M3's would be slightly more detuned than the 95 since they're rated at the same HP but the 96+ has more displacement. What's going on!? :eek:

[Mad Dog 20/20]

The OE SW is optimum for an OE motor.

Your old bimmer had a very different engine mngmnt system and gains could be had with a few tweaks to the SW.

Not to be an ass, but in the future, you may want to do research on a mod BEFORE you buy/install it. The absence of a gain with the SI has been VERY well documented on just about every BMW board known to man.

[slcook54]

Software doesn't do much by itself, the main perk is the increased rev limit.

[mpowerdave]

I've spent hours upon hours researching e36 m3 stuff on these forums. I missed this one. It's not a total loss since I do plan on adding the M50 manifold and CAI in the future. But, to my defense, UUC and the rest of the gang market the chip as adding horsepower. If there really is no gain to be had without other mods, these guys are being missleading.

Here it is from TMS: TMS / Conforti Performance Engine Software represents the most cost-effective approach to increasing engine performance. It has been dyno-tested to provide a safe increase in power by altering fuel enrichment, cam timing and ignition timing specifically for use with premium gasoline.

So, in reality, this claim isn't true for the e36 m3. For less than $360 there are mods that will add more HP than Conforti's software. What's funny is that they market a +19HP increase with the 1995 M3. So, does a 1995 M3 with a TMS chip have +19HP over the 96+? And if so, is it simply because of the M50 intake?

[slcook54]

Possibly, but why would you trust their marketing anyways? They are obviously biased.

[CarbonBlkE36]

misleading. damn crooks. all they want is ur money



i got stage 2 s/w and i have a intake, felt a lil in the butt meter. but nothing major, try a intake

[timsev]

none of that crap will give you more power. The main thing it does is smoothes out your A/F and better throttle response. It also bumps your RPM's and speed.

[B.Watts]

Your tests aren't exactly scientific...timing by hand and trying to make judgements about 10th's of a second as the RPM's change at a pretty quick rate. Further, road conditions, weather, etc, etc, could all play into the differences.

A small (10-15) increase in power isn't going to show up as a noticeable difference in a 3-6.5K run anyway. Based on the dyno on the Turner website, the claimed power gains aren't really all that much until after 5500 RPM anyway.

[dizzye36M3]

sorry dude. I feel bad for you. I'm no expert, but there's plenty of info on here that tells you software does not add any HP to OBDII cars.

[TurnerMS]

misleading. damn crooks. all they want is ur money



If you're not happy with the results, reset your car back to stock and send the unit back for a full refund.

Sincerely,

Supporting vendor crooks.

[adsingl]

I've read a lot on this, and on a dyno you might find a bit of improvement.
But the real deal is the synergy between the Shark, CAI, and better flowing (not the loudest, necessarily - lots of comparos out there on this) exhaust.
The Three of these, or any two, will show more total improvement than the single improvements added. EG, 4hp for one + 6hp for another, done and measured separately = 10hp, but you may push 15hp with both (I pulled these numbers out of the air, but you get the drift). Likewise for all 3 mods.

I don't sell for or have tie-ins with the vendors, but dynos repeatedly suggest what I've written, and when all 3 are done, you have the most HP/$ you can get, considering labor. Ignoring labor, m50 manifold is close to this hp/$.
EVERYTHING else (well maybe not crank pulley that I'd not do)gets way more expensive for every horse you try to add.
All the tuners will admit that each car is different, and maybe they chose to publish a car that did better than a lot of them, that's marketing. But CAI
and Shark alone should get you 10-15hp.
How many miles did you drive, and HOW did you drive? Adaptation may not have been complete. Drive it a few more days and do lots of hard acceleration. Also, your running at least 91 octane w/o methanol additive, right? Your air filter is in top-notch shape, right? Spark plug and injectors are clean, right? LOTSA factors.
In any regard, looks like Turner is standing behind the product return if you decide to go that way.
I got the exhaust first 'cause I bought SSprint on closeout for about $620 last fall. After that, I'll be doing CAI and Shark.
Good luck
ADS

[loudes 13]

should have bought a '95

[mikeinsanmarcos]

I've read a lot on this, and on a dyno you might find a bit of improvement.
But the real deal is the synergy between the Shark, CAI, and better flowing (not the loudest, necessarily - lots of comparos out there on this) exhaust.
The Three of these, or any two, will show more total improvement than the single improvements added. EG, 4hp for one + 6hp for another, done and measured separately = 10hp, but you may push 15hp with both (I pulled these numbers out of the air, but you get the drift). Likewise for all 3 mods.

I don't sell for or have tie-ins with the vendors, but dynos repeatedly suggest what I've written, and when all 3 are done, you have the most HP/$ you can get, considering labor. Ignoring labor, m50 manifold is close to this hp/$.
EVERYTHING else (well maybe not crank pulley that I'd not do)gets way more expensive for every horse you try to add.
All the tuners will admit that each car is different, and maybe they chose to publish a car that did better than a lot of them, that's marketing. But CAI
and Shark alone should get you 10-15hp.
How many miles did you drive, and HOW did you drive? Adaptation may not have been complete. Drive it a few more days and do lots of hard acceleration. Also, your running at least 91 octane w/o methanol additive, right? Your air filter is in top-notch shape, right? Spark plug and injectors are clean, right? LOTSA factors.
In any regard, looks like Turner is standing behind the product return if you decide to go that way.
I got the exhaust first 'cause I bought SSprint on closeout for about $620 last fall. After that, I'll be doing CAI and Shark.
Good luck
ADS


Mods don't add up like that or we would be seeing much bigger numbers... The first and biggest mistake is this obsession about PEAK hp gains... While these are fun numbers to brag about if you have a turbo or whatever, what is really more important when N/A are total gains though out the HP curve. The reason you wont see cumulative gains is that the larger gains are usually in different areas of the curve for different mods. What you do gain by doing these things (chip, intake, pulleys, exhaust, ect..) is slightly more power, quicker response and higher rev's which all add up to a lot more fun!

Now you can get an M50 manifold but you are just shifting the efficency point of your engine up the RPM curve which does give you more peak HP but may make your overall driving experience worse depending on how you like to drive your car...

[madmguy]

the jc chip is an integrating "tool" for other mods... it will only improve the effect of adding intake, headers, and exhaust... with that entire package, most will not do headers however, the software will improve the enhancments thereafter the full package of mods is installed.... the chip itself is nothing but without it, adding exhaust and intake will not be a rewarding...
hope that helps, I have encountered the same problems, but, and this is a big but, once further flow enhancing mods are added the gains are more rewarding...

[trthrrt489]

should have bought a '95

No, he should have spent the $350 on a 50 shot of nitrous. OBD1 is no better for power than OBD2. People think that OBD1=good for power. This was true when tuners could only tune for OBD1. Now, tuners can dig into the Siemens DME as easily as they did with OBD1. Fuel/ignition maps don't change, they can't its how a motor runs. There is not a special 20whp map in the OBD1 DME, its just only a handful of tuners know how to find and manipulate the maps in OBD2.

[adsingl]

Mods don't add up like that or we would be seeing much bigger numbers... The first and biggest mistake is this obsession about PEAK hp gains... While these are fun numbers to brag about if you have a turbo or whatever, what is really more important when N/A are total gains though out the HP curve. The reason you wont see cumulative gains is that the larger gains are usually in different areas of the curve for different mods. What you do gain by doing these things (chip, intake, pulleys, exhaust, ect..) is slightly more power, quicker response and higher rev's which all add up to a lot more fun!
Now you can get an M50 manifold but you are just shifting the efficency point of your engine up the RPM curve which does give you more peak HP but may make your overall driving experience worse depending on how you like to drive your car...

Check the dyno results of many posters whent these combos became familiar a few years ago. Without double-checking the numbers, I think you'll find many got to 235- 240hp at the wheels, coming from 213-220. As the engine breaths better from the intake and exhaust, the modded 91 octane fuel maps (and whatever other magic they did) allows the adaptation to work further, so I maintain there's synergy. But again, look at dyno posts, they're out there from individuals. As for the M50, not many of us would notice the very small torque loss low. I do agree it's not something I'd do if I weren't going to regularly track the car and keep the revs high for longer periods.
ADS

[mpowerdave]

Doug - Thanks for the generous offer. I'll keep the shark injector because I plan on adding mods in the future.

What really gets me is why the difference between 95 and 96+. Or, am I mistaken and the shark chip for the 95 M3 really doesn't do much either?? JimC has a fantastic reputation and is one of the few who has completely reverse engineered the Motronic DME. In addition to this EE skills, he's great at tuning. I have to believe that he's extracted everything from the US S52. In reality this is very little because everyone claims there's nothing to get over the stock fuel/ignition maps. I want to know if this is true for the 95 M3. My history of using Jim's chips in my e30 m3 and 95 325i has been fantastic. I took the chip out of the 95 since I'm going to sell it and man has it lost power. I firmly believe the claim of 20hp with this car. It not too far off from the stock e36 m3 - which makes sense since that car is base ~200hp + 20 from the chip and it's only 20hp off from the stock e36 m3. We shouldn't claim that chipping/SW does not produce gains. This seems to be only true for the 96+ E36 M3 and maybe the newer models as well.

Now you guys got me worried about the M50 intake. I love the low-end torque and don't want to lose it. I want to keep my e36 m3 more of a street car than a track car. Do you really lose much bottom end with the M50 intake?

I'll time some more runs in the future. I agree with the previous poster that mentioned that the DME might not have had enough time to bump the timing. I was carfully to use non-ethenol fuel (which is hard to come by in MN, they've just passed legislation to bump our fuel to 20% ethenol - stupid bastards :eyecrazy) I was careful with my timing. I did a few runs in both directions on the same road. I used the digital camera to record video of the tach and then timed with the stopwatch on the PC. I timed the same video/runs several times and then averaged my results. The weather got colder during my later runs so that would have only helped me see better gains. The result - zero or maybe close to 0.1 sec from 3k to 6.5k rpms.

[///AlpinePower]

you know what works with OBD2 engines? drive it like a racecar all the time so that it adapts.

[gsober]

If you're not happy with the results, reset your car back to stock and send the unit back for a full refund.

Sincerely,

Supporting vendor crooks.


that is customer service!!!

[trthrrt489]

Doug - Thanks for the generous offer. I'll keep the shark injector because I plan on adding mods in the future.

What really gets me is why the difference between 95 and 96+. Or, am I mistaken and the shark chip for the 95 M3 really doesn't do much either?? JimC has a fantastic reputation and is one of the few who has completely reverse engineered the Motronic DME. In addition to this EE skills, he's great at tuning. I have to believe that he's extracted everything from the US S52. In reality this is very little because everyone claims there's nothing to get over the stock fuel/ignition maps. I want to know if this is true for the 95 M3. My history of using Jim's chips in my e30 m3 and 95 325i has been fantastic. I took the chip out of the 95 since I'm going to sell it and man has it lost power. I firmly believe the claim of 20hp with this car. It not too far off from the stock e36 m3 - which makes sense since that car is base ~200hp + 20 from the chip and it's only 20hp off from the stock e36 m3. We shouldn't claim that chipping/SW does not produce gains. This seems to be only true for the 96+ E36 M3 and maybe the newer models as well.

Now you guys got me worried about the M50 intake. I love the low-end torque and don't want to lose it. I want to keep my e36 m3 more of a street car than a track car. Do you really lose much bottom end with the M50 intake?

I'll time some more runs in the future. I agree with the previous poster that mentioned that the DME might not have had enough time to bump the timing. I was carfully to use non-ethenol fuel (which is hard to come by in MN, they've just passed legislation to bump our fuel to 20% ethenol - stupid bastards :eyecrazy) I was careful with my timing. I did a few runs in both directions on the same road. I used the digital camera to record video of the tach and then timed with the stopwatch on the PC. I timed the same video/runs several times and then averaged my results. The weather got colder during my later runs so that would have only helped me see better gains. The result - zero or maybe close to 0.1 sec from 3k to 6.5k rpms.

If I were you I wouldn't base my finding on how fast you get from 0-60 or at what speed you reach a certain rpm. To many factors come into play, weather, slippage, you had 3 beers..........etc.
Get a dyno, its spring and many speed shops have dyno days. Get it dyno'd then chip it, DO NOTHING DIFFERENTLY(no fluid changes, tire pressure, anything) between dyno's. Then, post your results.

[five3five]

OK, here is a question related to this thread. I was a bit concerned about my dyno results a couple of weeks ago 209whp/209tq. I have the first three boltons. JC SW/CAI/stromung. I remember when I installed them, I had the CAI in first, then a few weeks later I sharked the car and a few weeks later I installed the exhaust.
My question is did I have to shark the car after the CAI/exhaust or the order doesnt matter?
thanks
hamada

[B.Watts]

Order doesn't matter.

[CABimmer]

I've posted a 100 times that software gets you next to nothing on a stock car. Even if it gave you 10hp at the wheels that wouldnt show on a 0-60 run more than .5 of a second. You have to be pretty quick with that stop watch.

You can always spend $50 at a dyno to learn that the software you got did nothing. :(

[peej410]

i have access to a dynapak dyno that i can use any day of the week. i have an ECIS intake, and im planning on getting the Shark Injector.. i know this is an old thread but i can give you guys definitive before and after dyno numbers and dyno sheets as an independent tester...

[StuartJoyce]

i just put a shark injector on my 98 m3. I already had a catback exhaust and conforti intake. coulndt really tell a difference in the 90 degree weather but at night when its cooler and the intake could get cold air, i noticed a difference past 4500 rpms. I just like knowing i can go over 130mph now...

[Haifisch M3]

Ok. So I anted up and bought the shark injector for my 98 M3. Before using it, I basedlined my 3rd gear acceleration from 3k to 6.5k rpms - about 8.0 seconds. I noted that the acceleration from 3k to 4k was faster than 5k to 6k so I put in a new fuel filter before shark injecting. 3k to 6.5k in 3rd grear dropped to about 7.9. Maybe a little faster or simply measurement error but still faster from 3k to 4k than 5k to 6k. Anyways, I use the shark injector and drive the car around for a day before I get around to timing a run. The exact same - 7.9 seconds. The rev limiter is gone so I know it worked... :eek:


The filter swap was probably not necessary.
It should take longer to go from 5-6k than from 3-4k since the aero drag increasingly comes into play at the higher speeds causing acceleration to not be constant but decreasing all the way up to top speed, at which point it is 0.

Still, 15 horses at the crank should translate to 2-3 tenths in the 1/4

[Rennmeister M3]

This is a really funny thread.

First off, the software will make roughly the same gains on a stock car as it does on one with bolt-ons. Reason being is that BMW tuned the entire map, they don't just magically measure peak airflow and tune up to that point, they include additional tuning to the full resolution of the map. All adding bolt-ons does is increase the pumping efficiency of the motor and the only thing the ECU is going to see is slightly higher MAF values if you've managed to increase intake side mass flow.

Now within them tuning the engine they are going to tune for worse case scenarios. Basically imagine driving in death valley with the worst recycled 91 oct. horse piss you can find. They want the car to run smooth and reliably for everyone in the country. Some cars have active knock control that allows the DME to advance timing, the WRX has this and advertises it as octane adaptability.

What companies / tuners / etc. do is take the OEM maps and begin to increase or retard timing, alter fuel trims, and adjust sensitivities (such as IAT signal / coolant temp) in order to make more power. A couple degrees of timing in a fat part of the VE peak will make another 6-8whp, add that with a possible rich condition on the top end and you can see another few HP. It all depends on how safe the OEM tune is and how far the tuner is willing to risk it.

On a Nissan GA16DE engine that barely makes more than 100 HP I've seen timing advance (just mechanical advance) make another 6whp on top of the factory tune. That's probably a 7.5% gain in power, average that out to an M3 and you have 18whp. Not all cars get those kind of gains, but this is more or less to hint at what tuning can do even on a bone stock car.

[mpowerdave]

I don't know if this thread is/was all that funny... One of my points when I started this thread (about 2 years ago) was about how un-noticeable the claimed power increase was compared to other cars that I've "sharked". Notable my e30 m3 and 95 325i. Both of those car had a huge kick-in-the-pants feel after the SW upgrade - I think the HP claim on those we're also ~20hp. The obd ii e36 m3 - nada for seat-of-the pants feel. I made my purchase solely on previous experience with Jim C's tuning and was just disappointed. Still nice to have the higher redline and no speed limiter.

[reborn]

I don't know if this thread is/was all that funny... One of my points when I started this thread (about 2 years ago) was about how un-noticeable the claimed power increase was compared to other cars that I've "sharked". Notable my e30 m3 and 95 325i. Both of those car had a huge kick-in-the-pants feel after the SW upgrade - I think the HP claim on those we're also ~20hp. The obd ii e36 m3 - nada for seat-of-the pants feel. I made my purchase solely on previous experience with Jim C's tuning and was just disappointed. Still nice to have the higher redline and no speed limiter.

To answer your question from years ago, yeah even the obd1 chip has marginal gains.

I just dynoed 209hp 199tq with one yesterday. It prolly gave me 4whp somewhere in the midrange, but not much otherwise.

I will say that when I installed it, I noticed a lot better part throttle response, better lowend torque, better "drivability," and my gas mileage is noticeably better, as in this chip will probably pay for itself within a years time.

[328 is man]

Mods don't add up like that or we would be seeing much bigger numbers... The first and biggest mistake is this obsession about PEAK hp gains... While these are fun numbers to brag about if you have a turbo or whatever, what is really more important when N/A are total gains though out the HP curve. The reason you wont see cumulative gains is that the larger gains are usually in different areas of the curve for different mods. What you do gain by doing these things (chip, intake, pulleys, exhaust, ect..) is slightly more power, quicker response and higher rev's which all add up to a lot more fun!

Now you can get an M50 manifold but you are just shifting the efficency point of your engine up the RPM curve which does give you more peak HP but may make your overall driving experience worse depending on how you like to drive your car...



couldnt agree with you more as far as the m50 is concerned... def just shifts the curve and provides a slightly diff sound

[Eric98Sedan]

3.2's have a steeper hp curve from 3-4k then from 5-6k. This is clearly illustrated by a dyno graph and easily felt when driving. The *best* acceleration is between 3-4.5k, on a stock motor.

The M50 manifold DOES NOT just *shift* the hp curve higher. It actually re-shapes it. The manifold increases hp *under the curve* substantially from about 4.5k all the way to 7k, with a slight loss around 2.5-3.5k, based on the numerous dyno graphs.

This equates to a much more powerful engine, overall. This means that the car will be certainly faster if you use the entire tach. If you short shift at 4k it won't be.

There is no software available for the M50, to my knowledge. In addition, it simply isn't necessary, as the computer can adjust accordingly. That's not to say that a true *custom* tune won't help, though, as each motor has unique fuel requirements.

[seeyalaterrr]

Did you ever get a dyno to see if it did anything?

[328 is man]

aa makes it. but i had a flat spot between 3-4 after install

[Balthazarr]

To add to the noise...I just disconnected my VANOS.

[reborn]

To add to the noise...I just disconnected my VANOS.

Huh?

[mpowerdave]

To add to the noise...I just disconnected my VANOS.

Fantastic idea.:buttrock......not

As for the obd i m50 engine, I have to disagree about not having power gains with new SW. It felt like I had a new motor after sharking my old stock 95 325i.

[Hugo]

When I sharked my 2.8 I felt a difference. Engine was less jumpy, throttle input more precise, and the sound was throatier. Wasn't necessarily faster from 0-60, but it seemed like, if you were picking up after letting off in mid range at city speeds, the car felt torquier.

[mpowerdave]

I go as far as saying 0-60 was faster. When I was getting ready to sell the car, I pulled the chip and it felt like I had put a cork in the intake.

[LockDots]

Did you add a Shark sticker?
Those are +22.4 hp

[TurnerMS]

Did you add a Shark sticker?
Those are +22.4 hp

Wow, a post resurrection from back when I was in my mid-30s!

[Eric98Sedan]

The absence of a gain with the SI has been VERY well documented on just about every BMW board known to man.

Well said and so true.

DOH!! super old thread.

[LockDots]

lol, i was doing a search trying to figure out the difference between tuning and chipping/software and came accross this

[TurnerMS]

Well said and so true.

DOH!! super old thread.

Uh huh...

http://www.dtmpower.net/forum/archived-threads/79812-shark-injector-review.html#post706570

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showpost.php?p=264574&postcount=18

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e39-m5-e52-z8-discussion/104317-tms-shark-injector-44.html#post1643844

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e39-m5-e52-z8-discussion/104317-tms-shark-injector-44.html#post1640298

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e39-m5-e52-z8-discussion/104317-tms-shark-injector-30.html#post1334192

[bpeters]

To answer your question from years ago, yeah even the obd1 chip has marginal gains.

I just dynoed 209hp 199tq with one yesterday. It prolly gave me 4whp somewhere in the midrange, but not much otherwise.

I will say that when I installed it, I noticed a lot better part throttle response, better lowend torque, better "drivability," and my gas mileage is noticeably better, as in this chip will probably pay for itself within a years time.

Its news to me that a chip makes it more fuel economical. I thought it was the other way around.

[Hova]

Throw on an M50 manifold, with the new software, and you will notice a BIG difference past 4k. Worth every penny.

[The Letter M]

Holy OLD thread Batman!

Well, since it's back to the top again, I'll play too...

I once dynoed before & after sharking, actually it was sharked, did a few runs, then unsharked & did a few more.

The result is obvious, it advances timing (on the dyno sheet, max of 27 from 25 degrees adv.) and changes the tq curve enough to be noticeable.

The hp & tq cross point (always 5252 rpm) shows an increase of 7 hp & 7 ft/lbs, but that's not the biggest difference.

At 4400 rpm, there is an increase of 10 ft/lbs & 8 hp, as the tq curve hits very near it's peak which was at 3800 rpm. Peak hp was at 6K.

This makes the car feel faster, and it may be a little faster, I don't drag race it (I track it though on a road course), so I'm not sure if it would be significantly faster, but it really does feel better with the shark in, just for that new tq curve.

The AFR changes too, and on the dyno graph, it showed that with the shark it was 13.7, and 14.2 without.

Peak numbers are misleading as someone suggested a few years ago in this thread, but mine were: stock - 230hp / 241 tq and sharked: 236 hp / 243 ft/lbs.

Basically, it doesn't gain you much power at all, it just rearranges what you have.

Oh ya, for the record this is with a Conforti CAI & SS exhaust on a Mustang dyno..

Perhaps one day I'll do the M50 intake, but frankly, on the track it wouldn't make a pile of difference when you do regular track days with cars like a Porsche Carrera GT, Ferrari 430 and a host of other truly fast cars that get pointed by as I trundle down the front straight in my e36, wound out with my foot pushing the pedal/firewall forward as hard as I can......

[Tony Soprano]

i actually WANT the stock tune, its good for nitrous. :)

[creeves328]

I once dynoed before & after sharking, actually it was sharked, did a few runs, then unsharked & did a few more.

The result is obvious, it advances timing (on the dyno sheet, max of 27 from 25 degrees adv.) and changes the tq curve enough to be noticeable.

Hey M, is that accurate on the timing advance? Is it really only 2 degrees more advance? Man if so, 25 degrees isn't too shabby for stock.

[Hetzle]

If you're not happy with the results, reset your car back to stock and send the unit back for a full refund.

Sincerely,

Supporting vendor crooks.
This. I ordered a stage 3 kit (cams etc.) from TMS and my car was @#$% a ton (bogging etc), I thought it was the tune so I called them and sent back the chip and they replaced it for free.

They have excellent customer service, just call em.

EDIT~ Old thread :(

[The Letter M]

Hey M, is that accurate on the timing advance? Is it really only 2 degrees more advance? Man if so, 25 degrees isn't too shabby for stock.

Well, I can't speak to the accuracy of the measurement, but I have to presume it is accurate, since this place I dynoed at is our area's best BMW tuners.

25 & 27 were the max readings on the dyno chart.

[Balthazarr]

Fantastic idea.:buttrock......not

As for the obd i m50 engine, I have to disagree about not having power gains with new SW. It felt like I had a new motor after sharking my old stock 95 325i.

I was joking you 1/2-wit.