Just Dyno'd my car: results and comparisons

[jworms]

This is from the recent dyno day (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=681308) we had at Church Automotive. the dyno my car ran on was a dynapack 4000. i had run there before with my current mods minus the track pipe and was decently content with the results, but my A/F was all messed (too rich) and my car was misfiring. after lots of troubleshooting i came up with the idea to unplug my MAF...yes, you heard right. so i've been driving the car around without the MAF plugged in for quite some time and wanted to get it dyno'd...here's what i got (note: this dynapack typically reads between 10-15 higher than dynojets):

https://whatjonsaid.com/m3/in.car.times.and.dyno/dyno/2.11.2007.trackpipe.mafdelete/dsc01475.jpg
as you can see i actually gained power...quite a bit actually. you'll also notice that there is absolutely no drop in torque anywhere with the addition of the track pipe.

wanna see why unplugging my MAF actually helped me? here:
https://whatjonsaid.com/m3/in.car.times.and.dyno/dyno/2.11.2007.trackpipe.mafdelete/dsc01476.jpg
look at my A/F differences between having the MAF plugged in and not having it plugged in (plugged in is the lighter lines).

something else to notice is that after around 5500rpm my rwhp line kinda flattens out. i was talking to Church and he mentioned that it seems like the car is having breathing issues (either on the exhaust side or the intake) at higher RPMs. sounds logical to me, so i'm thinking i need to clean my air filter and possibly get some headers.

here's a comparison of my dyno graph and an e46 M3 a buddy of mine owns (m28 (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/member.php?u=38263) on here) when his car was relatively stock. only upgrades to his car were catback and center section of exhaust. the graph:
https://whatjonsaid.com/m3/in.car.times.and.dyno/dyno/2.11.2007.trackpipe.mafdelete/dsc01478.jpg
pretty obvious which lines are mine, i surely don't rev to 8000rpm ;)
also, you can ignore the title of the dyno graph where it says Gary. he had his car on the dyno when the guy was printing the graph out so i guess it left his file title on there.
the interesting thing to look at is the huge gap in peak torque numbers with both cars :)


My current mod list:
M50 Intake Manifold
Conforti 3.5" CAI
AA Custom Software
3.5" HFM
Fan Delete
Strömung Exhaust
UUC Stg2 Ltw Flywheel w/ Stg1 Clutch
AA Track Pipe

[QuestMCoupe]

Interesting. The e46s torque is way up there but the rwhp isnt too far from yours.

Did you actually feel a difference when you installed the 3.5" hfm and aa software? A couple of people I know with OBDII M3s didnt really notice much. Just wondering what your thoughts on it were.

[BaLLZacK]

Interesting. The e46s torque is way up there but the rwhp isnt too far from yours.

Did you actually feel a difference when you installed the 3.5" hfm and aa software? A couple of people I know with OBDII M3s didnt really notice much. Just wondering what your thoughts on it were.

look again thats jworms torque he make way more torque than the E46 M3!! but AAs tune is kind of better in low rpms cause without the MAF hes running rich but hes still making way more power down there. Hes making alot of power without it though!??!

[cstang68]

What do they use to convert the wheel hp/tq numbers to flywheel numbers? So 260/260 at the flywheel seems doable with your mods. I'll have to try the unplugged maf the next time I get my car in for a dyno.

[ParadigmGuy]

Flywheel? :confused

[jworms]

look again thats jworms torque he make way more torque than the E46 M3!!
exactly!

What do they use to convert the wheel hp/tq numbers to flywheel numbers? So 260/260 at the flywheel seems doable with your mods. I'll have to try the unplugged maf the next time I get my car in for a dyno.
it's not flywheel hp, it's rwhp but without the drivetrain loss from the wheels/tires. like i mentioned it's between 10-15 higher than a dynojet, so you could say that i would get between 245-250rwtq and between 249-254rwhp on a dynojet. you can see this with the relatively stock e46 dyno where he makes 260rwtq/296rwhp

[ParadigmGuy]

exactly!

it's not flywheel hp, it's rwhp but without the drivetrain loss from the wheels/tires. like i mentioned it's between 10-15 higher than a dynojet, so you could say that i would get between 245-250rwtq and between 249-254rwhp on a dynojet. you can see this with the relatively stock e46 dyno where he makes 260rwtq/296rwhp
The dyno sheets say flywheel HP and flywheel torque.

[jworms]

The dyno sheets say flywheel HP and flywheel torque.

don't look at what it says. i don't know why they put that there. in order to get flywheel horsepower we'd have to pull the engine and set it up on an engine dyno...this dyno measures at the wheel hubs which would be affected by drivetrain loss.

here's a bunch of information on dynapack dynos:
http://home.earthlink.net/~spchurch/churchautomotivetesting/id12.html

if that were flywheel hp the e46 M3 is only making 296 hp. you can call it what you want, doesn't matter to me. i mostly posted for the comparisons.

[ParadigmGuy]

don't look at what it says. i don't know why they put that there. in order to get flywheel horsepower we'd have to pull the engine and set it up on an engine dyno...this dyno measures at the wheel hubs which would be affected by drivetrain loss.

here's a bunch of information on dynapack dynos:
http://home.earthlink.net/~spchurch/churchautomotivetesting/id12.html

if that were flywheel hp the e46 M3 is only making 296 hp. you can call it what you want, doesn't matter to me. i mostly posted for the comparisons.
I know what a dynapack is, I was just thrown off by the wording on the image. Some shops will add 15%-18% to the results to estimate flywheel HP. By looking at your mods list, it seems that this is what they may have done. If not, congrats for having a strong NA M3.

[iamnotsakred]

The dyno sheets say flywheel HP and flywheel torque.

yes it sure does and is just a heading. there is no real way to calculate flywheel hp as im sure your aware of. only way to do so is to take the motor out and dyno it on a brake dyno. if it was a flywheel hp number then the E46 M only has what 297 flywheel hp?? but regardless of what the number say you cant deny the comparrison.

Hammad

[mitchelrl]

The reason this dyno's higher than a dynojoke is because the bloody wheels are off the car.

less rotational mass = less power lost in the drive train.

This dyno may be good for tuning, but I wouldn't go bragging about the results you get from it.

[ParadigmGuy]

yes it sure does and is just a heading. there is no real way to calculate flywheel hp as im sure your aware of. only way to do so is to take the motor out and dyno it on a brake dyno. if it was a flywheel hp number then the E46 M only has what 297 flywheel hp?? but regardless of what the number say you cant deny the comparrison.

Hammad
As stated in post #9. Some shops will add 15%-18% to the results to estimate flywheel HP.

Comparison of what to what?

[cstang68]

I think he means compared to the stock E46 M3 dyno.

[ParadigmGuy]

I think he means compared to the stock E46 M3 dyno.
That sheet says that it's of a Z Coupe. :confused

[BaLLZacK]

That sheet says that it's of a Z Coupe. :confused

Yea thier sheets are all messed up, he dyno'd at our dyno day so more than a few members can confirm this including the owner of the Z coupe(sound of Speed).. be as skeptical as you want but compared to the E46 M3 dyno it shows how much more power hes putting out without cams!! Chasis dynos don't take into account the weight of the wheels but there isn't any percentage added because E46 M3s would not dyno 296 hp to the crank or flywheel...

[BaLLZacK]

The reason this dyno's higher than a dynojoke is because the bloody wheels are off the car.

less rotational mass = less power lost in the drive train.

This dyno may be good for tuning, but I wouldn't go bragging about the results you get from it.

I think you can brag when you put out more torque and about as much power as an E46 M3 and again this is all without cams believe it or not;)

[ParadigmGuy]

Yea thier sheets are all messed up, he dyno'd at our dyno day so more than a few members can confirm this including the owner of the Z coupe(sound of Speed).. be as skeptical as you want but compared to the E46 M3 dyno it shows how much more power hes putting out without cams!! Chasis dynos don't take into account the weight of the wheels but there isn't any percentage added because E46 M3s would not dyno 296 hp to the crank or flywheel...
Sounds like he has a beast of an NA M3 then. :buttrock

[Ghery]

That sheet says that it's of a Z Coupe. :confused

Hah I wish, their error.

I made only 195whp

[TC535i]

Hah I wish, their error.

I made only 195whp

It's not whp without a "w" ;)

[fsmtnbiker]

Would you prefer hhp? (hub horsepower) ?

[ParadigmGuy]

Hah I wish, their error.

I made only 195whp
That's still pretty good for a Z3, isn't it?

[BaLLZacK]

It's not whp without a "w" ;)

Although one can argue it is whp since thats what we're putting to the wheels while roller dynos measures what your putting to the ground so maybe that should be changed to ghp??? :D

minus 17-20hp and call it a day Dyno numbers are not very comparable in the first place...

[mitchelrl]

I think you can brag when you put out more torque and about as much power as an E46 M3 and again this is all without cams believe it or not;)

Ok, Just because a Dyno says thats what they're puting down, doesn't mean it's accurate. By the way it's being described, it sounded like the guys run the shop like a bunch of monkies sodomizing a football.

It takes about $5,000 more dollars to get up into the 260whp range on an S52 with stock internals.

bring it to a good shop with a mustang dyno then come rub it in my face if you can even come within 20 whp of what this dyno is blowing up your ass.

[JohnnyBgood95]

The dyno sheets say flywheel HP and flywheel torque.

Dynapac's are from NewZeland, they call the rotors flywheels there.

[96cosmosM3]

That dyno reads way to high. Go and get some dynojet numbers.

[jworms]

Ok, Just because a Dyno says thats what they're puting down, doesn't mean it's accurate. By the way it's being described, it sounded like the guys run the shop like a bunch of monkies sodomizing a football.

It takes about $5,000 more dollars to get up into the 260whp range on an S52 with stock internals.

bring it to a good shop with a mustang dyno then come rub it in my face if you can even come within 20 whp of what this dyno is blowing up your ass.
stop looking at the numbers literally and look at the comparison between the two cars. if it said i made 500rwhp it wouldn't matter as long as that e46 M3 dyno'd at the same place. dyno consistency is key.

i just found a baseline dyno of an e46 M3 on a mustang dyno...just for you (quoted from this thread (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=411961)):

For those of you who don't make it over to M3forum.com:

A local shop, Absolute Automotive in Durham, NC, hosted a Katrina Relief Dyno Day. A $100 check made out to the Red Cross got me a few pulls on the shop's new Mustang Dyno.

My car is a 2002 6 speed, build date 10/01.

The only mod that could effect the numbers would be my Rogue Engineering Rasp Pipe.

Procedure we used to get past 6.5K RPMs for a complete run: http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showpost.php?p=902347&postcount=1

Thanks jrottym3 :)

The numbers:

RWHP -- 271.3 @ 7250 RPM
Torque -- 226.4 @ 5250 RPM

This was a 4th gear pull. I am very pleased with the results.

http://www.ssl.physics.ncsu.edu/matt/dyno.jpg

you can match up the numbers the e46 M3 i posted got with that graph, or just take what i posted as it is...a comparison.

[jworms]

That dyno reads way to high. Go and get some dynojet numbers.

already explained this. believe me, i'd love to go to a dyno day with similarly modded e36 M3s on a dynojet so i can see exactly how my car stacks up, but i have yet to find such an event.

[mose121]

I dyno'd just over 240 whp and torque with my mods on a jet. I'd have to think you're probably 10-15 below that without headers. A similar car with the same mods as me was about 5whp less, and my car seems to be a bit stronger motor wise than other sim. modded s50/52 cars. If you're making more power than me your engine is a freak. I will say however it was nice to see that you didn't lose any torque with the track pipe, as some on here say it definately causes a loss. Unfortunately my exhaust was all done at once so I didn't know what the results for just the track pipe would be.

[trimegatron]

jworms - IS that a wishlist of parts for your car ie. intake, fly wheel, chip or what you have on it now? If so, that's good. I have nearly identical parts except conforti chip.

[jworms]

I dyno'd just over 240 whp and torque with my mods on a jet. I'd have to think you're probably 10-15 below that without headers. A similar car with the same mods as me was about 5whp less, and my car seems to be a bit stronger motor wise than other sim. modded s50/52 cars. If you're making more power than me your engine is a freak. I will say however it was nice to see that you didn't lose any torque with the track pipe, as some on here say it definately causes a loss. Unfortunately my exhaust was all done at once so I didn't know what the results for just the track pipe would be.

you have a '95, i'd be very surprised if you made the same amount of torque as i do. unless maybe you have an s52 swap? as far as hp, i dunno. do you have a dyno graph posted somewhere?

[jworms]

jworms - IS that a wishlist of parts for your car ie. intake, fly wheel, chip or what you have on it now? If so, that's good. I have nearly identical parts except conforti chip.

the mods i listed in the first post are what i have. you can also see my mods in my signature. i only listed the power mods in the first post.

[sausrigging]

Just basing things on your stock power makes me question the readings..

[jworms]

Just basing things on your stock power makes me question the readings..

my stock baseline was done on a dynojet. the dyno graph i posted in this thread is on a dynapack which generally reads 10-15 higher than a dynojet.

EDIT: for comparison here's BaLLZacK's stock dyno on the same dyno (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5533524&postcount=6):
http://album4.snapandshare.com/944/4481/457882.jpg

[mitchelrl]

it wouldn't read 10-15 horsepower on everything. it's more than like 10-15% higher.

[xjeeper]

holy shit people enough with the numbers game.


I'm curious as to how and why the car is running so much better without the HFM plugged in. What is the ecu using to calculate air mass and volume?

[kobe 8]

Guys, I don't think jworms is braggin on hp's...he's just showing some comparison #'s from his previous dyno's...

jworms: go to the DRS dyno day this Sunday man :)

[jworms]

it wouldn't read 10-15 horsepower on everything. it's more than like 10-15% higher.

so by your calculation a relatively stock e46 M3 will only dyno 251-266rwhp?

it's really not worth nitpicking at the numbers. honestly, i am a little surprised at the responses. i was expecting more discussion about the comparison between my car and the relatively stock e46 M3, or the fact that i'm running without a MAF...not how my numbers compare to other's at different dynos, under different conditions, etc.

[jworms]

holy shit people enough with the numbers game.


I'm curious as to how and why the car is running so much better without the HFM plugged in. What is the ecu using to calculate air mass and volume?
blame AA :dunno i really have no idea. funny thing is that i called AA after running around without the MAF for a while and one guy told me that e36 M3s sometimes run better without a MAF. i was expecting my car to go into limp home mode after i unplugged it, but then it started running really smooth...smoother than when it was plugged in. so i decided to slowly start creeping up the RPMs...eventually leading me to do full redline runs without the MAf plugged in. my car has never run so good than it has without the MAF plugged in.

but please, a warning to all, if you try unplugging your MAF, be VERY careful. in fact i am going to tell you right now to not do it, or don't blame me if you blow your engine trying to.


Guys, I don't think jworms is braggin on hp's...he's just showing some comparison #'s from his previous dyno's...

jworms: go to the DRS dyno day this Sunday man :)

i wanted to but i didn't notice any cars that had similar mods as i do. i think i posted that in the thread for that dyno day.

[mose121]

you have a '95, i'd be very surprised if you made the same amount of torque as i do. unless maybe you have an s52 swap? as far as hp, i dunno. do you have a dyno graph posted somewhere?

bah, the torque difference is mostly from exhaust restriction which I've done away with. There's really no difference in power b/t an s50 and a s52 on a engine dyno. Not to mention most modded obd1 cars make slightly more power than modded obd2's if they are tuned properly.

[BaLLZacK]

bah, the torque difference is mostly from exhaust restriction which I've done away with. There's really no difference in power b/t an s50 and a s52 on a engine dyno. Not to mention most modded obd1 cars make slightly more power than modded obd2's if they are tuned properly.

I've never seen Modded S50 break 260whp on dynojet or mustang dyno.. S52 I have...

[mose121]

I've never seen Modded S50 break 260whp on dynojet or mustang dyno.. S52 I have...

With cams I'd be at/over 260. I have definately seen over 260 on both s50 and s52 cars.

[fsmtnbiker]

There's really no difference in power b/t an s50 and a s52 on a engine dyno. Not to mention most modded obd1 cars make slightly more power than modded obd2's if they are tuned properly.

I have a really hard time believing that. Extra displacement = extra power. I've seen it here, as well as with any other car out there. There's a reason there's no replacement for displacement.

To the OP - very impressive numbers WRT the E46M. As for needing to have the MAF unplugged - I would suggest that either your MAF is bad, or the tune is junk... Based on what I've read lately, I'd tend to believe the latter.

[sausrigging]

bah, the torque difference is mostly from exhaust restriction which I've done away with. There's really no difference in power b/t an s50 and a s52 on a engine dyno. Not to mention most modded obd1 cars make slightly more power than modded obd2's if they are tuned properly.

:confused, I dont think so, maybe you should tell chuck stickley that he doesnt have to bother with the s52's he can just build race s50's..

[sausrigging]

I have a really hard time believing that. Extra displacement = extra power. I've seen it here, as well as with any other car out there. There's a reason there's no replacement for displacement.

To the OP - very impressive numbers WRT the E46M. As for needing to have the MAF unplugged - I would suggest that either your MAF is bad, or the tune is junk... Based on what I've read lately, I'd tend to believe the latter.

AA has had some issues with there tunes lately..

[ParadigmGuy]

:lol

[prior]

does the fact that the dyno was set up for 4wd vehicles make the correction factor higher? i wish someone who was more familiar with operating dynos was here.

[mose121]

:confused, I dont think so, maybe you should tell chuck stickley that he doesnt have to bother with the s52's he can just build race s50's..

I guarentee Chuck uses the s52 for other reasons, mainly that they are more abundant and easier to find than the s50. The s52 also has stronger retainers and different flow characteristics in the head. We only got the s50 for one year, the s52 came over for 4 years. That's quite a large difference in the amount of available blocks here in the states. We're not talking about fully built race motors anyways. An extra 0.2 ltrs does almost nothing for power when we're talking about stock internals/heads. The difference is negligable unless your building a monster. Even then, we're talking a few hp tops. The 3.2 probably has an extra 5-10 ft/lbs of torque tops on an engine dyno if that.

[jworms]

I have a really hard time believing that. Extra displacement = extra power. I've seen it here, as well as with any other car out there. There's a reason there's no replacement for displacement.

To the OP - very impressive numbers WRT the E46M. As for needing to have the MAF unplugged - I would suggest that either your MAF is bad, or the tune is junk... Based on what I've read lately, I'd tend to believe the latter.
Thanks! :thumbup: and yeah...i'm beginning to think AA might not be the best place to get software unless you take your car to them.



I guarentee Chuck uses the s52 for other reasons, mainly that they are more abundant and easier to find than the s50. The s52 also has stronger retainers and different flow characteristics in the head. We only got the s50 for one year, the s52 came over for 4 years. That's quite a large difference in the amount of available blocks here in the states. We're not talking about fully built race motors anyways. An extra 0.2 ltrs does almost nothing for power when we're talking about stock internals/heads. The difference is negligable unless your building a monster. Even then, we're talking a few hp tops. The 3.2 probably has an extra 5-10 ft/lbs of torque tops on an engine dyno if that.
i have yet to see an s50 make the same amount of (or more) power than a similarly modded s52. the .2 liters of displacement does in fact create a gap, just like my friend's 350Z makes a ton more torque almost everywhere than i do and he only has .3 more liters of displacement.

[QuestMCoupe]

So compared to before you did the software, can you really tell the difference in performance? Also, is AA going to fix the tune?

[jworms]

So compared to before you did the software, can you really tell the difference in performance? Also, is AA going to fix the tune?

after i first got the software i didn't really feel much of a difference. quite honestly i didn't expect much from software. i just wanted the higher redline and to have the max speed uncapped. any power that i gained from it was almost a bonus.

but...yes, i definitely felt the performance after driving around without the MAF plugged in. the car just drove smoother and didn't misfire. a guy who usually beats me when we run against each other didn't after i unplugged the MAF.

[sausrigging]

I guarentee Chuck uses the s52 for other reasons, mainly that they are more abundant and easier to find than the s50. The s52 also has stronger retainers and different flow characteristics in the head. We only got the s50 for one year, the s52 came over for 4 years. That's quite a large difference in the amount of available blocks here in the states. We're not talking about fully built race motors anyways. An extra 0.2 ltrs does almost nothing for power when we're talking about stock internals/heads. The difference is negligable unless your building a monster. Even then, we're talking a few hp tops. The 3.2 probably has an extra 5-10 ft/lbs of torque tops on an engine dyno if that.
I think imperical data has shown us enough to know that the extra .2 tenths does in fact help. I know you cant compare the euro s50b30 and 32 cause of the vanos, but you can compare the the 2.5 to 2.8 to the 3.0 to the 3.2..I mean really..
S38b36 to s38b38..

[mose121]

i have yet to see an s50 make the same amount of (or more) power than a similarly modded s52. the .2 liters of displacement does in fact create a gap, just like my friend's 350Z makes a ton more torque almost everywhere than i do and he only has .3 more liters of displacement.

We can argue back and forth forever on this, but 200cc's is nothing. BMW increased the literage to offset power loses from the new emissions standards so that hp#'s wouldn't drop below the 95 models. BTW I'm in no way trying to talk down on you or your car in any way. You have a sweet ride and I'm respectful of all e36 M3's regardless of what engine is in it.

There are pros and cons for both motors, but the way I see it the pros of the s50 outweight the s52 pros. If I forget something, please let me know.

The s50 rips up top and revs much more freely than the s52, not to mention the weight savings in the rotating assembly in the s50 (not much but still lighter which equals better top end performance and increased accelleration, easier heal to toe, etc.). The s50 cams are more aggressive than the s52 cams. Schrick basis their s52 performance cams on the s50 cams for a reason. The s52 pulls harder in the low end but falls pretty flat up top compared to the s50. The s50 intake manifold flows better, hence why s52 owners switch to them all the time. s52 owners that switch to an s50 head also state the gains are very noticable over their stock heads. The s52 is hampered by OBDII emissions restrictions.

Unless I'm missing something big here the only real advantage of the s52 is the increased torque, which comes with a very noticable loss in top end power. The only reason BMW went away from the s50 was b/c of the new EPA emissions mandates that cars were required to meet on all MY96+ cars. Otherwise it's likely all e36 M3's would have come with the s50.

[ParadigmGuy]

We can argue back and forth forever on this, but 200cc's is nothing. BMW increased the literage to offset power loses from the new emissions standards so that hp#'s wouldn't drop below the 95 models. BTW I'm in no way trying to talk down on you or your car in any way. You have a sweet ride and I'm respectful of all e36 M3's regardless of what engine is in it.

There are pros and cons for both motors, but the way I see it the pros of the s50 outweight the s52 pros. If I forget something, please let me know.

The s50 rips up top and revs much more freely than the s52, not to mention the weight savings in the rotating assembly in the s50 (not much but still lighter which equals better top end performance and increased accelleration, easier heal to toe, etc.). The s50 cams are more aggressive than the s52 cams. Schrick basis their s52 performance cams on the s50 cams for a reason. The s52 pulls harder in the low end but falls pretty flat up top compared to the s50. The s50 intake manifold flows better, hence why s52 owners switch to them all the time. s52 owners that switch to an s50 head also state the gains are very noticable over their stock heads. The s52 is hampered by OBDII emissions restrictions.

Unless I'm missing something big here the only real advantage of the s52 is the increased torque, which comes with a very noticable loss in top end power. The only reason BMW went away from the s50 was b/c of the new EPA emissions mandates that cars were required to meet on all MY96+ cars. Otherwise it's likely all e36 M3's would have come with the s50.
The S50 has zero advantages over the S52, especially once you remove the emissions equipment or start to modify them.

[Brent_Vino]

what i find troubling is that your Shift Point is ~6000 rpm

you have zero power increase after 6K... flatline. even with the m50 manifold and your mods... to have no power increase after 6k is confusing.

[sausrigging]

Literage..lol

[jworms]

We can argue back and forth forever on this, but 200cc's is nothing. BMW increased the literage to offset power loses from the new emissions standards so that hp#'s wouldn't drop below the 95 models. BTW I'm in no way trying to talk down on you or your car in any way. You have a sweet ride and I'm respectful of all e36 M3's regardless of what engine is in it.

There are pros and cons for both motors, but the way I see it the pros of the s50 outweight the s52 pros. If I forget something, please let me know.

The s50 rips up top and revs much more freely than the s52, not to mention the weight savings in the rotating assembly in the s50 (not much but still lighter which equals better top end performance and increased accelleration, easier heal to toe, etc.). The s50 cams are more aggressive than the s52 cams. Schrick basis their s52 performance cams on the s50 cams for a reason. The s52 pulls harder in the low end but falls pretty flat up top compared to the s50. The s50 intake manifold flows better, hence why s52 owners switch to them all the time. s52 owners that switch to an s50 head also state the gains are very noticable over their stock heads. The s52 is hampered by OBDII emissions restrictions.

Unless I'm missing something big here the only real advantage of the s52 is the increased torque, which comes with a very noticable loss in top end power. The only reason BMW went away from the s50 was b/c of the new EPA emissions mandates that cars were required to meet on all MY96+ cars. Otherwise it's likely all e36 M3's would have come with the s50.
the S/M50 intake manifold makes the s52 just as good in the high RPMs as the s50...just like an obd2 exhaust midsection helps the s50. again, i have never seen an s50 put out as much power as an s52 and .2 liters is actually a significant difference. the whole obd1 > obd2 argument is old and incorrect nowadays as obd2 tuners are finding that they can actually control a lot more with obd2 than obd1 (look up a post on here by jim conforti about a tuner tool he was making for all obd2 cars).

there are also over 23452354325 threads on this very topic. i'd rather not turn this thread into one of them.


what i find troubling is that your Shift Point is ~6000 rpm

you have zero power increase after 6K... flatline. even with the m50 manifold and your mods... to have no power increase after 6k is confusing.

yeah, i mentioned that in my original post. the idea is that the engine isn't breathing enough at higher RPMs so i'm gonna open up my intake a bit (remove my MAF altogether, instead of just unplugging it, get rid of traction control, and clean my air filter) and then open up my exhaust with headers to see if it helps. unfortunately headers aren't cheap and i'd rather invest in suspension right now, so i'm going to have to wait quite some time before i can get those.

the other thing that a friend of mine pointed out is that if you look at my A/F when my rwhp line flattens you'll notice that the A/F goes up a bit. this slight leaning in my A/F might be causing this power stoppage. i might end up getting a piggy back setup to fix this on my own.

[SpeedLi///Mit]

hey man, are any of those graphs before and after just the trackpipe? or are they all before and after the maf unplug also?

[jworms]

hey man, are any of those graphs before and after just the trackpipe? or are they all before and after the maf unplug also?

both. it's a comparison of before when i had the MAF plugged in and didn't have the track pipe and after when i had the MAF unplugged and the track pipe installed.

in my opinion it was worth it for me to get the track pipe and contrary to what others will say on this forum, i felt an increase in performance right after (with the MAF still plugged in).

[mose121]

The S50 has zero advantages over the S52, especially once you remove the emissions equipment or start to modify them.

And vice versa as well.


what i find troubling is that your Shift Point is ~6000 rpm

you have zero power increase after 6K... flatline. even with the m50 manifold and your mods... to have no power increase after 6k is confusing.

+1. Driving an s52 right after getting out of my car made me think the rev limiter was kicking in or something until I looked back down at the tach.

Everything being said, let's just respectfully end the discussion so that the OP can get back to the original thought of the thread. Nice car man, hope to meet you someday. Take care.

[m3chaser]

guys,

Jworms is running 13.9's(?) at 2000 ft above sea level(?) i do believe, so it makes sense to me that he has similar numbers compared to a stock E46 M3.

I think that jworms has a bit of monster S52 from the factory here.

[spitvenom]

Hey Id be interested in a run I am in SOCAL TOO.. what do yout say? I have almost same mods.. yes or no?

[jworms]

guys,

Jworms is running 13.9's(?) at 2000 ft above sea level(?) i do believe, so it makes sense to me that he has similar numbers compared to a stock E46 M3.

I think that jworms has a bit of monster S52 from the factory here.
it was 13.7 @ 101mph @ 1100ft elevation and a 2.2 60ft, but close enough ;). those slips/videos can be found in this thread: http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=669343



Hey Id be interested in a run I am in SOCAL TOO.. what do yout say? I have almost same mods.. yes or no?

sure, i'm down. we could try for sometime this weekend if you want. i'll PM you my cell number.

[m3chaser]

[QUOTE=jworms;8695853]it was 13.7 @ 101mph @ 1100ft elevation and a 2.2 60ft, but close enough ;). those slips/videos can be found in this thread: http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=669343




Ok I thought it was actually a 13.7 but i didn't want to be too hasty. The point is is that your M3 is abit of a freak to be able to run those times with the mods that you have. I think it is a testament to your numbers compared to the E46 M3 as well.

Oh and also that it looks like sex as well.

If you run that fella that challenged you then get a vid of it and post it!

[jworms]

Ok I thought it was actually a 13.7 but i didn't want to be too hasty. The point is is that your M3 is abit of a freak to be able to run those times with the mods that you have. I think it is a testament to your numbers compared to the E46 M3 as well.

Oh and also that it looks like sex as well.

If you run that fella that challenged you then get a vid of it and post it!

haha, thanks! :D
i'll definitely get some video of spitvenom and i whenever that may happen. there might also be some other videos that will be posted after this weekend...including me vs a 335 with software :)

i just got this interesting idea. looking at my A/F graph there is a point at around 5500rpm where it leans out a bit. at the same point my torque line suffers a small drop. it makes me wonder if i'm maxing out my stock injectors. either way i wonder what would happen to my torque/hp if i could fix my A/F to stay straight at around 13.2 instead of having it jump up to a around 13.7...hmm i think a piggyback unit might be the next step.

[HBpredhunter]

another thread yet again filled with people who know next to nothign about what they are talking about.

everyone knows what the stock for stock differences are in the s5x engine.

and everyone knows why the s52 is better platform to work off of, it will always make more power in the end result of modification.

i mean, take a s52, do nothign but the m50 intake swap and see how much more power it makes everywhere than the s50. "oh but looses torque!" still has more than the s50! no replacement for displacement.
i mean why are we really having this discussion yet again?

the s50 has advantages in pretty much everyway in STOCK form. once you break that boundry of factory tune on s52, its clearly better.

[G///ME]

it is an interesting discussion because nothing has been concretely laid out mod for mod in regards to the s50 and the S52. it's sad but there will always be a gray area between the two engines unless some rich person does everything from all the tuners across the two engines and makes it clear which works best.

the beauty of these cars and any other "tuner car" is that you can tune them to your specific needs/wants be it a lsd, intake, supercharger or what have you and the technology is growing. if there was a one-stop power-mod shop for these cars, there wouldn't be a need for a forum like this or anywhere.

budget considered: the s50 is cheaper to pull power from and cheaper to purchase. less than $2400 will get you the Stage III TMS package netting you approx 297hp at the crank. make it an even $3k and you can have an exhaust bringing you over the 300hp mark. add some pulleys, and you are well in euro-territory. most top-dollar mods will take the S52 and transplant it into the '95 but keep the OBD-I, making the car the best possible slate to start from. when adding boost, these engines will make the same if not more hp because of OBD-I

http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=E36M3HFMCAMKIT
http://www.europeancarweb.com/projectcars/0201ec_bmw_m3_cams_headers_pulleys/index.html
-the guy kinda makes a dumb comment about the M50 manifold addition to his S52 would lead to him making an OBD-II car an OBD-I car, which isn't true...but read on.

power considered: the s52 is a bigger engine and has more potential for power because of the size, but the cost to mod because of the OBD-II isn't effective (when doing n/a). yes, there are more of these out there but too damn expensive to mod in OBD-II regalia.

EDIT: for anyone reading this, i have arranged packages between TMS, AA and BimmerWorld for the S50, the S52 and the OBD-I S52 for the transplanted car. The BW package is impressive, and the one from AA scrapes some parts together for an astounding ~$4200...but hp could be well north of 320hp+. of course this is n/a applications, and if you break 4k, why not get a s/c from AA for $4400 with close to 360hp. with that aside, i will write this up eventually (if it has not already been done) so those considering modding an m3 s50 or s52 on a n/a basis have something to work with in regard to money and hp.

[cky751]

s50 = weak

s52 + obd1 = :D

[Xiphos]

s50 = weak

s52 + obd1 = :D

You dug up an almost 1 year old thread for that comment?

You fail hard.:nono

[Hova]

You dug up an almost 1 year old thread for that comment?

You fail hard.:nono

and to make it even crazier.. he has a S50 in his car :eyecrazy

[jworms]

You dug up an almost 1 year old thread for that comment?

You fail hard.:nono

and to make it even crazier.. he has a S50 in his car :eyecrazy

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u231/cheezeguy/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg

[Hova]

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u231/cheezeguy/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg


:ROFL



get ur god damn tires already, and get ur ass to a 1/4 track. I dont get why you haven't yet.

[95s52]

:ROFL



get ur god damn tires already, and get ur ass to a 1/4 track. I dont get why you haven't yet.

its more fun to speculate.. plus in majority, the trip to the track is disappointing for many.

[Hova]

its more fun to speculate.. plus in majority, the trip to the track is disappointing for many.

nah, Jworms is a decent driver. Though im sure when it comes down to it, he will def. disappoint :rofl

[jworms]

:ROFL



get ur god damn tires already, and get ur ass to a 1/4 track. I dont get why you haven't yet.
yeah i'm working on it. i haven't for a number of reasons, mostly time/money related. i plan on having the car for a while so it's bound to happen eventually.



its more fun to speculate.. plus in majority, the trip to the track is disappointing for many.

nah, Jworms is a decent driver. Though im sure when it comes down to it, he will def. disappoint :rofl
yeah. i don't plan on disappointing. i've been to the track many times and probably have over 100 runs in my M3 alone. i'm pretty damn confident i'll hit my mark. it may not be the first time i go out, but it will happen eventually ;)

[Modena NYC]

I have never lost to an S50. Never. My S52 is completely stock.

[Casebrius]

You still running around with MAF unplugged? I'm considering trying it. I have a AA "experimental" chip.

[sho24vdohc]

I have never lost to an S50. Never. My S52 is completely stock.

lol thats funny.....ive never lost to a stock s52 even when i was stock

[Hova]

lol thats funny.....ive never lost to a stock s52 even when i was stock


a s50 just pulls harder up top, just a fact, not much, but with stock engine, comparing the two, the s50 does not fall on its face after 6k.

that being said, a 95 and a 96 m3 fully stock brand new, the 96 "should" be SLIGHTLY ahead from a start to 100mph.


after a S52 gets a M50 manifold the rules change TOTALLY.

[shaeff]

I have never lost to an S50. Never. My S52 is completely stock.

Did they know you were racing? LOL. No, I'm not an s50 fanboy, either. I'm just saying, a few bolt ons, and an s50 will take out a stock s52.

As stated, a bolt-on s52 will take out a modded s50.

Personally, I hate these comparison threads, as there are always far to many variables. s52+ s/m50 intake = win. I think that's the general consensus on the board, correct? :)

[95s52]

Personally, I hate these comparison threads, as there are always far to many variables. s52+ s/m50 intake = win. I think that's the general consensus on the board, correct? :)

si senior :D

[jworms]

You still running around with MAF unplugged? I'm considering trying it. I have a AA "experimental" chip.
yep. still running without it plugged in. still runs fine except for some occasional idling issues. with that said, i wouldn't suggest doing it on your car unless there is a reason to.


Did they know you were racing? LOL. No, I'm not an s50 fanboy, either. I'm just saying, a few bolt ons, and an s50 will take out a stock s52.

As stated, a bolt-on s52 will take out a modded s50.

Personally, I hate these comparison threads, as there are always far to many variables. s52+ s/m50 intake = win. I think that's the general consensus on the board, correct? :)
meh. this thread didn't start as an S50 vs S52 discussion. definitely not my intention when i made it.

[gsxrpeter]

what color is yours

[pbonsalb]

yep. still running without it plugged in. still runs fine except for some occasional idling issues.



Do you have a WB02? What readings do you get with the HFM disconnected?

I ran with my HFM disconnected a couple of years ago while troubleshooting and found my highway cruise AFR were around 10.5. When I put my foot down and got into the "tune," the AFR would improve to around 11.5 to 12. At idle, it was also rich and would eventually foul the plugs. This was in a supercharged application with Porsche HFM scaled for 42 lb injectors. But it ran pretty well -- I took it on a 1000 mile trip.

[jworms]

what color is yours
eh? estoril blue? i'm not sure i understand. maybe this question wasn't for me :dunno


Do you have a WB02? What readings do you get with the HFM disconnected?

I ran with my HFM disconnected a couple of years ago while troubleshooting and found my highway cruise AFR were around 10.5. When I put my foot down and got into the "tune," the AFR would improve to around 11.5 to 12. At idle, it was also rich and would eventually foul the plugs. This was in a supercharged application with Porsche HFM scaled for 42 lb injectors. But it ran pretty well -- I took it on a 1000 mile trip.

i'm not sure what my A/F ratios are other than under WOT conditions. here's another thread with more A/F data on the dyno: http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=801802

the A/F ratio looks pretty decent to me other than the constant searching which is to be expected with having the MAF unplugged. though, i'm sure i would gain power if i had a proper tune that used the MAF.

[GG///M3]

when is the next time you will hit up a dyno again?

[jworms]

when is the next time you will hit up a dyno again?
probably not for a while. i don't plan on adding any power mods to my car anytime soon. i might be convinced to go if the right dyno day comes up. i'd like to see what cars similarly modded to mine pull so i can see where i stand.