My Dynojet Results - modded e36 M3

[CMT]

No problem man.

the track pipe just enabled you to use more of that 'untapped' horsepower you had under the hood. you can have the most built up engine in the world but if you have a restrictive exhaust system behind it you won't make power. this just shows that.

Agreed, to a point. It can come down to how you desire the power applied. I can choose an aggressive header system, and shoot for max dyno numbers, and have my power curve moved to the right on my dyno and lose the low-end blast that I enjoy so much. I will gain a new build to redline, but the power will come on later than I am used to and I don't want to mess with anything. Tuning was also the limiter in my situation, as the pipe I was running was so incompatible for how the car had been tuned that it was holding me back substantially....had I been running the version of the off-the-shelf tuning that was made for a more restrictive pipe, I would have been better off, but ultimately that OEM catless pipe was killing me.

In the end, Bavarian Performance Group, the shop that installed the engine and configured the car, knew what they were doing. They knew what I wanted before I did, and built the car for street duty since it is really all it sees. When I am at the track, I am happiest standing behind a camera.

have you run the 1/4 mile yet? what are you trapping?

I have not. There is no track close to me, and it has never been a priority. I used to live about 40 minutes from Epping, NH, and if I still did I would definitely have run it by now, but my current life priorities haven't allowed me the time to even discover where the closest track is, let alone make the run down to it. Someday I will - maybe when things turn cooler again up here before the Winter onslaught. It would be embarrassing to finally get down there and run stock times.

And if I did, I would report it. In the interests of science. And because I am one of the most humble guys you're going to meet on these forums.

[badluckM3]

Yes. I have been very, very careful about my header selection because I am currently very satisfied with the way my car moves. I think that the right header choice, something I have not figured out yet, coupled with the correct tuning, might yield an amazing gain up top with little loss in the lower TQ band, but the crucial part of the equation is tuning. I missed Nick G's recent visit to ICS a month or so ago, and will wait for the next such opportunity. Until then I am more than happy with the car as is.

On my car with the headers and free-flowing midpipe, the thing absolutely screams up top. And yes, you do compromise 2-4 tq down low, but I feel it is completely negligible, especially once you reach 3500 rpm. Now for me, the conglomeration of mods feed off each other. Would headers on a stock midpipe be smart??? No, not really. But its how they work together. With a full 3.5" intake/HFM setup and a true free flowing dual exhaust w/headers, I think it makes wonders.

Now tuning wise, you bring up the point that off-the-shelf chips are programmed for the restrictive stock exhaust. I have a Conforti chip for 24#, 3.5" HFM, and LTW flywheel. Would a different tune that takes into account a more free flowing exhaust really yield that much more of a benefit as opposed to a run of the mill chip? I'm not tuner, and don't understand the complexities of it, but currently the chip takes into account more gas and air coming into the engine. How would it be programmed to say, "now exhale easier" too?

[jworms]

No problem man.



Agreed, to a point. It can come down to how you desire the power applied. I can choose an aggressive header system, and shoot for max dyno numbers, and have my power curve moved to the right on my dyno and lose the low-end blast that I enjoy so much. I will gain a new build to redline, but the power will come on later than I am used to and I don't want to mess with anything. Tuning was also the limiter in my situation, as the pipe I was running was so incompatible for how the car had been tuned that it was holding me back substantially....had I been running the version of the off-the-shelf tuning that was made for a more restrictive pipe, I would have been better off, but ultimately that OEM catless pipe was killing me.

In the end, Bavarian Performance Group, the shop that installed the engine and configured the car, knew what they were doing. They knew what I wanted before I did, and built the car for street duty since it is really all it sees. When I am at the track, I am happiest standing behind a camera.

i completely agree. believe me i know all about bad tunes (that's the reason i have my MAF unplugged, the alternative is just that bad).

I have not. There is no track close to me, and it has never been a priority. I used to live about 40 minutes from Epping, NH, and if I still did I would definitely have run it by now, but my current life priorities haven't allowed me the time to even discover where the closest track is, let alone make the run down to it. Someday I will - maybe when things turn cooler again up here before the Winter onslaught. It would be embarrassing to finally get down there and run stock times.

And if I did, I would report it. In the interests of science. And because I am one of the most humble guys you're going to meet on these forums.

you should go. i'm very curious what you'd run. you'll probably end up with the highest trap speed ever recorded for an NA e36 M3.

[CMT]

And yes, you do compromise 2-4 tq down low

Perhaps. I cannot really comment. Maybe someday when I finally opt for headers I will kick myself for not doing it sooner. For now I can only take the advice of those who know more than I about the S52, and how headers will affect my specific race engine running my cams. I have seen the dyno numbers of setups similar to mine, running my cams, without custom tuning and the small gain does not even come close to justifying the price for me. When I can couple the headers with a proper custom tune, then I will take the plunge, but until then, they are not for me.

Now tuning wise, you bring up the point that off-the-shelf chips are programmed for the restrictive stock exhaust.

Well...some are, and some aren't. There is an off-the-shelf option for different configurations and different levels of modifications, and in my case I was running a very restrictive pipe for the tune I had. That's all.

I have a Conforti chip for 24#, 3.5" HFM, and LTW flywheel. Would a different tune that takes into account a more free flowing exhaust really yield that much more of a benefit as opposed to a run of the mill chip? I'm not tuner, and don't understand the complexities of it, but currently the chip takes into account more gas and air coming into the engine. How would it be programmed to say, "now exhale easier" too?

It would be programmed by a guy with a laptop, running your car on the dyno, actively tuning the car as it ran. That is the kind of tuning I am referencing, not the swapping of tunes that were made on another car, and then packaged as the default tunes for whatever setup you are running. This is a tune specifically for your car, to get the most out of it while still being safe, and it is the only way to maximize your engine's potential.

[CMT]

you should go. i'm very curious what you'd run. you'll probably end up with the highest trap speed ever recorded for an NA e36 M3.

Let's not get crazy now!

[Matutino]

you should go. i'm very curious what you'd run. you'll probably end up with the highest trap speed ever recorded for an NA e36 M3.

The way his car is set up, I would say he will get great 1/4 miles times but his trap speed is not gonna be that high.

[jworms]

The way his car is set up, I would say he will get great 1/4 miles times but his trap speed is not gonna be that high.

the highest trap i've seen for an NA US spec e36 M3 is 104mph (bsaint i believe - granted i've never seen the timeslip). even though his car isn't setup to maximize hp, that shouldn't be too hard for CMT to break considering what we've seen from his car.

[Matutino]

the highest trap i've seen for an NA US spec e36 M3 is 104mph (bsaint i believe - granted i've never seen the timeslip). even though his car isn't setup to maximize hp, that shouldn't be too hard for CMT to break considering what we've seen from his car.

All his mods are for low end not top end. that been said he will kill you of the line but once at high speeds his car wont pull as hard, just look at his rear end. Dont get me wrong his car is a beast!

[DJ OutOfSight]

nothing aganist bsaint but he was on slicks. thats the biggest diffence. slicks v.s street tires!!

and for a guy who makes videos i have yet to see that one on tape.

[BMW///M325i]

There website http://www.ssautochrome.com/level.itml/icOid/1432

Have you dyno'd your car with them on it yet?

whats the difference between the two headers??? there the same but different prices?????

[Stuntman]

nothing aganist bsaint but he was on slicks. thats the biggest diffence. slicks v.s street tires!!

and for a guy who makes videos i have yet to see that one on tape.

Slicks shouldn't affect trap speeds as trap speeds are more a function of power than the launch/tires used.

[Rennmeister M3]

Slicks shouldn't affect trap speeds as trap speeds are more a function of power than the launch/tires used.

They do because of the height of the slick. Usually they will slow the car a MPH or two.

[Stuntman]

They do because of the height of the slick. Usually they will slow the car a MPH or two.

...and that's because a larger diamater tire (and subsequent rotating mass) = less power to the wheels. Power (for the most part) = trap speed

[gsxrpeter]

The thing that your forgetting is that stock numbers on are cars are taking from the fly wheel. So when bmw rates us at 240hp it really is like 210 at the wheels. This being the case, with your car being on a dyno reading wheel hp and your car showing those kind of numbers, your car really does have some power. Cheer up the thing looks great

[GG///M3]

jworms did you redyno yet? Btw my m3 put out 213whp stock.

[Rennmeister M3]

...and that's because a larger diamater tire (and subsequent rotating mass) = less power to the wheels. Power (for the most part) = trap speed

Slicks weigh generally less than what you'd normally drive on. The overall diameter of the slick is dependent upon it's pressure.

I've seen it go both ways. The trend for our approx. speed is about 1 - 2 MPH slower on slicks.

You are putting too much into rotational mass. If it was worth 1 - 2 MPH in the 1/4 then going to a 15" with a 185/50/15 and pulling the rotors off the rear would give you 110+ traps, lol.

[jworms]

jworms did you redyno yet? Btw my m3 put out 213whp stock.

no reason for me to re-dyno. i haven't changed anything other than my wheels, which i guess on a dynojet would probably get me some additional hp

how much torque did you make stock? from what i can tell you made 229rwhp/212rwtq with AA software, 3.5" MAF, 21.5# injectors, and intake which is similar to my current mod list. gotta love the torque in the s52

do you have any dyno numbers from the same dyno pre-FI and when you had the cams in?

[GG///M3]

no reason for me to re-dyno. i haven't changed anything other than my wheels, which i guess on a dynojet would probably get me some additional hp

how much torque did you make stock? from what i can tell you made 229rwhp/212rwtq with AA software, 3.5" MAF, 21.5# injectors, and intake which is similar to my current mod list. gotta love the torque in the s52

do you have any dyno numbers from the same dyno pre-FI and when you had the cams in?

When it was stock it made 200wtq. When it dynoed 229whp, and 213wtq it was over 100 degrees and 90% humid. The correction factor was off and i had a torn tb boot. It really made about 237whp, and about 218wtq(if you figure in the correction factor). Yea the s52 does make nice tq, but it sure doesn't rev like an s50 in the higher rpm range even with a the s50 manifold....

[jworms]

When it was stock it made 200wtq. When it dynoed 229whp, and 213wtq it was over 100 degrees and 90% humid. The correction factor was off and i had a torn tb boot. It really made about 237whp, and about 218wtq(if you figure in the correction factor). Yea the s52 does make nice tq, but it sure doesn't rev like an s50 in the higher rpm range even with a the s50 manifold....

ok, you got me curious so i found your results...

so stock (with aa track pipe) you made 214rwhp and 199rwtq using uncorrected numbers. conditions were 100.84 degrees, 30.05 in-Hg, and 29% humidity. chart here: http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...8#post10237178

then, on the same dyno i assume because of the title on it, you dyno'd 229rwhp and 212rwtq with STD correction used (1.04 correction factor). conditions were 91.03 degrees, 29.87in-Hg, and 43% humidity. chart: http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...2#post10457732

i tried to correct your numbers using this calculator: http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm but i didn't have any luck. i kept getting stuck at the value for vapor pressure...meh. for what it's worth, i'm reading that SAE is generally a bit lower than STD because the base values are set lower for STD, so more correction is necessary. as an example, my numbers would be 248rwhp/238rwtq using STD correction factors instead of SAE. meh i dunno, maybe someone with more knowledge on the topic can help with the correction factors. though it would be cool if you could get the run files from the shop and run them through the dynojet software yourself to find the SAE correction values.

...then again, if the dyno was producing erroneous condition values then i don't know how much faith i'd put in it anyways.

[GG///M3]

ok, you got me curious so i found your results...

so stock (with aa track pipe) you made 214rwhp and 199rwtq using uncorrected numbers. conditions were 100.84 degrees, 30.05 in-Hg, and 29% humidity. chart here: http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...8#post10237178

then, on the same dyno i assume because of the title on it, you dyno'd 229rwhp and 212rwtq with STD correction used (1.04 correction factor). conditions were 91.03 degrees, 29.87in-Hg, and 43% humidity. chart: http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...2#post10457732

i tried to correct your numbers using this calculator: http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm but i didn't have any luck. i kept getting stuck at the value for vapor pressure...meh. for what it's worth, i'm reading that SAE is generally a bit lower than STD because the base values are set lower for STD, so more correction is necessary. as an example, my numbers would be 248rwhp/238rwtq using STD correction factors instead of SAE. meh i dunno, maybe someone with more knowledge on the topic can help with the correction factors. though it would be cool if you could get the run files from the shop and run them through the dynojet software yourself to find the SAE correction values.

...then again, if the dyno was producing erroneous condition values then i don't know how much faith i'd put in it anyways.

Yea I'm getting tired of going to that dyno shop. The guy makes it a big when i ask for correction factors. I need to find another dyno shop in my area. The thing the shop i go to have my car dyno'd is down the block from where i live, and i got a quote from another local dyno shop and they TOLD ME 300 bucks...........

[fast1]

To the OP
I hate to burst your bubble but I have both an M roady and an M3 and the baseline numbers you posted early on are spot on. They are really close to my baseline numbers for both my cars on a dynojet dyno.

With mods on the same dyno I have witnessed the improvements so it's safe to say that your new numbers at the wheel are not real low in fact they are pretty much in line with the rest of the country.

Except for the a/f ratio of course. lol.

[jworms]

To the OP
I hate to burst your bubble but I have both an M roady and an M3 and the baseline numbers you posted early on are spot on. They are really close to my baseline numbers for both my cars on a dynojet dyno.

With mods on the same dyno I have witnessed the improvements so it's safe to say that your new numbers at the wheel are not real low in fact they are pretty much in line with the rest of the country.

Except for the a/f ratio of course. lol.

yeah i mentioned all of that in my original post...but i also disclosed dyno charts from other cars on that exact same dynojet dyno so that you could get a feel for how this particular dynojet reads. not all dynojets are the same. so, unless you are saying you dyno'd your car on the same dynojet that i did, your results are not really comparable to my results. that was the whole point of posting other comparable charts from other cars on that particular dyno.

[m52bro]

why do u unplug the maf?

[jworms]

why do u unplug the maf?

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...d.php?t=687627