F80 M3 vs E92 M3 Dyno Numbers by Motortrend

[bogdan]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I am not an expert in combustion, but that statement does not make sense to me.

My understanding is that ethanol needs more energy to vaporize, so it has a cooling effect on the intake charge and thus yields better resistance to detonation during the combustion process.

Sorry, I tried to simply state what you said, but didn't do a good job.

[TSM330i]

Originally Posted by consolidated

So strange, 10hp apart per BMW, 70hp apart on this dyno.

Goes to show how inaccurate chassis dyno's are.

I spoke at length with a professional engine builder (Katech) about chassis dyno's. About the only thing they're good for is to test before and after for modifications to give you a basis of the change the modification gave the car.

The only true way to get HP and TQ is on an engine dyno, which entails removing the engine from the car. At the time I had a Z06 when I spoke to Katech and when I asked them about stock cars making 515 - 525hp due to chassis dyno results he laughed. He said they'd over 20 LS7 engines on a real dyno and not one of the made less than 503hp or more than 510hp. Pretty tight tolerances from a rated 505hp from the factory.

So in the end, take chassis dyno's with a grain of salt. Auto manufacturers are not "hiding" any HP in their production cars.

[EndBosS]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

Goes to show how inaccurate chassis dyno's are.

I spoke at length with a professional engine builder (Katech) about chassis dyno's. About the only thing they're good for is to test before and after for modifications to give you a basis of the change the modification gave the car.

The only true way to get HP and TQ is on an engine dyno, which entails removing the engine from the car.

That's such BS, f.e. our dyno is calibrated every 3 months.

• A car that has 136 engine PS has on my dyno between 135 PS and 140 PS. (2.0 TDI)
• A car that has 250 engine PS has on my dyno between 245 PS and 260 PS. (megane 3 RS)
• A car that has 340 engine PS has on my dyno between 330 PS and 345 PS. (M135i)
• etc
• ...

trust me, it's accurate, ofcourse an engine builder is going to say his way is the best.
let me tell you that if handled correctly, both dyno's will give good results.
There is always a % of error.


so if the M3 has 406 PS engine power instead of 420 PS, it only means it really has lower power!
Did it stop me from buying the E93 M3? No, but it did have a little bit less

[Leonardo629]

Originally Posted by Buddy Revell

Which American muscle cars are you talking about where the TQ curve doesn't trail off at high rpms?

I guess this one

[TSM330i]

Originally Posted by EndBosS

That's such BS, f.e. our dyno is calibrated every 3 months.

• A car that has 136 engine PS has on my dyno between 135 PS and 140 PS. (2.0 TDI)
• A car that has 250 engine PS has on my dyno between 245 PS and 260 PS. (megane 3 RS)
• A car that has 340 engine PS has on my dyno between 330 PS and 345 PS. (M135i)
• etc
• ...

trust me, it's accurate, ofcourse an engine builder is going to say his way is the best.
let me tell you that if handled correctly, both dyno's will give good results.
There is always a % of error.


so if the M3 has 406 PS engine power instead of 420 PS, it only means it really has lower power!
Did it stop me from buying the E93 M3? No, but it did have a little bit less

Katech is not a fly-bye-night operation. They build the engines for the factory Corvette racing program. Believe me, these guys are legit.
There are so many factors coming into play with chassis dyno's. I have no doubt that your dyno is properly calibrated so it'll read much closer to actual. There are still errors involved and it could be why your personal car is reading low.

This is what one dyno MANUFACTURER said:
"There's no really accurate way to get engine horsepower from a chassis dyno," says Matt Harwood, marketing coordinator for Mustang Dynamometer

Banks is a huge corporation here in the US. Check out this article:
http://www.bankspower.com/magazines/...act-or-fantasy
Also read what Steve Dinan says about testing new cars:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...-lying-feature

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by EndBosS

That's such BS, f.e. our dyno is calibrated every 3 months.

• A car that has 136 engine PS has on my dyno between 135 PS and 140 PS. (2.0 TDI)
• A car that has 250 engine PS has on my dyno between 245 PS and 260 PS. (megane 3 RS)
• A car that has 340 engine PS has on my dyno between 330 PS and 345 PS. (M135i)
• etc
• ...

trust me, it's accurate, ofcourse an engine builder is going to say his way is the best.
let me tell you that if handled correctly, both dyno's will give good results.
There is always a % of error.


so if the M3 has 406 PS engine power instead of 420 PS, it only means it really has lower power!
Did it stop me from buying the E93 M3? No, but it did have a little bit less

If I read it right, the chart you provided for the E9X M3 showed 340-350whp DIN. How do you establish crank power from your roller chassis dyno results?

BTW, nice facility

[EndBosS]

i posted 6 different cars, all original measurements, so it was not only this car, all of the cars had practically the same power outputs.

1. Initially there is a loss-measurement based on theoretical parameters for each individual car. (+experience based)
2. Afterwards, the power on the wheels is measured.
3. put them together = total.

this is the short version, the long one takes about 2 hours xD

[Eddien123]

Originally Posted by kardboard

I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with you, or anyone else complaining about the e9x m3 showing low numbers.

The only thing we can take from this is the difference in power the two motors make. Obviously the F8x makes a lot more power than the E9x. The car is underrated just like all bmw turbo motors.

People should be excited that the new M3 makes a lot more power than the E9x, I don't get all the salt in these threads.



I wonder how long until we stat criticizing the next M3?b

My only gripe is the turbos. I know it needs to happen but I just love high string NA motors and that's why I'll miss the E92

[Buddy Revell]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

Goes to show how inaccurate chassis dyno's are.

I spoke at length with a professional engine builder (Katech) about chassis dyno's. About the only thing they're good for is to test before and after for modifications to give you a basis of the change the modification gave the car.

The only true way to get HP and TQ is on an engine dyno, which entails removing the engine from the car. At the time I had a Z06 when I spoke to Katech and when I asked them about stock cars making 515 - 525hp due to chassis dyno results he laughed. He said they'd over 20 LS7 engines on a real dyno and not one of the made less than 503hp or more than 510hp. Pretty tight tolerances from a rated 505hp from the factory.

So in the end, take chassis dyno's with a grain of salt. Auto manufacturers are not "hiding" any HP in their production cars.

Yeah, it's known that chassis dynos can be quite inaccurate when comparing them to factory ratings. However, since chassis dynos are fairly accurate for showing the before-and-after-modification gains on the same car (with the same dyno machine) why wouldn't they be fairly accurate at comparing the chassis dyno numbers of two cars on the same machine on the same day?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

Katech is not a fly-bye-night operation. They build the engines for the factory Corvette racing program. Believe me, these guys are legit.
There are so many factors coming into play with chassis dyno's. I have no doubt that your dyno is properly calibrated so it'll read much closer to actual. There are still errors involved and it could be why your personal car is reading low.

This is what one dyno MANUFACTURER said:
"There's no really accurate way to get engine horsepower from a chassis dyno," says Matt Harwood, marketing coordinator for Mustang Dynamometer

Banks is a huge corporation here in the US. Check out this article:
http://www.bankspower.com/magazines/...act-or-fantasy
Also read what Steve Dinan says about testing new cars:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...-lying-feature

Good articles, thanks for sharing

[MKE_M3]

[solstice]

Fact:

- On the same facility and the same day and the same dyno one S55 produced 70 more peak whp than one S65.

Everything else here is either noise or questionable data to me.

[pkimM3r]

impressive but im over dynoing anything just for show.

(but i think i need a supercharger now just so i can keep up!)

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by solstice

Fact:

- On the same facility and the same day and the same dyno one S55 produced 70 more peak whp than one S65.

Everything else here is either noise or questionable data to me.

The S65's results seemed a bit low. Either there was some inaccuracy in the testing or something was up with the E9X M3.

I've seen other E9X M3 dyno tests with somewhat higher results:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=768346

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by EndBosS

Initially there is a loss-measurement based on theoretical parameters for each individual car. (+experience based)

This is the weak point in the process...

[JoeFromPA]

Originally Posted by solstice

Fact:

- On the same facility and the same day and the same dyno one S55 produced 70 more peak whp than one S65.

Everything else here is either noise or questionable data to me.

Yes, exactly, or put another way: The S55 showed a +20% higher peak whp than a S65 when dyno'd on the same dyno and same day.

If a chassis dyno is good for doing before and after modification testing and tuning, then no matter if the dyno is a low or high reading dyno - as long as it's consistent - then these numbers should be solid.

Now, that being said, a number of dynos have come out now showing the S55 making a solid ~+15% more whp than S65's taken on that same dyno (on other days).....so I don't know what this is so shocking a measurement.

We can argue exact numbers all day long but whatever the dyno we see the S55 putting out alot more power to the wheels than the S55. Far more than the differences in official BMW rating would suggest.

[hwelvaar]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

The S65's results seemed a bit low. Either there was some inaccuracy in the testing or something was up with the E9X M3.

I've seen other E9X M3 dyno tests with somewhat higher results:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=768346

Dyno numbers don't mean sh*t.
The only thing you can learn from dyno testing is the difference (procentual) between two cars, or between different setups on the same car, and only if they are measured on the same dyno under the same conditions. (temp, humidity, barometric pressure)

[flinchy]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

Goes to show how inaccurate chassis dyno's are.

I spoke at length with a professional engine builder (Katech) about chassis dyno's. About the only thing they're good for is to test before and after for modifications to give you a basis of the change the modification gave the car.

The only true way to get HP and TQ is on an engine dyno, which entails removing the engine from the car. At the time I had a Z06 when I spoke to Katech and when I asked them about stock cars making 515 - 525hp due to chassis dyno results he laughed. He said they'd over 20 LS7 engines on a real dyno and not one of the made less than 503hp or more than 510hp. Pretty tight tolerances from a rated 505hp from the factory.

So in the end, take chassis dyno's with a grain of salt. Auto manufacturers are not "hiding" any HP in their production cars.

... no, this is same dyno, same day, same conditions

you CANNOT account a 70whp difference (at this power level) to simply strapping them down differently.

[MCoupeInsanity]

Originally Posted by M3 n X5M

I am an E90 owner and I am not upset. This is progress!!!!

[...]

Enjoy the old, enjoy the new. The new is a lot better, and that is ok.

[MCoupeInsanity]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I am not an expert in combustion, but that statement does not make sense to me. I always understood combustion to be an exothermic reaction.

My understanding is that ethanol needs more energy to vaporize, so it has a cooling effect on the intake charge and thus yields better resistance to detonation during the combustion process.

Correct, the poster you quoted misspoke. It releases more energy when it burns.

[GBPackerfan1963]

Originally Posted by MCoupeInsanity

Correct, the poster you quoted misspoke. It releases more energy when it burns.

Exothermic baby!

[renaissance]

Originally Posted by EndBosS

Hi guys,

to give you guys some other dyno results I want you to check out a couple of cars we tuned over the years. (I co-own one of the bigger BENEFRLUX tuning companies)
I tough this was common knowledge.

I have never seen an M3 who had the power they promised xD

Thanks for your dyno results!
It is very important to those potential F8X M3 buyers and current E9X M3 owners.

A car magazine editor should treat this kind of test seriously. If you found something strange in the test results, you should have questions because lots of E9X M3 dyno results are available.

If anyone who knows Motor Trend, please tell them to re-do the dyno tests. That kind of article is really worthless because what you compare is a 5-year winner (3L-4L) of International Engine of the Year from 2008 to 2012.