Mystery Solved: Complete correlation between S55 Dyno's, Simulations, and Real World

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Here you go...

FBO Protuned N54 135i (6mt running on Euro 102 Ron gas which here in the states is 96 Octane lol). That 1 series isn't 1 hp over the 400 whp right there. What happens to the M4 with the DCT and it's 7600 rpm redline and larger turbos? lol

Thanks

Is this a representative Pro tune 135i dyno run?

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Are these runs on YouTube?

I agree with you, and here is an example that I think also must question the accuracy of the Dynojet numbers:

I looked at the Boss 302 Laguna Seca yesterday. That has very similar 1/4 mile times and trap speeds as the F8x (12,3s @ 114-117mph).

Edmunds online had that on a Dynojet and measured 416whp (Ford claims 444hp at the crank). 416whp would mean a drivetrain loss of just 7,4%...

With it's slightly lower weight and higher average power, the F8x should surely have given the Boss 302 LS a good beating if the F8x really has 420-430whp :

I don't want to get into the debate here but I find it interesting that you come up with 1/4 mile and trap for the F8X at 12.3 @ 114-117mph? That would be picking the slow outliers, no? Here are results from swamps fast list...

• BMW M4 M-DCT: 12.1 s @ 119 mph (Car and Driver)
• BMW M3 M-DCT: 12.1 s @ 117.8 mph (Motor Trend)
• BMW M4 M-DCT: 12.1 s @ 119.1 mph (Motor Trend)
• Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 7MT: 12.2 s @ 118 mph (Car and Driver)
• Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Edition 507: 12.2 s @ 117.4 mph (Motor Trend)
• Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 7MT: 12.2 s @ 117.3 mph (Motor Trend)
• BMW M4 M-DCT: 12.3 s @ 120.9 mph (Autocar)

There was also the forum member some place in the middle east who trapped 119mph with an early delivery car too.

Average looks closer to 12.1 @ 119+mph average based on these verified tests. In a debate as scientific as this, I would think getting more accurate references would be important to you and under exaggerating would be frowned upon? I think your estimate of 114-117mp is about 2-5mph too slow... but I'm sure I'm missing something

P.S. I always thought that the more technical/scientific crowd (I would include you in that group) would NEVER rely on YouTube race videos where there are way too many variables and way too little evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions. Maybe that YouTube skepticism only applies when an F8X walks away from a car and is way faster... when it is slower, the YouTube video is good evidence

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by gthal

I don't want to get into the debate here but I like how you someone come up with 1/4 mile and trap for the F8X at 12.3 @ 114-117mph? That would be picking the slow outliers, no? Here are results from swamps fast list...

• BMW M4 M-DCT: 12.1 s @ 119 mph (Car and Driver)
• BMW M3 M-DCT: 12.1 s @ 117.8 mph (Motor Trend)
• BMW M4 M-DCT: 12.1 s @ 119.1 mph (Motor Trend)
• Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 7MT: 12.2 s @ 118 mph (Car and Driver)
• Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Edition 507: 12.2 s @ 117.4 mph (Motor Trend)
• Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 7MT: 12.2 s @ 117.3 mph (Motor Trend)
• BMW M4 M-DCT: 12.3 s @ 120.9 mph (Autocar)

There was also the forum member overseas who trapped 119mph.

Average looks closer to 12.1 @ 119+mph average based on these verified tests. In a debate as scientific as this, I would think getting more accurate references would be important to you and under exaggerating would be frowned upon? I think your estimate of 114-117mp is about 2-5mph too slow... but I'm sure I'm missing something

P.S. I always thought that the more technical/scientific crowd (I would include you in that group) would NEVER rely on YouTube race videos where there are way too many variables and way too little evidence to draw any meaninful conclusions. Maybe that YouTube skepticism only applies when an F8X walks away from a car and is way faster... when it is slower, the YouTube video is good evidence

Many good points and I agree on your criticism!

My 12,3 @ 114-117mph was the Boss 302 LS numbers I found. The F8x has done trap speeds from 114-119 for the most.

The C&D test with a MT 6 got a trap speed of 114mph, which is around what the Boss 302 LS gets. Both of those are MT 6 cars, and I think those are more apples to apples than the DCT times for the F8x?


But I agree on my post perhaps not being as scientific and thorough as it probably should have been.

BTW, I thought ASAP previously argued against me? I believed that he had changed his opinion based on that video. To me that video just was further evidence to my understanding, certainly not scientific proof...

[ASAP]

Boss, the protune video above gives no detail as far as gas. The 135 in the race video is also on an equivalent US 96 oct not the typical 93. In essence, that is like mixing half a tank of race gas w pump gas so that would not be a comparison.

Also, I have said since day one... even a year or so ago that the car would make ~ 400 whp so I don't see how I argued agsinst. I thought Swamp's 365 claim was always low however.

[solstice]

All real evidence as relative and absolute Dynojet numbers, relative and absolute MAHA dyno numbers, average and top trap speed data, hp calculators and simulators show significant under rating of 30 hp or more. Evidence of no under rating are cherry picking low outliers, regulation and personal theories so I'm not surprised to see that youtube videos are added to that list as well.

[P1 Motorcars]

Originally Posted by Boss330

I was in contact with INSORIC a month ago, and they replied to me on my question if aerodynamic losses also are accounted for (Cd and area)?

This is the reply I received:
It's calculated from the temperature and air pressure, air density = humidity. CW / drag coefficient, acceleration

So, according to INSORIC they use both density/humidity and the cars aero drag to calculate aerodynamic losses. Taking away some key elements of the claims against the accuracy of the INSORIC system.

Here is a link to the Insoric manual. The manual shows every input screen in their software. Let me know if you find any of the following in there.
http://www.insoric.com/downloads/Dat...13-07-2011.pdf

• Car frontal area
• Car drag coefficient
• Humidity
• Wet bulb
• Dry bulb
• Dewpoint

As for calculating humidity. Here's two links for all kinds of formula's for calculating humidity. See if you find one in here that can calculate relative humidity from just temperature and air pressure (without wet bulb/dry bulb/dewpoint):
http://www.vaisala.com/Vaisala%20Doc...210973EN-F.pdf
http://www.gorhamschaffler.com/humidity_formulas.htm

Now, if Insoric is so accurate, it should be possible to overlay the Insoric graphs on top of both Dynojet and Maha graphs (especially Maha graphs) to see how they compare. If it's so accurate, then it should be a real good match for the Maha. Care to post a link to the Insoric test results and graphs for M4?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

All real evidence as relative and absolute Dynojet numbers, relative and absolute MAHA dyno numbers, average and top trap speed data, hp calculators and simulators show significant under rating of 30 hp or more. Evidence of no under rating are cherry picking low outliers, regulation and personal theories so I'm not surprised to see that youtube videos are added to that list as well.

A bit of cherry picking by yourself there...

The video wasn't added by someone agreeing with swamp or me either...

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Are these runs on YouTube?

I agree with you, and here is an example that I think also must question the accuracy of the Dynojet numbers:

I looked at the Boss 302 Laguna Seca yesterday. That has very similar 1/4 mile times and trap speeds as the F8x (12,3s @ 114-117mph).

Edmunds online had that on a Dynojet and measured 416whp (Ford claims 444hp at the crank). 416whp would mean a drivetrain loss of just 7,4%...

With it's slightly lower weight and higher average power, the F8x should surely have given the Boss 302 LS a good beating if the F8x really has 420-430whp :

see gthals comments below, you are off on your trap speeds

Originally Posted by ASAP

Here you go...

FBO Protuned N54 135i (6mt running on Euro 102 Ron gas which here in the states is 96 Octane lol). That 1 series isn't 1 hp over the 400 whp right there. What happens to the M4 with the DCT and it's 7600 rpm redline and larger turbos? lol

like I said in the other post, not sure how this is confusing.

both cars seem to make about 400whp on most dynos based on dyno data (EAS is a touch high, we know this based on seeing many many results on their dyno). the difference is the f8x has DCT but its also 300 lbs heavier than the 135. yet, in that video they are almost dead even. I don't see how that proves your point.

not sure what your point was with the redline difference either? and all larger turbos would do is shift the powerband. the power is what it is, regardless of turbo size. 400whp with small turbos vs large turbos doesn't mean one is faster than the other.

Originally Posted by Boss330

Many good points and I agree on your criticism!

My 12,3 @ 114-117mph was the Boss 302 LS numbers I found. The F8x has done trap speeds from 114-119 for the most.

The C&D test with a MT 6 got a trap speed of 114mph, which is around what the Boss 302 LS gets. Both of those are MT 6 cars, and I think those are more apples to apples than the DCT times for the F8x?

But I agree on my post perhaps not being as scientific and thorough as it probably should have been.

BTW, I thought ASAP previously argued against me? I believed that he had changed his opinion based on that video. To me that video just was further evidence to my understanding, certainly not scientific proof...

i do not believe the video proves anything imo as I mentioned above.

also, the CD test of the manual m3 was 116mph trap, not 114.

finally, the boss LS is very similar in weight to the m3, not heavier.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...aguna-seca.pdf

slightly heavier than the manual m3 that was tested by CD at 3580 lbs, about the same as more loaded DCT m3's.

what you will also notice from this test sheet is that the boss goes 0-100 in 9.7 seconds. the manual m3 tested does 0-100 in 9.2. so, this also does nothing to prove that the m3 is not making 400 whp. in fact, I would suggest that it proves that it does.

m3 manual test sheet

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...w-m3-sedan.pdf

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by P1 Motorcars

Here is a link to the Insoric manual. The manual shows every input screen in their software. Let me know if you find any of the following in there.
http://www.insoric.com/downloads/Dat...13-07-2011.pdf

• Car frontal area
• Car drag coefficient
• Humidity
• Wet bulb
• Dry bulb
• Dewpoint

As for calculating humidity. Here's two links for all kinds of formula's for calculating humidity. See if you find one in here that can calculate relative humidity from just temperature and air pressure (without wet bulb/dry bulb/dewpoint):
http://www.vaisala.com/Vaisala%20Doc...210973EN-F.pdf
http://www.gorhamschaffler.com/humidity_formulas.htm

Now, if Insoric is so accurate, it should be possible to overlay the Insoric graphs on top of both Dynojet and Maha graphs (especially Maha graphs) to see how they compare. If it's so accurate, then it should be a real good match for the Maha. Care to post a link to the Insoric test results and graphs for M4?

I am just referencing what INSORIC replied to me...

You can calculate Dew point AFAIK:

http://www.phymetrix.com/Software.htm

As regards tire pressure, the INSORIC relies on a actual measurement of tire diameter. Shouldnt that be more precise than just relying on statistical data on tire size?

I will scan the INSORIC graph, but I believe it's already posted in swamp's thread.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

see gthals comments below, you are off on your trap speeds

like I said in the other post, not sure how this is confusing.

both cars seem to make about 400whp on most dynos based on dyno data (EAS is a touch high, we know this based on seeing many many results on their dyno). the difference is the f8x has DCT but its also 300 lbs heavier than the 135. yet, in that video they are almost dead even. I don't see how that proves your point.

not sure what your point was with the redline difference either? and all larger turbos would do is shift the powerband. the power is what it is, regardless of turbo size. 400whp with small turbos vs large turbos doesn't mean one is faster than the other.

i do not believe the video proves anything imo as I mentioned above.

also, the CD test of the manual m3 was 116mph trap, not 114.

finally, the boss LS is very similar in weight to the m3, not heavier.

But you must not forget the superior average power of the S55 compared to all of those cars you mention...

How many of them make max power from 5500-7300rpm (or a similar 1800rpm range in the rev range)?

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Boss330

But you must not forget the superior average power of the S55 compared to all of those cars you mention...

How many of them make max power from 5500-7300rpm (or a similar 1800rpm range in the rev range)?

I think going back to my point, peak power and weight is the king almost every time. Average power, avg power at a given rpm, a modern DCT, better gearing and blah blah blah play a small role when the 2 most important things as I've mentioned before are considered.

The N54 drivers shift at 5900 rpm with tiny turbos, significant Volumetric Efficiency disadvantage, significant gearing disadvantage... albeit with a weight advantage and similar power... it works every time.

We need to see an M3 with E85 start running because as of now every single pump gas run that I have seen has been seriously disappointing. Obviously, the statements that I made above are more of a facetious response to BMW marketing more than anything.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Boss330

But you must not forget the superior average power of the S55 compared to all of those cars you mention...

How many of them make max power from 5500-7300rpm (or a similar 1800rpm range in the rev range)?

read the last part of my prior post (edited)

boss

-weighs 3641
-rated power is 444hp (dyno'd at 416whp per you)
-0-100 is 9.7s
-1/4 trap speed is 114 (despite having launch control)

m3

-weighs 3580
-rated power is 425 hp (dynos show 400-415whp)
-0-100 is 9.2s
-1/4 trap speed is 116 (imo affected by lack of initial traction and no launch control)

So yea, I would say its pretty clear to me that the half second difference in 0-100 shows that the m3 is making far more than 365 whp, and much closer to 400 whp, ESPECIALLY if you believe that the boss 302 is making 416 whp.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

read the last part of my prior post (edited)

boss

-weighs 3641
-rated power is 444hp (dyno'd at 416whp per you)
-0-100 is 9.7s
-1/4 trap speed is 114 (despite having launch control)

m3

-weighs 3580
-rated power is 425 hp (dynos show 400-415whp)
-0-100 is 9.2s
-1/4 trap speed is 116 (imo affected by lack of initial traction and no launch control)

So yea, I would say its pretty clear to me that the half second difference in 0-100 shows that the m3 is making far more than 365 whp, and much closer to 400 whp, ESPECIALLY if you believe that the boss 302 is making 416 whp.

I don't believe the Boss 302 LS makes 416whp, but rather that this once again shows dyno results being happy...

Trap speeds for the Boss ranges from 114-117 BTW

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I think going back to my point, peak power and weight is the king almost every time. Average power, avg power at a given rpm, a modern DCT, better gearing and blah blah blah play a small role when the 2 most important things as I've mentioned before are considered.

The N54 drivers shift at 5900 rpm with tiny turbos, significant Volumetric Efficiency disadvantage, significant gearing disadvantage... albeit with a weight advantage and similar power... it works every time.

We need to see an M3 with E85 start running because as of now every single pump gas run that I have seen has been seriously disappointing. Obviously, the statements that I made above are more of a facetious response to BMW marketing more than anything.

The S55 has peak power from 5500-7300rpm. Most other engines have peak power only for the last 100-200rpm of the curve.

If you have peak power from start to finish in every gear, surely that makes for better acceleration than if you only have peak power for a split second just before changing up!

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Boss330

The S55 has peak power from 5500-7300rpm. Most other engines have peak power only for the last 100-200rpm of the curve.

If you have peak power from start to finish in every gear, surely that makes for better acceleration than if you only have peak power for a split second just before changing up!

I agree, my question is why this has done nothing for the M car yet in terms of some sort of advantage?

[solstice]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I agree, my question is why this has done nothing for the M car yet in terms of some sort of advantage?

Exactly, the dynos match well with the average trap speed data so there is little sign of average power advantage. On the other hand Autocar trapped the car at 120.9 mph. An hp calculator show ~520 crank hp for a 3700 lbs ( with driver ) car that traps 120.9 mph which I think is about 40-50 hp above where the true crank hp is, so in this outlier where the launch and environment seem to have been close to perfect there is indeed sign of average power advantage unless you believe in a peak hp of 520 hp which I don't. The thing is the dynos and trap speed is so far above rated hp that there is plenty of room to fit in average power advantage and many other theories to discredit measured data and still end up with big under rating.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I agree, my question is why this has done nothing for the M car yet in terms of some sort of advantage?

IMHO because the S55 isn't underrated but performs exactly as a 425hp engine should when it has that power from 5500-7300rpm. And which is why it isn't that far off a 444hp Boss 302...

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Boss330

IMHO because the S55 isn't underrated but performs exactly as a 425hp engine should when it has that power from 5500-7300rpm. And which is why it isn't that far off a 444hp Boss 302...

Yes, it performs just as a car making 400 WHP on a DJ with that weight should. I think when owners begin to take their cars to the strips we will see averages of 117.

Originally Posted by solstice

Exactly, the dynos match well with the average trap speed data so there is little sign of average power advantage. On the other hand Autocar trapped the car at 120.9 mph. An hp calculator show ~520 crank hp for a 3700 lbs ( with driver ) car that traps 120.9 mph which I think is about 40-50 hp above where the true crank hp is, so in this outlier where the launch and environment seem to have been close to perfect there is indeed sign of average power advantage unless you believe in a peak hp of 520 hp which I don't. The thing is the dynos and trap speed is so far above rated hp that there is plenty of room to fit in average power advantage and many other theories to discredit measured data and still end up with big under rating.

Yes and I believe that was an outlier as well.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Yes, it performs just as a car making 400 WHP on a DJ with that weight should.

Yes, I also think ~400 whp and 470-480 crank hp is the likely power this car makes. It allows for 20-30 hp happy reading from the dynojet and average power advantage to explain the trap speed. It also match well with the MAHA dynos crank hp calculation. I think we will never know the true crank hp exactly. To think that we would get a sufficient sample size of dyno charts from top quality crank dynos is very unlikely. Furthermore we have almost no relative data from other engines to compare with. It will not happen so we will need to rely on commonly used metrics. All of them show large under rating and if you you choose to ignore that, well that's your choice but for the rest of us this should be pretty much a settled matter.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

Yes, I also think ~400 whp and 470-480 crank hp is the likely power this car makes. It allows for 20-30 hp happy reading from the dynojet and average power advantage to explain the trap speed. It also match well with the MAHA dynos crank hp calculation. I think we will never know the true crank hp exactly. To think that we would get a sufficient sample size of dyno charts from top quality crank dynos is very unlikely. Furthermore we have almost no relative data from other engines to compare with. It will not happen so we will need to rely on commonly used metrics. All of them show large under rating and if you you choose to ignore that, well that's your choice but for the rest of us this should be pretty much a settled matter.

Just to point out that to get those numbers you are estimating a drivetrain loss of 15-17%. Which is significantly more than what the OP estimated (10%)

You also disagree with the OP who claims that the real world numbers requires 420whp...

If we combine your 400whp and the OP's 10% drivetrain losses estimation, we end up with 445HP (at the crank)

As regards cherry picking, how can you claim that 470-480 crank hp matches very well with MAHA crank numbers? We have a dyno graph from Sport Auto that has recorded 465PS (458HP) and another that we just have been told about at 453PS (446HP). Interestingly very close to a 400whp engine with a 10% drivetrain loss...

Your 470-480hp that "match well with MAHA" results is actually 22-34Hp (or 5-7%) off what the MAHA has calculated...

The MAHA crank numbers indicates a underrating of around 5-8% at most.

(BTW, P1 Motorcars (OP of this thread) recorded 393whp on their Dynojet... That's 438HP at the crank (10% drivetrain loss), or 2,8% underrating from BMW http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1014291 )

Originally Posted by P1 Motorcars

393WHP 428WTQ at 14.5 PSI, 91 Octane

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by P1 Motorcars

Here is a link to the Insoric manual. The manual shows every input screen in their software. Let me know if you find any of the following in there.
http://www.insoric.com/downloads/Dat...13-07-2011.pdf

• Car frontal area
• Car drag coefficient
• Humidity
• Wet bulb
• Dry bulb
• Dewpoint

As for calculating humidity. Here's two links for all kinds of formula's for calculating humidity. See if you find one in here that can calculate relative humidity from just temperature and air pressure (without wet bulb/dry bulb/dewpoint):
http://www.vaisala.com/Vaisala%20Doc...210973EN-F.pdf
http://www.gorhamschaffler.com/humidity_formulas.htm

Now, if Insoric is so accurate, it should be possible to overlay the Insoric graphs on top of both Dynojet and Maha graphs (especially Maha graphs) to see how they compare. If it's so accurate, then it should be a real good match for the Maha. Care to post a link to the Insoric test results and graphs for M4?

Here is the Auto Bild Sportscars article on the M4 with INSORIC dyno:



Note that the scaling is wrong and was corrected in the next issue of Auto Bild. The 449PS / 555Nm is correct.

[ASAP]

A) I have never in my life heard of a RWD vehicle w a DCT and only 10% drivetrain losses.
B) Car dyno above is on 91 octane... which is the worst pump premium octane on the planet. In the case of an aggressively tuned car, it could make a serious difference.