08-15-2014, 04:08 AM | #46 | |
Second Lieutenant
3
Rep 228
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 04:55 AM | #47 |
Large Member
951
Rep 1,749
Posts |
He's holding his E92 tightly and whispering in its tailpipe that it's still king of the road, don't worry. All these threads are lies and it's still the HP king.
I wish the E9X folks would just turn the page already and move on. Holding on so dearly to yesteryears trying to rationalize all that money spent to build a car that everyone can buy off the floor now. They will always be great cars, no one is putting them down. You don't have to defend them so vigorously. The F8X is a beast and may possibly just be underrated. Get some therapy and cope fellas. Or argue and look sad. Whatever works!
__________________
2008 E92 M3 (Engine swap completed), 2015 F82 M4
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 06:07 AM | #48 | |
Major General
1712
Rep 5,109
Posts |
Quote:
He has repeatedly stated that the F8x throunces the E9x in all areas when it comes to performance. There is no debate on this. The F8x IS significantly faster than the E9x and swamp has repeatedly said so himself He is trying to explain WHY it's so much faster, without the engine being underrated by BMW. He's actually not saying anything more radical than that the performance of the car matches what BMW claims. It's actually quite interesting to see how many here is arguing for the conspiracy on BMW's part (in deceiving EU, US, and the rest of the worlds authorities, by knowingly stating a false HP/Tq number and misleading independent type approval institutions), than they are in believing that the performance numbers are actually achieveable within the scope of BMW factory HP/Tq numbers. As swamp also have said, if we start seeing stock F8x's trapping consistently above 120MPH, then the underrating case seems more plausible. Regardless I/we should all be open to new data and evidence one way or the other. This is still early days for the F8x generation and new information will certainly become available as time goes... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 08:20 AM | #49 | ||
Major General
10128
Rep 8,607
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2 x N54 -> 1 x N55 -> 1 x S55-> 1 x B58
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 08:22 AM | #50 | |
Major General
590
Rep 5,396
Posts |
Quote:
second of all, you said the same thing about "conspiracies" with the BMW claimed weight loss and it being impossible to not conform to TUV standards. guess what, there are no places where the m4 has come close to weighing 3300 lbs. so is that a conspiracy too? seems like these companies don't necessarily have to be 100% accurate with their claims. and again, BMW is not the only manufacturer who has FI engines that are underrated. Audi and Merc do too. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 08:34 AM | #51 |
Major General
5457
Rep 7,037
Posts |
Agree on 120 mph being an unreasonable trap speed to show under rating of a 425 hp car weighing ~3700 lbs with driver. That would require about 500 hp at the crank with common formulas. The car has already been trapped above 120 mph and dynos back up far above 425 hp, honestly at this stage it seems mostly like desperately trying to find more and more unusual formulas to prove a theory mainly based on a belief in regulatory compliance instead of looking at the combined results of measured and calculated data.
I assume people know or google to find calculators but if not here are some short cuts if you want to plugin 3700 lbs and 120 mph trap speed: http://www.prosystemsracing.com/calculate.html http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php http://www.tciauto.com/tc/racing-calculators/ http://www.xcceleration.com/et.calculator.html http://web-cars.com/math/accel2.pl And again, FI cars and power plateaus are nothing new. I would think most people designing and using these calculators are FI owners due to their superior tunability.. Last edited by solstice; 08-15-2014 at 09:15 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 09:11 AM | #52 | |
Major General
10128
Rep 8,607
Posts |
Quote:
Update - By the calculators you just provided that would require 494 flywheel hp which happens to be awfully close to 425 whp x 1.15 (DT loss). LOL
__________________
2 x N54 -> 1 x N55 -> 1 x S55-> 1 x B58
Last edited by ASAP; 08-15-2014 at 09:17 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 09:26 AM | #53 | |
Major General
1903
Rep 5,678
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2020 X3 M40i | Black | Current DD
2020 C8 Corvette | Z51 | Torch Red ... built and waiting for delivery 2016 M2 | Long Beach Blue | 6MT 2015 M4 | Austin Yellow | DCT 2012 MB C63AMG | 2011 E92 M3 | 2010 E92 M3 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 09:37 AM | #54 | ||
Major General
10128
Rep 8,607
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2 x N54 -> 1 x N55 -> 1 x S55-> 1 x B58
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 10:27 AM | #55 |
Colonel
497
Rep 2,400
Posts |
We all know where the insecurities really lie. And complete misinterpretation of comments is actually one of the less egregios transgressions (in comparison to competely making something up).
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 10:29 AM | #56 | |
Major General
590
Rep 5,396
Posts |
Quote:
its obvious you are biased towards the e9x as many here who own / will be owners of the f8x are biased towards that car (like me). there is a reason we all own the car we do. so lets not act like you are some sort of non biased observer, and everyone else is biased except you |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 10:32 AM | #57 | |
Major General
1903
Rep 5,678
Posts |
Quote:
The car traps 119-120+ and is faster than the E9X in pretty much every measurable way. Anything else is intellectual stimulation only... no insecurity needed True statement... there is no such thing as non-bias Some are less biased than others but no one is without bias... except me
__________________
2020 X3 M40i | Black | Current DD
2020 C8 Corvette | Z51 | Torch Red ... built and waiting for delivery 2016 M2 | Long Beach Blue | 6MT 2015 M4 | Austin Yellow | DCT 2012 MB C63AMG | 2011 E92 M3 | 2010 E92 M3 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 11:03 AM | #58 | ||||
Major General
1712
Rep 5,109
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No one has provided a rebuke on that, or provided facts to show that all the cars you use to compare with, also has the same/similar average power in gear during a 1/4 mile run. Why is that point completely ignored (at least a dissection of the point would bring some substance to the claims of under rating)... As have been pointed out ad nauseum, the S55 makes a average power of 425hp from 5500-7300rpm. I would like to see someone calculate the average power (in gear during a acceleration run) of those cars that are used as a comparison. And even though FI isn't anything new, the plateau power curve is NOT something a FI engine has by design! A traditional turbo engine usually peaks quite early and the falls off towards the redline. This effect is something that BMW managed to minimize in the S63 (and more recently the S55) which often has been said is more rewarding to take to the redline than the Audi RS7 engine. Look at the power curve of a car like the Focus ST 2014: http://www.fordracingpartsdirect.com...-9603a-fst.htm http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/s...d.php?t=297467 Even the N63TU only manages to have a plateau of 500rpm, and there aren't that many turbo engines around with the plateau the S63 and S55 has (maybe the RS6/7 engine has a similar plateau?). Engine builders haven't really gone for the plateau power curve as far as I know, they want max power as early as possible and doesn't really care about replicating a high rpm nature of their engines (as BMW M has had to do in order to be in line with high rpm M engines). As regards the weight, that has also been verified by TÜV. But here there are substantial allowances for leaving equipment out of the tested vehicle (although I would also say that the difference of type approval weights and real world is on the large end of the scale...). Last edited by Boss330; 08-15-2014 at 11:22 AM.. |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 11:14 AM | #59 | |
Major General
590
Rep 5,396
Posts |
Quote:
ill give you two examples. c7 vette -3350-3400 lbs -400-415 whp -trap speed 118 f8x m3 -3600 lbs -365ish whp (according to you / swamp) -trap speed 118 So, you are telling me that "average power" of an m3 with 365ish whp, compared to the c7 vette with the torque/power curve posted below (which is also relatively flat at higher RPM) which also weighs over 200 lbs less than the m3, will result in the same trap speed between the two cars? NO FREAKING WAY. Assuming the c7 drops 2000 rpm per shift its still making almost 400whp average over that interval. In fact, it doesn't look much different than the m3 curve. The m3 has to be making 400 whp for the results to make any sense. BUT, if you believe the 400whp dynos for the m3, things start to make sense. DCT gives it a small advantage which approximately neutralizes the vette weight advantage, resulting in the two cars having very similar acceleration numbers. The car is making approximately 400 whp stock. Dynos show it, real world results show it, its real. Last edited by Black Gold; 08-15-2014 at 11:23 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 11:22 AM | #60 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Guys, if you recall I have completely REVERESED my thoughts in this matter.
That is why I wanted to be extremely thorough in such a reversal. I am completely swamped at work and preparing for a week out of town. I also have two toddlers... I appreciate some patience as some significant time is needed for a thorough reply and perhaps some additional simulation work. As I pointed out prior my work is incredibly misrepresented in the OP and there are some serious short comings in the various approaches in the OP. That should be painfully obvious to anyone familiar with physics based vehicle simulation. Any absurd accusation that this has anything to do with what car I drive or any others genuinely involved in this debate is pure absurdity. Folks who own an M4 are just as likely to want to believe it makes more power than it does than those owning a prior generation car who might be upset that they don't have the latest greatest. Although you might call the interest academic, I find it extremely interesting and a bit of a puzzle. If all you care about it real world performance, fine, don't participate in the discussion. Again, appreciate some patience here.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 11:40 AM | #61 | |
Major General
1712
Rep 5,109
Posts |
Quote:
Chassis dynos can, at best, be used to compare before and after gains of modifications (provided the same operator and conditions). The C7 with sports exhaust make 460hp and this is the official dyno chart: As you can see, the power curve looks very different from the S55 (as it should and must, and as it also did in the dyno graph you posted as well). It makes 460hp @ 6000rpm and around 400hp @ 4500rpm (with a assumed 1500rpm drop for each gear) The power delivery isn't completely linear between 4500-6000rpm, but let's for simplicitys sake assume it is: 400+460/2 = 430hp in average power between 4500-6000rpm If the rpm drop is higher in each gear, average power drops accordingly and if it's less, average power rises accordingly. Assuming the same 2000rpm drop as you did gives us roughly 350hp at 4000rpm: 350+460/2 = 405hp in average power between 4000-6000rpm Makes sense that the F8x traps similar to what the C7 does if the C7 "only" has 405hp in average power but is a bit lighter than the 425hp average S55 - EDIT (from bold parts in the quoted post): How do you calculate a average whp of over 400 for the C7 from the dyno graph you posted??? It peaks at 408,56whp and drops to 310whp at 4000rpm. There is NO way I can get those two numbers equal a average whp number of 400... (a simple calculation assuming linear power delivery equals an average of 359,28whp) The power curves are VASTLY different... Just take a closer look at the rpm range and HP readings from 5500-7300 on the S55 and from 4500-6500 on the C7 Last edited by Boss330; 08-15-2014 at 01:50 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 11:57 AM | #62 | ||
Colonel
497
Rep 2,400
Posts |
LOL.. Your responses are proof positive of what my statement was saying
This thread is about the bhp produced and the power curve of the S55 and how that explains the trap speeds. As far as “this needs to stop” actually, no this is about expressing opinions and in this thread about providing some suggestions for data logging in trying to discover the truth. S65 vs S55, trap times, swamp being insecure, mine is bigger than yours, etc etc…were brought up by many “contributors” to this thread, those guys got called out by others and me and appropriately so. Also, no I am not unbiased and it should be pretty clear that I’m pretty biased toward N/A engines, but again that has nothing to do with this thread, where I provided some information on my experience with datalogging and a couple of verification methods. It seems that the OP has taken some interest into my analysis and what I had to say. I think that representing swamps analysis as some unbridled love for the S65 is a gross misrepresentation of what he has said, what his intent is, and what he has done on M3Post for years. He is an extremely valuable contributor, as are some others on this thread and I have learned a ton from them. Also if you know Swamp, as a person of science, he will be the first to admit that he was wrong if the evidence is overwhelming (he has a high burden of proof). I find it extremely problematic when someone who has something valueable to say (Boss, Swamp, Bruce) automatically gets "pooped on" if theres any hint of something "negative" about the S55 (swapms thread on the topic isn't really negative at all, its more about how performance is acheived by something that we don't view as obvious.) Really guys, best to keep an open mind and learn from experts rather than getting all defensive. I know I’ve learned a ton from these guys and they have quite a bit to offer to the community. Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 03:24 PM | #63 | |||||
Private First Class
26
Rep 181
Posts |
Quote:
BTW, I started looking at Dash Dyno last night but didn't get a chance to finish. I love gadgets so we'll probably get one and give it a try. Quote:
Quote:
According to entries in Drag Times, M3Post and others, the E9x M3-DCT range from 108-112 MPH bone stock, and 113-118 MPH FBO. Weight with a 175 pound driver is approximately 3789 pounds (based on posted scale weights : 3614 + 175). Drag is 0.31, and frontal area is 23.4 sq/ft. According to magazines and vBox results, the F8x M3/M4-DCT range from 117-119 MPH bone stock. Weight with 175 pound driver is approximately 3753 pounds (based on posted scale weights : 3578 + 175). Drag is 0.34, and frontal area on the M3 is 24.65 sq/ft. According to those numbers, the F8x car weighs 36 pounds less, has worse drag and greater frontal area traps 8 MPH higher with only 11 more horsepower. I haven't followed the other threads, but curious how that gets explained. Quote:
Quote:
We understand you're busy and have toddlers and going on vacation. We hope you have a good vacation. When you get back, we welcome the technical discussion on technical merit alone. I know your thread is long and I didn't read all of it. I never saw you post any of your CarTest input parameters, while we posted all of ours. It's hard for anybody to verify your work for peer review without this information. So when you get back, we look forward to seeing all of your input data along with an explanation why those are the right values and ours are wrong. We already did this and look forward to what you did so we can review it as well. |
|||||
Appreciate
0
|
08-15-2014, 04:34 PM | #64 | |||||
Major General
1712
Rep 5,109
Posts |
Quote:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ed-test-review And the answer to your question on trap speed difference is really as simple as average power in each gear during the 1/4 mile run. I will paste one of my other posts on this topic, which compares to a C7 and not the E9x, but the point is the same: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And if you want to, you could also calculate average power for the S65 in it's powerband (start and finish rpm in a gear during full acceleration). You will see that the difference in average power between the S65 and S55 is MUCH greater than 11hp, and THAT's what matters, not the 11hp difference in the PEAK power of the S65 and the PEAK AND AVERAGE power of the S55... The difference in peak power is 11hp, but calculate the average power for the S65 and look at that difference... As clearly visible in this overlay of the two engine's dyno graphs (at 5500rpm, the difference in actual power output is a staggering 131PS...!!!): Finally, here is a link to Directive 80/1269/EC on engine power: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.ht...C_1&format=PDF Last edited by Boss330; 08-15-2014 at 05:15 PM.. |
|||||
Appreciate
0
|
08-16-2014, 01:23 AM | #65 | |
General
21114
Rep 20,741
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
I believe the chart below also illustrates well the important point you are trying to make regarding average power. The importance of average power is a point I have been debating with Swamp for quite a while on a variety of topics. Last edited by CanAutM3; 08-16-2014 at 01:28 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-16-2014, 02:02 AM | #66 |
Lieutenant Colonel
73
Rep 1,603
Posts
Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WHO DAT NATION
|
__________________
2015 SO/SO MT M3 :: Exec : Lighting : Adaptive : HK : CF trim : Full leather : DAP : Black 19's : sunshade
Crystalline tint 40%/70% on windshield : M performance mirrors, spoiler, splitters : Status Gruppe CF lip : RKP diffuser : Fully dechromed Bavsound Stage 1 : V1 Savvy hardwired : Self-coded |
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|