Owner F80 M3 Dyno and Weight: Let the modding begin!

[W///]

Originally Posted by Never Convicted

Somewhere between 250-300HP

Where the heck did you get that from?

[Never Convicted]

Originally Posted by Sandye90m3

I'm sorry, but that figure is beyond me. A E9X M3 put roughly 350hp+ on the EAS dyno.

Just wanted to lure all the lurkers out.

[/// M sa]

Originally Posted by Never Convicted

Just wanted to lure all the lurkers out.

Very well done

[Sandye90m3]

Originally Posted by Never Convicted

Just wanted to lure all the lurkers out.

Hahah, fooled me

I don't understand why BMW would be underrating their engine so much. Is it hide the power ratings from competitors? Or are the parts that they are using increasing decreasing the amount of loss power from the power train, for example the carbon fiber driveshaft?

[Tony007]

Repost..

This is the same car from this thread.

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1000835

[Buddy Revell]

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

Usually ~345-360whp depending on conditions.

Thanks! Have you guys dynoed any cars recently that are rated in the high 400s from the factory (like a C7 Stingray or something)? I'm curious how their numbers compare to the F8X on your dyno.

[Longboarder]

Originally Posted by Buddy Revell

How much do E9X M3s typically put down on EAS's dyno?

My 2013 did 365 bone stock 200 miles (which I think is a record). A few months later it did 583 with an ESS supercharger.

[chiplee]

I'm still trying to understand some M3 owners. The reality is you should have all been seriously pissed about getting 295 TQ at the crank in the E90/92. Now you finally get what you deserve for your $70k, and (some of) you can't/won't believe it and instead scratch and claw to find a way to accept that the 6 banger could be this much better than the motorcycle revving 8 you had before. I'm downright giddy about this car. It is the perfect replacement for the 80's technology 4cyl turbo I've been bloodying my knuckles on trying in vain to get to 400wtq for 20 years and it happened right when I could comfortably afford and justify it. It's cause for celebration.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by W///

You guys realized that this is Tightie's car right? One of the first dyno's posted here (plus look at upload date)... Just saying

Good catch. So this is not a new data point then.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by Sandye90m3

Hahah, fooled me

I don't understand why BMW would be underrating their engine so much. Is it hide the power ratings from competitors? Or are the parts that they are using increasing decreasing the amount of loss power from the power train, for example the carbon fiber driveshaft?

It's because they want people to believe that the car is really 3300lbs! lol

[DieGrüneHölle]

Repost.

This is the same dyno from weeks ago.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

It's because they want people to believe that the car is really 3300lbs! lol

Good one

[modkrazy]

Originally Posted by chiplee

I'm still trying to understand some M3 owners. The reality is you should have all been seriously pissed about getting 295 TQ at the crank in the E90/92.

Plenty of people whined about it, and they were all misinformed about just how meaningless a crank torque number is without context and/or did not know how to drive. The torque didn't make for many thrills at stop signs, but it was enough where it counted. Unfortunately, each generation is far more concerned with entry-level "luxury" and being coddled from the terror that is shifting down a gear to pass someone on the highway.

[chiplee]

Originally Posted by modkrazy

Plenty of people whined about it, and they were all misinformed about just how meaningless a crank torque number is without context and/or did not know how to drive. The torque didn't make for many thrills at stop signs, but it was enough where it counted. Unfortunately, each generation is far more concerned with entry-level "luxury" and being coddled from the terror that is shifting down a gear to pass someone on the highway.

Meh, torque is king on the street, and judging by the included turn signals and brake lights, that's where these cars go most times.

[M6-Coupe]

Originally Posted by Never Convicted

Just wanted to lure all the lurkers out.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by Sandye90m3

Hahah, fooled me

I don't understand why BMW would be underrating their engine so much. Is it hide the power ratings from competitors? Or are the parts that they are using increasing decreasing the amount of loss power from the power train, for example the carbon fiber driveshaft?

First, pity that it was an old data point. However I doubt new data points will show a lower gap. I'm convinced just as I was about the I6 when we saw the underbelly pictures of the concept .

Why would BMW underrate the engine? Well, there are political reasons and financial reasons as taxes and insurance costs for owners. There was also a long discussion of how tunable the S55 is or isn't on pump gas. Some argued that BMW will use boost control to give the car the same 425 hp in Katamandu and Amsterdam, meaning that it would run the given peak boost of 18 psi only at high altitude ( Katmandu ) and much lower boost at low altitude ( Amsterdam ). This would mean a large potential gain from a tune at low altitude by allowing 18 psi at all altitudes. Now, BMS measured boost at their dyno sessions and saw close to 20 psi at sea level... This would mean that the tune people argued about is there from the factory, the S55 is running peak boost at all altitudes with the result of relative monster power at sea level stock. What I know no one in Katmandu has put an F8X on a dyno, maybe it gives the equivalent of the factory rated 425 crank hp

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by Buddy Revell

Thanks! Have you guys dynoed any cars recently that are rated in the high 400s from the factory (like a C7 Stingray or something)? I'm curious how their numbers compare to the F8X on your dyno.

Unfortunately, not in stock form.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Sandye90m3

Hahah, fooled me

I don't understand why BMW would be underrating their engine so much. Is it hide the power ratings from competitors? Or are the parts that they are using increasing decreasing the amount of loss power from the power train, for example the carbon fiber driveshaft?

Yep ,the CF driveshaft is decreasing the amount of power loss !And is actualy much stronger than steel !

[svc0x80]

But what about the SOUND guys?

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by Longboarder

My 2013 did 365 bone stock 200 miles (which I think is a record). A few months later it did 583 with an ESS supercharger.

Nice!

Originally Posted by svc0x80

But what about the SOUND guys?

lololol

[modkrazy]

Originally Posted by chiplee

Meh, torque is king on the street, and judging by the included turn signals and brake lights, that's where these cars go most times.

I know it's cliche to be nostalgic for the times when an M3's primary qualifications didn't revolve around stoplight races and "luxury", but .

Originally Posted by svc0x80

But what about the SOUND guys?

It remains not great. No car is perfect.

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by Never Convicted

Just wanted to lure all the lurkers out.

Well played sir, well played.