F80 M3 / F82 M4 S55 Tuning

[M5Rlz]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Bold word added for clarity. Anyone who states a drivetrain loss for a modern automobile is 5% is being unclear.

we can go round and round.. But 550whp of 560crank is a sub 5% difference now the more accurate way would have been as Boss pointed out and how its done in the f30 bimmerpost article.

But I digress

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Perhaps 10-15% for 2WD and 15-25% for AWD?

I should have specified 2WD.

10-15% excluding tire losses and inertial impacts? I doubt it would be that much.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

we can go round and round.. But 550whp of 560crank is a sub 5% difference now the more accurate way would have been as Boss pointed out and how its done in the f30 bimmerpost article.

But I digress

Not, no digression but more misunderstanding. No production road automobile makes 550 whp with 560 crank hp, period, not possible. Also, slightly generalizing these numbers, no production road automobile has a 2% drivetrain loss (that is the 550/560 numbers) or 5% for that matter. This is like teaching calculus to cats... It's really not that complex.

[onefastdoc]

Originally Posted by carlitosz

You guys forget the Supra was also a 3.0L I6 engine and it's tuning capabilities are endless. ECU might be the restriction with the F80, powerwise. But displacement is not the problem here.

Exactly. Glad I'm not the only one who remembers the BPU Supras and how easy it was to make big power with a 3.0 liter straight six.

Others have posted about the GT-R in this thread. My full bolt on 2012 GT-R makes 700 crank hp, or a little over 600hp at the wheels at 19psi of boost. (I had both a modded 335 and an E90 M3 previously). I think it's the perfect amount of power, and I daily drive my car. Anyway, proportionally, the M4 should be able to make 552hp at the crank with full bolt on mods (assuming the stock turbos can handle it). That would make it a fun car and I'd consider making it my DD and use the GT-R on the weekends.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I should have specified 2WD.

10-15% excluding tire losses and inertial impacts? I doubt it would be that much.

I think that is pretty accurate. Yes, pure LOSSES, not inertial effects. A rough accounting of it for a RWD vehicle would be:

• Auxiliaries: 1% (will be getting lower with EPS and in general with more electrically and mechanically efficient components along with smart shut downs)
• Manual transmission: 3% (both automatics and dual clutch a bit more, but losses are getting smaller with both in each successive generation)
• Differential: 3% (maybe a bit high but the power does have to make a giant 90 degree turn..., good ones like the M4 have a lot of cooling fins too!)
• Hubs and axles: 5%

That's 12%, thus 10-15% excluding tires to cover a range of more and less quality and efficiency of the components. And again, for clarity these are rpm/speed dependent, as such losses clearly are not a fixed percentage across all gears and speeds. The fundamental (simplest) nature of friction is a non-linear force as a function of velocity. I've provided the formula for tire losses and they grow non-linearly with speed, prob. up to about 30 hp for a car like an M4 at top (delimited speed). That's about 7% of 440 hp, quite significant.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by chiplee

Lol, you guys are so clueless. Mitsubishi TO4? Try Garret. 5% drivetrain loss? Try physically impossible. Just drive your cars guys.

Not sure where you get the Garret turbos from?

The official spec thread clearly states Mitsubishi turbos... And the engine pictures in same thread also clearly shows that it's Mitsubishi turbos...

Would perhaps reconsider your use of the clueless part when it comes to turbo manufacturer

[Bowser330]

I read here that the S55 may be running TF035 turbos

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=924954

Subarus have been using a single TF035 on the Forester and after some googling I found several forum posts saying that people boost them at 12-15psi for years without problems. Also Subarus are using the 14T sized compressor wheel while the S55 turbos have the 17T size, according to the link above.

Therefore it seems possible that two TF035-17T turbos could boost up to 24psi which would result in significant performance gains.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I think that is pretty accurate. Yes, pure LOSSES, not inertial effects. A rough accounting of it for a RWD vehicle would be:

• Auxiliaries: 1% (will be getting lower with EPS and in general with more electrically and mechanically efficient components along with smart shut downs)
• Manual transmission: 3% (both automatics and dual clutch a bit more, but losses are getting smaller with both in each successive generation)
• Differential: 3% (maybe a bit high but the power does have to make a giant 90 degree turn..., good ones like the M4 have a lot of cooling fins too!)
• Hubs and axles: 5%

That's 12%, thus 10-15% excluding tires to cover a range of more and less quality and efficiency of the components. And again, for clarity these are rpm/speed dependent, as such losses clearly are not a fixed percentage across all gears and speeds. The fundamental (simplest) nature of friction is a non-linear force as a function of velocity. I've provided the formula for tire losses and they grow non-linearly with speed, prob. up to about 30 hp for a car like an M4 at top (delimited speed). That's about 7% of 440 hp, quite significant.

What about the results from Rototest that show drivetrain losses in the 6-10% range for the E9X?

Aren't "auxilaries" or "ancillaries" losses included in SAE and DIN power ratings nowadays?

Isn't 5% a bit much for drive wheel hubs and axles?

As for tire losses, there seems to be a discrepancy in the number shown here and the one used in the top speed thread. To calculate top speed, the losses of all four tires needs to be considered. However, to establish losses on a 2WD roller type dyno, only the loss of the drive axle needs to be considered (2 wheels). Yet 30hp is used in both scenarios.

[jackkk]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Please provide proof of this.



Yes



Please provide proof again. Thats a very serious claim. Also, a 335 ran about 8.8 Psi stock on N54, 10 on N55.

You are right, stock 335i - 8.8 psi.
Stock 1M (in the overboost function) - 14.5 psi
Stock s55 - 18.1 psi ("Mitsubishi mono-scroll turbochargers
18.1 PSI / 1.25 BAR max peak")

To run 18.1 psi in stock I think it is logically to have bigger turbos to handle this boost. Now I can't find any info about TD04 turbos, but it is the next size from the n54's TD03 turbos which I did 16 psi with tune and 18 psi you can make only with meth.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by onefastdoc

Exactly. Glad I'm not the only one who remembers the BPU Supras and how easy it was to make big power with a 3.0 liter straight six.

Others have posted about the GT-R in this thread. My full bolt on 2012 GT-R makes 700 crank hp, or a little over 600hp at the wheels at 19psi of boost. (I had both a modded 335 and an E90 M3 previously). I think it's the perfect amount of power, and I daily drive my car. Anyway, proportionally, the M4 should be able to make 552hp at the crank with full bolt on mods (assuming the stock turbos can handle it). That would make it a fun car and I'd consider making it my DD and use the GT-R on the weekends.

I don't think anyone is claiming issues w displacement. 3.0L I6 is plenty of motor for safe tuning, my personal concern centers around the stock turbo limitations and the max power possible out of them.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Bowser330

I read here that the S55 may be running TF035 turbos

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=924954

Subarus have been using a single TF035 on the Forester and after some googling I found several forum posts saying that people boost them at 12-15psi for years without problems. Also Subarus are using the 14T sized compressor wheel while the S55 turbos have the 17T size, according to the link above.

Therefore it seems possible that two TF035-17T turbos could boost up to 24psi which would result in significant performance gains.

That would be great news.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

What about the results from Rototest that show drivetrain losses in the 6-10% range for the E9X?

I had secretly hoped that wouldn't come up, but not for this reason. These guys use the same (bizarre) definition of a loss as simply stated vs. observed. I think they didn't want to get into the politics of under/over rating. This admittedly bizarre definition is exactly the one we have been telling others here in this thread are nonsensical, which they are... That being said, I believe they can and sometimes do directly test for drivetrain losses.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Aren't "auxilaries" or "ancillaries" losses included in SAE and DIN power ratings nowadays?

Good question, not sure.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Isn't 5% a bit much for drive wheel hubs and axles?

Perhaps. The numbers I have provided are a result of many different sources, including technical papers, curve fitting (CarTest vs. observed results), CarTest defaults, Gillespie's book, etc. Getting this type of information precisely is not easy! The good results I have obtained with CarTest vs. real world always include the particular (default) number as I have never adjusted it.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

As for tire losses, there seems to be a discrepancy in the number shown here and the one used in the top speed thread. To calculate top speed, the losses of all four tires needs to be considered. However, to establish losses on a 2WD roller type dyno, only the loss of the drive axle needs to be considered (2 wheels). Yet 30hp is used in both scenarios.

Good observation. In short, the 30 hp figure is more accurate than the somewhat rough estimate used in the thread I linked to prior.

If you want to calculate any real world performance in a sim, you must count losses for all wheels. If you want to make a correction of some sort for a 2WD roller dyno you should use 1/2 of the total vehicle tire losses, but of course at the given effective ground speed at peak hp in that gear, not at Vmax! This loss will be considerably less than 30hp since it grows non-linearly with speed. For example at Vmax in 3rd gear in an E92 M3, the loss for the rear wheels only is only about 5 hp. The number here of 30 hp is taken directly from CarTest and I have verified that the approach of CarTest is based directly on a common formula and posted on that methodology prior (pretty sure you were involved in that discussion). The M3 and M4 results will also differ due to the vehicles weight difference.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I had secretly hoped that wouldn't come up, but not for this reason. These guys use the same (bizarre) definition of a loss as simply stated vs. observed. I think they didn't want to get into the politics of under/over rating. This admittedly bizarre definition is exactly the one we have been telling others here in this thread are nonsensical, which they are... That being said, I believe they can and sometimes do directly test for drivetrain losses.

Agreed. Rototest even have a Fiat Bravo on file for which the drivetrain contributes to making power

Most underrating seem to come for turbocharged engines, regardless of manufacturer. I wonder if it has to do with testing standards and/or correction factors.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Most underrating seem to come for turbocharged engines, regardless of manufacturer. I wonder if it has to do with testing standards and/or correction factors.

I think most of it is insuring the engine can make the stated power across a wide range of environmental conditions, i.e. temperature, altitude (pressure) and to a lesser extent humidity.

[BMW M3 CRT]

In the new German car magazine SPORTAUTO is "the Supertest" of the all new F30 Alpina B3 with dynoed 430hp and Michelin Pilot Super Sport tyres ... NOS time is 8.14 min and SPORTAUTO stated that the N55 engine of this car is less ideal for track use because its high low-end-torque and not linear power delivery make it dificult to drive fast in track.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by BMW M3 CRT

In the new German car magazine SPORTAUTO is "the Supertest" of the all new F30 Alpina B3 with dynoed 430hp and Michelin Pilot Super Sport tyres ... NOS time is 8.14 min and SPORTAUTO stated that the N55 engine of this car is less ideal for track use because its high low-end-torque and not linear power delivery make it dificult to drive fast in track.

The last Alpina car I drove on track (B7) had an N63TU tuned engined and it's power delivery was terrible on track and so much worse than the S63TU that it wasn't even funny or actually it was funny, we laughed at it

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by solstice

The last Alpina car I drove on track (B7) had an N63TU tuned engined and it's power delivery was terrible on track and so much worse than the S63TU that it wasn't even funny or actually it was funny, we laughed at it

I don't get these continuous powerband and responsiveness complaints. It's as if not a single track worthy turbo motor on this earth had existed.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I don't get these continuous powerband and responsiveness complaints. It's as if not a single track worthy turbo motor on this earth had existed.

There are plenty of great race/track cars with turbos. What made them great is the massive amount of power they could produce. Responsiveness and linearity of power delivery was never their strong suit though.

[Jonjt]

Originally Posted by richardg

As for me I am turbo illiterate. All I know is that all the turbo cars are faster than mine lol. Seriously though I have to educate myself on turbo tuning and the like. I have had "chips" in the past on my E36M but other than that I have always been a tires and suspension (Boring) modder. I will say super cheap power sounds enticing, but I am more concerned with having a reliable car. I might look like Lewis Hamilton but I sure as hell don't drive like him. I THINK I can exploit the my E92 to 85% tops of what it's capable of at my local tracks. Giving me that much more power isn't going to do shit for me until I improve.

So will I tune my M4? Maybe, but after I educate myself on what's good and there is a track record for whatever tuner I choose.

Are you the guy who brought a white M3 to Woodward during the summer of 2012? I remember someone looking to sell a white M3 and he looked as you would describe yourself.

[PixelVogue]

550hp Manhart

http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2014/5/2...MW-M4-7720484/

[tcarterM4]

I'm quite new around here, I have a Sakhir orange M4 on order and want to make it my own from the word go.
I've just jumped off the phone with a guy at Mulgari here in the UK. I called them and pre ordered an Akrapovic for the M4 but from the sound of it there looking to launch loads of tuning and styling products http://www.mulgari.com/bmw-m3-m4-tuning any way what interested me was the air intake and ECU tuning module they are developing as from what ive read and heard the ECU may currently be anti tune? Calling for an update next week, Any one else heard about this?

[Radioactivem3]

Originally Posted by RingMeister01

Why not? There are so many S65's running 6-8 psi superchargers running stock internals. And this is on an engine designed to be NA. BMW has over engineered the S55 as they have with every other motor built. This motor and drivetrain particularly have increased torsional and mechanical strength. If the ECU is successfully manipulated, we'll see some big numbers, without a fuss.

Completely Agree with this