M4 vs. 911 Performance Comparison Review in Car and Driver

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

Technically it's not hearsay. Straight from EAS's dyno posted to the forum by EAS. And suggesting that EAS fixed the dyno results without any basis is unreasonable, actually.

Hearsay - information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated.

Once I see auto journalists validate EAS' claim, I'll consider it a fact. I don't see why I should believe EAS' claim simply because they posted it, nor am I suggesting that they fixed the results (rather you implied that I made that accusation). I'm saying I don't care if they do or don't have an ulterior motive to fabricate dyno results, I simply don't put much faith in what they say.

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

Wait for more results before you reach a conclusion. The acceleration data available now + the dyno results indicate to me that there is much > a 11 hp advantage for the F8X over the E9X.

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=984354

Believe the forthcoming "official" and unofficial dyno and real world test results will support that idea, but we shall see.

I have stated just that...I will wait for more results before I accept anything as fact. You're the one who seems to think EAS' claim is rock solid.

Also, the +100lb-ft the M4 has over the previous generation does wonders for acceleration. So it is conceivable that the new M4 only has +11HP and still drives and feels a lot faster than the E9X.

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

edit: you did see page 1 of this thread with the acceleration results, right? 12.1 @ 119 mph. I see this started with you suggesting the C7 is faster in a straight line (due to hp advantage) with a 12.2 @ 117 mph.

I did see the 1st page and I did acknowledge in an earlier post that the C7 and M4 have comparable 1/4 mile times. I also noted that those times were from a stop and that in an actual race application (ie running down the straight away of a track) the C7 will likely be a faster car due to its higher HP and torque.

I'm only making a big deal of this because I find it shocking that BMW would under rate their engine by 62HP (if EAS' claim is true). I'm a little confused as to why you think that is normal, because in all the cars I have read about, that would seem to be anything but normal.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Hearsay - information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated.

Once I see auto journalists validate EAS' claim, I'll consider it a fact. I don't see why I should believe EAS' claim simply because they posted it, nor am I suggesting that they fixed the results (rather you implied that I made that accusation). I'm saying I don't care if they do or don't have an ulterior motive to fabricate dyno results, I simply don't put much faith in what they say.



I have stated just that...I will wait for more results before I accept anything as fact. You're the one who seems to think EAS' claim is rock solid.

Also, the +100lb-ft the M4 has over the previous generation does wonders for acceleration. So it is conceivable that the new M4 only has +11HP and still drives and feels a lot faster than the E9X.



I did see the 1st page and I did acknowledge in an earlier post that the C7 and M4 have comparable 1/4 mile times. I also noted that those times were from a stop and that in an actual race application (ie running down the straight away of a track) the C7 will likely be a faster car due to its higher HP and torque.

I'm only making a big deal of this because I find it shocking that BMW would under rate their engine by 62HP (if EAS' claim is true). I'm a little confused as to why you think that is normal, because in all the cars I have read about, that would seem to be anything but normal.

Jesus buddy… Be skeptical. I don't care what you choose to believe. Whether I think EAS's dyno will be 100% in line with everything that follows isn't the issue either. You asked for data, I sent you the most meaningful data that I have seen on the issue thus far.

You called the dyno results "dubious." The implication there is clear.

The problem is when you disparage real information/data from a reputable, decent source as "hearsay" because it doesn't meet your preconceived notion of what the dyno results should be, and hey, you weren't there to see it. The fact that you prefer to lazily brand information "hearsay" rather than make efforts to adequately verify and substantiate the information doesn’t make it so. Be quiet and skeptical, don't crap on actual contributions when you yourself have nothing to offer that calls into question, or disproves the information.

I have no earthly idea why at this point you're still suggesting that the F8X only "feels" faster than the E9X because of the torque. The C&D acceleration data you so covet is on page 1 of this thread.

Really, you asked for information/data indicating the F8X is underrated, but you're not actually open to it. Like many others on the forum, you're apparently information averse. Next time indicate the challenge is rhetorical and we can save some time.

As far as automakers never seriously underrating power, look no further than the Benz dyno results in the (inarguably valid from your perspective) Motor Trend article I previously posted

The pertinent facts of the case are thus: The 2014 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S Model is a monster. Under the bulging hood sits a nicely juiced-up version of the now-familiar M157 AMG engine. It's 5.5 liters in displacement, has two turbochargers fitted directly to the exhaust headers, and fills the combustion chamber with direct-injected gasoline at 2000 psi. Such a motor, especially in the new S Model tune, creates 577 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque. Of course those power numbers are GMFN, or German Minimum Fantasy Numbers. Meaning that we stuck this particular gray example on K&N Engineering's dynamometer and discovered that the M157 in this car churns out 541 wheel-horsepower and 508 lb-ft of torque. As the S Model E63 is AWD, and since you typically factor in a drivetrain loss for AWD cars of 20 percent (the transmission and drive shafts tend to suck a lot of power), the actual crank numbers on this car are much closer to 676 hp and 636 lb-ft of torque. That's enough to propel the 4511-pound sedan to 60 mph in a crazy quick 3.4 seconds and through the quarter mile in 11.6 seconds at 121.8 mph. That's one big hammer.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz36z6SUkZh

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

Jesus buddy… Be skeptical. I don't care what you choose to believe.

If you don't care how I feel then why do you keep posting responses trying to prove that my doubts are misplaced?

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

The problem is when you disparage real information/data from a reputable, decent source as "hearsay" because it doesn't meet your preconceived notion of what the dyno results should be, and hey, you weren't there to see it. The fact that you prefer to lazily brand information "hearsay" rather than make efforts to adequately verify and substantiate the information doesn’t make it so. Be quiet and skeptical, don't crap on actual contributions when you yourself have nothing to offer that calls into question, or disproves the information.

Ah, I see now. I should consider EAS a "reputable" source and their information "real" simply because, well you think they're reputable. Well I have no particular beef with them. I'm just inclined to wait for actual auto journalists to conduct their own tests before I believe these results.

As for me "lazily" branding the information as hearsay...One auto shop, that I'm not familiar with, has made a claim with supporting data. I, as an outsider, will view that data as unsubstantiated (aka hearsay) until I see other sources verify said data. That's how the transformation from unverified data to verified info works.

Just because I consider the EAS claim hearsay doesn't mean I have a bias against them, it just means I would like to see other people independently verify their claim. So please stop lecturing me on how I am wrong to demand other sources of verification before I accept EAS' claim.

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

I have no earthly idea why at this point you're still suggesting that the F8X only "feels" faster than the E9X because of the torque. The C&D acceleration data you so covet is on page 1 of this thread.

Do you understand what torque is and how it works? I have driven the 1M which only has 330HP but feels, and in fact drives, a lot faster than a car with 330HP (it has a 370lb-ft overboost). So, short answer is yes, the F8X could and probably does feel and drive faster than the E9X largely because of torque. In fact, many early reviewers have commented on that.

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

Really, you asked for information/data indicating the F8X is underrated, but you're not actually open to it. Like many others on the forum, you're apparently information averse. Next time indicate the challenge is rhetorical and we can save some time.

I said I was looking for an auto journalist or official review that proved the S55 was under rated. I have no problem with you posting the EAS dyno test, I'm just not going to give it much credibility until an auto journalist verifies it...for the reasons stated above.

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

As far as automakers never seriously underrating power, look no further than the Benz dyno results in the (inarguably valid from your perspective) Motor Trend article I previously posted

Yep, that AMG car seems to have been under rated by a huge amount. It's also a much bigger and more powerful engine on an AWD car, which inherently has higher drive train losses. I have an easier time believing that Mercedes under rated their car by that large amount than I do believing that the new M4 has 414HP at the wheels, and with 15% losses has a true ouput of 487HP.

For a small, RWD, I6 car like the M4, the 62HP disparity between 425HP and 487HP is enormous! And yet, I haven't heard a single reviewer comment on how the M4 feels like it has +480HP. It would be very easy to feel if the M4 had that much HP. Again, I'm not necessarily ruling out that the M4 does have that much HP; I just think it very weird that no reviewers have touched on that subject yet.

[WillC310]

FWIW, here's a different dyno run:

http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_...eneration.html

The rate it at 379 whp and 378ft/lb of torque.

They also had a E9x that they brought along and it dyno'd pretty low.

Let the dyno debate begin.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by WillC310

FWIW, here's a different dyno run:

http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_...eneration.html

The rate it at 379 whp and 378ft/lb of torque.

They also had a E9x that they brought along and it dyno'd pretty low.

Let the dyno debate begin.

That dyno test makes a lot more sense.

Thanks for the post.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

That dyno test makes a lot more sense.

Thanks for the post.

what's most relevant to this discussion is whether the F80 makes significantly more power than the E90. dyno numbers can't just be taken in a vacuum. they're better used for back to back runs in comparing two cars. with that said, here are the results for the F80 and E90:

F80 - 379whp
E90 - 306whp

that's a difference of 73whp. the way I see it, you have to believe one of two things:
1. the E90's power was overrated
2. the F80's power was underrated

frankly, it doesn't matter which you choose to believe. the only salient point here is that the F80 makes WAY more peak power and average power.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Brosef

what's most relevant to this discussion is whether the F80 makes significantly more power than the E90. dyno numbers can't just be taken in a vacuum. they're better used for back to back runs in comparing two cars. with that said, here are the results for the F80 and E90:

F80 - 379whp
E90 - 306whp

that's a difference of 73whp. the way I see it, you have to believe one of two things:
1. the E90's power was overrated
2. the F80's power was underrated

frankly, it doesn't matter which you choose to believe. the only salient point here is that the F80 makes WAY more peak power and average power.

There is also the possibility that the E90 M3 has a slightly higher drive train loss, both due to the fact that it's an older model and because it likely has many more miles on the odometer. They used 13% as the drive train loss factor for both cars, but honestly there is no way to know if both cars have the same amount of losses.

Also, if the E90 car is used, the engine may not be at its peak performance.

Regardless, the E90's power seems low, and the F80's power is a bit higher than the claimed 425HP, but that seems to be in line with how BMW has rated their engines in the past. At the very least, it is more plausible than 414HP at the wheels.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

There is also the possibility that the E90 M3 has a slightly higher drive train loss, both due to the fact that it's an older model and because it likely has many more miles on the odometer. They used 13% as the drive train loss factor for both cars, but honestly there is no way to know if both cars have the same amount of losses.

Also, if the E90 car is used, the engine may not be at its peak performance.

Regardless, the E90's power seems low, and the F80's power is a bit higher than the claimed 425HP, but that seems to be in line with how BMW has rated their engines in the past. At the very least, it is more plausible than 414HP at the wheels.

there's not 62 whp worth of incremental driveline loss in the e90. find me any data that shows that older E90s dyno lower than newer E90s. in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see it be slightly higher, as is often the case with well built motors like these.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Brosef

there's not 62 whp worth of incremental driveline loss in the e90. find me any data that shows that older E90s dyno lower than newer E90s. in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see it be slightly higher, as is often the case with well built motors like these.

Yeah, I should have worded my response better. I wasn't suggesting that drive line losses accounted for the entire 62whp deficiency in the the E90. But I do think that an older model and an older car in general will have higher drive line losses than a newer one. Thus using a 13% loss for both the F80 and E90 may skew the results a bit.

Whatever the reason is for the whp gap, the E90's whp seems abnormally low.

Edit: Where did 62whp come from? The difference between the E90 and the F80 in Motor Trend's dyno test was 73whp.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Yeah, I should have worded my response better. I wasn't suggesting that drive line losses accounted for the entire 62whp deficiency in the the E90. But I do think that an older model and an older car in general will have higher drive line losses than a newer one. Thus using a 13% loss for both the F80 and E90 may skew the results a bit.

Whatever the reason is for the whp gap, the E90's whp seems abnormally low.

Edit: Where did 62whp come from? The difference between the E90 and the F80 in Motor Trend's dyno test was 73whp.

425 - 414 = claimed increase of 11 hp
73 measured hp - 11 claimed = 62hp that's basically unaccounted for.

I recognize I'm mixing crank and whp, but these are small numbers and doing so correctly would only imply a bigger delta.

as for why the E90's hp seems low, it's because chassis dynos are inherently inconsistent in terms of their absolute measurements from one dyno to the next. they can only be used directionally (i.e. same dyno, same day, does one car make more power than another).

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Brosef

425 - 414 = claimed increase of 11 hp
73 measured hp - 11 claimed = 62hp that's basically unaccounted for.

I recognize I'm mixing crank and whp, but these are small numbers and doing so correctly would only imply a bigger delta.

I'm not following your math at all.

EAS claimed the M4 had 414HP at the wheels. In an earlier discussion with someone else, I used 15%, for the sake of argument, as the drive train loss. That yields 487HP at the crank, which is why I doubted EAS' claim.

Just recently, someone else posted a M4 dyno test done by Motor Trend which yielded 379HP at the wheels. The article used 13% as the drive train loss, so not too different from what I used with EAS test, which yields 435HP at the crank; still a bit higher than BMW's claimed 425HP at crank, but much more believable than 487HP.

So I don't see the point of 425HP - 414HP = 11HP. 425 is crank HP claimed by BMW and 414 is wheel HP claimed by EAS.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

I'm not following your math at all.

EAS claimed the M4 had 414HP at the wheels. In an earlier discussion with someone else, I used 15%, for the sake of argument, as the drive train loss. That yields 487HP at the crank, which is why I doubted EAS' claim.

Just recently, someone else posted a M4 dyno test done by Motor Trend which yielded 379HP at the wheels. The article used 13% as the drive train loss, so not too different from what I used with EAS test, which yields 435HP at the crank; still a bit higher than BMW's claimed 425HP at crank, but much more believable than 487HP.

So I don't see the point of 425HP - 414HP = 11HP. 425 is crank HP claimed by BMW and 414 is wheel HP claimed by EAS.

BMW's claimed hp for the S65 is 414hp (crank)
BMW's claimed hp for the S55 is 425hp (crank)

I never mentioned anything about the EAS dyno of 414whp. this discussion is all about whether the new motor is underrated, is it not??? we're talking about BMW's hp rating.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Brosef

BMW's claimed hp for the S65 is 414hp (crank)
BMW's claimed hp for the S55 is 425hp (crank)

I never mentioned anything about the EAS dyno of 414whp. this discussion is all about whether the new motor is underrated, is it not??? we're talking about BMW's hp rating.

Ah okay, I understand what you were doing. I apologize; there was an earlier discussion on whether a dyno test done by EAS was credible or not. It just so happens their claimed whp for the m4 was 414, same as the old M3's crank hp.

Like I said before, I think there is going to be some disparity between a newer car and an older car in terms of the % of drive train losses. An older E90 is likely going to have more losses due to wear and tear and more inefficiencies than a brand new F80.

Though I don't think that power train loss disparity is enough to account for the entire 62hp difference that you were talking about.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Ah okay, I understand what you were doing. I apologize; there was an earlier discussion on whether a dyno test done by EAS was credible or not. It just so happens their claimed whp for the m4 was 414, same as the old M3's crank hp.

Like I said before, I think there is going to be some disparity between a newer car and an older car in terms of the % of drive train losses. An older E90 is likely going to have more losses due to wear and tear and more inefficiencies than a brand new F80.

Though I don't think that power train loss disparity is enough to account for the entire 62hp difference that you were talking about.

agreed

looks like there's also a dedicated thread on these dyno results.

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1008501

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

If you don't care how I feel then why do you keep posting responses trying to prove that my doubts are misplaced?




Ah, I see now. I should consider EAS a "reputable" source and their information "real" simply because, well you think they're reputable. Well I have no particular beef with them. I'm just inclined to wait for actual auto journalists to conduct their own tests before I believe these results.

As for me "lazily" branding the information as hearsay...One auto shop, that I'm not familiar with, has made a claim with supporting data. I, as an outsider, will view that data as unsubstantiated (aka hearsay) until I see other sources verify said data. That's how the transformation from unverified data to verified info works.

Just because I consider the EAS claim hearsay doesn't mean I have a bias against them, it just means I would like to see other people independently verify their claim. So please stop lecturing me on how I am wrong to demand other sources of verification before I accept EAS' claim.



Do you understand what torque is and how it works? I have driven the 1M which only has 330HP but feels, and in fact drives, a lot faster than a car with 330HP (it has a 370lb-ft overboost). So, short answer is yes, the F8X could and probably does feel and drive faster than the E9X largely because of torque. In fact, many early reviewers have commented on that.



I said I was looking for an auto journalist or official review that proved the S55 was under rated. I have no problem with you posting the EAS dyno test, I'm just not going to give it much credibility until an auto journalist verifies it...for the reasons stated above.



Yep, that AMG car seems to have been under rated by a huge amount. It's also a much bigger and more powerful engine on an AWD car, which inherently has higher drive train losses. I have an easier time believing that Mercedes under rated their car by that large amount than I do believing that the new M4 has 414HP at the wheels, and with 15% losses has a true ouput of 487HP.

For a small, RWD, I6 car like the M4, the 62HP disparity between 425HP and 487HP is enormous! And yet, I haven't heard a single reviewer comment on how the M4 feels like it has +480HP. It would be very easy to feel if the M4 had that much HP. Again, I'm not necessarily ruling out that the M4 does have that much HP; I just think it very weird that no reviewers have touched on that subject yet.

This is comical.

As I said… the problem is not that you want to wait for additional data to make a firm conclusion. Admire the strawman attempt though.

As I said… the problem is that you’ve taken the available EAS data and labeled it dubious, hearsay, gossip, whilst offering absolutely nothing of value in response. If you had simply said that you want to see more results before reaching a conclusion, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Instead, in an attempt to elevate your opinion over the data you label it hearsay. That’s dumb. You “don’t put much faith in what they say,” but you, the acknowledged outsider, have made no effort to verify or substantiate the data. You know nothing about their “auto shop.” You don’t know that they’ve likely dyno’d more M3s than any other organization in the country. You’d prefer to, yes lazily, just dismiss the data based upon a set of preconceptions. Primarily the notion that auto makers don’t underrate their vehicles to that extent, which I’ve just disproved using your own stated criteria, and now you’re even trying wiggle out of that.

I’m wiggling out of here. Wait for more results, totally cool with me. That’s of course a reasonable position. It’s unreasonable to disparage the information and data made available on the forum by informed, experienced people and organizations. Scoff at their results when you actually have substantive something to offer.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

This is comical.

As I said… the problem is not that you want to wait for additional data to make a firm conclusion. Admire the strawman attempt though.

As I said… the problem is that you’ve taken the available EAS data and labeled it dubious, hearsay, gossip, whilst offering absolutely nothing of value in response. If you had simply said that you want to see more results before reaching a conclusion, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Instead, in an attempt to elevate your opinion over the data you label it hearsay. That’s dumb. You “don’t put much faith in what they say,” but you, the acknowledged outsider, have made no effort to verify or substantiate the data. You know nothing about their “auto shop.” You don’t know that they’ve likely dyno’d more M3s than any other organization in the country. You’d prefer to, yes lazily, just dismiss the data based upon a set of preconceptions. Primarily the notion that auto makers don’t underrate their vehicles to that extent, which I’ve just disproved using your own stated criteria, and now you’re even trying wiggle out of that.

I’m wiggling out of here. Wait for more results, totally cool with me. That’s of course a reasonable position. It’s unreasonable to disparage the information and data made available on the forum by informed, experienced people and organizations. Scoff at their results when you actually have substantive something to offer.

I didn't disparage anyone. I simply said I wanted other sources to verify EAS' claim that the M4 makes 414HP at the wheels. I prefer to rely on more than one source of information before I render a decision or make a judgement on something.

As it turns out, my decision to question EAS' dyno test was well founded:

Originally Posted by WillC310

FWIW, here's a different dyno run:

http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_...eneration.html

The rate it at 379 whp and 378ft/lb of torque.

They also had a E9x that they brought along and it dyno'd pretty low.

Let the dyno debate begin.

So I appreciate that there are some M4 fans on this forum and in this thread. But why does everyone get up in arms when I question someone's claim that the car can make 487HP at the crank? 435HP as demonstrated by Motor Trend or even the 425HP claimed by BMW is impressive enough for the S55.

[Never Convicted]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

So I appreciate that there are some M4 fans on this forum and in this thread. But why does everyone get up in arms when I question someone's claim that the car can make 487HP at the crank? 435HP as demonstrated by Motor Trend or even the 425HP claimed by BMW is impressive enough for the S55.

I don't know. Maybe because you're a know it all, self infatuated, newby douche?

[e39>all]

Is this real life?

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Never Convicted

I don't know. Maybe because you're a know it all, self infatuated, newby douche?

Okay, the M4 can make 487HP at the crank...does that make you feel better?

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

This is comical.

Should have included this earlier, but whatever. What is extremely comical is that from the onset of our discussion, I have said that I won't believe EAS' dyno test results until I see other auto journalists or magazines verify them. And yet every time you respond, you give me a long-running diatribe on how I have "disparaged" EAS for doubting them. According to you, it's okay for me to expect additional verification from other sources, but if I have doubts or questions about EAS' dyno results I become the bad guy.

What's with all the righteous indignation? I didn't say anything degrading or demeaning about EAS. I said have doubts about their test results and that I would like auto journalists to confirm or deny these results.

Interestingly, when I bring up a similar test done by Motor Trend which shows significantly lower HP at the wheels of the M4, you have nothing to say.

Also, have you figured out what torque is and how it helps with a car's acceleration?

[swanson]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Should have included this earlier, but whatever. What is extremely comical is that from the onset of our discussion, I have said that I won't believe EAS' dyno test results until I see other auto journalists or magazines verify them. And yet every time you respond, you give me a long-running diatribe on how I have "disparaged" EAS for doubting them. According to you, it's okay for me to expect additional verification from other sources, but if I have doubts or questions about EAS' dyno results I become the bad guy.

What's with all the righteous indignation? I didn't say anything degrading or demeaning about EAS. I said have doubts about their test results and that I would like auto journalists to confirm or deny these results.

Interestingly, when I bring up a similar test done by Motor Trend which shows significantly lower HP at the wheels of the M4, you have nothing to say.

Also, have you figured out what torque is and how it helps with a car's acceleration?

Dont even waste your time with some on this forum. If BMW told them Santa Claus exists, they'd believe it.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Should have included this earlier, but whatever. What is extremely comical is that from the onset of our discussion, I have said that I won't believe EAS' dyno test results until I see other auto journalists or magazines verify them. And yet every time you respond, you give me a long-running diatribe on how I have "disparaged" EAS for doubting them. According to you, it's okay for me to expect additional verification from other sources, but if I have doubts or questions about EAS' dyno results I become the bad guy.

What's with all the righteous indignation? I didn't say anything degrading or demeaning about EAS. I said have doubts about their test results and that I would like auto journalists to confirm or deny these results.

Interestingly, when I bring up a similar test done by Motor Trend which shows significantly lower HP at the wheels of the M4, you have nothing to say.

Also, have you figured out what torque is and how it helps with a car's acceleration?

It's because you come across as described in post 259. Reread your posts and see if it's possible that someone might have that perception. The important takeaway from the MT results is the delta between the E9X and F8X. Brosef summarized well above.

The fact that you think you've "got me" with the MT results indicates you haven't actually read my posts. I don't care where the M4 lands on power. Based upon the available dyno, comparison dyno, and acceleration data I've seen so far, it looks to me to be underrated. If it isn't, oh well.

All of this started with me providing a dyno graph in response to a request. You as described in post 259 took it from there.

Happy trolling.