Bootmod3 non-ZCP / ZCP (Comp) / CS / BM3-CS / BM3 STG1 91OCT dyno results

[Txipi84]

Great post, thankk you Halim@HCP .

I have a couple of question for you :-)

- All run were done in sport plus mode. There are differencies with other modes?
- I'm Spanish and here we have 95-98Oct, I understand the results will be better no?

Thank you man!!

[dsmclark]

Originally Posted by Txipi84

Great post, thankk you Halim@HCP .

I have a couple of question for you :-)

- All run were done in sport plus mode. There are differencies with other modes?
- I'm Spanish and here we have 95-98Oct, I understand the results will be better no?

Thank you man!!

95 (Europe) = 91 (USA)
98 (Europe) = 93 (USA)

[Halim@HCP]

Originally Posted by Txipi84

Great post, thankk you Halim@HCP .

I have a couple of question for you :-)

- All run were done in sport plus mode. There are differencies with other modes?
- I'm Spanish and here we have 95-98Oct, I understand the results will be better no?

Thank you man!!

I made a dynopull in efficient too, approx 10whp difference from 5000-6500RPM vs sport mode. I ran efficient then sport plus.

[Halim@HCP]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I am susprised with the numbers posted above for the CP. Doing a survery of different European magazine I came up with the following average results:



Further, according to your dynos, the CS would not be much faster than a CP on a 100-200km/h as it makes almost the same aversge power in the power band, which is inconsistent with the above results.

I'm just sharing what I measured. I didn't redline, I'm showing what the best times were, so I took an average of that. I had CS 460HP do 8.06 with a passanger, but that was once. Still fast

[Txipi84]

Originally Posted by Halim@HCP

I made a dynopull in efficient too, approx 10whp difference from 5000-6500RPM vs sport mode. I ran efficient then sport plus.

Interesting... I wanted to ask that question because BMW oficially says that the difference between the modes is only the pedal of gas, not differents engine maps. Is it correct?

[Halim@HCP]

Originally Posted by Txipi84

Interesting... I wanted to ask that question because BMW oficially says that the difference between the modes is only the pedal of gas, not differents engine maps. Is it correct?

Yeah that's what you feel as the driver, but it has a small overboost function too!

[Txipi84]

Originally Posted by Halim@HCP

Yeah that's what you feel as the driver, but it has a small overboost function too!

Good news because my feelings are more powerfull in sport plus mode. In this mode the engine is more gross.

In other way, I have the stock engine (431hp). Can the engine support the increase of power to 500hp without any change of hardware? What about of engine reliability?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by SeanWRT

CanAutM3 CS doesn't have a stronger top end, a proven fact that's hard for you to swallow I'd understand. In fact, top end across base/zcp/cs are identical. You can find many dyno overlay to show that and the datalog here is even more educative if you're familiar with these stuff.

What's only confusing is CS' much better magazine times reported, which probably is not true. Of course mag time is much more acknowledgeable "from your part" I take it LOL

Anyway, CS is already blistering fast stock, so is any S55 for a power source of compact sedan and sedan derived coupes.

OP made an excellent thread, more informative than all the stupid threads here in the past few years combined.

This bolded statement had me chuckle.

As a professional engineering that has spent the majority of his 25-year career (and still counting) around engine testing for an aircraft engine manufacturer, I got to learn a thing or two about dynos and power ratings . Where I work, we have several dozen multi-million dollar engine test cells with a support team of well over 100 engineers, technicians, mechanics and instrumentation specialists that are responsible to maintain, calibrate and correlate the test cells. Further, there are many variables at play during engine operation depending on each particular operating condition. This tells me than obtaining accurate and repeatable power ratings is not a simple task that any corner shop can achieve with a basic chassis dyno. Hence why I take all those dyno plots posted everywhere with a certain grain of salt.

I think we agree on the fact that the acceleration figures previously posted are not aligned with power charts posted in the OP. However, knowing what I know about dynos and engine testing has me having greater faith in the averaged acceleration results obtained by multiple independent publications. The sample is large enough for me to have confidence that the power in the powerband of the CS tune is significantly greater than that of the CP tune, resulting in superior acceleration.

You can believe what you wish, but it isn't "proof" just because it is what you believe.

[TrueNorthM5]

Some really interesting graphs to mull over. Thanks for posting!

These are some of the highest results I've seen for an OTS 91 (or 93 for that matter) stage 1 tune. Probably 15-20whp more than I've seen. 90whp and 100tq over baseline is pretty amazing.

As for as the non-ZCP < ZCP < CS "controversy". It seems that for gears 1,2,3 there's a substantial area under the curve that will still result in the faster acceleration times we are seeing. Top end (80mph+) , by the time you are past 5500rpm in 3rd gear, those advantages will dissipate. However since the ZCP/CS is already accelerating faster prior to that point, they are likely still pulling away from the non-ZCP at that point. It's all moot if you tune anyways, but its certainly interesting.

[chewbakam4]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

This bolded statement had me chuckle.

As a professional engineering that has spent the majority of his 25-year career (and still counting) around engine testing for an aircraft engine manufacturer, I got to learn a thing or two about dynos and power ratings . Where I work, we have several dozen multi-million dollar engine test cells with a support team of well over 100 engineers, technicians, mechanics and instrumentation specialists that are responsible to maintain, calibrate and correlate the test cells. Further, there are many variables at play during engine operation depending on each particular operating condition. This tells me than obtaining accurate and repeatable power ratings is not a simple task that any corner shop can achieve with a basic chassis dyno. Hence why I take all those dyno plots posted everywhere with a certain grain of salt.

I think we agree on the fact that the acceleration figures previously posted are not aligned with power charts posted in the OP. However, knowing what I know about dynos and engine testing has me having greater faith in the averaged acceleration results obtained by multiple independent publications. The sample is large enough for me to have confidence that the power in the powerband of the CS tune is significantly greater than that of the CP tune, resulting in superior acceleration.

You can believe what you wish, but it isn't "proof" just because it is what you believe.

As an engineer with 25 years of experience instead of testing it out for yourself you’d rather be hypothetical? Engineering is an applied science so you need to try it for yourself. I have run bm3 aince the beginning and I can tell you these guys and BM3 have been nothing but transparent and just honest. We can discuss numbers here of course. They’re here for discussion and what makes it fun.

Halim thank you so much for doing all this for us and showing results on same dyno same day! Is this on your new dyno? Hope we see even more charts soon and vbox or dragy numbers!

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by chewbakam4

As an engineer with 25 years of experience instead of testing it out for yourself you’d rather be hypothetical? Engineering is an applied science so you need to try it for yourself. I have run bm3 aince the beginning and I can tell you these guys and BM3 have been nothing but transparent and just honest. We can discuss numbers here of course. They’re here for discussion and what makes it fun.

Halim thank you so much for doing all this for us and showing results on same dyno same day! Is this on your new dyno? Hope we see even more charts soon and vbox or dragy numbers!

As a long time test engineer, I do stronly believe in testing and I have indeed tested this myself: I can confirm my M4cs pulls more on the top end than my previous base M4 did. But that is only one data point .

BTW, I am in no way questioning the quality of bm3 tunes. My above comment was directly aimed at a specific post at not at the OP. I do appreciate what the OP has done in this thread and it does provide interesting information. I agree that they have been very transparent.

Note that this thread is also about comparing stock tunes, not only bm3 tunes. The OP even confirms that the stock CS tune has yielded very good acceleration results in the real world, which is contrary to the dyno results published in the OP.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by TrueNorthM3

As for as the non-ZCP < ZCP < CS "controversy". It seems that for gears 1,2,3 there's a substantial area under the curve that will still result in the faster acceleration times we are seeing. Top end (80mph+) , by the time you are past 5500rpm in 3rd gear, those advantages will dissipate. However since the ZCP/CS is already accelerating faster prior to that point, they are likely still pulling away from the non-ZCP at that point. It's all moot if you tune anyways, but its certainly interesting.

That's the thing, 100-200km pulls are all about the top-end pulling power in the 5200-7200rpm band, hence why the dyno charts in the OP do not seem to correlate with real world acceleration results between the CP and CS.

If two cars start a side-by-side acceleration run from 100km/h, how much they can accelerate prior to that is irrelevant.

[jpsimon]

How did you perform the test? Did you do 100-200kph runs measured with a vbox (or similar) on the same road or at least similar incline/decline in similar conditions? Could you share the results? I'm sure people would appreciate the data.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

As a long time test engineer, I do stronly believe in testing and I have indeed tested this myself: I can confirm my M4cs pulls more on the top end than my previous base M4 did. But that is only one data point .

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by jpsimon

How did you perform the test? Did you do 100-200kph runs measured with a vbox (or similar) on the same road or at least similar incline/decline in similar conditions? Could you share the results? I'm sure people would appreciate the data.

I checked the data logs of a few best best laps and measured the time to speed from 160km/h (corner exit) to 225km/h (slightly before top speed) on the back straight of my local track. My 2019 M4cs needs about 0.8~1.0 seconds less than my 2015 M4 did to accelerate between these speeds.

[SeanWRT]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I checked the data logs of a few best best laps and measured the time to speed from 160km/h (corner exit) to 225km/h (slightly before top speed) on the back straight of my local track. My 2019 M4cs needs about 0.8~1.0 seconds less than my 2015 M4 did to accelerate between these speeds.

That is about one of the most unscientific data reported by any engineer...that I know.

Your data isn't necessarily wrong though. Just that you could be staying at one gear higher than the lowest possible, which is normal exiting the corner, hence using the middle range a little more than would in a drag race.

Only engine datalog tells the whole story, which is obviously showing the same top end tuning strategy across these models. And that's the only thing I've been talking about.

Mag time, independent time are all with variables. And lastly, yes yes yes, your CS is faster than lesser S55 we'll give you that.

[jww///95]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

...If two cars start a side-by-side acceleration run from 100km/h, how much they can accelerate prior to that is irrelevant.

Yes and no... For NA engines i'd agree. For turbo cars how they build boost will be a factor. One would have to assume that WOT and then full boost occurred prior to hitting the 100km/h 'start' point.

[jww///95]

And still on the 100-200km/h somewhat off topic thread created here it makes you wonder about non-engine powertrain and delivery of the CS vs. base/CP. We know there is a difference in diff and dsc coding on these cars. Do they also share the GTS DCT coding? Also i'd imagine that a lot of testing is done with the PSC2 tires vs. PSS so there has to be a traction advantage of the CS when taking this into account plus trans, diff, dsc (if not fully off).

[MNoob]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

This bolded statement had me chuckle.

As a professional engineering that has spent the majority of his 25-year career (and still counting) around engine testing for an aircraft engine manufacturer, I got to learn a thing or two about dynos and power ratings . Where I work, we have several dozen multi-million dollar engine test cells with a support team of well over 100 engineers, technicians, mechanics and instrumentation specialists that are responsible to maintain, calibrate and correlate the test cells. Further, there are many variables at play during engine operation depending on each particular operating condition. This tells me than obtaining accurate and repeatable power ratings is not a simple task that any corner shop can achieve with a basic chassis dyno. Hence why I take all those dyno plots posted everywhere with a certain grain of salt.

I think we agree on the fact that the acceleration figures previously posted are not aligned with power charts posted in the OP. However, knowing what I know about dynos and engine testing has me having greater faith in the averaged acceleration results obtained by multiple independent publications. The sample is large enough for me to have confidence that the power in the powerband of the CS tune is significantly greater than that of the CP tune, resulting in superior acceleration.

You can believe what you wish, but it isn't "proof" just because it is what you believe.

from one engineer to another, this post is rubbish. your data is no better than any other data simply because you have 25 years of doing what ever you do. that's not how it works. at all. ever.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by SeanWRT

That is about one of the most unscientific data reported by any engineer...that I know.

Your data isn't necessarily wrong though. Just that you could be staying at one gear higher than the lowest possible, which is normal exiting the corner, hence using the middle range a little more than would in a drag race.

Only engine datalog tells the whole story, which is obviously showing the same top end tuning strategy across these models. And that's the only thing I've been talking about.

Mag time, independent time are all with variables. And lastly, yes yes yes, your CS is faster than lesser S55 we'll give you that.

I've never claimed this to be the most scientific test either and that's why I have not posted about it before someone specifically asked me about it. I did this simply because I was curious about the performance difference between my two cars. Like I said, it is only one datapoint.

Regarding the validity of the test though, I eliminated as many variables as possible. I chose 160km/h because it is slightly past track out, is at WOT and is past my 3rd gear shift point. I chose 225km/h because it is still at WOT a few km/h short of the braking point. So this is strictly a straight line drag race in 4th and 5th gear. But it remains what it is: a rough appreciation of the acceleration difference between the two cars.

As for magazine acceleration tests, yes, the are full of variables. However, the general trend pretty solidly indicates that the CS tune out accelerates the CP tune between 100 and 200km/h. The odds of ALL these data points being skewed one way are pretty darn low. Which is inconsistent with the dyno datapoint in the OP.

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to demonstrate with all this argumentation though

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by MNoob

from one engineer to another, this post is rubbish. your data is no better than any other data simply because you have 25 years of doing what ever you do. that's not how it works. at all. ever.

I am using my many years of experience in the domain to be critical of the accuracy of power numbers obtained on simple chassis dynos and that a claimed "proven fact" is not necessarily so. Chassis dynos are far from being absolute.

My compilation of magazine acceleration test data is not the most scientifically accurate method either, I even said so myself. It is however a valid scientific approach to look at multiple sources of information and make an overall assessment based on general trends. And this is exactly what I am doing here.

Further, if I read correctly what Halim@HCP is saying, he is seeing lower boost targets when he logged the CP tune on the street than what he saw during the dyno pulls. That tells us something...

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by jww///95

Yes and no... For NA engines i'd agree. For turbo cars how they build boost will be a factor. One would have to assume that WOT and then full boost occurred prior to hitting the 100km/h 'start' point.

I agree with you in the case of the two cars starting the acceleration run from a constant 100km/h, so engine response comes into play. However, the results I compiled are measured from a continuous acceleration with both cars being at WOT well before the 100km/h start point.

[Halim@HCP]

Guys!

My own experience is that the ZCP is stronger than the non ZCP. I know BMW says 19HP more. But it just feels much stronger on the road, also vbox 100-200km/h road is 0.4-0.5 sec faster.

CS is way stronger than ZCP. The extra torque gives a faster time 100-150km/h, topend 5700+ RPM is similar to ZCP, nevertheless it's much faster than ZCP. My best time was 8.0 sec 100-200km/h but otherwise than that, consistent 8.4-8.5 sec while ZCP was 8.8-9.0 sec!