M3 Vs M2 Dyno results

[Warranty P]

Originally Posted by wafik

Uh oh...things about to kick off

Same thing happened last generation. All the mags pumped up 1M, their owners show up at the track thinking they can hang with E92 at the time...and I would just thrash them. Business as usual here. I'm not saying 1M or M2 are bad cars...far from it. Fact is that they are slower than M3/4.

[Mspired]

Active Autowerke put down 330whp with their M2. My guess is they actually had their car connected and run on the dyno currently.

[ASAP]

Can someone summarize this thread?

And can anyone tell me if there is anything different about this N55 from any other?

Sorry... I don't read the tuning section on this forum as the knowledge is equivalent to 1st grade mathematics (at best).

[evanescent03]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I don't know how much of the thread you read. But no, it this case it is not a good comparison because the M3 was tested in 4WD mode while the M2 was tested in 2WD mode, which will skew the whp numbers.

ohhh. wow. I didn't read 100% of it apparently. that's very interesting... :

[Inge_F]

Originally Posted by evanescent03

ohhh. wow. I didn't read 100% of it apparently. that's very interesting... :

Well, Active Autowerke has also measured 50whp difference between m3 and m2, done on the same dyno. So at least you can say thats a trend.
And you should not let these dyno-experts confuse you to much, they tend to over-complicate things in order to make their opinions right.
Of course, these guys will point out that Autowerke did not perform those runs on the same day and so and so... I guess whatever you throw at them they will point out some inconsistency and use it to make the readings invalid. Like it wasn't the same guy who pressed enter to save the readings and so forth ....

[AIRPOWER]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I don't know how much of the thread you read. But no, in this case it is not a good comparison because the M3 was tested in 4WD mode while the M2 was tested in 2WD mode, which will skew the whp numbers.

Ok I talked to the guys at ACS about 2 wheel vs 4 wheel chassis Dyno results since they have conducted 100s of them....and yes they said there is a difference but it is in the range of 4 or so HP. In fact when they re-Dyno'd mine on Thursday they did it with the front wheel rollers locked and then with all 4 rollers engaged and got EXACTLY a 4 HP difference.

So yes you are correct that the WHP numbers are skewed (albeit a VERY small amount - in this case less than 1%) but it does not discredit this comparison as you keep saying it does. Unless you believe 1% is that big of a factor.

Moral of the story - evanescent03 dont believe everything you read

And yes I'm getting smarter on Dynos

[AIRPOWER]

CanAutM3 got my Dyno results back from it's most recent test........ here they are. Also to answer your questions as Dackelone stated Max Leistung - Kupplung is HP at the crankshaft, Max Leitung is WHP.

Here are yesterday's measured Stock and ACS tuner uncorrected numbers

M3 Stock at the crankshaft 475 HP
M3 Stock at the wheels - 405 HP
M3 Stock TQ: 451

M3 ACS tuner module at the crankshaft - 529 HP
M3 ACS tuner module at the wheels - 458 HP
M3 ACS tuner module TQ - 512

Here are last weeks measured Stock and ACS tuner corrected numbers

M3 Stock at the crankshaft - 461 HP
M3 Stock at the wheels - 396 HP
M3 Stock TQ - 436

M3 ACS tuner module at the crankshaft 498 HP
M3 Stock at the wheels - 432 HP
M3 ACS Tune TQ: 496

Now I know what your thinking and that you will ask why the numbers from this Dyno were higher than those of last week and I have the answers for you. It's a number of reasons, first and foremost last week numbers were extrapolated using corrected numbers for SAE and yesterday's were uncorrected which is more accurate because the DME adjusts this internally (that equates to ~5%), second yesterday's Dyno's ambient temperature was significantly lower (to the tune of 20 degrees fahrenheit), thirdly they put extra fans on the two lower left/right front vents to keep the oil temperature lower, and lastly the tank was filled with 102 octane fuel compared to 98 Octane last week.

This time my gains were 405 WHP to 458 WHP and 451 ft lbs to 512 ft lbs (8.8% increase for both)

Last time my gains were 396 WHP to 432 WHP and 436 ft lbs to 496 ft lbs (9.2% and 8.8% increase respectively)

Bottom line: Even though this latest Dyno had HIGHER numbers, the overall percentage gains remained consistent meaning WHP and Torque will change with varying conditions but with my tune it will have a ~9% higher output than stock. Overall I am VERY HAPPY with the gains and as you said the only numbers that really matter are the difference between the WHP measured stock and the the WHP gained with the tune. I would also have to add in the Torque increase as well.

Here is the chart from yesterday- red lines are ACS tuner uncorrected numbers, blue lines are stock uncorrected numbers

[CanAutM3]

Thank you very much for sharing this information and taking the time to ask the questions to ACS. I also believe you are doing the right thing using uncorrected numbers to assess the gains .

Did you get a chance to ask them how their dyno assesses/calculates the "power at the crankshaft"?

I agree with you, a 1% variance (4hp on ~400hp is 1%, not 0.01% ) is not a huge amount and is well within the margin of error of a chassis dyno. I am however surprised that whp would vary that little with the front wheels engaged, I would have expected something in the range of 10~15hp. Are you sure that 4hp variance you saw was on the "Max Leistung" and not on the "Max Leistung Kupplung" ?

[AIRPOWER]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Thank you very much for sharing this information and taking the time to ask the questions to ACS. I also believe you are doing the right thing using uncorrected numbers to assess the gains .

Did you get a chance to ask them how their dyno assesses/calculates the "power at the crankshaft"?

I agree with you, a 1% variance (4hp on ~400hp is 1%, not 0.01% ) is not a huge amount and is well within the margin of error of a chassis dyno. I am however surprised that whp would vary that little with the front wheels engaged, I would have expected something in the range of ~15hp. Are you sure that 4hp variance you saw was on the "Max Leistung" and not on the "Max Leistung Kupplung" ?

Yes it was on the WHP number (Max Leistung). I was running late and forgot to ask them how exactly the Dyno extrapolates to the the Kupplung number (crankshaft). I will send them an email next week.

Oh and thanks for the math correction!!!!! Too many margaritas at red solo cup night tonight

[04RC51]

Where is the spreadsheet! We need the 3 Muppeteers to come to the rescue with the famous spreadsheet they used to "prove" the F80/2 wasn't underrated my BMW. 3 guys who didn't own the car were sooooo invested in proving the new M3/4 numbers were too high to be real. Haha! The amount of time they spent on a forum of a car they didn't own when it came out was astonishing! At least CanAutM3 finally got himself one after a while though.

Bring back the spreadsheet!!!! We must prove the low M2 numbers wrong somehow! Hahahaha!

[trey100]

Originally Posted by AIRPOWER

Yes it was on the WHP number (Max Leistung). I was running late and forgot to ask them how exactly the Dyno extrapolates to the the Kupplung number (crankshaft). I will send them an email next week.

Oh and thanks for the math correction!!!!! Too many margaritas at red solo cup night tonight

This is great information so thank you.

I would drop the crank numbers and focus on the wheel numbers. That's more important anyway.

The stock dyno is pretty impressive too especially this as an uncorrected version.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by 04RC51

Where is the spreadsheet! We need the 3 Muppeteers to come to the rescue with the famous spreadsheet they used to "prove" the F80/2 wasn't underrated my BMW. 3 guys who didn't own the car were sooooo invested in proving the new M3/4 numbers were too high to be real. Haha! The amount of time they spent on a forum of a car they didn't own when it came out was astonishing!

Bring back the spreadsheet!!!! We must prove the low M2 numbers wrong somehow! Hahahaha!

Not sure why you insist on being as a$$ with constant personal attacks ? There is a pattern with you: insult other members without adding any value to threads .

My view on "underrating" has not changed. But I don't think you even know/understand what my view is .

BTW, have you read a few of the more recent CCB threads ?

Originally Posted by 04RC51

Bring back the spreadsheet!!!! We must prove the low M2 numbers wrong somehow! Hahahaha!

It is actually the other way around. I believe the M2 vs M3 numbers in this thread show slightly less difference than there should be.

Originally Posted by 04RC51

At least CanAutM3 finally got himself one after a while though.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean either. I put down a deposit for an F8X in December 2013 (way before any "dyno numbers" were out) and took delivery of my M4 in July 2014. I think that should be enough to qualify me as an "early adopter" .

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by AIRPOWER

Moral of the story - evanescent03 dont believe everything you read

Very true, and also applies to what you read on dyno charts .

The whole purpose of my interventions in those threads is to point out that the absolute numbers from chassis dynos need to be taken with a grain of salt. There are so many variables involved, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from them. At least, you understood the main benefit, which is understanding the relative gains you got from your mods .