F80 M3 / F82 M4 S55 Tuning

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

So lets say there is a 3% drivetrain loss factor...

3% is that a typo? Most folks use 15% although I think the current E92 probably has total losses closer to 12%.

Originally Posted by RSXDC5

I was giving a more conservative number to start, although I do believe the car will dyno around 405whp stock though. That's about a 5% drivetrain loss.

Ah, I think I see how you guys are doing this, but it's really misleading. When a car is underrated you call that a low drivetrain loss. That screws up calculations and is entirely non-physical. The loss for the car will probably be 11-12% and it will probably be underrated producing right about 400 whp.

[M5Rlz]

Originally Posted by swamp2

3% is that a typo? Most folks use 15% although I think the current E92 probably has total losses closer to 12%.

Uhh no... Almost everyone whose done a dyno on m5post regardless is getting 0-5% drivetrain loss*if you based the percentage as compared to the stock BMW listed 560 **[yup i edited that ].

My m5 WITH charcoal filters using the Dyno recommended by friends at PTF posted the below... if you'd like to see the car on the dyno I'd be more than happy to put the video up too.

point being if the m3/m4s are equally underrated its a given a majority of us should stay in the 400whp range.



And if we're going off your 15% for the m5 at least that would be around 480whp the lowest dyno I've ever seen posted for an F10 m5 is 495... Most are between 510-530 with a good amount of us between 540-570

[jackkk]

I got Cobb and Protuningfreaks eTuna St.2+ 450hp 660Nm on my 1M and I really loked it.
So if the f-series DME will be available for tuning, I will go the same way.
And I will never install the jb4 or something - I had jb4 on my 335i and I wasn't hapy with it, got some Check engines cery often.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by RSXDC5

It will dyno about 395whp stock, multiply that by 1.18 to get you 466hp, the REAL stock hp. Adding another 125whp is entirely feasible with the JB4, a turbo back exhaust, and some good gas. That will then net you about 520whp, or 613hp. It's fairly simple when u just do the math.

Even if u guys want to low ball the power potential, say, +75whp with the mods listed above, that's still 470whp, or 554hp.

I can buy the 395 whp stock part but def not the +125 whp tuned part. No one knows how conservative or not conservative the turbos are pushed stock. Please do not use the N54 as a standard for everything, I can guarantee that engine is a near one off. The N54 ran 8 psi stock, at 18 it made ~ 420 whp. For what you said to be true... these turbos need to be the size of rb's to make that power. Bmw wouldnt not choose turbos that large as they would not have the responsiveness worthy of an m car.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

Uhh no... Almost everyone whose done a dyno on m5post regardless is getting 0-5% drivetrain loss.

My m5 WITH charcoal filters using the Dyno recommended by friends at PTF posted the below... if you'd like to see the car on the dyno I'd be more than happy to put the video up too.

point being if the m3/m4s are equally underrated its a given a majority of us should stay in the 400whp range.



And if we're going off your 15% for the m5 at least that would be around 480whp the lowest dyno I've ever seen posted for an F10 m5 is 495... Most are between 510-530 with a good amount of us between 540-570

You can NOT have 0% drivetrain loss... A 0% drivetrain loss would mean that there is NO power required to turn the transmission, driveshaft, differential and rear wheels... That is simply not possible

Nor have I heard of any manufacturer claiming 5% losses either. It's generally accepted that drivetrain losses usually are in the order of 10-20% depending on type of transmission etc.

A few points:

-Dyno numbers varies according to type of dyno, operator, and numerous factors that influence the actual recorded whp on the dyno
-A whp number on a rolling road dyno is best used to verify before and after mod gains. It's not an exact tool to verify manufacturers crank HP claims
-It's generally agreed that the M5 is underrated, meaning that a 560whp reading on a dyno doesn't mean you have 0% drivetrain loss...

If we shall comparo dyno results. We at least need to know the type of dyno, correction factors etc. The same car might get 500whp on one dyno and 560whp on a different dyno...

560hp and a 15% drivetrain loss is 476whp, 12% loss is 493whp
600hp and a 15% drivetrain loss is 510whp, 12% loss is 528whp

If we look at a test done on a MAHA dyno, the same as used by manufacturers and test facilities here in Europe. You will see that they also display the drivetrain losses and that is as much as 120-140hp... The MAHA is supposedly the more accurate dyno, and is why you don't see inflated whp numbers. The dyno actually measures the losses in the drivetrain (or how much power it takes just to get it from the crank and to the rear wheels).

[jackkk]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I can buy the 395 whp stock part but def not the +125 whp tuned part. No one knows how conservative or not conservative the turbos are pushed stock. Please do not use the N54 as a standard for everything, I can guarantee that engine is a near one off. The N54 ran 8 psi stock, at 18 it made ~ 420 whp. For what you said to be true... these turbos need to be the size of rb's to make that power. Bmw wouldnt not choose turbos that large as they would not have the responsiveness worthy of an m car.

S55 Turbos are 1 size bigger than N54, so the same like RB.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by jackkk

S55 Turbos are 1 size bigger than N54, so the same like RB.

BMW said that the turbine side of the turbos are actually smaller than the N54...? Are you talking about the compressor side?

Do you have any info on the "1 size bigger"?
Turbo spec has been requested several times but no hard data has been forthcoming so far. Would be great if someone finally had some solid info

[jackkk]

Originally Posted by Boss330

BMW said that the turbine side of the turbos are actually smaller than the N54...? Are you talking about the compressor side?

Do you have any info on the "1 size bigger"?
Turbo spec has been requested several times but no hard data has been forthcoming so far. Would be great if someone finally had some solid info

I read somewhere that S55 have Mitsubishi TD04 Turbos with 18.1 psi, the N54 has TD03 Turbos. For 1M N54 had 14.5 psi in stock. 335i - 12 psi.
But now I can't remmember where I read this...

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by jackkk

S55 Turbos are 1 size bigger than N54, so the same like RB.

Please provide proof of this.

Originally Posted by Boss330

BMW said that the turbine side of the turbos are actually smaller than the N54...? Are you talking about the compressor side?

Do you have any info on the "1 size bigger"?
Turbo spec has been requested several times but no hard data has been forthcoming so far. Would be great if someone finally had some solid info

Yes

Originally Posted by jackkk

I read somewhere that S55 have Mitsubishi TD04 Turbos with 18.1 psi, the N54 has TD03 Turbos. For 1M N54 had 14.5 psi in stock. 335i - 12 psi.
But now I can't remmember where I read this...

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

[Damasconian]

Originally Posted by Sam335ix

I am intrigued to see if the new m3/m4 could get serious numbers out by tuning. I spoke with a few tuners and they said the engine is already limited so if you could tune let's say Cobb it will be maybe additional 50 hp/tq. What does everyone think about this? Also, I am about to put a deposit and the dealer is asking for 5k?

I live in Houston and have contacted two dealers regarding Euro delivery. One asked for 2K deposit, and the other asked for 1K. But that is regarding Euro delivery so if you are buying local but still ordering to your specs, Im not sure.

[RSXDC5]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I can buy the 395 whp stock part but def not the +125 whp tuned part. No one knows how conservative or not conservative the turbos are pushed stock. Please do not use the N54 as a standard for everything, I can guarantee that engine is a near one off. The N54 ran 8 psi stock, at 18 it made ~ 420 whp. For what you said to be true... these turbos need to be the size of rb's to make that power. Bmw wouldnt not choose turbos that large as they would not have the responsiveness worthy of an m car.

Thanks for your commentary. As stated, the +125whp tuned power "quote" also takes into consideration better fuel and a Turbo Back Exhaust. On the new m3, it is no far stretch to assume a TBE will net +25whp, and better fuel...another +35whp (with tune). That is +60whp or so, of my original total number of a tuned +125whp...that being said, we have a remaining window of 65whp to be had with a tune, outside of fuel and a turbo back...given the tuning window BMW provides as a standard with their engines now-a-days, that 65whp or so is not a far stretch, at all.

Instead of nitpicking each others numbers which are relatively accurate, you should just be happy you will own a +600hp tuned M3 at some point in the future. I don't know about you, but that definitely excites me.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

Uhh no... Almost everyone whose done a dyno on m5post regardless is getting 0-5% drivetrain loss.

As Boss330 mostly explained, drivetrain losses are not a correction or "fudge factor" simply showing the difference between stated and measured power. It is best to increase the clarity of such statements are use an actual crank hp measured and a fixed drivetrain loss. Granted getting the latter is not easy, thus most dyno guys use some fixed value and often 15%. It's really a shame if folks call your number a 5% drivetrain loss as that is physically impossible and really impedes understanding. Buck the trend, post the right way to discuss such numbers.

Boss330: Can you please translate the quantities in the upper left hand box of results?

[M5Rlz]

Originally Posted by Boss330

You can NOT have 0% drivetrain loss... A 0% drivetrain loss would mean that there is NO power required to turn the transmission, driveshaft, differential and rear wheels... That is simply not possible

Nor have I heard of any manufacturer claiming 5% losses either. It's generally accepted that drivetrain losses usually are in the order of 10-20% depending on type of transmission etc.

A few points:

-Dyno numbers varies according to type of dyno, operator, and numerous factors that influence the actual recorded whp on the dyno
-A whp number on a rolling road dyno is best used to verify before and after mod gains. It's not an exact tool to verify manufacturers crank HP claims
-It's generally agreed that the M5 is underrated, meaning that a 560whp reading on a dyno doesn't mean you have 0% drivetrain loss...

If we shall comparo dyno results. We at least need to know the type of dyno, correction factors etc. The same car might get 500whp on one dyno and 560whp on a different dyno...

560hp and a 15% drivetrain loss is 476whp, 12% loss is 493whp
600hp and a 15% drivetrain loss is 510whp, 12% loss is 528whp

If we look at a test done on a MAHA dyno, the same as used by manufacturers and test facilities here in Europe. You will see that they also display the drivetrain losses and that is as much as 120-140hp... The MAHA is supposedly the more accurate dyno, and is why you don't see inflated whp numbers. The dyno actually measures the losses in the drivetrain (or how much power it takes just to get it from the crank and to the rear wheels).

[IMG]]

Yay for reading into my post and being overly factual I guess I should have clarified that whatever numbers the car put down there would be a % of drivetrain loss. All I did was base a percentage off the BMWUSA stock post crank numbers... What you did [and proper I'm not denying that] is find the actual HP then deduct the proper 15-20% or whatever % it maybe]

Originally Posted by swamp2

As Boss330 mostly explained, drivetrain losses are not a correction or "fudge factor" simply showing the difference between stated and measured power. It is best to increase the clarity of such statements are use an actual crank hp measured and a fixed drivetrain loss. Granted getting the latter is not easy, thus most dyno guys use some fixed value and often 15%. It's really a shame if folks call your number a 5% drivetrain loss as that is physically impossible and really impedes understanding. Buck the trend, post the right way to discuss such numbers.

Boss330: Can you please translate the quantities in the upper left hand box of results?

Its really a shame if you don't acknowledge the 63tu is coming underrated [like n54,n55] but I guess you win post war haha...

And FYI while it may not be correct to say 554whp is 2% drivetrainloss of stock listed crank numbers[560] as BOSS explained... Nobody was trying to "fudge numbers" to win a posting war lol just show you that new M's (I know its hard with the NA ) are coming underrated, and its reasonable to assume this car will too.

As you went off saying lets use 15% off stock crank numbers which wouldn't be a wise starting point either as even the f30 335i's were underrated as seen below. http://www.f30post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=652127

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by swamp2

As Boss330 mostly explained, drivetrain losses are not a correction or "fudge factor" simply showing the difference between stated and measured power. It is best to increase the clarity of such statements are use an actual crank hp measured and a fixed drivetrain loss. Granted getting the latter is not easy, thus most dyno guys use some fixed value and often 15%. It's really a shame if folks call your number a 5% drivetrain loss as that is physically impossible and really impedes understanding. Buck the trend, post the right way to discuss such numbers.

Boss330: Can you please translate the quantities in the upper left hand box of results?

I believe you mean the box beneath the graph, right?

Norm-leistung - Crank horsepower (HP/kW) corrected to "norm", in this case EU standard 80/1269 (but it can also be according to ISO or SAE standards of course)
Motorleistung - Crank horsepower (before correction to the chosen standard)
Radleistung - Wheel horsepower (RWHP as measured without correction)
Schleppleistung - Drag power (or transmission losses)

Hope this is what you requested

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

Its really a shame if you don't acknowledge the 63tu is coming underrated [like n54,n55] but I guess you win post war haha...

That is entirely out of left field, I have no idea how you conclude that. The S63Tu in the M5/6 is clearly underrated. Again underrating and losses are completely separate topics. To mix them in an unclear fashion doesn't help anyone get the details understood correctly.

There is no intent whatsoever here of a post war. Not sure where that is coming from either....

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Boss330

I believe you mean the box beneath the graph, right?
...
Hope this is what you requested

Thanks, that is what I was looking for. For clarity I meant of the four boxes the upper left most box. Cheers.

[chiplee]

You guys are getting me excited. What am I supposed to do with myself while I wait for this thing to be delivered? Just changed my 4GC order to an M3.

[M5Rlz]

Originally Posted by swamp2

That is entirely out of left field, I have no idea how you conclude that. The S63Tu in the M5/6 is clearly underrated. Again underrating and losses are completely separate topics. To mix them in an unclear fashion doesn't help anyone get the details understood correctly.

There is no intent whatsoever here of a post war. Not sure where that is coming from either....

I explained how I was interpreting it, and while it may not be the correct way to do it, I certainly wasn't being unclear or trying to misrepresent the facts

[ybbiz34]

Hasn't the M5's ECU been notoriously difficult to crack?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

You can NOT have 0% drivetrain loss... A 0% drivetrain loss would mean that there is NO power required to turn the transmission, driveshaft, differential and rear wheels... That is simply not possible

Nor have I heard of any manufacturer claiming 5% losses either. It's generally accepted that drivetrain losses usually are in the order of 10-20% depending on type of transmission etc.

We are getting in semantics here, but tire losses and inertial factors are technically not part of drivetrain losses. IMO, true drivetrain losses of 5-12% are probably more representative of reality on modern cars. However, running a car on a chassis roller dyno, the tire rolling losses and the drivetrain inertial effects need to be factored in bringing the total discrepancy in the 12-18% range.

Originally Posted by Boss330

If we look at a test done on a MAHA dyno, the same as used by manufacturers and test facilities here in Europe. You will see that they also display the drivetrain losses and that is as much as 120-140hp...

Any clue on how they measure those drivetrain losses?

Originally Posted by Boss330

The MAHA is supposedly the more accurate dyno, and is why you don't see inflated whp numbers. The dyno actually measures the losses in the drivetrain (or how much power it takes just to get it from the crank and to the rear wheels).

Looking at pictures from Maha dynos, it seems they are roller type dynos. So the losses are more than drivetrain losses (crank to rear wheels as you stated correctly), they also include tire rolling resistance and may include inertial factors depending which type of dyno is used or what sampling methodology is used. It seems Maha does brake and inertia type dynos, the former being the more accurate one. But in terms of chassis dynos, hub dynos remain more accurate.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

I certainly wasn't being intentionally unclear or trying to misrepresent the facts

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

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

IMO, true drivetrain losses of 5-12% are probably more representative of reality on modern cars.

5-12%?

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