M3 Vs M2 Dyno results

[AIRPOWER]

     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

Did a quick search and didn't get any hits on this topic.

I did my Dyno today on my F80 M3 and it just so happened that a stock M2 was getting Dyno'd in the slot in front of me.

I was able to get a pic of the dyno screen and the print out and talk to the folks doing the dyno on it. Obviously a lot less potent than my stock numbers.

I was actually pretty impressed with the stock numbers from my M3, slightly impressed with the ACS tuner HP output but fairly impressed with it's Torque output. The booth was getting really warm and humid by time the ACS numbers were being recorded which undoubtedly affected its output.

ACS is going to take my car back next week, remap the tuning module and put it back on the Dyno for me for free. I hope that they can work some magic and bump up the numbers. I will post that Dyno when complete.

Here are the extracted numbers from both cars

Stock M3 HP: 461 / 396 WHP
Stock M3 TQ: 436

ACS Tune M3 HP: 498 / 432 WHP
ACS Tune M3 TQ: 496

Stock M2 HP: 377 / 348 WHP
Stock M2 TQ: 383

First 2 Dyno's (picture and printout) are the M2
Last printout is my M3

BMW M2 DYNO:











BMW M3 DYNO:

[AIRPOWER]

Surprised this didn't get any posts. I guess no one cares about the M2 dyno stats compared to the S55. What I found remarkable is the minimal loss of power to the wheels.

377 BHP - 348 WHP = Loss of 29 HP

M3 comparably

461 BHP - 397 WHP = Loss of 64 HP

[hdubf80]

Originally Posted by AIRPOWER

Surprised this didn't get any posts. I guess no one cares about the M2 dyno stats compared to the S55. What I found remarkable is the minimal loss of power to the wheels.

377 BHP - 348 WHP = Loss of 29 HP

M3 comparably

461 BHP - 397 WHP = Loss of 64 HP

Very impressive numbers for the f80

[FSociety]

AIRPOWER thank you posting both numbers!

[twboy1999]

is this to the wheel
or at the crank

[Irishace]

If the M2 N55 motor shares the same turbo as the standard N55 there will only be modest gains from tuning. The N55 without a turbo upgrade was extremely disappointing and had lower than expected tuning potential.

[trey100]

Sorry but I'm confused on what I am looking at.

I tried clicking on the dyno charts but they come up blurry on my phone.

Where are you getting the crank numbers versus wheel numbers (which are measured by the dyno)?

[Mspired]

So the M2 put down 377whp stock?

[FSociety]

Originally Posted by twboy1999

is this to the wheel
or at the crank

Originally Posted by Mspired

So the M2 put down 377whp stock?

Surprised this didn't get any posts. I guess no one cares about the M2 dyno stats compared to the S55. What I found remarkable is the minimal loss of power to the wheels.

377 BHP - 348 WHP = Loss of 29 HP

M3 comparably
461 BHP - 397 WHP = Loss of 64 HP


BHP= Brake Horsepower
WHP= Wheel Horpower

[FC4]

How long did it take to remove and reinstall both engines? Finally someone measured BHP on an engine dyno. You should post those pics.

[forza1976]

Originally Posted by FC4

How long did it take to remove and reinstall both engines? Finally someone measured BHP on an engine dyno. You should post those pics.

[hdubf80]

Originally Posted by ROBNYC

Surprised this didn't get any posts. I guess no one cares about the M2 dyno stats compared to the S55. What I found remarkable is the minimal loss of power to the wheels.

377 BHP - 348 WHP = Loss of 29 HP

M3 comparably
461 BHP - 397 WHP = Loss of 64 HP


BHP= Brake Horsepower
WHP= Wheel Horpower

Why do you think the loss was so minimal compared to the s55 engine?

[FC4]

Originally Posted by hdubf80

Why do you think the loss was so minimal compared to the s55 engine?

Curious on the answer to this as well.

Since both cars have the same transmission, can the loss in the transmission be attributed to the shorter driveshaft in the M2? Any way to get the M3's transmission to only cost 29 HP? Seems like getting the M3's trans to only lose as much power as the M2's can net 35 BHP, bringing the M3 up to 432 WHP. That's a bigger gain than downpipe/exhaust mods.

[hdubf80]

Originally Posted by FC4

Curious on the answer to this as well.

Since both cars have the same transmission, can the loss in the transmission be attributed to the shorter driveshaft in the M2? Any way to get the M3's transmission to only cost 29 HP? Seems like getting the M3's trans to only lose as much power as the M2's can net 35 BHP, bringing the M3 up to 432 WHP. That's a bigger gain than downpipe/exhaust mods.

Very interesting point. I'd think because of the twin turbos compares to twin scroll they would put the power down better. But I guess that's not the case.

[Jockey]

I seriously doubt the M2 has half the drivetrain loss of the F80. While the M2 drivetrain might be shorter, I'm sure the CF driveshaft on the F80 can make up that difference. The M2 doesn't get to ignore physics.

What you see here is just fuzzy numbers coming out of a dyno. Pretty standard really.

[AIRPOWER]

Originally Posted by FC4

How long did it take to remove and reinstall both engines? Finally someone measured BHP on an engine dyno. You should post those pics.

Everyone is a smart ass. I am pretty sure the Dyno extrapolates those numbers

[AIRPOWER]

Originally Posted by Railgun

Here we go again...

Better than being a dumbass.

This is the problem with calculating BHP. Was the exact same calculation used for both runs? There's virtually no reason the loss between both cars should not be the same percentage. 8% vs 14%....that's a SWAG if I ever saw one. 461 STOCK BHP? Really? Maybe in 1968 rated in gross HP.

Same calculation which has me scratching my head as well. The only difference was that the M2 was not on the front wheel rollers, wheels were static. And the technician noticed a little slipping at the M3 wheels because of the torque. Maybe that was enough to make the difference? IDK.......

I really don't know how much drivetrain loss is average for a dyno.

Hey I just made the observation I'm not going to be able to answer why. You cant dispute the WHP.....or maybe you will.

Yes extrapolated Dyno numbers are SWAGs so good on ya for picking up on that!

Also today you can buy a 427 mouse or 383 stroker that produces 500+ BRAKE HP

The smart ass comment was directed to the post of removing engines from cars. Yes I should have said Gross HP and not BHP because I obviously didn't remove an engine for this test. The lol was directed more at me than anyone else. If you can't laugh at yourself than can you laugh at?

Who was the dumbass comment directed towards?

[shahano]

interesting post, why the M3 has so much more loss? if they had the same loss, it would mean that the M2 is much closer to the M4.

[AIRPOWER]

Originally Posted by Jockey

I seriously doubt the M2 has half the drivetrain loss of the F80. While the M2 drivetrain might be shorter, I'm sure the CF driveshaft on the F80 can make up that difference. The M2 doesn't get to ignore physics.

What you see here is just fuzzy numbers coming out of a dyno. Pretty standard really.

I was thinking about this and you are probably absolutely right. The extrapolation that came out of WinPEP was probably jacked up!

[trey100]

If we want to compare the dyno runs all we should be looking at is the WHP and WTQ. In this case it looks like the M3 is making 50 extra HP at peak which is in line with the BMW rating differences between the two models. I wouldn't even look at the peak numbers themselves as they vary fro, dyno to dyno, but rather just the differences between the two dynos.

One thing I am not sure about is how the M2 over boost factors into dyno runs. Do the runs reflect the higher short term torque which is not sustained all the time in real life?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by AIRPOWER

Same calculation which has me scratching my head as well. The only difference was that the M2 was not on the front wheel rollers, wheels were static. And the technician noticed a little slipping at the M3 wheels because of the torque. Maybe that was enough to make the difference? IDK.......

I really don't know how much drivetrain loss is average for a dyno.

Hey I just made the observation I'm not going to be able to answer why. You cant dispute the WHP.....or maybe you will.

Yes extrapolated Dyno numbers are SWAGs so good on ya for picking up on that!

Also today you can buy a 427 mouse or 383 stroker that produces 500+ BRAKE HP

The smart ass comment was directed to the post of removing engines from cars. Yes I should have said Gross HP and not BHP because I obviously didn't remove an engine for this test. The lol was directed more at me than anyone else. If you can't laugh at yourself than can you laugh at?

Who was the dumbass comment directed towards?

If this a 4WD dyno and the front rollers were de-coupled for the M2 while they were connected for the M3, that could certainly exaplain a loss difference.

I don't know what type if dyno you used, but some dynos (such as the Maha) are pretty accurate to assess crank numbers. A Maha can probably be quite more accurate than the average dynojet. 461hp at the crank is pretty consistent to what seen on Maha dynos for the S55. EDIT: I now saw the charts, and you used a Dynojet, I don't believe these dynos have the ability to measure losses, so I am not sure where you got the loss numbers from. Are you sure you are not confusing them with the correction factors?

And your BHP unit was more accurate than Gross HP. Gross HP is used for engines tested on a bench dyno without any of the ancillaries hooked up, which obviously wasn't the case here.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by trey100

If we want to compare the dyno runs all we should be looking at is the WHP and WTQ. In this case it looks like the M3 is making 50 extra HP at peak which is in line with the BMW rating differences between the two models. I wouldn't even look at the peak numbers themselves as they vary fro, dyno to dyno, but rather just the differences between the two dynos.

One thing I am not sure about is how the M2 over boost factors into dyno runs. Do the runs reflect the higher short term torque which is not sustained all the time in real life?

It depends.

If the M3 was indeed run with the 4 wheels spinning and the M2 only with the rears, the whp numbers are not really comparable.