Dyno'd!? V2.02 2-26-08 + UR Catback

adrock · 04-01-2008, 06:17 PM

Vishnu looked at my graphs and told me I have 400BHP!!!

It seems like the general consensus is around 12%-15% difference between the two dynos and if that is true I am pretty satisfied.

Also the guys at COBB were really cool, and I think 2 of them drove BMW's (the other 10 or so cars were Subarus, 350Z's, and a G37). They seem like they make a great product! I wish their CAI fit our cars

I was the second 335i to have ever been dynod there, so they did not have any other data. Although the other car had a Vishnu tune and cat back and had about 330 hp and 377 tq. on 1.47. Not sure what settings he was running, but they did have his boost recorded at 15psi max.

Anyways. All in all I am very happy with the cars performance, even if these numbers seem a little low. I have had 0 problems with either of my mods so far, and am excited to get a CAI on here to see how it changes these numbers.

Not that cool but here is a pic from my iPhone (they made me sit in a glass room

)

E82tt6 · 04-01-2008, 06:20 PM

15% is a little on the high side, but not inacurate! I tend to stick to 12%, but either way the numbers are pretty darn good for 91 octane at elevation.

Lane · 04-01-2008, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruff Rider

Mr. 5 have you ever driven at 5000 ft elevation for an extended period of time? Not just passing through. I do it every day and I can say it makes a big difference. Just going down 2500 ft to Vegas for 3 days made me realize what elevation can do to these cars.

Our cars are not affected by the elevation as much as NA cars, because DME increases the boost at elevation. Also the thin air means less drag.

Park2670 · 04-01-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lane

Our cars are not affected by the elevation as much as NA cars, because DME increases the boost at elevation. Also the thin air means less drag.

If this were true, then our cars would be faster than cars at sea level. Which is not true.

Ruff Rider · 04-01-2008, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lane

Our cars are not affected by the elevation as much as NA cars, because DME increases the boost at elevation. Also the thin air means less drag.

hell IM going to run my car at 11,000 feet to beat all the 1/4 mile drag times.

leftcoastman · 04-01-2008, 06:40 PM

M&M, at 5500 ft. trapped 113mph using PRocede V 1.47

Engine Power's relationship to air density is less than linear.

Drag's relationship to air density is exponential.

At lower speeds, it won't make much of a difference, but as you go faster and faster, the "advantage" of being at high altitude becomes more obvious.

Lane · 04-01-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Park2670

If this were true, then our cars would be faster than cars at sea level. Which is not true.

Why would they be faster than cars at sea level?

OpenFlash · 04-01-2008, 06:42 PM

The biggest issue with that dyno run is that the car is still making power when the test ends at 6600rpm. There's more power by just expanding the test RPM range and nothing else.

shiv

2007_E93 · 04-01-2008, 06:45 PM

I didn't mean to start anything, but this STILL seems low to me. I guess some can be accounted for by the Mustang dyno. I just did a quick search and came up with relatively higher numbers on others running V2 or V1.47 on a Mustang.

Here you go...

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...t=mustang+dyno

Lane · 04-01-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruff Rider

hell IM going to run my car at 11,000 feet to beat all the 1/4 mile drag times.

Good thinking, but turbos don't compensate that high elevation and there are no drag strips either. The compensation is appr 0.2 bar only.

Lane · 04-01-2008, 06:49 PM

The dyno figures are within normal variation. There is no reason to assume any major differences between the 2.0.2 maps.

jpsimon · 04-01-2008, 06:49 PM

298whp on that link... which is lower than the OP's

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2007_E93

I didn't mean to start anything, but this STILL seems low to me. I guess some can be accounted for by the Mustang dyno. I just did a quick search and came up with relatively higher numbers on others running V2 or V1.47 on a Mustang.

Here you go...

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...t=mustang+dyno

tomtom · 04-01-2008, 06:54 PM

so which dynos accurately reflect car's output? I mean if our cars are underrated and really have 315-320 bhp, it would seem the dynojet are within that range.

2007_E93 · 04-01-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpsimon

298whp on that link... which is lower than the OP's

Maybe so but Darrin posted

"I have aa exde and ur catless dp plus agency power exhaust,I have 328 whp and 374 tq and mustand dyno with 91 oct.Good luck u,I hope u get more than me."

AND the OP had 361 WTQ without exhaust,...only V2 and CAI. RWHP wass minimally different without exhaust that this threads OP has. I know exhaust may not make up that much difference but it should account for some of the HP difference.

Bubbles · 04-01-2008, 07:05 PM

Mustang Dynos are frowned upon in these parts.

OP are you happy with the power from the mods?

2007_E93 · 04-01-2008, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubbles

Mustang Dynos are frowned upon in these parts.

OP are you happy with the power from the mods?

I guess that's really all it boils down to huh? If he's happy then SALUD

PresaMat · 04-01-2008, 07:13 PM

From what I have seen 12-15% is about the difference on the mustang dyno. BUT there looks like there is an issue with this guys dyno... why did the run stop at 6600? Also was this a auto or manual?

musc · 04-01-2008, 07:20 PM

Hmm, a Helix customers car put down 340/346 on a mustang dyno. Using the logic from this thread, they made 391/397!

Park2670 · 04-01-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lane

Why would they be faster than cars at sea level?

Because according to your philosophy my car is much faster up here than at sea level because of air density.

stillclaimndp · 04-01-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by musc

Hmm, a Helix customers car put down 340/346 on a mustang dyno. Using the logic from this thread, they made 391/397!

different octane, different altitude, different supporting mods, different dyno (more significant on a load dyno than on a dynojet as mustang/dynamic require calibration and a dynojet is just spinning a heavy drum).

Mr. 5 · 04-01-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruff Rider

Mr. 5 have you ever driven at 5000 ft elevation for an extended period of time? Not just passing through. I do it every day and I can say it makes a big difference. Just going down 2500 ft to Vegas for 3 days made me realize what elevation can do to these cars.

I'll take your word for it, but statisticaly speaking, the numbers shouldn't be that different.

Do mustang dynos have SAE or STD correction factors?
If so, did the OP use these factors?
If so, then the elevation should have no affect on this dyno then.

garyhgaryh · 04-01-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2007_E93

WTF? Is anyone else really surprised by this? I was expecting AT LEAST 50 more horses and 30-40 more torque.

No I'm not surprised - it's a mustang dyno. What was your baseline dyno on the mustang dyno? The delta is what you're after.

04-01-2008, 06:17 PM	#23
adrock Major 73 Rep 1,217 Posts Drives: 2014 435i Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: SLC iTrader: (3) Garage List 2011 E92 335i [9.58] 2007 E92 335i [0.00]	Vishnu looked at my graphs and told me I have 400BHP!!! It seems like the general consensus is around 12%-15% difference between the two dynos and if that is true I am pretty satisfied. Also the guys at COBB were really cool, and I think 2 of them drove BMW's (the other 10 or so cars were Subarus, 350Z's, and a G37). They seem like they make a great product! I wish their CAI fit our cars I was the second 335i to have ever been dynod there, so they did not have any other data. Although the other car had a Vishnu tune and cat back and had about 330 hp and 377 tq. on 1.47. Not sure what settings he was running, but they did have his boost recorded at 15psi max. Anyways. All in all I am very happy with the cars performance, even if these numbers seem a little low. I have had 0 problems with either of my mods so far, and am excited to get a CAI on here to see how it changes these numbers. Not that cool but here is a pic from my iPhone (they made me sit in a glass room ) Attached Images __________________
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-01-2008, 06:20 PM	#24
E82tt6 Colonel 103 Rep 2,626 Posts Drives: '08 Black Saphire Z4 MC Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New Jersey iTrader: (0)	15% is a little on the high side, but not inacurate! I tend to stick to 12%, but either way the numbers are pretty darn good for 91 octane at elevation.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-01-2008, 06:40 PM	#28
leftcoastman Lieutenant Colonel 52 Rep 1,714 Posts Drives: 335i Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Near some canyons iTrader: (1)	M&M, at 5500 ft. trapped 113mph using PRocede V 1.47 Engine Power's relationship to air density is less than linear. Drag's relationship to air density is exponential. At lower speeds, it won't make much of a difference, but as you go faster and faster, the "advantage" of being at high altitude becomes more obvious.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-01-2008, 06:42 PM	#30
OpenFlash 1736 Rep 17,960 Posts Drives: A Lot Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SF Bay, CA iTrader: (0) Garage List 2018 Ducati Panigal ... [0.00] 2016 Mazda CX5 [0.00] 2017 Aprilia Tuono ... [0.00] 2019 BMW M2 Competi ... [0.00] 2015 BMW M5 Competi ... [10.00] 2016 Ducati XDiavel S [0.00] 2016 AMG GT S [0.00] 2011 Ferrari 458 It ... [0.00] 2017 Charger Hellcat [0.00] 2015 KTM Super Duke ... [0.00] 2016 KTM RC390 [0.00]	The biggest issue with that dyno run is that the car is still making power when the test ends at 6600rpm. There's more power by just expanding the test RPM range and nothing else. shiv
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-01-2008, 06:45 PM	#31
2007_E93 Captain 19 Rep 604 Posts Drives: ? Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: ? iTrader: (0)	I didn't mean to start anything, but this STILL seems low to me. I guess some can be accounted for by the Mustang dyno. I just did a quick search and came up with relatively higher numbers on others running V2 or V1.47 on a Mustang. Here you go... http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...t=mustang+dyno
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-01-2008, 06:49 PM	#33
Lane Several N54 cars, V1,3, V2.0.2, and V3.1 12 Rep 778 Posts Drives: N54s Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: UK DE GR SW iTrader: (0)	The dyno figures are within normal variation. There is no reason to assume any major differences between the 2.0.2 maps.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-01-2008, 06:54 PM	#35
tomtom Captain 52 Rep 986 Posts Drives: e92 335i Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: ontario iTrader: (4)	so which dynos accurately reflect car's output? I mean if our cars are underrated and really have 315-320 bhp, it would seem the dynojet are within that range.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-01-2008, 07:05 PM	#37
Bubbles Brigadier General 2753 Rep 4,445 Posts Drives: Green Bastard Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bishop Bend iTrader: (3)	Mustang Dynos are frowned upon in these parts. OP are you happy with the power from the mods? __________________
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-01-2008, 07:13 PM	#39
PresaMat Major 35 Rep 1,169 Posts Drives: 67 GT500,69 Boss 429, 335i Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston,TX iTrader: (0) Garage List 1967 Shelby Mustang ... [0.00]	From what I have seen 12-15% is about the difference on the mustang dyno. BUT there looks like there is an issue with this guys dyno... why did the run stop at 6600? Also was this a auto or manual? __________________ -Mat Tuned E92 335, Riss Racing downpipes! And hopefully over 400RWHP!!
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-01-2008, 07:20 PM	#40
musc ****** 184 Rep 1,702 Posts Drives: Audi TTRS, 335is Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: SC iTrader: (9) Garage List 2011 BMW 335is [10.00]	Hmm, a Helix customers car put down 340/346 on a mustang dyno. Using the logic from this thread, they made 391/397!
	Appreciate 0 Quote