|
|
|
|
|
|
BMW Garage | BMW Meets | Register | Today's Posts | Search |
|
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum
>
Dyno'd!? V2.02 2-26-08 + UR Catback
|
|
04-01-2008, 03:45 PM | #1 |
Major
73
Rep 1,217
Posts
Drives: 2014 435i
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SLC
|
Dyno'd!? V2.02 2-26-08 + UR Catback
Not super happy with the numbers. But I guess Mustang + Altitude = Lower Numbers??
Details: Mustang Dyno PROcede V2.02 2-26-08 -Preset TQ Settings (90% I beleive) Ultimate Racing Catback (Secondary Cat Delete) 91 Octane Elevation: 4,226 FT Results are Temp Adjusted but it was about 45 deg. Pulls were done in 4th gear 309 HP 343 TQ
__________________
|
04-01-2008, 03:47 PM | #2 |
Major General
152
Rep 5,501
Posts |
Wow, very impressive. Congrats!
Its a Mustang, not Dynojet. Dynojet numbers would be 355rwhp/395wtq. Great for just an exhaust and piggyback on 91 octane.
__________________
2007 E92 Montego Blue 335i
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 03:48 PM | #3 |
Captain
19
Rep 604
Posts |
WTF? Is anyone else really surprised by this? I was expecting AT LEAST 50 more horses and 30-40 more torque.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 03:49 PM | #4 |
Lieutenant
10
Rep 412
Posts |
Mustang Dyno's usually read lower from what I remember.
__________________
"The most important mod is the one behind the steering wheel" - Koyokid RIP
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 03:51 PM | #5 |
Captain
81
Rep 849
Posts |
Please read the thread. This is a Mustang dyno. They read I believe 15% lower than DynoJets.
__________________
08 E92 335xi Space Gray 6AT - PROcede V2 12.8 @ 111 mph
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 03:52 PM | #6 |
Corporate Hack
4
Rep 288
Posts |
Without a pre mod run on the same dyno the same day, its hard to evaluate what those numbers mean. Different dynos on different days will spit out vastly different numbers for the same car.
__________________
New Car: 2008 335xi Coupe
Earlier Car: 2004 STi (got stolen) Earlier Earlier Car: 1995 Mustang GT (416 whp and a blown engine) Really Much Earlier Car: 1988 Mazda 626 TURBO |
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 03:54 PM | #7 |
Major
73
Rep 1,217
Posts
Drives: 2014 435i
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SLC
|
If that is true then I would be super happy with those numbers! I did not think it was 15% lower!
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 03:58 PM | #9 |
Major General
152
Rep 5,501
Posts |
Its true, which is why I posted your numbers plus the 15% in the second post of this thread.
__________________
2007 E92 Montego Blue 335i
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 03:58 PM | #10 | |
Major
73
Rep 1,217
Posts
Drives: 2014 435i
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SLC
|
Quote:
I had realized that a Mustang would produce lower "more accurate" numbers, but I did not realize that it made that big a difference. Thanks!
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 04:37 PM | #12 |
"posting from my recliner"
102
Rep 7,241
Posts |
Adrock also remember your at 4226 feet. I could not believe the difference when I went to Vegas, a drop of 2500 feet. The car had so much more power.
__________________
Ping Golf Club demo tech |
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 05:01 PM | #14 |
Modder Raider
753
Rep 8,633
Posts
Drives: M3
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Surf City, HB
|
I know it's a mustang dyno and I know it's at altitude, but the numers still seem kind of low.
I don't know man.
__________________
e36 M3 Coupe, e36 325i Sedan
e90 335i--SOLD Best 60-130-------------9.15 Seconds------------------WWW.MR5RACING.COM |
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 05:04 PM | #15 |
Major
73
Rep 1,217
Posts
Drives: 2014 435i
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SLC
|
Haha sorry dude, I didn't know you wanted in! I am going back when I get my CAI, we will have to plan a trip down.
I tried to search and didn't come up with much, but what are other people getting on Mustang dynos?
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 05:30 PM | #16 | |
Lieutenant
44
Rep 428
Posts |
Quote:
But I guess, in keeping with the trend, I should quote something that Karl from Active Autowerke told a customer regarding correcting a mustang dyno to BHP conversion. "I was put in my place this past weekend by the man, himself, Karl Hugh(@ Active Autowerke), about this same subject. I always thought the equation BHP(flywheel HP)was RWHP x 1.25, but Karl told me that it is RWHP x 1.31, which still brought up good numbers for me slightly above average (bone stock). http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...45&postcount=2 So, with Active's equation, the OP's car makes over 400BHP at almost 5,000 feet above sea level. Seems pretty darn good to me. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 05:49 PM | #18 | |
Modder Raider
753
Rep 8,633
Posts
Drives: M3
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Surf City, HB
|
When you are saying correction is 15%, I'm assuming that you mean a 15% drivetrain loss.
Well, if the correction is 15% then how could he be getting 400 hp if it's 309 at the wheels? 309 whp with 15% drivetrain loss is 363 hp at the crank--not 400. Also, a lot of people like to think that elevation works the same with turbo cars as NA cars when in fact the loss isn't as big. I have no clue with where AA got their equation. If the drivetrain loss is 15% then: rwhp = chp(1-.15) so chp = rwhp/.85 I didn't mean to start anything huge; I just thought that the numbers seem kind of low. Quote:
__________________
e36 M3 Coupe, e36 325i Sedan
e90 335i--SOLD Best 60-130-------------9.15 Seconds------------------WWW.MR5RACING.COM |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 05:57 PM | #19 | |
Lieutenant
44
Rep 428
Posts |
Quote:
Maybe I wasn't clear. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 05:58 PM | #20 | |
Team Zissou
3065
Rep 10,197
Posts |
I think it reads 15% lower than a dynojet... in which case it would be about....
355.35whp if done on a dynojet @ this altitude on 91octane... Seems really good to me. But again we need to know what the car dynoed stock to get a real idea. how do mustang dynos compare to dyno dynamic dynos (which also read very low — 15-20% — compared to dynojets)? Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 06:04 PM | #21 | |
Modder Raider
753
Rep 8,633
Posts
Drives: M3
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Surf City, HB
|
hmm,
Well if the the powertrain loss is that bad with a mustang dyno then I guess those are good numbers. Quote:
__________________
e36 M3 Coupe, e36 325i Sedan
e90 335i--SOLD Best 60-130-------------9.15 Seconds------------------WWW.MR5RACING.COM |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-01-2008, 06:08 PM | #22 |
"posting from my recliner"
102
Rep 7,241
Posts |
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.
__________________
Ping Golf Club demo tech |
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
|
|