E90Post
 


ECS BMW
 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > E90 / E92 / E93 3-series Powertrain and Drivetrain Discussions > N54 Turbo Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust Modifications - 335i > Dyno'd!? V2.02 2-26-08 + UR Catback



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-01-2008, 03:45 PM   #1
adrock
Major
 
adrock's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 435i
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SLC

Posts: 1,219
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2011 E92 335i  [4.79]
2007 E92 335i  [0.00]
Red face 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
Attached Images
 
__________________
adrock is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 03:47 PM   #2
ArmyBimmerDude
Major General
 
ArmyBimmerDude's Avatar
 
Drives: Lola
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 5,503
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
Send a message via AIM to ArmyBimmerDude Send a message via Yahoo to ArmyBimmerDude
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
ArmyBimmerDude is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 03:48 PM   #3
2007_E93
Captain
 
Drives: ?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ?

Posts: 604
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrock View Post
Not super happy with the numbers.

Details:
Mustang Dyno
PROcede V2.02 2-26-08
-Preset TQ Settings (90% I beleive)
Ultimate Racing Catback
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
WTF? Is anyone else really surprised by this? I was expecting AT LEAST 50 more horses and 30-40 more torque.
2007_E93 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 03:49 PM   #4
KanosWRX
Lieutenant
 
KanosWRX's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 AW 335i / 1994 Miata R
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Fairfax, VA

Posts: 412
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via AIM to KanosWRX
Mustang Dyno's usually read lower from what I remember.
__________________
"The most important mod is the one behind the steering wheel" - Koyokid RIP
KanosWRX is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 03:51 PM   #5
SteelTorque
Captain
 
Drives: 08 E92 335xi
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 849
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2007_E93 View Post
WTF? Is anyone else really surprised by this? I was expecting AT LEAST 50 more horses and 30-40 more torque.
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
SteelTorque is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 03:52 PM   #6
Tortfeasor 335xi
Corporate Hack
 
Tortfeasor 335xi's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Princeton, NJ / Philly, PA

Posts: 288
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2007_E93 View Post
WTF? Is anyone else really surprised by this? I was expecting AT LEAST 50 more horses and 30-40 more torque.
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
Tortfeasor 335xi is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 03:54 PM   #7
adrock
Major
 
adrock's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 435i
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SLC

Posts: 1,219
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2011 E92 335i  [4.79]
2007 E92 335i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTorque View Post
Please read the thread. This is a Mustang dyno. They read I believe 15% lower than DynoJets.
If that is true then I would be super happy with those numbers! I did not think it was 15% lower!
__________________
adrock is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 03:55 PM   #8
cn555ic
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor

 
cn555ic's Avatar
 
Drives: Bimmerscoding.com
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 18,278
iTrader: (5)

Send a message via Yahoo to cn555ic
Adrock..Do you have a intake?? I think without the OEM airbox, you will see much better numbers for sure...ITs far too restricting...Plus its a Mustang Dyno...
__________________
917-939-4980 CODING E and F Series New York Area

cn555ic is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 03:58 PM   #9
ArmyBimmerDude
Major General
 
ArmyBimmerDude's Avatar
 
Drives: Lola
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Georgia

Posts: 5,503
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
Send a message via AIM to ArmyBimmerDude Send a message via Yahoo to ArmyBimmerDude
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrock View Post
If that is true then I would be super happy with those numbers! I did not think it was 15% lower!
Its true, which is why I posted your numbers plus the 15% in the second post of this thread.
__________________
2007 E92 Montego Blue 335i
ArmyBimmerDude is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 03:58 PM   #10
adrock
Major
 
adrock's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 435i
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SLC

Posts: 1,219
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2011 E92 335i  [4.79]
2007 E92 335i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cn555ic View Post
Adrock..Do you have a intake?? I think without the OEM airbox, you will see much better numbers for sure...ITs far too restricting...Plus its a Mustang Dyno...
Next on the list! Still waiting on a good design to come out..

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmyBimmerDude View Post
Its true, which is why I posted your numbers plus the 15% in the second post of this thread.
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!
__________________
adrock is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 04:31 PM   #11
E82tt6
Colonel
 
E82tt6's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 Black Saphire Z4 MC
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 2,629
iTrader: (0)

Add 12% and that's about what you'd read on a Dynojet. Pretty good for 91 octane.
E82tt6 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 04:37 PM   #12
Ruff Rider
"posting from my recliner"
 
Ruff Rider's Avatar
 
Drives: twin turbo Prius
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Where the air is thin

Posts: 7,241
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via Yahoo to Ruff Rider
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
Ruff Rider is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 05:01 PM   #13
Park2670
General
 
Park2670's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 CX-5
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UTAH

Posts: 18,121
iTrader: (8)

Great Adam! Thanks for inviting me
__________________
Park2670 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 05:01 PM   #14
Mr. 5
Modder Raider
 
Mr. 5's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Surf City, HB

Posts: 8,626
iTrader: (31)

Garage List
2007 e90 335i  [4.00]
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
Mr. 5 is offline   Scotland
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 05:04 PM   #15
adrock
Major
 
adrock's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 435i
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SLC

Posts: 1,219
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2011 E92 335i  [4.79]
2007 E92 335i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park2670 View Post
Great Adam! Thanks for inviting me
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. 5 View Post
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.
I tried to search and didn't come up with much, but what are other people getting on Mustang dynos?
__________________
adrock is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 05:30 PM   #16
Dustin Bramell
Lieutenant
 
Drives: e90 335i, 125cc Trackmagic
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Posts: 428
iTrader: (1)

Send a message via AIM to Dustin Bramell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. 5 View Post
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.
If it is commonly accepted that the correction is 15%, and you know it is at altitude, and you know that cobb is a direct competitor of ours, why is it so easy to say that the numbers are still low?

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.
Dustin Bramell is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 05:40 PM   #17
Ryan(e92)
Captain
 
Drives: SG M6 coupe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Newport Beach

Posts: 704
iTrader: (6)

Niether a dynojet nor a mustang dyno is immune to poor calibration which is why a before and after dyno is necessary to determine power increase.
Ryan(e92) is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 05:49 PM   #18
Mr. 5
Modder Raider
 
Mr. 5's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Surf City, HB

Posts: 8,626
iTrader: (31)

Garage List
2007 e90 335i  [4.00]
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:
Originally Posted by Dustin@Vishnu View Post
If it is commonly accepted that the correction is 15%, and you know it is at altitude, and you know that cobb is a direct competitor of ours, why is it so easy to say that the numbers are still low?

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.
__________________
e36 M3 Coupe, e36 325i Sedan
e90 335i--SOLD

Best 60-130-------------9.15 Seconds------------------WWW.MR5RACING.COM
Mr. 5 is offline   Scotland
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 05:57 PM   #19
Dustin Bramell
Lieutenant
 
Drives: e90 335i, 125cc Trackmagic
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Posts: 428
iTrader: (1)

Send a message via AIM to Dustin Bramell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. 5 View Post
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 didn't mean to start anything huge; I jus tthought that the numbers seem kind of low.
Re-read what I said. I was saying that 1.15 is the correction from mustang to dynojet. But then I pointed out a correction that Karl at active uses to convert mustang RWHP to BHP, which is 1.31. So with Active's correction we end up with 309*1.31= 404.79BHP.

Maybe I wasn't clear.
Dustin Bramell is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 05:58 PM   #20
jpsimon
Team Zissou
 
jpsimon's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 STi
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CT

Posts: 9,015
iTrader: (5)

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:
Originally Posted by Mr. 5 View Post
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.
__________________
2015 STi / 335xi (solid)
www.datazap.me - fast, free, interactive data log viewing

jpsimon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:04 PM   #21
Mr. 5
Modder Raider
 
Mr. 5's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Surf City, HB

Posts: 8,626
iTrader: (31)

Garage List
2007 e90 335i  [4.00]
hmm,
Well if the the powertrain loss is that bad with a mustang dyno then I guess those are good numbers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dustin@Vishnu View Post
Re-read what I said. I was saying that 1.15 is the correction from mustang to dynojet. But then I pointed out a correction that Karl at active uses to convert mustang RWHP to BHP, which is 1.31. So with Active's correction we end up with 309*1.31= 404.79BHP.

Maybe I wasn't clear.
__________________
e36 M3 Coupe, e36 325i Sedan
e90 335i--SOLD

Best 60-130-------------9.15 Seconds------------------WWW.MR5RACING.COM
Mr. 5 is offline   Scotland
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:08 PM   #22
Ruff Rider
"posting from my recliner"
 
Ruff Rider's Avatar
 
Drives: twin turbo Prius
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Where the air is thin

Posts: 7,241
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via Yahoo to 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.
__________________

Ping Golf Club demo tech
Ruff Rider is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 AM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST