E90Post
 


PYSPEED
 
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, 06:17 PM   #23
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]
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
 
__________________
adrock is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:20 PM   #24
E82tt6
Colonel
 
E82tt6's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 Black Saphire Z4 MC
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 2,629
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.
E82tt6 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:23 PM   #25
Lane
Several N54 cars, V1,3, V2.0.2, and V3.1
 
Drives: N54s
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK DE GR SW

Posts: 778
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruff Rider View Post
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.
Lane is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:29 PM   #26
Park2670
General
 
Park2670's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 CX-5
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UTAH

Posts: 18,120
iTrader: (8)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lane View Post
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.
__________________
Park2670 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:32 PM   #27
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lane View Post
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.
__________________

Ping Golf Club demo tech
Ruff Rider is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:40 PM   #28
leftcoastman
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: 335i
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Near some canyons

Posts: 1,710
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.
leftcoastman is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:41 PM   #29
Lane
Several N54 cars, V1,3, V2.0.2, and V3.1
 
Drives: N54s
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK DE GR SW

Posts: 778
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Park2670 View Post
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?
Lane is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:42 PM   #30
shiv@vishnu
Tuner
 
Drives: X1, 335i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SF Bay, CA

Posts: 17,616
iTrader: (0)

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
shiv@vishnu is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:45 PM   #31
2007_E93
Captain
 
Drives: ?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ?

Posts: 604
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
2007_E93 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:45 PM   #32
Lane
Several N54 cars, V1,3, V2.0.2, and V3.1
 
Drives: N54s
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK DE GR SW

Posts: 778
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruff Rider View Post
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 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:49 PM   #33
Lane
Several N54 cars, V1,3, V2.0.2, and V3.1
 
Drives: N54s
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK DE GR SW

Posts: 778
iTrader: (0)

The dyno figures are within normal variation. There is no reason to assume any major differences between the 2.0.2 maps.
Lane is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 06:49 PM   #34
jpsimon
Team Zissou
 
jpsimon's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 STi
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CT

Posts: 9,007
iTrader: (4)

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2007_E93 View Post
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
__________________
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, 06:54 PM   #35
tomtom
Captain
 
tomtom's Avatar
 
Drives: e92 335i
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ontario

Posts: 986
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.
tomtom is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 07:03 PM   #36
2007_E93
Captain
 
Drives: ?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ?

Posts: 604
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsimon View Post
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.
2007_E93 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 07:05 PM   #37
Bubbles
Green Bastard
 
Bubbles's Avatar
 
Drives: ZCP-Powered
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bishop Bend

Posts: 3,550
iTrader: (3)

Mustang Dynos are frowned upon in these parts.
OP are you happy with the power from the mods?
__________________
Bubbles is offline   Cayman Islands
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 07:09 PM   #38
2007_E93
Captain
 
Drives: ?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ?

Posts: 604
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubbles View Post
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
2007_E93 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 07:13 PM   #39
PresaMat
Major
 
PresaMat's Avatar
 
Drives: 67 GT500,69 Boss 429, 335i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston,TX

Posts: 1,170
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
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!!
PresaMat is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 07:20 PM   #40
musc
Major
 
musc's Avatar
 
Drives: 335is DCT
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SE USA

Posts: 1,256
iTrader: (5)

Garage List
2004 E46 M3  [0.00]
Hmm, a Helix customers car put down 340/346 on a mustang dyno. Using the logic from this thread, they made 391/397!

__________________
E46 M3 | SMGII | OEM CSL 19s | D/A Race Software | OEM CSL Header | Dixis TI | Streamline Drop in filter | (sold)
E92 335is | DCT | JB4 | E60 Flash | BMS DCI | DPs | BMS CP | BMS OCC | ETS 5" | Stg 2 LPFP | 451/500 DJ at 104
musc is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 07:36 PM   #41
Park2670
General
 
Park2670's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 CX-5
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UTAH

Posts: 18,120
iTrader: (8)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lane View Post
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.
Park2670 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 08:03 PM   #42
stillclaimndp
Dancing Machine
 
stillclaimndp's Avatar
 
Drives: 335i e90 ZSP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, Ca

Posts: 1,419
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via AIM to stillclaimndp
Quote:
Originally Posted by musc View Post
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).
__________________
2007 e90 & 1981 Corvette Predecessors: 2007 BMW 335i E92, 2006 M5, 2008 Viper SRT10 Coupe, 2005 Viper Yellow, 2006 Corvette Z51, 2009 Challenger SRT8, 2006 S4, 2001.5 Nogaro Blue S4, 2006 GTI w/ DSG, 06 Evo IX, 04 S4, 04 911x51, 03 Evo VIII, 98 Eclipse GSX, 96 GST, 92 Galant Vr-4, '70 Grand Prix Model J, '70 Nova, '68 Firebird
stillclaimndp is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2008, 08:36 PM   #43
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]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruff Rider View Post
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.
__________________
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, 08:38 PM   #44
garyhgaryh
Major
 
garyhgaryh's Avatar
 
Drives: Supercharged e30 M3
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: santa cruz

Posts: 1,207
iTrader: (4)

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.
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.
garyhgaryh 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 09:41 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