Next Level Auto Brokers
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   BMW M3 and BMW M4 Forum > BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 Technical Topics > Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust / Bolt-ons / Tuning

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      07-02-2014, 09:42 AM   #1
Abzug86
Examined trollhunter
Abzug86's Avatar
Germany
3
Rep
2
Posts

Drives: Volkswagen Golf R MK7
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Bayreuth

iTrader: (0)

M4 dyno run - 500 hp?

Hey guys,

my name's Michael, I live in the motherland of BMW and the automobile in total, Germany. I do not own a M4, nor do I intend to buy one in the near futur. Right now I'm driving Golf R MK7 since 04/16/2014, so the M4 might become some option in maybe 3 to 4 years - especially since the prize tags are pretty much over the top in europe.

Anyway, I've found a video on youtube with some M4 on a dyno. The sheet in the end shows ~ 411 hp at the wheels, which would result in something around 500 hp.

What do you think about that? As far as I'm concerned, european union only allows a deviation of +/- 5% compared to the standard power - which would be 453 hp at max.

Cheers

Michael

__________________
Volkswagen Golf R MK7 2014
300 hp // 280 lb-ft
manual transmission
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2014, 09:48 AM   #2
jbraslins
Latvian Gangstah
jbraslins's Avatar
84
Rep
570
Posts

Drives: 2009 E92 M3 Melbourne Red 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Wake Forest, NC

iTrader: (1)

If we take standard 14% drive loss into account, 411hp at the wheels = 468 bhp at the crank. Impressive, but not exactly 500.
__________________
2009 E92 M3 Melbourne Red 6MT
[SOLD] 2015 YMB BMW M3 M-DCT
[SOLD] 2010 Alpine White E90 M3 M-DCT
[SOLD] 2002 TiAg E46 M3 manual
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2014, 09:53 AM   #3
Abzug86
Examined trollhunter
Abzug86's Avatar
Germany
3
Rep
2
Posts

Drives: Volkswagen Golf R MK7
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Bayreuth

iTrader: (0)

@jbraslins

I think you're calculation is wrong. I've heard of 18% drive loss, but ok, lets assume it's only 14%:

411/86*100 = 478 hp at the crank.

Nonetheless 468 or 478 hp, I think both is quite unrealistic, isn't it? I don't think the tolerances in the maunfactoring process are that high, not mentioning the legal circumstances.
__________________
Volkswagen Golf R MK7 2014
300 hp // 280 lb-ft
manual transmission
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2014, 09:56 AM   #4
jbraslins
Latvian Gangstah
jbraslins's Avatar
84
Rep
570
Posts

Drives: 2009 E92 M3 Melbourne Red 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Wake Forest, NC

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abzug86 View Post
@jbraslins

I think you're calculation is wrong. I've heard of 18% drive loss, but ok, lets assume it's only 14%:

411/86*100 = 478 hp at the crank.
You're right. I did the * 1.14 which was wrong. Gobs of power any way you look at it.
__________________
2009 E92 M3 Melbourne Red 6MT
[SOLD] 2015 YMB BMW M3 M-DCT
[SOLD] 2010 Alpine White E90 M3 M-DCT
[SOLD] 2002 TiAg E46 M3 manual
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2014, 10:53 AM   #5
CanAutM3
General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
21105
Rep
20,741
Posts

Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
If you search, there are quite a few threads on the topic.

I doubt BMW "underrates" their engines. My guess is that the high numbers we see on dynos have to do with different things.

The Sport Auto test on a rather accurate Maha dyno showed 24 more ps than the official rating (465ps vs 431ps).

I think that some of it has to with the standards/methodology for official power ratings. The engine might be behaving differently while in steady state and while accelerating. For example, when the engine runs in steady state for the official rating, all the accessories need to be running, but when doing a WOT acceleration run on a dyno, the ECU dissengages the accessories. That can be worth a few ponies. I think that there is also more to it (engine management, turbo characteristics, etc...), I just have not put my finger on it yet.

Further, BMW has done efforts to reduce rotating mass (crank shaft, drive shaft, wheels), when testing a car on a chassis dyno while accelerating, inertia has an impact, so the so-called "drivetrain losses" can be less than we are used to seeing.

Last edited by CanAutM3; 07-02-2014 at 11:16 AM..
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2014, 11:57 AM   #6
accce
Lieutenant
United_States
72
Rep
495
Posts

Drives: M4 SBM/BLK EXT CC Brakes
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MD

iTrader: (0)

Don't we have to take into consideration the Carbon fiber drive shaft? Less rotating mass which would produce lower HP loss.
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2014, 12:38 PM   #7
CanAutM3
General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
21105
Rep
20,741
Posts

Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by accce View Post
Don't we have to take into consideration the Carbon fiber drive shaft? Less rotating mass which would produce lower HP loss.
Not less loss in the true sense, but less inertial impact. I did mention it in my post .

Last edited by CanAutM3; 07-02-2014 at 01:27 PM..
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2014, 02:23 PM   #8
ss134
Brigadier General
ss134's Avatar
United Kingdom
229
Rep
3,899
Posts

Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Germany/UK

iTrader: (1)

Whether it's 480, 465 or 430hp I don't know. What I do know is that on the same dyno EAS recorded 50 whp more for F80 than E92 M3. That's a lot.

This car is performing at a level above that of a 430hp car that weighs almost 1600kg. Some sort of M black magic going on here......
__________________
2014 AW F80 M3 DCT
2011 AW E90 M3 DCT - Sold
2010 JZB E90 M3 DCT - Sold
2009 6MT E90 LCI 335i M -Sport - Sold
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2014, 02:27 PM   #9
tom @ eas
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
tom @ eas's Avatar
United_States
8056
Rep
18,786
Posts


Drives: BMW
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA

iTrader: (19)

Garage List
2018 BMW i3s  [0.00]
2010 BMW M3  [6.50]
2015 BMW M4  [5.25]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss134 View Post
Whether it's 480, 465 or 430hp I don't know. What I do know is that on the same dyno EAS recorded 50 whp more for F80 than E92 M3. That's a lot.

This car is performing at a level above that of a 430hp car that weighs almost 1600kg. Some sort of M black magic going on here......
Here's a comparison of a strong running E9X M3 vs F80 M3, both DCT:

__________________
Tom G. | european auto source (eas)
email: tom@europeanautosource.com · web: https://europeanautosource.com· tel 866.669.0705 · ca: 714.369.8524 x22

GET DAILY UPDATES ON OUR BLOG · FACEBOOK · YOUTUBE · FLICKR · INSTAGRAM
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2014, 02:29 PM   #10
VCP
Colonel
VCP's Avatar
Canada
1390
Rep
2,336
Posts

Drives: M4GTS BSM/F90comp/BSM M2CS
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Nice one Tom! That is how the butt dyno feels as well



Quote:
Originally Posted by tom @ eas View Post
Here's a comparison of a strong running E9X M3 vs F80 M3, both DCT:

Appreciate 0
      07-02-2014, 06:47 PM   #11
Evooooo
First Lieutenant
27
Rep
313
Posts

Drives: 335 XI Sedan M Sport
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Long Island

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom @ eas
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss134 View Post
Whether it's 480, 465 or 430hp I don't know. What I do know is that on the same dyno EAS recorded 50 whp more for F80 than E92 M3. That's a lot.

This car is performing at a level above that of a 430hp car that weighs almost 1600kg. Some sort of M black magic going on here......
Here's a comparison of a strong running E9X M3 vs F80 M3, both DCT:

It is comical how much more powerful the new m is.
Appreciate 0
      07-03-2014, 04:31 PM   #12
RW Carbon
Captain
RW Carbon's Avatar
United_States
136
Rep
809
Posts

Drives: BMW F80 M3 & F87 M2
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: 3941 E La Palma Ave Anaheim CA 92807

iTrader: (1)

I'll just leave this here:



Tune+E30

530whp, 570wtq
__________________

Carbon fiber for the everyday driver: rwcarbon.com
3941 E La Palma Ave Anaheim CA, 92870
info@rwcarbon.com / (714) 328-4406
Instagram/Tiktok/Facebook: @rwcarbon
Appreciate 0
      07-04-2014, 11:04 AM   #13
eMvy
First Lieutenant
eMvy's Avatar
United_States
131
Rep
371
Posts

Drives: Bimmers
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 37°14'5.62"N 115°48'38.95"W

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom @ eas View Post
Here's a comparison of a strong running E9X M3 vs F80 M3, both DCT:

Great example of why comparing peak hp/tq, tells only part of the story. That area between curves!
Appreciate 0
      07-04-2014, 11:22 AM   #14
FogCityM3
Colonel
FogCityM3's Avatar
497
Rep
2,400
Posts

Drives: M3 (E90) & Porsche GT3 RS
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: San Francisco

iTrader: (0)

It is possible that N/A cars are more difficult to dyno when you're talking about a 12:1 compression ratio and 91 octane and made worse by high temperatures. Most of the N/A dynos I've seen so far that log parameters show extremely rich running engines and significant timing pulling. Under those conditions, there is no way 414 bhp to the flywheel is going to happen. With a T/C motor, the compression of air will help offset some of this particularly if the engine is a lower compression one, where will be more forgiving with 91 octane. In the dyno above, the 363 bhp stock S65 looks like the engine is producing around 420 bhp, which appears to be very close.

I have logged data using my BT tool on the road where full cooling air and heat exchange effects are present and A/F and timing parameters are much closer to target vs any datalogging I've seen on here. Also the BT tool shows the "Actual Moment" or Torque in NM calculated by the ECU given all parameters calculated by the ECU (e.g. temperature, pressure, mass flow rate etc). Stock engine is right around 415 bhp and with my tune and bolt ons, I regularly achieve 435 bhp-440 bhp. I corroborated this with my Dash dyno tool with open road logging and also get ~370 whp on a flat stretch of road at sea level, which also corroborates the 435-440 bhp (two independent data sources giving the same info).

This, in conjunction with the dyno testing done by Rototest and Dinan, who both attempt to simulate for full wind tunnel effects (Rototest has a full wind tunnel), all suggest the S65 stock is around 414 bhp. I personally think many of these at the wheel dynos are giving lower bhp for the S65 vs on the open road.

Last edited by FogCityM3; 07-04-2014 at 11:29 AM..
Appreciate 0
      07-05-2014, 02:35 PM   #15
tooch
Captain
United_States
112
Rep
806
Posts

Drives: F82
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NOR-CAL

iTrader: (0)

wow great numbers either way. Ive got about 5 weeks to go..
__________________

96 E31 JB
07 E92 AW
F82 BSM
Appreciate 0
      07-06-2014, 06:20 AM   #16
CanAutM3
General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
21105
Rep
20,741
Posts

Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by FogCityM3 View Post
It is possible that N/A cars are more difficult to dyno when you're talking about a 12:1 compression ratio and 91 octane and made worse by high temperatures. Most of the N/A dynos I've seen so far that log parameters show extremely rich running engines and significant timing pulling. Under those conditions, there is no way 414 bhp to the flywheel is going to happen. With a T/C motor, the compression of air will help offset some of this particularly if the engine is a lower compression one, where will be more forgiving with 91 octane. In the dyno above, the 363 bhp stock S65 looks like the engine is producing around 420 bhp, which appears to be very close.

I have logged data using my BT tool on the road where full cooling air and heat exchange effects are present and A/F and timing parameters are much closer to target vs any datalogging I've seen on here. Also the BT tool shows the "Actual Moment" or Torque in NM calculated by the ECU given all parameters calculated by the ECU (e.g. temperature, pressure, mass flow rate etc). Stock engine is right around 415 bhp and with my tune and bolt ons, I regularly achieve 435 bhp-440 bhp. I corroborated this with my Dash dyno tool with open road logging and also get ~370 whp on a flat stretch of road at sea level, which also corroborates the 435-440 bhp (two independent data sources giving the same info).

This, in conjunction with the dyno testing done by Rototest and Dinan, who both attempt to simulate for full wind tunnel effects (Rototest has a full wind tunnel), all suggest the S65 stock is around 414 bhp. I personally think many of these at the wheel dynos are giving lower bhp for the S65 vs on the open road.
I am not sure I follow you. The EAS shows 363whp for the S65, which is quite strong and in line with 414 crank hp.

However, the S55 that is amazingly strong at 414whp...

Last edited by CanAutM3; 07-06-2014 at 09:19 AM..
Appreciate 0
      07-06-2014, 09:27 AM   #17
CanAutM3
General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
21105
Rep
20,741
Posts

Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by eMvy View Post
Great example of why comparing peak hp/tq, tells only part of the story. That area between curves!
While I agree that the S55 generates much more average power, this chart is misleading when comparing area under the curve. The S65 still produces power for an additional 900RPM after the S55 dies off. To be more appropriately compared, the RPM axis of each engines should be scaled so that the power bands overlap (8300RPM on the S65 to align with 7400RPM of the S55). The S55 would still show more that the S65, but to a lesser extent.

Even better would be to plot power vs road speed. You need gearing to do that, but it would better depict the difference between the two powertrains.
Appreciate 0
      07-06-2014, 11:53 AM   #18
FogCityM3
Colonel
FogCityM3's Avatar
497
Rep
2,400
Posts

Drives: M3 (E90) & Porsche GT3 RS
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: San Francisco

iTrader: (0)

Sorry, I wasn't exactly clear in my post. I believe that the referenced EAS stock dyno for the S65 is the highest or near the highest recorded (at EAS). Most of the EAS dynos appear to be 10-20 whp lower for stock S65. Same with other Dynojets, up to 30 whp lower stock. In another thread someone suggested that the S65 was overrated. So was trying to say the S65 may be a trickier car to dyno as needs full air cooling/heat exchange effect and high compression ratio is not forgiving to high ambient temps and 91 octane, and where altitude, pressure are critical to achieving timing targets, thereby explaining a possibility that the S65 dynos low compared to situations where have full heat exchange effects (e.g. rototest, dinan, open-road logging with BT).

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
I am not sure I follow you. The EAS shows 363whp for the S65, which is quite strong and in line with 414 crank hp.

However, the S55 that is amazingly strong at 414whp...
Appreciate 0
Post 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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 AM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
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