|
|
|
05-17-2012, 05:32 PM | #1 |
Major
199
Rep 1,457
Posts |
128i on Dyno.
Hey fellas.
Here is my 2009 128i @ 62k miles on DynoJet. Absolutely no mods besides rims and tires. Wanted to get a baseline.
__________________
|
05-17-2012, 07:09 PM | #3 |
!
732
Rep 3,267
Posts |
Subbed.
Nice to see baselines on a 6MT 128i. Don't think I've seen one yet. Let us know what your plans are, and definitely post if you dyno again after any mods.
__________________
____________________________ |
Appreciate
0
|
05-17-2012, 09:50 PM | #5 |
Major
199
Rep 1,457
Posts |
I am not sure about that. I'd think 135 would put at least 260HP to the wheels with 305HP factory rated.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-17-2012, 10:08 PM | #6 | |
Brigadier General
744
Rep 3,281
Posts |
Quote:
That said, looks like there's either a ~10-12% drivetrain power loss (closer to 12% on HP, 10% with torque)... Either this is a "good" car and a "good" dyno... OR... I know N/A RWD engines usually experience a 15-20% power loss versus the about 12-15% the turbo engine loses from crank to wheels. This would mean that the 128i is slightly underrated from the factory and would be making more like 240-245 HP and 215-220 ft lbs at the crank. Either way, that's great, because either you have pretty low drivetrain power loss, or you have a little more power than you thought. Cool!
__________________
2022 X4 M40i - 2008 135i - 2015 F700GS On Order - 2024 i4 M50 Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived... Mmhm. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-17-2012, 11:12 PM | #7 | |
Captain
73
Rep 922
Posts |
Quote:
power loss is dictated by the drivetrain, not by the induction on the motor. the reason we have these general numbers for either the n/a or turbo... is we take it BMW has rated the motor at the flywheel and given us a 'true' number, then when we dyno the rear wheel power. from here our calculations would often say that either the drivetrain in the turbo is more efficient (which it's not) so actually its simply the flywheel hp dictated by bmw is more accurate on one than the other. what he's shown for his car based on bmw claimed 230hp his loss is about 14% giving him 198hp at the wheels. That 14% may be true or his car on a flywheel dyno may actually make 220 or even 250 hp, we don't truly know the 'losses' and are doing nothing more than guessing. either way he's got a nice running car with multiple 'backed up' runs so that's a great baseline to know where he's at and for future measurement of mods if he makes any. Also it's another great feather in the cap of a great running BMW that is often belittled here on this site for no good reason. 200 rwhp is pretty damn good in a 3000lb car...
__________________
18 X6M, 22 Tesla MYP, 21 Plaid, 19 Ram
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-17-2012, 11:36 PM | #8 |
Brigadier General
744
Rep 3,281
Posts |
I dunno, in pretty much every application I've seen dyno'd, turbo cars seem to "retain" the most power vs N/A cars, experiencing less loss of power through the drivetrain. Then again, I do realize that the cars are have very similar engines and likely also have similar, if not the same, other drivetrain components which would be contributing to the loss of power to heat. I was just going by the fact that most turbo cars I see tend to have stock dynos that are higher than the "15% rule". For example I see lots of stock STIs and even 135i's dyno around 270, which would be a ~10% loss from the claimed stock HP for both. On the contrary, a 425 hp SRT8 stock dynos between 350 and 370 from what I remember and can wrangle up on google, and the G8 GT from Pontiac dynos around 290-300 for the 360 hp V8 engine. Those drivetrain losses are definitely more.
I don't know if it has anything to do specifically with it being N/A, and I do agree with roo97ss that every car is different and every dyno is different and OP's car could be making 220 HP or 250 HP, who knows because we don't know the car or the dyno, but I'm just making some optimistic comments based on my own experience Roo is correct, though. You don't really know if the dyno reads high or low, and you don't know if your car is higher or lower output than average. Every car is different, so the important thing is to get that baseline. But, personally I think you either got a good car, or all 128i's are a little better than rated, just based on what I've seen for drivetrain loss in other cars compared to these cars. So that's still awesome!
__________________
2022 X4 M40i - 2008 135i - 2015 F700GS On Order - 2024 i4 M50 Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived... Mmhm. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-18-2012, 02:56 AM | #9 | |
Major
115
Rep 1,158
Posts |
Quote:
I never really noticed the drive train loss for FI cars but now I see that they do retain a bit less drive train loss than N/A cars. 6spd 04 GTOs make a little under 300rwhp (350 hp stock) while 05-06 6spd GTOs make 330-360 rwhp (400 stock) the autos are generally 10-15 hp lower. Hell, the new ZL1 is interesting either way but auto ZL1's are making 460-470 rwhp while 6spd ZL1's are making 510rwhp+ and they are 580hp stock. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-18-2012, 09:05 AM | #10 |
Captain
63
Rep 638
Posts |
I wouldn't doubt if BMW didn't underrate the 128i a little. I've always said it feels like it has more power than advertised vs other cars with the same HP/tq ratings. Now, if more aftermarket companies would back the 128i/328i crowd, we could possibly see some really good results from this powerplant
__________________
2015 428i Coupe
2009 328i E93 |
Appreciate
0
|
05-18-2012, 09:07 AM | #11 |
Colonel
119
Rep 1,998
Posts |
Nice info.. what gear were you in?? 3rd ???
13-14% drivetrain loss is pretty low... thats a great thing to know. by chance do you know if the drive train loss is more or less with an automatic ???
__________________
X1, R58 JCW, M2 in my future if planets align
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-18-2012, 09:19 AM | #12 | |
Captain
73
Rep 922
Posts |
Quote:
A great example of a n/a car that had little loss were the ls1s in the camaros. the 98-00 cars put down 280 on average (305 rating) and many 01s put down 295-300. not surprisingly the 345 hp rated corvette with essentially an identical motor put down essentially identical rwhp ratings (just like the 350hp gto you mention). moral of the story, the camaro was way underrated from factory, corvette/gto probably wasn't. remember an auto trans pump and converter suck up a fair bit of HP, reason why they have pretty disparate numbers, i'm assuming the zf is just pretty efficient in our cars as numbers aren't as different as say GMs. it's all semantics but in the end related to the power of the motor, not the induction method.
__________________
18 X6M, 22 Tesla MYP, 21 Plaid, 19 Ram
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-18-2012, 09:39 AM | #13 | |
Major
199
Rep 1,457
Posts |
Quote:
Interesting note from dyno operator - granted he was not experienced on BMW much- is that he didn't understand why it is so lean in the 1st 4-5k RPM, then riches up. He said it is quite lean compared to other cars he samples. I don't know why it is lean, may be it is the nature of the beast.
__________________
Last edited by Evice; 05-18-2012 at 09:46 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-18-2012, 11:44 AM | #14 | |
Captain
36
Rep 770
Posts |
Quote:
For all others that dont understand what I was saying, Ive seen a dyno graph of the "PEAK" HP for both cars only being 30-40 hp difference. All things considered it dosnt really matter much due to different dynos and conditions, but even saying there is a 70 hp difference isnt that much better when you have twin turbos...Again, this is only peak I'm talking about, not midrange. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-18-2012, 12:03 PM | #15 |
Vrooom :)
322
Rep 2,597
Posts |
this seems somewhat consistent. my dyno for my modded 128i gave out 200 hp.
also, mine was automatic so I am sure it has greater power losses to the wheels i have intake + exhaust. however, mine was done on a dynojet and the guy had no idea how to do it since my car was an auto and was kicking down gears a lot. my torque was 242 which is obviously wrong xD lemme find pic of my dyno also, the idiot DID NOT PUT those fans in front of my car and as a result after 2 runs it overheated my engine so i left. This was done outside in the garage when it was 100 degrees in Texas. these guys were horrible never go there
__________________
2014 C7 Corvette Stringray - Laguna Blue - NPP Exhaust - Competition Seats
Last edited by Greenkirby21; 05-18-2012 at 12:09 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-18-2012, 02:28 PM | #16 |
Lieutenant Colonel
87
Rep 1,555
Posts |
7 consistent pulls....that's the reason to go with a NA engine after 7 laps on a hot day and its a drivers race.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-18-2012, 02:52 PM | #17 | |
Captain
73
Rep 922
Posts |
Quote:
However, what's that 70 peak HP equate to on the track... these are comparos on diff days obviously but from MT/C&D 128i 14.5@96, 5.8 to 60 15.7 to 100, 31.4 to 130 14.4@96, 15.6 to 100 135i 13.3@106, 4.7 to 60 11.5 to 100 13.4@105, 11.8 to 100, 21.4 to 130 a second in the 1/4 is pretty significant as is the 10 mph, nevermind a roll race like 60-100 (3 secs), 60-130 (9 secs) in the 1/4 (100mph) it's about 1 car length per 0.1 secs. Meaning about 10 lengths. Your comment on the 3.0 liter twin turbos only makes 70hp more is a result of BMWs tuning. Everyone that has tuned their n54/n55 knows that the difference can very easily be 120-160 hp at the wheels. That's what the 2 turbos get you, BMW just tuned it for +70 but there's a lot of unlocked potential there without sacrificing drivability. I'm not knocking the 128 at all. Hell my tuned 1 is slow compared to my vette but on the street you can really have the most fun in the 128. I mean you can row a few gears keep the pedal to the floor and get to the unsafe 100 mph in 16 secs. That's a relatively long time of enjoyment, but still very respectable...(it's about 1/2 that in my vette...way too fast for public roads)
__________________
18 X6M, 22 Tesla MYP, 21 Plaid, 19 Ram
Last edited by roo97ss; 05-18-2012 at 02:58 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-18-2012, 05:39 PM | #18 | |
Captain
36
Rep 770
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2012, 03:10 AM | #19 | |
Major
115
Rep 1,158
Posts |
Quote:
So me stating ricer math makes me loose credibility because you didn't say you've seen another "stock" 128i make 30rwhp less than a "stock" 135i? But I assume because of the "peak" numbers being less for the poor little TT'd/turbo'd 135i. Kthxbai......I don't even know why I "trolled" into this thread anyways.... boredom I suppose. Last edited by Vigilante375; 05-19-2012 at 03:16 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2012, 07:27 PM | #20 |
Major
199
Rep 1,457
Posts |
I think you are really confused about what peak means....
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2012, 11:17 PM | #21 |
Major
49
Rep 1,003
Posts |
Out of curiosity, OP, does your car have the N52 or N51?
__________________
"The Camaro's V6 makes so much horsepower because them horses are trying as hard as they can to run the fuck away from that ugly ass car." -Golden3ye
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-20-2012, 10:02 AM | #22 |
Major
199
Rep 1,457
Posts |
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|