Stock Dyno Figures

[urbanstorm]

I've read a couple of posts recently talking about the variances in the dyno numbers from stock 1M's. Perhaps quite a few people have taken baseline runs prior to modifications to gauge their power increase, but it appears the stock numbers significantly differ from the numbers provided by BMW.

I'm wondering if anyone knows why? It consistently shows up that the 1M should have 335/340HP depending on where you read it, but some members are doing stock runs pulling near to 380HP.

Could this be a low number given by BMW, or a difference in the types and calibrations of dyno machines. I'd love to have my stock stripper dyno'ed, but I don't know of any close by.

It's winter here and my M is covered up in the garage until spring, so I find myself over anaylizing.

Robert

[Lay-Z M3]

Well, I worked at BMW for almost a decade both in Ca and in the UK and it was mentioned time and time again (internally) that BMW & Mini output figures are a 'guaranteed minimum,' if you lucked in with the super healthy one - then count yourself lucky

[Lay-Z M3]

Same thing happens over at Mini alot! I remember a press article in Autocar & Motor, who had a long term Cooper S on test (the newer turbo PSA block model) and I remember them going to a 'rolling road day out' with the Mini Club of GB. The standard car should put out 175BHP & 172lb ft. Their car was putting out 208BHP and 211ft lb.

Naturally they were very impressed, but in the article they made a notable overview that with that power why fork out more for a JCW?!?!? But then maybe JCW's run 230BHP and up - in real life (Should have had my 2010 JCW 'Lucy' dyno'd)

Apparently (through the grapevine), some other manufacturers take a handful of output test results, chose the best and publish it globally. BMW seems to stand behind what it can 'definitely' provide.

[Ian///M]

BMW under spec'd the 1M. Rear wheel is what they say is at the crank.

[Rsmatt]

BMW seem to have under egged there power figures a little, it seems plausible that this is the minimum that the 1M puts out.
The other problem is different dyno's give a variety of results the average seems to be between 350-360. Cars putting out 380 as standard points to an over-reading dyno

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by Rsmatt

BMW seem to have under egged there power figures a little, it seems plausible that this is the minimum that the 1M puts out.
The other problem is different dyno's give a variety of results the average seems to be between 350-360. Cars putting out 380 as standard points to an over-reading dyno

I tend to agree with this, from what I have read since the beginning and experienced with my own car, stock 1M crank is closer to 360 hp but maybe not as high as 380 hp. However, I dynoed just 30 whp shy of a 2012 E92 M3 at the same shop too (and only 23 less just with a N55 midpipe and Evolve Race muffler) which should have 420 ps/414 hp as stock, so either M3 is somehow overrated or 1M is clearly underrated. Both the dyno operator and other reliable 1M vs M3 dyno figures available online back these numbers. My car had almost identical hp and tq numbers with GIAC's stock 1M test, both theirs and mine on a Mustang dyno so I take them as very consistent and convincing.

I figured that real torque vs advertised tq demonstrates even bigger difference compared to hp difference. Looks like 1M tq is around 550-560 nm stock and reaches to its peak around 2500 not 1500, while advertised number was 500 (450 + 50 with overboost) at 1500 to 4500.

Hope this helps.

[kskpsu]

BMW may also be cautious regarding hp claims with variance due to climate conditions...ie hot temps. When you are drawing in extra air with turbos, the extra ooomph with cool, dense air is very noticeable. Flogging your car at 60 F vs 95 F feels very different on the butt dyno. There is likely a standard utilized in the industry that I am ignorant too, but forced induction likely creates a broader range.

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by kskpsu

BMW may also be cautious regarding hp claims with variance due to climate conditions...ie hot temps. When you are drawing in extra air with turbos, the extra ooomph with cool, dense air is very noticeable. Flogging your car at 60 F vs 95 F feels very different on the butt dyno. There is likely a standard utilized in the industry that I am ignorant too, but forced induction likely creates a broader range.

Yes, but then in the case of NA engines shouldn't they specify the altitude that hp/tq figures are achieved and will be available also? If NA output figures are always default sea level this means that in most part of the globe those cars regularly run with lower output vs advertised numbers.

Just to clarify, in my case the altitude was like 500 m. above sea level, not too high to make a serious difference, which shouldn't contribute anything more than a single hp or two to the 29-30 whp difference between a M3 and 1M on the same dyno.

I think the predominant reason for the manufacturer is always to position the car vs its other brand competitors plus also to rank it vs other inhouse relevant models, so they "round" and "polish" everything a bit, as long as it fits the purpose. Who is gonna prove it otherwise and if they do there will always be scientific justifications (read "conditions")

[kskpsu]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

Just to clarify, in my case the altitude was like 500 m. above sea level, not too high to make a serious difference, which shouldn't contribute anything more than a single hp or two to the 29-30 whp difference between a M3 and 1M on the same dyno.

I think the predominant reason for the manufacturer is always to position the car vs its other brand competitors plus also to rank it vs other inhouse relevant models, so they "round" and "polish" everything a bit, as long as it fits the purpose. Who is gonna prove it otherwise and if they do there will always be scientific justifications (read "conditions")

Could be more than 1 or 2 whp with that altitude.

Agree with the commentary that there is a desire to slot the car carefully within any given lineup....that factor can always lead to fudging. In an E60 550i, the V8 is claimed to be what, 360 horsepower? The N54 in the 535 needs to make 300.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by urbanstorm

<snip> it appears the stock numbers significantly differ from the numbers provided by BMW.


I'm wondering if anyone knows why? It consistently shows up that the 1M should have 335/340HP depending on where you read it, but some members are doing stock runs pulling near to 380HP.

Could this be a low number given by BMW, or a difference in the types and calibrations of dyno machines. I'd love to have my stock stripper dyno'ed, but I don't know of any close by.

It's winter here and my M is covered up in the garage until spring, so I find myself over anaylizing.


Robert

Originally Posted by Ian///M

BMW under spec'd the 1M. Rear wheel is what they say is at the crank.

Agree.



no cause for concern here, Robert..

you get more than you paid for.. and Cheaper insurance rates to boot. What's not to like?

[Dan Parker]

326 HP & 372 Ft Lbs (peak torque was at 2200 rpms) stock on a dyno lab machine. This was at 2,200 miles on the engine.

I'm glad BMW is conservative. Look at the mistakes Mazda made with the 3rd gen Miata and the RX-8. They grossly overrated the hp claims and ended up back pedaling with pay offs, free extended warranties, and negative press.

[Lay-Z M3]

Originally Posted by Dan Parker

I'm glad BMW is conservative. Look at the mistakes Mazda made with the 3rd gen Miata and the RX-8. They grossly overrated the hp claims and ended up back pedaling with pay offs, free extended warranties, and negative press.

Indeed

[bimmer Don]

Yeah I had a rx8 and someone on there forums took the motor out and put it on a engine dyno and it only made 212 hp. Which made since because mine at the time only made 178 whp stock when I had it

[Munit]

Although the 1m engine is a bit underrated, it is not as underrated as many like to think. Anyone who has played around with 1m's vs m3's on the streets in rolling races, will know that the m3 consistently pulls away at any speed or any roll start in a linear fashion in the way a car with about 30-40hp more horsepower would.

But you need to take into account the weight and the 1m weighs 400 pounds less which is roughly a 40hp equivelent advantage to the 1m

So for equivelence the 1m's 330hp plus 40hp gives it 370 hp equivelent hp compared to an m3.

370 is about 40 hp less and exactly how much hp is needed for a car to pull away like the m3 does on the 1m.

So while maybe underrated, it probably is within a variance of a true 330 to 350 crank at the most.

Dyno turbo cars have such drastic variance compared to a NA motor you can't compare the two

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by Munit

Although the 1m engine is a bit underrated, it is not as underrated as many like to think. Anyone who has played around with 1m's vs m3's on the streets in rolling races, will know that the m3 consistently pulls away at any speed or any roll start in a linear fashion in the way a car with about 30-40hp more horsepower would.

But you need to take into account the weight and the 1m weighs 400 pounds less which is roughly a 40hp equivelent advantage to the 1m

So for equivelence the 1m's 330hp plus 40hp gives it 370 hp equivelent hp compared to an m3.

370 is about 40 hp less and exactly how much hp is needed for a car to pull away like the m3 does on the 1m.

So while maybe underrated, it probably is within a variance of a true 330 to 350 crank at the most.

Dyno turbo cars have such drastic variance compared to a NA motor you can't compare the two

Played around on the streets? Seriously? Thanks for sharing the results of this fine scientific research with us but maybe you did not notice that many people here actually could read before you start typing your horizon enhancing post.

So let me start my personal bs on this already dead subject: How do you explain people who owns both and keep on posting here many times over that M3 only walks away after reaching high speeds (200+ km/h) not before (more power at the top and drag difference, just natural), also various reputable magazine comparatives showing that manual to manual 1M and M3are almost identical and 1M is behind a DCT M3 only 0.1 to 0.2 seconds in acceleration tests? (not talking about US junk-industry magazines of course). They all are dreaming and making this stuff out of unexplainable hatred to M3 (which I love by the way)? There are so many contradicting testimonies in internet to yours, you can't really be unaware of all of them by chance!

Don't get me wrong I agree totally that this is not a 380 hp car in stock and ultimately M3 is the faster car when it comes to straightline acceleration (on a really long straight) but then how are you explaining lots of dyno results regularly and very similarly putting 1Ms only around 30 whp less than a M3? Because BMW advertised us a 80 hp crank difference between them, isn't it a bit huge real life difference to let go?

There are no variances to speak of; it is not like one 1M makes a 330 and another 370; all 1Ms tested in serious workshops have been rated a minimum 350 to usually 360 hp, some optimistic ones getting over 370 even 380. Mine did exact same whp and wtq numbers that GIAC did before tuning theirs, and we had many months, different culture and 10,000 miles in between!

By the way, where people get this 400 pounds less myth? Really? An apples to apples 1M vs M3 coupe (manual) weight difference is the plain basic German specific cars with very similar equipment levels (means strippers) and BMW says they have only 85 kg. difference, yes 85 kg., it's like half of what you say, isn't it?

Maybe the M3 is a bit overrated by factory don't know that one, owners should investigate but we know enough already that 1M is underrated, it is close to a 10 % level, especially the torque, so BMW played really safe there. Get out of the box a bit when you start trying to make sense my friend and be safe on the streets, keep in mind that we don't like 1M because it is a power monster we love it because it is the most fun recent M car without being a hp champ.

[robertm]

Every stock 1m on a mustang dyno I've seen comes in at about 290ish. That translates well to published 340 crank HP.

[providence]

Originally Posted by Munit

Although the 1m engine is a bit underrated, it is not as underrated as many like to think. Anyone who has played around with 1m's vs m3's on the streets in rolling races, will know that the m3 consistently pulls away at any speed or any roll start in a linear fashion in the way a car with about 30-40hp more horsepower would.

But you need to take into account the weight and the 1m weighs 400 pounds less which is roughly a 40hp equivelent advantage to the 1m

So for equivelence the 1m's 330hp plus 40hp gives it 370 hp equivelent hp compared to an m3.

370 is about 40 hp less and exactly how much hp is needed for a car to pull away like the m3 does on the 1m.

So while maybe underrated, it probably is within a variance of a true 330 to 350 crank at the most.

Dyno turbo cars have such drastic variance compared to a NA motor you can't compare the two

...this is exactly why the car is underrated by BMW...
There is no way a stock MT M3 pulls away from a stock 1M under 100mph...
Not from MY experience or scores of published reports.
Come again my friend...

[Munit]

Cant speak for manual but my DCT walks multiple 1m's from any speed except from 0 as the 1m's can launch better.

Speed has nothing to do with it, as long as the driver of the m3 drives properly and keeps it above 6k rpms, it is quite and easy stride ahead of a 1m time after time.

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by robertm

Every stock 1m on a mustang dyno I've seen comes in at about 290ish. That translates well to published 340 crank HP.

Mine was exactly 294.2 whp and 342.9 wtq with questionable quality gas here (nothing like factory suggested 98 RON in Europe or its equal US 93), it was bone stock, before any kind of mod other than pedals and grills on a Mustang dyno. The dyno operator that I find as a very serious and experienced technician was confident that should read 350ish hp crank if not more (his guess was closer to 360, mine is 350 and some). Different estimations maybe compared to yours but one particular point needs to be clarified anyway: how is it possible the M3 numbers on same Mustang dynos don't match then? On the same dyno a 2012 M3 dynoed 323 hp just days before me (29 whp diference with my 1M) which I am told and have seen charts that it was consistent with previous other M3s as mine was equally consistent with previous 1Ms, and I am also reading everywhere, seeing charts since some time that stock M3s do dyno around 320 to 330 whp on Mustang dynos regularly.

Now, if we use same calculation, same ratio then the E9X M3 is doing what actually, a minimum 370 to maximum 390 hp crank? Instead of 420 ps/414 hp as advertised? I mean if we make 340, isn't it like this? At least one of these assumptions has to be wrong. I believe that there is no way a car (1M) can dyno minimum 10 % more torque than stated but at the same time makes exact same hp as advertised and nothing more. The car is obviously 5 to 10 % underrated in hp (safely speaking) and a minimum 10 % in tq. This is the only logical explanation or for a starter at least M3 guys all should go to courts and sue BMW for false advertisement!

I agree with your data which backs mine and others but can not agree with the interpretation. Unless someone shows me some proof that there is (much) more than 30 whp difference between these two cars we are talking about, that's how I tend to interpret the numbers.

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by Munit

Cant speak for manual but my DCT walks multiple 1m's from any speed except from 0 as the 1m's can launch better.

Speed has nothing to do with it, as long as the driver of the m3 drives properly and keeps it above 6k rpms, it is quite and easy stride ahead of a 1m time after time.

What? 1M launches better than a DCT M3 with launch control from 0? Where was I when this happened? Don't say Chile That's a hell of a pilot the 1M driver then. I am sorry that is a first time for me since the single big, I mean HUGE issue with this car is launching it anything decent due to gobs of low down tq. Why do you think that I have PSS and not the stock PS2s? You need all the traction in the world with the 1M if you want to use 1st gear properly. That's 101 in 1M book.

[Ian///M]

Same dyno same day... Seen stock 1Ms do 235kw and stock 135i's do 190kw at the wheel. Same basic N54 engine. Change mids and you'll get 245kw!

[bdaddylo]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

What? 1M launches better than a DCT M3 with launch control from 0? Where was I when this happened? Don't say Chile That's a hell of a pilot the 1M driver then. I am sorry that is a first time for me since the single big, I mean HUGE issue with this car is launching it anything decent due to gobs of low down tq. Why do you think that I have PSS and not the stock PS2s? You need all the traction in the world with the 1M if you want to use 1st gear properly. That's 101 in 1M book.

+1. The 1M's weakest point is at the launch due to its 100 lb-ft torque advantage over the M3.

If you're walking a 1M below 80 mph, it's probably because the 1M driver doesn't know when to shift. Unlike the S65 where hp builds up to redline, the N54 hp maxes out at 1,500 rpm below redline and falls off from there.