BMW 1 Series Coupe Forum / 1 Series Convertible Forum (1M / tii / 135i / 128i / Coupe / Cabrio / Hatchback) (BMW E82 E88 128i 130i 135i)
 





 

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      01-23-2009, 09:16 AM   #45
ssabripo
HALA MADRID!
 
ssabripo's Avatar
 
Drives: camels & donkeys
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plantation, Fl

Posts: 2,092
iTrader: (5)

Send a message via AIM to ssabripo
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremyc74 View Post
Not to take away from the numbers he put down, but you're reading too much into it. The 15% driveline loss is a guess, and it's hard to actually prove without doing an engine dyno and then a chassis dyno. On top of that you never know how exact the calibration on the dyno is. The factory numbers are standardized and are adjusted for a specific set of circumstances (temperature, oil level, fuel, altitude, ect.). If you run the car at a lower temperature you're going to see better numbers. In other words, too many variables to say BMW is actually under-rating the cars.

Numbers from a chassis dyno should be used as a tuning tool to demonstrate gain. Trying to derive exact flywheel numbers from them isn't really useful.
you are correct to a certain point. Conversely, if we assume that the 302hp rated power from BMW is the "correct" baseline, then according to these numbers the drive train loss factor is:

273/302 = 0.9
thus
362/0.9 = 402 hp, baselined from a 302hp initial value.
__________________

__________________________________________________ ____________
e90 M3, Interlagos Blue / M individual two-tone, ZCP, ZP2, ZCV, DCT, ED.
ssabripo is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-23-2009, 09:53 AM   #46
Canexican
Closet N54 Fan
 
Canexican's Avatar
 
Drives:
Join Date: Jan 2009

Posts: 87
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssabripo View Post
this wouldn't be just a function of the JB3.... the Procede, and even flashes like ESS or AA are taxing the HPFP in similar fashion, so while the theory of whether these tunes are taxing the filter beyond its limits is still unknown, this isn't a JB3 only issue.
That isn't exactly a bad idea though. If it was known that fuel pumps were problematic, i'd probably replace mine with the JB3 just as a precaution.

Are other JB3 users getting these extreme dyno numbers from just a tune or is this a freak occurrence as the result of a custom dyno tune via the JB3? If it is that reliable and easy to gain 90whp, I don't understand why everyone else hasn't done it (besides the whole "unreliability" and "voided warranty" issue is in the back of everyone's minds).
__________________
'06 EVO IX MR 10.51@127mph (1.40 60ft)
World's Quickest/Fastest Stock Turbo/Motor Evolution
400whp/397wtq
.
Stock Turbo. Stock Cams. E85 Powered. Tuned by JSDyno.com
Sweet vids of my car kicking ass...
Canexican is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-23-2009, 10:11 AM   #47
jeremyc74
Banned
 
Drives: '08 135i Montego/Terra
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Evansville, IN

Posts: 5,972
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssabripo View Post
you are correct to a certain point. Conversely, if we assume that the 302hp rated power from BMW is the "correct" baseline, then according to these numbers the drive train loss factor is:

273/302 = 0.9
thus
362/0.9 = 402 hp, baselined from a 302hp initial value.
You still can't assume that. You're not correcting for temperature, altitude, or fuel, and you're assuming the dyno is perfectly calibrated. What was the temp when you did the dyno runs? SAE (I'm not sure if BMW is using that standard, I'm just throwing it out there) corrects to 70 degrees F IIRC. If you dyno an SAE rated vehicle when it's 40F you're going to see more power than it was rated at because of the cooler air, especially on a turbo car.

Don't get me wrong, the JB3 is clearly adding about 100Hp at the crank, I'm just saying that it's wrong to make the assumption that the factory is under-rating the engine to begin with. :w00t:
jeremyc74 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-23-2009, 10:15 AM   #48
jeremyc74
Banned
 
Drives: '08 135i Montego/Terra
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Evansville, IN

Posts: 5,972
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canexican View Post
That isn't exactly a bad idea though. If it was known that fuel pumps were problematic, i'd probably replace mine with the JB3 just as a precaution.

Are other JB3 users getting these extreme dyno numbers from just a tune or is this a freak occurrence as the result of a custom dyno tune via the JB3? If it is that reliable and easy to gain 90whp, I don't understand why everyone else hasn't done it (besides the whole "unreliability" and "voided warranty" issue is in the back of everyone's minds).


These are pretty typical numbers.

Guys, the problem with the high pressure fuel pumps isn't that they're being overloaded. It's a manufacturing defect that involves the seals. I'd be very surprised if the amount of fuel going through the pump (related to more HP) has any effect at all on the failure rate.
jeremyc74 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-23-2009, 10:46 AM   #49
My135
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives:
Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 1,603
iTrader: (0)

I would not worry about the HPFP but the turbo. All tunes will increse the psi and thus dirve the turbo harder which may cause some problem down the road.

Any way, even I got the JB3, I will only occasionally drive my car hard and minimize the reliability issue.
__________________
7/08 135 Coupe, Crimson Red, 6 SP, Sport, Taupe Lette/Aluminum. Performance Mods: JB4 on Map 5, BMS DP Fix V3, Injen polished intake, AR Catless DP, Maddad resonated mid-pipes, aFe exhaust polished tips, ST Suspension Coil Over and Hotchkis front sway bar. Others: BMS OCC, BT Scanner, Mud Flap. Next Mods: AA Front Strut Brace.
My135 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-23-2009, 11:11 AM   #50
Canexican
Closet N54 Fan
 
Canexican's Avatar
 
Drives:
Join Date: Jan 2009

Posts: 87
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremyc74 View Post
These are pretty typical numbers.
Is it pretty routine to get over 400whp with just bolt-ons and a tune :iono: ?
__________________
'06 EVO IX MR 10.51@127mph (1.40 60ft)
World's Quickest/Fastest Stock Turbo/Motor Evolution
400whp/397wtq
.
Stock Turbo. Stock Cams. E85 Powered. Tuned by JSDyno.com
Sweet vids of my car kicking ass...
Canexican is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-23-2009, 11:17 AM   #51
jeremyc74
Banned
 
Drives: '08 135i Montego/Terra
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Evansville, IN

Posts: 5,972
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canexican View Post
Is it pretty routine to get over 400whp with just bolt-ons and a tune :iono: ?

No, it seems like most of the bolt-on cars are just under that mark, at least on pump gas.
jeremyc74 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-23-2009, 12:21 PM   #52
ridin135
Colonel
 
Drives: 991 C2S & E92 M3
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Greenville

Posts: 2,247
iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canexican View Post
Is it pretty routine to get over 400whp with just bolt-ons and a tune :iono: ?
Horsepower close but torque is over 400 lb ft at the wheels with bolt on and tune. These cars are pretty sick and jb3 for 600 hell i got mine for 300 new. :headbang:
ridin135 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-23-2009, 03:17 PM   #53
ssabripo
HALA MADRID!
 
ssabripo's Avatar
 
Drives: camels & donkeys
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plantation, Fl

Posts: 2,092
iTrader: (5)

Send a message via AIM to ssabripo
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremyc74 View Post
You still can't assume that. You're not correcting for temperature, altitude, or fuel, and you're assuming the dyno is perfectly calibrated. What was the temp when you did the dyno runs? SAE (I'm not sure if BMW is using that standard, I'm just throwing it out there) corrects to 70 degrees F IIRC. If you dyno an SAE rated vehicle when it's 40F you're going to see more power than it was rated at because of the cooler air, especially on a turbo car.

Don't get me wrong, the JB3 is clearly adding about 100Hp at the crank, I'm just saying that it's wrong to make the assumption that the factory is under-rating the engine to begin with. :w00t:
correct....SAE corrects the temps to 70deg. Temps during the runs were 64-65deg, so within tolerance. I also posted the "uncorrected" numbers which showed 367 I believe.

I'm pretty sure that given the temperatures, dyno conditions, and correction values, that the average drivetrain losses used are within the ballpark :wink:
__________________

__________________________________________________ ____________
e90 M3, Interlagos Blue / M individual two-tone, ZCP, ZP2, ZCV, DCT, ED.
ssabripo is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-23-2009, 09:34 PM   #54
SpeedballTrix
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2009 135i 6MT SBM/CBL
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Long Island, NY

Posts: 239
iTrader: (0)

Temp and humidity and dyno cal don't matter at all to drivetrain loss.
The fact is he put down X before the tune and Y after the tune on the same dyno on the same day with all those factors (roughly but close enough) the same. Thats a solid mathematical delta.

You are right that it's hard (actually impossible) to tell what the drivetrain loss is for the 135i transmission until someone puts the N54 on multiple engine dynos, averages those numbers, and then puts the car on multiple chassis dynos and averages those numbers.

Until someone does that you have to assume.
Assumption is all we have without hard test data.
And the general assumption for well built street manual gearboxes (which havent changed much in design since the Model-A except for better materials, machining processes, helical cut gears and synchronization) is 15% loss. Maybe the 135i tranny has 14% loss. Maybe even 13%, but thats giving it a hell of a lot.
SpeedballTrix is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-25-2009, 08:31 AM   #55
ssabripo
HALA MADRID!
 
ssabripo's Avatar
 
Drives: camels & donkeys
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plantation, Fl

Posts: 2,092
iTrader: (5)

Send a message via AIM to ssabripo
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeak View Post
do dinan
ssabripo is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-26-2009, 01:39 PM   #56
stevenc
Coming Soon
 
Drives: 135i alphine white...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Houston, TX

Posts: 812
iTrader: (0)

I was hoping i would receive my JB3 1.22 before a dyno day this last weekend, but i didn't.

So my JB3 v1.1 made 342 whp and 368 wtq.

Not bad.
stevenc is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-26-2009, 02:33 PM   #57
ssabripo
HALA MADRID!
 
ssabripo's Avatar
 
Drives: camels & donkeys
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plantation, Fl

Posts: 2,092
iTrader: (5)

Send a message via AIM to ssabripo
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenc View Post
I was hoping i would receive my JB3 1.22 before a dyno day this last weekend, but i didn't.

So my JB3 v1.1 made 342 whp and 368 wtq.

Not bad.
Good numbers! anything at or above 340rwhp is good IMO
ssabripo is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-26-2009, 03:22 PM   #58
stevenc
Coming Soon
 
Drives: 135i alphine white...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Houston, TX

Posts: 812
iTrader: (0)

Yeah, im not unhappy.
stevenc is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-26-2009, 09:16 PM   #59
5soko
Brigadier General
 
5soko's Avatar
 
Drives: M5
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Posts: 4,216
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenc View Post
I was hoping i would receive my JB3 1.22 before a dyno day this last weekend, but i didn't.

So my JB3 v1.1 made 342 whp and 368 wtq.

Not bad.
Nice numbers with 1.1!!

With Map 5 and 6 with 1.22 your WHP should increase a good bit
Map 4 and 6 should also give you even more TQ. Of course map 4 being tq biased, map 5 being hp biased, 6 being the best of both worlds.
5soko is offline   Montenegro
0
Reply With Quote
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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 AM.




1addicts
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