128 N51 Dyno

[bNks334]

I can't find a collaborative thread for dyno's here like on E90 post (http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...916863&page=19), but if there is a thread started here already hopefully someone can merge this for me.

Username: bNks334
Car/Engine: 128i/N51
Transmission: Automatic
Mods: Euro intake w/ K&N conical filter, BMWPE, Arc-8 (lightweight) rims, 93 octane
Dyno type: Mustang
Peak numbers: 214whp/196wtq
Graph:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...1VZcGdBWVJOWXM
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...VhzSFhpNnhQX3c

[chris82]

The one on E90post applies to our cars too since we have the same engine and transmission. Those are solid numbers for a non tuned car. My otherwise stock AA tuned N51 128i did 220whp and 207wtq on a mustang, which I thought was really good, totally unexpected

[bNks334]

Honestly, I didn't think I would be over 190whp. It was a nice surprise...

[Kgolf31]

What the heck is going on with your torque?

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by Kgolf31

What the heck is going on with your torque?

errr elaborate?

[asbrr]

This is quite a healthy curve for a stock auto N51, and that on a mustang dyno....but as everyone knows it's all relative, so unless we had a tuned car side by side on the same day/conditions on the same dyno, hard to compare.

Still, seems like a healthy car....the torque curve is a bit weird with that big peak

[bNks334]

It doesn't look too different than other N51 charts I've seen, but maybe this run looks more "normal:"

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...1VZcGdBWVJOWXM
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9...VhzSFhpNnhQX3c

[Bimmer-Bob]

214WHP (on a Mustang dyno) on a basically stock car? That's wild.

[Kgolf31]

Originally Posted by Bimmer-Bob

214WHP (on a Mustang dyno) on a basically stock car? That's wild.

Yea. That makes me scratch my head. Me thinks something is off with the dyno or something.

There is always a difference in dyno. That's why when you do dyno numbers there needs to be a consistency on the same dyno you use

[The Wind Breezes]

Originally Posted by bNks334

errr elaborate?

He means, why is there a huge dip between 3500 and 4500, duh.

[E91WAG3N]

Surprised to see a stock n51/52 put down over 200hp. I will be dynoing mine before doing any performance mods.

[AlexR6]

In the graph I read Eng power... So 214 hp at the crank are not so strange in my opinion... Could be even more with a manual transmission!

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by AlexR6

In the graph I read Eng power... So 214 hp at the crank are not so strange in my opinion... Could be even more with a manual transmission!

That is not crank, that is wheel horse power. This graph implies 250ish HP at the crank. Unless we are all wrong lol.

[asbrr]

Originally Posted by bNks334

That is not crank, that is wheel horse power. This graph implies 250ish HP at the crank. Unless we are all wrong lol.

I took your initial post as that, but looking back at the graph it doesn't explicitly state WHP....it says Engine Power and Engine Torque, does the "WC" imply wheel horsepower? It may be that the read-out is adjusted for estimated drivetrain loss?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious....but the numbers are quite high hence all the head scratching....

[bNks334]

The N54/N55's numbers read as whp/wtq were lower than what they previously dyno'd, or expected, so based off that I would say it can't be crank. I guess I could call prime motoring to see if they did something different with their dyno though...

Chris82 pulled 221/207 with a tune and charcoal filter delete on a mustang dyno with the stock 264 rims. I'd say losing 8lbs per wheel of rotational weight is what made a big difference for me.

[The Wind Breezes]

The mods are intake, "rims" (they're called wheels), and 93 octane. lmao.

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

The mods are intake, "rims" (they're called wheels), and 93 octane. lmao.

Not sure why you're laughing. A lot of the dyno sheets from the west coast are all 89/91 octane. You think it doesn't make a difference? 8lbs per corner of rotational weight savings vs many other peoples dynos with stock "wheels" is also pretty significant imo, but hey maybe the dyno is just optimistic and those differences aren't what helped me pull those numbers. The euro intake with a conical filter has shown to be a better mod than a charcoal filter delete too (comparing my mods/numbers to Chris82), but again maybe it was just the dyno.

All this dyno shows is that with a tune I will probably be right on par with Chris82. Which I am happy about considering it's an automatic.

[The Wind Breezes]

1) you called them rims, although they actually do help, even if slightly
2) 93 octane will give you absolutely minimal power if any over 91 on a stock ecu
3) Intake is more for sound than performance, I doubt you'll even see 5 WHP

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

1) you called them rims, although they actually do help, even if slightly
2) 93 octane will give you absolutely minimal power if any over 91 on a stock ecu
3) Intake is more for sound than performance, I doubt you'll even see 5 WHP

See dyno above for my results

Seriously though, it is all relevant information. I am sure people would be asking about all of the above if I had left it out. I can most definitely tell a difference when I fuel up with 91 octane. I can also feel a noticeable difference when I put my stock wheels on for winter.

[Bimmer-Bob]

Originally Posted by asbrr

I took your initial post as that, but looking back at the graph it doesn't explicitly state WHP....it says Engine Power and Engine Torque, does the "WC" imply wheel horsepower? It may be that the read-out is adjusted for estimated drivetrain loss?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious....but the numbers are quite high hence all the head scratching....

I was wondering if it might be corrected, too. What does "T WC" mean, I wonder? The thing is, the numbers are too low to be corrected, but they definitely seem too high for the mods listed.

Incidentally, I find it hard to believe anyone could "feel" a difference between 91 and 93 octane fuel, except for placebo effect. And lighter wheels wouldn't lead to increased WHP, it just makes less weight for that HP to push around (and will slightly affect gearing, if the tires size/sidewall height is different than stock).

[asbrr]

Originally Posted by Bimmer-Bob

I was wondering if it might be corrected, too. What does "T WC" mean, I wonder? The thing is, the numbers are too low to be corrected, but they definitely seem too high for the mods listed.

....snip....

Well - I was thinking the auto could be sapping some of the power, have seen that in a few other dynos where autos do read a bit lower than manual. So if you lop off a few HP for auto, couple that with the "low" reading of a mustang dyno, *maybe* it would match up to corrected "crank" hp for a basically un-tuned N51 auto? I mean factory values are supposed to be 230hp at the crank, so we're trying to account for the "lost" 16hp let's say.

I'm not sure how an auto plays into the dyno measuring drivetrain loss, what I mean is would any auto correction make up for that as well? not sure....

Either way, if the shop states it's whp, then this is an impressive basically "stock" car.

OP: Have you had it from new? Maybe it already has a tune on it to take advantage of your built in 3-stage manifold!

[The Wind Breezes]

Originally Posted by bNks334

See dyno above for my results

Seriously though, it is all relevant information. I am sure people would be asking about all of the above if I had left it out. I can most definitely tell a difference when I fuel up with 91 octane. I can also feel a noticeable difference when I put my stock wheels on for winter.

No, it's completely irrelevant, because you didn't do a before / after on the same dyno same day same conditions. Do you even science?