Another baseline stock dyno run for the record

[///M1]

Went to Renntech (for those not familiar, a very credible and famous tuner largely in the MB community since the 80s, but since have expanded into other brands and in fact they actually offer a full 1///M ECU tune). This was on their Dynojet, car at the time was fully stock, so these factory numbers. Hot and humid FL day. No surprise at the results (315whp/355tq), well known car is under-rated. Some pics of the day and cool whips I saw there.

Gonna hit the dyno back once the exhaust is on and report back.

[flipm3]

Nice numbers! Do you do any more runs beyond RunFile_003? I am curious if power would have continued to rise as the DME adapts and everything gets up to temp.

[DooBs]

wow those are some beautiful mercs... had to google the c74 though haha. what a crazy car

[Keanu111]

Oh wow look at that SLR....drool

[jnm]

What the hell is a "C 74" (last pic on the op)?

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by flipm3

Nice numbers! Do you do any more runs beyond RunFile_003? I am curious if power would have continued to rise as the DME adapts and everything gets up to temp.

agree.... looks like the car was just getting cleaned up via the Italian Tuneup and adaptation.... one more pull would have been interesting to see if another slight increase was there... Of course most shops give you 3 pulls for $$ flat rate..

[ozinaldo]

I think this again confirms the other respectable dyno runs telling us that at the crank 1M has around 360hp if we take into consideration that there is a minimum 15 % loss.

It also confirms that actually the 1Ms make more than 400 lb.ft (550+ nm) torque.

Of course, if we can say that there is a 15% loss, correct me if I am wrong here.

[Ender_]

Nice numbers! But you can't say there is a 15% loss....
http://www.modified.com/tech/modp-10...s/viewall.html

I really wish ratings from the manufacturer would just do the ratings from the wheels.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by DooBs

wow those are some beautiful mercs... had to google the c74 though haha. what a crazy car

Me too. Crazy powah!

"Known as the C74, RENNtech gives the C 63 AMG a bunch of visual enhancement but the real story is under the hood. The 6.2L AMG V8 has been upgraded to produce a total of 605-hp with a maximum torque of 555 lb-ft. That allows the C 63 AMG to run a quarter mile in 11.4 seconds at 126 mph with a top speed of 204 mph.
The whole RENNtech C74 package is available for purchase starting at $11,950."

[///M1]

Originally Posted by flipm3

Nice numbers! Do you do any more runs beyond RunFile_003? I am curious if power would have continued to rise as the DME adapts and everything gets up to temp.

Good question. I likely would have been able to squeeze out a bit more had I done a 4th pull. The 3 runs were not done immediately after each other, runs 1 and 2 were, but for the 3rd we opted to wait about 15-20 mins to let the car cool down (it was a hot and humid FL day after all). Plus, it got me some time to drool around the inventory of cars and that sick CF SLR.

BTW, speaking of sick, Renntech makes a 'SLR' go-cart which is among the fastest in the world (reached 120mph), powered by...a Wankel rotary engine! You can actually buy the whole thing, pretty nutty!

http://www.renntechkarting.com/products_slrkart.html

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by Ender_

Nice numbers! But you can't say there is a 15% loss....
http://www.modified.com/tech/modp-10...s/viewall.html

I really wish ratings from the manufacturer would just do the ratings from the wheels.

Sure, I understand that. In fact I was not applying a 15 % rule to these numbers, but was just remembering that the numbers from UK dyno runs were predominantly crank numbers and when you compare them with this you see that in the case of 1M there appears to be an approximately 15 % drivetrain loss. Or it is just a big coincidence.

I also would like to have BOTH ratings from the manufacturers for all cars, at least for performance oriented ones.

[burnsniper]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

Sure, I understand that. In fact I was not applying a 15 % rule to these numbers, but was just remembering that the numbers from UK dyno runs were predominantly crank numbers and when you compare them with this you see that in the case of 1M there appears to be an approximately 15 % drivetrain loss. Or it is just a big coincidence.

I also would like to have BOTH ratings from the manufacturers for all cars, at least for performance oriented ones.

Aren't we really comparing apples and oranges for wheel hp vs crank hp?

Wheel horsepower includes not only drive line losses but accessory losses and losses due to intake and exhaust setups. Whereas, I believe the SAE hp test does not require all of the engine accessories, the exact stock exhaust and intake manifolds, and is conducted in a controlled atmospheric environment.

[ozinaldo]

Right. Not comparing, just trying to have an idea about how much the car is underrated by BMW. But as you point out, no conclusion is "for sure", agree with that. However, I think that we have seen enough dyno runs posted in this Forum or elsewhere since some months to "safely" suggest that any stock 1M in perfect condition has at least 350 and probably more than 360 hp; and difference in torque is even more obvious, a minimum 50 nm or 10 % over the official figures.

I wouldn't believe easily that the M division would leave it as it is (as it appears in the Z4 35is) anyway.

[superchargedman]

If there's 15% drivetrain loss, it's around 370hp. It would be interesting to see a comparable z4 is dyno.

[l888apex]

I don't think the car is really under-rated, I just think that BMW uses a more accurate dyno than a DJ.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

Right. Not comparing, just trying to have an idea about how much the car is underrated by BMW. But as you point out, no conclusion is "for sure", agree with that. However, I think that we have seen enough dyno runs posted in this Forum or elsewhere since some months to "safely" suggest that any stock 1M in perfect condition has at least 350 and probably more than 360 hp; and difference in torque is even more obvious, a minimum 50 nm or 10 % over the official figures.

I wouldn't believe easily that the M division would leave it as it is (as it appears in the Z4 35is) anyway.

[robertm]

All this was done on dynojet and the numbers are optimistic. The 1m has been pulling around 293 on mustang dynos. 293/.85= 345. That is much more inline with what BMW is publishing.

[ozinaldo]

How do we explain the UK dyno runs then? There are stock cars around 380hp crank with around 570nm of torque, we all saw those results, can they all be that much optimistic

Cause I would rather believe that after the M engineers finished their business with this engine, the BMW administration just took an executive decision to publish it as identical with the Z4's engine, 340hp and 450nm (w/out overboost), identical with their home competition as well, namely Audi TT RS and future (at the time) RS3, and slightly more hp than the Cayman S (and future R). Gentlemen's agreement or tradition, take your pick. I think that's all they did because that was obviously the marketing purpose from the beginning when the Z435is was put against the archenemy TT RS roadster in every German magazine and autmobile web site with their identical powerhouses.

So, I still have a difficulty to easily believe that it is just 340 and 500 nm as published, not a believer in too much coincidences in a row (also 340 is at such a comfortable distance to their own M3's 420 hp...I mean on paper)

But don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind if it is exactly what they say and "just" 340hp+500nm, or even less, as long as I feel good with the engine and I do feel great. I just say that, No for a lot of reasons I don't believe it, there is a minimum 10 % of M secret in there.

[l888apex]

Which UK runs are you referring to?

BMW probably uses a state of the art engine dyno. Chassis dyno's like a DJ are are never meant to be a 100% accurate measurement of a cars power. There are too many factors that can be altered purposefully or accidentally such as vehicle weight, correction factor, drivetrain loss, different brans and their measurement type (load bearing or non), weather in the dyno cell, quality of the dyno fan, etc...

They are only to be used as tools to measure baseline vs. modifications and changes. Take their numbers with a grain of salt and try measuring a cars horsepower/torque by it's actual performance compared with it's gearing and aero.

Like previously mentioned the Mustang dyno measurements are pretty much spot on. Explain that?

I would love for the car to be under-rated too. It sure feels fast but I'm just not sure about it being 10-15% low.

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by l888apex

Which UK runs are you referring to?

BMW probably uses a state of the art engine dyno. Chassis dyno's like a DJ are are never meant to be a 100% accurate measurement of a cars power. There are too many factors that can be altered purposefully or accidentally such as vehicle weight, correction factor, drivetrain loss, different brans and their measurement type (load bearing or non), weather in the dyno cell, quality of the dyno fan, etc...

They are only to be used as tools to measure baseline vs. modifications and changes. Take their numbers with a grain of salt and try measuring a cars horsepower/torque by it's actual performance compared with it's gearing and aero.

Like previously mentioned the Mustang dyno measurements are pretty much spot on. Explain that?

I would love for the car to be under-rated too. It sure feels fast but I'm just not sure about it being 10-15% low.

Sorry, not have much time left in internet tonight but quickly; this thread had a lot of information (I know that is not UK, I can't find the one right now, maybe the other was ESS, I will find later and post)

http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showt...&highlight=ESS

[l888apex]

Well it appears the baseline WHP rating was 300. Even with the "high" DT loss of 15% this corresponds to 345 HP. Not far off the BMW rating of 335 BHP (remember, different than WHP and flywheel numbers). This is on a Dyno Dynamics which reads similar to Mustang from what I've seen, so the 3 or so members who had around 295 and this one at 300 makes sense to me.

Also, I would disregard the flywheel horsepower numbers, as they are meaningless when measured from the wheels then converted with some factor.

In addition the run was done in 3rd gear. 5th gear in our cars has a perfect 1:1 gear ratio and I think pulls done there would be more accurate.

[MDORPHN]

Originally Posted by l888apex

...In addition the run was done in 3rd gear. 5th gear in our cars has a perfect 1:1 gear ratio and I think pulls done there would be more accurate.

You're not going to find many chassis dyno operators that would be comfortable with a car going 150 mph on their dynos!

Neil