BMW 1M Coupe Dyno VIDEO by Insideline - 331whp/362rwtq!!

[Brandon26pdx]

Originally Posted by werke-t

wow that m3 power band is soooo much better... looks like fun to drive up top.

As always the n54 drops off up top, but it has all the TQ down low.

n54 graph does look like a oem performance tune graph or something similar.

-Travis

You'd need a bigger A/R turbo(s) to keep the power ramping all the way to 7000+ the way the S65 does. I've always wondered why they didn't pull a small A/R turbo in sequence with a bigger one get the TQ and HP delivery more linear like an NA engine, but maybe this is more complicated than I realize. Somehow you'd have to divert around the small turbo in the higher RPM range.

I agree though. The powerband in my 135i is a little boring even compared to my old 325Ci, which while nowhere near as fast, always was satisfying to rev because you got the extra kick to go with the extra noise. With the N55 it's "tired" by 5000 rpms.

[superchargedman]

this was my point. the r10 is not a one trick pony.

Originally Posted by M12Power

I agree that to put it in general, simplistic terms, you focus on HP if you’re gunning for higher top speed, but you focus on TQ if quick acceleration is what you’re after. But in the end, they’re inter-related, and you can’t consider one without the other. Btw, I think Carroll Shelby was once quoted saying “Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.”

Anyway, looking at the dyno plots, it’s clear that the real power band of the 1M is between 3K and 5K rather than between 5K and 7K, especially when you consider the fact that TQ drops off so sharply after 5K (even though it’s less so for HP). But the fact remains that both drop off after the cross point. If you’re trying to reach top speed on the autobahn, then it may make sense to rev it beyond 5K, but in most situations, I’d say it’s pointless to do so.

For the M3 though, it’s a different story. The power band of the M3 is clearly between 5K and 8K due to the fact that power continues to increase linearly after the cross point all the way to redline, and TQ is fairly constant from 3K all the way to 8K. I personally like these characteristics better than those of the 1M.

The prodigious amount of torque (along with lighter weight and shorter wheelbase) in the 1M is one of the primary factors why it can be quicker than the M3 on certain tracks, despite the HP and power-to-weight ratio advantage of the M3. As an example, on a tight and twisty track like Monaco, you need quick bursts of acceleration between corners as well as agile handling characteristics, both of which the 1M excels at better than the M3, so don’t be surprised if the 1M is quicker than the M3 at Monaco . However, when you move to a power circuit like Spa, where there are lots of long, flowing straights and fast corners/kinks. That’s where the M3 can really strut its stuff. Momentum is the key at Spa rather than outright acceleration. The inherent stability due to the longer wheelbase and the power advantage of the M3 will allow it to reach and maintain higher speeds than the 1M, so I would expect the M3 to be quicker than the 1M at Spa.

[Stratus650]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

The way I see this chart:

FACT: From 2,000-6350RPM the 1M has more torque and more HP. Beyond that point(6,400-8,400rpm) obviously the M3 is better. Having driven my M3 on daily basis, I know how fast you are going when you you redline it in 2nd gear. Almost 80mph! 3rd gear redline you are well into the triple digits, traveling ~114mph!

IMO:
So, as impressive as the M3 is, you just don't have enough real estate on most roads to take full advantage of the M3's upper power band. I think the 1M is going to be more fun for someone like me on a daily basis. I rarely do any track days and if I accelerate in the first 3 gears in 99.9% of my daily driving the 1M will be faster.

Attachment 531434

looking at this graph, if the 1M shifted to the following gear just at the green line, it would be a replication of the graph at the matching RPM, and so the hp/tq values would be up again.

This is how the 1M would be as powerful as the M3 beyond the point(6,400-8,400rpm)

[GotM]

I updated the model I put together. The graph is based on the this information:
neglects aero drag or rolling resistance.

135 - N54 6mt, wt 3373lbs, final drive 3.08, stock tire sizes, Torque curve data from Automobile N54 vs N55

M3 - wt 3704, final drive 3.85, stock M3 tire size, Torque curve data from VRP tuning.

1M - wt 3296, final drive 3.154, stock M3 tire size, torque curve data from Automobile N54 vs N55 (had info on N54is) I thought this would be a better way to look at regular acceleration without the 50Nm burst.

The 1M has quite the acceleration in each gear, and will give the M3 a good run. I think trick for the 1M will be controlling wheel spin in 1st gear.

[GotM]

This chart is using the same info from the graph above. I used the average acceleration between mph data data point to calculate time to speed. It neglects the items mentioned in the graph.

This would not accurately represent the time it would take to do this run from 10-150mph. But, does enable a side by side comparison between the cars assuming the items neglected do not give any advantage to any of the cars.

The M3 starts to pull away at the 110mph mark...but it is really close

[Brandon26pdx]

One issue I can see immediately that may not always reflect reality is the 3700 lb M3. Plenty of guys have stripped and modded M3's down into the 3400 lb range. But I understand you needed a data point and I believe that is the number BMW quotes with a full tank of gas and all the piggy options.

[pride355]

Originally Posted by Brandon26pdx

One issue I can see immediately that may not always reflect reality is the 3700 lb M3. Plenty of guys have stripped and modded M3's down into the 3400 lb range. But I understand you needed a data point and I believe that is the number BMW quotes with a full tank of gas and all the piggy options.

3700 lbs is official data quote from BMW for "EU DIN Weight of E92 M3 w/DKG".

If someone wants to make an apple-to-apple weight comparision between M3 vs 1M it is either 3.476 lbs vs 3.289 lbs OR 3.641 lbs vs. 3.454 lbs. So the official weight difference between 6MT E92 M3 vs 1M is 187 lbs. It is not 400 lbs.

The rest will be pure speculation.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by pride355

3700 lbs is official data quote from BMW for "EU DIN Weight of E92 M3 w/DKG".

If someone wants to make an apple-to-apple weight comparision between M3 vs 1M it is either 3.476 lbs vs 3.289 lbs OR 3.641 lbs vs. 3.454 lbs. So the official weight difference between 6MT E92 M3 vs 1M is 187 lbs. It is not 400 lbs.

The rest will be pure speculation.

Well I don't think I have read any of the tests claiming 400lbs but the difference is 342lbs according to BMWUSA(M3DCT 3704lbs vs. 1M 3362). Since almost all the comparison tests(especially on the track) have pitted the 1M against the quicker M3 DCT, I think it is totally fair to use the 342lb weight difference. That is why so many of us want to see a 6MT vs. 6MT comparison test.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

Well I don't think I have read any of the tests claiming 400lbs but the difference is 342lbs according to BMWUSA(M3DCT 3704lbs vs. 1M 3362). Since almost all the comparison tests(especially on the track) have pitted the 1M against the quicker M3 DCT, I think it is totally fair to use the 342lb weight difference. That is why so many of us want to see a 6MT vs. 6MT comparison test.

+1

[GotM]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

Well I don't think I have read any of the tests claiming 400lbs but the difference is 342lbs according to BMWUSA(M3DCT 3704lbs vs. 1M 3362). Since almost all the comparison tests(especially on the track) have pitted the 1M against the quicker M3 DCT, I think it is totally fair to use the 342lb weight difference. That is why so many of us want to see a 6MT vs. 6MT comparison test.

The 3704 lbs appears to be the MT weight on BMW.com All of the other specifications are for the MT unless in [] looking at the fine print at the bottom.

Here is the accel curve with the 1M weight updated to 3362. Also keep in mind this does not include the extra over-boost torque.

The time to MPH graph take a little more time to create.

[nachob]

I was watching a documentary on the Pontiac firebird and they were talking about Smokey and the Bandit's car......GM rated it at a laughable 200 HP for insurance reasons. When the motors were dynoed later, the were turning about 370HP!

: )