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

[techthentic]

Originally Posted by ihyln

While I appreciate a good jab it does appear that the particular dyno reads high and having to shift at 5k rpm is pretty weaksauce. All this wrapped up in a low volume car only made to fill a narrow gap in BMW's lineup and you got a snoozefest.

So the M3 makes even less that 376hp on the dyno? (Same dyno)

[ihyln]

Yes, 380 is QUITE above average for a bone stock M3. Which means its actually putting down 437HP with a 15% powertrain loss factored in. Normal numbers are around 350-360 and my particular car clocked in at 359 on 93 octane. How this is "front page news" is beyond me. And unless I missed it there is no mention of the octane used.

[jnm]

LOL some of you guys crack me up with this 'their dyno is reading high' argument. Either the dyno is calibrated or it's not! And if you're going to publish those dyno numbers for all those cars one would hope that you would keep instrument used for the measurement calibrated. There are other factors (altitude for example) that can affect the power produced by the engine being measured (and of course how well that particular engine is running at the time the run is made), but a foot-pound of torque is a foot-pound of torque and is the same thing everywhere on earth.

Oh and BTW, just to make sure everyone understands in case they didn't know:

HP = torque * rpm * a constant

All the dyno is measuring is torque, and ONLY torque, after that the computer uses the torque reading along with the rpm reading, multiplies them and calculates (rather than measures) the HP.

Now to relate that to the practical implications:

lots of torque low in the RPM range = lots of acceleration off the lights (i.e. bottom end, 'first half' cars)
lots of torque high in the RPM range (or lots and lots of RPMs) = lots of acceleration at high speed (i.e. top end, 'second half' cars).

On the track, high RPM as a way to make lots of HP is ok, because you keep the engine 'in the power band' even if it means always keeping it revving very high.

On the road, high torque at low RPM is better because you're not always revving the nuts off the engine when you're driving and it's faster to just be able to mash the pedal from whatever gear you're in rather than having to drop one (or two) gears first.

On a track an M3 would be ultimately faster because it makes more HP ... at the top of the revs

On the road a 1M would ultimately be faster off the lights or when you need to pass someone because their is more torque (and therefore more power) available lower in the revs.

[///1M]

Originally Posted by formula M

lol...

People, there is already a pretty lengthy TQ thread, so if u don't understand, or don't know... then please spout off ur ignorance in that thread.

A car's acceleration rate directly follows it's torque curve. Daniel is right, he just didn't want to thread-crap, so he kept it simple. There is nothing to argue & if you don't understand, then spend a few years educating yourself, so you can wrap your head around what torque actually is.



As for diesel engines and high torque..? And..? What about rally cars and 700lbs-ft of torque..? 0-100mph in 3.1 seconds, etc.. (gearing is a whole other topic!)

Yes, torque is proportional to acceleration, but it's not everything. That's all I was trying to say. Chris719's reply is well taken.
And yes, gearing is key to the discussion.

Your crude comments are not appreciated.

[clived]

Originally Posted by ///1M

^I don't think this is accurate at all.

HP=acceleration, and the higher the HP, the higher top speed that can be reached (holding other variables constant).

Actually, all else being equal (weight, drag, gearing) it's entirely accurate. The power will determine the top speed. The torque will determine how quickly you get there. People just get confused because, as has been rightly pointed out on this thread, torque and power and inexctricably linked.

[pyrat]

Originally Posted by ihyln

How this is "front page news" is beyond me. And unless I missed it there is no mention of the octane used.

Some like to celebrate when the car of their dreams puts down impressive numbers. Sorry if that hurts your sensitive M3 feelings. Don't rain on this parade. Thanks

[hwelvaar]

Originally Posted by pyrat

Some like to celebrate when the car of their dreams puts down impressive numbers. Sorry if that hurts your sensitive M3 feelings. Don't rain on this parade. Thanks

+1

[MNavigator]

Originally Posted by pyrat

can someone overlay the two graphs? Does anyone know where to find the raw data in CSV file etc?

Here it is. I wanted to see it too

[pyrat]

Originally Posted by MNavigator

Here it is. I wanted to see it too

Excellent. Very cool to see. Thanks!

[werke-t]

Originally Posted by MNavigator

Here it is. I wanted to see it too

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

[superchargedman]

You should tell that to the magazine reviewers. I don't seem to recall anyone having a snooze with this car.

Originally Posted by ihyln

While I appreciate a good jab it does appear that the particular dyno reads high and having to shift at 5k rpm is pretty weaksauce. All this wrapped up in a low volume car only made to fill a narrow gap in BMW's lineup and you got a snoozefest.

[turbo8765]

Originally Posted by ihyln

While I appreciate a good jab it does appear that the particular dyno reads high and having to shift at 5k rpm is pretty weaksauce. All this wrapped up in a low volume car only made to fill a narrow gap in BMW's lineup and you got a snoozefest.

I wouldn't be quite so hard on the 1M.

But if you think the dyno numbers tell the story of a car, you've missed the boat. Saying the 1M is as good as the M3 because it makes as much power, is like saying two girls with the same measurements are equally hot. There's a lot of detail missing...

I just bought my fourth m3 this week. I replaced an 09 e92 with an 11 e92. I cross shopped the 997 turbo and ZR1. Either car would embarrass the M3 on any track, anywhere, anytime but that doesn't make them better cars.

You have to look at the total package. The intake noise of the S65 is one of the greatest sounds I've ever heard. The thickness of the steering wheel is perfect. The seats are probably the best factory seats I've ever sat it (the vette may as well use a toilet bowel for a seat with the garabage it has). The throttle response is ungodly, and steady pull all the way to and beyond 8k is delicious. etc etc etc

So, the 1M so far, based on reviews (like most of us I've never seen one) has exceeded my expectations. It's lap times are solid, it has a nice angry look, and I'm sure it's a blast to drive. But if you think 360whp an M3 beater makes, you need to put down the crack pipe.

Doesn't this dyno look like any other N54 w a tune and downpipes?

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by ihyln

While I appreciate a good jab it does appear that the particular dyno reads high and having to shift at 5k rpm is pretty weaksauce..

Can't say enough how ABSOLUTELY incorrect this statement is. The graph shows a loss of 30 hp from the 331 hp peak at 5K until nearly 6500 rpm. That's a mere 10 percent loss. No one in their right mind would shift up from even 6K when there is still 300 hp available at 6500 rpm. And of course an aftermarket tune will unlock the top end, which is only flat because it was tuned RICH up top so the catalytic converters will last 150K under warranty.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by turbo8765

I wouldn't be quite so hard on the 1M.

But if you think the dyno numbers tell the story of a car, you've missed the boat. Saying the 1M is as good as the M3 because it makes as much power, is like saying two girls with the same measurements are equally hot. There's a lot of detail missing...

I just bought my fourth m3 this week. I replaced an 09 e92 with an 11 e92. I cross shopped the 997 turbo and ZR1. Either car would embarrass the M3 on any track, anywhere, anytime but that doesn't make them better cars.

You have to look at the total package. The intake noise of the S65 is one of the greatest sounds I've ever heard. The thickness of the steering wheel is perfect. The seats are probably the best factory seats I've ever sat it (the vette may as well use a toilet bowel for a seat with the garabage it has). The throttle response is ungodly, and steady pull all the way to and beyond 8k is delicious. etc etc etc

So, the 1M so far, based on reviews (like most of us I've never seen one) has exceeded my expectations. It's lap times are solid, it has a nice angry look, and I'm sure it's a blast to drive. But if you think 360whp an M3 beater makes, you need to put down the crack pipe.

Doesn't this dyno look like any other N54 w a tune and downpipes?

But this is the most effective chassis to put the 'tuned' N54 power to the road.

As far as the M3 beater comment...it has been proven that the 1M may not beat the M3 on all circuits, some it will, and most it will match. No crack pipe needed.

[///1M]

Both dyno results are fantastic in their own right. There's nothing to argue about, both cars are just AWESOME!

[mPlasticDesign]

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.

[Daniel135i]

Originally Posted by lve2xlr8

I wonder how much power it'd put down with some heat soak

BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No heat soak has been spoken of as of yet, keep those filthy thoughts away!

[M12Power]

Originally Posted by superchargedman

if that were simply the case, then turbo diesels and trucks would be walking all over cars like the gtr.

Have you ever heard of some ass spanking race cars by the name of R10/R15 TDI from another German automaker who shall remain nameless on these forums?

[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.

[mmilkov]

Given this car's torque curve, there has been a lot of discussion about what the optimum shift points are. I decided to put this topic to rest by calculating the torque at the wheels in each gear. In order to do this, I used InsideLine's dyno plot and the car's overall gear reduction (gear ratio x final drive ratio) in each gear. The last piece of information needed to plot the wheel torque vs. road speed is the rolling diameter of the rear wheels, which can be calculated from their size (265/35-19).
So here is the torque at the wheels plotted versus the car's speed. The optimum shift points are those, for which the torque in the next gear becomes higher than the torque in the current gear:
From 1->2: 42 mph or 6900 rpm
From 2->3: 70 mph or 6500 rpm
From 3->4: 100 mph or 6250 rpm
From 4->5: 120 mph or 5750 rpm
From 5->6: 143 mph or 5750 rpm

Note that these shift points are valid as long as the dyno curve provided by InsideLine is valid in real world driving conditions. We don't know if the same dyno curve can be maintained for long durations as when accelerating in gears 4, 5 or 6 sine the overboost function supposedly works only for limited time.

Cheers,

Mihail

[GotM]

Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster

Can't say enough how ABSOLUTELY incorrect this statement is. The graph shows a loss of 30 hp from the 331 hp peak at 5K until nearly 6500 rpm. That's a mere 10 percent loss. No one in their right mind would shift up from even 6K when there is still 300 hp available at 6500 rpm. And of course an aftermarket tune will unlock the top end, which is only flat because it was tuned RICH up top so the catalytic converters will last 150K under warranty.

I totally agree with you. I don't know why most people believe that you should not shift at peak torque. These numbers below are for a 135, but the torque curves drop off in a similar manner between both cars.

1st gear Torque at the wheels starts at 3500 ftlbs and drops to about 2100ft at red line. And, the vehicle speed is ~40 mph

2nd gear - the shift from 1st will put right rpms at 4000. In second gear at 4000 rpms the wheels are seeing ~ 1900 ftlb. less torque than in first...why would you possibly want to shift before red line in 1st??? This drops to about 1300 ftlbs at red line, and the vehicle is traveling at ~70 mph.

3rd gear - The shift from 2nd to 3rd will put rpms at 4750. In third gear at this rpm the wheels are seeing 1250 ft lbs of torque. Same question why would you even think of shifting earlier than red line in 2nd?? This drops to about 800 ft lbs at red line, and the car is traveling at 106 mph.

4th gear - here is where the mind set might change a little. The shift into 4th the rpms are ~5250. The torque at the wheels is just over 900 ft lbs. The car will be accelerating fast in this gear at this moment than the moment prior in 3rd. A shift at 6500 might have been better. But the time elapsed in that 500 rpm range is practically instantaneous. Personally I think the shift at red line would still be better. The torque at the end of 4th drops to around 600 ftlbs. And, the vehicle is traveling around 134 mph.

Another thing I found interesting in the modeling I did is the acceleration seen by the car.

In first gear -
This torque curve provides and acceleration of 33ft/s^2 in the beginning and drops to 20 ft/s^2. The M3 (6mt) accelerates at 28ft/s^2 rises to around 32 then drops down to 30 at redline, you have to love that flat torque curve.

The acceleration in each gear is has a similar peak between the 135 and the M3, just the M3 carries it all the way through the gear. Knowing the torque curve is higher on the 1M than the 135, I think the 1M will be very Mpressive sprinting right next to the M3.

Sorry for all of the 135 data, I never completed my model with the 1M. But I think it points out that you still want to shift at red line versus the rpm where the peak torque occurs for the engine.

[GotM]

Originally Posted by mmilkov

Given this car's torque curve, there has been a lot of discussion about what the optimum shift points are. I decided to put this topic to rest by calculating the torque at the wheels in each gear. In order to do this, I used InsideLine's dyno plot and the car's overall gear reduction (gear ratio x final drive ratio) in each gear. The last piece of information needed to plot the wheel torque vs. road speed is the rolling diameter of the rear wheels, which can be calculated from their size (265/35-19).
So here is the torque at the wheels plotted versus the car's speed. The optimum shift points are those, for which the torque in the next gear becomes higher than the torque in the current gear:
From 1->2: 42 mph or 6900 rpm
From 2->3: 70 mph or 6500 rpm
From 3->4: 100 mph or 6250 rpm
From 4->5: 120 mph or 5750 rpm
From 5->6: 143 mph or 5750 rpm

Note that these shift points are valid as long as the dyno curve provided by InsideLine is valid in real world driving conditions. We don't know if the same dyno curve can be maintained for long durations as when accelerating in gears 4, 5 or 6 sine the overboost function supposedly works only for limited time.

Cheers,

Mihail

I should have put the graph together like you did . The steeper drop off of the torque curve seen on the 1M would drive some earlier than red line shifts for the 1M.