[flipm3]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

Thanks for your questions - I have always appreciated your thoroughness.

No, THANK YOU!!
I appreciate your willingness to be honest with the community here which is why I enjoy asking questions to learn from you all.

1. I am going simply based on what the owner Shawn Church told me. He told me that stock M3's normally put down around 365. The Microsoft M3 put down 375 I believe, but I have not looked closely at the graph to see where that car peeked. I just included it for general illustration purposes. I wouldn't say that it's a matter of the new M3's putting down more power, maybe more of a factor of extremely old software revisions such as 60E being put up against 231E. Or it could be hardware related, such as aged spark plugs or oxygen sensors coupled with old software that may have a cumulative effect. I have driven at least twenty 2012 M3's, and they feel the same as my car (and have that new car smell!).

Very great point! Spark plugs most definitely make a difference and I've noticed this first hand with my car. That was what originally raised my suspicion about the validity of these so-called powerful 231E tunes.

2. No tuner is going to be able to remedy this 100% completely. However, there are changes I make to make it a hell of a lot better. I have had long conversations with Sal about this. When you look at the factory vanos mapping, it has some interesting changes in stock form in the exact akra dip area. The scaling on the map is also different there as well. It's almost as if the factory was trying to tune out some sort of engine resonance issue and that the Akra just exacerbates it. My test files for the dyno did not contain any changes below 3,000 RPM as I was trying to go for midrange torque and top end power. However, my standard tunes do have changes in all areas. I was on a pretty heavy time constraint there. Having only an hour to flash and tune the file between runs was certainly not enough. I think if I had more time that I could have achieved higher gains. This was just a 'quick test'.

Great to hear that you have more in store for us! Amazing what you were able to quickly accomplish in your limited time. I've seen some of your past dynos as well that took care of most of the Akrapovic dip!

Someone needs to tell Akrapovic to get rid of that H-Pipe crossover if that's the cause of the potential dip, haha.

3. I have dynoed on dynojets before. This was my first time on a Dynapack and I was surprised to see the numbers. I am no expert on dyno's themselves, but theoretically not having the wheels and tires mounted to the hubs could signify less loss. Someone with more knowledge on dyno's themselves and the differences might be a better resource for this. I only know the tuning and programming stuff .

No offense to you or Church Automotive, but I have just been very weary of DynaPacks because of it's huge variance in power, especially how the operator calibrates it. When I was in teh G35/350Z scene, there was a local tuner here who did everything on DynaPacks. A lot of their clients would then go to a DynoJet and notice drastically different numbers. Not that final numbers really matter that much since variance will be seen everywhere we go, but of course, it's the change in power that matters

Other tuners in the industry claim that they read as accurate as DynoJets when calibrated correctly, but I have yet to see them first hand get the same results they do on a DynaPack and DynoJet. I would really love to witness a stock 335whp E9X M3 make over 430whp on the same DynoJet with just bolt ons and tune in SAE correction factor and similar weather condition!

Regardless, here is a dyno from a dynojet last year (before and after tune):

AWESOME RESULTS!!! That is definitely the highest I've ever seen on a DynoJet. Would you be able to share what other modifications the M3 has? Do you know what it dyno'd stock?

My assumption is that with a good intake, pulleys, exhaust, and tune, it's very realistic to gain 40-50whp in optimal conditions. So if a stock M3 puts down 335whp stock, I think 375-385whp is very realistic. But then as we all know, stock dynos vary so much. So I can very much see a 365whp stock M3 making over 400whp on a DynoJet as well.

The real question...ultimately do these cars even vary in actual performance despite different dyno numbers?

Great conversation and great thread we have here! This forum needs to have more informational and educational discussions as this.

Thanks again Mike Benvo and THE TECH! As an enthusiast of this car community, I cannot wait to see what else you have in store for us