1M vs M3 Powerband Dynos - ESS Tuned vs Stock

crabman · 04-20-2012, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m3alabama

That is why the m3 is decievingly fast. It sure as heck does not "feel" fast to most that drive it, especially coming from an FI car or monster v8, however if you have a chance to do a long redline run and watch your tach to see for example in 2nd or 3rd gear (1sts happens too quickly), you are pulling what seems like forever in the top of the rev band to redline. Compare that to large majority of other cars or an n54 engined car, you will have a very short couple thousands revs near the top to pull in each gear and you do not want to be at the top in those cars as the power drops signifigantly up around redline. Hence you make more torque but for a much shorter time.

I relate it to a runner.

Would you rather sprint for half the race then be drop dead tired for the other half.

Or would you rather have a fast pace for the whole race, which nets you a quicker finish.

Turbos kick you in the butt and have more oomph but its short lived. M3 has less oomph but is long lived and this is what horsepower does a good job at measuring. It accounts for the revs in addition to raw enginen torque to paint the entire picture which is why despite what many say, horsepower is the best measure for any type of race.

All else being equal it is not the power but the application of power that decides the race. No matter the powerband be peaky or broad the car that puts the most power down over time will be further down the track than the car that put down less.

I'm not knocking the M3, obviously I bought in because I prefer it but the numbers as seen out on the track for the 1 pretty much speak for themselves as far as the viability of its powerband when compared to the M3. Whether you or I or anyone likes the way it delivers that power is subjective.

Singletrack · 04-20-2012, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crabman

All else being equal it is not the power but the application of power that decides the race. No matter the powerband be peaky or broad the car that puts the most power down over time will be further down the track than the car that put down less.

I'm not knocking the M3, obviously I bought in because I prefer it but the numbers as seen out on the track for the 1 pretty much speak for themselves as far as the viability of its powerband when compared to the M3. Whether you or I or anyone likes the way it delivers that power is subjective.

Yup - they are simply different tools to get the same job done. They need to be used differently to achieve the best results.

Surprised this thread hasn't degenerated into a shitstorm yet to be honest. I assumed the initial intention was to simply kick the hornet's nest.

Rshane · 04-20-2012, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singletrack

Surprised this thread hasn't degenerated into a shitstorm yet to be honest. I assumed the initial intention was to simply kick the hornet's nest.

I was thinking the same thing when this thread started. I think most folks actually like the 1M. I had the chance to drive one and it was a blast. I think it is more fun to drive around town than my M3 however, once I pull onto the Autobahn it is M3 all the way for me. The 1M is just a bit too cramped for me and IMO not as comfortable on the longer trips...the engine/exhaust was also kind of boomy while cruising too. While great for short periods of time, it would get annoying for me over the long haul.

Penguino · 12-09-2013, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rshane

I was thinking the same thing when this thread started. I think most folks actually like the 1M. I had the chance to drive one and it was a blast. I think it is more fun to drive around town than my M3 however, once I pull onto the Autobahn it is M3 all the way for me. The 1M is just a bit too cramped for me and IMO not as comfortable on the longer trips...the engine/exhaust was also kind of boomy while cruising too. While great for short periods of time, it would get annoying for me over the long haul.

My intention was always to offer a clear comparison between both vehicles. It is evident now that the 1M might have been a test mule to the future of the ///M brand.

happos2 · 12-09-2013, 02:20 PM

Good bump...

Leonardo629 · 12-09-2013, 02:25 PM

so if I'm reading this right, the 1M is a faster car until its HPFP goes out and goes into limp mode......

Does this mean the new M3/M4 will also be WAY underrated from the factory?

biglare · 12-09-2013, 02:25 PM

Having had both the M3 and 1M at the same time it really depends what your overall goals and preferences are with the car. If you want to drive everyday and have gobs of power all the time the 1M is the way to go based on it's torque delivery. If you typically do a lot of highway or freeway driving then the M3 is awesome! When it comes to track use, it depends on the type of track, whether you can stretch the legs of the M3 out or not. The 1M is just as fast or faster around the track when compared to the M3. Just my experiences as I have had an ESS tuned 1M and an ESS tuned M3 as well as a ESS S/C M3.

Happy Times!

Penguino · 12-09-2013, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

so if I'm reading this right, the 1M is a faster car until its HPFP goes out and goes into limp mode......

Does this mean the new M3/M4 will also be WAY underrated from the factory?

The 1M rated at 335hp dynos 320-340whp stock. The M5/M6 rated at 560hp dynos 520-550whp. I can see the M3/M4 dynoing 390-410whp.

CanAutM3 · 12-09-2013, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitosz

The 1M rated at 335hp dynos 320-340whp stock. The M5/M6 rated at 560hp dynos 520-550whp. I can see the M3/M4 dynoing 390-410whp.

There is something that does not quite add up in those charts. I doubt that the 1M produces more whp than the M3 in stock form...

Black Gold · 12-09-2013, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

There is something that does not quite add up in those charts. I doubt that the 1M produces more whp than the M3 in stock form...

From personal experience they are very similar. Especially m3 with older software versions.

The 1m is very quick

CanAutM3 · 12-09-2013, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

From personal experience they are very similar. Especially m3 with older software versions.

The 1m is very quick

Agreed, the 1M is very quick. Three of my track buddies have one and I had the pleasure to drive it. The 1M is one great car.

But when it comes to power, the M3 has the upper hand. Up to about 80mph, it is pretty even (similar power to weights) after that though, it is a different story. My buddies say it is just frustrating to see my M3 pull away on the straights...

To me, it does not make sense that a stock 1M puts more power to the wheels than an stock M3, something is at odd...

<-3VOM · 12-09-2013, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyNate

I've always been impressed with the 1M but damn the S65 is amazing in it's power delivery as well. The torque is certainly not neck snapping but it's ALL there for 5,000 rpm. While every bit of torque is there, horsepower is actually steadily climbing off idle all the way to redline. WHAT OTHER MOTOR DOES THAT? Please educate me.

Just about any free breathing n/a motor.
Most B,F,K series Hondas, the coyote 5.0 etc etc etc

///mawana · 12-10-2013, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

From personal experience they are very similar. Especially m3 with older software versions.

The 1m is very quick

Great, so once I update my software, it's game over!

Penguino · 12-10-2013, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

There is something that does not quite add up in those charts. I doubt that the 1M produces more whp than the M3 in stock form...

The cars were dyno on the same day, back to back. M3 had heavier wheels by about 5lbs, not sure if that made the difference.

<-3VOM · 12-10-2013, 03:16 PM

5lbs at the wheel is substantial.

bdaddylo · 12-10-2013, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokay444

5lbs at the wheel is substantial.

Define substantial? 1HP or 2HP? It's definitely not 10HP.

<-3VOM · 12-10-2013, 06:18 PM

Conventional wisdom says that conservatively, 1lb worth of rotating mass lost is roughly equivalent to a 4lb sprung mass lost. This being said, I don't think there's any way to get an exact measurement. Even where the rotating mass is lost will make a difference. 1lb lost at the tire tread will make a bigger difference than 1 lb lost near wheel bolts.

In terms of converting that to horsepower, it depends on the power to weight ratio before the weight loss.

For instance, let's just assume we agree with the 4/1 ratio for rotating vs spring.

Let's further assume we're talking about a 4000lb vehicle with 500hp (ie. much like an E60 M5). We're starting off with a 8 lbs per hp ratio.

Let's take 50 lbs off of the rotating mass. Given our 4/1 assumption above, that is equivalent to losing 200 lbs. We're now at 3800lbs and 500hp, giving us 7.6 lbs per hp.

If we wanted to do this by increasing horsepower instead of losing weight:

4000 / 7.6 = 526hp

In other words, we could gain 26hp and we'd be at the "same place."

How much weight would we need to lose to be equal to a 100hp gain in this example?

4000 / 600 = 6.67 lbs per hp

6.67 * 500 = 3333.3 lbs

4000 - 3333.3 = 666.67 lbs sprung weight lost

666.67 / 4 = 166.67 lbs rotating weight lost

166.67 lbs is a LOT of rotating weight to lose.

12-09-2013, 02:20 PM	#27
happos2 Dingleberries 76 Rep 1,246 Posts Drives: Gray E92 M3 Join Date: May 2012 Location: Indiana iTrader: (3)	Good bump...
	Appreciate 0 Quote

12-09-2013, 02:25 PM	#28
Leonardo629 Lieutenant Colonel 168 Rep 1,792 Posts Drives: 2013 M3 Coupe Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Taiwan iTrader: (10)	so if I'm reading this right, the 1M is a faster car until its HPFP goes out and goes into limp mode...... Does this mean the new M3/M4 will also be WAY underrated from the factory?
	Appreciate 0 Quote

12-09-2013, 02:25 PM	#29
biglare Bulldog 482 Rep 3,355 Posts Drives: BMW & Porsche Join Date: May 2008 Location: ? iTrader: (3)	Having had both the M3 and 1M at the same time it really depends what your overall goals and preferences are with the car. If you want to drive everyday and have gobs of power all the time the 1M is the way to go based on it's torque delivery. If you typically do a lot of highway or freeway driving then the M3 is awesome! When it comes to track use, it depends on the type of track, whether you can stretch the legs of the M3 out or not. The 1M is just as fast or faster around the track when compared to the M3. Just my experiences as I have had an ESS tuned 1M and an ESS tuned M3 as well as a ESS S/C M3. Happy Times! __________________ Prev: Individual F80 M3 - Fjord Blue/Silverstone(interior) \| Fashion Grey(exterior) GTS
	Appreciate 0 Quote

12-10-2013, 03:16 PM	#37
<-3VOM Enlisted Member 52 Rep 48 Posts Drives: BMW M340i Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: SWFL iTrader: (0)	5lbs at the wheel is substantial.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

12-10-2013, 06:18 PM	#39
<-3VOM Enlisted Member 52 Rep 48 Posts Drives: BMW M340i Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: SWFL iTrader: (0)	Conventional wisdom says that conservatively, 1lb worth of rotating mass lost is roughly equivalent to a 4lb sprung mass lost. This being said, I don't think there's any way to get an exact measurement. Even where the rotating mass is lost will make a difference. 1lb lost at the tire tread will make a bigger difference than 1 lb lost near wheel bolts. In terms of converting that to horsepower, it depends on the power to weight ratio before the weight loss. For instance, let's just assume we agree with the 4/1 ratio for rotating vs spring. Let's further assume we're talking about a 4000lb vehicle with 500hp (ie. much like an E60 M5). We're starting off with a 8 lbs per hp ratio. Let's take 50 lbs off of the rotating mass. Given our 4/1 assumption above, that is equivalent to losing 200 lbs. We're now at 3800lbs and 500hp, giving us 7.6 lbs per hp. If we wanted to do this by increasing horsepower instead of losing weight: 4000 / 7.6 = 526hp In other words, we could gain 26hp and we'd be at the "same place." How much weight would we need to lose to be equal to a 100hp gain in this example? 4000 / 600 = 6.67 lbs per hp 6.67 * 500 = 3333.3 lbs 4000 - 3333.3 = 666.67 lbs sprung weight lost 666.67 / 4 = 166.67 lbs rotating weight lost 166.67 lbs is a LOT of rotating weight to lose.
	Appreciate 0 Quote