|
|
09-08-2007, 08:31 AM | #1 |
Moderator / European Editor
1512
Rep 6,754
Posts |
M3 Dynotest
Here's the full dynotest result of the new M3:
http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=768 JustMe mentioned the results some days ago. Not bad... For comparison: RS4: http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=769 M5: http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=153 335i: http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=647 Best regards, south |
09-08-2007, 08:52 AM | #2 | |
Lieutenant
13
Rep 407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 09:20 AM | #3 | |
Colonel
755
Rep 2,736
Posts |
Quote:
Regardless, the drivetrain loss of the M is very minimal. In other words, it's putting down some serious power. A typical drivetrain loss might average 15%; the M has lost only 10%, or like I said, BMW underestimated the M's power as well. As you can see, the RS4 doesn't get a good percentage of power to the ground. One reason is that it's AWD has a parasitic effect on power; robbing another 5%, or so. Not to trash Audi, but the chart is not to impressive. The 335 and M5 are excellent examples. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 09:25 AM | #4 |
Moderator / European Editor
1512
Rep 6,754
Posts |
Sure.
Assuming that both cars had the stated engine power the conclusion is that the M3 has much less drivetrain loss than the RS4. The M3 brings 45hp more power to the wheels (both have the same stated engine power, 414hp) and even the same amount of torque to the wheels (RS4 is stated with 317 lb/ft, M3 with 295 lb/ft). Anyway the drivetrain loss of the M3 is higher than the M5's and 335's, which means either that M3's drivetrain is less efficient or that M5 and 335i are underrated (which is more likely). Best regards, south |
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 11:05 AM | #6 | |
Moderator / European Editor
1512
Rep 6,754
Posts |
Quote:
EDIT: Found the thread: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79356 As I said in my first post, Just_Me mentioned already the dynoed torque number of M3, but now we have the full test result aswell as a second RS4 test... [Maybe Jason or Mark could merge these two threads] Best regards, south |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 11:17 AM | #7 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
I knew this had been discussed somewhat, but also kind of thought your post had some knew info, so I didn't call repost, but asked instead. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 11:19 AM | #8 | |
Commander-In-Chief
2119
Rep 8,922
Posts
Drives: 2023 M2 Coupe, 2020 GLE 450
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
|
Power peak
Quote:
__________________
Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA 2023 M2 Coupe - Brooklyn Grey/Cognac/CF, 6MT; 2020 MB GLE 450 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 11:21 AM | #9 | |
Moderator / European Editor
1512
Rep 6,754
Posts |
Quote:
Best regads, south |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 11:23 AM | #10 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
@7808: 377.9 hp; 340.0 Nm @8108: 377.8 hp; 327.6 Nm It seems like they were taking measurements at 300 rpm intervals and stopped once Tq started dropping seriously and Hp kind of leveled off. I still would have like to see a datapoint at 8300 though. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 11:24 AM | #11 | |
Moderator / European Editor
1512
Rep 6,754
Posts |
Quote:
Best regards, south |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 11:28 AM | #12 |
Commander-In-Chief
2119
Rep 8,922
Posts
Drives: 2023 M2 Coupe, 2020 GLE 450
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
|
Cylinder is correct in US usage (6-cylinder, 8-cylinder, etc.)
__________________
Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA 2023 M2 Coupe - Brooklyn Grey/Cognac/CF, 6MT; 2020 MB GLE 450 |
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 11:28 AM | #13 |
Reincarnated
245
Rep 4,227
Posts |
Are you thinking of pistons?
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 11:36 AM | #14 | |
Moderator / European Editor
1512
Rep 6,754
Posts |
Quote:
When you would say the new M3 has 8 pistons instead of it's a 8-cylinder, then I'm thinking of pistons. That's one of these differences I'm unsure about. In German you say: It's a 8-cylinder aswell as it's V8, but nobody says that in English, does he? (Now I'm thinking of a Royal with Cheese) Best regards, south |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 11:41 AM | #15 |
Reincarnated
245
Rep 4,227
Posts |
Yeah, we say it all.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 01:38 PM | #16 | |
Banned
23
Rep 1,356
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 02:55 PM | #18 |
Brigadier General
1913
Rep 4,128
Posts
Drives: M235i & G30 540i
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boynton Beach
|
Hey Southern thanx so much for the info. I've been waiting to see a full dyno on the M3.
__________________
Lack of money is not the problem. It is merely a symptom of what's going on inside of you! - T Harv Eker
Follow me on Insta https://www.instagram.com/bmwm_life_/ https://www.instagram.com/autogiftua/ https://www.instagram.com/phoenixbmwlife/ |
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 05:44 PM | #19 | |
First Lieutenant
10
Rep 369
Posts |
Quote:
Parasitic Torque losses= Friction coefficient X Rotating Mass X Radius. Frictional coefficient is higher at lower RPM, and does change with RPM. By using lighter materials in the transmission, you can reduce the drive-train losses. Audi has higher losses because the rotating mass (Quattro drive train) is more than the that o RWD system. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 08:10 PM | #20 | |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Sort of
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 08:52 PM | #21 | ||
First Lieutenant
10
Rep 369
Posts |
Quote:
I was trying to make the distinction between using a fixed percentage of drive-train torque losses as opposed to a given torque loss number. For the same coefficient of friction, the torque loss at 3000 rpm is the same as the torque loss at 6000 rpm, however your engine torque at both rpm is different. Since the enumerator is the same, with different denominator, it will erroneous to assume that your percentage losses are the same. You can conversely use the fixed percentage loss and apply it to the various torques at the different rpm, which will give you different Parasitic torque loss. Unfortunately, your torque losses for a given coefficient of friction is not a variable loss, but fixed hence you will be liable to erroneous answers adopting this approach. With regards to what I wrote as a the formula for frictional losses- it is what we use in the industry, and it forms the basis of managing torque losses. Torque losses= side force * coefficient of friction*radius of the rotating mass Side force barring external forces due to bending and curvature on the rotating mass= Normal reaction. Normal reaction= Weight perpendicular to the plane Weight perpendicular to the plane(horizontal plane)= Mass * Acceleration due to gravity. (Forgive me for using mass and force loosely didn't realise I was in a physics class: but a mass under the influence of gravity does exert force on a plane) Side Force*radius = torque. Torque generally speaking is not a function of rpm, but a function of Force and the radius arm. Engine Torque does however rely on rpm only because the force generated by the engine is a function of rpm The engine force= mean effective pressure*cross sectional area of the piston*effective strokes per second*number of cylinders Torque= Force * Radius. I can't remember stating Parasitic Power loss, I believe I said "Parasitic Torque losses. Power represents the ability to do work per unit time. Torque which I am sure you know very well represents the rotating action of force. Quote:
So like you rightly pointed out, the cumulative frictional coefficient across the drive-train is a lot more than a RWD system. And the rotating mass is more than what is applicable to a RWD system. Last edited by chonko; 09-08-2007 at 09:16 PM.. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
09-08-2007, 09:50 PM | #22 | |
Banned
23
Rep 1,356
Posts |
Quote:
..... but this one goes to eleven! |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|