|
|
08-07-2014, 03:35 PM | #1 |
Banned
62
Rep 1,381
Posts |
Is S65 power output overrated?
Has anyone actually put an S65 on an engine dyno to verify power output? I'm beginning to grow skeptical of the claimed 414 hp stock given the new F80 M3 dyno curves. That car is officially rated at 425 hp yet consistently puts well over 400 whp. The E90 M3 is rated at 414 hp and dynos at 330-350 whp. There's no reason to believe drivetrain losses between the two platforms are any different. And it's a given that BMW tends to underrate the power of their turbo engines. But the difference in whp between the two platforms is just too drastic! Either the F80 is actually putting out at least 470-480 hp at the crank (which would make the stated 425hp understatement of the millenium), or the S65 might not be putting out the claimed 414 hp.
|
08-07-2014, 03:39 PM | #2 |
Lieutenant Colonel
420
Rep 1,678
Posts
Drives: 2011 MCB E92 M3
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Austin, Texas
|
The S55's are underrated. S65's might be a tad overrated.
__________________
2011 Monte Carlo Blue E92 ///M3 - ESS VT2-625
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-07-2014, 05:09 PM | #5 |
Global Moderator
6379
Rep 2,309
Posts
Drives: E90 M3 6MT
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
|
I think enough time has gone by where if the S65 were underrated we would've known by now.
__________________
2011.5 E90 ///M3 | 6-Speed Manual | Slicktop | Jerez Black | Fox Red
E9x M3 Press/Media Archives Thread | S65-based Racing Engines Thread |
Appreciate
0
|
08-07-2014, 05:18 PM | #6 |
Brigadier General
380
Rep 3,934
Posts |
Take a 2011 mustang GT with 412BHP stock weighing around 3600-3700 pounds
Then look at a E92 M3 with 414BHP stock weighing about the same. put them in a straight line and they are pretty even. pointing being i feel the M3 is at least a 400BHP car. looking at how fast the car is. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-07-2014, 05:20 PM | #7 | |
Banned
62
Rep 1,381
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-07-2014, 05:24 PM | #8 | |
Brigadier General
3663
Rep 3,422
Posts |
Quote:
I'd say it's rated right on.
__________________
M4 GTS, GT3, C63 S | E90 M3s, E39 M5
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-07-2014, 05:25 PM | #9 |
Brigadier General
380
Rep 3,934
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-07-2014, 05:31 PM | #11 | |
Major
146
Rep 1,201
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
'08 E90 w/ just boltons
'09 Z4 sDrive35i w/ just boltons |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-07-2014, 05:32 PM | #12 |
Banned
62
Rep 1,381
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-07-2014, 05:33 PM | #13 |
Major
146
Rep 1,201
Posts |
About 370whp generally. The M3 has a very peaky powerband and so the 6MTs lose a lot of mph due to both the slower shifting and the one less gear which keeps them out of the powerband briefly on the 1-2 and 2-3 shift. The 5.0 doesn't have this problem (partly due to extra displacement but mainly because the people who designed the transmission and final drive ratio setup weren't morons)
__________________
'08 E90 w/ just boltons
'09 Z4 sDrive35i w/ just boltons |
Appreciate
0
|
08-07-2014, 06:12 PM | #14 | |
Lieutenant
52
Rep 596
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2012 JZB/Fox Red M3 DCT -JZB reflectors, CF gills, gloss black grills
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-08-2014, 09:30 AM | #15 | |
First Lieutenant
16
Rep 355
Posts
Drives: 2011 E92
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: San Jose
|
Quote:
Dude said it bones always have missing HP, granted I need to retest now that I have my tune. I feel the F8X M3/4 rating is higher to compensate for heat soak loss. Almost as if they try to keep the minimum HP at the stared value...
__________________
2011 M3 Dakar Yellow-Black Leather-Comp Pkg-DCT-Akra Evo-AP BBK Front-VOLK RE30/BBS GT4 18x10" Square 1995 M3 Boston Green - Chipped - Ground Control Coilovers - APEX ARC8 Past: 2005 Porsche Boxster S-Silver-6spd-Fabspeed Exhaust |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-11-2014, 04:25 AM | #16 | |
Private First Class
12
Rep 126
Posts |
Quote:
The F8x has a carbon fibre propshaft. Much lighter than the E92's and should definitely help reduce drivetrain loss. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-11-2014, 10:19 AM | #17 |
Private
6
Rep 69
Posts |
Comparing two different cars based on dynometer figures posted online is a bad idea. The F8x makes more power than the E9x, everyone knows that. The difference between the two would be better gauged on a drag strip with the same driver rather than on paper.
A lot of people have said it before but I'll say it again. Dynos aren't great tools for measuring horsepower or torque. They are good for getting a general idea of percentage based gains made from modifications and tuning. Also drivetrain loss comparison between two platforms will vary, there is no such a thing as a fixed loss percentage. As mentioned the one piece carbon drive shaft might just be doing what it was designed to. |
Appreciate
1
|
08-11-2014, 11:39 AM | #18 |
Major General
4422
Rep 7,086
Posts |
Probably true that a dyno is better measure changes on the same engine but with F8x measuring significantly above spec while E9x is well below I'd say it is fair to claim BMW is playing some marketing tricks here.
I certainly wouldn't complain getting more power than specified, but looking at what seems to be 15% drop in the E9x surely must be viewed as overrated... Doesn't change the way the E9x run - which is great - but again the huge gap in the way BMW specify I personally think is on the borderline for being professional. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-11-2014, 05:32 PM | #21 | ||
Lieutenant General
11582
Rep 12,722
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
Instagram; @roastbeefmike
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
08-11-2014, 06:03 PM | #22 | |
Colonel
336
Rep 2,940
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
Audi S6 * Audi S3 * Porsche Cayman GTS
--Former BMW M3 owner |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|