|
|
08-21-2007, 06:50 AM | #1 |
Captain
193
Rep 657
Posts |
Dynotest (rototest) M3 V8
According to BMW Sweden they did a dynotest on the new M3. According to the dynotest maximum torque 365.5 nm for the new M3 V8.
They only mention torque, nothing about horsepower and I have nothing on paper so don't ask any questions. A few more intresting results from rri.se: M5 V10 Bmw: 507hp/520nm Rototest: 465hp/475nm http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...h&ChartsID=153 ------ M3 E46 Bmw: 343hp/365nm Rototest: 303hp/341nm http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=576 ----- BMW 335i Bmw: 306hp/400nm Rototest: 286hp/385nm http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=647 ----- www.rri.se Test info: http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=28 |
08-21-2007, 06:54 AM | #2 |
Moderator / European Editor
1487
Rep 6,755
Posts |
Assuming that's the wheel torque, it's a great result. This means a drivetrain loss of only 8.5%, whereas a RS4 had a drivetrain loss as high as 12.5% in rototest. (http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=281)
Best regards, south |
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2007, 08:27 AM | #4 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2007, 09:47 AM | #5 | |
Banned
23
Rep 1,356
Posts |
Quote:
Those are the dyno numbers, they still have to be translated to real world horsepower & torque. Almost anybody knows this... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2007, 10:26 AM | #6 |
Captain
193
Rep 657
Posts |
yes Im posting dynonumbers. I also posted links and there you will find how the tests were done and results for many other different cars. So what are you saying?
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2007, 02:47 PM | #7 | |
Moderator / European Editor
1487
Rep 6,755
Posts |
Quote:
If that turns out to be true were talking about a (wheel)power-to-weight ratio which is at least 12% better then on RS4... Best regards, south |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2007, 03:08 PM | #8 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2007, 03:17 PM | #9 | |
Lieutenant
26
Rep 580
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2007, 03:19 PM | #10 | |
Moderator / European Editor
1487
Rep 6,755
Posts |
Quote:
Best regards, south |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2007, 03:20 PM | #11 |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2007, 05:23 PM | #12 | |
Brigadier General
478
Rep 3,044
Posts
Drives: 2011 Dakar Yellow M3, 2018 M5
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orange County, California
|
excellent point
Quote:
you can count on the fact that we're not looking at figures anywhere near 5-8% for parasitic transmission loss on the new M3. at this point it almost goes without saying that bmw understates their engine output. the corollary is that understated engine output yields understated drivertrain loss figures. - esquire
__________________
[ESS VT2-625] [Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust] [KW Clubsports] [OSS Angel Eyes] [Revinora r-CRT Lip] [Vorsteiner Boot] [Challenge Race Diffuser] [See the Build Thread HERE] |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2007, 05:34 PM | #13 |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
If I were a car mag editor after sensational news, I'd find a totaled M5 with engine intact, go through the trouble of dyno testing that, uncover the real crank numbers, and put that on the cover. Oh, then, I would drop the engine into my 3-series coupe.
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-21-2007, 05:49 PM | #14 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Thoughts
A few things are clear from these numbers. But much is unclear as well. The table below ASSSUMES we see a similar hp loss in the E92 M3 compared to the E60 M5.
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-22-2007, 03:15 AM | #16 | |
Moderator / European Editor
1487
Rep 6,755
Posts |
Quote:
Best regards, south |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-22-2007, 12:19 PM | #17 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Various
Quote:
-We do have a lot of performance figures for the M3. 0-60 4.4 (yes poor road surface), 1/4 mi in 12.9@111, 0-200km/hr, etc., etc. -Thanks for catching the typo on M5 losses, spreadsheet updated and attached. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-22-2007, 02:21 PM | #19 | |||
Moderator / European Editor
1487
Rep 6,755
Posts |
Quote:
But also if it had just the stated power, there would be more "drivetrain loss" compared to an underrated engine... Quote:
Quote:
Best regards, south |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
08-22-2007, 05:08 PM | #20 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
This is from a Road and Track test last year, and those numbers more closely match what I have observed at the track. That C & D test was the slowest I've seen by far, and they mentioned an unavoidable bog at launch due to very good traction and hot weather. Thanks, Bruce Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 08-22-2007 at 05:09 PM.. Reason: spelling |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-22-2007, 05:54 PM | #21 |
Banned
23
Rep 1,356
Posts |
Hartge already did that with the M5. If I remember correctly they saw 518hp at the crank.
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-22-2007, 06:00 PM | #22 | |
Banned
23
Rep 1,356
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|