AA Stage 2+ & VT1 535

[Mason3]

Originally Posted by spdu4ea

HKS GTS8550:
100,000 rpm
24 psi
925 CFM (~620hp)
12 lbs
60,000 mile oil change intervals
1 year warranty
$3250 MSRP


Vortech V3 Si:
52,000 rpm
22 psi
1150 CFM (~775hp)
18 lbs
2,500 mile oil change (break-in), 7,500 mile intervals thereafter
1 year warranty
$2400 MSRP

The horsepower numbers for the HKS you stated above look a little off. According to HKS, the blower used for AA's 625hp kit (HKS GTS8550) is only rated to 500ps or 494hp. Am I missing something? I mean it may be underrated a little but I doubt HKS would underrate their own blower by 131hp.

Take a look at this:

http://www.hksaustralia.com.au/pdf/N...%20GTS8555.pdf

[gixxer_kidd]

Originally Posted by tightie

Go find a open road, do some friendly runs. At the end of the day, we're all the same. We all love cars and we are all here for the fun

amen to that bro!

[disruptv]

img, if you are not trying to stir the pot, then why havent u updated the 1st post of the thread stating or quoting the owner where he says that the dyno isnt accurate because he had an issue w/ his 02 sensors?

Not looking to take sides, but just pointing out the obvious


Also,

I think Sam has a very good idea on how ESS s/c's work, bc correct me if I'm wrong but didnt He work on PG's car which had the stroker and ess blower?

[spdu4ea]

Originally Posted by Mason3

The horsepower numbers for the HKS you stated above look a little off. According to HKS, the blower used for AA's 625hp kit (HKS GTS8550) is only rated to 500ps or 494hp. Am I missing something? I mean it may be underrated a little but I doubt HKS would underrate their own blower by 131hp.

Take a look at this:

http://www.hksaustralia.com.au/pdf/N...%20GTS8555.pdf

You're right that HKS recommends the GTS8550 for 250-500ps applications, but you really shouldn't trust a hp rating for turbo/SC/intercoolers. CFM is how designers specify them because CFM is what they actually flow... 1000CFM on a 2009 M3 is going to make a lot more power than 1000CFM on a 1984 Fleetwood Brougham (despite both engines displacing ~4L in an aluminum V8 package).


Anyway, HKS rates the GTS8550 for 26m^3/m (~925cfm) while Vortech rates the V3Si for 1150cfm. I'm sure both will flow even more than that if pushed off the map, but that's their "real" rating -- not power. Unfortunately, most people have no clue what to do with CFM numbers so manufacturers usually throw up rough power estimates based on whatever conversion factor they wanted to use. The problem is all of these manufacturers use different conversion factors...

I use 1.5cfm ~= 1hp. The M3 breathes better than most cars so it's probably more like 1.45cfm, but I like round numbers... Using 1.5, 925cfm --> 617hp (HKS) and 1150cfm --> 767hp (Vortech).

Vortech says 775, which is close enough (and a nice round number), but HKS says 500ps (495hp) which is obviously ultra-conservative (like most things HKS). 625hp (~530whp) is a more accurate power rating, but again, what really matters is that it flows 925cfm.




To go off topic a bit, I personally find the different vendor approaches interesting... There's an old (bad?) joke about the pessimist, optimist, and the engineer. The first says the glass is half-empty, the next says it's half-full, and the engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needed to be. AA has specified exactly the "right" size supercharger for the power and paid a ~50% premium for one that is quieter, lighter, and has a longer service interval. But imo they've left no room for an easy upgrade, and I'm not sure the average FI customer will appreciate AA's zen-like engineering restraint.

ESS used to have a similar philosophy with their E46 CFR kits, but I'm guessing they grew tired of trying to convince peak-power obsessed Americans to pay more for a SC that doesn't make the same 'number' despite having similar/better area under the curve & driving dynamics. Instead, they're now going with a less expensive but larger charger than required. This means there is room for further inexpensive upgrades and, despite committing the engineering sin of overbuilding, I imagine most customers feel better knowing they have some cushion rather than being at/near the SC's rated limit.


From a business standpoint, I think ESS absolutely made the right choice. From an engineer's perspective, I admire AA's willingness to make what they consider the ultimate driving machine even if their kits appear to come up short in every popular comparative metric. It's similar to DCT vs 6MT: there is no question that the DCT is faster, but how do you quantify the pleasure derived from driving a 6MT? And I just can't help but wonder what charger ESS would have picked if they didn't have to compete with Vortech numbers put down by kits from VF and Gintani...

/rambling

[Meff]

Originally Posted by spdu4ea

To go off topic a bit, I personally find the different vendor approaches interesting... There's an old (bad?) joke about the pessimist, optimist, and the engineer. The first says the glass is half-empty, the next says it's half-full, and the engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needed to be. AA has specified exactly the "right" size supercharger for the power and paid a ~50% premium for one that is quieter, lighter, and has a longer service interval. But imo they've left no room for an easy upgrade, and I'm not sure the average FI customer will appreciate AA's zen-like engineering restraint.

ESS used to have a similar philosophy with their E46 CFR kits, but I'm guessing they grew tired of trying to convince peak-power obsessed Americans to pay more for a SC that doesn't make the same 'number' despite having similar/better area under the curve & driving dynamics. Instead, they're now going with a less expensive but larger charger than required. This means there is room for further inexpensive upgrades and, despite committing the engineering sin of overbuilding, I imagine most customers feel better knowing they have some cushion rather than being at/near the SC's rated limit.


From a business standpoint, I think ESS absolutely made the right choice. From an engineer's perspective, I admire AA's willingness to make what they consider the ultimate driving machine even if their kits appear to come up short in every popular comparative metric. It's similar to DCT vs 6MT: there is no question that the DCT is faster, but how do you quantify the pleasure derived from driving a 6MT? And I just can't help but wonder what charger ESS would have picked if they didn't have to compete with Vortech numbers put down by kits from VF and Gintani...

/rambling

Well said -

You're summary above is a beacon in the fog of all the dick measuring that has occurred over the last 12 pages

[Mason3]

Originally Posted by spdu4ea

You're right that HKS recommends the GTS8550 for 250-500ps applications, but you really shouldn't trust a hp rating for turbo/SC/intercoolers. CFM is how designers specify them because CFM is what they actually flow... 1000CFM on a 2009 M3 is going to make a lot more power than 1000CFM on a 1984 Fleetwood Brougham (despite both engines displacing ~4L in an aluminum V8 package).


Anyway, HKS rates the GTS8550 for 26m^3/m (~925cfm) while Vortech rates the V3Si for 1150cfm. I'm sure both will flow even more than that if pushed off the map, but that's their "real" rating -- not power. Unfortunately, most people have no clue what to do with CFM numbers so manufacturers usually throw up rough power estimates based on whatever conversion factor they wanted to use. The problem is all of these manufacturers use different conversion factors...

I use 1.5cfm ~= 1hp. The M3 breathes better than most cars so it's probably more like 1.45cfm, but I like round numbers... Using 1.5, 925cfm --> 617hp (HKS) and 1150cfm --> 767hp (Vortech).

Vortech says 775, which is close enough (and a nice round number), but HKS says 500ps (495hp) which is obviously ultra-conservative (like most things HKS). 625hp (~530whp) is a more accurate power rating, but again, what really matters is that it flows 925cfm.




To go off topic a bit, I personally find the different vendor approaches interesting... There's an old (bad?) joke about the pessimist, optimist, and the engineer. The first says the glass is half-empty, the next says it's half-full, and the engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needed to be. AA has specified exactly the "right" size supercharger for the power and paid a ~50% premium for one that is quieter, lighter, and has a longer service interval. But imo they've left no room for an easy upgrade, and I'm not sure the average FI customer will appreciate AA's zen-like engineering restraint.

ESS used to have a similar philosophy with their E46 CFR kits, but I'm guessing they grew tired of trying to convince peak-power obsessed Americans to pay more for a SC that doesn't make the same 'number' despite having similar/better area under the curve & driving dynamics. Instead, they're now going with a less expensive but larger charger than required. This means there is room for further inexpensive upgrades and, despite committing the engineering sin of overbuilding, I imagine most customers feel better knowing they have some cushion rather than being at/near the SC's rated limit.


From a business standpoint, I think ESS absolutely made the right choice. From an engineer's perspective, I admire AA's willingness to make what they consider the ultimate driving machine even if their kits appear to come up short in every popular comparative metric. It's similar to DCT vs 6MT: there is no question that the DCT is faster, but how do you quantify the pleasure derived from driving a 6MT? And I just can't help but wonder what charger ESS would have picked if they didn't have to compete with Vortech numbers put down by kits from VF and Gintani...

/rambling

While I don't doubt that the blower can push that much CFM, it is going to do so at the top end of it's range. Way outside its efficiency range that even the manufacturer has rated at 500ps.

The ratio you use assumes that blowers are as efficient at the top end as they are on the low end (i.e. Dividing CFM by 1.5). However, As the CFM continues to go up, so does the RPM of the blower. As the RPM goes up so does the temperature. As the blower temperature goes up, so do the intake temps. As intake temps go up, the power gains will start to go down in respect to the additional CFM because you are beyond the blowers capacity.

Having a blower slightly bigger than you need is obviously better than trying to overwork a small blower rated 125hp lower than your target goal as it will operate in the middle of it's peak efficiency range AND not run out of power at high engine rpm's. Not to mention the unit itself is not spinning at it's absolute max speed and would undoubtedly have better longevity.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

Sam

As an active dealer I can understand your support but unless you have done business with us or have a working knowledge of our operation you should not be making direct comparisons. We have two locations for a reason. One location is in Europe and one is in the US. Because we develop, test and support products outside the US it is critical that we have facilities in both regions. Also we like to run our test cars at locations like the Nürburgring so it is critical that we have our facility there. You simply cannot replicate the test conditions in the US like you can is Europe. We have one US address for customers to send ECU's and one Europen address for customers to send ECU's. I am in the US 100% of the time and AJ splits time in both regions depending on what projects we are working on.

Our focus is on that side of the business and not retail accessories. Because of this it allows us to spend our time and efforts developing products that other can't like the E60 M5 / M6 supercharger and the N62 supercharger.

We make more superchargers and have more tuning options for BMW than any other vendor. If you want to test this for yourself feel free to visit our website and compare. Our staff is 90% engineers and 10% sales and support. If our products were less reliable and failed more often than they do or if we decided that selling wheels and tires was a necessity I guess we would need to hire more guys but in the past 16 years our system has worked well.

Roman

We have bought ESS directly from ESS before, I have spoken to AJ/Ashborne during the installation process, exchanged emails with AJ. When customers come into the shop, both AA & ESS products are offered as it's up to the consumer. For the people that have dealt with me, I typically don't say anything negative unless I have had a bad experience which has not been the case with how the ESS SC kits run. We have purchased, installed & support ESS customers for many years despite whether they purchased the kit directly from us or not. It seems we are there more for support & service than anything.

Originally Posted by tightie

Josh

Hey Josh

Originally Posted by disruptv

img, if you are not trying to stir the pot, then why havent u updated the 1st post of the thread stating or quoting the owner where he says that the dyno isnt accurate because he had an issue w/ his 02 sensors?

Not looking to take sides, but just pointing out the obvious


Also,

I think Sam has a very good idea on how ESS s/c's work, bc correct me if I'm wrong but didnt He work on PG's car which had the stroker and ess blower?

Darwin is suppose to dyno his car tomorrow if he can get out of the shop to see if removing the Akrapovic Delete-R makes a difference.

I have not only worked on PG's car but driven it many times along with other ESS cars (E9x M3, E46, X5). Nothing but good things to say about how the standard kit runs.


Just for reference for the E9x M3: my driving experience includes RD Sport Stroker (DCT & MT), Dinan Stroker (DCT), AA Supercharged (DCT & MT), ESS Supercharged (DCT & MT), G-Power Supercharged (DCT & MT), Gintani Supercharged (DCT) plus RD Stroked & ESS Supercharged (MT) which means I can honestly share the positive aspects of each kit

[IMG]

Originally Posted by disruptv

img, if you are not trying to stir the pot, then why havent u updated the 1st post of the thread stating or quoting the owner where he says that the dyno isnt accurate because he had an issue w/ his 02 sensors?

Not looking to take sides, but just pointing out the obvious


Also,

I think Sam has a very good idea on how ESS s/c's work, bc correct me if I'm wrong but didnt He work on PG's car which had the stroker and ess blower?

I wouldve updated it if it was a valid point but sadly its not like everyone thinks,the delete-r doesnt affect O2 sensor reading.And would like to be proven wrong also would like to see the results.

[AJ@ESS]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Roman

We have bought ESS directly from ESS before, I have spoken to AJ/Ashborne during the installation process, exchanged emails with AJ. When customers come into the shop, both AA & ESS products are offered as it's up to the consumer.

I am AJ, or Asbjorn which is my actual name. I can not recall to have ever dealt with you/AutoTalent on any ESS E9x M3 products at all. The only car of this platform I am aware you have worked on is Robert's 4.6L M3, but you never did any SC work on that car as that system was installed here at ESS in Phoenix.

[AJ@ESS]

Originally Posted by img

I wouldve updated it if it was a valid point but sadly its not like everyone thinks,the delete-r doesnt affect O2 sensor reading.And would like to be proven wrong also would like to see the results.

The Delete-R does not modify any sensor signals at all. It simply sends a CAN fault code erase message now and then to prevent a CEL from coming on.

[IMG]

Originally Posted by AJ@ESS

The Delete-R does not modify any sensor signals at all. It simply sends a CAN fault code erase message now and then to prevent a CEL from coming on.

Thanks AJ !!!

[bobby_digital]

so, instead of comparing the real world results, we are going by manufacturers claims?

Boosted-M 23.5hp/psi

Mindless spades-18HP/PSI

ProdigyMB-19.7hp/PSI

AKH-22HP/PSI

taken right from their before and after dyno's-

so, i think, that given the fact that some are intercooled, some are not, and some are on meth (which showed no increase in power, only a consistance in the delivery of it)

that up to the 7psi dyno'd, each blower is DELIVERING the same hp/psi. within an acceptable difference of 1-2hp, which is as close as you can get for being on different dyno's on different days, with different cars.

regarldess of what kit you have enjoy it plz gentleman

i shall choose a different route, as I always do, but will be joining the S/C club soon enough... and thats when the REAL bickering will come in

[Beedub]

Originally Posted by bobby_digital

so, instead of comparing the real world results, we are going by manufacturers claims?

Boosted-M 23.5hp/psi

Mindless spades-18HP/PSI

ProdigyMB-19.7hp/PSI

AKH-22HP/PSI

taken right from their before and after dyno's-

so, i think, that given the fact that some are intercooled, some are not, and some are on meth (which showed no increase in power, only a consistance in the delivery of it)

that up to the 7psi dyno'd, each blower is DELIVERING the same hp/psi. within an acceptable difference of 1-2hp, which is as close as you can get for being on different dyno's on different days, with different cars.

regarldess of what kit you have enjoy it plz gentleman

i shall choose a different route, as I always do, but will be joining the S/C club soon enough... and thats when the REAL bickering will come in

G-power???

[akh23456]

Originally Posted by Beedub

G-power???

I think he will be going with gintani but I could wrong.

Good info there Lm.

[DublinM3]

Originally Posted by Mason3

While I don't doubt that the blower can push that much CFM, it is going to do so at the top end of it's range. Way outside its efficiency range that even the manufacturer has rated at 500ps.

The ratio you use assumes that blowers are as efficient at the top end as they are on the low end (i.e. Dividing CFM by 1.5). However, As the CFM continues to go up, so does the RPM of the blower. As the RPM goes up so does the temperature. As the blower temperature goes up, so do the intake temps. As intake temps go up, the power gains will start to go down in respect to the additional CFM because you are beyond the blowers capacity.

Having a blower slightly bigger than you need is obviously better than trying to overwork a small blower rated 125hp lower than your target goal as it will operate in the middle of it's peak efficiency range AND not run out of power at high engine rpm's. Not to mention the unit itself is not spinning at it's absolute max speed and would undoubtedly have better longevity.

You sir are correct.

Just because you can does not mean you should. there is a reason the manufacturer will rate the power of the blowers they design and sell. They are telling you what the limits of the blower are and the range at which it should be operated. When you push beyond these limits you will get loss of top end power, shortend blower life and leave yourself with no room to upgrade.

As far as the water / air cooling debate I would agree that water cooling is always superior unless you are on a budget and want to keep costs down. Almost all new high HP BMW and Mercedes designs are now using water cooling.

[IMG]

Originally Posted by bobby digital aka Lost Marine

so, instead of comparing the real world results, we are going by manufacturers claims?

No, you quoted all independent dynos. But your calculations are all wrong and makes us all wonder where you got them or what agenda is behind them.

Boosted-M 23.5hp/psi

Baseline: 381whp
Boosted: 532whp
Gain: 151whp
Boost: 6.5 PSI
whp per psi: 151/6.5 = 23.23
http://bmw.pencilgeek.org/showDyno.php?recID=323

Mindless spades-18HP/PSI

Baseline: 353whp
Boosted: 472whp
Gain: 119whp
Boost: 5.6 PSI
whp per psi: 119 / 5.6 = 21.25
http://bmw.pencilgeek.org/showDyno.php?recID=332

ProdigyMB-19.7hp/PSI

Baseline: 331whp
Boosted: 471whp
Gain: 140whp
Boost: 6.5 PSI
whp per psi: 140 / 6.5 = 21.54
http://bmw.pencilgeek.org/showDyno.php?recID=184

AKH-22HP/PSI

Baseline: 360whp
Boosted: 499whp
Gain: 139whp
Boost: 7.5 PSI
whp per psi: 139 / 7.5 = 18.53
http://bmw.pencilgeek.org/showDyno.php?recID=316

taken right from their before and after dyno's-

Uh...apparently not. I quoted directly from and linked directly to their dyno charts. Your results look more like what somebody on BB would make up.

so, i think, that given the fact that some are intercooled, some are not, and some are on meth (which showed no increase in power, only a consistance in the delivery of it)

This is CONSISTENT power delivery with meth:


This is NOT CONSISTENT power delivery with meth:

that up to the 7psi dyno'd, each blower is DELIVERING the same hp/psi. within an acceptable difference of 1-2hp, which is as close as you can get for being on different dyno's on different days, with different cars.

According to the real numbers, and not the made up ones, they aren't even close.

Originally Posted by akh23456

Good info there Lm.

Yeah, too bad it's completely wrong. But now you have the real data. Enjoy.

[akh23456]

too bad my boost never hit 7.5 yet so you should use my 6.8 boost gauge log file and calculate it. its actually 6.7

[akh23456]

20.8955224 to be exact. with your numbers. and its not 139 its 140 but if you want to do glory numbers then 150 and 6.8 equals 22.0588235

[IMG]

Originally Posted by akh23456

too bad my boost never hit 7.5 yet so you should use my 6.8 boost gauge log file and calculate it. its actually 6.7

Akask, you gotta figure out a way to diagnose ur car for not hitting the 7.5 psi. cause i assure you that your car will perform better @ the right psi.

[IMG]

Originally Posted by akh23456

20.8955224 to be exact. with your numbers. and its not 139 its 140 but if you want to do glory numbers then 150 and 6.8 equals 22.0588235

Thats based on whats ur kit is advertised for 7.5 PSI but i will fix it based on the 6.8 PSI

[akh23456]

Originally Posted by img

Akask, you gotta figure out a way to diagnose ur car for not hitting the 7.5 psi. cause i assure you that your car will perform better @ the right psi.

i will look into it Img when i head back to the dyno next time at Maximum psi. to make sure nothing came loose while i have been driving. thanks for the fix.

[IMG]

Originally Posted by akh23456

20.8955224 to be exact. with your numbers. and its not 139 its 140 but if you want to do glory numbers then 150 and 6.8 equals 22.0588235

Hey Akash,on *********** you said that your boost hit 8 Psi on the Dyno and Dr. *********** called it 7.5 Psi and you agreed with him.your 6.7 Psi came from your drag strip results not the Dyno.

So lets see:

You could have short shifted at the drag strip and never seen 8 Psi or you could have forgotten to calibrate the boost guage before using it at either location and thats what probably happened.

Verified boost from the Dyno is 7.7 Psi,from AA dyno 7.7 Psi and 7.9 Psi .
and since you are running the same kit 7.5 Psi that you were given is a gift

IS ANY OF THE ABOVE INCORRECT ???