BPMSport Tuned 240E Software – Dyno Results - 430HP

[BPMSport]

Background:
Finally had the opportunity to try out the new 240E software on the dyno. The software was released pretty recently from BMW. In the past, my car is been pretty reliable. Never had any engine related issues, check engine light, or issues with the motor in almost 44K miles and 4.5 years of ownership. A few weeks ago after returning from a business trip, the car would go into limp mode under hard acceleration. I was very perturbed by this, and started to question if it could possibly be something in the tune. It didn’t make sense that it would, given the same file was track tested by multiple cars in 105 degree weather with oil temperatures at 300C without a single hitch. I had been running that file for thousands of miles on top of that, in many different conditions and driving situations. Regardless, I scowered through the file trying to find something could have caused this, and couldn’t find a thing. This was a good time to put the latest 240E software in to see if it alleviated any of these issues.

The 240E Update:
After flashing it in (other than a misfire in every cylinder) it ran pretty well for a couple days, other than being extremely jerky on the low end. But after that it went all downhill. I started to get limp mode after starting the car, had erratic idling at 1500 rpm, fuel pump warnings on the I-drive on hard acceleration, and consistent smoothness and drivability problems. It was clear that there was something wrong and that it was most definitely not an issue with the software. It was very frustrating to diagnose the issues because every time I checked, the car had different faults. We’re talking idle control faults, misfires, lambda plausibility, fuel pressure, fuel modeling, etc.. I didn’t know where to start with a new (and different code) being thrown each time. After running through the factory test plans, it was evident that the idle control valve and the low pressure fuel sensor were the culprits. My extended warranty covered both under warranty. All of the limp mode/driveability/smoothness issues were gone. The car no longer felt down on power either. I decided to drive it around for a few more days just to make sure that no faults returned. The most frustrating part of all of this is that the car would act 100% normal on restart and sometimes it would take a lot of driving before I could get it to happen again.

A couple weeks passed by and I figured it was time to take it to the dyno to see how the software changes I made in previous software revisions were reflected in 240E. Took the car to Church Automotive Testing in Wilmington, CA. I have heard a lot of good things through the grapevine about Shawn, and figured it was a good non-biased facility to use considering I have never spoken with him before nor have I been to their shop. They have a 4wd Dynapack setup at their shop, and tune over 2,000 cars a year (mainly imports). I was pleased with their knowledge and professionalism and would certainly return there again.

The Dyno:





Next to us was a 1,100+ horsepower car with the most gigantic turbo I’ve seen on a standard car @ 40 PSI. Although it was great seeing this car, it was incredibly unpleasant having it there. Aside from the fumes bellowing out of the exhaust pipe (straight up out of the hood), it was so loud you would probably have brain damage if you didn’t cover your ears. So aside from nearly suffocating and losing my hearing, I had a pleasant experience. It was just bad timing I thought to myself.



They pulled my car in and began removing the wheels to connect their hub dynos to the car. After that they did the first pull with the stock file. I had them do a couple more pulls to make sure we had an accurate baseline to start with. The car made 414whp on its best stock run. I flashed in what I call a ‘baby’ tune just to see how it would do. I had no time at all to prepare any files for the run because I was updating maps on an E92 before heading to the dyno, and that took longer than expected.





Video of First Test File:

With the baby tune, power jumped up to 417, and settled around 420. I only had an hour of dyno time total, so I made a few more of my standard changes and loaded my Stage II tune in for the final three pulls. It made 428, then 430, then 429. I was very surprised by the results.. Nonetheless, these were great numbers, especially coming from a dyno that is very well known for its consistency.

The Video:

Comparison to a stock car:
I asked Shawn (the owner of the Church) what stock M3’s usually put down on his dyno. He stated that they were normally putting down 365ish hp. He said that Microsoft had brought a new E9x M3 there a few days before to record engine sound for a new video game. On the comparison dyno below, the green line is from the stock M3 runs on the same dyno. This is for comparisons sake so you can see what bolt-ons will do for you in comparison to stock, and what a tune will give you as icing on the cake. He said that my M3 was the highest one he has seen.

The torque gains from the tune in the midrange are massive. You can also see how much smoother the torque curve is over stock, and this is on 91 octane gas.



Modifications to the car are as follows:
BPMSport Stage II Tune
Full Akra evo system
RDSport Pulley
Intake

Features of the tune:
Akrapovic specific file
Cold start Rev-limit reduction
Cold start cam phasing off
6MT launch control
8,600 RPM Redline
Raised speed limit
Modified cam position/vanos changes
Changes to fueling/timing/ and torque limits.

Dyno Charts (BPMSport Tuned = Pink / Stock software = Blue / Stock M3 = Green):

Horsepower:



Torque:




Aftermath:
Driving the car around after (finally!!!) retuning it has put another smile on my face. The power delivery and midrange torque gain, coupled with the increase in smoothness makes the car so much more of a joy to drive. I really disliked running around with the stock tune. 231E tuned was clearly a huge improvement over 240E in stock form. I’m happy to report that 240E tuned is awesome as well.

I hope to go back sometime in the near future when I have more time. Unfortunately because of the short amount of dyno time, I didn’t have a chance to go full house this time. Regardless, this is proof that the 2008 motors are not weaker, and that power can be achieved even on the later software versions offered by BMW. I do want to reiterate that I have no affiliation whatsoever with the shop/dyno operator, and that I myself was very surprised by the results. I think there is definitely more room left, and I look forward to performing more development as time permits.

Thank you for reading.

[slicer]

Nice work!

[rjd598]

Bravo. Thank you for doing more research and actually showing us your findings. Bpm is definitely added to the standard list of tuners you should consider

[I M STIG]

Fantastic work! Congratulations on such good numbers. Does that read 315 lb-ft of torque for your car, too?

[0-60Motorsports]

Excellent info Mike! Love the detailed write up. Im going to be dynoing my E46 M3 on a dynapack too. Looking forward to it.

[oldmarco]

Looks good Mike. Those are some impressive numbers!

[///M Rakete]

My only regret is that I'll have to wait until November or so. Between travel and other commitments there's very little time in my schedule.

What am I saying? I'm going to get software that actually does something from someone who knows what they're doing. And I have 10 days in Germany driving an M3 plus time on the 'Ring as well to get past. I should be banned for crying about that.

[leo95se]

That's a lot of power.. Wow. I'd love to see before and afters with the other tunes out there. If I ever get my elolve-r tune to a shop ill report back.
Glad to see Shawn is still around, he was a big player in the 90's during my Honda days, and started the shop then. Pretty cool

[CanAutM3]

Great stuff Mike

Thanks for keeping the comunity educated and powered up

[GIdriver]

Nice work, Mike!! Thanks for sharing!!

[flipm3]

Thanks for sharing this Mike! Great work.

Relative to that stock dyno of about 385whp, the curves and delta of the bolts ons and your tune look spot on compared to some of the other top tunes!

I really like the midrange torque you were able to achieve. That has got to be a blast on the streets.

Looking at your results, it looks like at max values, you were able to achieve +13.674whp!! Well done!! Most of gains start to happen after 5000RPM which, as we all know, is where all the fun happens

Just a few questions:

1) In your original post, you said that most stock cars dyno around 365whp on that DynaPack. That Microsoft E9X M3 put down nearly 385whp. Does this support once again that newer E9X M3s are putting down more power stock with latest software from BMW?

2) I noticed that there is a dip in the lower powerband which seems to be infamous of the Akrapovic Evolution exhaust. A lot of tuners have been able to remedy that with their tunes, is that something you plan on doing or was that just a dyno anomaly?

3) Would you be able to dyno your car on a DynoJet for better comparison? A lot of people say that DynaPacks read extremely optimistic relative to the average DynoJet. I think it would be very beneficial to see comparisons from you considering that you provide a lot of great information.

Thanks once again for sharing the whole workflow on the dyno! It was fun to read.

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by flipm3

Thanks for sharing this Mike! Great work.

Relative to that stock dyno of about 385whp, the curves and delta of the bolts ons and your tune look spot on compared to some of the other top tunes!

I really like the midrange torque you were able to achieve. That has got to be a blast on the streets.

Looking at your results, it looks like at max values, you were able to achieve +13.674whp!! Well done!! Most of gains start to happen after 5000RPM which, as we all know, is where all the fun happens

Just a few questions:

1) In your original post, you said that most stock cars dyno around 365whp on that DynaPack. That Microsoft E9X M3 put down nearly 385whp. Does this support once again that newer E9X M3s are putting down more power stock with latest software from BMW?

2) I noticed that there is a dip in the lower powerband which seems to be infamous of the Akrapovic Evolution exhaust. A lot of tuners have been able to remedy that with their tunes, is that something you plan on doing or was that just a dyno anomaly?

3) Would you be able to dyno your car on a DynoJet for better comparison? A lot of people say that DynaPacks read extremely optimistic relative to the average DynoJet. I think it would be very beneficial to see comparisons from you considering that you provide a lot of great information.

Thanks once again for sharing the whole workflow on the dyno! It was fun to read.

Thanks for your questions - I have always appreciated your thoroughness.

1. I am going simply based on what the owner Shawn Church told me. He told me that stock M3's normally put down around 365. The Microsoft M3 put down 375 I believe, but I have not looked closely at the graph to see where that car peeked. I just included it for general illustration purposes. I wouldn't say that it's a matter of the new M3's putting down more power, maybe more of a factor of extremely old software revisions such as 60E being put up against 231E. Or it could be hardware related, such as aged spark plugs or oxygen sensors coupled with old software that may have a cumulative effect. I have driven at least twenty 2012 M3's, and they feel the same as my car (and have that new car smell!).

2. No tuner is going to be able to remedy this 100% completely. However, there are changes I make to make it a hell of a lot better. I have had long conversations with Sal about this. When you look at the factory vanos mapping, it has some interesting changes in stock form in the exact akra dip area. The scaling on the map is also different there as well. It's almost as if the factory was trying to tune out some sort of engine resonance issue and that the Akra just exacerbates it. My test files for the dyno did not contain any changes below 3,000 RPM as I was trying to go for midrange torque and top end power. However, my standard tunes do have changes in all areas. I was on a pretty heavy time constraint there. Having only an hour to flash and tune the file between runs was certainly not enough. I think if I had more time that I could have achieved higher gains. This was just a 'quick test'.

3. I have dynoed on dynojets before. This was my first time on a Dynapack and I was surprised to see the numbers. I am no expert on dyno's themselves, but theoretically not having the wheels and tires mounted to the hubs could signify less loss. Someone with more knowledge on dyno's themselves and the differences might be a better resource for this. I only know the tuning and programming stuff .

Regardless, here is a dyno from a dynojet last year (before and after tune):

[THE TECH]

I'm happy that we can now supply some independent dyno numbers for everyone who has been asking for them. Can't wait to get some customer's input after getting them dynoed.

[///M Rakete]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

...but theoretically not having the wheels and tires mounted to the hubs could signify less loss.

This should be true simply as a matter of physics. Measuring at the hub eliminates the losses from (1) tire deformation and hysteresis, which I can imagine is considerable when multiplied by the radius of the tire/wheel combination, in other words the torque impact of the losses at the point of tire contact on a normal dyno, and (2) tire and wheel mass that consume power (rotational energy or torque) in order to be rotated.

In essence this dyno is equal to a conventional one with perfect tire adhesion, no tire deformation, and tires and wheels of zero mass.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

Thanks for your questions - I have always appreciated your thoroughness.

1. I am going simply based on what the owner Shawn Church told me. He told me that stock M3's normally put down around 365. The Microsoft M3 put down 375 I believe, but I have not looked closely at the graph to see where that car peeked. I just included it for general illustration purposes. I wouldn't say that it's a matter of the new M3's putting down more power, maybe more of a factor of extremely old software revisions such as 60E being put up against 231E. Or it could be hardware related, such as aged spark plugs or oxygen sensors coupled with old software that may have a cumulative effect. I have driven at least twenty 2012 M3's, and they feel the same as my car (and have that new car smell!).

2. No tuner is going to be able to remedy this 100% completely. However, there are changes I make to make it a hell of a lot better. I have had long conversations with Sal about this. When you look at the factory vanos mapping, it has some interesting changes in stock form in the exact akra dip area. The scaling on the map is also different there as well. It's almost as if the factory was trying to tune out some sort of engine resonance issue and that the Akra just exacerbates it. My test files for the dyno did not contain any changes below 3,000 RPM as I was trying to go for midrange torque and top end power. However, my standard tunes do have changes in all areas. I was on a pretty heavy time constraint there. Having only an hour to flash and tune the file between runs was certainly not enough. I think if I had more time that I could have achieved higher gains. This was just a 'quick test'.

3. I have dynoed on dynojets before. This was my first time on a Dynapack and I was surprised to see the numbers. I am no expert on dyno's themselves, but theoretically not having the wheels and tires mounted to the hubs could signify less loss. Someone with more knowledge on dyno's themselves and the differences might be a better resource for this. I only know the tuning and programming stuff .

Regardless, here is a dyno from a dynojet last year (before and after tune):

I am convinced that the dip is most likely due to valve overlap in that area. If I were going to try and deal with it I would try and retard intake cam timing and see if it helps. If that didn't deal with it I would then try and advance exhaust cam timing a little bit to get the results that I was seeking. Basically what I would be trying to do in this case would be increasing the lobe separation of the intake and exhaust (technically lobe separation refers to single cam engines but the same principle exists depending on your baseline timing of intake and exhaust cams in a twin cam engine).

I am no software engineer, my software modification experience is mostly limited to fuel injection timing, fuel injection duration and boost pressure on a diesel engine. I am just saying what one would do with base cam timing on a gasoline engine to try and make more torque lower in the rev range. There may be limitations that I am unaware of with the MSS60 and the cam phasing system that may limit the amount you could do with cam timing that low in the rev range.

P.S. Are the dyno graphs in WHP??? If so, Nice numbers and good work with the software!

[pbonsalb]

411 rwhp SAE on a Dynojet is the record for a stock block pump gas M3 with mods. That is a great result many more of us can relate to since we are more familiar with the more common Dynojet.

[brisance]

I don't see any exhaust evacuation fans in those pics. From what you've said about that Honda motor being worked on at the same time it might be worth a few extra HP if the air was clean.

What fuel was used? I know the M3 has the ion sensors on the plugs... was any other knock monitoring device used?

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

I am convinced that the dip is most likely due to valve overlap in that area. If I were going to try and deal with it I would try and retard intake cam timing and see if it helps. If that didn't deal with it I would then try and advance exhaust cam timing a little bit to get the results that I was seeking. Basically what I would be trying to do in this case would be increasing the lobe separation of the intake and exhaust (technically lobe separation refers to single cam engines but the same principle exists depending on your baseline timing of intake and exhaust cams in a twin cam engine).

I am no software engineer, my software modification experience is mostly limited to fuel injection timing, fuel injection duration and boost pressure on a diesel engine. I am just saying what one would do with base cam timing on a gasoline engine to try and make more torque lower in the rev range. There may be limitations that I am unaware of with the MSS60 and the cam phasing system that may limit the amount you could do with cam timing that low in the rev range.

P.S. Are the dyno graphs in WHP??? If so, Nice numbers and good work with the software!

You might be pretty spot on with your inclination to retard the intake camshaft -- but only at higher relative filling levels

Dyno graphs I presume are whp, unless there is a name for hub horsepower. I hope to hit the dyno in the next few weeks as time permits.
I'm interested in trying some of the alternate vanos maps from BMW calibrations in other countries to see how they do.

Thanks!

[kwike92]

wow, impressive. after i complete my exhaust system, ill probably be hitting you guys up for a tune..

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by brisance

I don't see any exhaust evacuation fans in those pics. From what you've said about that Honda motor being worked on at the same time it might be worth a few extra HP if the air was clean.

What fuel was used? I know the M3 has the ion sensors on the plugs... was any other knock monitoring device used?

91 Octane fuel, Chevron specifically. Got there with about 1/4 tank and didn't use much because I still managed to drive home on it

I was listening for knock audibly and couldn't hear a single ping. Reading data from the car afterward didn't show much timing retard. We did have a pretty massive fan in front of the car, and yes I would have loved it if there was less exhaust gas re-circulation!

[flipm3]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

Thanks for your questions - I have always appreciated your thoroughness.

No, THANK YOU!!
I appreciate your willingness to be honest with the community here which is why I enjoy asking questions to learn from you all.

1. I am going simply based on what the owner Shawn Church told me. He told me that stock M3's normally put down around 365. The Microsoft M3 put down 375 I believe, but I have not looked closely at the graph to see where that car peeked. I just included it for general illustration purposes. I wouldn't say that it's a matter of the new M3's putting down more power, maybe more of a factor of extremely old software revisions such as 60E being put up against 231E. Or it could be hardware related, such as aged spark plugs or oxygen sensors coupled with old software that may have a cumulative effect. I have driven at least twenty 2012 M3's, and they feel the same as my car (and have that new car smell!).

Very great point! Spark plugs most definitely make a difference and I've noticed this first hand with my car. That was what originally raised my suspicion about the validity of these so-called powerful 231E tunes.

2. No tuner is going to be able to remedy this 100% completely. However, there are changes I make to make it a hell of a lot better. I have had long conversations with Sal about this. When you look at the factory vanos mapping, it has some interesting changes in stock form in the exact akra dip area. The scaling on the map is also different there as well. It's almost as if the factory was trying to tune out some sort of engine resonance issue and that the Akra just exacerbates it. My test files for the dyno did not contain any changes below 3,000 RPM as I was trying to go for midrange torque and top end power. However, my standard tunes do have changes in all areas. I was on a pretty heavy time constraint there. Having only an hour to flash and tune the file between runs was certainly not enough. I think if I had more time that I could have achieved higher gains. This was just a 'quick test'.

Great to hear that you have more in store for us! Amazing what you were able to quickly accomplish in your limited time. I've seen some of your past dynos as well that took care of most of the Akrapovic dip!

Someone needs to tell Akrapovic to get rid of that H-Pipe crossover if that's the cause of the potential dip, haha.

3. I have dynoed on dynojets before. This was my first time on a Dynapack and I was surprised to see the numbers. I am no expert on dyno's themselves, but theoretically not having the wheels and tires mounted to the hubs could signify less loss. Someone with more knowledge on dyno's themselves and the differences might be a better resource for this. I only know the tuning and programming stuff .

No offense to you or Church Automotive, but I have just been very weary of DynaPacks because of it's huge variance in power, especially how the operator calibrates it. When I was in teh G35/350Z scene, there was a local tuner here who did everything on DynaPacks. A lot of their clients would then go to a DynoJet and notice drastically different numbers. Not that final numbers really matter that much since variance will be seen everywhere we go, but of course, it's the change in power that matters

Other tuners in the industry claim that they read as accurate as DynoJets when calibrated correctly, but I have yet to see them first hand get the same results they do on a DynaPack and DynoJet. I would really love to witness a stock 335whp E9X M3 make over 430whp on the same DynoJet with just bolt ons and tune in SAE correction factor and similar weather condition!

Regardless, here is a dyno from a dynojet last year (before and after tune):

AWESOME RESULTS!!! That is definitely the highest I've ever seen on a DynoJet. Would you be able to share what other modifications the M3 has? Do you know what it dyno'd stock?

My assumption is that with a good intake, pulleys, exhaust, and tune, it's very realistic to gain 40-50whp in optimal conditions. So if a stock M3 puts down 335whp stock, I think 375-385whp is very realistic. But then as we all know, stock dynos vary so much. So I can very much see a 365whp stock M3 making over 400whp on a DynoJet as well.

The real question...ultimately do these cars even vary in actual performance despite different dyno numbers?

Great conversation and great thread we have here! This forum needs to have more informational and educational discussions as this.

Thanks again Mike Benvo and THE TECH! As an enthusiast of this car community, I cannot wait to see what else you have in store for us

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

3. I have dynoed on dynojets before. This was my first time on a Dynapack and I was surprised to see the numbers. I am no expert on dyno's themselves, but theoretically not having the wheels and tires mounted to the hubs could signify less loss. Someone with more knowledge on dyno's themselves and the differences might be a better resource for this. I only know the tuning and programming stuff .

I would personally trust the dynapack more in terms of accuracy and repeatability as they are actual "brake" dynos similar to what we use in the aerospace industry and what auto manufacturers use to develop engines.

From what I understand, dynojets and dynapacks would use very different calculation methods to establish power ratings. I believe overall drivetrain inertia can have much less impact on a dynapack since it is a brake dyno and does not rely on a drum's inertia to load the engine, it all depends how fast/slow the operator sets the acceleration rate. Further, there is also no loss due to tire deformation and slippage at the tire/drum interface. IMO it is normal and expected to see different absolute numbers on both dynos.