*ESS DCT software now available thru E-Flash*

[Billj747]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

Interesting gains, which seem high. Have logged both stock 240e and ESS tune with my DashDyno on actual flat road at sea level, 1000 mbar pressure with full heat exchange where hitting much closer to actual timing targets , appears to be about ~15 whp gain with the tune. From my logging, both stock and ESS tune have torque peak around 7,000 rpm, slightly higher than the next highest peak at 4000 rpm. The base dyno in this case may be a little low to begin with given the torque peak changed. One has to remember that for a given octane there is really one optimal "map" of A/F, timing, vanos that will give max power while still keeping things safe.

I agree that 24whp is one of the higher gains i've seen from the tune alone, but the stock pull of 337whp was right in line with the 27 stock dynojet readouts on bmwdynodatabase.com which average 335.3whp SAE.

BMW rates the stock M3 at 414bhp @ 8,300rpm and 295lb-ft of torque at 3,900rpm -which is in line with the MotoIQ car and most stock dynographs on the database.

I'm not familiar with the DashDyno unit but it looks pretty cool, however Dynojet 224xLCs are pretty repeatable and Roush Yates knows what they are doing operating it.

[MrStinky]

Why do M3 dyno so low compared to 350whp that should be with 15 percent drive train loss

[FogCityM3]

Originally Posted by MrStinky

Why do M3 dyno so low compared to 350whp that should be with 15 percent drive train loss

Interesting question. Every dyno I’ve seen on here where datalogging is enabled, I’ve seen timing retarded by 6-8 degrees and rising test and ambient temps and fuel running rich. Log on a flat open road with cool air hitting the intake and radiator and timing retarded by 1-4 degrees on 91 octane and IATs are declining as rpm and speed increase and AFRs are perfect. At a 12:1 compression ratio, would think that proper cooling, fresh air, heat exchange to be critical to power generation. Guys like Dinan and Rototest try to control all those factors with a true wind-tunnel or in Dinan’s case a simulated wind tunnel effect with their special device.

[Billj747]

Originally Posted by MrStinky

Why do M3 dyno so low compared to 350whp that should be with 15 percent drive train loss

It's probably a bit off topic for the DCT software thread instead of the ESS E-Flash ECU thread , but:

M3's, ISF, and the 5.0 Mustang are all rated at ~414-420bhp and dyno differently at the wheels:

5.0 Mustang: 360-370whp. = min of 11.9% drivetrain loss
ISF: 330-345whp = min of 16.9% drivetrain loss
M3: 330-340whp = min of 17.9% drivetrain loss

You could say the Mustang is under-rated from the factory, the ISF has a power-sapping (locking torque converter) automatic transmission, and the M3 is over-rated from the factory.

With proper dyno procedures and fans to keep the AITs and coolant temps in check, you can get pretty repeatable and accurate numbers under 'laboratory' conditions. Real world power could vary from car to car depending on the air inlet design (for ram-effect and location of air pickup for varying air temps) to actually make more power than what's made on a dyno.

[biglare]

Originally Posted by Billj747

It's probably a bit off topic for the DCT software thread instead of the ESS E-Flash ECU thread , but:

M3's, ISF, and the 5.0 Mustang are all rated at ~414-420bhp and dyno differently at the wheels:

5.0 Mustang: 360-370whp. = min of 11.9% drivetrain loss
ISF: 330-345whp = min of 16.9% drivetrain loss
M3: 330-340whp = min of 17.9% drivetrain loss

You could say the Mustang is under-rated from the factory, the ISF has a power-sapping (locking torque converter) automatic transmission, and the M3 is over-rated from the factory.

With proper dyno procedures and fans to keep the AITs and coolant temps in check, you can get pretty repeatable and accurate numbers under 'laboratory' conditions. Real world power could vary from car to car depending on the air inlet design (for ram-effect and location of air pickup for varying air temps) to actually make more power than what's made on a dyno.

Start a new thread bro. Too many variables in terms of types of dynos and setup to compare like you're stating.

Just my 2 pennies.

[Billj747]

Originally Posted by biglare

Start a new thread bro. Too many variables in terms of types of dynos and setup to compare like you're stating.

Just my 2 pennies.

Read the first sentence.

And those are avg numbers across the board on the same type of dyno but I agree it's a slipperly slope (but its hard to argue that the M3 does make some pretty low #s to the tire when compared to its peers).

[MrStinky]

Originally Posted by Billj747

Read the first sentence.

And those are avg numbers across the board on the same type of dyno but I agree it's a slipperly slope (but its hard to argue that the M3 does make some pretty low #s to the tire when compared to its peers).

Kind of sucks. Although side by side M3 faster than both so I guess the formula at end of day works

[Billj747]

Originally Posted by MrStinky

Kind of sucks. Although side by side M3 faster than both so I guess the formula at end of day works

Better gearing and better aerodynamics. Although im not sure, a mustang might be faster with 3.73 or 4.11s -to a point where aero will start to hurt it again. Same with Mercedes.