Disappointed by E92 M3 1/4 Mile?

[lucid]

Originally Posted by revah2

Didnt your mother ever tell you.... If you have nothing niceto say, then dont say it at all.

Didn't you mother tell ever tell you: If what you mean to say has been said a thousand times before, there is no point in saying it for the 1001st time?

[devo]

Originally Posted by revah2

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...t=procede+v2.0
Carrera S stock- runs a 12.6 1/4 mile @112mph. Heres a thread where a 335i owner with just procede tune beats a stock carrera S on 2 different rolls. Wait a minute, if the 335i is beating a carrera S, and the carrera S is getting a faster quarter mile then the new e92 M3, then doesnt this 335i with one mod already beat the M3 in a straight line?

Wasn't that 911 equipped with the slower tipronic tranny?

[M3onTwomps]

Originally Posted by ruff

Sounds like steering is actually better in the 335. Reliability may not be as good as the straight six, even with the added complication and possible heat issues due to turbo charging. High reving V8 racing engines can be finicky and operate at very high tolerances. In addition, all the electronics and software on the e92 scares the bejeebus out of me as far as reliability. Only need to read the M5 forums to get a taste of that. Otherwise, I couldn't agree more. Mods are not the way to go if reliability is an important factor. Mods also tend to be real negative with resale value.

There is a difference between steering and "steering feel". The reviews are saying the M3 have very precise steering, but poor steering feel. No way the 335i has better steering than the M3.

[M3onTwomps]

Originally Posted by revah2

One Procede tune from Vishnu and your at 365 rwhp and torque in a 335i- thats about 400+ HP/torque to the crank. E92 M3 sits at 414hp to the crank, and 295 lb feets of torque.

Yes, but when you begin to look at power under the curve, the M3 really stands out. Add the 8400RPM, stickier tires, and M-DCT and even the Vishnu Version2 will have a hard time hanging with the M3.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by revah2

I apologize, I confused Procede with the tune from Active Autowerk. Either way, both Companies use the Same ECU interceptor: Xede
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...ht=xede+update
The Dyno reads 361 rwhp and 402 rwtorque, do the math. Thats ONE tune, ONE Xede, and like i said about 400+ HP. Dont give me the driver issue bullshit.And dont play stupid, you and I both know its not a driver issue, you'd have to be retarded to gravely influence the outcome of a race, especially on a roll. Ill take my chances and say both drivers know where their clutches are, and know how to shift gears.
Anecdotal- (def) Pertaining to the relationship of figures or to the arrangement of elements in a scene so as to emphasize the story content of a subject.
Example Sentence: "There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the oleander stems"

OK I'm lazy, I just don't want to look at pages upon pages of posts (and debates about the real output mind you), factual or not, about cool dudes racing and dyno-ing their modded 335's. Again I ask can you point me to the MANUFACTURERS WEB SITE that shows 400+ hp at the crank. I am not saying it is impossible to get over 400 crank hp from the 335i, in fact I strongly suspect it is. I am just tired of folks claiming things like a 380 hp 335i will slaughter a E92 M3.

And no I am not playing stupid. When high power cars, close in performance, race there is a lot of driver skill involved, period. Please try to keep your "stupid" and "retarded" insults and such out of this discussion or I will really have to open up a can of whoop ass on you.

BTW I know the bloody definition of anecdotal, however it appears you do not. Why don't you try the definition #3 rather than #1. That should have been PAINFULLY obvious but....

anecdotal: "based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence."

[Keto]

It's so great this thread about chipping a 335 exists because the other 999 threads were so poorly thought out I never really got the message that you could chip a 335. Thanks for bringing so much to the forum, it's why I read teh internets, helpful threads like this.

[Romo]

335i is beautifull..........................but way off topic here........................

M3 that is what we are talking here, just don`t stop doing so IMO..........

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by Keto

It's so great this thread about chipping a 335 exists because the other 999 threads were so poorly thought out I never really got the message that you could chip a 335. Thanks for bringing so much to the forum, it's why I read teh internets, helpful threads like this.

There are other threads, but this thread is fresh and new!

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by swamp2

OK I'm lazy, I just don't want to look at pages upon pages of posts (and debates about the real output mind you), factual or not, about cool dudes racing and dyno-ing their modded 335's. Again I ask can you point me to the MANUFACTURERS WEB SITE that shows 400+ hp at the crank. I am not saying it is impossible to get over 400 crank hp from the 335i, in fact I strongly suspect it is. I am just tired of folks claiming things like a 380 hp 335i will slaughter a E92 M3.

And no I am not playing stupid. When high power cars, close in performance, race there is a lot of driver skill involved, hi. Please try to keep your "stupid" and "retarded" insults and such out of this discussion or I will really have to open up a can of whoop ass on you.

BTW I know the bloody definition of anecdotal, however it appears you do not. Why don't you try the definition #3 rather than #1. That should have been PAINFULLY obvious but....

anecdotal: "based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence."

LOL r u really that anal...?

Obviuosly, there is no dyno of 335 at the crank. You know this, you also know that it can be calculated from rwhp..!!

If Vishnu is getting 375+rwhp & 380+rwtq then it's quite obvious that the 335 is getting close to 415HP/420ft-on at the crank with use of PROcede

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by southlight

Swamp, let's make a deal. How about just ignoring the next 10 posts claiming how good an 335i with some mods will be compared to the M3? Deal or no deal?

Best regards, south

Already beat you guys to it.

[Tobizach]

Originally Posted by Garrett

If Vishnu is getting 375+rwhp & 380+rwtq then it's quite obvious that the 335 is getting close to 415HP/420ft-on at the crank with use of PROcede

Ugh...All I can say is how sorry I feel for all those unmodified engine parts (pistons, rings, crank), stock trannys, stock brakes and those tiny mitsubishi turbos.

[Caravello]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

This seems a little harsh. I wasn't disappointed with the Z06 interior - but then again, I'm used to Vette engineering/development money being spent elsewhere. It's definitely a little low rent for the money, but for those who feel that the interior is the ne plus ultra of cardom, Audi is definitely the way to go. Not BMW. I understand the Chevy guys are addressing the interior (for those who care) with a $4k optional fix for '08.

Vette rattles pretty much disappeared with the advent of the C5 back in '97, although the C4 had them in abundance with its flexible flyer chassis. The C6 is an extremely rigid ride, however. Nothing has been falling off Vettes for at least ten years, so turn your wayback machine to "current day", and take a C6 for a drive.

"Plus, these cars can't withstand beat up roads whereas a BMW can."

Now you're onto something - sorta.

Vettes are OK on less than perfect back roads, but they don't engender confidence in the driver. You *can* really hammer along, but intuitively, you're going to be backing off. On track, where you can repetitively deal with bumps until you're going flat out, Vettes can destroy anything made by BMW.

But tracks are where we spend one or two percent of our driving time, and if you find joy in bombing and strafing back roads into oblivion, then a BMW is what you want for that work. Because of the fact that they generally provide the best ride/handling compromise across the board, BMWs make the absolute best back road bandits. If you're in a Z06 or Z51 Vette on a less than perfect back road, behind even an E46 M3 who's at all serious, you're not going to be able to stay with the bimmer unless you are completely out of your mind. On track, you'll kick his ass, but on those roads, he *owns* you.

We can all bitch about how BMWs are getting too big and heavy to be driving fun (God knows I do), but your bimmer will simply slice, dice and have those back roads for breakfast - even the E9X cars.

It may be magic.

Bruce

Nice response, sir. I did test drive a Z06, but I didn't like all the gadgetry such as a DVD player, the HUD, etc. But most important was the sales staff at the two places I went, they had know-nothing kids selling the cars and it just didn't sit well with me. I am sure that if there was a real salesman there who knew the product in and out and was excited about it that I may have turned. I know I shouldn't hold this against the car, but it just struck me as "low rent" as you say, and then if you figure this is the best Chevy can do with sales staff on a brand new milestone of a car then what can you expect from them when you bring it in for service, just basic customer care, etc. When you buy a Vette you are buying you way into a family almost, and the support just didn''t seem to be there.

As far as the track thing, I never go to a track. I may in the future, but I just want a fast cool car. One that sounds great too and can take a beating. What I see with Vette owners is that they bring them out only on special days and do a Freeway touring, hardly ever on the streets, etc. It just seems more like a novelty item. I like the styling of th eZ06 a lot and wouldn't mind having one, just not so sure on the reliability. But I have owned an E46 M3 for three years now and know that it can take a beating and I like that. I live in L.A. and it's not that I beat up the car on purpose but that the streets are potted and rough and it becomes a consideration.

Are you so sure that the M3 could beat the Z06 on a canyon road or in the twisties?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Garrett

LOL r u really that anal...?

Obviuosly, there is no dyno of 335 at the crank. You know this, you also know that it can be calculated from rwhp..!!

If Vishnu is getting 375+rwhp & 380+rwtq then it's quite obvious that the 335 is getting close to 415HP/420ft-on at the crank with use of PROcede

If you call anal demanding non anecdotal facts from a good source, yes I am anal.

The Visnhu website claims (and I quote) "+55-60whp". Let's go through the math: Assume about a 15% drive train loss and a liberal estimate of crank hp at 320 (a possible BMW under-rating), 320 x .85 = 272 rwhp, 272 + 60 = 332 rwp. Where do you see 375+ rwhp??? This 332 number could be as low as 310 rwhp as well using 300/55 figures instead of 320/60.

[BruceWain]

The 335 can be relatively inexpensively modified for engine performance, (HP & Torque) to match or exceed the new M3 numbers wise. You may spend $2000.00 or less but you just lost your warranty to catch up to or almost catch up to the 0 to 60/120 mph performance of the new M3. Not mentioning the other outperforming aspects of the M3 over the 335.
However the new M3 can be modified the same with a better initial oem setup/base, (chassis, suspension, lsd and others). Adding two small turbos with low boost even with it's high compression ratio will make great numbers if done right. It's been done to the M5 V10 already. This is why comparing a modified 335 to stock M3 futile.
DO NOT think, for one second, that BMW didn't know what the performance possibilities of the 335 were prior to it's release as well as the pressure that could potentially be applied to the performance gap of new M3. DO NOT think that they didn't do something about it either.

1) The 335 has very small turbos, yes this aids in little to no turbo lag but it also means that your maximum boost pressure is limited, you will have to go out and buy one or two bigger turbo units for more boost. It also means that when you maximize the boost on those two small turbos the engine WILL run out of breath on those high speed top end runs 120+ mph. When that happens and it will happen, you,(in the over boosted 335) will find yourself watching the new M3 not walk but run away from you because that is were that 4.0l V8 will shine.

2) Then there is the 335 compression ratio @ 10.2:1.
Somewhat high for a oem turbo car but not to bad for two SMALL turbos with low cfm air flow @ 8.5 to 8.8psi. These small units at max will only push approx. 14 to 15psi.
Which brings up a question.
What would happen to the motor if you replace the two smaller units for one or two larger turbo units, (besides turbo lag) with greater CFM and PSI ? Who knows but the compression ratio will have to be lowered to safely accommodated the new turbo units $$$.

These are two very obvious and meaningful points and there are a number of other designed limitation that could have been implemented by BMW to protect the bigger brother(M3) from being total cannibalized by its little brother(335). In order to get the maximum turbo performance out of BOTH, (335 or M3) motors you WILL have to buy turbos and lower the compression ratio among other things. This means $$$ and in the end stock vs. stock or modified vs. modified the M3 will do you better.





Compression Ratios For Reference:
M5 v10 = 12.0:1
M3 v8 = 12.0:1
M3 I6 = 11.2:1
335 I6 = 10.2:1
991 T = 9.0:1
Sub STI = 8.2:1
Mit EVO = 8.8:1

[Mark]

Folks, let keep this thread on topic and no personal attacks

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by swamp2

If you call anal demanding non anecdotal facts from a good source, yes I am anal.

The Visnhu website claims (and I quote) "+55-60whp". Let's go through the math: Assume about a 15% drive train loss and a liberal estimate of crank hp at 320 (a possible BMW under-rating), 320 x .85 = 272 rwhp, 272 + 60 = 332 rwp. Where do you see 375+ rwhp??? This 332 number could be as low as 310 rwhp as well using 300/55 figures instead of 320/60.

Your just angry at the world :mad:

I am talking about the up-and-comming PROcede 2.0. The potential of the 335 tune is still in it's infancy.

Your math is not correct in any regards. If someone sees a gain of just 50hp at the weels, then it's more at the crank. Not less...!! If the n54 is more like 320 and you add 50rwhp then you will have.. 377hp at the crank (estimated given 15%) But we are not seeing just 55rwhp gains are we...? Dyno below!

Here is a link I think you should read(click).

Listen, I'm all about the M3, but I am not in denial about what the 335 is capable of for very little money. You seem to be in denial of what people are getting out the the n54 or whats comming down the pipe. Yes, this makes a purchase of an M3 less special in regards to such close compition from the younger brother on roidz, but the 335 will not touch the new M in the many other aspects. But... that is not the topic of this discussion. We are talking about 1/4 mile acceleration.


Here's a hint of what Shiv is working on: Notice the 374rwhp ...??? Under a safe tune that there are some 10 beta testers using. Shiv has stated he's being conservative with this 2.0 map.



It's not all about the peak anyways, if you compare dyno's the 335 has alot broader delta gain on the M3 in torque and HP. The PROcede 335 has more usable torque band.






-Garrett

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Garrett

Your just angry at the world :mad:

I am talking about the up-and-comming PROcede 2.0. The potential of the 335 tune is still in it's infancy.

Your math is not correct in any regards. If someone sees a gain of just 50hp at the weels, then it's more at the crank. Not less...!! If the n54 is more like 320 and you add 50rwhp then you will have.. 377hp at the crank (estimated given 15%) But we are not seeing just 55rwhp gains are we...? Dyno below!

Here is a link I think you should read(click).

Listen, I'm all about the M3, but I am not in denial about what the 335 is capable of for very little money. You seem to be in denial of what people are getting out the the n54 or whats comming down the pipe. Yes, this makes a purchase of an M3 less special in regards to such close compition from the younger brother on roidz, but the 335 will not touch the new M in the many other aspects. But... that is not the topic of this discussion. We are talking about 1/4 mile acceleration.


Here's a hint of what Shiv is working on: Notice the 374rwhp ...??? Under a safe tune that there are some 10 beta testers using. Shiv has stated he's being conservative with this 2.0 map.

It's not all about the peak anyways, if you compare dyno's the 335 has alot broader delta gain on the M3 in torque and HP. The PROcede 335 has more usable torque band.

-Garrett

Thanks Garrett, a good post, finally someone took a couple minutes to bring me up to speed to the bleeding edge (as well as just being reasonable), which I admittedly don't keep up with. At the same time I always knew that 400+ crank hp would be possible, heck the sky is probably the limit if you don't care about reliabilty.

Next, my math is not wrong. My numbers are entirely consistent with larger gains at the crank and smaller gains at the wheels. Continue my math! 332 rwhp / .85 = 391 crank hp, gain = 71 hp. So on this one you get the Also, like I have said repeatedly my numbers are from the Vishnu site, not AA, not the 335i FI threads, etc. - i.e. what is available NOW. I guess you might call it denial, maybe a bit fair on that call, however, maybe also just "realistic". There will always be a bigger and better in everything, but the future does not always make the best nor most fair comparison

"Shiv has stated he's being conservative with this 2.0 map" - Nice to hear from someone trying to sell you something! I'd trust it a lot more directly from a manufacturer. After all there is a reason you don't see 150 hp/l from the factory with turbos...

"The PROcede 335 has more usable torque band." - Yes that is true and it is good at the same time it still suffers from a MUCH lower redline and that makes a huge difference in performance.

I guess last but not least my calculations show that +100 rwhp is equivalent to 438 crank hp ((320 x .85)+100)/.85. When you take into account BER, good for 5-10 hp and M-DCT, good for a couple of 1/10 sec on every shift I still don't think you will have a car walking away from the M3.

And last but not least - no, Garrett, I absolutely am not angy at the world. Heck did you read some of the replies I have got from the 335i defense team? Talk about angry. Thanks for the "free Freud" though...

Cheers

[esquire]

Originally Posted by swamp2

"Shiv has stated he's being conservative with this 2.0 map" - Nice to hear from someone trying to sell you something! I'd trust it a lot more directly from a manufacturer. After all there is a reason you don't see 150 hp/l from the factory with turbos...

"The PROcede 335 has more usable torque band." - Yes that is true and it is good at the same time it still suffers from a MUCH lower redline and that makes a huge difference in performance.

I guess last but not least my calculations show that +100 rwhp is equivalent to 438 crank hp ((320 x .85)+100)/.85. When you take into account BER, good for 5-10 hp and M-DCT, good for a couple of 1/10 sec on every shift I still don't think you will have a car walking away from the M3.

And last but not least - no, Garrett, I absolutely am not angy at the world. Heck did you read some of the replies I have got from the 335i defense team? Talk about angry. Thanks for the "free Freud" though...

Cheers

1) PROcede "shiv has stated he's being conservative on this 2.0 map."
I'm sure shiv has been conservative on this map.... in regards to performance gains. The engine can undoubtedly pump out more than 435hp at the crank; it would be nothing out of the ordinary for a twin turboed car. But whether he's been conservative in regards to engine durabilityand the longterm effects of a constant 12-14psi on this engine is still up in the air, especially given that the stock turbos feed 6-8psi. His beta testers have only had v2.0 for a few months now... and there's no saying what strains v2.0 will place on the engine over a period of years.

And just so I can absolve myself of any hypocrisy, I'm confident that, even knowing the effects of the added strain on the 335 engine are unknown, i'll still load the v2.0 map onto my PROcede. Because driving the car now with the weaker v1.45 map is just too much fun.


2) M-DCT shift times
this point has come up in a few THREADS in which you were an active participant, swamp. i think it's fair to say that we don't know with certainty what the shift times will be with the new transmission, but based off vw's dct data, we estimate that dct will perform .03 seconds per shift, a savings of .27 seconds per shift over a skilled manual shift time of .3 seconds.

Now, we know car and driver pulled a 4.4sec 0-60mph in the manual M3. We also know with a high degree of certainty that it would require ONE shift throw to get to second gear, the gear in which the M3 will hit 60 mph. If that's the case then the DCT will save .27 seconds x 1 gear change over the manual transmission in getting to 60mph, thereby allowing the M3 to reach 60mph in 4.1 seconds. (4.4 seconds - .27 seconds saved)



3) PROcede and the M3 with DCT
Will a v2.0 procede beat 4.1seconds 0-60?? NO. I think even shiv would admit to that. The absolute best case 0-60 runs i've heard of with v1.45 maps are 4.5 seconds, and i don't suspect v2.0's rumored extra 50-60 horsepower will shave .4 seconds off of that figure.

If these projected 0-60 calculations are correct in addition to the M3's stiffer chassis, EDC stability control, LSD, and high redline, the M3 vs. a PROceded 335i race might not be at as much of a driver's races as we thought, especially on a track. And, in the quarter mile, where we'd expect to see several gear shifts, the M-DCT's time savings along with the M3's better top end performance, will end up slaying a PROceded 335.

But I agree with Garrett, for the money PROcede offers astonishing results, that even an M3 can't scoff at. Though, when it comes down to it, who can say they would choose a substantially modded 335i over an M3? think about it.


- esquire

(As an aside, it's important to note that from what I've understood of the limited comments surrounding v2.0 thusfar, it's performance is modulated depending on ambient temperature and other in-the-moment factors. So there's no guarantee that the extra 50-60 horsepower will be a constant gain.)

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by esquire

1) PROcede "shiv has stated he's being conservative on this 2.0 map."
I'm sure shiv has been conservative on this map.... in regards to performance gains. The engine can undoubtedly pump out more than 435hp at the crank; it would be nothing out of the ordinary for a twin turboed car. But whether he's been conservative in regards to engine durabilityand the longterm effects of a constant 12-14psi on this engine is still up in the air, especially given that the stock turbos feed 6-8psi. His beta testers have only had v2.0 for a few months now... and there's no saying what strains v2.0 will place on the engine over a period of years.

And just so I can absolve myself of any hypocrisy, I'm confident that, even knowing the effects of the added strain on the 335 engine are unknown, i'll still load the v2.0 map onto my PROcede. Because driving the car now with the weaker v1.45 map is just too much fun.


2) M-DCT shift times
this point has come up in a few THREADS in which you were an active participant, swamp. i think it's fair to say that we don't know with certainty what the shift times will be with the new transmission, but based off vw's dct data, we estimate that dct will perform .03 seconds per shift, a savings of .27 seconds per shift over a skilled manual shift time of .3 seconds.

Now, we know car and driver pulled a 4.4sec 0-60mph in the manual M3. We also know with a high degree of certainty that it would require ONE shift throw to get to second gear, the gear in which the M3 will hit 60 mph. If that's the case then the DCT will save .27 seconds x 1 gear change over the manual transmission in getting to 60mph, thereby allowing the M3 to reach 60mph in 4.1 seconds. (4.4 seconds - .27 seconds saved)



3) PROcede and the M3 with DCT
Will a v2.0 procede beat 4.1seconds 0-60?? NO. I think even shiv would admit to that. The absolute best case 0-60 runs i've heard of with v1.45 maps are 4.5 seconds, and i don't suspect v2.0's rumored extra 50-60 horsepower will shave .4 seconds off of that figure.

If these projected 0-60 calculations are correct in addition to the M3's stiffer chassis, EDC stability control, LSD, and high redline, the M3 vs. a PROceded 335i race might not be at as much of a driver's races as we thought, especially on a track. And, in the quarter mile, where we'd expect to see several gear shifts, the M-DCT's time savings along with the M3's better top end performance, will end up slaying a PROceded 335.

But I agree with Garrett, for the money PROcede offers astonishing results, that even an M3 can't scoff at. Though, when it comes down to it, who can say they would choose a substantially modded 335i over an M3? think about it.


- esquire

(As an aside, it's important to note that from what I've understood of the limited comments surrounding v2.0 thusfar, it's performance is modulated depending on ambient temperature and other in-the-moment factors. So there's no guarantee that the extra 50-60 horsepower will be a constant gain.)

Great post esquire. Three replies:

1. The monster torque down low of the v2 will be another + pushing things toward a drivers contest. However, the torque is wasted if you can't get traction and that will be tough to control.

3. VW DSG shift times have been reported at 8 milliseconds (.008 s). There is no reason to believe Getrag and BMW will not match or even do better.

3. M-DCT - I'm hoping you are right as well. Best case scenario you are right. Heck the 4.4 number may even be a tad less given a perfect road surface so we may be looking at 4.0 flat with M-DCT! All of this speculation though is HIGHLY dependent on the launch capability of M-DCT. SMG generally launched much more consistently than 6MT but, in the limit, not as fast nor with as much traction. Therefore speed contests, especially in the lower speed ones went to the 6MT.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Great post esquire. Three replies:

1. The monster torque down low of the v2 will be another + pushing things toward a drivers contest. However, the torque is wasted if you can't get traction and that will be tough to control.

3. VW DSG shift times have been reported at 8 milliseconds (.008 s). There is no reason to believe Getrag and BMW will not match or even do better.

3. M-DCT - I'm hoping you are right as well. Best case scenario you are right. Heck the 4.4 number may even be a tad less given a perfect road surface so we may be looking at 4.0 flat with M-DCT! All of this speculation though is HIGHLY dependent on the launch capability of M-DCT. SMG generally launched much more consistently than 6MT but, in the limit, not as fast nor with as much traction. Therefore speed contests, especially in the lower speed ones went to the 6MT.

as i remember it, part of the issue with SMG launch control was the distance separating the gears in the gearbox. gears 1 and 2 were on completely opposite ends of the gearbox, resulting in gear changes which were incrementally slower than a manual through the early gears. see the attached picture. BMW's reasoned that by placing the highest load bearing gears (1, 2 and R) in the most stable part of the gearbox - the corners - the transmission would operate more effectively. .

i don't know that M-DCT would suffer from this same ailment, given that the dual clutch system always holds the next gear in reserve, ready to be engaged. If this is the case, the distance between gears would become irrelevant, and M-DCT launch control would outpace SMG's. Thoughts and feedback welcome.

- esquire

[M3onTwomps]

Originally Posted by esquire

1) PROcede "shiv has stated he's being conservative on this 2.0 map."
I'm sure shiv has been conservative on this map.... in regards to performance gains. The engine can undoubtedly pump out more than 435hp at the crank; it would be nothing out of the ordinary for a twin turboed car. But whether he's been conservative in regards to engine durabilityand the longterm effects of a constant 12-14psi on this engine is still up in the air, especially given that the stock turbos feed 6-8psi. His beta testers have only had v2.0 for a few months now... and there's no saying what strains v2.0 will place on the engine over a period of years.

And just so I can absolve myself of any hypocrisy, I'm confident that, even knowing the effects of the added strain on the 335 engine are unknown, i'll still load the v2.0 map onto my PROcede. Because driving the car now with the weaker v1.45 map is just too much fun.


2) M-DCT shift times
this point has come up in a few THREADS in which you were an active participant, swamp. i think it's fair to say that we don't know with certainty what the shift times will be with the new transmission, but based off vw's dct data, we estimate that dct will perform .03 seconds per shift, a savings of .27 seconds per shift over a skilled manual shift time of .3 seconds.

Now, we know car and driver pulled a 4.4sec 0-60mph in the manual M3. We also know with a high degree of certainty that it would require ONE shift throw to get to second gear, the gear in which the M3 will hit 60 mph. If that's the case then the DCT will save .27 seconds x 1 gear change over the manual transmission in getting to 60mph, thereby allowing the M3 to reach 60mph in 4.1 seconds. (4.4 seconds - .27 seconds saved)



3) PROcede and the M3 with DCT
Will a v2.0 procede beat 4.1seconds 0-60?? NO. I think even shiv would admit to that. The absolute best case 0-60 runs i've heard of with v1.45 maps are 4.5 seconds, and i don't suspect v2.0's rumored extra 50-60 horsepower will shave .4 seconds off of that figure.

If these projected 0-60 calculations are correct in addition to the M3's stiffer chassis, EDC stability control, LSD, and high redline, the M3 vs. a PROceded 335i race might not be at as much of a driver's races as we thought, especially on a track. And, in the quarter mile, where we'd expect to see several gear shifts, the M-DCT's time savings along with the M3's better top end performance, will end up slaying a PROceded 335.

But I agree with Garrett, for the money PROcede offers astonishing results, that even an M3 can't scoff at. Though, when it comes down to it, who can say they would choose a substantially modded 335i over an M3? think about it.


- esquire

(As an aside, it's important to note that from what I've understood of the limited comments surrounding v2.0 thusfar, it's performance is modulated depending on ambient temperature and other in-the-moment factors. So there's no guarantee that the extra 50-60 horsepower will be a constant gain.)

Don't forget the road conditions that were reportedly bad in the M3 test. Looking at the M3 trap speed, one could come to the assumption that traction may have been a problem.

[M3onTwomps]

Originally Posted by esquire

as i remember it, part of the issue with SMG launch control was the distance separating the gears in the gearbox. gears 1 and 2 were on completely opposite ends of the gearbox, resulting in gear changes which were incrementally slower than a manual through the early gears. see the attached picture. BMW's reasoned that by placing the highest load bearing gears (1, 2 and R) in the most stable part of the gearbox - the corners - the transmission would operate more effectively. .

i don't know that M-DCT would suffer from this same ailment, given that the dual clutch system always holds the next gear in reserve, ready to be engaged. If this is the case, the distance between gears would become irrelevant, and M-DCT launch control would outpace SMG's. Thoughts and feedback welcome.

- esquire

Was the 6-speed SMG gearbox(SMGII) for the E46 setup the same as this 7-speed(SMGIII?) for the M5/M6?