BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
ESS Tuning
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-17-2007, 06:46 AM   #1
Should be Working
Enlisted Member
 
Should be Working's Avatar
 
Drives: E46 M3 Convertible Silver Grey
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK

Posts: 44
iTrader: (0)

Power Losses

Hi Guys

Haven't been on the forum for a while, so apologies if you have seen this before. read an interesting article in Autocar the other week about actual power available at the wheels against quoted power. Audi RS4 seems to be the main culprit losing a massive 68 bhp (16.5%) throught the 4 wheel drive transmission. The BMW M5 loses only 7% as it is 2 wheel drive. Should make for an interesting comparison if the E92 M3 has similar losses to the M5.

M3 - 385 bhp at the wheels
RS4 - 345 bhp at the wheels

Sounds like it could be an ass kicking for the RS4 to me (unless it's wet!!)

Attached Images
 
Should be Working is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 08:49 AM   #2
Smoltz
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 04 Challenge Stradale + 02 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Live Free or Die

Posts: 464
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Should be Working View Post
Hi Guys

Haven't been on the forum for a while, so apologies if you have seen this before. read an interesting article in Autocar the other week about actual power available at the wheels against quoted power. Audi RS4 seems to be the main culprit losing a massive 68 bhp (16.5%) throught the 4 wheel drive transmission. The BMW M5 loses only 7% as it is 2 wheel drive. Should make for an interesting comparison if the E92 M3 has similar losses to the M5.

M3 - 385 bhp at the wheels
RS4 - 345 bhp at the wheels

Sounds like it could be an ass kicking for the RS4 to me (unless it's wet!!)

There are a number of threads on here about WHP vs CHP. A few important notes. You CANNOT attribute differences SOLELY to drive train loss. This is evident from the fact that some cars are gaining HP at the wheels relative to their crank HP specification.

The other factor (which certain parties here in the past have failed to take into account) is that some cars power/torque numbers underrated (this is done for a variety of reasons).

It is also important to consider that there are variations from car to car even for a specific model. This means that they could have had a ringer for an M5 and a dog for an RS4, increasing the gap. Of course they could have had a ringer RS4 and a dog for an M5. It's just important to note that it's NOT a sampling. 10 M5s and 10 RS4s from a variety of production dates would be a more telling story.

-Adam
Smoltz is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 09:53 AM   #3
ChitownM3
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2001 SS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burbs of Chicago

Posts: 489
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoltz View Post

The other factor (which certain parties here in the past have failed to take into account) is that some cars power/torque numbers underrated (this is done for a variety of reasons).


-Adam
Hey guys, this is my first post here. I am currently on a waiting list for the new m3. Just thought I'd chime in. In America it is currently illegal for car companies to underrate their cars like they used to, so whatever HP or TQ numbers are posted by the companies, those are real. Chevy used to under rate their cars big time about 5 years ago. My car supposedly had 335 hp at the crank from the factory but when dynoed, it put down 330 rwhp with an automatic trans.
ChitownM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 02:37 PM   #4
Smoltz
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 04 Challenge Stradale + 02 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Live Free or Die

Posts: 464
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownM3 View Post
Hey guys, this is my first post here. I am currently on a waiting list for the new m3. Just thought I'd chime in. In America it is currently illegal for car companies to underrate their cars like they used to, so whatever HP or TQ numbers are posted by the companies, those are real. Chevy used to under rate their cars big time about 5 years ago. My car supposedly had 335 hp at the crank from the factory but when dynoed, it put down 330 rwhp with an automatic trans.
If what you see is the case, numerous manufacturers would currently be in trouble. I would like to see your source for this information.

Thanks,
Adam
Smoltz is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 04:04 PM   #5
m_bazeepaymon
Major
 
Drives: 2008 E92 335i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles

Posts: 1,075
iTrader: (4)

Send a message via AIM to m_bazeepaymon
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownM3 View Post
Hey guys, this is my first post here. I am currently on a waiting list for the new m3. Just thought I'd chime in. In America it is currently illegal for car companies to underrate their cars like they used to, so whatever HP or TQ numbers are posted by the companies, those are real. Chevy used to under rate their cars big time about 5 years ago. My car supposedly had 335 hp at the crank from the factory but when dynoed, it put down 330 rwhp with an automatic trans.
I understand where you are coming from but Engine Horsepower is completely different from Wheel horsepower, and they are not quoting Whp.

All wheel drive always loses more wheel horsepower than rear wheel drive.

we'll just have to wait and see what happens in July (when everybody tests the E92)
__________________


ZzZzZ'er
m_bazeepaymon is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 04:45 PM   #6
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownM3 View Post
Hey guys, this is my first post here. I am currently on a waiting list for the new m3. Just thought I'd chime in. In America it is currently illegal for car companies to underrate their cars like they used to, so whatever HP or TQ numbers are posted by the companies, those are real. Chevy used to under rate their cars big time about 5 years ago. My car supposedly had 335 hp at the crank from the factory but when dynoed, it put down 330 rwhp with an automatic trans.
Then BMW is guilty and needs to pay up or serve time. How many times on record has the 335 been dynoed well north of 300 hp? The government wouldn't even need a lawyer to win that case.
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 04:48 PM   #7
m_bazeepaymon
Major
 
Drives: 2008 E92 335i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles

Posts: 1,075
iTrader: (4)

Send a message via AIM to m_bazeepaymon
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Then BMW is guilty and needs to pay up or serve time. How many times on record has the 335 been dynoed well north of 300 hp? The government wouldn't even need a lawyer to win that case.
again ther eis probably some loop hole they are using to be able to B.S. their hp's...
__________________


ZzZzZ'er
m_bazeepaymon is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 04:49 PM   #8
Smoltz
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 04 Challenge Stradale + 02 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Live Free or Die

Posts: 464
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by m_bazeepaymon View Post
again ther eis probably some loop hole they are using to be able to B.S. their hp's...
Or a far more likely scenario... there is no such regulation. I'm eager to see ChitownM3's references for this claim.

-Adam
Smoltz is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 05:15 PM   #9
ChitownM3
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2001 SS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burbs of Chicago

Posts: 489
iTrader: (0)

It looks like I am incorrect. I thought I had heard somewhere that all cars were SAE certified, but according to this article GM is the only one. http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm I think all manufacturers should do it though, so we really know what we're buying.
ChitownM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 05:25 PM   #10
ChitownM3
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2001 SS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burbs of Chicago

Posts: 489
iTrader: (0)

Well this article from edmunds http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=108751 also states that the 414 hp in the new m3 is sae certified. If this is the case, then the car has 414 hp, period.
ChitownM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 07:35 PM   #11
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Great find

I was under the (false) impression that BMW MT typically loses about 15% of crank hp. This is far less and a far more efficient drive train than I (most of us?) previously thought. 7% is impressive. I also thought (from various forums, etc.) that the 4WD Audis typically lose as much as 25%. Oh well wrong again, good to learn some new things all the time.

One other point to keep in mind is BER, if we don't get BER (rumored) it will put about 5-10 hp less to the wheels during acceleration compared to the EU cars. BER will obviously improve the 7% figure from the M5, but probably only by a small amount 1-2%.

Either way the 40 hp differnce at the wheels is quite impressive and this is the heart of what BMW means by "efficient dynamics" (not that BMW=2WD and Audi=4WD is anything new). This really highlights that the M3 should really smoke the RS4 on the Ring!
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 09:43 PM   #12
jpan08
Second Lieutenant
 
jpan08's Avatar
 
Drives: e36 M3, e92 M3, Ninja 300
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Hartford, CT/ Boston, MA

Posts: 209
iTrader: (0)

i don't think BMW tapped the full potential of a V8, they probably could have gotten 500 HP out of it (fuel economy may be sacrificed) i think they are leaving so serious room for a possible huge leap to a csl
jpan08 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 11:46 PM   #13
ChitownM3
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2001 SS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burbs of Chicago

Posts: 489
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpan08 View Post
i don't think BMW tapped the full potential of a V8, they probably could have gotten 500 HP out of it (fuel economy may be sacrificed) i think they are leaving so serious room for a possible huge leap to a csl
It is very hard at this point in time to get 500 hp out of a 4.0L v8.
ChitownM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-17-2007, 11:57 PM   #14
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Agreed

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownM3 View Post
It is very hard at this point in time to get 500 hp out of a 4.0L v8.
NA state of the art for production engines is F430 and GT3 both around 115 hp/l. Even at 120 hp/l (quite an impressive jump) the M3 would only be at 480. I'd guess the CSL will be about 450-460 hp from the same 4.0l.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-18-2007, 08:30 AM   #15
jpan08
Second Lieutenant
 
jpan08's Avatar
 
Drives: e36 M3, e92 M3, Ninja 300
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Hartford, CT/ Boston, MA

Posts: 209
iTrader: (0)

If BMW is trying to compete with mercedes' AMG, they're not even close, the AMGs have around 500 HP even though they are a bit heavier they do manage to crank out 4.5 or less. and i hate to say it but the AMG looks a bit more exclusive and stylish
jpan08 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-18-2007, 10:18 AM   #16
2m3
Private First Class
 
Drives: 1995 M3, 1988 M3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: HIllside VIllage, ca 90032

Posts: 135
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
what would happen if they put C63AMG engine in the M3?
The M3 will understeer even more when entering turn
2m3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-18-2007, 11:41 AM   #17
maq
Lieutenant
 
Drives: MTA Monthly Pass
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC

Posts: 470
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
with bigger brake kit...

besides is C63 engine that heavy?
anyway it'll recover faster after the turn.....troque
Bigger brakes are not the cure for understeer.

The AMG engine is not that heavy for what it is, but it is bigger. It can't be mounted as far back and as low as the M3 engine. As a result, the center of gravity and front-rear weight distribution will all change for the worse.
maq is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-18-2007, 01:48 PM   #18
jpan08
Second Lieutenant
 
jpan08's Avatar
 
Drives: e36 M3, e92 M3, Ninja 300
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Hartford, CT/ Boston, MA

Posts: 209
iTrader: (0)

but Mercedes pulls off some good handeling for a lot of weight, for a new car the M3 is a bit behind the curve
jpan08 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-18-2007, 02:01 PM   #19
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I was under the (false) impression that BMW MT typically loses about 15% of crank hp. This is far less and a far more efficient drive train than I (most of us?) previously thought. 7% is impressive.
I must say I am rather suspicious of this 7% figure, and would not believe it unless I saw it verified by other independent sources. 7% would be a mechanical marvel.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-18-2007, 02:22 PM   #20
2m3
Private First Class
 
Drives: 1995 M3, 1988 M3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: HIllside VIllage, ca 90032

Posts: 135
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
with bigger brake kit...

besides is C63 engine that heavy?
anyway it'll recover faster after the turn.....troque
We prefer not to brake coming in to the turn......it is all M3 is about
2m3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-18-2007, 02:23 PM   #21
2m3
Private First Class
 
Drives: 1995 M3, 1988 M3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: HIllside VIllage, ca 90032

Posts: 135
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpan08 View Post
but Mercedes pulls off some good handeling for a lot of weight, for a new car the M3 is a bit behind the curve
Weight is still weight. The AMG handling gets lots of help from electronic stuffs.

I like E63 and still wanting it though if I can afford it, but for different purpose.

Ok back to original topic by the TS
2m3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-19-2007, 02:34 AM   #22
d3l0n
I love the ///M3, but I want 550hp ///M5
 
d3l0n's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW330iE90
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NYC

Posts: 3,279
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
I have always thought of this.. how come cars (Bmw's especially) kcik other cars ass with having less power than competitors... and this is the only reason i caould thing as to why! Great find man.. i wish i could get that entire article and see a list of all other top sports cars and their losses to the wheel
d3l0n is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST