BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

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


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > E90/E92 M3 Technical Topics > Engine, Transmission, Exhaust, Drivetrain, ECU Software Modifications
 
ESS Tuning
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-10-2013, 02:09 AM   #243
saxonb
Private First Class
Australia
6

 
Drives: 2007 E92 M3 & 1996 E36 M3
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney Australia


Posts: 162
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SickeM3 View Post
Close to what? Every other kit is doing better than that, and thats not even an S65 your arguing for.




Look how much you are trading for that, its not a good balance. Believe me, im all for adding more low tq, but the graph above crashed my expectations
Are you sure that you're interpreting these results correctly Sicke?

If you look closely at the graphs below, you will see three lines.

1. Baseline: Stock Audi RS4 B7 4.2
2. Middle line: TVS 1320 Audi RS4 B7 4.2
3. Top line: TVS 1740 Audi RS4 B7 4.2

You will note:

The 1740 kit (3) delivers a minimum increase in torque of 150 lb/ft and a maximum of 250 lb/ft over stock (1).

The 1740 kit (3) also delivers a minimum increase of 40 horsepower and maximum of over 200 horsepower over stock (1).


__________________

2007 E92 M3 Silverstone II / StopTech Trophy / ZCP / Eisenmann Sport / Track Pipes / Pulleys / BPM Sport
For sale:
1996 E36 M3 Evo Estoril Blue / BBS LM / SuperSprint Street / Brembo+CSL brakes
Appreciate 0
      10-10-2013, 08:08 AM   #244
Longboarder
Brigadier General
115

 
Drives: 2013 e92 M3
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Monarch Beach


Posts: 3,767
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2011 997.2 Turbo S  [4.71]
2013 e92 M3  [4.55]
2013 WRX STi  [4.00]
2013 BMW X5  [0.00]
^ ^ ^ that HP/TQ curve looks awesome for an AWD Audi ! That thing must launch off the line like a rocket. And is just a beast at all points in the RPM range...don't even need to downshift to get going.
__________________
Daily: 2013 e92 M3 DCT / ESS VT2 650 S/C / Akrapovic Evolution / StopTech BBK
Track/Airstrip: 2011 997.2 Turbo S PDK / 725 HP / BBi suspension build
Beater: 2013 X5 3.5sport
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT1...eoFBszPIK0gf9w
Appreciate 0
      10-10-2013, 09:16 AM   #245
Serpico
Banned
13

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: MD-NY


Posts: 625
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by saxonb View Post
Are you sure that you're interpreting these results correctly Sicke?

If you look closely at the graphs below, you will see three lines.

1. Baseline: Stock Audi RS4 B7 4.2
2. Middle line: TVS 1320 Audi RS4 B7 4.2
3. Top line: TVS 1740 Audi RS4 B7 4.2

You will note:

The 1740 kit (3) delivers a minimum increase in torque of 150 lb/ft and a maximum of 250 lb/ft over stock (1).

The 1740 kit (3) also delivers a minimum increase of 40 horsepower and maximum of over 200 horsepower over stock (1).


What exactly is a "STG 3" package, what is changed from stock?
Cant debate points without more information, but what i will say, is look at the giant dip in TQ past 5k rpm. Earlier TQ would be nice, but thats a huge loss.That a PD s/c cant flow well up top for the rpm the cars have
Appreciate 0
      10-11-2013, 12:30 AM   #246
saxonb
Private First Class
Australia
6

 
Drives: 2007 E92 M3 & 1996 E36 M3
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney Australia


Posts: 162
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SickeM3 View Post
What exactly is a "STG 3" package, what is changed from stock?
Cant debate points without more information, but what i will say, is look at the giant dip in TQ past 5k rpm. Earlier TQ would be nice, but thats a huge loss.That a PD s/c cant flow well up top for the rpm the cars have
Well, let's use the data points at hand:

120ft/lbs over stock at redline is not a "loss". That is patently a "gain".

The TVS1740 kit employs the same SC as the Harrop E92 M3 kit, and same integrated intercooler design.
__________________

2007 E92 M3 Silverstone II / StopTech Trophy / ZCP / Eisenmann Sport / Track Pipes / Pulleys / BPM Sport
For sale:
1996 E36 M3 Evo Estoril Blue / BBS LM / SuperSprint Street / Brembo+CSL brakes
Appreciate 0
      10-11-2013, 09:32 AM   #247
Serpico
Banned
13

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: MD-NY


Posts: 625
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by saxonb View Post
Well, let's use the data points at hand:

120ft/lbs over stock at redline is not a "loss". That is patently a "gain".

The TVS1740 kit employs the same SC as the Harrop E92 M3 kit, and same integrated intercooler design.
Doesn't go well then, because current data shows a loss of 100 ft/lbs from 5k-8k rpm on that, saying that the PD supercharger cannot meet high rpm requirements.

Does it say how much boost the STG3 is using? If its over 9 psi, its also not a good argument considering OEM strength of the S65.

As I said before, i prefer not to talk about a completely different motor arguing for the actual supercharger because it doesnt translate well for the S65. Thats unfair to those of you still expecting big things from it.
Appreciate 0
      10-11-2013, 10:08 AM   #248
saxonb
Private First Class
Australia
6

 
Drives: 2007 E92 M3 & 1996 E36 M3
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney Australia


Posts: 162
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SickeM3 View Post
Doesn't go well then, because current data shows a loss of 100 ft/lbs from 5k-8k rpm on that, saying that the PD supercharger cannot meet high rpm requirements.

Does it say how much boost the STG3 is using? If its over 9 psi, its also not a good argument considering OEM strength of the S65.

As I said before, i prefer not to talk about a completely different motor arguing for the actual supercharger because it doesnt translate well for the S65. Thats unfair to those of you still expecting big things from it.



Here's another audi 4.2 positive displacement kit with no loss of torque compared to stock:




I also read that the audi 4.2 is:

1. over square bore and stroke: 84.5 by 92.8 millimetres
2. compression ratio: 12.5

I understand that this impacts the mechanical efficiency of the engine and indeed creates different torque characteristics to the over square and lower compression s65.
__________________

2007 E92 M3 Silverstone II / StopTech Trophy / ZCP / Eisenmann Sport / Track Pipes / Pulleys / BPM Sport
For sale:
1996 E36 M3 Evo Estoril Blue / BBS LM / SuperSprint Street / Brembo+CSL brakes
Appreciate 0
      10-11-2013, 11:06 AM   #249
Serpico
Banned
13

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: MD-NY


Posts: 625
iTrader: (1)

Im not arguing a loss of Tq compared to stock, that would be ridiculous. Im talking about over the benefits of mating the centri s/c to a high revving motor.

Now bringing in a completely different built motor into the equation couldn't be further from an articulate debate
Appreciate 0
      10-11-2013, 03:19 PM   #250
pbonsalb
Lieutenant Colonel
21

 
Drives: 08 E90 M3, 99 E36 M3 Turbo
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Concord, NH


Posts: 1,720
iTrader: (3)

If I was building a motor, I'd consider twin turbos. Audi does a pretty nice job with its 4.0L twin turbo in the RS models.
Appreciate 0
      10-11-2013, 07:48 PM   #251
kiln
Lieutenant
United_States
21

 
kiln's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 E90 M3
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Orleans, LA


Posts: 457
iTrader: (6)

Send a message via AIM to kiln
Stage 1 details
Attached Images
 
Appreciate 0
      10-11-2013, 09:05 PM   #252
SECOND2NONE
Private First Class
1

 
Drives: Turbo e46 m3, 2005 e55 amg
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: BROOKLYN


Posts: 144
iTrader: (1)

Hopefully a stage 2 comes out soon after
Appreciate 0
      10-12-2013, 12:07 AM   #253
saxonb
Private First Class
Australia
6

 
Drives: 2007 E92 M3 & 1996 E36 M3
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney Australia


Posts: 162
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SickeM3 View Post
Im not arguing a loss of Tq compared to stock, that would be ridiculous. Im talking about over the benefits of mating the centri s/c to a high revving motor.

Now bringing in a completely different built motor into the equation couldn't be further from an articulate debate
All engines have torque degradation due to mechanical efficiency falling off at higher piston velocities.

The substantial torque degradation you speak off is a characteristic of the audi 4.2 not positive displacement superchargers.
__________________

2007 E92 M3 Silverstone II / StopTech Trophy / ZCP / Eisenmann Sport / Track Pipes / Pulleys / BPM Sport
For sale:
1996 E36 M3 Evo Estoril Blue / BBS LM / SuperSprint Street / Brembo+CSL brakes
Appreciate 0
      10-12-2013, 12:20 AM   #254
saxonb
Private First Class
Australia
6

 
Drives: 2007 E92 M3 & 1996 E36 M3
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney Australia


Posts: 162
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiln View Post
Stage 1 details
That's awesome.

500hp at the wheels and 400 ft lbs peak torque at 4000rpm.

Can't wait.
__________________

2007 E92 M3 Silverstone II / StopTech Trophy / ZCP / Eisenmann Sport / Track Pipes / Pulleys / BPM Sport
For sale:
1996 E36 M3 Evo Estoril Blue / BBS LM / SuperSprint Street / Brembo+CSL brakes
Appreciate 0
      10-12-2013, 09:46 PM   #255
e46m3to135i
Private First Class
United_States
8

 
Drives: 2010 MR E92 M3
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Schofield Barracks, HI


Posts: 161
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by saxonb View Post
That's awesome.

500hp at the wheels and 400 ft lbs peak torque at 4000rpm.

Can't wait.
Ummm that's not at the wheels. If you reads the info at the bottom of the ad is says" Dynapack axle data WITHOUT powertrain correction"

15% drivetrain correction would be about 425rwhp and 340 rwtq at 4K RPM.

-Nick
__________________
2010 Melbourne Red E92 M3 / DCT / 220M / CF Roof / Premium / Assist / BT / PDC.

Evolve Stage 1 Tune / GTS DCT Flash / Servo Tune / OEM Exhaust Mod / BMC Drop In / H&R Sports Springs / BMS 15/12mm Spacers / CF Grilles / CF Gills / CF Hood Vents / Painted Reflectors / Extended Paddles / BMS ARC AE's / Cyba Scoops / 20% Tint
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2013, 11:49 AM   #256
regular guy
Banned
24

 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California


Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by e46m3to135i View Post
Ummm that's not at the wheels. If you reads the info at the bottom of the ad is says" Dynapack axle data WITHOUT powertrain correction"

15% drivetrain correction would be about 425rwhp and 340 rwtq at 4K RPM.

-Nick
I think you might have misunderstood what the post above says.

I've got a lot of experience with Dynapack and know them and Dynojets extremely well. I've even run 5-6 same cars on Dynapacks and Dynojets just to see how the dyno's compared.

For the most part, Dynapack and Dynojet give nearly identical results. In my tests, we had the results within 2-5 whp of each other. For crankshaft correction, I typically use 12% drivetrain loss for Dynapack. So just going by the numbers posted above, the translation from whp to chp would be: 500whp = 568chp, and 400wtq = 455ctq.
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2013, 12:22 PM   #257
MilehighM3
Colonel
29

 
MilehighM3's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 M3
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Colorado Springs


Posts: 2,161
iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by e46m3to135i
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxonb View Post
That's awesome.

500hp at the wheels and 400 ft lbs peak torque at 4000rpm.

Can't wait.
Ummm that's not at the wheels. If you reads the info at the bottom of the ad is says" Dynapack axle data WITHOUT powertrain correction"

15% drivetrain correction would be about 425rwhp and 340 rwtq at 4K RPM.

-Nick
Without correction means whp, not the other way around. With would add to the numbers, correct?
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2013, 02:16 PM   #258
Serpico
Banned
13

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: MD-NY


Posts: 625
iTrader: (1)

Without powertrain correction means its CHP not rwhp. Ie they did not correct for losses.

They could save themselves the trouble by at least posting the graphs.
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2013, 04:18 PM   #259
e46m3to135i
Private First Class
United_States
8

 
Drives: 2010 MR E92 M3
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Schofield Barracks, HI


Posts: 161
iTrader: (0)

Ok. I did a bit of researching between Kilowatt, Newton Meter and the numbers Harrop posted in the Stage 1 ad.

Seems Harrop did post the numbers in RWHP instead of crank as I was suspecting. Here's how I determined this:

- 3000 RPM delivers 460nm which equals 339rwtq. Harrop states 330nm stock, which is 243 rwtq. Most M3 put down round 250rwtq so this adds up

- 5000 RPM delivers 540nm which equals 398rwtq. Harrop states 340nm stock, which is 250 rwtq. Once again, the stock nm stated reflects what a M3 puts down in rwtq.

- 7000 RPM delivers 373kw which equals 500rwhp. Harrop states 255nm stock, which is 341 rwhp. The stock kw stated reflects what a M3 puts down in rwhp.

Convert those numbers to crank hp and you'll have:

3000 RPM- 400 Crank TQ
5000 RPM- 440 Crank TQ
7000 RPM- 614 Crank HP

What I don't understand. Is why they stated in the ad that the powertrain correction hadn't been corrected. I guess what they meant by saying that is that they haven't included the CHP numbers.

Either way like another guy said, a dynograph would have cleared up the confusion.

After finally confirming the numbers. This kit looks pretty damn good. If they come out with a Stage 2 kit by the end of this year or early next year, that will be the kit I jump on.

-Nick
__________________
2010 Melbourne Red E92 M3 / DCT / 220M / CF Roof / Premium / Assist / BT / PDC.

Evolve Stage 1 Tune / GTS DCT Flash / Servo Tune / OEM Exhaust Mod / BMC Drop In / H&R Sports Springs / BMS 15/12mm Spacers / CF Grilles / CF Gills / CF Hood Vents / Painted Reflectors / Extended Paddles / BMS ARC AE's / Cyba Scoops / 20% Tint
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2013, 07:56 PM   #260
regular guy
Banned
24

 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California


Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by e46m3to135i View Post
Ok. I did a bit of researching between Kilowatt, Newton Meter and the numbers Harrop posted in the Stage 1 ad.

Seems Harrop did post the numbers in RWHP instead of crank as I was suspecting. Here's how I determined this:

- 3000 RPM delivers 460nm which equals 339rwtq. Harrop states 330nm stock, which is 243 rwtq. Most M3 put down round 250rwtq so this adds up

- 5000 RPM delivers 540nm which equals 398rwtq. Harrop states 340nm stock, which is 250 rwtq. Once again, the stock nm stated reflects what a M3 puts down in rwtq.

- 7000 RPM delivers 373kw which equals 500rwhp. Harrop states 255nm stock, which is 341 rwhp. The stock kw stated reflects what a M3 puts down in rwhp.

Convert those numbers to crank hp and you'll have:

3000 RPM- 400 Crank TQ
5000 RPM- 440 Crank TQ
7000 RPM- 614 Crank HP

What I don't understand. Is why they stated in the ad that the powertrain correction hadn't been corrected. I guess what they meant by saying that is that they haven't included the CHP numbers.

Either way like another guy said, a dynograph would have cleared up the confusion.

After finally confirming the numbers. This kit looks pretty damn good. If they come out with a Stage 2 kit by the end of this year or early next year, that will be the kit I jump on.

-Nick
It doesn't need to be this complicated. The Dynapack doesn't have CHP correction, so all Dynapack results will be WHP. The standard CHP correction for Dynapack will be 12%. Many marketing numbers will use 18%correction because frankly they look bigger than 12%. The best correlation you will find comes from www.rototest.com, which is essentially the same dyno as a Dynapack. Their results are just about 12% off CHP numbers with STD correction, and 15% off CHP numbers with SAE correction. Often times marketing numbers are reported in STD correction instead of SAE because STD is about 3% higher than SAE.

So let's see if I can reverse all of this and get closer to the real numbers.

3000 RPM: 460nm = 339wtq, 194whp = 145kW
5000 RPM: 540nm = 398wtq, 379whp = 283kW
7000 RPM: 509nm = 375wtq, 500whp = 373kW

Next let's convert STD correction to SAE correction with a 3% scalar:
3000 RPM: 447nm = 329wtq, 188whp = 141kW
5000 RPM: 524nm = 386wtq, 368whp = 275kW
7000 RPM: 494nm = 364wtq, 485whp = 362kW

Last let's convert STD correction to Crank TQ and HP using 12% correction factor:
3000 RPM: 523nm = 386ctq, 220chp = 164kW
5000 RPM: 614nm = 453ctq, 431chp = 321kW
7000 RPM: 578nm = 426ctq, 568chp = 424kW

I hope this helps.
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2013, 08:53 PM   #261
e46m3to135i
Private First Class
United_States
8

 
Drives: 2010 MR E92 M3
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Schofield Barracks, HI


Posts: 161
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
It doesn't need to be this complicated. The Dynapack doesn't have CHP correction, so all Dynapack results will be WHP. The standard CHP correction for Dynapack will be 12%. Many marketing numbers will use 18%correction because frankly they look bigger than 12%. The best correlation you will find comes from www.rototest.com, which is essentially the same dyno as a Dynapack. Their results are just about 12% off CHP numbers with STD correction, and 15% off CHP numbers with SAE correction. Often times marketing numbers are reported in STD correction instead of SAE because STD is about 3% higher than SAE.

So let's see if I can reverse all of this and get closer to the real numbers.

3000 RPM: 460nm = 339wtq, 194whp = 145kW
5000 RPM: 540nm = 398wtq, 379whp = 283kW
7000 RPM: 509nm = 375wtq, 500whp = 373kW

Next let's convert STD correction to SAE correction with a 3% scalar:
3000 RPM: 447nm = 329wtq, 188whp = 141kW
5000 RPM: 524nm = 386wtq, 368whp = 275kW
7000 RPM: 494nm = 364wtq, 485whp = 362kW

Last let's convert STD correction to Crank TQ and HP using 12% correction factor:
3000 RPM: 523nm = 386ctq, 220chp = 164kW
5000 RPM: 614nm = 453ctq, 431chp = 321kW
7000 RPM: 578nm = 426ctq, 568chp = 424kW

I hope this helps.
Spot on!
__________________
2010 Melbourne Red E92 M3 / DCT / 220M / CF Roof / Premium / Assist / BT / PDC.

Evolve Stage 1 Tune / GTS DCT Flash / Servo Tune / OEM Exhaust Mod / BMC Drop In / H&R Sports Springs / BMS 15/12mm Spacers / CF Grilles / CF Gills / CF Hood Vents / Painted Reflectors / Extended Paddles / BMS ARC AE's / Cyba Scoops / 20% Tint
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2013, 09:46 PM   #262
Serpico
Banned
13

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: MD-NY


Posts: 625
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
It doesn't need to be this complicated. The Dynapack doesn't have CHP correction, so all Dynapack results will be WHP. The standard CHP correction for Dynapack will be 12%. Many marketing numbers will use 18%correction because frankly they look bigger than 12%. The best correlation you will find comes from www.rototest.com, which is essentially the same dyno as a Dynapack. Their results are just about 12% off CHP numbers with STD correction, and 15% off CHP numbers with SAE correction. Often times marketing numbers are reported in STD correction instead of SAE because STD is about 3% higher than SAE.

So let's see if I can reverse all of this and get closer to the real numbers.

3000 RPM: 460nm = 339wtq, 194whp = 145kW
5000 RPM: 540nm = 398wtq, 379whp = 283kW
7000 RPM: 509nm = 375wtq, 500whp = 373kW

Next let's convert STD correction to SAE correction with a 3% scalar:
3000 RPM: 447nm = 329wtq, 188whp = 141kW
5000 RPM: 524nm = 386wtq, 368whp = 275kW
7000 RPM: 494nm = 364wtq, 485whp = 362kW

Last let's convert STD correction to Crank TQ and HP using 12% correction factor:
3000 RPM: 523nm = 386ctq, 220chp = 164kW
5000 RPM: 614nm = 453ctq, 431chp = 321kW
7000 RPM: 578nm = 426ctq, 568chp = 424kW

I hope this helps.
Im confused now. How are you converting with no atmospheric data?
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2013, 11:21 PM   #263
regular guy
Banned
24

 
Drives: Sprint car
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California


Posts: 1,375
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SickeM3 View Post
Im confused now. How are you converting with no atmospheric data?
You are technically correct that converting from STD to SAE will require atmospheric data -- which I do not have. But from experience, I know the difference will be between 2% - 3%, so I chose 3% just to approximate. The error will only be a few wtq/whp, so it should be close enough to give a ball park idea of what SAE correction would be like.

Converting to CHP doesn't require any atmospheric data because you're only factoring drivetrain loss.
Appreciate 0
      10-14-2013, 08:17 AM   #264
Serpico
Banned
13

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: MD-NY


Posts: 625
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by regular guy View Post
You are technically correct that converting from STD to SAE will require atmospheric data -- which I do not have. But from experience, I know the difference will be between 2% - 3%, so I chose 3% just to approximate. The error will only be a few wtq/whp, so it should be close enough to give a ball park idea of what SAE correction would be like.

Converting to CHP doesn't require any atmospheric data because you're only factoring drivetrain loss.
If you don't know the conditions of CHP figures it really doesn't help either.

Maybe we should just pester them to get the graph up. I have a suspicion they didn't do that, because of higher RPM power, as 8000 rpm figures are not listed as well..
Appreciate 0
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:57 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