Active Autowerke Gen2 Level3 dyno day

[BPMSport]

Awesome numbers, looks great!

[pbonsalb]

Looks like a good power curve. As for comparing the numbers, I would compare them only to other Dyno Dynamics numbers. You can find some in the dynodatabase.

[Soorena]

Originally Posted by leigh

why does power drop off at about 7700rpm the car makes about 8.5psi there……..boost keeps climbing but power just drops off……..

The blower is out of it's efficiency range i presume.

[Mit_Boost]

Originally Posted by Soorena

The blower is out of it's efficiency range i presume.

Nope, you can easily run this blower 10+ psi, but if you ran 9+ on the OEM CR you'd start running into consistency problems (Boost, Ignition, IAT Suppression, etc).

[schnell325]

There will be my AA G2 L3 E92 M3 that will be run on the same 5252 Motorsports dyno by mid April to have a second set of numbers. I'm hoping to beat the yellow car's 632 whp by a few

[Soorena]

Originally Posted by Mit_Boost

Nope, you can easily run this blower 10+ psi, but if you ran 9+ on the OEM CR you'd start running into consistency problems (Boost, Ignition, IAT Suppression, etc).

According to my math, at 8000 rpm and 9 psi, the blower is at %68 efficiency range. Raise boost to +10 psi and it's off the shown efficiency islands in compressor map lol.

[pbonsalb]

AA did a Dynojet run of the big Rotrex C38-92 about a year ago. It was posted in this forum. I think it did 586/398 Dynojet SAE. It may have had a little more left in it, but despite the similar rated cfm numbers, even the biggest Rotrex appears to flow less than the Vortech V2/V3 Si Trim. It needed more boost than the Vortech to make the same number. That level power may be about all a stock S65 should take, so maybe more flow is not needed.

[Verify]

How many people are running 9-10 PSI on stock motors?

[Mit_Boost]

Originally Posted by Soorena

According to my math, at 8000 rpm and 9 psi, the blower is at %68 efficiency range. Raise boost to +10 psi and it's off the shown efficiency islands in compressor map lol.

On the "other forum", Evolve & AA both commented on running the blower effectively into the 13-14 psi range. Now I don't think Evolve & AA would recommend that high boost on a stock S65, otherwise they'd be offering kits above 10 psi, but it does show the versatility of the Rotrex C38 supercharger & how much it's got "left in it".

[SflBimmer8484]

Originally Posted by Ging

The VT3 is a low compression and takes more PSI to make same power.

The power drops close to redline because Active Autowerke keep BMW's Revlimiter strategy. BMW starts closing the throttles blades as it coming up to redline. Doing this helps the engine not slam into the limiter. Some tuner companies do away with this strategy and keep them open right to the limiter. This can gain 15-20whp but you are slamming the limiter and it can be hard on the engine and the blower. You can see the throttles start closing in the video on the final run. also this car has a 8100rpm redline




why does power drop off at about 7700rpm the car makes about 8.5psi there……..boost keeps climbing but power just drops off……..

Correct!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Mit_Boost

On the "other forum", Evolve & AA both commented on running the blower effectively into the 13-14 psi range. Now I don't think Evolve & AA would recommend that high boost on a stock S65, otherwise they'd be offering kits above 10 psi, but it does show the versatility of the Rotrex C38 supercharger & how much it's got "left in it".

And both companies sell a product using it...so of course they're going to say that. AA used to say that about the HKS too, but for the Rotrex case it's probably true. The Rotrex is rated at 720 CHP, so I'd have to say yes there's still plenty of room left in the Rotrex. Yet at the same time, if I'm not mistaken the built motor AA was going to be on Vortech instead of Rotrex. What ever happened to that build?

[SflBimmer8484]

I posted this the other day... As you can see this is not Flywheel hp. They put it in flywheel mode so they can alter the hp % to accurately match that of the high reading dynojets. We do the same on our mustang dyno when we multiply by 10% to get a good idea on where cars stack up.

Looks like the EAS Dyno is the high reader.....


----------------------------------------------------------------

VCM Auto Service Inc Posted this on their facebook today.

Before:Stock
345 whp 245 tq

After:
383.6 whp 280 tq

Mods:
Active Autowerke X-pipe
Active Autowerke under drive pulley
Active Autowerke Green air filter
Active Autowerke software tune
OEM exhaust mod

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Andrew@ActiveAutowerke

I posted this the other day... As you can see this is not Flywheel hp. They put it in flywheel mode so they can alter the hp % to accurately match that of the high reading dynojets. We do the same on our mustang dyno when we multiply by 10% to get a good idea on where cars stack up.

Looks like the EAS Dyno is the high reader.....


----------------------------------------------------------------

VCM Auto Service Inc Posted this on their facebook today.

Before:Stock
345 whp 245 tq

After:
383.6 whp 280 tq

Mods:
Active Autowerke X-pipe
Active Autowerke under drive pulley
Active Autowerke Green air filter
Active Autowerke software tune
OEM exhaust mod

I just wish they wouldn't screw with the way the dyno reports. I can't put any of this in the Dyno Database for Dyno Dynamics because it's not standard reporting, uses a correction factor, and uses non-standard SAE J1995 correction. I'd rather see this in normal Dyno Dynamics numbers with normal SAE J1349 correction so we know how to compare to other DD numbers posted.

Great numbers, but it's really impossible to know head's from tail's on this now.

Andrew, or anybody familiar with DD dyno's, is it possible to reprint the graphs without all the corrections in normal DD mode? I don't think it is...but if it is, maybe the OP can ask for non-corrected, and SAE-J1349 graphs.

[SflBimmer8484]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I just wish they wouldn't screw with the way the dyno reports. I can't put any of this in the Dyno Database for Dyno Dynamics because it's not standard reporting, uses a correction factor, and uses non-standard SAE J1995 correction. I'd rather see this in normal Dyno Dynamics numbers with normal SAE J1349 correction so we know how to compare to other DD numbers posted.

Great numbers, but it's really impossible to know head's from tail's on this now.

Andrew, or anybody familiar with DD dyno's, is it possible to reprint the graphs without all the corrections in normal DD mode? I don't think it is...but if it is, maybe the OP can ask for non-corrected, and SAE-J1349 graphs.

The numbers are pretty much spot on based on the other 8 cars that were dynoed that day.

For your dyno data base I agree it should be put in a standard format.
Ill see if Mark can get the numbers changed to the standard format after the run has been done.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Andrew@ActiveAutowerke

The numbers are pretty much spot on based on the other 8 cars that were dyno's that day.

For your dyno data base I agree it should be put in a standard format.
Ill see if Mark can get the numbers changed to the standard format after the run has been done.

BTW, J1995 vs. J1349 isn't a showstopper. It's only going to make a 2-3 whp difference on these runs. So if I can get normal DD printouts with J1995, I'll still take them. Since they provided the weather data, I can correct them back to normal SAE correction for the database. Thanks Andrew for seeing if this can be done.

[SflBimmer8484]

Originally Posted by regular guy

BTW, J1995 vs. J1349 isn't a showstopper. It's only going to make a 2-3 whp difference on these runs. So if I can get normal DD printouts with J1995, I'll still take them. Since they provided the weather data, I can correct them back to normal SAE correction for the database. Thanks Andrew for seeing if this can be done.

Not a problem. Thank you for trying to keep everything equal.

[Mit_Boost]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Yet at the same time, if I'm not mistaken the built motor AA was going to be on Vortech instead of Rotrex. What ever happened to that build?

Think that build was slated for a YSI, videos 1 1/2 yrs old....

But I 100% agree, the V3 & C38 are not going to maximize the potential of a properly built low-compression S65. Ideally you will need something like a YSI or ProCharger F-1X. But if it was me, I'd go for a TT setup & really expose the VE of the S65 and get a LOT more area under the curve.

[pbonsalb]

V2-Ti Trim for a built motor.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

V2-Ti Trim for a built motor.

Yep: V2-Ti. You beat me to it.

[Soorena]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

AA did a Dynojet run of the big Rotrex C38-92 about a year ago. It was posted in this forum. I think it did 586/398 Dynojet SAE. It may have had a little more left in it, but despite the similar rated cfm numbers, even the biggest Rotrex appears to flow less than the Vortech V2/V3 Si Trim. It needed more boost than the Vortech to make the same number. That level power may be about all a stock S65 should take, so maybe more flow is not needed.

I'm having an eye on the soon-to-released ASA T1-725. God forbids if i turn my build from NA to boosted, it would likely have that blower. 830hp rated and planetary gears.

Originally Posted by Mit_Boost

On the "other forum", Evolve & AA both commented on running the blower effectively into the 13-14 psi range. Now I don't think Evolve & AA would recommend that high boost on a stock S65, otherwise they'd be offering kits above 10 psi, but it does show the versatility of the Rotrex C38 supercharger & how much it's got "left in it".

Well i just told you the efficiency is dropped to 68% at 9 psi. at 13-14 psi, it would be less than 50%. IIRC Sal was firmly against over spinning the blower and clearly to get 13 psi you should over spin the unit. That's why the most psi Evolve kit makes is LM's 8 psi not 10 or 12.

Originally Posted by regular guy

It's no secret that i looked at a TT design with a stand alone ECU. I bought the mock up turbo's (non-functional units you can borrow for a refundable fee) and we took the undercarriage off the car to mock up and place them. Even though I will have a substantial space advantage of using a dry sump over the much larger factory wet sump, my team of guys advised me that the low placement of the turbos wouldn't have been able to scavenge the heat properly. I trusted their experience and advice and I gave up on that idea.

Dry sump? I'm jealous. I may go that route. Did going single turbo cross your mind? Removing the airbox gives enough space for a top mount setup. When my airbox was out my fabricator told me that he could mount a Holset HX55 in there. The problem is the route for passenger side manifold. With the oem wet sump system in place, you will either hit the subframe or the steeringbox. Dry sump might be a different story.

[schnell325]

I can't wait for my DDynamics run.



It'll shut up a few folks.



But. It's been kinda quiet.

[Mit_Boost]

Originally Posted by Soorena

Well i just told you the efficiency is dropped to 68% at 9 psi. at 13-14 psi, it would be less than 50%.

Your memory is fading

evolve
Now someone also pointed out boost on the Rotrex kits.

Yes, 10 PSI is EASY to achieve on a Rotrex.

If the blower was that far out of it's efficiency range, it wouldn't be making the power that LM's been showcasing with 130+ traps