Gintani Twin Turbo E9X M3 Kit Dyno Graphs and Video

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

It's called pedantry. Geeze, get a dictionary!



I'm only kidding I know exactly what you're talking about

Now this is the kind of humor and needling that makes me laugh. Well done!

[Wild_Will]

Originally Posted by MPowerZ32

Can we get back to talking about TT S65 now?

I hope the price of the kit is reasonable. Group buy, Gintani?

15K easy with that good ol BMW tax.

[Wild_Will]

Originally Posted by JetBlack5OC

They never quoted any price. Just speculation.

You ever seen how much HPF use to charge for some of their kits for the outdated E46?

Who cares if it's soon to be outdated?

It's a legendary race bred 20K High Revving V8 lol,you have to pay to play guy.

[Verify]

Originally Posted by Wild_Will

It's a legendary race bred 20K High Revving V8 lol,you have to pay to play guy.

So why dont you have your kit yet? You are getting one right?

[Charles@Gintani.com]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Here's the Gintani Twin Turbo Dyno Database entries. Please check for accuracy.

Car and Modifications:

• 2008 BMW M3
• Gintani Twin Turbo
• 7.50 PSI Boost (Verified)
• Both CAT Delete
• Gintani CATLESS Cross-Pipe
• Gintani Race Exhaust Rear Section
• 91 Octane
• 6MT

Conditions (Dynojet Weather Station):

• Temperature:: 83.03 degrees F
• Atmospheric pressure: 29.09 inHg
• Humidity: 31%
• Density Altitude: 3826 Ft.
• SAE Correction: 1.027
• STD Correction: 1.056
• Uncorrected: 1.000

Results:

• SAE Corrected: 596whp @ 8080 RPM, 428wtq @ 6170 RPM
• STD Corrected: 608whp, 436wtq
• Uncorrected: 581whp, 417wtq

Dyno Database:

• Dyno files are available from the links below.
• SAE Corrected, STD Corrected, Uncorrected

Graphs:
SAE Correction:





STD Correction:





Uncorrected:





Engine Vital Statistics:



Gintani Twin Turbo HP, TQ, Boost Comparison with Gintani Stage-2 Supercharger:

Thank you Robert for putting this together for us!

[AlexTek]

Any update and Price info??

[SilentAttack]

I thought the TQ #s would be a little better with turbos...

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Charles@Gintani.com

Thank you Robert for putting this together for us!

Any time!

[Charles@Gintani.com]

Originally Posted by SilentAttack

I thought the TQ #s would be a little better with turbos...

• From 3700 RPM to 4600 RPM – The Twin Turbo makes 80+ WTQ more vs SC.
• From 5500 RPM to 6200 RPM – The Twin Turbo makes 100+ WTQ more vs SC.
• From 6200 RPM to 7200 RPM – The Twin Turbo makes 60+ WTQ more vs SC.
• From 7200 RPM to Redline – The Twin Turbo makes 40+ WTQ more vs SC.

[SilentAttack]

Originally Posted by Charles@Gintani.com

• From 3700 RPM to 4600 RPM The Twin Turbo makes 80+ WTQ more vs SC.
• From 5500 RPM to 6200 RPM The Twin Turbo makes 100+ WTQ more vs SC.
• From 6200 RPM to 7200 RPM The Twin Turbo makes 60+ WTQ more vs SC.
• From 7200 RPM to Redline The Twin Turbo makes 40+ WTQ more vs SC.

Thanks for that info!!! Looking forward to the release

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Charles@Gintani.com

• From 3700 RPM to 4600 RPM – The Twin Turbo makes 80+ WTQ more vs SC.
• From 5500 RPM to 6200 RPM – The Twin Turbo makes 100+ WTQ more vs SC.
• From 6200 RPM to 7200 RPM – The Twin Turbo makes 60+ WTQ more vs SC.
• From 7200 RPM to Redline – The Twin Turbo makes 40+ WTQ more vs SC.

Minor improvements lol

[GabeS]

I am curious, if one was looking for a bit more power/boost, without a full engine build.
Would just swapping to forged rods and pistons allow for, higher psi?
Shooting for low 700's to the wheels?

[REP1KRR]

I imagine this is going to be a dream set-up for us folks at high-altitude?!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by GabeS

I am curious, if one was looking for a bit more power/boost, without a full engine build.
Would just swapping to forged rods and pistons allow for, higher psi?
Shooting for low 700's to the wheels?

Gabe, swapping rods and pistons would end up being a full engine build. To swap out the pistons, you need to completely disassemble the engine. Technically you might not need to disassemble the bed plate, but that's only saving you 1-hour of labor. So at that point you're on the hook for a full engine rebuild. Also don't forget when you cross that magical 600whp mark, you also need to upgrade your fuel system.

[FMOSRacing]

Man a lot of energy and space is used debating behavior over a very small range of the performance scale. I don't drive with my foot flat on the floor every moment that I spend in the car, so getting totally hung up on performance at WOT and at max RPM totally misses one of the best things about a turbocharged setup.

To state something obvious, turbos are not mechanically coupled to the engine and therefore aren't totally dependent on engine speed. One of the most grin-inducing parts of driving a turbocharged car, and something that sets it completely apart from any supercharged application, is full boost at mid-range rpms and part throttle. It is the one thing I most miss about my 335i compared to my M3.

Working through traffic in the M requires you to almost beg it, then beat it, you have to keep the revs up and work the gears. While I love this on a winding road, I hate it in the cut and thrust of the daily commute. A turbocharged car, with its loads of mid-range torque, makes all of that irrelevant.

It's true that at the upper limits, at WOT, 600 rwhp is 600 rwhp in terms of acceleration. But seeing a turbocharger vs supercharger comparison through that microscope totally misses one of the joys of driving a turbocharged vehicle.

And it also misses something even more critical - The engine internals of a turbocharged car see far less load than the engine internals of a supercharged car making exactly the same amount of power to the wheels. It won't be any faster, but the reliability increases. This is because the "pumping loss" for a turbocharged motor caused by the increase in exhaust backpressure is far less than power required to drive a supercharger.

[Nordstat]

Originally Posted by FMOSRacing

Man a lot of energy and space is used debating behavior over a very small range of the performance scale. I don't drive with my foot flat on the floor every moment that I spend in the car, so getting totally hung up on performance at WOT and at max RPM totally misses one of the best things about a turbocharged setup.

To state something obvious, turbos are not mechanically coupled to the engine and therefore aren't totally dependent on engine speed. One of the most grin-inducing parts of driving a turbocharged car, and something that sets it completely apart from any supercharged application, is full boost at mid-range rpms and part throttle. It is the one thing I most miss about my 335i compared to my M3.

Working through traffic in the M requires you to almost beg it, then beat it, you have to keep the revs up and work the gears. While I love this on a winding road, I hate it in the cut and thrust of the daily commute. A turbocharged car, with its loads of mid-range torque, makes all of that irrelevant.

It's true that at the upper limits, at WOT, 600 rwhp is 600 rwhp in terms of acceleration. But seeing a turbocharger vs supercharger comparison through that microscope totally misses one of the joys of driving a turbocharged vehicle.

And it also misses something even more critical - The engine internals of a turbocharged car see far less load than the engine internals of a supercharged car making exactly the same amount of power to the wheels. It won't be any faster, but the reliability increases. This is because the "pumping loss" for a turbocharged motor caused by the increase in exhaust backpressure is far less than power required to drive a supercharger.

...which, if I am not mistaken, is on the order of 2-3 hp max for modern vortech systems (i.e. almost negligible from a wear-and-tear perspective on a 600+ BHP engine). Boost is boost, and with a high-compression engine like the S65, I don't think there would be any serious engine reliability differences between SC and TC cars with identical WHP. If anything, I feel the TC car would have more wear as it is seeing more boost (and therefore more torque) more of the time compared to an SC car, bringing the reliability of other car components into question.

[Soorena]

^ Two things. First off, a supercharger definitely sucks a lot more than 2-3hp. Secondly, TC boost is not the same as SC boost. It's the CFM that matters, boost is just a number.

[FMOSRacing]

I'd be willing to bet that just the added mass and drag of the crank pulley and belt is more than 2-3 hp.

Here's a really quick, napkin math attempt at explaining how compressors work (I'm a mechanical engineer, pumps and pipes pay for my toys. Superchargers are pumps).

First, it requires power to compress air. Period. It's basic Thermodynamics. This is not arguable or negotiable. My quick napkin math says that an 80% efficient compressor (the V3-Si has a max efficiency of just under 80%, but I didn't look up a map to see what pressure ratio, mass flow or impeller RPM that maximum occured at, I'm just giving it the benefit of the doubt) REQUIRES ~53hp to create 7.5 psi at 847 cfm (needed by a 600 whp M3 turning 8000 rpms) post intercoooler, again using a generous 80% efficiency for the intercooler.

This is being gentle with the friction losses and is completely ignoring other mechanical losses due to the mass of the various components involved. My guess, based on experience (I've been building, daily driving and racing power adder cars since 1995), is that you're probably looking at another 20% or so in drive losses, so that makes that number ~65 hp.

65 hp from a very efficient supercharger that is driven directly off the front of the motor. That power doesn't make it to the tires.

For a turbocharged application at the same wheel power level, all of that is power is reclaimed using the reverse process to extract waste energy from the exhaust gas by expanding and cooling it (most of the energy comes from thermodynamic processes, not the velocity of the exhaust gases). There is some cost in terms of reduced efficiency due to the increase in exhaust backpressure, but that backpressure also actually helps the engine by countering the load on the rods as the pistons approach TDC on the exhaust stroke.

What this means is that the 600 whp supercharged car has to make ~10% more power than the 600 whp turbocharged car based on my quick run through.

There are reasons no major manufacturer has ever put a centrifugal supercharger on a production application and those reasons are NOT ease-of-design and packaging, but those are major reasons why they're appealing to the aftermarket. Those same major manufacturers put the time and money into engineering, testing, packaging and installing turbochargers for two major reasons - efficiency and reliability. Typically even the ones who dabbled in positive displacement superchargers have been primarily using those as a stepping stone to go eventually go turbo.

I'm in no way knocking belt-driven superchargers (I've ran units from Powerdyne, Vortech, Procharger, Kenne Bell and Eaton), just trying to explain why they do cost power that turbochargers get back almost for free. Supercharger systems are easier to design and install, they're less complicated and generally less expensive. But there really is no argument that turbochargers are more efficient.

[bdaddylo]

Well explained, FMROSRacing!!! Thanks for educating the internet geniuses on the forum.

Originally Posted by FMOSRacing

I'd be willing to bet that just the added mass and drag of the crank pulley and belt is more than 2-3 hp.

Here's a really quick, napkin math attempt at explaining how compressors work (I'm a mechanical engineer, pumps and pipes pay for my toys. Superchargers are pumps).

First, it requires power to compress air. Period. It's basic Thermodynamics. This is not arguable or negotiable. My quick napkin math says that an 80% efficient compressor (the V3-Si has a max efficiency of just under 80%, but I didn't look up a map to see what pressure ratio, mass flow or impeller RPM that maximum occured at, I'm just giving it the benefit of the doubt) REQUIRES ~53hp to create 7.5 psi at 847 cfm (needed by a 600 whp M3 turning 8000 rpms) post intercoooler, again using a generous 80% efficiency for the intercooler.

This is being gentle with the friction losses and is completely ignoring other mechanical losses due to the mass of the various components involved. My guess, based on experience (I've been building, daily driving and racing power adder cars since 1995), is that you're probably looking at another 20% or so in drive losses, so that makes that number ~65 hp.

65 hp from a very efficient supercharger that is driven directly off the front of the motor. That power doesn't make it to the tires.

For a turbocharged application at the same wheel power level, all of that is power is reclaimed using the reverse process to extract waste energy from the exhaust gas by expanding and cooling it (most of the energy comes from thermodynamic processes, not the velocity of the exhaust gases). There is some cost in terms of reduced efficiency due to the increase in exhaust backpressure, but that backpressure also actually helps the engine by countering the load on the rods as the pistons approach TDC on the exhaust stroke.

What this means is that the 600 whp supercharged car has to make ~10% more power than the 600 whp turbocharged car based on my quick run through.

There are reasons no major manufacturer has ever put a centrifugal supercharger on a production application and those reasons are NOT ease-of-design and packaging, but those are major reasons why they're appealing to the aftermarket. Those same major manufacturers put the time and money into engineering, testing, packaging and installing turbochargers for two major reasons - efficiency and reliability. Typically even the ones who dabbled in positive displacement superchargers have been primarily using those as a stepping stone to go eventually go turbo.

I'm in no way knocking belt-driven superchargers (I've ran units from Powerdyne, Vortech, Procharger, Kenne Bell and Eaton), just trying to explain why they do cost power that turbochargers get back almost for free. Supercharger systems are easier to design and install, they're less complicated and generally less expensive. But there really is no argument that turbochargers are more efficient.

[tinman831]

Originally Posted by bdaddylo

Well explained, FMROSRacing!!! Thanks for educating the internet geniuses on the forum.

What FMROSRacing posted is one of the well known downsides to superchargers. It simply takes power to make power. But the power delivery is almost instantaneous. On a turbo setup, usually you get lag as the turbos spool up but there is no "parasitic draw" as you might say. However, the newer turbo systems have very little lag if at all. This Gitani kit looks very promising.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by FMOSRacing

I'd be willing to bet that just the added mass and drag of the crank pulley and belt is more than 2-3 hp.

Here's a really quick, napkin math attempt at explaining how compressors work (I'm a mechanical engineer, pumps and pipes pay for my toys. Superchargers are pumps).

First, it requires power to compress air. Period. It's basic Thermodynamics. This is not arguable or negotiable. My quick napkin math says that an 80% efficient compressor (the V3-Si has a max efficiency of just under 80%, but I didn't look up a map to see what pressure ratio, mass flow or impeller RPM that maximum occured at, I'm just giving it the benefit of the doubt) REQUIRES ~53hp to create 7.5 psi at 847 cfm (needed by a 600 whp M3 turning 8000 rpms) post intercoooler, again using a generous 80% efficiency for the intercooler.

This is being gentle with the friction losses and is completely ignoring other mechanical losses due to the mass of the various components involved. My guess, based on experience (I've been building, daily driving and racing power adder cars since 1995), is that you're probably looking at another 20% or so in drive losses, so that makes that number ~65 hp.

65 hp from a very efficient supercharger that is driven directly off the front of the motor. That power doesn't make it to the tires.

For a turbocharged application at the same wheel power level, all of that is power is reclaimed using the reverse process to extract waste energy from the exhaust gas by expanding and cooling it (most of the energy comes from thermodynamic processes, not the velocity of the exhaust gases). There is some cost in terms of reduced efficiency due to the increase in exhaust backpressure, but that backpressure also actually helps the engine by countering the load on the rods as the pistons approach TDC on the exhaust stroke.

What this means is that the 600 whp supercharged car has to make ~10% more power than the 600 whp turbocharged car based on my quick run through.

There are reasons no major manufacturer has ever put a centrifugal supercharger on a production application and those reasons are NOT ease-of-design and packaging, but those are major reasons why they're appealing to the aftermarket. Those same major manufacturers put the time and money into engineering, testing, packaging and installing turbochargers for two major reasons - efficiency and reliability. Typically even the ones who dabbled in positive displacement superchargers have been primarily using those as a stepping stone to go eventually go turbo.

I'm in no way knocking belt-driven superchargers (I've ran units from Powerdyne, Vortech, Procharger, Kenne Bell and Eaton), just trying to explain why they do cost power that turbochargers get back almost for free. Supercharger systems are easier to design and install, they're less complicated and generally less expensive. But there really is no argument that turbochargers are more efficient.

Always good to hear from experts with solid theoretical knowledge and field experience.

[meez]

What's this?

ACTUAL MEANINGFUL INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE?

THANK YOU GOD.