Gintani Twin Turbo E9X M3 Kit Dyno Graphs and Video

[happos2]

Great Job Gintani. Not sure what the last two pages has to do with your product but I appreciate you supplying the dyno information!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Final drive swaps don't change the ratios, and therefore don't change the RPM drops, and therefore don't change the amount of time in each gear

The last part is absolutely false.

A final drive swap changes the amount of time in each and every gear under WOT acceleration conditions (lowering each time for a numerically higher FD and raising the time for a numerically lower). This is the fundamental reason why overall performance results are not improved by such a modification (typically a higher FD). Despite make more wheel torque as a function of rpm, it (obviously) doesn't make more crank power nor average wheel power as a function of time.

[Jonjt]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

Point taken!

But one thing I disagree is that an M3 is a worst investment then a 335, it will always depends what year and condition you buy but generally, a 335 will have a bigger % of depreciation then an M3, and theoricly, the M3 should also be more reliable!

Well, I tend to keep my cars for a long time so, just about everything I buy will end up worthless, by the time I'm done with it.

But you are right, the M3 is more reliable.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The last part is absolutely false.

A final drive swap changes the amount of time in each and every gear under WOT acceleration conditions (lowering each time for a numerically higher FD and raising the time for a numerically lower). This is the fundamental reason why overall performance results are not improved by such a modification (typically a higher FD). Despite make more wheel torque as a function of rpm, it (obviously) doesn't make more crank power nor average wheel power as a function of time.

Why did you remove the section of my post that qualified what I was saying? By removing it you changed the meaning of what I said. Just another example.

[Lucrecio84]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I realize you didn't say this explicitly, but you imply it with that comment. It sounds like you would believe 1000hp on something like 93 octane, and that means you'll also believe something like 950hp on 91 octane (which would be a guestimate of the difference between the two). But it's that extra 50hp that is hard to believe?

I'm not sure I follow that reasoning. If that's not what you meant, then please explain.

Within two months of the CTSV's release, there was a shop in SoCal (Church's Automotive) that dyno's 950whp right before SEMA. That would be approximately 1080 crank horsepower. I was there the day after and they were all talking about it. And that was only two or three months after the car was released. I don't know what gas they used however.

What I was arguing against was those that are talking crap on the numbers this kit produced when they are barely wetting their feet and there is still so much more potential. You guys are comparing the numbers on CUSTOM FULLY BUILT 8.3 liter motors to a twin turbo KIT running a VERY conservative tune on a STOCK MOTOR. Sure they may have done it only two months after the release of the car but lets get real here, its an american car, not a BMW. Anyone can throw a huge engine in a car, slap on a supercharger and call it a day. There's nothing impressive about that. Making the same amount of horsepower with 50% less displacement, not THATS impressive

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Why did you remove the section of my post that qualified what I was saying? By removing it you changed the meaning of what I said. Just another example.

No, no meaning changed whatsoever. The sentence stands alone as a supporting point to the rest of your point(s) and it clearly is a complete statement. That point is, again, completely false. I didn't feel like analyzing the rest of the thought train, but if it hinges critically on the statement I quoted, then the conclusion is also wrong.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

No, no meaning changed whatsoever. The sentence stands alone as a supporting point to the rest of your point(s) and it clearly is a complete statement. That point is, again, completely false. I didn't feel like analyzing the rest of the thought train, but if it hinges critically on the statement I quoted, then the conclusion is also wrong.

No it doesn't. Removing the context changes the meaning. Furthermore, my comments are contextually dependent on the post I referenced. But you are free to believe whatever you want.

[Trip3's]

Originally Posted by swamp2

No, no meaning changed whatsoever. The sentence stands alone as a supporting point to the rest of your point(s) and it clearly is a complete statement. That point is, again, completely false. I didn't feel like analyzing the rest of the thought train, but if it hinges critically on the statement I quoted, then the conclusion is also wrong.

Originally Posted by regular guy

No it doesn't. Removing the context changes the meaning. Furthermore, my comments are contextually dependent on the post I referenced. But you are free to believe whatever you want.

[MPowerZ32]

Can we get back to talking about TT S65 now?

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

[M3Carbon]

Hope it's close in price to the 650 SC kit (or better). Anything substantially more than that would shrink the market.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by M3Carbon

Hope it's close in price to the 650 SC kit (or better). Anything substantially more than that would shrink the market.

[e92stance]

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?

Good point.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by e92stance

Good point.

I think a lot of people missed seeing this.

Originally Posted by Sales@Gintani.com

Here's some ballpark pricing, we are expecting the kit to be anywhere from $15,000 - $18,000.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=351

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Final drive swaps don't change the ratios, and therefore don't change the RPM drops, and therefore don't change the amount of time in each gear,...

Sorry, there are no if's and'd or but's, this is categorically false and it is a full and complete thought.

I'm sure you now understand your error but when swapping a FD, just for example to a numerically higher one, the top speed in each gear is decreased average in gear acceleration increases and this the time spent in each gear decreases. PERIOD.

[TrevorM3]

my head hurts.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Sorry, there are no if's and'd or but's, this is categorically false and it is a full and complete thought.

Then I guess the joke's on you.

I'm sure you now understand your error but when swapping a FD, just for example to a numerically higher one, the top speed in each gear is decreased average in gear acceleration increases and this the time spent in each gear decreases. PERIOD.

Of course if you had read the previous comments and didn't take what I said out of context (again), then I'm sure you would understand your error as well.

PERIOD.

[E92cannon]

Just remembered that HPF turbo kit was LHD only i take it this kit could go on a RHD car ?? I can see any reason why it wouldnt.

[dfjaws]

There was at least one RHD HPF car, iirc though, it was utilizing two smaller twins vs the big single so it could fit the steering column.

[E92cannon]

Yes i saw the TT e46 which was for the rhd market, hope this kit is also made for rhd aswell as lhd. As per, you americans get all the cool stuff and we dont hahah

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Then I guess the joke's on you.



Of course if you had read the previous comments and didn't take what I said out of context (again), then I'm sure you would understand your error as well.

PERIOD.

No context can change the meaning or provide "appropriate context" when a particular sentence is complete, clear and has unambiguous meaning on its own. Your pig-headedness is unreal. I've admitted my mistakes MANY times here on this forum. No one is perfect. Oh wait, I guess regular_guy is. My bad. Get over yourself, move along.

[V8FunNaturally]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Then I guess the joke's on you.



Of course if you had read the previous comments and didn't take what I said out of context (again), then I'm sure you would understand your error as well.

PERIOD.

Originally Posted by swamp2

No context can change the meaning or provide "appropriate context" when a particular sentence is complete, clear and has unambiguous meaning on its own. Your pig-headedness is unreal. I've admitted my mistakes MANY times here on this forum. No one is perfect. Oh wait, I guess regular_guy is. My bad. Get over yourself, move along.

Ok guys, I know each of you (swamp since 2007 and regularguy since circa 2012) , and the subject of contention is more than trivial. So i'll make a clear cut of it.

Every word swamp has written is correct. Not one word is incorrect.
However regular guy was trying to talk about rpm drop between gears when the clutch is disengaged. Obviously during that time interval the engine crankshaft is decoupled from the drivetrain and only rotates the flywheel. The gearbox input shaft is always connected to the road wheels through the final drive of the differential. When you disengage the clutch, you usually let go of throttle (unless you're heel and toeing or have a dct gearbox which may/can control throttling during shifts), and the engine RPM will drop (and hence boost as well). This will be completely independent from whatever gearing or final drive ratios you have. When it comes to discussing not loosing boost, between gears when clutch is disengaged the only thing that matters is throttle, and gearing ratio is completely irrelevant. So Regular guy you either didn't express yourself clearly or you are confused or both.
On the other hand, when the clutch is engaged gearing ratios (including final drive ratio ) absolutely matters at determining wheel torque at a given engine RPM. A higher FD ratio will result in more wheel torque but if you calculate the power at the wheels for that engine RPM, it remain unchanged as now the wheels turns more slowly (wheel power being the product of wheel torque and wheels rpm if you ignore tires traction losses ).

That is why changing ratios does not make your car more powerful (as swamp correctly stated). higher gearing ratio, results in moving the shifting points to slower car speeds.

As far as boost, higher gearing ratios will maximize boost at low car speeds while lower gearing ratio will result in lower engine rpm at lower car speeds and less boost.

Whatever the discussion gearbox ratios and FD ratio are never decoupled.
total gearing = gearing ratios * final drive.

So swamp is right in saying whatever context you were in your statement was simply wrong. You should have taken that opportunity to rephrase your thoughts (and maybe you would have found that the rest was wrong too).

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by regular guy

And I'll add this: that's the part of forum posting that I despise -- people who intentionally want to argue with you over the definition of a word, or a missing word, or a missing comma -- when they know exactly what you're talking about anyways.

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



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