Heart broken after dyno. Ess S/c m3 and AA s/c m3

[BrewRifle]

Have you verified your boost PSI numbers throughout the entire RPM range?

[Properstyle]

Originally Posted by Iyzmi

Well the results are in. The attached dyno chart is with the 94mm pulley and bags of ice on the intake manifold and supercharger. First pull was with the filter sock and last 2 were without. The filter sock made no difference, in fact I made the most power with it on.

I'm now at 512hp/343tq, which is up 31hp from last time with the 96.5mm pulley. This still seems low to me based on other graphs I've seen, especially with the 94mm pulley and high IATs accounted for with the ice. I think it would be fair to expect 540-550whp. Not sure what else to check from here, feels like I'm just chasing my tail now.

do you know what your IAT actually were? if there were over 100 you car will pull timing. I saw as low as 480 on a dyno in 94 degree weather, car was just too hot and humity was a killer. car lost 80whp from my previous dyno which was 565 wheel.

[Iyzmi]

Originally Posted by Properstyle

do you know what your IAT actually were? if there were over 100 you car will pull timing. I saw as low as 480 on a dyno in 94 degree weather, car was just too hot and humity was a killer. car lost 80whp from my previous dyno which was 565 wheel.

I don't know the exact IAT unfortunately. Ambient temp was around 85F and humidity was 70%. My thought is that the bags of ice would help negate these factors. The manifold and supercharger were both cool to the touch unlike my other pulls where they felt quite warm. Is my reasoning flawed?

[Properstyle]

Originally Posted by Iyzmi

I don't know the exact IAT unfortunately. Ambient temp was around 85F and humidity was 70%. My thought is that the bags of ice would help negate these factors. The manifold and supercharger were both cool to the touch unlike my other pulls where they felt quite warm. Is my reasoning flawed?

the top of the manifold may be cool but if the sensor is seeing other wise thats what matters. A normall test is how cool the coolant in the system is. If its hot it doesn't matter if the manifold is cool.

[Iyzmi]

Originally Posted by Properstyle

the top of the manifold may be cool but if the sensor is seeing other wise thats what matters. A normall test is how cool the coolant in the system is. If its hot it doesn't matter if the manifold is cool.

You're probably right. Another observation I have is that I made 512hp on the first pull and then immediately dropped 7hp on the subsequent pulls. The previous chart with the 96.5 pulley was more consistent between all 3 pulls. This leads me to believe I may have cooled things down a bit with the ice, but any gains associated with that were quickly lost. AJ said the pulley should get me 20hp, so the other ~10 could be an initial boost from the ice before temps climbed back up and eliminated that gain. All speculation, obviously.

I'll plan on finding another dynojet shop that is able to log boost and schedule some time in the fall when temps cool down to the 50s. That will be the true test.

[azndrunk74]

Originally Posted by Iyzmi

You're probably right. Another observation I have is that I made 512hp on the first pull and then immediately dropped 7hp on the subsequent pulls. The previous chart with the 96.5 pulley was more consistent between all 3 pulls. This leads me to believe I may have cooled things down a bit with the ice, but any gains associated with that were quickly lost. AJ said the pulley should get me 20hp, so the other ~10 could be an initial boost from the ice before temps climbed back up and eliminated that gain. All speculation, obviously.

I'll plan on finding another dynojet shop that is able to log boost and schedule some time in the fall when temps cool down to the 50s. That will be the true test.

You’ll probably be fine when ambient temps drop. My car did 530whp in 90 deg. F. It lost a good 50-60whp due to heat.

[pbonsalb]

Could your rear cats cause a loss compared to catless cars at this power level?

Your dyno in STD rather than SAE would be 525 rwhp.

[Iyzmi]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Could your rear cats cause a loss compared to catless cars at this power level?

Your dyno in STD rather than SAE would be 525 rwhp.

Doubtful. I've seen plenty of charts showing minimal gains between a fully catless xpipe and test pipes. We're talking maybe 10hp, not 40-50hp. I think 505-512hp would be appropriate results for a 625 kit + stock cats. With the 94mm pulley I'm essentially running a 650 kit now and with that in mind the numbers are very disappointing.

I'm comparing to other SAE Dynojet charts. If we were to switch to STD then everyone gets a bump. I'm not concerned about the number itself, not looking for bragging rights here. I just want to make sure the numbers lineup with what others are making to ensure everything is operating at 100% and I'm not leaving (significant) power on the table. I have yet to see an ESS 650 dyno chart lower than mine .

How do you Florida guys make power? Isn't it almost always above 80F with high humidity there? Properstyle What were the temps during your 565hp run?

[Properstyle]

Originally Posted by Iyzmi

Doubtful. I've seen plenty of charts showing minimal gains between a fully catless xpipe and test pipes. We're talking maybe 10hp, not 40-50hp. I think 505-512hp would be appropriate results for a 625 kit + stock cats. With the 94mm pulley I'm essentially running a 650 kit now and with that in mind the numbers are very disappointing.

I'm comparing to other SAE Dynojet charts. If we were to switch to STD then everyone gets a bump. I'm not concerned about the number itself, not looking for bragging rights here. I just want to make sure the numbers lineup with what others are making to ensure everything is operating at 100% and I'm not leaving (significant) power on the table. I have yet to see an ESS 650 dyno chart lower than mine .

How do you Florida guys make power? Isn't it almost always above 80F with high humidity there? Properstyle What were the temps during your 565hp run?

It was 70 i dyno during winter like begging at feb it was pretty cool out.

[Iyzmi]

Alright folks, I believe I've gotten to the bottom of this and as I initially suspected it has nothing to do with high IATs and/or pulled timing. Last week my buddy took his car to our trusted indy shop to diagnose this power loss issue. The tech mentioned that when he installs supercharger kits on these cars he uses a Y-fitting for the BPV vacuum line instead of the T-fitting ESS provides. The T-fitting causes air turbulence and does not allow the BPV to operate properly. Sure enough, after we both replaced the T with a Y we noticed a big butt dyno gain as well as much smoother acceleration under partial throttle. We have not taken our cars back to the dyno yet to confirm, but I am fairly confident we are making expected power levels now. The difference is quite noticeable.

When I had originally installed my 550 kit I left the BPV connection straight because the vacuum hose came attached to the T-fitting in this configuration and it made sense that the BPV should have vacuum "priority". I made a disappointing 450whp in cool fall weather with that setup and always felt uneven acceleration under partial throttle between 4-6k RPM, which led me on a boost leak goose chase. Eventually, the BPV started making a knocking noise at idle due to vacuum pulses when the system was in EVAP purge mode. Exactly as described here:
https://www.gmpperformance.com/galle...ibach-springs/

The ESS instructions are inconstant in regards to the proper way to install the T-fitting. In some pictures the OEM connection is kept straight while in others the BPV line is straight. I took some screenshots of this inconsistency last year and posted them here when I thought I had it all figured out:
https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1388428

At that point I switched the BPV vac line over to the stem of the T-fitting to allow the OEM connection to remain inline and this eliminated the BPV knocking. Looking back, I should've swapped in a Y-fitting right then and there based on the GMP advise but figured everyone else is using a T-fitting without issues so it can't be that big of a deal. Well, fast forward to my disappointing 625 and 625+ dyno numbers and clearly it was an issue no matter how I had the vac lines connected to the T.

Long story short, ESS should be including a Y-fitting and I imagine there are a good number of ESS cars out there with undiagnosed BPV issues because of this.

[BrewRifle]

Now you've got me thinking of changing out my T fitting for Y one. I've never heard any weird knocking noises with my BPV at idle however.

[tom @ eas]

We've installed a ton of these and never once had any issues with the T-fittings.

I've seen a couple of cases on particular M3s in which the dyno won't see a proper boost reading, but no affect on power.

[i_love_cars]

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

We've installed a ton of these and never once had any issues with the T-fittings.

I've seen a couple of cases on particular M3s in which the dyno won't see a proper boost reading, but no affect on power.

So, for reference I'm the other guy.

We both have identical setups, live 30 miles apart, and put down within 4 hp of each other on the same dyno - I did 485 and he did 481. That's not normal.

I verified this last week by running a direct boost tap to one of your pre-tapped velocity stacks on my manifold and was only able to produce 5.5 PSI with my 625 kit *until* that T was replaced with a Y fitting. We have done multiple boost pressure tests before/after in the shop as well to verify there are no leaks. New belt, new tensioner, brand new BPV from AJ at ESS, new o2 sensors, plugs, and coils - literally everything you could replace to ensure the car is running correctly I have done.

The car ran like a raped ape after replacing the tee and boost immediately started reading around 6.5 psi and was doing it consistently.

I also work with some dedicated BMW performance shops in the Chicago area who have installed many of these kits and they always use a Y fitting, never the provided T from ESS. I think either can work - it's probably not an exact science considering the entire ESS blower kit is literally a parts-bin other than the manifold.

I don't think it should be said that everyone needs to run a Y fitting. Surely we have seen many cars producing proper boost but vacuum can be inconsistent and if the BPV isn't getting enough it's going to release prematurely. That is exactly what my car was doing.

The takeaway here should be that it's a cheap adjustment that can be made in troubleshooting boost loss issues if one has already ruled out the very obvious culprits of boost leak or slipping belt/weak tensioner.

[Iyzmi]

Originally Posted by BrewRifle

Now you've got me thinking of changing out my T fitting for Y one. I've never heard any weird knocking noises with my BPV at idle however.

I don't even remember how I stumbled upon the GMP post I linked but it was certainly not easy to find and there has never been any mention of it on the forums. I spoke with Vortech and ESS about this and neither of them had heard of this knocking issue either. I don’t think it’s common.

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

We've installed a ton of these and never once had any issues with the T-fittings.

I've seen a couple of cases on particular M3s in which the dyno won't see a proper boost reading, but no affect on power.

I don't think it's a widespread issue, but as luck would have it both my buddy and I were losing serious power over this. When you install these kits, do you keep the BPV connection straight despite the ESS VT2 instructions showing it T'ed off?



I wouldn't go to the extent of advocating for everyone to go and change over from a T to a Y, if it ain't broke don't fix it. But it's a good place to start when diagnosing this type of issue and I've never seen anyone bring it up before so I decided to share these findings. Frankly, I see no advantage to the T and no disadvantage to the Y. The Y-fitting logically provides smoother airflow which is a good enough reason to use that over a T on fresh installations in my opinion.

[Adrian g.]

Originally Posted by Iyzmi

Alright folks, I believe I've gotten to the bottom of this and as I initially suspected it has nothing to do with high IATs and/or pulled timing. Last week my buddy took his car to our trusted indy shop to diagnose this power loss issue. The tech mentioned that when he installs supercharger kits on these cars he uses a Y-fitting for the BPV vacuum line instead of the T-fitting ESS provides. The T-fitting causes air turbulence and does not allow the BPV to operate properly. Sure enough, after we both replaced the T with a Y we noticed a big butt dyno gain as well as much smoother acceleration under partial throttle. We have not taken our cars back to the dyno yet to confirm, but I am fairly confident we are making expected power levels now. The difference is quite noticeable.

When I had originally installed my 550 kit I left the BPV connection straight because the vacuum hose came attached to the T-fitting in this configuration and it made sense that the BPV should have vacuum "priority". I made a disappointing 450whp in cool fall weather with that setup and always felt uneven acceleration under partial throttle between 4-6k RPM, which led me on a boost leak goose chase. Eventually, the BPV started making a knocking noise at idle due to vacuum pulses when the system was in EVAP purge mode. Exactly as described here:
https://www.gmpperformance.com/galle...ibach-springs/

The ESS instructions are inconstant in regards to the proper way to install the T-fitting. In some pictures the OEM connection is kept straight while in others the BPV line is straight. I took some screenshots of this inconsistency last year and posted them here when I thought I had it all figured out:
https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1388428

At that point I switched the BPV vac line over to the stem of the T-fitting to allow the OEM connection to remain inline and this eliminated the BPV knocking. Looking back, I should've swapped in a Y-fitting right then and there based on the GMP advise but figured everyone else is using a T-fitting without issues so it can't be that big of a deal. Well, fast forward to my disappointing 625 and 625+ dyno numbers and clearly it was an issue no matter how I had the vac lines connected to the T.

Long story short, ESS should be including a Y-fitting and I imagine there are a good number of ESS cars out there with undiagnosed BPV issues because of this.

Wow, great info for all those with ESS kits!

[Properstyle]

I run a metal t fitting with no issue. And I now have the bov vacuum line tapped to see boost in the car and seem to be seeing full boat no issue. Only time I didn’t was in az were the elevation was 5k feet. I’m back down at sea leave or 800 ft rather and I’m back to seeing 7 psi

[Iyzmi]

Anyone with a proper reading boost gauge and/or has been to the dyno and made appropriate power likely has absolutely nothing to worry about with the T-fitting. I'm sure it has been used on the majority of ESS installations with no issue. I just wonder how many guys out there have an undiagnosed problem and simply don't know what they're missing. I personally didn't think anything was wrong until the disappointing dyno numbers told me so, the car is still quite fast at 480hp. I wouldn't say this is an obvious issue unless you know what you're looking for and have a way to measure it, which many people don't. YMMV.