Dyno Rematch: Battle between Dinan & RD Sport for 4.6L Stroker Motor Bragging Rights

[MrStinky]

Would have been nice to test the same Bolton.

As far as shift points the data is incorrect. As itis clearly desirable to shift redline for a stock or tuned NA non sstroker M3. Given rpm drop in each guest already puts you short of most power band if you shift earlier it not only limits gearing advantage for more rpms but also drops you into lower power zone of the next gear.

I'll take a full bolt on any day. The strokers were cat less and din an had pulley so let's say 30 whp is deducted for cat less, pulley and any tune out there. So the stroker makes 30 or so more power than a bolt on. Sad. And that is considering AUC . Strikers always disappoint on e60 and this M3. Looks like strokers put out 440 HP with stock cats. So 25-30 HP over bone stock. Not worth it to most

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by motortrend

I don't understand why people expect such huge power gains from a small increase in displacement.

Maybe because of the HUGE price!!

But for real, I don't think people expect that much, they just expect a proportionnal gain to the increase in displacement! Since a full bolt-ons 4.0l S65 makes ~450hp, it's not crazy to think that the same engine with a 15% increase displacement(4.6l) and the same bolt-ons or in these cases even more bolt-ons could make ~15% more horse power(520hp)! And here, we are far...far from that!

I personnaly think it just shows that a stroker is a gigantic waste of money, buy a 911S, a 911TT, a GT3, a GT-R, an M4, a Gallardo, an F430, if you really really need to keep your e9x M3, buy a blower or drop an S85, there's so many better options then going stroker, I just can't believe someone could find a reason to do it other then to show people how much money they have to waste!

[Ezio]

its a shame this engine doesnt have much N/A building potential. IMO the S65 is a alsome high revving N/A motor. looks like if i keep this car long term i would go blower.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by dparm

If anyone is curious about the thrust curves, here they are based on the above data. This assumes all the cars had the stock 265/35R19 rear tires.

Thrust = (Engine Torque x Gear Reduction x Final Drive Reduction) / (Wheel Diameter / 2)

Losses must be considered for ideal shift points. What matters is torque delivered to the rear wheels and this will include losses from the transmission, differential and axles. These losses are also rpm or speed dependent.

Originally Posted by dparm

Some obvious conclusions:

1. Shifting at redline is not advantageous in any gear for any of those cars. Optimal shift points are about 100-200rpm short of redline in every gear.

As the other person pointed out, based on the similarity in the stroker torque curves vs. stock (shape, not size) I also expect redline shifts generally being required for optimal performance.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by StealYourFace

Because other manufacturers engines see substantial gains with either larger displacement, or cam/heads changes. And for dramatically less $$

It shows that this engine is pretty well maxed from the factory, and as far as bang for the buck goes, you are better off with primary cat delete and either benvo, or evolve or one of the other tunes that will get very close to the power of these strokers.

Keep in mind, with this method even if you did get the same power as the stroker, you're only getting it for about 5 RPMs. And for what it's worth, the closest I've seen a full bolt on get to a stroker on the same dyno is about 15 whp and that was with race gas and super aggressive tuning just to make a number.

It also shows that as awesome as that engine is, it just isn't all that efficient at making power. Especially when fuel consumption is factored. But, it is still a worthy product, because of the sound and feel of the power delivery.

That's not quite right. The reason the stroker doesn't give a huge increase in power as it does on other platforms is because this motor IS efficient. It's VE is very high -- greater than 100% at some parts of the power band. If the motor weren't as efficient, then building a stroker and tuning would yield much bigger numbers.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=869616

[regular guy]

BTW, I'm going to throw this out there just to see what hits the wall and falls down.

After seeing the rematch and seeing the spark is now correct, and AFR's only slightly rich, the thought of bearing clearance once again crossed my mind. We learned in the bearing wiki thread that one of the benefits of tighter bearing clearance is increase in power. We also know Dinan opened up the bearing clearance on their stroker motors -- where RD Sport used factory clearances on this motor. Now I'm wondering whether or not bearing clearance can account for this much power difference -- 20-25 horsepower?

Does anybody know? Kawasaki?

[Top_Gear]

Originally Posted by M3ANMACHINE

Thanks for the very informative thread, but what a waste of money..

I couldn't say it any better.

[Someone?]

Nice work!, but i agree^ both of these big money strokers seem to be a big waste of time and money for fairly bad $$/Hp ratio.

[rantarM3]

Regular Guy: by any chance, would you have access to a M3 CRT/GTS dyno chart that you could post up just for comparison purposes? I know it would be different dyno, atmosperic conditions, fuel, etc. but just thought it would be interesting to see (more or less) how the 4.4 does against the RD & Dinan strokers.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by rantarM3

Regular Guy: by any chance, would you have access to a M3 CRT/GTS dyno chart that you could post up just for comparison purposes? I know it would be different dyno, atmosperic conditions, fuel, etc. but just thought it would be interesting to see (more or less) how the 4.4 does against the RD & Dinan strokers.

I haven't seen any CTS/GTS dyno's posted. If you know of any, I'll reach out to the owners and see if I can get their dyno files for the database.

[dparm]

Originally Posted by regular guy

BTW, I'm going to throw this out there just to see what hits the wall and falls down.

After seeing the rematch and seeing the spark is now correct, and AFR's only slightly rich, the thought of bearing clearance once again crossed my mind. We learned in the bearing wiki thread that one of the benefits of tighter bearing clearance is increase in power. We also know Dinan opened up the bearing clearance on their stroker motors -- where RD Sport used factory clearances on this motor. Now I'm wondering whether or not bearing clearance can account for this much power difference -- 20-25 horsepower?

Does anybody know? Kawasaki?

Here's one school of thought on the issue:

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2013...ng-clearances/

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by regular guy

BTW, I'm going to throw this out there just to see what hits the wall and falls down.

After seeing the rematch and seeing the spark is now correct, and AFR's only slightly rich, the thought of bearing clearance once again crossed my mind. We learned in the bearing wiki thread that one of the benefits of tighter bearing clearance is increase in power. We also know Dinan opened up the bearing clearance on their stroker motors -- where RD Sport used factory clearances on this motor. Now I'm wondering whether or not bearing clearance can account for this much power difference -- 20-25 horsepower?

Does anybody know? Kawasaki?

In our experience 3 or less not 20-25 (Thats 3 on 900hp not 500)
Only thing I see different is the bore/stroke but the small difference is not 20hp either.
Without seeing internals it is hard to say, could be easy 10-15 in rod/piston/ring package.

Originally Posted by dparm

Here's one school of thought on the issue:

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2013...ng-clearances/

Good article but dont believe everything you read, the guys writing that stuff have no clue about what we do. Everything is a huge generalization.

[Sered]

Originally Posted by motortrend

I don't understand why people expect such huge power gains from a small increase in displacement.

Because usually in the domestic realm, stroker builds involve headwork and cam upgrades. Apparently 'stroker build' in the hilarious S65 world means gazillion $$$ short block build. All this money to craft custom S65 block builds and they can't make a camshaft. Heh.

I laughed when I read the first one, I'm still laughing. I've seen FBO M3s putting down similar numbers on dynojets. And before anyone talks about deltas; make sure you look at the actual delta first. All it did was shift the powerband to the left. FYI: these cars don't make >500hp. More like 460-475. Bone stock Boss 302 numbers.

The only way this is going to make a real difference is when headwork and custom cams are installed. For $38k, I'd expect that to be included, but wait, it's Dinan; so no lol

[dparm]

Originally Posted by Sered

Because usually in the domestic realm, stroker builds involve headwork and cam upgrades. Apparently 'stroker build' in the hilarious S65 world means gazillion $$$ short block build. All this money to craft custom S65 block builds and they can't make a camshaft. Heh.

I laughed when I read the first one, I'm still laughing. I've seen FBO M3s putting down similar numbers on dynojets. And before anyone talks about deltas; make sure you look at the actual delta first. All it did was shift the powerband to the left. FYI: these cars don't make >500hp. More like 460-475. Bone stock Boss 302 numbers.

The only way this is going to make a real difference is when headwork and custom cams are installed. For $38k, I'd expect that to be included, but wait, it's Dinan; so no lol

Correct, the powerband was basically shifted to the left. I don't think it's as wide, either. The low-end torque is definitely higher than stock, but as the engine revs climb that delta gets much smaller. The stock powerband is pretty impressive to begin with.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Sered

Because usually in the domestic realm, stroker builds involve headwork and cam upgrades. Apparently 'stroker build' in the hilarious S65 world means gazillion $$$ short block build. All this money to craft custom S65 block builds and they can't make a camshaft. Heh.

I laughed when I read the first one, I'm still laughing. I've seen FBO M3s putting down similar numbers on dynojets. And before anyone talks about deltas; make sure you look at the actual delta first. All it did was shift the powerband to the left. FYI: these cars don't make >500hp. More like 460-475. Bone stock Boss 302 numbers.

The only way this is going to make a real difference is when headwork and custom cams are installed. For $38k, I'd expect that to be included, but wait, it's Dinan; so no lol

So when we talk deltas, you're saying you would rather have the green line in the following dyno chart than the red or blue lines?



I will try to put some other comparos like this one together from other entries in the Dyno Database for FBO and stroker on the same dyno's. I think I have three different dyno's where both stroker and FBO's have been done. The dyno chart above came from the same dyno, same day. So when you do talk delta's, make sure you're talking about the same dyno at the very least.

[pbonsalb]

Huge torque increase. You get that only from displacement.

I agree that I would do something else with $30k, but also understand that the people spending $30k on modding a $60k car don't worry about spending $30k.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by StealYourFace

It shows that this engine is pretty well maxed from the factory, and as far as bang for the buck goes, you are better off with primary cat delete and either benvo, or evolve or one of the other tunes that will get very close to the power of these strokers.

Here's three examples of strokers vs. FBO M3's on the same dyno. This is a much better example of a true delta. In the next 30-45 days, I will have a fourth example.

NOTE: These results are the best vs. best on each dyno, and some of them are apples to oranges with FBO Catless and stroker with HFC's. It doesn't mean that somebody couldn't come along with an FBO M3 onto one of these dyno's and make more power and it doesn't mean the stroker couldn't do better if it were Catless -- all it means this is the best I have in the Dyno Database with files for download to back it up (you can download each and check the "Drum ID" of the dyno to confirm).

Example-1: Specialty-Z dyno in Chatsworth, CA.
Stroker: http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=147
FBO: http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=205




Example-2: DNR Performance in Hayward CA
Stroker: http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=607
FBO: http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=610




Example-3: Newtech Performance in Hayward CA
Stroker: http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=393
FBO: http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=390

[pkimM3r]

Damn. Great. Engines.

But too $$$!

[Maypo]

What is FBO?

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by Maypo

What is FBO?

FBO = Full Bolt-On

[e92zero]

wonder what would cam do for these strokers. Actually wonder what number would the following configuration do: fbo but not catless, cams, RD stroker package with the bigger intake plenum, dinan intake elbow, dinan throttle bodies. Think that would break 550 crank hp?

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by e92zero

wonder what would cam do for these strokers. Actually wonder what number would the following configuration do: fbo but not catless, cams, RD stroker package with the bigger intake plenum, dinan intake elbow, dinan throttle bodies. Think that would break 550 crank hp?

Cam and head work is where the power will be. Plenum elbow and tb already flow more than what is needed for the size and rpm of this engine.
Not that ones and twos do not matter but for the effort and money just not much to be gained.
The 284/292 combo would probably be best on the stroker