|
|
10-22-2013, 06:19 PM | #45 | |
Colonel
83
Rep 2,792
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2008 IB E92 M3| BBS | KW | Arkym | Platte Forme A.G. | Active Autowerke | K&N | Fabspeed | Dinan | Evolve-R |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-22-2013, 09:22 PM | #46 | |
Stop the hate, get a V8
3848
Rep 8,625
Posts |
Quote:
Dynapack is much harder to manipulate since it removes a lot of variables like tires and wheels.
__________________
Now: 2017 Corvette Grand Sport, 2021 AMG C63 S sedan
Past: 2011.5 M3 sedan ZCP |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-22-2013, 11:02 PM | #47 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
427
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
Any dyno that allows manual input weather data is a candidate for manipulation. No doubt Dynojets are the universal comparator, and very difficult to manipulate. Short of directly manipulating the weather station by heating it up, is very hard to manipulate the results. I've never seen a manual weather input screen on a DJ software, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are legitimate cases for direct weather entry when the weather station is broken. Dynapacks are equally unimpeachable in this regard. There is a way to manually input weather data, but it's in plain view and gets recorded on files that can be distributed, compared, and verified for manipulated data. Newer Dynapack software doesn't allow file sharing, but they can export the data to Excel where it can be verified for manipulated data. As for accuracy: hands down goes to Dynapack. Any inertial (roller) dyno like Dynojet is essentially making a very smart and educated guess about horsepower based on acceleration. Change to lighter wheels and tires or get less traction on the dyno and your results will change. A very valid argument can be made that measuring with wheels on the car is more realistic for street performance. No doubt that's a valid argument. But when you talk about accuracy, you think about repeatability and knowing what the engine is doing, not what the Dyno thinks the engine is doing. In this regard, the Dynapack will win the contest hands down. The Dynapack measures torque on the same principle as an engine dyno. It applies a load at wide-open-throttle and brings the RPM of the engine DOWN to the desired point for measure. Torque is measured based on hydraulic pressure; it is not interpolated based on acceleration of a roller and counting spark frequency (Dynojet). The results are repeatable, often times with repeat runs within 1-3whp of each other. Since it's based on the measurement of hydraulic pressure, there is no calibration that I know of; which means the measured results can't be manipulated either (at least not that I know of). This principle of operation makes the Dynapack far superior to any roller dyno. I hope this helps. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-23-2013, 01:09 AM | #48 | |
Major
174
Rep 1,246
Posts
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
Quote:
Dynojet vs. Mustang isn't an exact ratio and results may vary. The dyno I'm used to has always been on par and accurate with all of my other cars compared to other reliable results around the country. To be fair, Dynos aren't meant or designed to settle anonymous internet pecker contests. I was/am just really curious as to what this M3 actually puts down and was a bit shocked when I saw the Mustang dyno results. Everything else looked good, Torque/HP intersected at 5250, so I'm guessing our calibration was spot on. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-23-2013, 06:25 PM | #49 | |
Colonel
83
Rep 2,792
Posts |
That's really strange. I know that you can't really compare dynos but generally Mustangs are low and 365 on the Mustangs I am familiar with would be ~400 on a Dynojet. Which doesn't make sense; that's an implausible amount of power. Something was screwy IMO.
Quote:
__________________
2008 IB E92 M3| BBS | KW | Arkym | Platte Forme A.G. | Active Autowerke | K&N | Fabspeed | Dinan | Evolve-R |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2013, 03:57 AM | #50 |
Major
174
Rep 1,246
Posts
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
Uh, No. Mustangs and Dynojet aren't that far apart. like 5-10HP difference is expected, but they'll trade higher readings just because there's so many variables that they take into account before piping out those numbers.
This is why I'm just going to a dynojet that I trust and will update with my SAE Corrected numbers and uncorrected numbers. |
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2013, 06:03 PM | #51 | |
Colonel
83
Rep 2,792
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2008 IB E92 M3| BBS | KW | Arkym | Platte Forme A.G. | Active Autowerke | K&N | Fabspeed | Dinan | Evolve-R |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2013, 06:09 PM | #52 |
Major General
3388
Rep 6,767
Posts
Drives: 2016 BMW i8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Monarch Beach
iTrader: (1)
Garage List 2012 BMW e92 M3 [0.00]
2021 BMW X5M [10.00] 2015 Porsche 991 Tu ... [10.00] 2015 Porsche 991 GT3 [10.00] |
M3PO is right. All things being equal, Mustangs will dyno lower by a few %.
__________________
Current BMWs: 2021 X5M, 2012 e92 M3, 2022 X5 40i, 2016 X5 50i
2015 Porsche 991 Turbo S a couple others IG: longboarder949; YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT1...eoFBszPIK0gf9w |
Appreciate
0
|
10-27-2013, 04:47 PM | #54 |
Major
174
Rep 1,246
Posts
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
Yeah, It's not substantial and definitely not a fixed ratio.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-27-2013, 06:03 PM | #55 |
I know a thing or 2 about a thing or 2...
3099
Rep 3,470
Posts
Drives: E36 M3 Coupe, e39 M5, i3s
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: LI, NY
|
What's the drivetrain loss on the M3's? 15% 20%?
__________________
2019 Imperial Blue Metallic i3s BEV
2003 Le Mans Blue e39 M5 Dinan S1 1997 Alpine White e36 M3 (the old gal) 2013 Mineral White e92 M3 (sold ) 2014 Carbon Black 650i M-sport (sold) |
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2013, 07:49 PM | #56 |
Colonel
83
Rep 2,792
Posts |
It is substantial.
But I will agree not fixed.
__________________
2008 IB E92 M3| BBS | KW | Arkym | Platte Forme A.G. | Active Autowerke | K&N | Fabspeed | Dinan | Evolve-R |
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2013, 08:32 PM | #57 |
Stop the hate, get a V8
3848
Rep 8,625
Posts |
Impossible to get an exact figure short of dynoing a car, then pulling its engine and dynoing it again.
20% is a good ballpark figure.
__________________
Now: 2017 Corvette Grand Sport, 2021 AMG C63 S sedan
Past: 2011.5 M3 sedan ZCP |
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2013, 05:16 AM | #58 |
Major
174
Rep 1,246
Posts
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
Drivetrain loss is a fixed ratio? Lol.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2013, 05:17 AM | #59 |
Major
174
Rep 1,246
Posts
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-31-2013, 08:17 PM | #60 |
Colonel
83
Rep 2,792
Posts |
I think the drivetrain loss on this car (RWD and 6MT) is closer to 15%.
Who said it was fixed? Where are you coming up with this?
__________________
2008 IB E92 M3| BBS | KW | Arkym | Platte Forme A.G. | Active Autowerke | K&N | Fabspeed | Dinan | Evolve-R |
Appreciate
0
|
11-09-2013, 07:20 PM | #61 |
Major
174
Rep 1,246
Posts
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
Finally got some dyno time on a trustworthy dyno. It's lower than on a Mustang, but I was expecting that. I'm content with the results for a stock car.
SAE Correction: STD Correction: Uncorrected: Mustang Dyno from TMS in Auburn Last edited by MFL; 11-09-2013 at 07:28 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-09-2013, 07:56 PM | #62 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
427
Rep 1,947
Posts |
Quote:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=535345 Car-1 Mustang: 463whp, Dynojet: 513whp Car-2 Mustang: 483whp, Dynojet: 529whp |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-09-2013, 08:03 PM | #63 |
Major
174
Rep 1,246
Posts
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
I just didn't/don't think that Mustang was accurate and I think I confirmed that with these new runs.
The only change I have made to the car in between runs was upgrade to 240e. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-09-2013, 09:09 PM | #64 |
Major General
3388
Rep 6,767
Posts
Drives: 2016 BMW i8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Monarch Beach
iTrader: (1)
Garage List 2012 BMW e92 M3 [0.00]
2021 BMW X5M [10.00] 2015 Porsche 991 Tu ... [10.00] 2015 Porsche 991 GT3 [10.00] |
I just made 501/536 AWHP/AWTQ on a Mustang AWD-linked dyno yesterday (Cobb SoCal) on my bone stock 997.2 Turbo S
Wonder what that would have been on a dyno jet?...like 550? I guess now I know how this car traps 130's stock.
__________________
Current BMWs: 2021 X5M, 2012 e92 M3, 2022 X5 40i, 2016 X5 50i
2015 Porsche 991 Turbo S a couple others IG: longboarder949; YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT1...eoFBszPIK0gf9w |
Appreciate
0
|
11-09-2013, 09:45 PM | #65 |
I know a thing or 2 about a thing or 2...
3099
Rep 3,470
Posts
Drives: E36 M3 Coupe, e39 M5, i3s
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: LI, NY
|
I'm curious which tools manufacturers use for the their final HP/TQ numbers? BMW is usually very conservative. Looking at MFL's numbers, 358hp's would put a drivetrain loss at about 16%. (415 hp's which is close to BMW's claims).
__________________
2019 Imperial Blue Metallic i3s BEV
2003 Le Mans Blue e39 M5 Dinan S1 1997 Alpine White e36 M3 (the old gal) 2013 Mineral White e92 M3 (sold ) 2014 Carbon Black 650i M-sport (sold) |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|