Gintani Twin Turbo E9X M3 Kit Dyno Graphs and Video

[bunker]

This thread is hilarious

600+ hp = 3"+ penis

[monkawekrue]

holy shit

[Boostin FD]

Curious to see pics of the kit itself. So far so good!

[s85e90]

Originally Posted by Sered

Yes, I know that. Which is why I qualified my statement twice when I said 'some' of the advantage.



Again, read what I said. Stock and S/C cars tend to have the same kind of powerband, peak hp at max rpm with a steady climb up to it. Cars with big V8s or turbo 6s like the N54 do not do this. They make peak power and then scale off a bit. The effect is they hold peak power for longer which increases their average power over an rpm band. The N54 rarely falls outside of its powerband from shift to shift. The S65 on the other hand, falls WAY outside of it (much moreso the 6MT though as the DCT's extra gear and shift speed helps mitigate this), especially on the 1-2 and 2-3 shift.

Your example shows stock and S/C cars which doesn't begin to address the argument I'm making. The difference between 6MT and DCT on the N54 platform isn't as huge as it is on the S65 platform. And the 5.0 generally can trap as well as a stock DCT M3 though usually a mph off or two (despite making similar peak power stock).

You do realize that is the design to the M3 to have a very linear powerband.

Additionally, any SC (that is centrifugal) is going to have the same curve. Boost is linear to RPM.

Picture a bar graph and the SC curve will be a perfect diagonal line from left ro right. Now turbos and roots blowers will alter that. I can choose a turbo that will come on early w/ no lag and fall off upstairs, or something big that is laggy and would pull very hard upstairs.

[e92livin]

Originally Posted by nuespeedgti

completely unrelated, which rear diffuser is that?

The Gintani rear diffuser .. check out their website.

[Nordstat]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Yes the shape of the torque curve matters but ultimately in a WOT type of competition if the car never sees below X rpm (on a normal S65 that is about 6000 rpm, less for just a split second during launch) then the torque at all rpm below that rpm X are utterly inconsequential. Peak hp is always the single most important factor. Although "area under the curve" (physically meaningless - what you really mean is time averaged power or torque - not rpm averaged) is important, I wouldn't at all bet that a 100 hp peak wheel power advantage wouldn't entirely trump the "area under the curve". I'd be happy to run a simulation if you provide two examples of the torque curves in 500 rpm increments for representative examples, one at 600 peak whp and one at 700 peak whp.

Please do!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

There is ample evidence from both rri.se, literature about losses as well as my CarTest performance simulation to support more like a 12% loss in the E9X M3, thus this is much closer to 680 crank hp. Then again who is counting 25 hp at this level... I do realize that 15% is more of an "industry standard" type of figure, but for a modern BMW (or otherwise) I think it is too large.

Keep in mind, 12% is on a hub-attached dyno using steady-state testing. If you add a ramp to the test, then you will see lower results, which means your "correction factor" will need to be higher than 12%. When I did my Dynapack testing, I experimented with various ramp rates until I found one that produced almost the same results as steady-state testing. Then when you move from a hub-attached to a roller (chassis) dyno, often times you see lower results and the need for an even higher correction factor. When I use a Dynapack (same as RRI), I think it's best to use 12% correction factor. But when I use a Dynojet, I think it's best to use something larger than 12%; maybe closer to 14-15%. So by "correcting" the guy, I think you missed all of these variations that don't lead to a one-size-fits-all correction factor. In the end, on a Dynojet, I think 15% is much closer to the truth than 12%.

BTW, I'm the first person to call it 12% DT loss approximately 5+ years ago on my Dynapack tests and when I did a deep dive into the RRI tests. That was the same time I noticed the RRI tests were performed over a span of 2-3 days and not in one session.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Sered

Again, read what I said. Stock and S/C cars tend to have the same kind of powerband, peak hp at max rpm with a steady climb up to it. Cars with big V8s or turbo 6s like the N54 do not do this. They make peak power and then scale off a bit. The effect is they hold peak power for longer which increases their average power over an rpm band. The N54 rarely falls outside of its powerband from shift to shift. The S65 on the other hand, falls WAY outside of it (much moreso the 6MT though as the DCT's extra gear and shift speed helps mitigate this), especially on the 1-2 and 2-3 shift.

This is just weird. I responded to Brady and you responded to me as if I misunderstood what you said. I didn't even read what you said and I was only responding to Brady.

Your example shows stock and S/C cars which doesn't begin to address the argument I'm making. The difference between 6MT and DCT on the N54 platform isn't as huge as it is on the S65 platform. And the 5.0 generally can trap as well as a stock DCT M3 though usually a mph off or two (despite making similar peak power stock).

I did not compare stock to SC cars. Please look at the text and data more closely.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Yes the shape of the torque curve matters but ultimately in a WOT type of competition if the car never sees below X rpm (on a normal S65 that is about 6000 rpm, less for just a split second during launch) then the torque at all rpm below that rpm X are utterly inconsequential. Peak hp is always the single most important factor. Although "area under the curve" (physically meaningless - what you really mean is time averaged power or torque - not rpm averaged) is important, I wouldn't at all bet that a 100 hp peak wheel power advantage wouldn't entirely trump the "area under the curve". I'd be happy to run a simulation if you provide two examples of the torque curves in 500 rpm increments for representative examples, one at 600 peak whp and one at 700 peak whp.

Everything you need is in the Dyno Database. Download the files. Export to CSV. Import to CarTest. Boom. Done.

This is what you get.



I even threw in the AA on Rotrex results since everybody talks about how great they are in the mid range. Notice they are all approximately equal peak WHP.

UPDATE 2014-05-29:
The original chart showed Drew's car, and it looks like that run is mislabeled as a VT2-625. It was indeed from the VT3 build. It came from RunFile_006.drf from this Dyno Database entry.
http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=447

Knowing that the VT3 has a fatter torque curve than a VT2, I intended to use a VT2-625 to make the comparison. But I guess I grabbed the VT3 file by mistake and mislabeled it. So to correct the mistake, I fixed the labeling of the VT3, and added a true VT2-625 dyno entry from this car below. I left the VT3 in the comparison just for completeness.
http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=310

[SECOND2NONE]

Enough if all this technical debating.. We need some pricing and more videos

[Beedub]

can we some pics of the general gizzards!! lol!!

i want to see turbo placement, manifold, pipework routing, etc... time to give us all the juicy details and what our 18k buys us.

[Jonjt]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Yes the shape of the torque curve matters but ultimately in a WOT type of competition if the car never sees below X rpm (on a normal S65 that is about 6000 rpm, less for just a split second during launch) then the torque at all rpm below that rpm X are utterly inconsequential. Peak hp is always the single most important factor. Although "area under the curve" (physically meaningless - what you really mean is time averaged power or torque - not rpm averaged) is important, I wouldn't at all bet that a 100 hp peak wheel power advantage wouldn't entirely trump the "area under the curve". I'd be happy to run a simulation if you provide two examples of the torque curves in 500 rpm increments for representative examples, one at 600 peak whp and one at 700 peak whp.

Eh yeah, no argument. The thing with most "well omg this car will stomp that car" arguments are that most people don't take their cars to redline. Those airport runs are telling but, rare. Most people seem to race maybe 20-30MPH through one gear, on the highway, hence my response.

Most people here dont understand that area under the curve is physically meaningless. Hence I didn't bother to say anything. I should have really said "Can perform more work, in the same amount of time, as the N54 will require a shift before the S65 runs out of RPM".

Also, by 700hp, I meant 700 crank, not wheel. I do believe the most powerful N54 is around that level of power (I could be wrong). In any case, the S65 will soon reach levels of power that are far too high for reasonable street usage. I believe we are already there, honestly. I dont know what I'd do with a 600whp S65. I cant use it on the street and I dont have the skill or money to use it properly on the track.

If I had an s65 (and hopefully I will, soon), I'd probably just tune it (MAYBE add a low level supercharger kit) and call it a day.

[Jonjt]

Originally Posted by M-terkait

i agree it is pushing 600whp with 91octane and 7.5psi only
imagine having a built motor and using E85+93octane should give u atleast 3+Psi and more cooling because E85 power
plus these GT28 are small to help S65 gain some low end torque as they mentioned above

Totally agreed.

[i001947]

Nice, but where do you drive a beast like this other than the track? PA streets are so bad with pot holes it would be an accident waiting to happen.

Good job!

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by i001947

Nice, but where do you drive a beast like this other than the track? PA streets are so bad with pot holes it would be an accident waiting to happen.

Good job!

Presumably, if one can sink this kind of money in to a TT kit, they'd also be participating in HPDE or air strip attack meet-ups.

[Hujan]

Originally Posted by Jonjt

If I had an s65 (and hopefully I will, soon), I'd probably just tune it (MAYBE add a low level supercharger kit) and call it a day.

Famous last words before you slip into the modding abyss.

I remember before I got my M3 I thought that I would never mod it. Mod a 335i, sure, but never an M3. Ha!

[Someone?]

Originally Posted by Beedub

can we some pics of the general gizzards!! lol!!

i want to see turbo placement, manifold, pipework routing, etc... time to give us all the juicy details and what our 18k buys us.

Hells Yah! This^ is what im talkn about!

[okusa]

Originally Posted by Jonjt

If I had an s65 (and hopefully I will, soon), I'd probably just tune it (MAYBE add a low level supercharger kit) and call it a day.

Wonder how many forum members had that same thought at one point...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Keep in mind, 12% is on a hub-attached dyno using steady-state testing. If you add a ramp to the test, then you will see lower results, which means your "correction factor" will need to be higher than 12%. When I did my Dynapack testing, I experimented with various ramp rates until I found one that produced almost the same results as steady-state testing. Then when you move from a hub-attached to a roller (chassis) dyno, often times you see lower results and the need for an even higher correction factor. When I use a Dynapack (same as RRI), I think it's best to use 12% correction factor. But when I use a Dynojet, I think it's best to use something larger than 12%; maybe closer to 14-15%. So by "correcting" the guy, I think you missed all of these variations that don't lead to a one-size-fits-all correction factor. In the end, on a Dynojet, I think 15% is much closer to the truth than 12%.

BTW, I'm the first person to call it 12% DT loss approximately 5+ years ago on my Dynapack tests and when I did a deep dive into the RRI tests. That was the same time I noticed the RRI tests were performed over a span of 2-3 days and not in one session.

Agree. Spot on. With simulation tires losses are handled separately and are a critical part of the overall power loss "budget". They are much more important at higher speeds (they are non-linear). I posted elsewhere on this forum exactly how tire losses are calculated using simulation and the formulae and results from CarTest agree spot on (link here). At redline in 3rd gear one is losing about 11 hp to the rear wheels in an M3 which is about 3%!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Everything you need is in the Dyno Database. Download the files. Export to CSV. Import to CarTest. Boom. Done.

This is what you get.

...

I even threw in the AA on Rotrex results since everybody talks about how great they are in the mid range. Notice they are all approximately equal peak WHP.

Excellent, now for the benefit of the other discussion run a 700 whp SC M3 vs. the 600 whp turbo car. I know where my money is...

[e92stance]

Wait did somebody say 18-20k for this kit? 18-20k for a twin turbo setup on a soon to be outdated platform? I mean I understand research and projects cost money but that's crazy. What Is included in the kit and where is this number coming from??? It would be awesome to see a TT v8 though damn!!

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by e92stance

Wait did somebody say 18-20k for this kit? 18-20k for a twin turbo setup on a soon to be outdated platform? I mean I understand research and projects cost money but that's crazy. What Is included in the kit and where is this number coming from??? It would be awesome to see a TT v8 though damn!!

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?