Dyno Test: Stock+KN v Akrapovic+KN v Akrapovic+Powerchip+KN

[masitr]

This last week I had some time to finally proceed with some long awaited mods to my car. I installed a KN Euro filter a few weeks ago so that is used in all of our testing. We then added a Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust and Powerchip Akra tune. Mike at Powerchip was excellent to work with and the tune made good power while addressing the Akra TQ dip and driveability. We used a reflash kit so the adaptations were not reset threw out the testing.

Car = 2009 E92 M3 Stock 18's
Fuel = Shell 93
Dyno = Mustang MD1100 AWD

Run#3 = 354 HP 258 TQ = Stock exhaust / Stock Tune / KN Euro Filter
Run#2 = 372 HP 276 TQ = Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust / Stock Tune / KN Euro Filter
Run#1 = 385 HP 284 TQ = Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust / Powerchip Akra Tune / KN Euro Filter

Test Conditions
Ambient Temp = 30 ~ 35 Deg F

Starting Temps (Deg F)
IAT = 50
OIL = 199~201
H20 = 176

Dyno Notes
- 3 3500 CFM Fans on Front of vehicle
- O2 Sniffer @ Tail Pipe
- Tach signal delayed 200 rpm
- DME Adaptation were NOT Reset for Powerchip Tune or Stock Tune
- While the Akra TQ dip did not fully disappear with the Powerchip tune. The driveablity and feel improved tremendously over the stock tune.
- 4 pulls were done per configuration. The 4th pull with the Oil temps @ 200 were always the best
- 20-30 second stabilization procedure done for every run for consistent starting temps

[RENN Spec]

Very impressive gains!

[IND-Distribution]

Great gains just from the Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust.

Tune was icing on the cake.

[BPMSport]

Aaron,

It was a pleasure working with you.

Once we get to testing the akra on my car (with knock detection and the ability to read adaptations), we'll have an updated file for you.

Take care!

Benvo

[stylinexpat]

To get rid of that dip it will require a true Einstein
Congrats on the other gains

[masitr]

Originally Posted by stylinexpat

To get rid of that dip it will require a true Einstein
Congrats on the other gains

Thanks for the super specific tuning advice
Thanks on the congrats

This was a back to back test. Please keep the thread on track.

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by stylinexpat

To get rid of that dip it will require a true Einstein
Congrats on the other gains

Tuning is not rocket science.

With the proper logging tools, we will be able to eliminate that dip for the most part.

Remember that this car was remotely dyno tuned by us, which is not as effective as if we were with the car and dyno in person.

The OP will certainly notice a huge improvement with this tune.

[biglare]

Nice gains!

[BMRLVR]

Nice Gains!!!

[mikewads]

Well documented gains.

[Ant Man]

Originally Posted by masitr

Thanks for the super specific tuning advice
Thanks on the congrats

This was a back to back test. Please keep the thread on track.

With better mapping you will be able to address the low rpm dip. Some very good UK map writers have done it.

[Kyoshi71]

Sweet gains. 31hp?

[duk]

Awesome gains congrats!

[FrenchBoy]

Very interesting. The rear wheels gains in both HP and Torque are indeed impressive.

I have the Evo system and don't think the driveability is an issue though...

[a burrito]

Those are some great gains. Other than the noted data, how much difference in "pick up" is the 2k-3.2k range with these three mods compared to stock?

Also, I don't think this has been covered because I've read almost every Akra thread available on this forum but do you guys think the TQ dip at 3.2k is because the Akra section 2 utilizes a H pipe before the Xpipe? Every other x pipe on the market only has one X pipe crossing including the stock section 2. Did Akra put in that H section to drown out noise or to have more rigidity through section 2 because the cats/resonators are closer to the rear of the car? If even the stock section two doesn't have it then why did akra put it in?

[Ant Man]

Originally Posted by a burrito

Those are some great gains. Other than the noted data, how much difference in "pick up" is the 2k-3.2k range with these three mods compared to stock?

Also, I don't think this has been covered because I've read almost every Akra thread available on this forum but do you guys think the TQ dip at 3.2k is because the Akra section 2 utilizes a H pipe before the Xpipe? Every other x pipe on the market only has one X pipe crossing including the stock section 2. Did Akra put in that H section to drown out noise or to have more rigidity through section 2 because the cats/resonators are closer to the rear of the car? If even the stock section two doesn't have it then why did akra put it in?

Not sure of the reason but the torque drop at low RPMs is due to the reduction in back pressure and the ecu cannot adapt enough. You need someone who 'really' understands the mapping tables, to tune the ecu, to get the torque back up. Evolve in the UK know how to do this.

[kitw]

Akrapovic puts in the H pipe to take advantage of moving the cats downstream, it allows for more exhaust scavenging.

[Sales@Evolve]

Good gains (as expected!). It's pretty much exactly what we see.

Torque dip cannot be totally taken away but massively improved. Well.... atleast it cannot be taken away totally on a dyno because your running through that area quite slowly.

On the road, where it matters, we can tune the torque dip out to the point you will not notice it at all.

As it stands, with the Akra with a tune that does not address the torque dip it's quite obvious it's there! To most it doesn't even matter because they don't really stay in that rpm range much of the time.

Mike - you don't need to datalog this one! Study what the exhaust is doing instead. Take some measurements, do some basic calculations and it will all become obvious!
All depends really how much exposure you get to these systems. We fit and tune so many cars in the UK with Akrapovic that you kind of find the problem without actually trying that hard to find it!

[klammer]

I would love to get a dyno of my car as have the evo with the ess tune, coupled with the 3.45 Diff and definitely doesn't feel like a torque dip anywhere, had read about the dips and the (imagined) torque issues and think the 3.45 diff addressed it nicely. Not cheap but feel like the car is pretty personally dialed in

[masitr]

Originally Posted by PencilGeek

Excellent job documenting your runs. Were you running 93 octane?

Yes, Shell 93. I knew I forgot something important in the original post, so I just updated it.

[Fsarc]

Originally Posted by Mike@Powerchip

Tuning is not rocket science.

With the proper logging tools, we will be able to eliminate that dip for the most part.

Remember that this car was remotely dyno tuned by us, which is not as effective as if we were with the car and dyno in person.

The OP will certainly notice a huge improvement with this tune.

Is the Akra tune mentioned in this thread below different from the one used here? Just curious because it looks like you picked up 21 hp and 21 tq with that Akra tune versus 13 and 8 here.

Does the remote tune account for the difference?

Also any plans for visiting the East Coast again?

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...ight=powerchip

[BPMSport]

As far as the differences between the two dynos -
#1) Some cars perform differently than others. We've seen higher gains on some cars that have the exact same setup. Although the general average does not deviate by a large amount, there are always the freak cars and the weak cars out of the total population.

#2) We had more diagnostic equipment and were able to more finely tune the car
-Being able to look at fuel trims and adaptations allows us to make fine tweaks
-Being able to read from the knock sensors allows us to advance timing and retard timing if necessary. Sometimes timing is reduced below the factory spec if we detect knock.

#3) I believe the difference would be attributed to some combination between #1 and #2.


Sal: Sent you a PM. Thanks