[DivergedM2]

     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

Hey all,

Sharing recent initial dyno #'s completed at Race Precision Inc in West Chester, PA. As is tradition, definitely understated from the factory. Can't wait to build some power from here

*SAE Correction*
BMW Power Rating: 453 hp @ 6250 rpm
Actual Power: 477.68 hp @ 7050 rpm

BMW TQ Rating: 406 ft lb @ 2650 rpm
Actual TQ: 418 ft lb @ 3160 rpm

[M2PDX]

Holy buckets!

An extra 24.63 hp!

Fantastic!

[JustinHEMI]

Nice!

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by M2PDX

Holy buckets!

An extra 24.63 hp!

Fantastic!

But at the wheels, though, right? Add in driveline losses (~10%?) and you're over 500 at the crank. IND measured 464.6 @ 6,910 @ 412.9 lb ft @ 3,050.

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

But at the wheels, though, right? Add in driveline losses (~10%?) and you're over 500 at the crank. IND measured 464.6 @ 6,910 @ 412.9 lb ft @ 3,050.

Reads as “*SAE Correction*”, meaning they are predicting crank horsepower from measuring wheel horsepower.

What gear was used to run?

[TheGroundRoof]

Bmw underates hp to provide advertised hp on bad fuel

[FlexedX]

Higher RPM than the factory. Good numbers though.

[DivergedM2]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Reads as “*SAE Correction*”, meaning they are predicting crank horsepower from measuring wheel horsepower.

What gear was used to run?

We ran two runs in 5th

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by DivergedM2

We ran two runs in 5th

Cool! Thanks!
Do you have the WHP numbers?

[Reesnat]

Great stuff! Auto or manual?

[m20e3087]

Nice! What the base dyno HP for M3/4? Wondering if it’s the same.

[npirnia]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Cool! Thanks!
Do you have the WHP numbers?

That should be RWHP numbers. SAE correction is about standardizing for atmospheric conditions (temperature, altitude, and humidity) since those have a big impact on power.

I haven’t seen crank HP reported from a dyno without mentioning the correction factor for estimated driveline loss.

I’m pretty sure this is wheel horsepower.

-Nick

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by npirnia

That should be RWHP numbers. SAE correction is about standardizing for atmospheric conditions (temperature, altitude, and humidity) since those have a big impact on power.

I haven’t seen crank HP reported from a dyno without mentioning that estimated correction factor for estimated driveline loss.

I’m pretty sure this is wheel horsepower.

-Nick

Appreciate! Thanks for the info!

[clutchdj]

nice progressive curve.

all of the HP starts and ends right where it should.

if I recall correctly that's the way the e46m3 used to flow.

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by clutchdj

nice progressive curve.

all of the HP starts and ends right where it should.

if I recall correctly that's the way the e46m3 used to flow.

Here’s an S65. I see a lot of similarities, which I think is a good thing. But the S65 was also hated for having too little torque down low.
Throttle House rejoice…

[NathObeaN]

I do find it funny that people seem to think that every single car these days is ‘underrated’. Ever considered the testing methodology/equipment differs from BMW official lab tests vs some random garage with a dyno?

[JustinHEMI]

Oh boy.

[Remonster]

Originally Posted by npirnia

That should be RWHP numbers. SAE correction is about standardizing for atmospheric conditions (temperature, altitude, and humidity) since those have a big impact on power.

I haven’t seen crank HP reported from a dyno without mentioning the correction factor for estimated driveline loss.

I’m pretty sure this is wheel horsepower.

-Nick

The reason every modern BMW seems to be underrated when dyno tested is because the modern ECUs (2011 N55 and newer) are already so good at adjusting for atmospheric conditions (weather, altitude, etc.) so you’re taking an engine which barely loses any performance in various conditions and then adding “atmospheric correction” on top of that.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Reads as “*SAE Correction*”, meaning they are predicting crank horsepower from measuring wheel horsepower.

I don't believe so. SAE correction factors are used by dyno shops to correct for nonstandard temperature, barometric pressure and humidity only. Factors for crank HP estimate are on top of that. IND used 15%, which I think is high; 10-11% more likely.

https://ind-distribution.com/blogs/n...87-m2-dyno-run

[swampfox94]

“Detuned s58” lol

[DivergedM2]

Originally Posted by NathObeaN

I do find it funny that people seem to think that every single car these days is ‘underrated’. Ever considered the testing methodology/equipment differs from BMW official lab tests vs some random garage with a dyno?

Originally Posted by Reesnat

Great stuff! Auto or manual?

Manual!

[M_Power Rob]

Originally Posted by NathObeaN

I do find it funny that people seem to think that every single car these days is ‘underrated’. Ever considered the testing methodology/equipment differs from BMW official lab tests vs some random garage with a dyno?

Disagreewith that thought process. BMW IS known for their advertised numbers being lower than actual (evidence on different dynos, regardless of the car, location comes out higher than advertised with hp & tq). Audi advertised numbers, for the most part, seem to show as spot on.