Bux

This is a big deal, what can be done if someone has a slow *** version of the C32? how can this be happening...

FrankW

I'd say report to AMG. I wonder why didn't AMG dyno the car first when they produce the car? They just assume all the C32 made the same power at the wheel or what?

anyway, I have not dynoed my car. Hopefully mine is not the slow ones.

dfc

I remeber reading through member posts in the M5 forum back in time, and there were mentioning of the HP and TQ variations. However, none were as large as what we see here, freakin' 20HP difference? This has to be casued by the what's so called "the all hand made" engines.

It never made sense to me about the advantage(s) of an handmade engine. Being an engineer, I have learned since long ago that in an manufacturing environment, especially that consisting of repetitive tasking, the repeatablility and reproducebility of a robotic menchanism is much higher than that of humans'. The factors that could undermine the maximum performance of a human worker can never be as low as the machines'.

So my point is, what's the big deal about "all hand made" crap? Get the assembly line straightened out first, have some consistent outputs before making a claim of xxxHP.

But then, I still love my C32 no matter what. By the way, are BMW ///M engines handbuilt?

-----==[ Link to My C32 ]==-----

FrankW

yes, i think the M engines are hand built as well. in contrast BMW built much more M engine per year than MB does. Maybe BMW is more competent on buiding M engines, or MB is too cheap to hire more technitians.

misu55

Frank I totally disagree with your comments. Firstly M motors are not hand built (I know because I had an E36 M3 when you were still in Junior High) and if BMW tech's were more competent, why then are there hundreds of blown M3 motors?

rrf

I bet there is more variation in other variables other than how the the motors are mechanically built.

For example: Octane, IAT (including temperature of the day), wheels/tires, ECU performance settings. It is only fairly recently that some of these factors are being realized as important. (Many folks still ignore them as factors). Most older dyno runs didn't even record these important variables.

Roozy, weren't you the first to ice ithe SC before the quarter? So we know that helps via lowering IAT.

Also, with CA gas (91) we know that "apparent lower performance" is a given, right? Vadim's dyno is in LA, so....

box986

It's a hard call!

Unless all the variables are equal(temperature, humidity, stock rims/aftermarket rims, fuel, mileage, load) in the dyno run, it is hard to say what is right or what is wrong!

If 283.5 rwhp is the average or median, + or - 13.5rwhp is only 4.61% from the mid point! Heat soaking on the intercooler alone can account for the 5% difference!

BTW, my car had 2 base dynos at about 290rwhp!

FrankW

the U.S. version of the E36 M3's engine was not hand built because it's simply a larger displacement of the 2.8 engine. The Euro version of the 3.2 liter i-6 were hand built that out put 321 hps where the U.S. version only can produce 240 hps. The U.S. version first began life as a 3.0 liter motor which was enlarged (bore and stroke) to 3.2 in 96, but the hps remain at 240hp. The 95 Euro version had the hand built 3.0 liter engine with 282 hps, in 96 a complete different 3.2 liter (some called M3 evolution, or something) new engine appear. The Euro version of the late E36 M3 also had the choice to option for BMW's first SMG transmission.

The reason the U.S. version had it's own 3.2 liter engine is because the Euro version of the 3.2 liter could not pass the emission standard at the time, so BMW went with the base of the original 3.0 liter which was base from the 2.8 liter i-6 engine.

The new E46 M3 has different header and exaust to sqeez out the extra 12 hps that the E36 M3's engine couldn't do.

I said M Gmbh tech were more competent at building more engines, not more realiable engines. beside the blown engine has nothing to do with how it's built, but many of the blown engine was the result of defect in the valve stem.

rrf

Box was yours dynoed on Vadim's rack?
If Vadim's numbers are normally conservative (on CA 91 octane), then your 290 on his rack is super!

So, tell us everything you can about the run.

Temp of the day, how long the car was warmed up for , gas, ECU, # of fans etc. Dyno type.

Obviously your 290 is good, other folks are not getting 290 and
how your test was run may clue us why.

My guess there are a lot of ways to get bad numbers, and only a few ways to get it right.

box986

I went and dig out my old dyno sheet yesterday and it was actually 287.5rwhp and 280TQ! This was done on a dynoject with the ambient temperature at 77F!

BTW,, my car had some really heavy 18" Carlsson 1/6!