jcfay

Ditto x a million

Ingenieur

The facts are tests from reputable sources
Motortrend
Rototest
Sportauto
All have dyno 'ed it around 370-380 whp
When factored against the timed runs made showing the cars to be about equal it confirms those numbers
Especially when one considers:
Dct
400 lbs
Tire sizes
Balance

Do not confuse observance of physical facts (reputable dynos, timed runs, etc) with hating
People are free to drink the kool aid mixed by tuners trying to sell something
But I can't dismiss fact to jump on the bandwagon

It is not under rated
Why?
Wouldn't more power sell more cars? It's a marketing numbers game
Illegal to derate since insurance bases rates on it
It's also factored into emission ratings, fuel rating/ gas guzzler stuff
The ratings are made to international standards by a third party

I'm not willing to suspend reality to support something that defies the laws of physics
It's not 'hatin' wetf that is, it's objectivity
I have no dog in this fight
Have owned BMW's for decades
This is my first MB and had it less than a year
I know it is difficult for fan boyz to imagine someone isn't one lol

alexmtl

Ok so how do you explain that huge difference on the same dyno, same day for the new gen vs the old gen M3?

The car is supposed to barely have 10 more hp and the dyno shows a huge difference. This is not a high reading dyno issue, it's about the delta.

alexmtl

And BTW that last video I posted IS from Motortrend, one of your reliable sources!

Ingenieur

http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_...?__federated=1

Motortrend 380 hp

http://www.bimmerpost.com/storyimage...-032c-5c67.jpg

Sportauto 360 at the wheels
90 in losses 450 crank
Not sure I buy the losses
BMW 's typically have very efficient drivetrains

Ingenieur

http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_...?__federated=1

It made 379 which is rated power
Or so THEY say

Quote
On K&N's dyno, the M3 put down 379 horsepower at 6600 rpm and 378 lb.-ft. of torque at 4300 rpm. BMW rates the engine at 425 hp at 5500 rpm and 406 lb.-ft. of torque at 1850 rpm. Using 13 percent as a rough estimate for drivetrain loss, the figures are spot on.

-Marlin-

had my mini van tuned at burger king

got 612 horse powers out of it and runs on fry oil

tell hamburgler ron sent ya

Ingenieur

Those dynos are not allowed to be used for any legal justification
So who knows what those numbers mean

Rototest
They record at 12 points about 500 rpm apart
They increase load until full throttle and engine boggs down
Then they record for 5 sec and repeat for all points
It is CERTIFIED by the ISO

The issue with ramp runs
Since you are accelerating a mass 2 cars with the same power but one has more torque, the one with more torque will read higher
Even though power is the same on paper or an engine dyno or a steady state test
Dynos measure torque and gearing multiplies torque not power

You seem genuine
Believe what you like
But please don't waste your time trying to convince me

Ingenieur

You are a few fries short of an order

w204nyc

Actually it wasnt any of my buddies fault. He has been racing cars for a while. He had a stock shelby gt and the motor blew. It happens. Stock or tuned, things like that happen. My tranny went out on my 3000 mile ml350. I forgot you like your amg in stock form. Keep up the good research!

csexty3

I saw on another forum that the raceway where the run took place is a bit short of 2,000 ft. above sea level which favors the turbocharged M3 and puts the C63 at a disadvantage

Ingenieur

Interesting
About a 10% loss for the amg and 1/3 to 1/2 of that for the turbo
Less if it has alt boost compensation

rickclass

Interesting comparison....

C63newdude

OK folk... lets first elaborate on what type of "test" was done on the initial video. Is that a 1/4 mile event starting from a roll? if so, at what speeds were the cars starting to accelerate. It is impossible that neither car would run those times showed on the video on a 1/4 mile drag race starting from a dead stop.
I can pitch in my own experiences from my tuned/long tube header/air filter powered C63.

rory breaker

Killer car, and exciting that it's responding so well to mods.

And dude, no offense, but if you havent heard of burger, then you have not spent more than 15m reading into M tunes. I find that to be nearly impossible to believe.

cyberorth

Wow this was very useful. I learned a lot.

D7reU

New M3/M4 is an amazing car. Anyone who think its better than our C63 is retarded. Drove one on the weekend, absolute amazing.

Ingenieur

I have spent >30 years into 'M tunes'
REAL 'tuning', not cobbled together crap
never heard of them
dude
only recently has BMW begun building turbo cars (5-7 years or something)
unless you count the 1970's era 2002 Turbo or the 80's 745i
or their 1.5 liter 1200 HP F1 engine from the early 80's that was based on a sleeved 2002 stock block that they p!$$ed on to 'condition' the steel, a crude acid etching/stress relief/peening process lol

Ingenieur

this^
without knowing the set-up this video gives 0 information

Ingenieur

Rock

ARTM3, I knew I recognized your long diatribes. Still think the old M3 is faster than a GTR?

Ingenieur

who?

Rock

Nice try. So you were not a mod on M3forum?

Ingenieur

nice try at what?
what is the question?
was I or wasn't I?

Kriston

This thread got real interesting.


Gents Burger Tuning only came about a few years ago on the BMW scene. With the advent of the N54, BMS started making units out of his garage and was doing so for the longest time.


While I agree that BMS is a fairly common name in the tuning world for turbo'd and more recently NA BMW's. They have not been in the game nearly as long as some of the more established brands.


I ran a BMS tune on my BMW, it was great. No issues what so ever.


Im curious to see what the F8X M's will bring to the table (modding wise) should be pretty interesting.