Further dyno evidence of no under rating

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by MFL

Have you driven one yet? (I Have).

No, but 100% irrelevant. THis is not about personal perception. Sorry but math/science + TEST DATA >>> individual experience. Do you know how error prone we humans can be as to vehicle performance. I don't mean that you can't discern that the new car is faster but just how much faster...

[MFL]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

@MFL... You ARE wrong. Here are the different variations with his mixtures. E30 and e50:



and by the way. I HAVE driven them both. Owned an E92 and take delivery of an F82 this week. What's your point?

The IG Photo is from Berger, 40% E85 = E30 Blend total. It would only be E40 if he was running pure ethanol.

I'm basing this solely on what was posted on their Instagram account, so if you have more information about mixtures they were running or if this post wasn't accurate, well there ya go.

EAS, Berger and Specialty-Z have no reason to lie though..

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by MFL

The IG Photo is from Berger, 40% E85 = E30 Blend total. It would only be E40 if he was running pure ethanol.

I'm basing this solely on what was posted on their Instagram account, so if you have more information about mixtures they were running or if this post wasn't accurate, well there ya go.

EAS, Berger and Specialty-Z have no reason to lie though..

Bro, both of the dynos I posted are from terry. The IG was a mistype most likely. I met all of these guys on Friday. No one said they're lying.

[MFL]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

Bro, both of the dynos I posted are from terry. The IG was a mistype most likely. I met all of these guys on Friday. No one said they're lying.

Cool, maybe there's a conflict of information. Still though, 40% of E85 in a full tank will still bring you to right around E30 unless their mixing in pump fuel with ethanol added in, which may bring it up.

There are the dyno results. You guys are saying that the car isn't under-rated when every dyno thus far shows that they A. have an incredibly minimal amount of drivetrain loss, B. They are under-rated at the crank or C. These reputable shops/vendors that make a living dynoing/tuning cars have shotty equipment or or inflating the numbers for XYZ reason.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by MFL

There are the dyno results. You guys are saying that the car isn't under-rated when every dyno thus far shows that they A. have an incredibly minimal amount of drivetrain loss, B. They are under-rated at the crank or C. These reputable shops/vendors that make a living dynoing/tuning cars have shotty equipment or or inflating the numbers for XYZ reason.

This is a clear logical fallacy of the false dilemma. It is also simply not factually correct.

The dyno I opened the thread with, which measures in-situ to avoid known inertial variation due to ramp speed, and has some method for quantifying (again in-situ) losses, shows effectively no under rating.

No one said a shop is lying. If all fasteners look like a nail then all of your tools will probably look like hammers...

However, if you can get ANY ONE single shop to certify a level of crank hp based on an inertial dyno and to do while also guaranteeing a minimal (say Maha-esque) 2% measurement error AND they will simultaneously claim that based on such testing that the S55 makes over 25 hp more than its stated power, THEN, yes, at that point it might rise to the level of lying per se. Until then they all just run the test, don't think too hard about accuracy and throw it up online for all to ogle and infer they as the owner/the car are making some absurd power levels.

[Racer20]

All this arguing over which dyno is correct and what power rating is correct seems a bit pointless to me. It's like taking 10 pictures of a tree blowing in the wind . . . the leaves are going to look different every time, and trying to figure out which one shows the "correct" tree is pointless.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Racer20

All this arguing over which dyno is correct and what power rating is correct seems a bit pointless to me. It's like taking 10 pictures of a tree blowing in the wind . . . the leaves are going to look different every time, and trying to figure out which one shows the "correct" tree is pointless.

Well certainly not to be rude but feel free not to participate in the discussion. I find anomalies, potential lies and how they relate to vehicle specifications and performance quite intriguing. Many others seem very keen on at least accurately knowing the cars crank power output. There is a fairly clear and simple answer here as well. It is not an unanswerable question(s).

To each their own...

[MFL]

Originally Posted by swamp2

This is a clear logical fallacy of the false dilemma. It is also simply not factually correct.

The dyno I opened the thread with, which measures in-situ to avoid known inertial variation due to ramp speed, and has some method for quantifying (again in-situ) losses, shows effectively no under rating.

No one said a shop is lying. If all fasteners look like a nail then all of your tools will probably look like hammers...

However, if you can get ANY ONE single shop to certify a level of crank hp based on an inertial dyno and to do while also guaranteeing a minimal (say Maha-esque) 2% measurement error AND they will simultaneously claim that based on such testing that the S55 makes over 25 hp more than its stated power, THEN, yes, at that point it might rise to the level of lying per se. Until then they all just run the test, don't think too hard about accuracy and throw it up online for all to ogle and infer they as the owner/the car are making some absurd power levels.

Yet virtually every tuner out there as well as most gearheads are find with leveraging these measuring tools (IE Dynojet) to measure the output of their cars.

BMW stated what's at the crank, some might say they're an authority on the matter. It seems like they left us a butt puckering easter egg.

As with most tuners, they aren't concerned with the numbers that their dyno's produce, it's the delta, boost and AFR's which is their primary focus.

However, when a stock E9X M3 makes 33X - 35X on one of their dyno's on any given day and a F8X is making 40X-42X, the delta is verifiable and as long as they are testing these cars the same way, said delta should be accurate.

Arguing about the final number across multiple independent tests on independent dyno's is pointless.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by MFL

Yet virtually every tuner out there as well as most gearheads are find with leveraging these measuring tools (IE Dynojet) to measure the output of their cars.

Since when does "what most/many people are doing" is the same as what is best?

Originally Posted by MFL

BMW stated what's at the crank, some might say they're an authority on the matter. It seems like they left us a butt puckering easter egg.

All depends on if they are lying. That is the $20,000 question. I've never heard of a butt puckering easter egg...

Originally Posted by MFL

As with most tuners, they aren't concerned with the numbers that their dyno's produce, it's the delta, boost and AFR's which is their primary focus.

Both are important.

Originally Posted by MFL

However, when a stock E9X M3 makes 33X - 35X on one of their dyno's on any given day and a F8X is making 40X-42X, the delta is verifiable and as long as they are testing these cars the same way, said delta should be accurate.

Well I certainly agree that delta's should be more accurate. It is exactly the same with simulation. Often even though one can not nail down a "perfect" absolute value, the delta when making one isolated change is often extremely accurate. Now, that being said, I have not seen the evidence that this is true for dynos, it is tossed around almost like gospel. Just saying it is true doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by MFL

Arguing about the final number across multiple independent tests on independent dyno's is pointless.

Yes, again, because they can't measure neither absolute whp NOR measure and calculate crank hp.

Just like I posted recently, if you have zero interest in the absolute crank value the car puts out, fine, I am interested in that as many others are.

[Boss330]

I have today spoken with a German tuner that has used the INSORIC system for a while (didn't ask what year he bought it though). INSORIC referred me to this tuner as he now lives quite close by where I'm working.

He has tested numerous stock cars with the INSORIC system and his response to the results was that in 99,3% (Germans like to be accurate ) of the tests, the results came out within a few HP of stated crank HP. According to his experience, the crank hp derived from the INSORIC was within the tolerance allowed for by EU legislation (often just 1hp off factory claimed crank HP).

I spoke with him on the phone, so I haven't seen any "evidence" to his claims. I will be getting a demonstration of the INSORIC system sometime in August. Hopefully I will be able to test at least one or two cars.

According to him, the system is really easy to use and also has a more realistic calculation of drivetrain losses since it takes into account:

-Drivetrain resistance during the coasting phase
-Air resistance that contributes to the deceleration during coasting
-Tire rolling resistance

One other advantage is also that the engine is operating under a normal operational situation as the acceleration test is done. No IAT issues, pulling ignition timing, no failsafe dyno modes etc. For instance BMW has issued a 80 page manual on how the F10 M5 is to be dynoed for emissions certifications etc. This involves very specific procedures to achieve the correct results. For instance, bonnet needs to be closed, wind should be close to real wind speed etc. With the INSORIC system all of those issues are taken care of, since the car is operating in a regular situation.

A few drawbacks:

-Need a level road
-Must not be to windy (better specified in the manual I believe)
-Must be dry road surface
-Speed limits need to be high enough to allow for a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th gear pull (depending on how powerful the engine is)

Here is a demo video with ex F1 driver Marc Surer. The INSORIC measured crank hp is 207hp, factory claims 208hp... :

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by ss134

Underrated or not I do not know but what is fact is that when they've put E92 M3 and F80 on the same dynos F80 has shown the difference between the two is significant and does not represent a claimed 10hp gain for the F80 model over E92. Was E92 overrated then?!

This obviously is a good question.

But, if we consider some of the issues that others have posted regarding dyno runs and datalogging. Then we could have a situation where the E9x struggles with high IAT, pulls timing and therefore makes much less power (for instance the dyno run you refer to showed a unrealistically low whp number for the E9x, making it quite likely that the E9x wasn't running under optimal conditions).

Now, on the same day, the theory would be that also the F8x should struggle with the same IAT isues as well. After all the weather conditions was similar, right?

But, one MAJOR difference is that the F8x has a "backup" in place for bad weather conditions... It can add boost to overcome these issues and still make the same power as it would under ideal conditions. That's why BMW has explained that the engine won't see full (or max) boost in "normal" conditions. One of the dyno runs actually confirmed that during the run, max boost was observed. Indicating a situation where the DME had to adjust for "poor weather conditions" (or high IAT for instance).

So, the E9x has to do with the IAT and temperature the test is done in. The F8x can add boost to overcome those drawbacks and still make the same power.

Even on a dyno run, back to back on the same day and same conditions, the delta between the cars might not be representative since the F8x is able to compensate for bad conditions and the E9x is not (nor is any NA engine for that matter).

Obviously dynos have correction factors according to either SAE, DIN or ECE/EU standards that in theory should compensate for all of the above. But that depends on the operator getting, for instance, the same IAF sensor reading for the dyno as the car gets for it's DME etc...

[ss134]

Originally Posted by Boss330

This obviously is a good question.

But, if we consider some of the issues that others have posted regarding dyno runs and datalogging. Then we could have a situation where the E9x struggles with high IAT, pulls timing and therefore makes much less power (for instance the dyno run you refer to showed a unrealistically low whp number for the E9x, making it quite likely that the E9x wasn't running under optimal conditions).

Now, on the same day, the theory would be that also the F8x should struggle with the same IAT isues as well. After all the weather conditions was similar, right?

But, one MAJOR difference is that the F8x has a "backup" in place for bad weather conditions... It can add boost to overcome these issues and still make the same power as it would under ideal conditions. That's why BMW has explained that the engine won't see full (or max) boost in "normal" conditions. One of the dyno runs actually confirmed that during the run, max boost was observed. Indicating a situation where the DME had to adjust for "poor weather conditions" (or high IAT for instance).

So, the E9x has to do with the IAT and temperature the test is done in. The F8x can add boost to overcome those drawbacks and still make the same power.

Even on a dyno run, back to back on the same day and same conditions, the delta between the cars might not be representative since the F8x is able to compensate for bad conditions and the E9x is not (nor is any NA engine for that matter).

Obviously dynos have correction factors according to either SAE, DIN or ECE/EU standards that in theory should compensate for all of the above. But that depends on the operator getting, for instance, the same IAF sensor reading for the dyno as the car gets for it's DME etc...

All good points. The highest E9x stock dynos recorded seem to be around 360hp max - can't remember ever seeing a stock car dyno much more than this. I've seen several F8x at more than 400 already. I ve never seen a stock E9x dyno anywhere close to this on any dyno under any conditions ( if I'm wrong someone post up!). There must have been at least a few runs under optimum conditions !

[turbo8765]

Originally Posted by MFL

However, when a stock E9X M3 makes 33X - 35X on one of their dyno's on any given day and a F8X is making 40X-42X, the delta is verifiable and as long as they are testing these cars the same way, said delta should be accurate.

The M4 was designed by BMW to make peak power under all reasonable conditions i.e. hot summer. The M4 is in a sense correcting itself, and then a correction factor is being applied on top of that. Most commonly STD rather than the more realistic SAE. That's part of the observed delta.

The other is higher drive train losses on the e92 M3.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by turbo8765

The M4 was designed by BMW to make peak power under all reasonable conditions i.e. hot summer. The M4 is in a sense correcting itself, and then a correction factor is being applied on top of that. Most commonly STD rather than the more realistic SAE. That's part of the observed delta.

The other is higher drive train losses on the e92 M3.

That's actually a brilliant observation. I basically wrote the same myself, but did not realize the double effect this leads to on a dyno...

As you say, on the dyno (or elsewhere) the F8x self corrects for high altitude, high IAT etc. Meaning that even though conditions are far from SAE standard, the power output is still according to factory spec (or SAE spec). This is due to the DME adding boost etc.

Now, the dyno uses a SAE/DIN/ECE correction logarithm so that the results should be comparable regardless of whether the dyno is in Himalaya or in Death Valley.

Trouble is that on the F8x/S55 this correction has already been done by the DME and it still makes the same power, regardless of it being in Himalaya or Death Valley. Change the environment and the DME autocorrects for those changed conditions by altering boost and other settings.

So, if you put the F8x/S55 on a dyno where IAT is high (and/or high altitude etc) and ask the dyno to give you SAE numbers, the dyno will then correct the measured numbers and adjust those for SAE/DIN/ECE std environment factors. This correction can be quite substantial. Problem is, the DME had already read those high IAT's (for instance) and added boost so that the measured RWHP was exactly the same as it would have been under std SAE/DIN/ECE conditions. Under ideal conditions boost would have been lower and we would see the same RWHP numbers... But, on the dyno we would have seen very different SAE numbers on those two runs...

Let me try to illustrate this:

-Run 1 is done at SAE atmospheric conditions, so no correction is done by the dyno software to correct the measured HP to SAE std.

-Run 2 is done where we have high IAT, the dyno software corrects for this to calculate the SAE std HP

Run 1: 375 RWHP measured on the dyno @ 1Bar boost = 375 RWHP when corrected to SAE std HP

Run 2: 375 RWHP measured on the dyno @ 1,2Bar boost = 400 RWHP when corrected to SAE std HP

As we can see, in run 2 the dyno "adds" power by correcting to SAE std. But on a engine like the S55, this holds no merit since the DME have already taken care of that. And we can't say that it would have made more power under cooler conditions either, because the DME would have dropped boost and still made 375 RWHP (the 375 RWHP is just a hypothetical number here).

On a NA engine however, we would have seen a lower measured (un corrected) RWHP number on run 2 due to high IAT's and pulling ignition. The dyno would have used it's SAE correction factors to represent a SAE corrected RWHP number (what the engine actually should make under SAE conditions). In the case of a NA engine (and traditional Turbo engines) this makes sense and is necessary in order to get comparable numbers (after all that's why we have the SAE/DIN/ECE standards...). So on the same dyno with a NA engine we should have seen different uncorrected RWHP numbers on run 1 and 2, but similar SAE corrected RWHP numbers.

Let me try to illustrate this point as well with a NA engine on the dyno:

-Run 1 is done at SAE atmospheric conditions, so no correction is done by the dyno software to correct the measured HP to SAE std.

-Run 2 is done where we have high IAT, the dyno software corrects for this to calculate the SAE std HP

Run 1: 375 RWHP measured on the dyno = 375 RWHP when corrected to SAE std HP

Run 2: 350 RWHP measured on the dyno = 375 RWHP when corrected to SAE std HP

So, as we can see. On a engine that has no ability to self correct for "bad" conditions, the uncorrected RWHP as measured by the dyno is lower (as it should be as well). But the corrected HP is still 375 RWHP (also as it should be).

If the above is true, then we have one cause that could explain why we often see such inflated numbers for the F1x M cars and F8x dynos so far. It's because the dyno adds SAE correction despite of the DME already having adjusted for that... So we have a double correction for a situation where we have non SAE std conditions...
Does this make any sense at all???

[solstice]

Sorry but all I see in this thread is trying to find theoretic evidence to fit an assumption that factory specified crank hp is exact while real world commonly used data show significant under rating. The E9X big collection of dynos seem to average at around 340 whp and topping out at around 370 whp while the F8X much smaller data samples is at +400 whp average and topping out close to 430 whp. Now all kinds of theories and unusual, unfamiliar measurements are pulled out to try to disprove the dyno indications. Good luck with it since I'm pretty sure we'll continue to see an average of +400 whp from the F8X unless a de-tune SW update is being adopted. There is no doubt in my mind that in the real world, on the street the S55 pumps out much more hp than specified. If we start to see average US dynos in the 360s I'll change my mind. Wake me up when that happens

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by solstice

Sorry but all I see in this thread is trying to find theoretic evidence to fit an assumption that factory specified crank hp is exact while real world commonly used data show significant under rating. The E9X big collection of dynos seem to average at around 340 whp and topping out at around 370 whp while the F8X much smaller data samples is at +400 whp average and topping out close to 430 whp. Now all kinds of theories and unusual, unfamiliar measurements are pulled out to try to disprove the dyno indications. Good luck with it since I'm pretty sure we'll continue to see an average of +400 whp from the F8X unless a de-tune SW update is being adopted. There is no doubt in my mind that in the real world, on the street the S55 pumps out much more hp than specified. If we start to see average US dynos in the 360s I'll change my mind. Wake me up when that happens

There is a lot of technical data in this thread but I have yet too see so much need to prove a point anywhere else in this very scenario. If these guys are this passionate about this, they don't need to be babbling on forums but instead passing on their info to corporate to resolve any of their qualms. Am I right or am I very right?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

Sorry but all I see in this thread is trying to find theoretic evidence to fit an assumption that factory specified crank hp is exact while real world data show significant under rating.

Real world data shows that the achieved trap speeds etc is just around the stated crank HP (or at least within a 5% tolerance). I doubt that we will have trap speeds that indicates a 430RWHP car...

Also, the manufacturer is bound by legislation and could face serious consequences if deliberately misleading authorities... (perhaps the financial consequences in the US of someone suing BMW after a accident caused by a car that has much more than the stated hp is a worst case scenario for BMW?). Not saying cheating has never been going on. But on this level, in 2014?

And there are NO chassis dynos out there that is actually approved to measure crank HP for type approval purposes... (according to one of the dyno manufacturers).

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Real world data shows that the achieved trap speeds etc is just around the stated crank HP (or at least within a 5% tolerance). I doubt that we will have trap speeds that indicates a 430RWHP car...

Also, the manufacturer is bound by legislation and could face serious consequences if deliberately misleading authorities... (perhaps the financial consequences in the US of someone suing BMW after a accident caused by a car that has much more than the stated hp is a worst case scenario for BMW?). Not saying cheating has never been going on. But on this level, in 2014?

And there are NO chassis dynos out there that is actually approved to measure crank HP for type approval purposes... (according to one of the dyno manufacturers).

I tend to believe the 410 WHP claim, it backs up the 118 traps. The FBO 335i on E85 vs M4 race makes around 430-435 WHP and there is your difference, that car will trap around 120. If we both agree on that, then even the MAHA measured crank dyno which showed 460 PS can be agreed upon with 410 WHP as 410 x 1.12 = ~ 460. (12% drivetrain loss for DCT is very realistic)

Underrated? Yes, but I would venture to say closer to 10% at most.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by ASAP

There is a lot of technical data in this thread but I have yet too see so much need to prove a point anywhere else in this very scenario. If these guys are this passionate about this, they don't need to be babbling on forums but instead passing on their info to corporate to resolve any of their qualms. Am I right or am I very right?

Some are active on the detailing, stereo or cosmetic forums and are passionate about finding the best product to clean their wheels etc. Others have a desire, and interest, in discussing technical issues and are genuinely intrigued to find the cause of why we see such a variation in dyno numbers. It's not about degrading the new car (as Solstice very well know, I have been a very strong admirer of the F8x and had heated exchanges with swamp about certain aspects of it's inherent characteristics).

It's kinda like when most people see a plane flying, they are satisfied by knowing that it flyes and "somehow" manages to fly. Others see the same plane and are intrigued by how that is possible and will go and find the answer. Neither is right or wrong, we just have different interests and different things trig our curiosity

Oh, and discussions just like this is kinda what the internet forums are designed for. I have learned so much from these forums just because of people like CanAutM3 and swamp2 etc.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I tend to believe the 410 WHP claim, it backs up the 118 traps. The FBO 335i on E85 vs M4 race makes around 430-435 WHP and there is your difference, that car will trap around 120. If we both agree on that, then even the MAHA measured crank dyno which showed 460 PS can be agreed upon with 410 WHP as 410 x 1.12 = ~ 460. (12% drivetrain loss for DCT is very realistic)

Underrated? Yes, but I would venture to say closer to 10% at most.

Problem is that with a 15% variation on dyno results, how do we know that a FBO 335i on E85 makes 430-435whp on the same dyno that the M4 did 410whp on??? If the 430-435whp was on a happy dyno, then a 15% variation would mean that it could be 405whp on a different dyno for the FBO 335i... And the 335i doesn't have the same plateau on it's power curve either, which also makes a difference...

And then we also have the problem that every dyno run of the F8x that corrects power to a SAE/DIN/ECE std actually inflates the measured number since the DME already have adjusted for that...

[solstice]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I tend to believe the 410 WHP claim, it backs up the 118 traps. The FBO 335i on E85 vs M4 race makes around 430-435 WHP and there is your difference, that car will trap around 120. If we both agree on that, then even the MAHA measured crank dyno which showed 460 PS can be agreed upon with 410 WHP as 410 x 1.12 = ~ 460. (12% drivetrain loss for DCT is very realistic)

Underrated? Yes, but I would venture to say closer to 10% at most.

An average of 410 whp would still give it at least 60 whp more than an average E9X M3. Before we had dyno data it was all I heard everyone asking for. Now when we have it some say it's useless when it doesn't fit their assumptions. At least that's how it comes across to me. I'm in no way saying that the absolute numbers as the 427 whp number is the correct number but the relation to the vast data of E9X dyno data vs. the admittedly small combined data available for the F8X can't be ignored or attempted to be explained away without loosing credibility in my book. As ASAP said, I've never seen this approach with other cars where dyno data is discredited as a relative indication of power output.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Problem is that with a 15% variation on dyno results, how do we know that a FBO 335i on E85 makes 430-435whp on the same dyno that the M4 did 410whp on??? If the 430-435whp was on a happy dyno, then a 15% variation would mean that it could be 405whp on a different dyno for the FBO 335i... And the 335i doesn't have the same plateau on it's power curve either, which also makes a difference...

And then we also have the problem that every dyno run of the F8x that corrects power to a SAE/DIN/ECE std actually inflates the measured number since the DME already have adjusted for that...

Either way, the 20-30 WHP delta between the 2 cars is correct. That is about accurate for how much that 335i pulled on the M4. What's funny is that the M4's power curve should give it an advantage but it doesn't. The incredibly aggressive E85 timing curve gives the 335i the win. Terry uses his dyno day in and day out for both cars... the 20-30 WHP between the 2 is right on. Roll racing proved this in terms of a delta and roll racing is irrefutable unless you somehow have a terrible DCT or Auto driver.

Originally Posted by solstice

An average of 410 whp would still give it at least 60 whp more than an average E9X M3. Before we had dyno data it was all I heard everyone asking for. Now when we have it some say it's useless when it doesn't fit their assumptions. At least that's how it comes across to me. I'm in now way saying that the absolute numbers as the 427 whp number is the correct number but the relation to the vast data of E9X dyno data vs. the admittedly small combined data available for the F8X can't be ignored or attempted to be explained away without loosing credibility in my book.

Agreed