PDA

View Full Version : Got Bored tdy.............Went to the Dyno


Paul540/m3
02-25-2008, 04:51 PM
Little Disappointed but hey what the hell. Goes to show its pretty hard to squeeze any power out of these motors short of FI.

The First run I let off at the redline, the other 2 runs were to the limiter.

Here are the results:
Car: 98 540i/6
Build Date: 11/97
Mileage: 112,250 kms
Gas: 91 Shell
Mods: Dinan CF intake, Dinan AFM, Dinan Stage 3 software, Borla Muffler w/stock pipping
Dyno Type: Dynojet (TAG Racecraft)
Dyno Conditions: hovering around 0
Gear Dynoed: 4th

Romaz
02-25-2008, 04:55 PM
Nice numbers *th-up*

JazzM
02-25-2008, 05:35 PM
Nice numbers. That's at the wheels too, so its around 290bHp/333ft-lbs.

keep in mind that its the area under the curve that's important. Not one big spike.

T.

Furious
02-25-2008, 05:38 PM
those are decent numbers, congrats

Quack
02-25-2008, 06:52 PM
those numbers are pretty low considering you have more mods than me, RichieRich has a 98 540/6speed, at the time the only mod he had was a ACS cat-back, he got 245rwhp & 279 torque, my car 98 540/automatic has MarkD ECU & Brullen Hi-flow cats & cat-back system, 260rwhp & 296 torque, Paul you got to work on that.

Sickbimmer
02-25-2008, 07:40 PM
those numbers are pretty low considering you have more mods than me, RichieRich has a 98 540/6speed, at the time the only mod he had was a ACS cat-back, he got 245rwhp & 279 torque, my car 98 540/automatic has MarkD ECU & Brullen Hi-flow cats & cat-back system, 260rwhp & 296 torque, Paul you got to work on that.

Dinan FTW*shiner* I was never a fan of there stuff*thmbsdwn*

Paul540/m3
02-25-2008, 07:52 PM
those numbers are pretty low considering you have more mods than me, RichieRich has a 98 540/6speed, at the time the only mod he had was a ACS cat-back, he got 245rwhp & 279 torque, my car 98 540/automatic has MarkD ECU & Brullen Hi-flow cats & cat-back system, 260rwhp & 296 torque, Paul you got to work on that.


I know that is why I was disappointed. I think this shows how Mark D's software is way more aggressive than even the higher level Dinan software. Also I am convinced that with a full catback I can make up some of that defecit. The CAI and MAF also appear to be useless.

Overall I am not too concerned as I have no time for the car anymore, too busy with school and work. It's just basic transportation now *shiner*

Quack
02-25-2008, 08:42 PM
don't worry about it than, I've giving up on the HP wars, I'm just glad I have friends like Fab that won't give up the HP wars:D

Sickbimmer
02-25-2008, 09:48 PM
don't worry about it than, I've giving up on the HP wars, I'm just glad I have friends like Fab that won't give up the HP wars:D

I'm in war with myself*uzi**shiner*

98Dinan3
02-26-2008, 02:13 PM
hand to gland combat would hardly be considered "war with yourself"...*shiner*

Paul540/m3
03-01-2008, 04:37 PM
How do you do the conversion from RWHP to BHP? Isn't there a formula that needs to be used?

Sickbimmer
03-01-2008, 06:50 PM
Multiply your best result by 1.15 for 15% drivetrain loss, or 1.18 for 18%.

Another BM
03-01-2008, 08:18 PM
where do u get the dyno done..
how much is it??

speedemn
03-02-2008, 03:25 PM
Paul, you have the highly desireable 97/98 540i that do put down higher numbers than the later years. That being said, on the US forums I always see guys claim that they dyno very close to their crank hp/tq to the wheels (somewhere along the lines of 270whp/320wtq out of a 97/98 bone stock! I think that your numbers are definetly below average and your motor has pretty low mileage too.

I firmly believe that the dyno machine itself has a lot to do with it... I used to dyno my last 2 cars at TAG all the time and I have to be honest that machine always had problems and most of the time I never got readings, let alone accurate readings. Mel is a great guy but I have to say that is the worst, most inconsistent dyno I have ever dynoed at. Of course this is going back about 2 years and earlier, so I am not sure if things have changed now.

On another note - dyno machine variance (even for the same model) is like racing at different tracks. It is tough to compare a car dynoed on one machine to another car on another machine.

Area under the curve is more important for sure though... it would have been good to see a comparison to a stock dyno off your car - did you get one?

Max_VQ
03-02-2008, 03:52 PM
I prefer to calculate the HP by going drag racing. If you know the weight of the car, and the trap speed (or ET, but ETs can change with the trap being the same) you can calculate the HP. This takes our the dyno to dyno, operator to operator differences.

PLUS it is fun.

Once the warmer weather hits, snow tires off, CDV off, then I'm off to Cayuga.
I will try to give lots of notice so maybe we can have a bunch of cars head out.

AceOfSpades
03-02-2008, 04:19 PM
^^ that doesn't make much sense to me bro?!?

different tires wouldn't give a different time?

Quack
03-02-2008, 04:43 PM
^^ that doesn't make much sense to me bro?!?

different tires wouldn't give a different time?

of course they would, you think a car with shitty tires will do as well as a car with R-compounds on a track or anywhere else for that matter.

AceOfSpades
03-02-2008, 04:50 PM
of course they would, you think a car with shitty tires will do as well as a car with R-compounds on a track or anywhere else for that matter.

the weight of the car will be more or less a constant and varying time doesn't affect the end result then?

Mystikal
03-02-2008, 05:32 PM
^^ that doesn't make much sense to me bro?!?

different tires wouldn't give a different time?

That's why you use the trap speed. Trap speed is a lot less reliant on traction.

Jay

Paul540/m3
03-02-2008, 06:20 PM
Paul, you have the highly desireable 97/98 540i that do put down higher numbers than the later years. That being said, on the US forums I always see guys claim that they dyno very close to their crank hp/tq to the wheels (somewhere along the lines of 270whp/320wtq out of a 97/98 bone stock! I think that your numbers are definetly below average and your motor has pretty low mileage too.

I firmly believe that the dyno machine itself has a lot to do with it... I used to dyno my last 2 cars at TAG all the time and I have to be honest that machine always had problems and most of the time I never got readings, let alone accurate readings. Mel is a great guy but I have to say that is the worst, most inconsistent dyno I have ever dynoed at. Of course this is going back about 2 years and earlier, so I am not sure if things have changed now.

On another note - dyno machine variance (even for the same model) is like racing at different tracks. It is tough to compare a car dynoed on one machine to another car on another machine.

Area under the curve is more important for sure though... it would have been good to see a comparison to a stock dyno off your car - did you get one?

I had read the same about the desirability of the 97/98 pre-vanos motors. That coupled with the money spent on mods is what stems my disappointment. Unfortunately this was my first time ever on a dyno and I do not have a baseline for my car.

Once things cool down I might get the exhaust issues dealt with and re-dyno and see what she will put down. That is interesting about the TAG Dyno, although Clarence and Richie both dynoed there as well so I am sure the variance would not be too great if at all.

The price was right so I thought I would give it a shot. That being said I think I got my $30 worth. haha