PDA

View Full Version : 1997 M3 Cams


braindamage
09-29-2002, 05:11 PM
1997 M3 Cams. $800.00 for the set.
I was going to put these in my M50 but I have since changed my plans.

PM or email me at damage@sympatico.ca

Stephen

braindamage
10-08-2002, 08:28 AM
bump

braindamage
10-10-2002, 09:01 PM
Ok. Make me reasonable offer.

mkgino
10-10-2002, 09:02 PM
mmmmm I would love to get my hands on those, how hard is the swap??

Jon@Bimmersport
10-10-2002, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by mkgino
mmmmm I would love to get my hands on those, how hard is the swap??


shouldnt be that hard...take out the engine from the bay, take off the head, take out old cams, put in the new 1s...i think thats all!

jeremy
10-10-2002, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by braindamage
bump

someone tell me wut "bump" means...oh and "imo" thanks:huh?:

mkgino
10-10-2002, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by jeremy


someone tell me wut "bump" means...oh and "imo" thanks:huh?:

bump = replying to a post to "bump" it to the top of all the threads

IMO = In my opinion

EMPOWERD
10-11-2002, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by E46_lover



shouldnt be that hard...take out the engine from the bay, take off the head, take out old cams, put in the new 1s...i think thats all!


NO, NO, NO!!!*no-no*


Thank God you're not a mechanic. The engine and everything are fine where they are. The cams can be swapped in a matter of 2 hours by sliding them out though the front of your head. The problem is... the stock M50 valve springs are not designed to push the higher lift (and higher revving) M3 cams.... very important to change them aswell ($19.00 each x24=$460.00 plus tax) and head removal is recommended for that (not entire engine Jon). Think about it carefully before purchasing the cams alone.

jeremy
10-11-2002, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by mkgino


bump = replying to a post to "bump" it to the top of all the threads

IMO = In my opinion

thanks*th-up*

Lil'Smoothie
10-11-2002, 01:08 PM
arent M3 cams and valve springs the main differencee between an M50/52 motor and an S50/52?

what kinda horse would those upgrgades give you on a M50 325i?

Just curious

djcontra
10-11-2002, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Lil'Smoothie
arent M3 cams and valve springs the main differencee between an M50/52 motor and an S50/52?

what kinda horse would those upgrgades give you on a M50 325i?

Just curious

i'd like to know this as well, as it seems to be one of the better performance upgrades you can do without going broke

braindamage
10-11-2002, 03:23 PM
With a well maintain M50 motor, M3 cams and ECU should give you about +10 to 15hp gain.

djcontra
10-11-2002, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by braindamage
With a well maintain M50 motor, M3 cams and ECU should give you about +10 to 15hp gain.

that's it?? i was thinking more like 20 to 25 but i guess i'm mistaken
for that kind of money i'd say forget it and use the cash towards lighter rims etc to take a second off your quarter mile times
or get nitrous for the same money

braindamage
10-11-2002, 04:00 PM
You don't put M3 cams in your car to go drag racing. The power increase starts from the middle of the power band. In road racing, the 10 to 15hp gain will make a lot of difference when you need the power coming out of a corner. It can take a second off your lap time.

mkgino
10-12-2002, 01:11 PM
I heard you get about 40-50 hp, read it a long time ago on dtmpower

EMPOWERD
10-12-2002, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by mkgino
I heard you get about 40-50 hp, read it a long time ago on dtmpower

Haha That's a bunch of bullshit!

Lil'Smoothie
10-12-2002, 01:35 PM
must be wrong cuz That would give you more horse than an M3 motor no?

192+50=242

EMPOWERD
10-12-2002, 01:40 PM
There's more differences between the US M3 and the 328i than just the cam profile.... larger displacement motor for starters with slightly higher compression pistons... better breathing exhaust, remapped ECU and larger T-body to name a few things... these all make up for the 47hp deficit.

mkgino
10-12-2002, 04:08 PM
Oh my mistake I must have misread it somewhere, your probably right, but If id did do a cam swap would it be worth it after all the $$$$ spent, with the gains?? What about reliability after??

Jon@Bimmersport
10-12-2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by empowerd



NO, NO, NO!!!*no-no*


Thank God you're not a mechanic. The engine and everything are fine where they are. The cams can be swapped in a matter of 2 hours by sliding them out though the front of your head. The problem is... the stock M50 valve springs are not designed to push the higher lift (and higher revving) M3 cams.... very important to change them aswell ($19.00 each x24=$460.00 plus tax) and head removal is recommended for that (not entire engine Jon). Think about it carefully before purchasing the cams alone.


damm..good thing MKgino didnt follow my post...haha, i was thinkin that would it be easier to remove the head while the engine is out? that was my train of thought...i had the picture of a honda DOHC engine when thinkin too..hehe.

EMPOWERD
10-12-2002, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by mkgino
Oh my mistake I must have misread it somewhere, your probably right, but If id did do a cam swap would it be worth it after all the $$$$ spent, with the gains?? What about reliability after??

You probably didn't misread that, it's just that a lot of B/S is spread around on various sites from people that really don't know what they're talking about. They figure the only difference between the cars are the cams and therefore a cam upgrade should account for the 47hp BMW crank rating. You'd probably get an honest 15hp gain (mostly at top end too).... not the cheapest upgrade for $1500.00 but the logical one in sequence if you've already got all the other bolt-ons done. Reliability? Well, that's probably the best part of this upgrade (as long as the springs are also swapped).

Fast_Gal
10-13-2002, 12:41 PM
BTW.... you have pm

mkgino
10-13-2002, 01:38 PM
See I would love to do this swap, since my cousin is a mechanic I could do it for free, but what if something goes wrong and my car doesnt run right after??

mkgino
10-15-2002, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by mkgino
See I would love to do this swap, since my cousin is a mechanic I could do it for free, but what if something goes wrong and my car doesnt run right after??

anyone?? What is the potential for problems after something like this?? Then wouldnt I need software for them to run properly too??

Scottycs
10-16-2002, 10:27 AM
Why talk about shit you DON'T know. Heres some sheets to ponder. Wheel hp is 213 (PowCorr) hmm, that would mean 255hp at the crank. Thats more then quite a few M3s I have dynoed. Now I have a 3.0 with LOTS more power.

also the springs DO NOT need to be swapped. I have been there done that, no more speculation.




Originally posted by empowerd


You probably didn't misread that, it's just that a lot of B/S is spread around on various sites from people that really don't know what they're talking about. They figure the only difference between the cars are the cams and therefore a cam upgrade should account for the 47hp BMW crank rating. You'd probably get an honest 15hp gain (mostly at top end too).... not the cheapest upgrade for $1500.00 but the logical one in sequence if you've already got all the other bolt-ons done. Reliability? Well, that's probably the best part of this upgrade (as long as the springs are also swapped).

EMPOWERD
10-16-2002, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Why talk about shit you DON'T know. Heres some sheets to ponder. Wheel hp is 213 (PowCorr) hmm, that would mean 255hp at the crank. Thats more then quite a few M3s I have dynoed. Now I have a 3.0 with LOTS more power.

also the springs DO NOT need to be swapped. I have been there done that, no more speculation.


First of all... list what's done to the motor.... I bet it's not only M3 cams right? Second, my point is that people expecting to get 40hp just from the cam swap can forget it, i've also seen it done with my own eyes on a dyno... not some computer screen you've posted from a car with unknown mods. My friend has a '93 325is with a chip, filter, headers and exhaust and is putting down 197rwHP with stock cams....you've "got" 213 with M3 cams... that's 16hp more NOT 40! Also, anyone that knows anything about motors will tell you that it's always a good idea to swap stiffer valve springs if you go to a higher lift cam, ever hear of valve float? You can always go the cheap (half-fast) route and leave the stock one in.... it's your waste of time and $$$.

Scottycs
10-16-2002, 02:03 PM
Sorry, thats just way beyond believable. 40 WHP over stock from chip, intake, exhaust*no-no* *no-no*

. My friend has a '93 325is with a chip, filter, headers and exhaust and is putting down 197rwHP with stock cams

Second that was cams, intake, chip. Also I have a dyno, its not just a computer screen. Want pics of it on the dyno???

Also, the springs are not need, they are not that high of a lift.

mkgino
10-16-2002, 03:41 PM
ohhhhh no, this is gonna get nasty.............

Scottycs
10-16-2002, 03:44 PM
Didn't intend it to be. But what he is sayin is false. I dyno cars all day, i know what mods do what. Also I had to shed truth about the cams.

mkgino
10-16-2002, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Didn't intend it to be. But what he is sayin is false. I dyno cars all day, i know what mods do what. Also I had to shed truth about the cams.

With all due respect (and Im not taking sides here), look at it from my perspective, from someone who doesnt know anything about how an engine works. If everyone could make their 328is as fast as an M3 by just changing the cams, then everyone would do it right?? Mind you a lot of people do it but then why would BMW have even made the 3.2L motor when they could get the same power from a 2.8 with better cams? 40 hp from cams is tough to believe.

Scottycs
10-16-2002, 03:59 PM
its not just changing cams, a few other mods are required. Also they are hard to find or VERY expensive. Also there is this thing called torque.

GR8 Ride
10-16-2002, 07:45 PM
I'm going to dispute BOTH the 197 rwhp from the 93 325is with intake, exhaust, header and chip....sorry Randy, but I'm not buying that one.

I'm also not buying 213 rwhp from a 2.x L motor with cams in it....

AND, your 1.21 error correction is simply outrageous...try 10-12% MAX. Powertrain losses are simply not that high....

As well, dyno software is known to be highly inaccurate, depending on variables that are punched into the system. Plenty of guys drop in atmospheric readings that are simply outrageous, often because they don't know what the real readings are.

For some interesting reading, check out http://www.sdsefi.com/techdyno.htm


Pat

mkgino
10-16-2002, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by GR8 Ride
I'm going to dispute BOTH the 197 rwhp from the 93 325is with intake, exhaust, header and chip....sorry Randy, but I'm not buying that one.

I'm also not buying 213 rwhp from a 2.x L motor with cams in it....

AND, your 1.21 error correction is simply outrageous...try 10-12% MAX. Powertrain losses are simply not that high....

As well, dyno software is known to be highly inaccurate, depending on variables that are punched into the system. Plenty of guys drop in atmospheric readings that are simply outrageous, often because they don't know what the real readings are.

For some interesting reading, check out http://www.sdsefi.com/techdyno.htm


Pat

Ha I was waiting for you to jump into this one!

Scottycs
10-16-2002, 09:00 PM
Sorry, but YOU are the idiot. This is a dynapack, measures actual torque at the wheels, rather than acceleration. Also the torque numbers are REAL TIME. I don't care if u buy it or not. 18% which would be hp correctio 1.21 for flywheel is correct. 240 hp are what stock m3s put out crank wise, and they pust down 195-200 to the ground. When YOU have a dyno, come back.

This board is more ignorent then dtm!!*thmbsdwn*

Originally posted by GR8 Ride
I'm going to dispute BOTH the 197 rwhp from the 93 325is with intake, exhaust, header and chip....sorry Randy, but I'm not buying that one.

I'm also not buying 213 rwhp from a 2.x L motor with cams in it....

AND, your 1.21 error correction is simply outrageous...try 10-12% MAX. Powertrain losses are simply not that high....

As well, dyno software is known to be highly inaccurate, depending on variables that are punched into the system. Plenty of guys drop in atmospheric readings that are simply outrageous, often because they don't know what the real readings are.

For some interesting reading, check out http://www.sdsefi.com/techdyno.htm


Pat

mkgino
10-16-2002, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Sorry, but YOU are the idiot. This is a dynapack, measures actual torque at the wheels, rather than acceleration. Also the torque numbers are REAL TIME. I don't care if u buy it or not. 18% which would be hp correctio 1.21 for flywheel is correct. 240 hp are what stock m3s put out crank wise, and they pust down 195-200 to the ground. When YOU have a dyno, come back.

This board is more ignorent then dtm!!*thmbsdwn*



You may be right or wrong in your assumptions in this thread, but you have been doing nothing but putting other members down by name calling. Everyone has their opinion to what they think is true, you dont have to call some one an idiot just because you think you are right. And lets please not get into which board is more ignorant, Ive been to both also and let me tell you its not this one. Also notice how you spelled ignorAnt wrong.......your too ignorant to even be ignorant! Dont think cause your from America that your some kind of badass or something, that crap doesnt fly here *thmbsdwn*

EMPOWERD
10-16-2002, 09:35 PM
We're obviously dealing with a thick headed know-it-all what won't take no for an answer:rolleyes: .... keep dreaming Chris and when you actually learn some things about motors, come back*wave*.

Scottycs
10-16-2002, 09:36 PM
Everything I posted is legit. Point out where I am wrong. I was crude which wasn't to great, I admit, but I am not making shit up as others. Would you like a pic of me with the dyno and a good thumbs up? What about a live video?

I didnt know this was a "tom green" forum. Maybe I should come and vacation up there, heard the exchange rate is great. I was just pointing out the FACTS.

Scottycs
10-16-2002, 09:41 PM
Last time I checked Canada was in North America*thmbsdwn*
Originally posted by mkgino

Dont think cause your from America that your some kind of badass or something, that crap doesnt fly here *thmbsdwn*

mkgino
10-16-2002, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Last time I checked Canada was in North America*thmbsdwn*


I was referring to the United States of America as just America, champ. Why are you even on this board if your just gonna insult everyone?? Oh and P.S the Carolina Huricanes suck ass :moon:

Scottycs
10-16-2002, 09:57 PM
Haha seems like they did good since they are what like TWO years old. Wait till Next year. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR CURRENCY CHAMP. Nortel Networks stock is at what? 50 cents?

I was just pointing out the facts, i said it was wrong of me for being rude. But you can't shut up:huh?:

mkgino
10-16-2002, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Haha seems like they did good since they are what like TWO years old. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR CURRENCY CHAMP. Nortel stock is at what? 50 cents?

Wow I've never heard more of a dumass statement in my life. Good luck on your currency?? You know its good to see how you can compare America with 250 million people to canada 30 million directly. Can I ask you, did you know that canada has more billionair families per capita than america does?? How is it that Canada has been voted the best country over and over again by the UN, where as america has held the number 10th position for quite some time, behind countries like Norway, Switzerland, Belgum and many others??? Wow, Canada with its 30 mil people sucks right?? But it can keep up with the Americans on the world stage with its 250 mil people?? Ohh man are you ever smart. You know I dont blame you though, since your talking from your ignorant american background.

Scottycs
10-16-2002, 10:11 PM
Keep thinking that Bucko. Time to go watch Tom Green. later

mkgino
10-16-2002, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Keep thinking that Bucko. Time to go watch Tom Green. later

No reply cause you know Im right........ATTENTION MEMBERS: This is the first thread in the history of all forums across the world where someone has been proven completely and utterly wrong by another member. Scottycs ----YOU JUST GOT OWNED!!!!!

Scottycs
10-16-2002, 10:19 PM
this is amuzing. Where have I been proved wrong? your the moron and has not posted ANYTHING relating to the original post. You even mentioned you DID NOT KNOW the facts concering the thread.

mkgino
10-16-2002, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
this is amuzing. Where have I been proved wrong? your the moron and has not posted ANYTHING relating to the original post. You even mentioned you DID NOT KNOW the facts concering the thread. I was talking about America vs. Canada. (yeah this is amusing)

Scottycs
10-16-2002, 10:24 PM
1997 M3 Cams, I thought that was the subject. And if you think Canada is better, Im all for you. How big is your army again, I think your whole country is owned. Your lil stats are amazing, I can't help it our streets are full of hobos. How come 90% of your population is within 100 miles of the US? You may have more billionaire families per capita, WOW, but we have 20 times the livable land you have.

mkgino
10-16-2002, 10:33 PM
Army?? So what, China for example can generate more army reservists than the whole american population, if thats what you want to compare. They could probably walk in a straight line on american soil with pitchforks and win a war against you. That is irrelevant. 20 times the livable land? I think it matters more on how you make use of what you have, and not how much land you have. One example is Japan, look how small they are and what they have accomplished. Oh and Nortel?? Wow you got me there, your right. But at least its still a functional business, which brings Enron into mind!

Jon@Bimmersport
10-16-2002, 10:44 PM
Mkgino is right...you may have livable land, but wats the point if we have th best resources? what are you gonna do? nuke us? i'd rather live in canada than the US, who cares if you have a bigger army? we have NATO and UN to help us out, i dont understand americans...why have the biggest military? so you can defend everyone? thats why those ****ing morons are crashing planes into your buildings and sending snipers and shit like that...and if america is so much better, how come theres way too much crime...they have america's most wanted, i never saw canada's most wanted before, what does that tell you?

btw, u have a nice e36!

mkgino
10-16-2002, 10:45 PM
Oh I like his car too, I hope mine gets performance like that also, but your right, you cant rule the world by coersion.

Jon@Bimmersport
10-16-2002, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by mkgino
Oh I like his car too, I hope mine gets performance like that also, but your right, you cant rule the world by coersion.

im tellin u...get a blower! i would recomend m3 engine...but, in this case blower would be way better for your money.

mkgino
10-16-2002, 10:56 PM
How am I gonna do that man?? Can you buy a blower from sitting on your lazy ass with $0.03 in the bank?? Man all Im ever gonna do to my car is boltons and more boltons, and make it as fast or maybe a touch faster than a stock M3. That is my goal! But my next performance mod is definately gonna be the poor mans S/C or aka--> Auto M3 differential!

Scottycs
10-17-2002, 01:21 AM
That's ****ed up shit. Damn sniper is whacko, prob a angry Canadian. GO KILL YOURSELF!!! That was uncalled for you. Don't argue which country is better, I can't remember what's your country's GDP??? Don't pretend. When I want a cheap vacation, I'll be sure to visit you. I never brought up the country issue till bozo mentioned it, Hell I didn't know this was a Canadian board. I think the jealousy of my country and car is quite the problem. I didn't come here to get into stupid arguments, but I cam to talk about BMWs!!!


Just some FYI:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/eppi-ibdrp/SI/prr2001/gdp2.gif


Originally posted by E46_lover
thats why those ****ing morons are crashing planes into your buildings and sending snipers and shit like that

btw, u have a nice e36!

Scottycs
10-17-2002, 01:29 AM
When was the last time you operated a Dyno? Oh thats right. I know what the calculations are, Ridiculous? No. BMW and EVERY OTHER manufacture must OVERATE their cars A LOT if the drivetrain loss is 10%. GET REAL.

Springs are not needed, I didn't say they were not stronger in the M3. I didn't ask you to pull this out your ass, but I am telling you from experience. This upgrade is recomended by many WELL KNOWN people (Brett Anderson, Will Turner).

Originally posted by FOCKER


At the rediculous friction loss you mention Chris this would be impossible

If springs aren't needed as you say, then why would BMW waste their money by installing stiffer ones in the M3? Gee, something to think about?

GR8 Ride
10-17-2002, 09:56 AM
Well, let's see..... we dyno cars two or three times a year; last time was about 3 weeks ago when we took several cars out of the shop over to a chassis dyno (Mustang, which is far more accurate than a Dynojet).

Secondly, in looking at your dyno chart, none of the numbers seem to make any sense.

At what RPM is your car putting out 213 rwhp? Looks to me like it's 207 rwhp, and *corrected* for ambient air to 213.x. What correction factor did you put in, as that has a big impact on real world data.

Without reading the manual, it certainly *looks* like your Dynapack is trying to interpret (ie calculate) flywheel HP from rwhp... Why is Powfly and Torqfly in there? I could certainly believe 213.4 HP at the flywheel given what you've done to it....not to the rear wheels.

To get 240+ HP out of a 2.5L motor requires some serious headwork....talk to a guy like Pete McHenry or Chuck Stickley about something like that. Basically, the TWO BEST BMW engine builders in North America. The MOST Chuck was able to get out of a 2.5L motor (with serious headwork, valve work, custom ground cams etc) was between 240 and 250 HP (and maintain reliability, that is). And yes, he has his own dyno as well....

You sure those dyno pics you put up aren't with the 3.0L US spec motor in your car instead......sounds awfully fishy to me. If the best engine builders in the U.S. aren't able to get that much power out of the motor with custom work, I'm having a hard time believing that you can do it with M3 cams....

Sorry, but your credibility just isn't there....


Pat

Scottycs
10-17-2002, 11:49 AM
Lets see, I dyno cars daily....

Funny you say that, because Mustang dyno is far less accurate then dynapack.

How do the numbers not make sence? 213 is corrected for weather. I will explain to you how your dynojet/mustang dyno operate. They take acceleration over speed as a function of time, Mustang dyno is slightly better with a small motor to give resistence. Bottom line, neither is a true loading dyno. Dynapack measures actual torque, REAL TIME.

Those are WHP, I have put no calculation in for Flywheel Power, Hence the same as PowCorr.

Hmm. Funny you mention Pete Mchenry. Their family lives very close to me and I speak to his sons quite often. You can ask them about my car, they thought it was not possiable. Actually I am upgrading to a 3.0 currently, and Pete Mchenry is buying my head. Also we have dyno tested some of his cars, I think I would know what they put down. Just tested a 3.2 (from 3.0) of his with stock cams, 255 whp 222 tq. Please get back to me when your serious. I dont come here to bullshit.

Sorry, but YOUR credibility just isn't there.... ITS POSSIBLE, I DID IT!

Originally posted by GR8 Ride
Well, let's see..... we dyno cars two or three times a year; last time was about 3 weeks ago when we took several cars out of the shop over to a chassis dyno (Mustang, which is far more accurate than a Dynojet).

Secondly, in looking at your dyno chart, none of the numbers seem to make any sense.

At what RPM is your car putting out 213 rwhp? Looks to me like it's 207 rwhp, and *corrected* for ambient air to 213.x. What correction factor did you put in, as that has a big impact on real world data.

Without reading the manual, it certainly *looks* like your Dynapack is trying to interpret (ie calculate) flywheel HP from rwhp... Why is Powfly and Torqfly in there? I could certainly believe 213.4 HP at the flywheel given what you've done to it....not to the rear wheels.

To get 240+ HP out of a 2.5L motor requires some serious headwork....talk to a guy like Pete McHenry or Chuck Stickley about something like that. Basically, the TWO BEST BMW engine builders in North America. The MOST Chuck was able to get out of a 2.5L motor (with serious headwork, valve work, custom ground cams etc) was between 240 and 250 HP (and maintain reliability, that is). And yes, he has his own dyno as well....

You sure those dyno pics you put up aren't with the 3.0L US spec motor in your car instead......sounds awfully fishy to me. If the best engine builders in the U.S. aren't able to get that much power out of the motor with custom work, I'm having a hard time believing that you can do it with M3 cams....

Sorry, but your credibility just isn't there....


Pat

mkgino
10-17-2002, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
That's ****ed up shit. Damn sniper is whacko, prob a angry Canadian. GO KILL YOURSELF!!! That was uncalled for you. Don't argue which country is better, I can't remember what's your country's GDP??? Don't pretend. When I want a cheap vacation, I'll be sure to visit you. I never brought up the country issue till bozo mentioned it, Hell I didn't know this was a Canadian board. I think the jealousy of my country and car is quite the problem. I didn't come here to get into stupid arguments, but I cam to talk about BMWs!!!


Just some FYI:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/eppi-ibdrp/SI/prr2001/gdp2.gif




The only difference that makes is if your spending your cash in another country. So what if your GDP is really high, it has to be, the American cost of living is unbelievable!!!

Scottycs
10-17-2002, 02:22 PM
I can't help it that we live in style. This argument is stupid, so end it. *shiner*

GR8 Ride
10-17-2002, 04:04 PM
Well, all I see so far that I agree with is 207.5 wheel HP. I'm not sure about the accuracy of the Dynapack, but that's simply because I've never had the chance to test one vs a Mustang Dyno or Dynojet (which are both commonly available here).

It would be interesting to see a dyno plot on a Mustang dyno merely for comparative data; to see inaccuracies in a chassis dyno. Once again, I'm not really a fan of ANY chassis dyno, as the numbers tend to be suspect.

If Pete's buying your head, then I'd suggest that the 2.5L isn't just cams, and that you've done more to it than that, which could justify the numbers your dyno is showing. Your initial post made it seem like your car was putting out 200+ rwhp with nothing more than the M3 cams in an otherwise stock 2.5L motor. If headwork et al has been done to it, then 240-250 HP is possible out of that motor (Chuck and I had a long conversation about the number of *cheater* motors which are used in Club Racing).

I still take issue with the 18% powertrain losses, as friction losses in the transmission, driveshaft and rear diff simply aren't that high. 12% maybe....what gear are you dynoing your car in?

A good test is to also dyno the car in 3/4/5 gears, and see if the results are any different. If the numbers show up essentially the same, it would give you a good indication of how much transmission loss actually is (minimal, especially in a 1:1 gear ratio).

The rear diff accounts for the majority of powertrain losses, since it's not a linear gearset (you're actually changing drive angle). Of the 10-12%, it accounts for the majority of the powertrain loss.

My own car dyno's at 172 rwhp (94 325is), and the powertrain is stock....given a 189 HP rating at the crank. Granted, some motors are stronger than others, but I doubt BMW is putting anything out with significant output differences.


Pat

qwk325
10-17-2002, 04:23 PM
dude if you still have the cams i am interested in them let me know thanx.*th-up*

Scottycs
10-17-2002, 04:28 PM
I am not wasting my time on this anymore. Don't have time for it.

Sorry qwk325 I sold the cams.

I recomend them to anyone, its more than 10-15 hp. I know from experience.

Have a nice day to all of you.

EMPOWERD
10-17-2002, 05:02 PM
Who ever ends up buying the cams.... please dyno your car before and after the installation so this dumb bullshit argument can finally be settled.

Scottycs
10-17-2002, 05:05 PM
Anyone in the VA/NC/SC area doing m3 cams in a 325 contact me. I will give you some dyno runs.

danbean123
10-22-2002, 07:33 PM
wow what a thread !

I like the variety of subject

but, I really think moderator should probably remove it, since the original poster started a new one and everyone will get confused of the real gain of cams or maybe they can only delete replies.

Scottycs
10-22-2002, 08:24 PM
Why? If any reply should be left, it should be mine. I was the only one to HAVE them and DYNO them.

mkgino
10-22-2002, 08:54 PM
But I thought that you dynoed your car with these cams plus other mods also?

Scottycs
10-22-2002, 08:56 PM
Cams, Intake, chip, m3 exhaust

djcontra
10-22-2002, 09:38 PM
Here's a pretty usefull site describing gains on all sorts of different upgrades on the m50 motor.

It states that m3 cams only give you 10 to 15 hp (unfortunately =/)

BMW E36 MOD INFO (http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Street/4917/performanceguide.html)

Scottycs
10-22-2002, 09:42 PM
That page is weak. Gain is more than 10-15 hp, oh well. Cant change the closed minded.

GR8 Ride
10-23-2002, 12:04 AM
Perhaps it's just your dyno that's suspect; I don't have any comparative data to identify how accurate the Dynapak dyno is....

Or perhaps, it's just your testing methods that are suspect as well....

Still, as always, I'll dispute that *claimed* 255 HP number you've come up with....even the least reputable dyno operators around here won't use that number when testing cars...

Worst case scenario, 15%....more likely, 10-12%.


Pat

Scottycs
10-23-2002, 12:11 AM
Ill say it again, why comment on something you know NOTHING about. Question my dyno?? HAHA Funny how the top engine builders want it but could not afford it. http://member.rivernet.com.au/btaylor/BMWText/technical/DynamometerEquipment.html .

THINK ABOUT YOUR NUMBERS. With your numbers, m3s only produce 220 hp. Please do some research, and THEN COME BACK.

For the price of the dynapack I could have purchased TWO dyno-jets.

GR8 Ride
10-23-2002, 09:56 AM
Most of the M3's (stock) that we've tested (on Mustang Dyno's) have shown about 215 HP to the rear wheels.

Given a roughly 12% drivetrain loss, that equates to about 240 HP at the crank; BMW's advertised number.

Simply put, I don't believe your numbers, and I don't trust your testing methods....

As to Steve D's comments, so what? They are *slightly* more expensive than in-ground Dynojet rollers, which would put them on par with the Mustang Dyno's in terms of price.

I'd still LOVE to see them side by side in a *dyno-standoff* to see just how accurate each one is in relation to the other. Nobody has made the comparison, so all we have to go on so far is Dynapack's factory claims, and not third party independent proof.

Why don't you take your car, spend the $50 and have it dyno-tested at a shop with EITHER a Dynojet or Mustang dyno, and we'll at least have some comparative numbers then. Fax me the results, or better yet, post them up here, and then I'd be glad to pay for the test.

If you can afford the $50K for the Dynapack, then you can afford to have your car tested somewhere else to prove the results...


Pat

Scottycs
10-23-2002, 11:20 AM
You still seem to amuse me. Why don't you call Pete Mchenry and ask him about the Dynapack???

Second, 215 hp for a stock m3 IS BULLSHIT. Mustang dynos read low if anything. AA have one as well as a few other tuners. The NORM is 195-200hp for stock m3s.

Also back to back comparisons with a dynojet have been done. Peak power is the same, but the other numbers are much more ACCURATE.

YOUR A JOKE, just like this site. I have no need to prove that the dynapack is the best, its a well known fact throughout the community. Most tuners are selling their mustang/dynojets for DYNAPACKS, bc it is the only TRUE loading dyno.

I am petrified, stupefied, terrified by you!:D

GR8 Ride
10-23-2002, 02:24 PM
So, let me see if I understand you correctly.

You're saying that you've taken a STOCK 2.5L motor, done the chip, intake, exhaust and M3 cams (nothing more....are you sure?), and you're NOW getting 15 HP MORE than a motor with nearly 3/4 of a LITRE of extra displacement? Right....

So, since the stock M3 exhaust is actually quite free flowing (but heavy), this means I could take a STOCK 3.2L motor, and put a shitty CAI on it, along with the right software (which Jim C could help us out with), and get AT LEAST 255 HP at the crank....all while still WASTING that extra 0.7 LITRES of displacement.

Boy, those claims are a ricer's dream. "Chip and CAI for an INSTANT 15 HP gain on your E36 M3 guys....."

In fact, if your *theory* held any water, then the 3.2L motor should be able to gain much more than a mere 15 HP from just a chip and exhaust....

Somehow, your claims and simple physics seem to be in direct conflict...


Pat

Scottycs
10-23-2002, 02:47 PM
Your a ****ing moron, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

Whats this number for this shop of yours? I would love to call up and speak to you personally. Well actually your not worth the long distance charge.

BYE:moon:

djcontra
10-23-2002, 02:52 PM
this thread is soooooo jokes
if i was able to get those kind of horsepower figures from a chip, cai, exhaust, and m3 cams then i wouldn't be buying the supercharger kit that i am. I guess though, when i install my kit that my car will be 345rwhp on your dyno right scotty?

I would personally think that anyone who installs a cai, chip, exhaust, headers, and m3 cams on their e36 325 that they can expect something like 195hp (more of course at the crank, but who cares about those figures)

Scottycs
10-23-2002, 02:56 PM
You guys have no clue. ASK ANYONE in the NC/VA/SC Area. Wait this is a damn canadian site. Ask anyone in the area, they will tell you about my car.

DJCONTRA<--*shiner*: Nice rims and chrome grill*th-up*

djcontra
10-23-2002, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
You guys have no clue. ASK ANYONE in the NC/VA/SC Area. Wait this is a damn canadian site. Ask anyone in the area, they will tell you about my car.

DJCONTRA<--*shiner*: Nice rims and chrome grill*th-up*

Why thank-you, I like them too! :moon:

SickFinga
10-24-2002, 10:48 PM
first of all Canada without USA wouldn't be in TOP100.
YOu have to agree with it, I wouldn't wanna live in US just because US takes shit for themselfs and Canada.


ok mechanical question.
explain how can you get more horsepower out of 2.5engine with m3 cams, chip and m3 exhaust than bigger engine without the chip??? Doesn't make any sense to me.
so you are saying 0.7l has the same hp gains as chip?
and since you are the one who want to get rid of the cams your credability is pretty low.



P.S. from what I remember spings are A MUST for m3 cam.
look on dtm.

Scottycs
10-24-2002, 10:52 PM
Look on DTM (or even BF.C) is what I should be sayin to YOU. Almost every person on that board knows me. Post in the South East section and ask about my "fake" car. Everyone knows about it.

SPRINGS ARE NOT NEEDED.

You guys know nothing, yet love to tell me how it is, but wait I HAVE BEEN THERE DONE THAT.

Originally posted by SickFinga
and since you are the one who want to get rid of the cams your credability is pretty low.



P.S. from what I remember spings are A MUST for m3 cam.
look on dtm.

SickFinga
10-24-2002, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Look on DTM (or even BF.C) is what I should be sayin to YOU. Almost every person on that board knows me. Post in the South East section and ask about my "fake" car. Everyone knows about it.

SPRINGS ARE NOT NEEDED.

You guys know nothing, yet love to tell me how it is, but wait I HAVE BEEN THERE DONE THAT.




no one has any problem about other ppl knowing you.
What I am trying to say how come chip has same gain as 0.7l

Maybe you are riight springs are not riquired ( i wonder why bmw put stiffer spings though) but you are the first person who said that.

mkgino
10-24-2002, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Look on DTM (or even BF.C) is what I should be sayin to YOU. Almost every person on that board knows me. Post in the South East section and ask about my "fake" car. Everyone knows about it.

SPRINGS ARE NOT NEEDED.

You guys know nothing, yet love to tell me how it is, but wait I HAVE BEEN THERE DONE THAT.



Man are you still here?
Can I buy those cams from you?? Here is my money --->:moon:

Scottycs
10-24-2002, 11:01 PM
Its not just a chip!


Originally posted by SickFinga



no one has any problem about other ppl knowing you.
What I am trying to say how come chip has same gain as 0.7l

Maybe you are riight springs are not riquired ( i wonder why bmw put stiffer spings though) but you are the first person who said that.

Scottycs
10-24-2002, 11:03 PM
Yea I am still here.

I STAND by my word. I dont just go by what "Randy" says. On the other boards we do not play follow the leader. Also you should listen sometimes, you might LEARN something.

Originally posted by mkgino


Man are you still here?
Can I buy those cams from you?? Here is my money --->:moon:

mkgino
10-24-2002, 11:04 PM
In my books randy has more credibility than your unknown ass does, why dont you look at the featured cars on DTMpower and see who is there.....I dont see your sh*t box there, do I?

SickFinga
10-24-2002, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Its not just a chip!




you said you
2.5l, m3 cams, m3 exhaust, chip
m3 has m3 cams, m3 exhaust
so
3.2l engine < 2.5l engine with chip.

Scottycs
10-24-2002, 11:10 PM
Yea I do my own work, Dont pay a bundle to have someone do it for me. Check DTM I have met quite a bunch of the people on there and they know me. Also Check out www.eurospeedperformance.com, thats where my "fake" dynos come from, but it happens to be where we test Pete McHenrys cars too. He def has more credibility then ANY PERSON on this board.

HAHA mine is a shit box?? Look at your car bucko. Glad the other boards are not filled with useless people like you. I can't remember 1 usefull post you have made in thie WHOLE thread.

Scottycs
10-24-2002, 11:11 PM
Its not like that. the cams are diff in the 2.5 as they are much less extreme than 3.2 cams. Your logic is totally flawed.

Also 3.0 cams are hotter than 3.2 cams.

Originally posted by SickFinga


you said you
2.5l, m3 cams, m3 exhaust, chip
m3 has m3 cams, m3 exhaust
so
3.2l engine < 2.5l engine with chip.

mkgino
10-24-2002, 11:21 PM
Sure, here is one........why are you on this board? You said that you dont like Canada, you have done nothing but trash talked our members, you have made no contribution to this board, only reason you are here is to sell some garbage (and dont tell me your not, since that is why you are here, since you've only posted in the for sale section and no where else). Well it doesnt matter if your here to only sell something since you wont sell anything anyway, cause all your credibility is gone because your an asshole. So why are you here?? Tell me? No reason other than to be a popmus american jerk off right? So leave bit*h, no one wants you here, and I no the feeling is mutual so go away. Go back to dtm where everyone "loves" you so much. What have you contriuted to this board? Nothing. I make comments to others, give them my opinion, go out to all the meets and try to bring a little humor to this board, but you?? All you do is argue with the members....go away....this is my contribution to this thread!

P.S my car is newer than yours is and no matter what you do to your hunk of garbage, my blue book value will always be more jackass. Under the skin its still a 325

SickFinga
10-24-2002, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Its not like that. the cams are diff in the 2.5 as they are much less extreme than 3.2 cams. Your logic is totally flawed.

Also 3.0 cams are hotter than 3.2 cams.




I see you just can't explain you hp gain.
once again
you are saying that

2.5l + m3 cams + m3 exhaust + chip
has more hp than
3.2l + m3 cams + m3 exhaust


so 0.7l has same gain as a chip.



maybe I'm wrong, but please explain that.

Scottycs
10-24-2002, 11:28 PM
That was great, deserves a standing ovation*th-up*

I have no problem with Canada, I work for a Canadian company. Anyways you brought the country thing up, NOT ME.

I didn't come here to sell stuff, I came to bring the FACTS to this thread. I do not have time to post on this board. The only reason I come back is I get a email every time your worthless ass replies.

Blue Book of my car? I could care less. I own other cars by the way moron, this is my daily driver. Don't compare your car to mine, we both know it OWNS yours. Nice Replica wheels too, couldn't afford the real deal?

Scottycs
10-24-2002, 11:31 PM
That's not how it works. This is NOT an algebraic equation

You dont say:
2.5l + m3 cams + m3 exhaust + chip = 3.2l + m3 cams + m3 exhaust

Therefore 2.5 + chip = 3.2

Please don't waste my time with this petty shit.

Post a msg on DTM in the South East forum asking about my car. You will se the many who have seen my car dyno, or know how quick it is. I routinely beat m3s at the track.

Originally posted by SickFinga



I see you just can't explain you hp gain.
once again
you are saying that

2.5l + m3 cams + m3 exhaust + chip
has more hp than
3.2l + m3 cams + m3 exhaust


so 0.7l has same gain as a chip.



maybe I'm wrong, but please explain that.

SickFinga
10-24-2002, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
That's not how it works. This is NOT an algebraic equation

You dont say:
2.5l + m3 cams + m3 exhaust + chip = 3.2l + m3 cams + m3 exhaust

Therefore 2.5 + chip = 3.2

Please don't waste my time with this petty shit.




no 2.5l + chip doesn't equal to 3.2l

from what you are saying 2.5l with chip gains more hp than 3.2l

mkgino
10-24-2002, 11:35 PM
My wheels are real.......and I didnt reply to your thread either. Why do you talk sh*t to other members?? Why cant you reply without giving lip huh? You havnt given anything to this board other than being a jerk and a dumbass....so???

how does a chip make up for 0.7 L of displacement?? Answer the question? HOW? Dont waste your time with this petty sh*t? You cant answer the question that's why....go back to dtm no one wants you here. The only reason I got pissed at you in the first place is cause you started to trash talk others on this board and I take care of my own members, go to dtm, your not wanted here.....and if I sell my car I would get more cash than yours....everyone knows you dont mod a car to increase its value.

Scottycs
10-24-2002, 11:41 PM
No shit, the poor people are the people are the ones who care about resale. All my cars are paid for in cash, and I care nothing about retail value. You posted just as much lip. I just get pissed off when some people come in and KNOW NOTHING about the topic. I am VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE on the subject so I posted.

I've posted the results. What have you posted?

Post on DTM about my car, many will verify its true.

mkgino
10-24-2002, 11:46 PM
Remember I came into this thread posting questions about why you were being a big dick to all the members who have just as valid points as you do. Im not discrediting your posts, Im just asking you for some proof, not anything else. Look what sickfinga posted, it doesnt make sense for a 325 to be faster with just those mods, but as you claim magically it is. I take no claim for posting anything about knowing how much of an increase cams can make, but faster than an M3 with just a chip being the difference?? WOW what bmw overlooked when they ran these cars into production.....

And you just posted yourself being a jerk to all the members and nothing else.

One more thing why are you still here? No one wants you here so why are you still here? And how are my rims fake? I would really like to know.

djcontra
10-24-2002, 11:47 PM
I just still can't see how these mods make your car 213hp at the wheels :

Your Car: 213hp and 183lb/ft at the wheels
Active Autowerke 3.0" Cold Air Intake
95 M3 Cams
Oversized Intake Valves
Supersprint Exhaust w/ DTM Tips (50mm ID)
Custom M3 Cam Chip


it just doesn't add up unless you take the stupid marketing hp figures and add them together which everyone knows is about as credible as those 55W -> 110W "HID"-blue bulbs lol! :D

I guess I can claim my car has over 200hp too!

Stock Rated HP: 189hp
Cold Air Intake: 15hp
EAT Chip: 25hp
Magnaflow Custom Exhaust: 10hp
NGK Platinums: 2hp
93 Octane Petrol: 2hp
-------------------------------
Crank HP: 243hp
-12% drivetrain loss
-------------------------------
Total: 213.4hp at the wheels!

Wow! Will you look at that? Does my car have more hp than yours even without the m3 cams? WoW I can't believe it! My God! I'm gonna go out and race every mustang I can now!
Talk to you all later, i'm a HOT F*CKIN ROD NOW!!!

*sleep*

mkgino
10-24-2002, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by djcontra
I just still can't see how these mods make your car 213hp at the wheels :

Your Car: 213hp and 183lb/ft at the wheels
Active Autowerke 3.0" Cold Air Intake
95 M3 Cams
Oversized Intake Valves
Supersprint Exhaust w/ DTM Tips (50mm ID)
Custom M3 Cam Chip


it just doesn't add up unless you take the stupid marketing hp figures and add them together which everyone knows is about as credible as those 55W -> 110W "HID"-blue bulbs lol! :D

I guess I can claim my car has over 200hp too!

Stock Rated HP: 189hp
Cold Air Intake: 15hp
EAT Chip: 25hp
Magnaflow Custom Exhaust: 10hp
NGK Platinums: 2hp
93 Octane Petrol: 2hp
-------------------------------
Crank HP: 243hp
-12% drivetrain loss
-------------------------------
Total: 213.4hp at the wheels!

Wow! Will you look at that? Does my car have more hp than yours even without the m3 cams? WoW I can't believe it! My God! I'm gonna go out and race every mustang I can now!
Talk to you all later, i'm a HOT F*CKIN ROD NOW!!!

*sleep*


Hahaha, word b*atch! *th-up*

Scottycs
10-24-2002, 11:50 PM
WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU WANT?? You want a list of Local BMW owners and phone numbers who can back up my claims? Only so much I can post for you.

DJ Contra: Don't Even Start

Just bc I don't frquent this board DOESN'T mean I do not know anything.

mkgino
10-24-2002, 11:51 PM
Why are you still here? *no-no*

Scottycs
10-24-2002, 11:51 PM
Thanks for ANOTHER great post! Keep up the good work man*th-up*

Please post if you have something useful to say. Most of your issues should have been taken up VIA pm.

Why don't you just let the thread die? Damn of the 35 post I have made, 34 were useless responses to remarks made by you.
Originally posted by mkgino



Hahaha, word b*atch! *th-up*

mkgino
10-24-2002, 11:55 PM
This thread will die when you apologize to our members for being a dick. You dont come to a forum, unknown, and start being a dick to all the members for no reason at all, you should know that by now.

Scottycs
10-24-2002, 11:57 PM
Its the internet, I do what I want to do.

I will apologize for being a Dick, when you admit you are wrong.

mkgino
10-24-2002, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Its the internet, I do what I want to do.

I will apologize for being a Dick, when you admit you are wrong.

Wrong about what? I never claimed to know anything about the cams. Only thing I said about the cams was that it didnt make sense they would make a car that quick.

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 12:01 AM
Finally, so why have you kept posting?

Sorry to all the people I offended:D Some people just piss me off

mkgino
10-25-2002, 12:02 AM
I apologize also......welcome to MAXBIMMER the happiest place on earth! *th-up*

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 12:05 AM
I just don't appreciate people calling my claims BS, as it is plenty believable. I don't come here to make things up, I come here to talk about cars.

SickFinga
10-25-2002, 12:09 AM
one more question

325 is 189hp right
add 40hp from m3 cam
230hp

so 0.7l, bigger intake, bigger throttle body, m3 exhaust adds just 10hp ???

doesn;t make any sense to me.

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 12:11 AM
HAHA

Im just a idiot you know. I just know nothing about cars. Dont listen to anything I say, please!

Originally posted by SickFinga
one more question

325 is 189hp right
add 40hp from m3 cam
230hp

so 0.7l, bigger intake, bigger throttle body, m3 exhaust adds just 10hp ???

doesn;t make any sense to me.

djcontra
10-25-2002, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by SickFinga
one more question

325 is 189hp right
add 40hp from m3 cam
230hp

so 0.7l, bigger intake, bigger throttle body, m3 exhaust adds just 10hp ???

doesn;t make any sense to me.


actually the combination of intake, throttle body, and exhaust probably adds 15hp tops combined
everyone wishes they added 10hp each but unfortunately they dont =)

(well not unless you have forced induction, or a higher rated hp engine, only then will you notice more of an increase)

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 12:15 AM
Hmm exhaust huh? http://www.eurospeedperformance.com/exhaustdynox.htm

Throttle body is useless.

When you have worked the dyno, please come back and share your experiences, otherwise don't talk.

PEAK HP is NOT EVERYTHING!!!!! You need to look at the entire curve.

SickFinga
10-25-2002, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by djcontra



actually the combination of intake, throttle body, and exhaust probably adds 15hp tops combined
everyone wishes they added 10hp each but unfortunately they dont =)

(well not unless you have forced induction, or a higher rated hp engine, only then will you notice more of an increase)

yeah but don't forget about huge 0.7l that we are missing here.


Scottycs, I'm not saying that you don't know anything about the cars, I'm saying that I don't know and I ask you to explain.
Can you explain it??

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 12:20 AM
What else do you want me to explain. I do not know the engine physics, I do not know what you want me to explain.

Second, Also AA uses my Exhaust Comparo on their site. I am more credible then you think I am.

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 12:23 AM
Understand what HP and torque is. Look at the graphs, its is totally true. Most people love to look at the HP curve, but the torque is where it is at. I only claim stock torque of a 95 m3 at most.

As I said before, your theory of thinking does not work. There are so many other factors than that. I only wish tuning was as cut and dry as you say.

SickFinga
10-25-2002, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Hmm exhaust huh? http://www.eurospeedperformance.com/exhaustdynox.htm

Throttle body is useless.

When you have worked the dyno, please come back and share your experiences, otherwise don't talk.

PEAK HP is NOT EVERYTHING!!!!! You need to look at the entire curve.

What about that exhaust thing???
they don't compate 325 exhaust to m3 exhaust so who know how much it adds.



BTW you just confirmed that you are WRONG.
You said that 215hp at the wheels from stock m3 is BULLSHIT.
Check this, quote from the site


Our stock 95 M3 was a beast as far as stock numbers go. It posted a best of 219rwhp@6200rpms and 204lb/ft@4500rpms. It repeated similar numbers through the warm up session and the first set of runs.

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 12:35 AM
No shit, that's my neighbors car. I said 215hp ON A MUSTANG DYNO is bullshit, they read much lower than MOST dynos. Also that car is particularly strong, most M3s we do pull around 200 wheel hp.

SickFinga
10-25-2002, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Scottycs
No shit, that's my neighbors car. I said 215hp ON A MUSTANG DYNO is bullshit, they read much lower than MOST dynos. Also that car is particularly strong, most M3s we do pull around 200 wheel hp.


no you said that stock m3 is 195-200hp at the wheels, and 215 is bullshit.

What's that neighbor thing suppose to prove.

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 12:43 AM
Exactly, we were talking abou MUSTANG DYNOS!!!!!!!! I can not stress that enough.

Good Night ladies, I mean fellows*sleep*
Originally posted by SickFinga



no you said that stock m3 is 195-200hp at the wheels, and 215 is bullshit.

What's that neighbor thing suppose to prove.

GR8 Ride
10-25-2002, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Scottycs
Understand what HP and torque is. Look at the graphs, its is totally true. Most people love to look at the HP curve, but the torque is where it is at. I only claim stock torque of a 95 m3 at most.

As I said before, your theory of thinking does not work. There are so many other factors than that. I only wish tuning was as cut and dry as you say.

Ok, you claim you don't know the physics of how an engine works, but you're saying that Sickfinga needs to know something more about engines before you'll tell him how you got those numbers?

Something else doesn't make sense either....your math. If you're claiming the peak torque numbers of a 95 M3 AT BEST (you stated it right above), how is it that you're getting 258.5 HP then? Perhaps nobody ever told you the formula for calculating HP....

Secondly, what part of NC are you in? What elevation? What numbers did you use for atmospheric pressure, humidity, temp etc? And what were the real temps for that day?

And finally Chris, WHERE did you EVER come up with a 17% correction factor from wheel to crank HP? Nobody with any credibility uses that as an accurate number. Only the tuners do that, simply because it sells product. It has NO BASIS in fact.

Take a course in engineering sometime...you might learn something.


Pat

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 12:08 PM
You are the only person who thinks my correction factor is wrong!! 17% is what you use for crank HP(X*1.21). What makes your proof better than THE REST OF THE WORLD. Show me one person who uses you 12-15% correction factor, I forgot, NO ONE uses that correction factor.

Raleigh, NC.

conditions were on the sheet. YOU ARE LAME, give it up, its true. I dont give a **** what you think my car made. I no longer have that engine.

YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT.*th-up*

If you question my dynapack, please check ou http://dynapackusa.com/index.htm . It the most advanced dyno today, hence why everyone is switching to it.

GR8 Ride
10-25-2002, 12:56 PM
No reputable testing agency uses 17% correction factor. Try again....please show me a reputable testing agency which uses those numbers...guess what? There aren't any.

Just because AA uses it means nothing. AA is FAR from what I'd call a *reputable* tuner, as their entire mandate is to sell more product.

My argument has every basis in fact. It's your lack of knowledge of simply physics which makes no sense.

How can an engine with the same cams, exhaust, intake etc make the same power (torque AND HP) with 0.5 - 0.7L LESS displacement, all while using the same technology?

Either you changed something else which you're not telling us, or your numbers were fudged. Simple physics proves that.

Not only that, your numbers for humidity don't add up. 19.6% humidity in Raleigh? I lived there (worked in RTP at IBM), and it was NEVER that dry in Raleigh. In fact, it RARELY gets that dry in Phoenix....

Changing the humidity numbers that much can easily fool the dyno into correcting power output by a lot.

I'd suggest your testing techniques are sorely lacking...


Pat

GR8 Ride
10-25-2002, 01:09 PM
Here, try this link.

I'd say BOSCH is a pretty good authority on the subject...


http://www.castensdynojet.com/sample.htm

All the information on driveline losses are right in the first paragraph...

Since tire deformation and friction losses don't apply to your Dynapack, then 8-12% would seem to be a logical number, assuming your car still had a longitudinal engine in it.


Pat

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 02:01 PM
Far from Reputable. Who the hell is Castens Dynojet. I can tell they are not Reputable for the sole fact they chose a Dynojet. Last time I CHECKED bosch DIDNT MAKE DYNOS.

AAs word is worth 100 times your word. Name ANY other tuner with numbers like them. And if you know anything, they use strictly wheel hp numbers, not CRANK figures. They also use independent test, like the exhaust comparo we did.

I am done with this thread, you want to talk, I will tell you the deal. Many will back up my car and the dyno.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (919)247-4932 if you really want to get into it. Call me!

I trust the Dyno manufactures correction factors more than I just Joe Blows (YOU) factors.
Originally posted by GR8 Ride
Here, try this link.

I'd say BOSCH is a pretty good authority on the subject...


http://www.castensdynojet.com/sample.htm

All the information on driveline losses are right in the first paragraph...

Since tire deformation and friction losses don't apply to your Dynapack, then 8-12% would seem to be a logical number, assuming your car still had a longitudinal engine in it.


Pat

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 02:02 PM
Oh Really, now your pulling it out of your ass. Come back to RTP, I WOULD LOVE TO MEET YOU.

Originally posted by GR8 Ride

Not only that, your numbers for humidity don't add up. 19.6% humidity in Raleigh? I lived there (worked in RTP at IBM), and it was NEVER that dry in Raleigh. In fact, it RARELY gets that dry in Phoenix....

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 02:07 PM
Look Here, Weather reports FOR THAT DAY.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KRDU/2002/4/26/DailyHistory.html

25% Humidity at the Airport. 19.6 doesn't sound to far off for cary.

GR8 Ride
10-25-2002, 02:28 PM
Yes, but you ALSO showed a temp of 79.x degrees F.

Airport temp never got above 66 MAX F for the day...

Also, what time of the day were you running the dyno test at?

Only if you did it RIGHT at noon was the humidity around 26% for the airport. If it was nearly 80F in Cary, then your humidity would have been more like 45-50%, which would have had a drastic effect on your corrected values.

I'm not knocking the Dynapack; it provides the true loading of a Mustang, while also eliminating any tire / wheel slip of a roller dyno. I also believe the 207 rwhp it shows...the Dynapack itself has no reason to lie about this. The corrected value I dispute, along with the notion of a 17% driveline loss.

Also, you forgot to mention your *oversized valves*. So it's not just chip, exhaust, intake and M3 cams. Valve work is one of the first things any engine rebuilder will look at to increase flow through an engine. Knowing that you had some headwork done, it's entirely possible to produce 207 rwhp (about 230-240 CRANK) from that motor.

Oh, and the boys at Bosch do build dyno's, and have probably forgotten more about engine management than anyone else is likely to learn. I'd say they are about as reputable as one could possibly get in the business. BOSCH calls for 8-12% driveline losses on a longitudinally mounted engine.

Show me ONE reputable company which claims 17-25% driveline losses on a longitudinally mounted powerplant. Just one...but make sure they have a solid reputation behind them. Chris' part-time tuning shop need not apply.

Simply put, you DON'T KNOW THE CRANKSHAFT HP OF YOUR CAR, AND NEVER WILL. Without a true engine dyno, NOBODY will know the crankshaft HP of their car, and any comments, or guesses as to driveline loss are just that, guesses. 17% is absolutely outrageous.


Pat

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 02:45 PM
The dyno was done inside, hence the higher tempeture.

Time is on the sheet.

Power correct is def right, DYNOJET and MUSTANG dynos both give APROXIMATE numbers based on theory, Dynapack measure actual torque.

Oversized valve stems.

I am still waiting for you to SHOW ME on company who uses ~12% loss, not some second hand quote from a no name website. Pat's internet discussion need not apply. Turner Motorsports, Dinan, APEX-I, APR , TRD, as well as many nascar teams (who don't use the official dyno of nascar) use the Correction factors given by DYNAPACK USA. THEY DESIGNED IT, I THINK THEY KNOW WHAT THE CORRECTION FACTOR IS.

Please post your phone number So I can call you and EXPLAIN to you why your wrong. Come to the triangle area, I will give you a live free showing of how the dynapack works.

GR8 Ride
10-25-2002, 03:06 PM
So how is it that Dynapack would know what the correction factor for driveline losses is, when they don't actually build cars?

In fact, tell me where Dynapack claims 17% driveline losses???

Please, show me WHERE Will Turner claims 17% driveline losses for ANY car.

Also, please indicate where Steve Dinan says the same thing....

Anyone else you listed is fine as well...please SHOW ME where they indicate driveline losses as being 17-25%. I bet you can't find ONE instance...

Once again, nobody reputable uses a 17% driveline loss, simply because it's not physically possible to do. Your transmission and differential would burn up if you lost 17% of your power through it. Remember high school physics? Energy is never lost, it's merely transformed into another form. IE, torque, lost through the drivetrain would be converted into heat.

A rear diff is the only part of the system which generates any great amount of loss, and that's sub 10%. An open diff, even after running for 30 minutes solid, is cool enough to place your hand on it (they measure out at about 30C).

If you want to call to discuss this, fine. PM me for my number, as I'd rather not post it (I get enough questions via e-mail as it is).


Pat

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 03:09 PM
PM me with your number we can talk. I posted mine, your free to call me.

Your remarks are flawed. Where do you come up with this stuff?

GR8 Ride
10-25-2002, 03:13 PM
Check out this site....you should be familiar with it.

I like the part about *small power loss in the rear end*.

Should tell just about all there is to tell....


http://dynapackusa.com/unusual.htm



Pat

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 03:16 PM
Yup, the transmission is also a major factor.

GR8 Ride
10-25-2002, 03:18 PM
No it isn't, as the transmission is a linear gear set, and not a lateral change in direction (like the rear diff).

Loss from the transmission should be less than 1%, and is often less than 0.5% when testing in a 1:1 gear ratio (5th gear on BMWs).

It's the major reason why ANY dyno testing should be done with the tranny in whatever gear is 1:1.

Even in 3rd or 4th gear (1.67 or 1.22), driveline loss from that will be no more than 2%, as the power is not changing plane (all the power is being transmitted in the same direction, and not changing directions such as with the rear diff).


Pat

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 03:20 PM
Wrong, Dyno in diff gears and you will see the numbers differ by a somewhat great amount. I can provide you with 3-4-5 runs, each done, the numbers varry greatly.

GR8 Ride
10-25-2002, 03:32 PM
And let me guess, you got the highest numbers in 3rd gear, right?

What numbers did you get (peak torque / peak HP) for each gear?


Pat

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 03:41 PM
213 207 200 I THINK, I will have to check monday.

GR8 Ride
10-25-2002, 03:59 PM
See, that makes sense then.

Your car is actually producing more torque at the rear wheels (which your Dynapack measures) in 3rd gear than it does in 4th or 5th gear.

This is why you're seeing different numbers, NOT due to transmission losses.

If the OPPOSITE numbers had occurred, then transmission losses could have applied, as the 1:1 ratio would have the smallest loss (as all the transmission does is bind the input and output shafts together).

The 200 HP rear wheel number is the most accurate, and I won't deny it, it's an impressive number at the rear wheels for a 2.5L motor. It would certainly make the M3 cam upgrade a worthwhile one.

This would put you at about 220-225 HP, which is right in line with what your setup should produce. The extra 15-20 HP is made up from the extra 0.5L of displacement that the 3.0 US spec motor has.


Pat

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 04:04 PM
200 hp is still more than m3s put down in 5th. You produce more torque because of the driveline Ratio but that is divded out, (Torque/(trans gear ratio*rear end)). Therefore in each gear you produce same wheel torque.

200 * 1.21= 240 whoopie

hence stock m3 is 200 wheel hp *1.21 and you get 242. WOW!

I will be calling you tomarrow afternoon.

GR8 Ride
10-25-2002, 05:35 PM
Actually, the torque isn't divided out. Your Dynapack (like any dyno) really has no idea what the final gear ratio is.

So it measures the torque available at the rear wheels for each gear, calculates the current speed and RPM, and the software in the dyno makes it's calculations from there.

When you're in 3rd gear, you're effectively trading RPM for more torque, as you do in 4th gear. In 5th gear, the transmission is essentially a pass through device, which means you're not losing any power through it (minus what the bearings absorb, and gears flowing through fluid). Fluid and bearing loss is about 1% max (based on information from ZF; I'll assume Getrag is just as efficient).

So while I don't doubt your 200 rwhp in 5th gear, I STILL doubt the 17% driveline losses.

This is especially true with the Dynapack, as you no longer have to contend with friction (tires) and tire flex losses. If anything, your driveline losses should be even LESS than the 12% I'm suggesting.

I really don't have any doubts about the Dynapack unit; it certainly seems to perform well. The driveline losses are something I still take issue with.


Pat

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 05:37 PM
No, it does not measure rpm, It divides wheel torque by the final gear ratio BC YOU MUST enter that in and it takes NO rpm reading. That is how wheel torque is calculated. Trust me, I know more than you on the subject!

As I said before, I will be calling you later on. No need for you to make remarks on subjects you are not familiar with.

Also the peak numbers are similar to your other roller dynos, though mustang dynos tend to be lower than dynapacks/dynojets.



Originally posted by GR8 Ride
Actually, the torque isn't divided out. Your Dynapack (like any dyno) really has no idea what the final gear ratio is.

So it measures the torque available at the rear wheels for each gear, calculates the current speed and RPM, and the software in the dyno makes it's calculations from there.

When you're in 3rd gear, you're effectively trading RPM for more torque, as you do in 4th gear. In 5th gear, the transmission is essentially a pass through device, which means you're not losing any power through it (minus what the bearings absorb, and gears flowing through fluid). Fluid and bearing loss is about 1% max (based on information from ZF; I'll assume Getrag is just as efficient).

So while I don't doubt your 200 rwhp in 5th gear, I STILL doubt the 17% driveline losses.

This is especially true with the Dynapack, as you no longer have to contend with friction (tires) and tire flex losses. If anything, your driveline losses should be even LESS than the 12% I'm suggesting.

I really don't have any doubts about the Dynapack unit; it certainly seems to perform well. The driveline losses are something I still take issue with.


Pat

GR8 Ride
10-25-2002, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Scottycs
No, it does not measure rpm, It divides wheel torque by the final gear ratio BC YOU MUST enter that in and it takes NO rpm reading. That is how wheel torque is calculated. Trust me, I know more than you on the subject!

As I said before, I will be calling you later on. No need for you to make remarks on subjects you are not familiar with.

Also the peak numbers are similar to your other roller dynos, though mustang dynos tend to be lower than dynapacks/dynojets.





You know what...don't bother. If you're gonna be an ass, there is no point. You obviously don't understand anything about driveline losses, REGARDLESS of how your Dynapack measures it.

Ever taken an engineering class? I'll admit I don't know much about your Dynapack dyno (though I'll give it credit, it certainly seems like a good package), but you don't know much about the driveline of a car.

I'm not debating the accuracy of your Dynapack; I'm debating the accuracy of your driveline losses, which even Dynapack says are minimal.

What difference would it make if it measured engine RPM via coil pickup of some sort, or calculated it by entering final drive ratio? So what? It *still* needs to know engine RPM to plot a curve. I have no experience with the Dynapack, so I'm going based on what Mustang dyno requires, which is merely the engine RPM (off coil), and all other measurements are made from the roller.

There should be no need to *calculate* wheel torque, as if it's a true loading dyno (which it is), then it should just be able to measure the torque, and go from there. All it needs engine RPM for it to plot the curve, and make HP calculations from.

Why does Dynapack calculate engine RPM from final drive ratio, rather than just picking it up from the coil? This seems like an opportunity to introduce error into the system, rather than taking an accurate number right off one of the coils.

What other calculations does the Dynapack software make, other than corrections for atmospheric conditions?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you enter the final drive ratio, AND the Dynapack is measuring the rear wheel torque and dividing it by the final drive ratio, wouldn't that *effectively* be estimating the flywheel torque, and NOT the rear wheel torque (minus some driveline losses)?

And since we can't actually *measure* HP, is it basing it's HP calculations on the corrected torque values?

Without reading the manual, something seems odd here...it's the first dyno I've seen which *cares* about final drive ratio, and I'm trying to figure out why (other than to calculate engine RPM).

Really, rear wheel torque *should be* rear wheel torque, regardless of the final drive ratio used to get there. When you change gears (or rear diff), you're effectively changing the torque output to the rear wheels (actually, you're changing the moment arm; torque itself doesn't really change). If all the Dynapack does is use it to calculate engine RPM, then that's fine. But if it factors into the calculation of torque somehow, then I'm starting to get confused.

Does anyone have a manual for one of these things in .PDF format?


Pat

Scottycs
10-25-2002, 07:23 PM
I understand perfectly.

Yes, I know quite a bit about the driveline of a car.

Minimal, hmm that doesn't bring a number to mine. Try calling dynapack and speak to greg, he is the one who trained us on the unit and told us the correction factors are about 15-20%.

Read this 2 times:
There are no calculations! Torque is a function, it measures real torque, but to get the actual torque from the engine you must divide by the final ratio. If your M3 has 200 pound feet of torque in 5th gear (1:1) and your rear end is 3.15, the torque you put to the wheels is 630. The dynapack divides to get the torque number for the engine, there is no error involved. Now roller dyno, its is ALL CALCULATION.

EVERY DYNO MAKES CALCULATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS. Your Mustang dyno doesn't show it bc it is included in the original calculations. Mustang dyno DOES NOT MEASURE TORQUE NOR HORSEPOWER, it merely calculates it. They measure acceleration as a function of time. Also the weight of the rollers should be the same weight as your car, so that adds even more inconsistency.



Originally posted by GR8 Ride


You know what...don't bother. If you're gonna be an ass, there is no point. You obviously don't understand anything about driveline losses, REGARDLESS of how your Dynapack measures it.

Ever taken an engineering class? I'll admit I don't know much about your Dynapack dyno (though I'll give it credit, it certainly seems like a good package), but you don't know much about the driveline of a car.

I'm not debating the accuracy of your Dynapack; I'm debating the accuracy of your driveline losses, which even Dynapack says are minimal.

What difference would it make if it measured engine RPM via coil pickup of some sort, or calculated it by entering final drive ratio? So what? It *still* needs to know engine RPM to plot a curve. I have no experience with the Dynapack, so I'm going based on what Mustang dyno requires, which is merely the engine RPM (off coil), and all other measurements are made from the roller.

There should be no need to *calculate* wheel torque, as if it's a true loading dyno (which it is), then it should just be able to measure the torque, and go from there. All it needs engine RPM for it to plot the curve, and make HP calculations from.

Why does Dynapack calculate engine RPM from final drive ratio, rather than just picking it up from the coil? This seems like an opportunity to introduce error into the system, rather than taking an accurate number right off one of the coils.

What other calculations does the Dynapack software make, other than corrections for atmospheric conditions?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you enter the final drive ratio, AND the Dynapack is measuring the rear wheel torque and dividing it by the final drive ratio, wouldn't that *effectively* be estimating the flywheel torque, and NOT the rear wheel torque (minus some driveline losses)?

And since we can't actually *measure* HP, is it basing it's HP calculations on the corrected torque values?

Without reading the manual, something seems odd here...it's the first dyno I've seen which *cares* about final drive ratio, and I'm trying to figure out why (other than to calculate engine RPM).

Really, rear wheel torque *should be* rear wheel torque, regardless of the final drive ratio used to get there. When you change gears (or rear diff), you're effectively changing the torque output to the rear wheels (actually, you're changing the moment arm; torque itself doesn't really change). If all the Dynapack does is use it to calculate engine RPM, then that's fine. But if it factors into the calculation of torque somehow, then I'm starting to get confused.

Does anyone have a manual for one of these things in .PDF format?


Pat

GR8 Ride
10-26-2002, 12:02 AM
Hmmm....interesting. So if you were to put in a final drive ratio of 1:1, would the Dynapack show 630 lb-ft of torque, and the RPM range being indicative of whatever the final drive ratio is (ie, engine RPM divided by 3.15)?

I'm not saying the Mustang is the cat's meow, as you said, it merely measures acceleration, and calculates the torque required to accelerate X mass over Y time (one of which is known, the mass, and Y which is measured). It's merely a loading dyno, as opposed to the Dynojet.

Darn, the more I learn about this dyno, the more I like about it. If I understand correctly, it's essentially measuring flywheel torque, MINUS any driveline losses (rear wheel torque divided by final drive ratio).

Well Chris, we'll have to agree to disagree on the driveline losses portion of it, as I just can't see a linear gearset contributing to 6 or 7 percent of power losses, particularly in fifth gear. There has been a lot of gibberish spouted for many years by dyno tuners (and engine tuners) about driveline losses, often being spread around as gospel. As I've said, the Dynapack should be at the low end of the spectrum, especially since you're taking one of the big factors out, the tires.

So, on that side note, you said you have slightly different output numbers in 3rd, 4th and 5th gears. Could that be merely rounding errors in terms of final drive ratio calculation? (since gears aren't generally EXACTLY 3.15:1 for example...).

Since the Dynapack actually takes that factor out (I'll never look at a Mustang Dyno the same again...), it *should* in theory be essentially 100% (or very near to it) accurate in any gear. Any ideas on this? I'm just wondering why you've seen that big of a difference.


Pat