[Joe240]

I think his numbers are pretty spot on for crank numbers. My Insoric run put my 240xi at 308hp and 507nm
http://www.2addicts.com/forums/attac...9&d=1485010832

[Mr Carrots]

Originally Posted by Joe240

I think his numbers are pretty spot on for crank numbers. My Insoric run put my 240xi at 308hp and 507nm
http://www.2addicts.com/forums/attac...9&d=1485010832

Joe did you dyno again after the mods?

[B58togo]

Originally Posted by x5mad

384 at the crank is more believable but even then the torque figure even at the crank is way off let alone at the wheel.

Take your car to the drag strip and if trap speed is 120mph or about then maybe. I very much doubt it.

Takes a hell of a lot more than 384 WHP in a 3500 lb car to trap 120.

[Joe240]

Originally Posted by Mr Carrots

Joe did you dyno again after the mods?

No I never got a chance to do it again. Car is sitting in ATL now for me to pick it up on my drive down to Florida from Baltimore on Wednesday. When I get to my next base I will need to find an Insoric system in the area to dyno with the mods. Debating on the Pure stage 1 turbo or ripping out the carpet in my new house and putting in tile. Choices...

[XutvJet]

Some of you guys still aren't getting it. You can't compare the numbers generated by a Dynojet and compare them to a Dynapack. They don't correlate. The Dynapack attaches directly to the hub and it has certain inputs/parameters can be manipulated by the operator, similar to that of a Mustang dyno. Dynapacks are one of the highest reading dynos out there. If the OP goes back and dynos with additional mods and on the same machine, it was be more telling of the gains and the delta of those gains.

Don't forget, like every late model turbo BMW out there, the B58 is grossly underrated. It makes more like 390hp/400tq stock.

If this is all over your head, then it best you not participate and just sit back.

[Joe240]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Some of you guys still aren't getting it. You can't compare the numbers generated by a Dynojet and compare them to a Dynapack. They don't correlate. The Dynapack attaches directly to the hub and it has certain inputs/parameters can be manipulated by the operator, similar to that of a Mustang dyno. Dynapacks are one of the highest reading dynos out there. If the OP goes back and dynos with additional mods and on the same machine, it was be more telling of the gains and the delta of those gains.

Don't forget, like every late model turbo BMW out there, the B58 is grossly underrated. It makes more like 390hp/400tq stock.

If this is all over your head, then it best you not participate and just sit back.

I get what you mean by the dynapack be dynojet. My run was with an Insoric setup which attaches a sensor to the center of your wheel and then you drive around town/on the highway doing the pulls needed to get the data. It also uses inputs and parameters similar to any other dyno/dynapack like vehicle weight, barometric pressure, ambient temperature, etc. to calculate the data. I know it's still apples to oranges, but I think the Insoric is much closer in relation to a dynapack than a dynojet or mustang dyno.

But like you mentioned, it's all about the gains and the delta of the gains. He ran stock (midpipes don't count as performance mods IMO) so once he gets some mods and then re runs, we will have a better idea.

[NISFAN]

Funny thread.

Guy starts thread saying his stock car produced a crazy high whp figure. Then promised to upload the graph.......but didn't.......and leaves the scene.

Then a bunch of guys start arguing over the accuracy of different dyno's to support the totally ridiculous claim.

Fact is, the OP's figures are nearly 100hp higher than what is accepted to be the average whp reading on these cars. 290-300whp.
His reading are also higher than estimated crank readings for these cars (either dyno calculated or by adding 15-20% rule of thumb losses for RWD config.) but those would be closer to his claimed 384.

Maybe dynapack measure in Australian kangaroo powers?
Most of us prefer to use the horsepower figure derived from a Mr. James Watt.

[B58togo]

^^
Not sure where you're getting 290-300 whp for the B58. There are countless dynos out there showing ~330. You're quoting N55 numbers.

[bryan_G01]

290-300 for a awd is correct since 235 is 270-280 wheel.

[CAMOETO]

Originally Posted by bryan_f22

290-300 for a awd is correct since 235 is 270-280 wheel.

I find the wild stock HP claims hilarious myself, like the people that think the car really makes something like 400HP stock. Reading through the forum, the only data I could find where a user put their stock m240i on a Dynojet, the numbers much closer to what is advertised by BMW:

292 WHP - RWD, auto, 91 octane
308 WHP - XWD, auto, ? octane
312 WHP - RWD, auto, ? octane

Dinan has claimed that our cars have about a 12%-13% drivetrain loss for the RWD/auto variant, so the numbers above actually makes sense, especially the 292 WHP car running 91, since BMW's advertised numbers are for 91 octane gas and running higher octane gas is likely to provide slightly better numbers.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by CAMOETO

I find the wild stock HP claims hilarious myself, like the people that think the car really makes something like 400HP stock. Reading through the forum, the only data I could find where a user put their stock m240i on a Dynojet, the numbers much closer to what is advertised by BMW:

292 WHP - RWD, auto, 91 octane
308 WHP - XWD, auto, ? octane
312 WHP - RWD, auto, ? octane

Dinan has claimed that our cars have about a 12%-13% drivetrain loss for the RWD/auto variant, so the numbers above actually makes sense, especially the 292 WHP car running 91, since BMW's advertised numbers are for 91 octane gas and running higher octane gas is likely to provide slightly better numbers.

Those numbers look low, perhaps they're for a 340/440, but even then, still a bit low. An RWD M240 makes around 320-330whp on a Dynojet. That's a fact. The accepted rule of thumb for the drivetrain loss in a RWD late model or automatic is around 15%. 12-13% is more representative of a FWD car that has less rotational weight to deal with.

So, 320whp to 330whp divided by .85 = 375hp to 390hp. Given that these ~3,500lb cars can obtain 110-111mph in the 1/4 mile, means they're making way more than the 335hp quoted number. Same goes for the M235. The 1/4 mile trap speed is key here as that is the indicator of available power to the wheels. BMW has been underrating their late model turbo engines since their introduction back in 2007. It's well documented .....everywhere.

[CAMOETO]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Those numbers look low, perhaps they're for a 340/440, but even then, still a bit low. An RWD M240 makes around 320-330whp on a Dynojet. That's a fact. The accepted rule of thumb for the drivetrain loss in a RWD late model or automatic is around 15%. 12-13% is more representative of a FWD car that has less rotational weight to deal with.

So, 320whp to 330whp divided by .85 = 375hp to 390hp. Given that these ~3,500lb cars can obtain 110-111mph in the 1/4 mile, means they're making way more than the 335hp quoted number. Same goes for the M235. The 1/4 mile trap speed is key here as that is the indicator of available power to the wheels. BMW has been underrating their late model turbo engines since their introduction back in 2007. It's well documented .....everywhere.

The numbers I quoted are m240i numbers are not 330/440 numbers. They came from m240i owners by doing a search on this board. The only stock m240i numbers I've seen that are in the 330WHP range came from BMS, so I don't really trust those 100%. The 12-13% loss figure came was posted by Dinan in their Dinan Elite thread. I've seen the 15% number thrown around years back, but drivetrains have become more efficient lately. If you have seen actual m240i owners with Dynojet stock numbers that you quote, I would appreciate a link.

Personally, being an m240i owner, I would be more than happy if BMW underrated our cars by 50HP, but I have not seen evidence to bear that out from Dynojet runs. The 330WHP dynos that I have seen were not Dynojet or were vendor figures. I don't doubt BMW underrates our engines, having owned N54, N55, and B58 powered BMWs, but I don't think the actual numbers are nearly what people think, especially when running 91 octane.

[Joe240]

Originally Posted by CAMOETO

The numbers I quoted are m240i numbers are not 330/440 numbers. They came from m240i owners by doing a search on this board. The only stock m240i numbers I've seen that are in the 330WHP range came from BMS, so I don't really trust those 100%. The 12-13% loss figure came was posted by Dinan in their Dinan Elite thread. I've seen the 15% number thrown around years back, but drivetrains have become more efficient lately. If you have seen actual m240i owners with Dynojet stock numbers that you quote, I would appreciate a link.

Personally, being an m240i owner, I would be more than happy if BMW underrated our cars by 50HP, but I have not seen evidence to bear that out from Dynojet runs. The 330WHP dynos that I have seen were not Dynojet or were vendor figures. I don't doubt BMW underrates our engines, having owned N54, N55, and B58 powered BMWs, but I don't think the actual numbers are nearly what people think, especially when running 91 octane.

My xdrive numbers were on 91 octane if you want to add that to your post. Still, 308 for awd is pretty nice at the wheels (~362 crank using 15% loss) I wouldn't doubt seeing rwd making 320-330 whp.

[Joe240]

And the only reason I say I wouldn't doubt it is because I was on my 19s when I did the run, not the factory 18s (larger diameter wheels means slower acceleration, albeit minut) plus I'm sure the xdrive system is more than 15% loss

[B58togo]

Originally Posted by CAMOETO

The numbers I quoted are m240i numbers are not 330/440 numbers. They came from m240i owners by doing a search on this board. The only stock m240i numbers I've seen that are in the 330WHP range came from BMS, so I don't really trust those 100%. The 12-13% loss figure came was posted by Dinan in their Dinan Elite thread. I've seen the 15% number thrown around years back, but drivetrains have become more efficient lately. If you have seen actual m240i owners with Dynojet stock numbers that you quote, I would appreciate a link.

Personally, being an m240i owner, I would be more than happy if BMW underrated our cars by 50HP, but I have not seen evidence to bear that out from Dynojet runs. The 330WHP dynos that I have seen were not Dynojet or were vendor figures. I don't doubt BMW underrates our engines, having owned N54, N55, and B58 powered BMWs, but I don't think the actual numbers are nearly what people think, especially when running 91 octane.

Believe what you want, but when 35xx lb "335 bhp" M240i's are running as quick as 435 bhp, 38xx lb Mustang GT's, you have to start to open your eyes to the fact either one is grossly underrated or one is grossly overrated. The dyno proof tends to support the former. And it's not just Burger that's getting 330+ from the 340i. Too lazy now, but maybe tomorrow I'll put up some links that support it.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by CAMOETO

The numbers I quoted are m240i numbers are not 330/440 numbers. They came from m240i owners by doing a search on this board. The only stock m240i numbers I've seen that are in the 330WHP range came from BMS, so I don't really trust those 100%. The 12-13% loss figure came was posted by Dinan in their Dinan Elite thread. I've seen the 15% number thrown around years back, but drivetrains have become more efficient lately. If you have seen actual m240i owners with Dynojet stock numbers that you quote, I would appreciate a link.

Personally, being an m240i owner, I would be more than happy if BMW underrated our cars by 50HP, but I have not seen evidence to bear that out from Dynojet runs. The 330WHP dynos that I have seen were not Dynojet or were vendor figures. I don't doubt BMW underrates our engines, having owned N54, N55, and B58 powered BMWs, but I don't think the actual numbers are nearly what people think, especially when running 91 octane.

There are plenty of 340/440 dynos (Dynojet) out there showing ~305-310whp stock and then MPPK equipped 340/440s showing ~320-330whp. The M240 comes with the MPPK as factory equipment.

The only thing I don't like about BMS' Dynojet numbers is that they use STD correction factors vs the more common and widely accepted SAE correction factor. The STD corrected numbers will be about 3-4% higher than SAE. That's about the only way you can manipulate numbers on the Dynojet. The machine is simple and consistent.

We know for a fact that the M235 consistently makes 290-310whp and 310-330wtq on the Dynojet, depending on tranny and drivetrain (Xdrive being the least and the 6MT being the most). The M240 is a bit quicker than the M235 in stock form thus it's certainly making more power than the M235.

[NISFAN]

OK so what we have learned is that Dynojet figures are very optimistic. No wonder all the tuners use them.

[B58togo]

What people should learn is that real world experience at the track trumps dynos.

[Joe240]

Originally Posted by B58togo

Believe what you want, but when 35xx lb "335 bhp" M240i's are running as quick as 435 bhp, 38xx lb Mustang GT's, you have to start to open your eyes to the fact either one is grossly underrated or one is grossly overrated. The dyno proof tends to support the former. And it's not just Burger that's getting 330+ from the 340i. Too lazy now, but maybe tomorrow I'll put up some links that support it.

There's other factors at play than just hp numbers with this comparison. Final drive ratio in the rear diff, gearing ratio in the tranny, tuning of the tranny, etc. hard to compare 2 different brand cars like a mustang and a m240i.

[B58togo]

^^
The M240i has a 2.81 final drive ratio. Let us compare that to the 3.73 in the GT with the performance package. Higher numerical (deeper) FD ratios equate to quicker acceleration. I'll give you the fact that the ZF8 is ridiculously efficient and might slash a couple tenths, all else being equal, but if the GT truly was 100 bhp stronger than the 250-300 lb lighter M240i, we'd be seeing a stronger disparity (with the Mustang being quicker) in quarter mile times, stock to stock. But we're not.

[GrandMasterKhan]

GUYS. The M240i makes 330whp/380wtq STOCK. This has been proven multiple times.

DynaPak dynos DO read high. Given 12% over Dynojet his numbers make sense.

[CAMOETO]

Originally Posted by Joe240

My xdrive numbers were on 91 octane if you want to add that to your post. Still, 308 for awd is pretty nice at the wheels (~362 crank using 15% loss) I wouldn't doubt seeing rwd making 320-330 whp.

I think it may have been your numbers I was quoting. 308 is pretty darn good for xDrive running 91. It's quite possible that 93 gives better numbers as well.