E92 M3 cracks 400 horsepower at the wheels with GIAC tune on 91 octane pump gas - Gains ~50 WHP from tune and bolt ons

Great Numbers. Waiting for Evolve Numbers

Originally Posted by 0-60Motorsports

Great Numbers. Waiting for Evolve Numbers

Same here, want to see what the Evolve tune does.

Im sure they'll do good.

Guess i gotta go to a dynojet and hurt some feelings. Lol

Originally Posted by BrenM3

Guess i gotta go to a dynojet and hurt some feelings. Lol

Be a real man and get on a Mustang Dyne.


Really though, we just were part of an article from GM Performance testing their dyno mule Camaro on two load-based dynes vs a DynoJet.

Made 368whp on BOTH the properly calibrated load dynes, and 390 something in the Dynojet.

Try a big turbo diesel or simulated 1/4 mile on an inertia-only dyne.


Anyway, assuming this is a normally operating DynoJet, that M3 would make 360-370ish on a Mustang or similar. Fairly strong for a 3500+lbs car I suppose.

Or go on a REAL dyno dynamics digital and barely break 340whp fully bolted. I've made 422whp already (Dynapack @ 1.0cf)

Mustangs are the boss - I am in talks with Scott over there about purchasing one.

Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ

Be a real man and get on a Mustang Dyne.


Really though, we just were part of an article from GM Performance testing their dyno mule Camaro on two load-based dynes vs a DynoJet.

Made 368whp on BOTH the properly calibrated load dynes, and 390 something in the Dynojet.

Try a big turbo diesel or simulated 1/4 mile on an inertia-only dyne.


Anyway, assuming this is a normally operating DynoJet, that M3 would make 360-370ish on a Mustang or similar. Fairly strong for a 3500+lbs car I suppose.

This car must be really undertuned from factory.

Originally Posted by BrenM3

Or go on a REAL dyno dynamics digital and barely break 340whp fully bolted. I've made 422whp already (Dynapack @ 1.0cf)

Mustangs are the boss - I am in talks with Scott over there about purchasing one.

Sweet man! We were at Performance Racing Industries with Scott, Don, Micheal, Jeff and Steve. We are 361Motorsports running their Mobile AWD-500-Euro outside exhibit. Awesome show and awesome people. They have some AWD-500s for pretty cheap now, above or in-ground.

If you ever have questions or want me to demo a feature with a video just let me know!

I might pick your brain from a non sales pitch point of you. I am looking at an MDAWD-500 above ground.

Originally Posted by BrenM3

I might pick your brain from a non sales pitch point of you. I am looking at an MDAWD-500 above ground.

That is what I am going to run when the shop is built. Might get the extra front rollers for the Truck guys to make it easier/simulate AWD launches in long wheelbase vehicles. I don't want to get this thread too off topic, but you can PM me here, make a thread or email me camundahl@gmail.com if you have any questions about the dyne.

wow that's some nice gains

Originally Posted by fastgti69

This car must be really undertuned from factory.

Yes - agreed... As opposed to the S54B32, there is some definite NA potential in this engine. Makes me happy to see results like this - this is good news.

Curious about the inertia dyno vs. Mustang dyno (probably going to laugh - but thought Mustang dyno meant it was used for Mustangs)... I don't understand how power can be rated differently - it's work/time or force*velocity... If we are saying that the drum weighs a constant amount, and it's rate of acceleration is being measured - why would there be such a difference between two different properly calibrated dynos after correction if power = power?

Not understanding this - can anyone chime in on this?

Cheers.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

Yes - agreed... As opposed to the S54B32, there is some definite NA potential in this engine. Makes me happy to see results like this - this is good news.

Curious about the inertia dyno vs. Mustang dyno (probably going to laugh - but thought Mustang dyno meant it was used for Mustangs)... I don't understand how power can be rated differently - it's work/time or force*velocity... If we are saying that the drum weighs a constant amount, and it's rate of acceleration is being measured - why would there be such a difference between two different properly calibrated dynos after correction if power = power?

Not understanding this - can anyone chime in on this?

Cheers.

An typical inertia only dyne is just as simple as your formula. On a Dynojet you spin a roller that weighs a certain amount and has a certain diameter.

A Mustang Dyne (and some others that have followed) uses a Power Absorption Unit (PAU) and Eddy current in addition to having rolls like other chassis dynes. This puts a dynamic "back-torque" on the vehicle in order to load it as if you were actually driving. This affects cylinder filling, power changes due to accelerating rotating mass at a different rate and temperatures as the engine and fluids heat up under a REAL LOAD. It's not just a weighted roller, like DynoJet uses.

Various other things affect the REAL output of your motor to the wheels. Parasitic losses from your drivetrain, road force load from your total weight, aerodynamic drag and even losses from gear to gear in your transmission.

A Mustang Dyne has a parasitic loss file that can be built per car that calculates the forces lost through your drivetrain as you coast down from a specific speed. There is a variable, Horsepower@50, which is used to see how efficient the vehicle is moving 50mph. Also vehicle weight is an important variable.

Once all those variables are in place, and a properly calibrated Weather Station is being used, can you make an accurate measurement of Horsepower and Torque at the wheels. The PAU will use Eddy Currents and some complex calculations to apply dynamic load to the vehicle. (Assuming airspeed is taken care of, separate issue)

It's basically a road-load vehicle simulation. You can launch on our Mustang Dyne just as you do in real life and run a simulated 1/4 mile. We have had multiple customers run times withing tenths of their real life E.T. and within a MPH of their real life trap speed.

I am not part of Mustang, just a customer of theirs and I don't do it justice. I know maybe %25 of what the machine can do. I have yet to dive into advanced tuning. The dyne has the capability to hold a motor at a certain load % or by RPM, Speed, whatever you want, good for high stress tuning.


If you notice, Mustang pulls take longer than Dynojet pulls. You tell me which one feels more realistic.

There are more mechanical and friction losses on a Mustang dyno than on a Dynojet, that makes up some of the difference right there. Furthermore a Dynojet does not realistically load the engine so it doesn't behave as it would on the road. A final difference is one type of dyno measures power and calculates torque, while the other type measures torque and calculates power (I can't remember which type does what). On top of all that you have correction factors, etc.

What makes dynos useful (particularly variable load dynos, like the Mustang) is being able to simulate road conditions for tuning. You can compare power before and after on one dyno, but comparing power across dynos is silly. That's what the drag strip is for.

Edit: Yeah, what he said. ^

Does this car have headers ?

Originally Posted by BrenM3

Guess i gotta go to a dynojet and hurt some feelings. Lol

Do a dynojet!!

Originally Posted by fastgti69

This car must be really undertuned from factory.

He, it's a 100 horsepower per liter 12.0:1 compression motor.

People used to tell me it was maxed out until I proved them wrong.

It just isn't as high strung as the S54 but it definitely is not undertuned, it's pushed pretty far.

Originally Posted by LostMarine

I thought realistic dj dynos show a stock s65 at about 330, not 350..? I've seen 350 HP from I/p/e/tuned s65's around here...

Nah, 350 is a good number and right on the 15% expected on a Dynojet and many hit that. I hit 349...

Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ

An typical inertia only dyne is just as simple as your formula. On a Dynojet you spin a roller that weighs a certain amount and has a certain diameter.

A Mustang Dyne (and some others that have followed) uses a Power Absorption Unit (PAU) and Eddy current in addition to having rolls like other chassis dynes. This puts a dynamic "back-torque" on the vehicle in order to load it as if you were actually driving. This affects cylinder filling, power changes due to accelerating rotating mass at a different rate and temperatures as the engine and fluids heat up under a REAL LOAD. It's not just a weighted roller, like DynoJet uses.

Various other things affect the REAL output of your motor to the wheels. Parasitic losses from your drivetrain, road force load from your total weight, aerodynamic drag and even losses from gear to gear in your transmission.

A Mustang Dyne has a parasitic loss file that can be built per car that calculates the forces lost through your drivetrain as you coast down from a specific speed. There is a variable, Horsepower@50, which is used to see how efficient the vehicle is moving 50mph. Also vehicle weight is an important variable.

Once all those variables are in place, and a properly calibrated Weather Station is being used, can you make an accurate measurement of Horsepower and Torque at the wheels. The PAU will use Eddy Currents and some complex calculations to apply dynamic load to the vehicle. (Assuming airspeed is taken care of, separate issue)

It's basically a road-load vehicle simulation. You can launch on our Mustang Dyne just as you do in real life and run a simulated 1/4 mile. We have had multiple customers run times withing tenths of their real life E.T. and within a MPH of their real life trap speed.

I am not part of Mustang, just a customer of theirs and I don't do it justice. I know maybe %25 of what the machine can do. I have yet to dive into advanced tuning. The dyne has the capability to hold a motor at a certain load % or by RPM, Speed, whatever you want, good for high stress tuning.


If you notice, Mustang pulls take longer than Dynojet pulls. You tell me which one feels more realistic.

Nice informative reply - appreciated much.