Close

    • Gintani sets new E9X M3 S65 V8 horsepower record hitting 828 horsepower with a Stage III supercharger

      Things are progressing nicely on the M3 front with Gintani recently recording 828 horsepower at the crank in a manual E90 M3. The car has a low compression built motor (compression will not be revealed at this time) and hit 16.5 psi of boost from a Vortech YSI. The blower has more in it and could likely be overspun to the 22 psi range but for now 828 horsepower at 16.5 psi is very impressive and more than anyone has made up until today. Expect to see more out of these Stage III cars, like BimmerBoost's own project M3, in the next few weeks.


      This article was originally published in forum thread: New HP World Record Gintani e90 m3 stage 3 sc?? started by Yukohama View original post
      Comments 139 Comments
      1. c32AMG-DTM's Avatar
        c32AMG-DTM -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Look I think we are all smart enough to understand when making comparisons between cars it is without assuming a freak accident will take place. Sure, a Veyron will lose to a Civic if the Veyron catches fire but how often do you see people say something like this:

        Person 1: No point in racing a Veyron vs. a Civic, the Veyron clearly is faster based on all information available.
        Person 2: Not necessarily, the Veyron might spontaneously combust leading the Civic to win.
        Person 1: Oh totally, good point, no way to know unless they really race which car will win.

        Sure a faster car can lose due to driver error. I'm talking about which car will be faster not which driver might make a mistake or random circumstances that make no sense.

        I mean I think this is a pointless argument and detracting from an otherwise very interesting thread.
        LOL, so now it's a Veyron vs. Civic? For the record, you started this weird "fast cars vs. Civic" tangent.

        Previously, we were talking about how a car that's in pieces could be claimed as "faster" than an already-complete 800+ HP M3. I think it boils down to this: you appear to think of things as absolute certainties, facts, whatever - when they're still just assumptions/speculation. I think of things as facts, once they're actually facts; not before.

        Apologies to all for my part in detracting from this thread's interest.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
        LOL, so now it's a Veyron vs. Civic? For the record, you started this weird "fast cars vs. Civic" tangent.
        Yes, I'm exaggerating the point to hopefully get across how absurd your argument is. I don't need to see a Veyron and Civic race to know who wins. Apparently, you do.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
        Previously, we were talking about how a car that's in pieces could be claimed as "faster" than an already-complete 800+ HP M3. I think it boils down to this: you appear to think of things as absolute certainties, facts, whatever - when they're still just assumptions/speculation. I think of things as facts, once they're actually facts; not before.
        Oh, right, another great point because obviously the questioned comparison here would be of a car that is not completed vs. one that is, right? Logical.

        My point is the DCT is faster than a manual with an equivalent setup. It is, it's been proven time and time again, and I have experience with this topic. So, if you don't want to believe me or embrace it I'm not going to force you to.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
        Apologies to all for my part in detracting from this thread's interest.
        Not a big deal, but if you mean it let's return the thread on its course.
      1. Sorena's Avatar
        Sorena -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
        Thanks for clearing that up!
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The clutches are wet, don't know what you are talking about.
        Sorry, i was a bit drunk.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sorena Click here to enlarge
        Sorry, i was a bit drunk.
        It's ok, I wasn't that time.
      1. mm28's Avatar
        mm28 -
        sorry if i am being a noob and ask a stupid question, but i've been biting my tonge on this topic for a very long time.
        why are we subtracting percentage of crank power instead subtracting a fixed amount of WHP when calculating drivtrain loss??
        I mean shouldn't drivetrain loss be a constant factor of WHP regardless of how much a car is making at the crank?
        i.e. if a stock M3 rate at 414BHP makes 350whp, then shouldn't the driveline loss for that M3 will always be 64WHP? drivetrain loss is just the amount of power needed to spin the drive shaft, flywheel, clutch, and finally rotate the wheels and tires correct?
        so why would the same M3, now modded to 800BHP all of a sudden needs 200whp to run the same driveline?

        can someone please help me understand?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mm28 Click here to enlarge
        I mean shouldn't drivetrain loss be a constant factor of WHP regardless of how much a car is making at the crank?
        No, drivetrain loss is not constant. We are just doing rough estimates based on peak values.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mm28 Click here to enlarge
        can someone please help me understand?
        This may shed a little bit of light as well: http://www.bimmerboost.com/content.p...rivetrain-loss
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mm28 Click here to enlarge
        sorry if i am being a noob and ask a stupid question, but i've been biting my tonge on this topic for a very long time.
        why are we subtracting percentage of crank power instead subtracting a fixed amount of WHP when calculating drivtrain loss??
        I mean shouldn't drivetrain loss be a constant factor of WHP regardless of how much a car is making at the crank?
        i.e. if a stock M3 rate at 414BHP makes 350whp, then shouldn't the driveline loss for that M3 will always be 64WHP? drivetrain loss is just the amount of power needed to spin the drive shaft, flywheel, clutch, and finally rotate the wheels and tires correct?
        so why would the same M3, now modded to 800BHP all of a sudden needs 200whp to run the same driveline?

        can someone please help me understand?
        hello,

        this is a very very good question

        and the answer is not so simple, although one would think that the horsepower loss through the drivetrain is RPM dependent, it in fact is both RPM and power dependent.

        The power that goes through your drivetrain, is transmitted via the forces acting on gear teeth in most cases through some type of transmission and rear end.

        The power goes up, therefore the forces on the teeth and rotating equipment goes up, and therefore your FRICTION and parasitic loss goes up.

        I used to think exactly like you, I asked myself that question many times and the answer was not clear. I hope it is now.
      1. mm28's Avatar
        mm28 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DBFIU Click here to enlarge
        hello,

        this is a very very good question

        and the answer is not so simple, although one would think that the horsepower loss through the drivetrain is RPM dependent, it in fact is both RPM and power dependent.

        The power that goes through your drivetrain, is transmitted via the forces acting on gear teeth in most cases through some type of transmission and rear end.

        The power goes up, therefore the forces on the teeth and rotating equipment goes up, and therefore your FRICTION and parasitic loss goes up.

        I used to think exactly like you, I asked myself that question many times and the answer was not clear. I hope it is now.
        thanks! but the whole logic of HP needed to move the driveline goes up with increased crank HP is still not very clear, maybe my mind is stuck in a dead end....
      1. c32AMG-DTM's Avatar
        c32AMG-DTM -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DBFIU Click here to enlarge
        hello,

        this is a very very good question

        and the answer is not so simple, although one would think that the horsepower loss through the drivetrain is RPM dependent, it in fact is both RPM and power dependent.

        The power that goes through your drivetrain, is transmitted via the forces acting on gear teeth in most cases through some type of transmission and rear end.

        The power goes up, therefore the forces on the teeth and rotating equipment goes up, and therefore your FRICTION and parasitic loss goes up.

        I used to think exactly like you, I asked myself that question many times and the answer was not clear. I hope it is now.
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mm28 Click here to enlarge
        thanks! but the whole logic of HP needed to move the driveline goes up with increased crank HP is still not very clear, maybe my mind is stuck in a dead end....
        Modified Magazine wrote an excellent piece on this topic:

        http://www.modified.com/tech/modp-10...s/viewall.html

        Here's the punchline:

        In the end, there's no easy way to estimate the drivetrain loss your vehicle experiences on the road or even on the dyno. Coast-down tests are sometimes used on a dyno to attempt to measure frictional losses, but because this test is not dynamic (meaning they're not done while accelerating, but rather while coasting to a stop with the direct drive gear engaged but the clutch depressed so that the engine and transmission aren't linked) it really only captures steady-state drivetrain losses as well as rolling resistance. So rather than attempting to convert your vehicle's dyno-measured wheel horsepower to a SAE net horsepower figure using a percentage or a fixed horsepower value, you're far better off accepting the fact that these two types of horsepower measurements aren't easily correlated and forego any attempt at doing so.
        In the end, whether people use percentage-loss estimates, or a fixed-horsepower estimate, they're just taking a wild ass guess - and the more modified the vehicle is, the more likely it is that they're way off of the actual crank-output figures. But, people do it anyway... it's just become a common practice, regardless of its significant flaws.

        The only way to figure out crank HP levels for a modified engine, is to yank it from the vehicle and hook it up to an engine dyno. Period.
      1. fundahl's Avatar
        fundahl -
        Yep. The only real way is with an engine Dyne, and then with a chassis Dyne.

        This whole 15-25% drivetrain loss is BS. Vendors shouldn't list "crank HP". Show your WHP, show the type of Dyne you used, show your correction factor and ambient conditions. There is no need for "crank HP" in a completed car.

        It's used to boost up egos.....
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
        In the end, whether people use percentage-loss estimates, or a fixed-horsepower estimate, they're just taking a wild ass guess - and the more modified the vehicle is, the more likely it is that they're way off of the actual crank-output figures. But, people do it anyway... it's just become a common practice, regardless of its significant flaws.
        People like to correct it with the "standard" %'s to inflate the numbers and stroke their ego.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        wasnt this car supposed to go to the airstrip? what happened?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
        wasnt this car supposed to go to the airstrip? what happened?
        No idea, I'll find out.
      1. longboarder's Avatar
        longboarder -
        Bump. It's been a year. What happened to this e90 M3?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by longboarder Click here to enlarge
        Bump. It's been a year. What happened to this e90 M3?
        It's getting turbos.
      1. fastgti69's Avatar
        fastgti69 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        It's getting turbos.
        Ahhhhhhh everything makes sense now.
      1. longboarder's Avatar
        longboarder -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        It's getting turbos.
        Thanks but are there any more details? Seems strange that the owner would make this much power (perhaps an S65 record) and then scrap the project without it attending any events.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by longboarder Click here to enlarge
        Thanks but are there any more details? Seems strange that the owner would make this much power (perhaps an S65 record) and then scrap the project without it attending any events.
        Well the owner works for them so not strange at all.
      1. JRCART's Avatar
        JRCART -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by fastgti69 Click here to enlarge
        Technically a 15% drivetrain loss with that number is around 710 whp. So if gintani dyno hit 680 or so, that makes sense.
        18% loss would be much more accurate.