Close

    • PRO TUNING FREAKS Cobb AP tuned upgraded turbo and ported cylinder head N54 E90 335i hits 553 wheel horsepower 631 wheel torque on pump gas and meth - N54 Twin Turbo World Record

      Last night I hit the dyno to see what the car can do with the new ported N54 cylinder head, RB turbos, 3.5bar TMAP sensor from the new BMW N20 four-cylinder motor, FBO (catless), pump 94 octane and meth, stock turbo inlet pipes. Key thing here, this is with a tune that sees ZERO timing corrections everywhere on all cylinders and timing that is set right at MBT for this level of boost and this car's given octane. I've run the car on the street with this exact setup this morning, number of pulls, it's pretty ridiculous.

      553WHP/631WTQ - PUMP GAS (94 Octane) + METH


      In terms of the tune, it was running more than 22.5psi in midrange, 19.7psi peak at 6k rpm, 17.5-18psi at redline. Logs of actual boost in midrange aren't available as I found out that ATP's datalogging needs to be updated to accomodate the 3.5bar scaling. I was going off my p3 gauge for midrange boost when pushed past the 22.5psi datalogging limit. I don't recommend this to anyone before ATP is updated for 3.5bar datalog scaling, it just had to be done last night and I decided to push on as I get to do what I feel is best for my car LOL and that's make some power

      No leanouts or fuel issues. LTFTs goes down to zero during the pull, STFTs trend to high negative 20s with meth. The car was running close to if not 100% meth, three 1.0mm nozzles, two of them in the FMIC outlet silicone coupler and another up in the ER charge pipe past the elbow.

      I'll be fine tuning things over the coming days but to be perfectly honest and blunt, last night was about turning things UP and NOT fine tuning. It was to find MBT and push boost as far as it can go while limiting wastegate duty cycle to about 73-74% everywhere especially past 6k rpm. It was also to experiment with various VANOS changes. I experimented with higher wg duty cycles before and RBs didn't like it. It also introduces too much backpressure into the system even fully catless that the car doesn't like it.

      So, is there more power left here. We'll see when the intake pipes are swapped for something better flowing. @George Smooth reported +19whp at his high altitude in South Africa so possibly another 20 in there without any changes. Then there's mixing race gas or E85 into it to see if there's anything there in terms of additional power through more timing. All out its very possible this will be a 575-585whp setup once all is said and done, dare I say 600 LOL

      Other runs from last night:


      By the way, on Smoothing of zero the car made 555WHP Nice even number easy to remember

      When that torque hits it feels like a big turbo came on!! Swoooooosh!

      Specs:

      PTF Cobb AP Tune
      PTF Ported Cylinder Head w/ +1mm enlarged Super Alloy Exhaust Valves
      RB Turbos
      3.5bar BMW N20 engine TMAP sensor
      Aquamist HFS-4 Methanol Injection (100% meth, three 1.0mm nozzles, Howerton 2.2gal trunk mounted tank)
      AR Catless Downpipes
      HKS Legamax Exhaust
      Custom Mr.5-like intake
      KL Racing (aka Big Tom) FMIC
      ER 3" post FMIC piping (up pipe, charge Pipe) + Tial BOV
      Okada Plasma Ignition Coils + OEM Plugs
      HPF Stage 2 Feramic Clutch + OEM Dual Mass Flywheel
      DSS 1000hp rear axles
      Rear m3 suspension bits
      2.56 Quaife LSD
      17x9 APEX ARC-8 wheels
      Nitto 555 245/45/17 front, Nitto 555R 275/40/17 rear tires
      Vorsteiner Carbon Fiber hood (single sided, vented)
      Carbon Fiber trunk
      Sunoco (Petro Canada) pump 94 Octane




      EDIT: Some people asked to see the conditions from the dyno, STD correction factor as well as the same run but in SAE. Here they are below:

      CONDITIONS AND STD CORRECTION (i.e. STD resulted in 1.00 correction, so no correction basically):



      SAE numbers for the same run (SAE correction was 0.97, so 3% lower than STD):

      This article was originally published in forum thread: PTF UPDATE: 553WHP 631WTQ - N54 TwinTurbo World Record started by dzenno@ProTUNING Freaks View original post
      Comments 217 Comments
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rudypoochris Click here to enlarge
        Shorter gearing costs you power. Greater changes in ratio require more effort to turn. Additionally larger ratios means one shaft is turning faster than the other, friction increases with V^2. This is a big reason why you can dyno a car like an S2000 and end up with less HP than a 225hp Mustang 5.0. The drive train consumes much more energy due to the higher ratios. Some of this is mitigated by weaker input components if they are used.
        Well, it's actually longer gears take more effort (torque) to turn, hence they read out a lower torque o the wheels figure

        Torque is effort (a moment) at a specific time, power is torque over time
        ... I think i explained that wrong, but it's kinda the idea :/

        heat through friction isn't as big a deal as you seem to be saying, assuming all components are healthy and high quality. Yes heat will massively increase at much much higher rpm, but these are relatively snall rpm changes, and relatively low heat.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Gearing can make your head hurt.
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Gearing can make your head hurt.
        It's such a complicated topic, everything discussed here is.

        did you know that one horsepower is 550 pound feet per second?

        not entirely relevant, but interesting lol (i was trying to see what measurements i could convert to o understand things a bit simpler)
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        did you know that one horsepower is 550 pound feet per second?
        Of course I knew that. How else do you measure getting 300 pounds of coal up a mine shaft?

        The real question is do you know how many watts are in 1 horse?
      1. rudypoochris's Avatar
        rudypoochris -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        Well, it's actually longer gears take more effort (torque) to turn, hence they read out a lower torque o the wheels figure

        Torque is effort (a moment) at a specific time, power is torque over time
        ... I think i explained that wrong, but it's kinda the idea :/

        heat through friction isn't as big a deal as you seem to be saying, assuming all components are healthy and high quality. Yes heat will massively increase at much much higher rpm, but these are relatively snall rpm changes, and relatively low heat.
        No, shorter gears (higher ratios) consume more power. The heat is real... touch the transmission after doing a few 150mph pulls. Most of the power is lost in the rear end though since the 90 degree and hypoid gear sucks power.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        There's truth to this but you do get a mathematical torque increase which has to translate.
        Eh not really. You measure the RPMs via tach signal and the drum speed. Knowing the mass of the drum, the power is calculated although obviously torque is measured. That is why I didn't understand why they bothered to input gear ratios to get a MPH reading. It just serves to confuse here.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rudypoochris Click here to enlarge
        Eh not really. You measure the RPMs via tach signal and the drum speed. Knowing the mass of the drum, the power is calculated although obviously torque is measured. That is why I didn't understand why they bothered to input gear ratios to get a MPH reading. It just serves to confuse here.
        I'm not really sure what you are saying, the torque multiplication changes with a shorter ratio.
      1. rudypoochris's Avatar
        rudypoochris -
        This may be worth reading. I wrote it a long time ago (18 years old) and unfortunately I had to compress it to make it fit in the attachments of this forum. I never got around to writing the drivetrain loss portion.
      1. rudypoochris's Avatar
        rudypoochris -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'm not really sure what you are saying, the torque multiplication changes with a shorter ratio.
        The torque at the wheels, but not at the motor. The dyno will give you torque at the motor although it is calculated back from torque at the wheels. That is why gearing can consume power and skew the results.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rudypoochris Click here to enlarge
        The torque at the wheels, but not at the motor. The dyno will give you torque at the motor although it is calculated back from torque at the wheels. That is why gearing can consume power and skew the results.
        Yes, that is what I was saying.
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rudypoochris Click here to enlarge
        No, shorter gears (higher ratios) consume more power. The heat is real... touch the transmission after doing a few 150mph pulls. Most of the power is lost in the rear end though since the 90 degree and hypoid gear sucks power.
        hm fair enough
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rudypoochris Click here to enlarge
        The torque at the wheels, but not at the motor. The dyno will give you torque at the motor although it is calculated back from torque at the wheels. That is why gearing can consume power and skew the results.
        how does this work without inputting all the gear ratios/wheel/tyre profiles etc. etc.?


        how can it possibly know how to calc it all back?
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Of course I knew that. How else do you measure getting 300 pounds of coal up a mine shaft?

        The real question is do you know how many watts are in 1 horse?
        indeed

        1 horse contains north of 998531 watt-hours if set on fire.. if you're meaning if you superimpose an anti-horse on top of a horse? that's a bit harder..

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        They aren't more accurate as much as for tuning load based dynos are preferred.
        why is that exactly?

        for tuning purposes, wouldn't anty old dyno be able to give you the data and consistency you need?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        indeed

        1 horse contains north of 998531 watt-hours if set on fire.. if you're meaning if you superimpose an anti-horse on top of a horse? that's a bit harder..
        What about if the horse eats a lot of hay before you light it on fire? Think about that.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        why is that exactly?

        for tuning purposes, wouldn't anty old dyno be able to give you the data and consistency you need?
        Because on the road you will see different load than you will with an inertia based dyno. That is why you will spool faster on the street than on a dynojet.
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        What about if the horse eats a lot of hay before you light it on fire? Think about that.



        Because on the road you will see different load than you will with an inertia based dyno. That is why you will spool faster on the street than on a dynojet.
        don't make me calculate that too! negligible increase though comparatively haha

        ahm, fair enough then. you still CAN tune on a DD i take it though, we only have maybe 1-2 dynojets that are nearby, where we probably have 10-20 dyno dynamics
      1. rudypoochris's Avatar
        rudypoochris -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        how does this work without inputting all the gear ratios/wheel/tyre profiles etc. etc.?


        how can it possibly know how to calc it all back?
        Rpm pickup and speed sensor on the roller. Between those two it can build a ratio.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        ahm, fair enough then. you still CAN tune on a DD i take it though, we only have maybe 1-2 dynojets that are nearby, where we probably have 10-20 dyno dynamics
        Sure you can tune on a dynojet. Most tuners I know though prefer load based for tuning. Dyno Dynamics seemingly being the most popular.

        And if you have a more complex tune or something like an Alpha-N setup, definitely probably want your tuning done on something other than a dynojet.

        For numbers and analyzing a curve though, I love the dynojet.
      1. rudypoochris's Avatar
        rudypoochris -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        indeed

        1 horse contains north of 998531 watt-hours if set on fire.. if you're meaning if you superimpose an anti-horse on top of a horse? that's a bit harder..


        why is that exactly?

        for tuning purposes, wouldn't anty old dyno be able to give you the data and consistency you need?
        Load dynos work by imparting a load on the car and measuring the torque it takes to turn the spindle/roller. They can keep the car from accelerating when floored or allow for a very slow rise in speed. Inertia dyno works by having a fixed weight roller and calculating how long it took the car to accelerate that load up to speed. Principals are very different. Inertia dyno like dynojet is cheap. The load dynos are better, but either works for 99% of the time.
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rudypoochris Click here to enlarge
        Rpm pickup and speed sensor on the roller. Between those two it can build a ratio.
        ahh thanks that makes sense

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Sure you can tune on a dynojet. Most tuners I know though prefer load based for tuning. Dyno Dynamics seemingly being the most popular.

        And if you have a more complex tune or something like an Alpha-N setup, definitely probably want your tuning done on something other than a dynojet.

        For numbers and analyzing a curve though, I love the dynojet.
        mmnm fair enough

        dj does do a nice ego inflation..

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rudypoochris Click here to enlarge
        Load dynos work by imparting a load on the car and measuring the torque it takes to turn the spindle/roller. They can keep the car from accelerating when floored or allow for a very slow rise in speed. Inertia dyno works by having a fixed weight roller and calculating how long it took the car to accelerate that load up to speed. Principals are very different. Inertia dyno like dynojet is cheap. The load dynos are better, but either works for 99% of the time.
        yeah there's a few shops around here with $XXxxx setups, all in ground, to make sure they can handle super slammed track/drift cars lol

        so they're KINDA similar in operation (they load up the wheels), but one can be varied, the other is a set weight.
      1. Tzu's Avatar
        Tzu -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        What about if the horse eats a lot of hay before you light it on fire? Think about that.
        LOL
      1. dzenno@PTF's Avatar
        dzenno@PTF -
        Anyone ready and willing to send me their 3.08 or 3.46 (large housing) pumpkin to drop in and settle the TQ debate let me know...I say numbers will be either the same or slightly higher with a 3.08 or 3.46 Click here to enlarge