[ATH_M2]

     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

Tuned the M2 with ESS Tuning software and went to the dyno last Friday. Made a solid 400whp/430wtq with only the flash and Dinan muffler/resonator delete. Great improvement in power throughout the mid to high range. Very happy with the results

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=dwpBUFog9bU

[iQuiet]

Oooo! This is exactly what I'm getting done as well.
But i'll have a full Fi Exhaust with Catless downpipe! Great to see!

[velociti]

Awesome numbers! Have to say, though, I worry a bit about the fact that they're hitting 400whp without a downpipe. Heck, neither VF nor Active Autowerke has been able to hit that even with a downpipe. Maybe ESS is just a better tuner, but I wonder what would happen if you hammered that thing over multiple pulls...

[genesyslv]

I've heard both good and bad things about ESS. I'm curious how finished this tune is and I'd love to hear more opinions on it. Are there many other people running an ESS flash tune on an M2?

[VF-Engineering]

It's not difficult to make those sorts of numbers on a dyno; and we've
got plenty of 400+ whp plots from during our own development cycle.
The fact of the matter is that those are what we call "glory runs" as the
factory turbos and fueling system are not going to be happy under
real world conditions.

NOTE:
This is not meant to take anything away from the OP or his tuner of
choice as we can all agree that these are fun plots to look at, but there
should be a level of responsibility that comes with making these sorts
of posts as they may inadvertently set unreasonable expectations for
what future customers may use as a benchmark.

[tom @ eas]

Congrats, sounds like you did your homework and went with one of the best. Enjoy the tune!

[FSociety]

And without 3 runs of 400whp+, 1-2 runs of baseline numbers, this thread doesn't help but prove nothing.

You missed to include your octane (whether this was done on 93 or racegas), also you're under 400wtq even before 4000rpm but i guess WHP power is good.

How much boost is this running?

[stylinexpat]

That sounded very nice. Numbers are good. Would love to see 1/4 mile numbers with that setup

[SeanWRT]

OP, your power curve looks a lot like a factory tune one shifted up by 20% (60~70whp).

It'd be a legit and very high quality tune if backed up with benchmark run and more details (octane, boost peak&tapers & etc).

Also you will want smoothing 5 numbers, so there is no "spike number" from curve.

[harkes]

Why are people bashing this tune? Where does the glory number come from? Its obviously not a glory number if its from OP's own car...

ESS is one of the oldest in this game - you dont stay in this business long if you dont deliver.

I ran one of their flashes as early as back in August 2015 and besides needing some DC tweaking because of my PS2, it ran great!

[iQuiet]

+1 ESS tunes are honestly god like for those hat don't want to play around with maps and self flashing, it's much better than piggy back, and runs exactly like stock, no additional wires or modules.

But most importantly, it's a tune that doesn't disable the safety parameters of engines to enable more power like many out there do. If you look up ESS, of those that use it, they NEVER ran into any engine failure or issues along those lines.

[SeanWRT]

Originally Posted by harkes

Why are people bashing this tune? Where does the glory number come from? Its obviously not a glory number if its from OP's own car...

ESS is one of the oldest in this game - you dont stay in this business long if you dont deliver.

I ran one of their flashes as early as back in August 2015 and besides needing some DC tweaking because of my PS2, it ran great!

No bashing at all. Need more details, and I'm assuming you do as well.

[VF-Engineering]

Originally Posted by harkes

Why are people bashing this tune? Where does the glory number come from? Its obviously not a glory number if its from OP's own car...

I don't think anyone is "bashing", I just think people appreciate more
info, especially when the results comes as a form of advertising.

As for "glory run" that's what people call results that appear to be
based on best case scenarios, with common "tricks" to increase the
numbers; which are typically under even more scrutiny when they
lack baseline reference/comparison numbers.


As an example, take a read through our "TWO Dynos" thread. ← (click link to jump)
By simply selecting 'Smoothing 0' and 'STD Correction', you are
practically guaranteed an increase in peak numbers; sometimes
by as much as 20-25 HP/TQ.

[horsepower_and_hounds]

Originally Posted by VF-Engineering

I don't think anyone is "bashing", I just think people appreciate more
info, especially when the results comes as a form of advertising.

As for "glory run" that's what people call results that appear to be
based on best case scenarios, with common "tricks" to increase the
numbers; which are typically under even more scrutiny when they
lack baseline reference/comparison numbers.


As an example, take a read through our "TWO Dynos" thread. ← (click link to jump)
By simply selecting 'Smoothing 0' and 'STD Correction', you are
practically guaranteed an increase in peak numbers; sometimes
by as much as 20-25 HP/TQ.

Wow.....didn't know that so what is the correct std to choose so when I get the baseline for my M2 I can have them start with the correct parameters for the print out

[Orange fever]

The most use is the STD Smoothing:5

Originally Posted by ehagerty

Wow.....didn't know that so what is the correct std to choose so when I get the baseline for my M2 I can have them start with the correct parameters for the print out

[harkes]

There you have it. 1pc of smoothing 5. If it's needed more precisely than that then I guess we also need roll resistance and coffee temperature? 410 torques and 395 horses - good?

I agree that if one ONLY look at or have the peak numbers, then a 0 smoothing will give a "wrong" number. Here we actually have the full graph so anyone with two brain cells to rub together can derive a more realistic number - no?

[VF-Engineering]

Originally Posted by m2ruder

Wow.....didn't know that so what is the correct std to choose so when I get the baseline for my M2 I can have them start with the correct parameters for the print out

If you’re measuring the same car, same session, “Uncorrected” is the
most appropriate as it’s exactly as described, unchanged values based
solely on the torque measured by the rollers.

“SAE” is the more common correction factor when you are trying to
compensate for conditional changes (temperature, barometric pressure,
and humidity) between two separate dyno sessions; while “STD” is another
conditional correction factor which is commonly used because it typically
offers more advantageous numbers.


The only way to tell if correction factors are being used to simply inflate
gains, or to properly equalize results from different run sessions, is to
see the “Run Conditions” and/or baseline runs on the same graph.

These aren’t hard and fast rules, and of course we’re using some basic
generalizations, but that’s precisely why single run dyno plots with the
lesser common conversion factors are often met with skepticism.

On an 80 degree afternoon with 60% humidity and barometric pressure
of 30Hg, the click of a button from “Uncorrected” to “STD” could be as
much as 15+ extra horsepower and torque.

[kringlefant]

372 PS at the wheels (DIN) with smoothing: 5. Equal to about 435 PS at the crank.

[AmuroRay]

So like 365ish SAE.