[M1Curious]

dyno day a couple days ago on sunday. 2 pictures, 1 adjusted to SAE and 1 shows actual output at current temperature and ambient pressure. "correction" was 4%. owners says this dyno typically reads 3% lower than a mustang dyno. interesting numbers for stock!

[tokki]

That definitely does not read lower than a Mustang dyno. I would say thats on par with Dynojet.

[M1Curious]

Originally Posted by tokki

That definitely does not read lower than a Mustang dyno. I would say thats on par with Dynojet.

think i saw dynocon printed on the side of the machine? :

[BlkSVT]

Thanks for sharing!

Any idea what gear they ran these in?

Interesting info, not because of the continued evidence that BMW underrates most of their cars, but because this might be the first MT M2c dyno run I've seen. Rule of thumb I've seen on modern DCT vs MT still says DCT takes ~2-3% efficiency hit. Now I have to go dig up all those DCT dyno runs while I'm eating lunch to see!

....yeah, maybe I have to acknowledge GF's claim that I am still an engineering geek at heart

<edit> before I start another DCT vs MT war, I should add - That's not my intent. DCT is going to be quicker. End of story. Just curious if the 2-3% difference tracks to an 8-12hp difference on the dyno between the 2

[M1Curious]

Originally Posted by BlkSVT

Thanks for sharing!

Any idea what gear they ran these in?

Interesting info, not because of the continued evidence that BMW underrates most of their cars, but because this might be the first MT M2c dyno run I've seen. Rule of thumb I've seen on modern DCT vs MT still says DCT takes ~2-3% efficiency hit. Now I have to go dig up all those DCT dyno runs while I'm eating lunch to see!

....yeah, maybe I have to acknowledge GF's claim that I am still an engineering geek at heart

<edit> before I start another DCT vs MT war, I should add - That's not my intent. DCT is going to be quicker. End of story. Just curious if the 2-3% difference tracks to an 8-12hp difference on the dyno between the 2

they ran it in 5th gear. also had 92oct pump gas. single fan.

[Bumpinjeep]

Originally Posted by BlkSVT

Thanks for sharing!
<edit> before I start another DCT vs MT war, I should add - That's not my intent. DCT is going to be quicker. End of story.

Believe it or not, Car & Driver ran both and found the 6-Speed car being faster to 60, 3.9 vs 4.0.

BTW, 430 whp is on par with what other dynos read this little monster of a car. Check out the Fuel-It dyno results.

[Davil]

Originally Posted by Bumpinjeep

Believe it or not, Car & Driver ran both and found the 6-Speed car being faster to 60, 3.9 vs 4.0.

BTW, 430 whp is on par with what other dynos read this little monster of a car. Check out the Fuel-It dyno results.

On different days with vastly different temperature conditions.
They are both quick times regardless though.

[ChrisK]

Originally Posted by Bumpinjeep

Believe it or not, Car & Driver ran both and found the 6-Speed car being faster to 60, 3.9 vs 4.0.

BTW, 430 whp is on par with what other dynos read this little monster of a car. Check out the Fuel-It dyno results.

That was a total Car & Driver click bait story.

[M1Curious]

After talking with another owner, I'm suprised to notice the power drop off at 5700 rpms. This car is suppose to be linear in horse power to almost ~7k rpms i thought?

could it be starving for air in this dyno testing condition or knock sensors reducing power? the way the dyno is setup or am i just crazy?

[Bumpinjeep]

Originally Posted by ChrisK

That was a total Car & Driver click bait story.

...right, for click bait

Anyway, this really makes me wonder what the CS tune will be. I don't think the car really needs more power, 245 & 265 tires are just too narrow for the power it's making anyway. You can easily break the tires in second or third most of the time.

[skier219]

Is the data shown at the rear wheels, or have they applied a correction to estimate crank?

[M1Curious]

Originally Posted by skier219

Is the data shown at the rear wheels, or have they applied a correction to estimate crank?

it's measuring and reporting power at the wheels. no adustments made.

[carcrazydoc]

Those are impressive numbers at the rear wheel. Thanks for sharing. Seems to refute the claim of detuning the S55 for the M2C.

[1mm2]

Originally Posted by Bumpinjeep

Believe it or not, Car & Driver ran both and found the 6-Speed car being faster to 60, 3.9 vs 4.0.

[SEAT TIME RULES]

Originally Posted by Bumpinjeep

...right, for click bait

Anyway, this really makes me wonder what the CS tune will be. I don't think the car really needs more power, 245 & 265 tires are just too narrow for the power it's making anyway. You can easily break the tires in second or third most of the time.

As soon as my OEM's are toast I'll be going to 265/35F, 295/30R on the OEM rims.

[M1Curious]

Originally Posted by carcrazydoc

Those are impressive numbers at the rear wheel. Thanks for sharing. Seems to refute the claim of detuning the S55 for the M2C.

makes you wonder huh. I would like to do another dyno run on a different machine and compare tbh. it just seems to high for stock lol

[Moflow]

Originally Posted by M1Curious

makes you wonder huh. I would like to do another dyno run on a different machine and compare tbh. it just seems to high for stock lol

Yeah, i've seen a lot of variance, though its worth noting he's not the only one to see around 430 hp.

Here's 428hp
https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1664876


412 hp (with an aftermarket mid-pipe but otherwise stock)
https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...highlight=dyno


410 hp
https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...highlight=dyno

381 hp, the lowest i've seen
https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1584436

386 hp according to Dinan.
https://www.dinancars.com/product/d9...83-m4-f87-m2c/

[Bumpinjeep]

Needless to say, the car has substantially more than 406 hp.

[1mm2]

Originally Posted by M1Curious

makes you wonder huh. I would like to do another dyno run on a different machine and compare tbh. it just seems to high for stock lol

Does seem on the high end.

Given the wide variances out there I'm going with 400 whp.

What's the M4 S55 putting out in comparison?

[skier219]

Figure 15% drivetrain loss for the car is reasonable, so:

crank HP ~ wheel HP / 0.85

430HP at the wheels would be about 505HP at the crank. Seems insanely high to me, but then again BMW is all over the place with their tunes and ratings. Dinan's number would be around 450HP crank.

[M1Curious]

Originally Posted by skier219

Figure 15% drivetrain loss for the car is reasonable, so:

crank HP ~ wheel HP / 0.85

430HP at the wheels would be about 505HP at the crank. Seems insanely high to me, but then again BMW is all over the place with their tunes and ratings. Dinan's number would be around 450HP crank.

I believe the machine was showing near 500 at crank. i wasn't the only one dynod that day. 5 bmws before me then another 5 after. everyones numbers fell within reasonable expectations except a new M5C. his torq was spot on but his HP readings where way off. so I'm inclined to believe the machine even though i don't believe it

[Proctor750]

Originally Posted by M1Curious

After talking with another owner, I'm suprised to notice the power drop off at 5700 rpms. This car is suppose to be linear in horse power to almost ~7k rpms i thought?

could it be starving for air in this dyno testing condition or knock sensors reducing power? the way the dyno is setup or am i just crazy?

From what I have heard, using the CS+ tune cures that top end dead zone so perhaps it' just the stock tuning.

Originally Posted by carcrazydoc

Those are impressive numbers at the rear wheel. Thanks for sharing. Seems to refute the claim of detuning the S55 for the M2C.

I think M4 drivers had complained about poor low end traction and people in the M2C don't seem to have any issues which would point to some kind of change in power delivery.

I will say the factory CS tune (not as much top end as CS+) is a noticeable increase and just about maximum for the tires. CS+ with good and wider rubber is probably the sweet spot.