[FSU_Logan]

Originally Posted by Davil

Noticed this. 93 US is same as our 98 isn’t it?

Yes

[Karmic Man]

Originally Posted by Davil

Noticed this. 93 US is same as our 98 isn’t it?

Yeah...still missed the days when we had the Shell V Power Racing 100 12 years ago

My Evolution 9 was running 25 kw more at the wheels than guys with the same mods (exhaust only) and the tuner thought I had a freakish Blue Printed Group N 4G63 in it until I told him it was running on 100

[ChrisK]

Originally Posted by cntzl

This low end torque of N55 vs S55 has become one of the most popular topics recently I don't think different low end behavior has anything to do with engine itself. Early M3/M4 models had a higher low end torque as well. BMW changed this behavior via DME software updates in the past couple years. I posted about this in a different thread but will share it here as well:

That's the same conclusion I had. BMW tweaked the DME software to reduce grip issues some F8x owners had.

[PARTS@STBMW]

this is amazing, thank you for sharing!

[VCP]

Originally Posted by cntzl

No, these are WHP (power at the wheels) results as opposed to BHP (power at the crank) results from G-Power.

397whp with 10% drivetrain loss would approximately correspond to 440HP at the crank (and 10% drivetrain loss is a conservative number).

It's a Dynojet. That number should be looked at as closer to BHP.

[jc05e46m3]

Nice, Tom! That car is sure to be a blast.

[Transfer]

I want to see overlay with E92 M3. 😭😆
The ~350whp eventually at 8.2k rpms must look tragic. 250 flat torque looked nice through about 2012 though!

[SeanWRT]

Originally Posted by VCP

It's a Dynojet. That number should be looked at as closer to BHP.

Then E92 M3 must have only 330 crank hp.

[VCP]

I see 345 avg on stock E92 M3 on dyno dynamics. Dynojet should be closer to BHP numbers.

Originally Posted by SeanWRT

Then E92 M3 must have only 330 crank hp.

[mr_lab_rat]

Yes, Dynojet reads higher than other dynos. I made a pull on a Mustang dyno and the operator had it set to simulate Dynojet. The numbers came up about 10% higher.

So in my experience: mustang dyno - add 15% to get crank hp, Dynojet - add 5 %

[psuibmw]

Finally, a non "3 series" topic

[FSU_Logan]

Originally Posted by mr_lab_rat

Yes, Dynojet reads higher than other dynos. I made a pull on a Mustang dyno and the operator had it set to simulate Dynojet. The numbers came up about 10% higher.

So in my experience: mustang dyno - add 15% to get crank hp, Dynojet - add 5 %

Crank HP will always be estimated on a chassis dyno. You're best off multiply by drivetrain loss which is 15-18% for an automatic rwd. MDs do typical display more "real" numbers. Dynocom/jets are inflated. Once again, dyno numbers might as well be a moot point. Run the car for "real" numbers.

[mr_lab_rat]

Originally Posted by FSU_Logan

Crank HP will always be estimated on a chassis dyno. You're best off multiply by drivetrain loss which is 15-18% for an automatic rwd. MDs do typical display more "real" numbers. Dynocom/jets are inflated. Once again, dyno numbers might as well be a moot point. Run the car for "real" numbers.

Yeah, I'm with you. I don't really care about the absolute numbers, I use dyno for what the main purpose is - compare my modifications against my own baseline done on the same dyno.

[AlterZgo]

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

5th gear.



Added M2 vs M2C dyno to OP for comparison.

Would be cool to see M2 vs. M2C vs. M3 vs. M3C vs. M3CS on the same dyno chart. Guess you may as well throw in GTS as well.

It would be very interesting to see what potential is available from BMW's "stock" tuning on basically the same engine.

[DS_BMW]

Originally Posted by AlterZgo

Would be cool to see M2 vs. M2C vs. M3 vs. M3C vs. M3CS on the same dyno chart. Guess you may as well throw in GTS as well.

It would be very interesting to see what potential is available from BMW's "stock" tuning on basically the same engine.

Yes can you lay all of them over if you don't mind?

[BlkSVT]

Originally Posted by FSU_Logan

I honestly cannot believe people care about sub 3k rpm this much lol

Right...especially with respect to dyno plots

I can't imagine any of us ever going WFO (dyno-mode) at 2k in 4th or 5th gear.

The dyno plots will never show anything about part throttle "responsiveness" or driveability which is what I think most of us are talking about when we say an engine feels torquey down low -- it's responsive at part throttle and low RPM is what I think we are trying to characterize about the M2.

Can't tell that from dyno plots

[StealthFish]

So does that mean that the M2C has the same issue of a spun hub just like the infamous spun hub S55 in the M3/M4...? Lol. Just wondering.

[zenmaster]

Originally Posted by FSU_Logan

Crank HP will always be estimated on a chassis dyno. You're best off multiply by drivetrain loss which is 15-18% for an automatic rwd..

I remember a BMW engineer quoted 12.5% drivetrain loss for manual e90 335i.

[akkando]

Originally Posted by StealthFish

So does that mean that the M2C has the same issue of a spun hub just like the infamous spun hub S55 in the M3/M4...? Lol. Just wondering.

yes

[GoneIn4Secs]

could this also be the reason bmw coded out the low end torque from the m2c/3/4

to avoid spun crank hub?

The way the tune builds the majority of its torque in the lower RPM range caused the bolt holding the crank hub to loosen

[M3 Number 86]

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

Here's what we've all been waiting for! M2 Competitions have been released and now hitting the streets. We were able to strap one to our in-house dynojet and share some baseline numbers.

Modifications
- Stock, 1200mi service completed





M2 vs M2 Competition



Stock M4 (non-ZCP) vs M2 Competition



As seen the M2C peaks at 397whp/443ft-lb tq, about ~20whp shy of M4 numbers, likely through detuning. We'll see what numbers we can reach once tuned as well as compare other M2 Competitions as they come through the doors.

Enjoy!

They really killed the post peak power band though. The M4 is so much more flat in the higher revs. Why does the M2 CS suffer so much?

[///Motivated]

By BMW's choice. Keep the premium for M3/4.