36,2 kVIEWS
89REPLIES
0APPRECIATES
28/09/2016LAST POST
Rappel:

Finalement, j’ai eu l’occasion d’essayer le nouveau logiciel 240E sur le dyno. Le logiciel a été publié assez récemment de BMW. Dans le passé, ma voiture était assez fiable. Jamais eu de problèmes liés au moteur, vérifier la lumière du moteur ou des problèmes avec le moteur dans près de 44K miles et 4,5 ans de propriété. Il y a quelques semaines, au retour d'un voyage d'affaires, la voiture allait en mode boiteux sous forte accélération. J'ai été très perturbé par cela, et a commencé à se demander si elle pourrait éventuellement être quelque chose dans la mélodie. Cela n’avait aucun sens, étant donné que le même fichier a été testé par plusieurs voitures dans un temps de 105 degrés avec des températures d’huile à 300 ° C sans un seul accroc. J’ai couru ce dossier pendant des milliers de kilomètres en plus, dans différentes conditions et situations de conduite. Quoi qu’il en soit, j’ai parcouru le fichier pour essayer de trouver quelque chose qui aurait pu causer cela et je n’ai rien trouvé. C’était le bon moment pour mettre en place le dernier logiciel 240E afin de voir s’il atténuait l’un de ces problèmes.

Mise à jour 240E :
Après l'avoir clignoté (autre qu'un raté dans chaque cylindre), il a plutôt bien fonctionné pendant quelques jours, à part être extrêmement saccadé sur le bas de gamme. Mais après ça, tout a dégénéré. J’ai commencé à ralentir après le démarrage de la voiture, j’avais des ralentis erratiques à 1500 tr/min, des avertissements de pompe à carburant sur l’I-drive en cas d’accélération difficile et des problèmes constants de fluidité et de maniabilité. Il était clair qu'il y avait quelque chose de mal et que ce n'était certainement pas un problème avec le logiciel. C’était très frustrant de diagnostiquer les problèmes parce que chaque fois que je vérifiais, la voiture avait des défauts différents. Nous parlons de défauts de contrôle au ralenti, de ratés, de plausibilité lambda, de pression du carburant, de modélisation du carburant, etc. Je ne savais pas par où commencer avec un nouveau code (et différent) lancé à chaque fois. Après avoir parcouru les plans d'essai en usine, il était évident que la vanne de commande au ralenti et le capteur de carburant à basse pression étaient les coupables. Ma garantie prolongée couvert à la fois sous garantie. Tous les problèmes de modularité du mode/de conduite/de lissage avaient disparu. La voiture n’était plus sous tension non plus. J'ai décidé de le conduire quelques jours de plus juste pour m'assurer qu'aucun défaut ne revienne. La partie la plus frustrante de tout cela est que la voiture agirait à 100% normalement au redémarrage et parfois il faudrait beaucoup de conduite avant que je puisse le faire se reproduire.

Quelques semaines se sont écoulées et j'ai pensé qu'il était temps de l'emmener au dyno pour voir comment les modifications logicielles que j'avais apportées lors des révisions logicielles précédentes étaient reflétées dans 240E. A pris la voiture à Church Automotive Testing à Wilmington, CA. J'ai entendu beaucoup de bonnes choses à travers la vigne au sujet de Shawn, et j'ai pensé que c'était une bonne installation non biaisée à utiliser étant donné que je n'ai jamais parlé avec lui avant ni ne suis allé à leur magasin. Ils ont une configuration Dynapack 4wd dans leur magasin et règlent plus de 2 000 voitures par an (principalement des importations). J'ai été satisfait de leurs connaissances et de leur professionnalisme et j'y retournerais certainement.

Le Dyno :

Image hosted on: exservers.com

Image hosted on: exservers.com

À côté de nous se trouvait une voiture de plus de 1 100 chevaux avec le turbo le plus gigantesque que j’ai vu sur une voiture standard 40 PSI. Bien que ce soit génial de voir cette voiture, c'était incroyablement désagréable de l'avoir là-bas. Mis à part les fumées qui s’échappent du tuyau d’échappement (tout droit hors du capot), c’était si fort que vous auriez probablement des lésions cérébrales si vous ne couvriez pas vos oreilles. Donc, en plus d’étouffer et de perdre mon audition, j’ai eu une expérience agréable. C’était juste un mauvais timing que je pensais.

Image hosted on: exservers.com

Ils ont tiré ma voiture et ont commencé à enlever les roues pour connecter leurs dynos de moyeu à la voiture. Après cela, ils ont fait la première extraction avec le fichier stock. Je leur ai fait faire quelques tractions supplémentaires pour s'assurer que nous avions une ligne de base précise pour commencer. La voiture a fait 414whp sur son meilleur stock run. J'ai flashé dans ce que j'appelle un air de bébé juste pour voir comment ça se passerait. Je n'ai pas eu le temps de préparer des fichiers pour la course parce que je mettais à jour les cartes sur un E92 avant de me diriger vers le dyno, et cela a pris plus de temps que prévu.

Image hosted on: exservers.com

Image hosted on: exservers.com

Vidéo du premier test :


Avec l'air de bébé, la puissance a grimpé à 417 et s'est installée autour de 420. Je n'avais qu'une heure de temps total de dyno, alors j'ai fait quelques autres changements standard et chargé mon accord Stage II pour les trois derniers tirages. Il a fait 428, puis 430, puis 429. J'ai été très surpris par les résultats... Néanmoins, il s'agissait de grands nombres, en particulier provenant d'un dyno qui est très bien connu pour sa cohérence.

La vidéo :


Comparaison avec un stock car :

J’ai demandé à Shawn (le propriétaire de l’église) quel stock M3 mettait habituellement sur son dyno. Il a déclaré qu'ils mettaient normalement 365ish hp. Il a dit que Microsoft avait apporté un nouveau E9x M3 il y a quelques jours pour enregistrer le son du moteur d'un nouveau jeu vidéo. Sur la dyno de comparaison ci-dessous, la ligne verte est du stock M3 fonctionne sur le même dyno. Ceci est pour comparaisons saké afin que vous puissiez voir ce que boulons fera pour vous par rapport au stock, et ce qu'un air vous donnera comme cerise sur le gâteau. Il a dit que ma M3 était la plus haute qu'il ait vue.

Les gains de couple de la mélodie dans le milieu de gamme sont massifs. Vous pouvez également voir à quel point la courbe de couple est plus lisse que le stock, et c'est sur 91 octane.

Image hosted on: exservers.com

Les modifications apportées à la voiture sont les suivantes :
BPMSport Étape II
Système complet Akra evo
Poulie RDSport
Apport

Caractéristiques de l'air:
Dossier spécifique à Akrapovic
Réduction de la limite de démarrage à froid
Démarrage à froid
Contrôle de lancement 6MT
8,600 RPM Redline
Limite de vitesse augmentée
Position modifiée de la came/changements de vanos
Modifications apportées aux limites de ravitaillement/d'horaire et de couple.

Dyno Charts (BPMSport Tuned Rose / Logiciel Stock Bleu / Stock M3 Vert):

Puissance:

Image hosted on: exservers.com

Couple:

Image hosted on: exservers.com


Conséquences:
Conduire la voiture autour après (enfin !!!) retuning il a mis un autre sourire sur mon visage. La puissance fournie et le gain de couple moyen, couplés à l'augmentation de la douceur rendent la voiture tellement plus agréable à conduire. J'ai vraiment détesté courir avec la musique de stock. 231E tuned était clairement une énorme amélioration par rapport à 240E en stock. Je suis heureux de vous annoncer que la 240E tuned est également géniale.

J'espère y retourner dans un proche avenir quand j'aurai plus de temps. Malheureusement, à cause du peu de temps que je passais devant le dyno, je n’ai pas eu l’occasion d’aller au complet cette fois-ci. Quoi qu’il en soit, c’est la preuve que les moteurs de 2008 ne sont pas plus faibles et que la puissance peut être atteinte même sur les versions logicielles ultérieures proposées par BMW. Je tiens à réitérer que je n'ai aucune affiliation avec l'opérateur boutique / dyno, et que j'ai moi-même été très surpris par les résultats. Je pense qu'il reste encore beaucoup de place et j'ai hâte d'effectuer plus de développement si le temps le permet.

Merci pour votre suggestion. :thumbsup:

Beau travail !
Bravo. Thank you for doing more research and actually showing us your findings. Bpm is definitely added to the standard list of tuners you should consider
Fantastic work! Congratulations on such good numbers. Does that read 315 lb-ft of torque for your car, too?
Excellent info Mike! Love the detailed write up. Im going to be dynoing my E46 M3 on a dynapack too. Looking forward to it.
Looks good Mike. Those are some impressive numbers!
My only regret is that I'll have to wait until November or so. Between travel and other commitments there's very little time in my schedule. :sigh:

What am I saying? I'm going to get software that actually does something from someone who knows what they're doing. And I have 10 days in Germany driving an M3 plus time on the 'Ring as well to get past. I should be banned for crying about that. :lol:
That's a lot of power.. Wow. I'd love to see before and afters with the other tunes out there. If I ever get my elolve-r tune to a shop ill report back.
Glad to see Shawn is still around, he was a big player in the 90's during my Honda days, and started the shop then. Pretty cool :)
Great stuff Mike :thumsup:

Thanks for keeping the comunity educated and powered up :thumbsup:
:clap: Nice work, Mike!! Thanks for sharing!!
Thanks for sharing this Mike! Great work.

Relative to that stock dyno of about 385whp, the curves and delta of the bolts ons and your tune look spot on compared to some of the other top tunes!

I really like the midrange torque you were able to achieve. That has got to be a blast on the streets.

Looking at your results, it looks like at max values, you were able to achieve +13.674whp!! Well done!! Most of gains start to happen after 5000RPM which, as we all know, is where all the fun happens ;)

Just a few questions:

1) In your original post, you said that most stock cars dyno around 365whp on that DynaPack. That Microsoft E9X M3 put down nearly 385whp. Does this support once again that newer E9X M3s are putting down more power stock with latest software from BMW?

2) I noticed that there is a dip in the lower powerband which seems to be infamous of the Akrapovic Evolution exhaust. A lot of tuners have been able to remedy that with their tunes, is that something you plan on doing or was that just a dyno anomaly?

3) Would you be able to dyno your car on a DynoJet for better comparison? A lot of people say that DynaPacks read extremely optimistic relative to the average DynoJet. I think it would be very beneficial to see comparisons from you considering that you provide a lot of great information.

Thanks once again for sharing the whole workflow on the dyno! It was fun to read.
flipm3 wrote
Thanks for sharing this Mike! Great work.

Relative to that stock dyno of about 385whp, the curves and delta of the bolts ons and your tune look spot on compared to some of the other top tunes!

I really like the midrange torque you were able to achieve. That has got to be a blast on the streets.

Looking at your results, it looks like at max values, you were able to achieve +13.674whp!! Well done!! Most of gains start to happen after 5000RPM which, as we all know, is where all the fun happens ;)

Just a few questions:

1) In your original post, you said that most stock cars dyno around 365whp on that DynaPack. That Microsoft E9X M3 put down nearly 385whp. Does this support once again that newer E9X M3s are putting down more power stock with latest software from BMW?

2) I noticed that there is a dip in the lower powerband which seems to be infamous of the Akrapovic Evolution exhaust. A lot of tuners have been able to remedy that with their tunes, is that something you plan on doing or was that just a dyno anomaly?

3) Would you be able to dyno your car on a DynoJet for better comparison? A lot of people say that DynaPacks read extremely optimistic relative to the average DynoJet. I think it would be very beneficial to see comparisons from you considering that you provide a lot of great information.

Thanks once again for sharing the whole workflow on the dyno! It was fun to read.
Thanks for your questions - I have always appreciated your thoroughness.

1. I am going simply based on what the owner Shawn Church told me. He told me that stock M3's normally put down around 365. The Microsoft M3 put down 375 I believe, but I have not looked closely at the graph to see where that car peeked. I just included it for general illustration purposes. I wouldn't say that it's a matter of the new M3's putting down more power, maybe more of a factor of extremely old software revisions such as 60E being put up against 231E. Or it could be hardware related, such as aged spark plugs or oxygen sensors coupled with old software that may have a cumulative effect. I have driven at least twenty 2012 M3's, and they feel the same as my car (and have that new car smell!).

2. No tuner is going to be able to remedy this 100% completely. However, there are changes I make to make it a hell of a lot better. I have had long conversations with Sal about this. When you look at the factory vanos mapping, it has some interesting changes in stock form in the exact akra dip area. The scaling on the map is also different there as well. It's almost as if the factory was trying to tune out some sort of engine resonance issue and that the Akra just exacerbates it. My test files for the dyno did not contain any changes below 3,000 RPM as I was trying to go for midrange torque and top end power. However, my standard tunes do have changes in all areas. I was on a pretty heavy time constraint there. Having only an hour to flash and tune the file between runs was certainly not enough. I think if I had more time that I could have achieved higher gains. This was just a 'quick test'.

3. I have dynoed on dynojets before. This was my first time on a Dynapack and I was surprised to see the numbers. I am no expert on dyno's themselves, but theoretically not having the wheels and tires mounted to the hubs could signify less loss. Someone with more knowledge on dyno's themselves and the differences might be a better resource for this. I only know the tuning and programming stuff ;).

Regardless, here is a dyno from a dynojet last year (before and after tune):
Attached image
I'm happy that we can now supply some independent dyno numbers for everyone who has been asking for them. Can't wait to get some customer's input after getting them dynoed.
Mike Benvo wrote
...but theoretically not having the wheels and tires mounted to the hubs could signify less loss.
This should be true simply as a matter of physics. Measuring at the hub eliminates the losses from (1) tire deformation and hysteresis, which I can imagine is considerable when multiplied by the radius of the tire/wheel combination, in other words the torque impact of the losses at the point of tire contact on a normal dyno, and (2) tire and wheel mass that consume power (rotational energy or torque) in order to be rotated.

In essence this dyno is equal to a conventional one with perfect tire adhesion, no tire deformation, and tires and wheels of zero mass.
Mike Benvo wrote
Thanks for your questions - I have always appreciated your thoroughness.

1. I am going simply based on what the owner Shawn Church told me. He told me that stock M3's normally put down around 365. The Microsoft M3 put down 375 I believe, but I have not looked closely at the graph to see where that car peeked. I just included it for general illustration purposes. I wouldn't say that it's a matter of the new M3's putting down more power, maybe more of a factor of extremely old software revisions such as 60E being put up against 231E. Or it could be hardware related, such as aged spark plugs or oxygen sensors coupled with old software that may have a cumulative effect. I have driven at least twenty 2012 M3's, and they feel the same as my car (and have that new car smell!).

2. No tuner is going to be able to remedy this 100% completely. However, there are changes I make to make it a hell of a lot better. I have had long conversations with Sal about this. When you look at the factory vanos mapping, it has some interesting changes in stock form in the exact akra dip area. The scaling on the map is also different there as well. It's almost as if the factory was trying to tune out some sort of engine resonance issue and that the Akra just exacerbates it. My test files for the dyno did not contain any changes below 3,000 RPM as I was trying to go for midrange torque and top end power. However, my standard tunes do have changes in all areas. I was on a pretty heavy time constraint there. Having only an hour to flash and tune the file between runs was certainly not enough. I think if I had more time that I could have achieved higher gains. This was just a 'quick test'.

3. I have dynoed on dynojets before. This was my first time on a Dynapack and I was surprised to see the numbers. I am no expert on dyno's themselves, but theoretically not having the wheels and tires mounted to the hubs could signify less loss. Someone with more knowledge on dyno's themselves and the differences might be a better resource for this. I only know the tuning and programming stuff ;).

Regardless, here is a dyno from a dynojet last year (before and after tune):
I am convinced that the dip is most likely due to valve overlap in that area. If I were going to try and deal with it I would try and retard intake cam timing and see if it helps. If that didn't deal with it I would then try and advance exhaust cam timing a little bit to get the results that I was seeking. Basically what I would be trying to do in this case would be increasing the lobe separation of the intake and exhaust (technically lobe separation refers to single cam engines but the same principle exists depending on your baseline timing of intake and exhaust cams in a twin cam engine).

I am no software engineer, my software modification experience is mostly limited to fuel injection timing, fuel injection duration and boost pressure on a diesel engine. I am just saying what one would do with base cam timing on a gasoline engine to try and make more torque lower in the rev range. There may be limitations that I am unaware of with the MSS60 and the cam phasing system that may limit the amount you could do with cam timing that low in the rev range.

P.S. Are the dyno graphs in WHP??? If so, Nice numbers and good work with the software!
411 rwhp SAE on a Dynojet is the record for a stock block pump gas M3 with mods. That is a great result many more of us can relate to since we are more familiar with the more common Dynojet.
I don't see any exhaust evacuation fans in those pics. From what you've said about that Honda motor being worked on at the same time it might be worth a few extra HP if the air was clean.

What fuel was used? I know the M3 has the ion sensors on the plugs... was any other knock monitoring device used?
BMRLVR wrote
I am convinced that the dip is most likely due to valve overlap in that area. If I were going to try and deal with it I would try and retard intake cam timing and see if it helps. If that didn't deal with it I would then try and advance exhaust cam timing a little bit to get the results that I was seeking. Basically what I would be trying to do in this case would be increasing the lobe separation of the intake and exhaust (technically lobe separation refers to single cam engines but the same principle exists depending on your baseline timing of intake and exhaust cams in a twin cam engine).

I am no software engineer, my software modification experience is mostly limited to fuel injection timing, fuel injection duration and boost pressure on a diesel engine. I am just saying what one would do with base cam timing on a gasoline engine to try and make more torque lower in the rev range. There may be limitations that I am unaware of with the MSS60 and the cam phasing system that may limit the amount you could do with cam timing that low in the rev range.

P.S. Are the dyno graphs in WHP??? If so, Nice numbers and good work with the software!
You might be pretty spot on with your inclination to retard the intake camshaft -- but only at higher relative filling levels ;)

Dyno graphs I presume are whp, unless there is a name for hub horsepower. I hope to hit the dyno in the next few weeks as time permits.
I'm interested in trying some of the alternate vanos maps from BMW calibrations in other countries to see how they do.

Thanks! :D
wow, impressive. after i complete my exhaust system, ill probably be hitting you guys up for a tune..
brisance wrote
I don't see any exhaust evacuation fans in those pics. From what you've said about that Honda motor being worked on at the same time it might be worth a few extra HP if the air was clean.

What fuel was used? I know the M3 has the ion sensors on the plugs... was any other knock monitoring device used?
91 Octane fuel, Chevron specifically. Got there with about 1/4 tank and didn't use much because I still managed to drive home on it ;)

I was listening for knock audibly and couldn't hear a single ping. Reading data from the car afterward didn't show much timing retard. We did have a pretty massive fan in front of the car, and yes I would have loved it if there was less exhaust gas re-circulation!
Mike Benvo wrote
Thanks for your questions - I have always appreciated your thoroughness.
No, THANK YOU!! :thumsup:
I appreciate your willingness to be honest with the community here which is why I enjoy asking questions to learn from you all.

1. I am going simply based on what the owner Shawn Church told me. He told me that stock M3's normally put down around 365. The Microsoft M3 put down 375 I believe, but I have not looked closely at the graph to see where that car peeked. I just included it for general illustration purposes. I wouldn't say that it's a matter of the new M3's putting down more power, maybe more of a factor of extremely old software revisions such as 60E being put up against 231E. Or it could be hardware related, such as aged spark plugs or oxygen sensors coupled with old software that may have a cumulative effect. I have driven at least twenty 2012 M3's, and they feel the same as my car (and have that new car smell!).
Very great point! Spark plugs most definitely make a difference and I've noticed this first hand with my car. That was what originally raised my suspicion about the validity of these so-called powerful 231E tunes.
2. No tuner is going to be able to remedy this 100% completely. However, there are changes I make to make it a hell of a lot better. I have had long conversations with Sal about this. When you look at the factory vanos mapping, it has some interesting changes in stock form in the exact akra dip area. The scaling on the map is also different there as well. It's almost as if the factory was trying to tune out some sort of engine resonance issue and that the Akra just exacerbates it. My test files for the dyno did not contain any changes below 3,000 RPM as I was trying to go for midrange torque and top end power. However, my standard tunes do have changes in all areas. I was on a pretty heavy time constraint there. Having only an hour to flash and tune the file between runs was certainly not enough. I think if I had more time that I could have achieved higher gains. This was just a 'quick test'.
Great to hear that you have more in store for us! Amazing what you were able to quickly accomplish in your limited time. I've seen some of your past dynos as well that took care of most of the Akrapovic dip!

Someone needs to tell Akrapovic to get rid of that H-Pipe crossover if that's the cause of the potential dip, haha.
3. I have dynoed on dynojets before. This was my first time on a Dynapack and I was surprised to see the numbers. I am no expert on dyno's themselves, but theoretically not having the wheels and tires mounted to the hubs could signify less loss. Someone with more knowledge on dyno's themselves and the differences might be a better resource for this. I only know the tuning and programming stuff ;).
No offense to you or Church Automotive, but I have just been very weary of DynaPacks because of it's huge variance in power, especially how the operator calibrates it. When I was in teh G35/350Z scene, there was a local tuner here who did everything on DynaPacks. A lot of their clients would then go to a DynoJet and notice drastically different numbers. Not that final numbers really matter that much since variance will be seen everywhere we go, but of course, it's the change in power that matters ;)

Other tuners in the industry claim that they read as accurate as DynoJets when calibrated correctly, but I have yet to see them first hand get the same results they do on a DynaPack and DynoJet. I would really love to witness a stock 335whp E9X M3 make over 430whp on the same DynoJet with just bolt ons and tune in SAE correction factor and similar weather condition!
Regardless, here is a dyno from a dynojet last year (before and after tune):
AWESOME RESULTS!!! That is definitely the highest I've ever seen on a DynoJet. Would you be able to share what other modifications the M3 has? Do you know what it dyno'd stock?

My assumption is that with a good intake, pulleys, exhaust, and tune, it's very realistic to gain 40-50whp in optimal conditions. So if a stock M3 puts down 335whp stock, I think 375-385whp is very realistic. But then as we all know, stock dynos vary so much. So I can very much see a 365whp stock M3 making over 400whp on a DynoJet as well.

The real question...ultimately do these cars even vary in actual performance despite different dyno numbers?

Great conversation and great thread we have here! This forum needs to have more informational and educational discussions as this.

Thanks again Mike Benvo and THE TECH! As an enthusiast of this car community, I cannot wait to see what else you have in store for us :cool!:
Mike Benvo wrote
3. I have dynoed on dynojets before. This was my first time on a Dynapack and I was surprised to see the numbers. I am no expert on dyno's themselves, but theoretically not having the wheels and tires mounted to the hubs could signify less loss. Someone with more knowledge on dyno's themselves and the differences might be a better resource for this. I only know the tuning and programming stuff ;).
I would personally trust the dynapack more in terms of accuracy and repeatability as they are actual "brake" dynos similar to what we use in the aerospace industry and what auto manufacturers use to develop engines.

From what I understand, dynojets and dynapacks would use very different calculation methods to establish power ratings. I believe overall drivetrain inertia can have much less impact on a dynapack since it is a brake dyno and does not rely on a drum's inertia to load the engine, it all depends how fast/slow the operator sets the acceleration rate. Further, there is also no loss due to tire deformation and slippage at the tire/drum interface. IMO it is normal and expected to see different absolute numbers on both dynos.
Thread referenced by BPMSport in Anyone has any experience with BrenTuning for E92 M3 02/10/2012
Thread referenced by BPMSport in My thoughts on engine tuning software: Street, Canyon, and Track Use 17/10/2012