Daves Dyno Day
Printed From: Bavarian-Board.co.uk - BMW Owners Discussion Forum
Category: Technical & Model Specific Forums
Forum Name: BMW ///M Power
Forum Discription: Ask your BMW M Power Technical Questions here (M1, M2 hybrids, M3, M5 & M6)
URL: http://www.bavarian-board.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=18862
Printed Date: 26-June-2024 at 15:31
Topic: Daves Dyno Day
Posted By: 215DMX
Subject: Daves Dyno Day
Date Posted: 13-June-2005 at 16:00
|
Got my car mapped, it was running very rich, but I
knew that, it's picked up alot and is much more responsive. But i'm not sure i'm 100% happy. It still seems too rich in places, and the exhaust seems quite 'sooty' as well. Also we had prblems with the engine temp going to high, everything looked fine on the dash indicators for oil and water but the temp sensor (brand new BTW) was showing on the Motec screen was showing 10-15 degrees hotter than the dash. This on a few occasions caused a misfire when it got too hot (the temp needle was in the middle). Very odd. Will put in another sensor and see what happens. Peak was "an indicated" 264.3bhp at best (in 5th), the printout below was slightly less (this was in 4th not 5th). On this day, rollers, blah, blah, blah take it as you will. It's canny just how close it is to Steves. 2.5 sport engine. 284/272 
Steves 
|
Replies:
Posted By: stevesingo
Date Posted: 13-June-2005 at 17:41
|
Dave, I think mine is also a little rich (sooty exhaust too).
The two graphs are almost identical. I would have expected yours to have a little more top end than mine. I will have to have a look at my cams, (how do you identify Schriks?) I might have them and not know about it. How's your idle ect? Steve |
Posted By: SHEPSM3
Date Posted: 13-June-2005 at 19:04
That is spookily similar! The Torque figures are near as damn it the same. Nice load of power all the same.  ------------- [IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/ShepsM3/New-1a1.jpg">[IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/ShepsM3/New-1b1.jpg"> |
Posted By: jon90
Date Posted: 13-June-2005 at 19:41
|
Dave,
Have you gone 4WD and not told anyone? Nearly 70 bhp,what a waste! 
Jon |
Posted By: 215DMX
Date Posted: 14-June-2005 at 04:23
|
Yeah Jon all that wheel loss rubbish, It should be
more like 35-40bhp but hey it feels v.good. though not as good as yours though.... :-) I will get a power run at Bexleys as a comparison and also at a place near me with a dyno that attaches to the hubs, so the tires / rollors don't come into it. Steve, looking at those I would say you have non-standard cams, it's just too close to be standard, you might even have the same as me 284-272 ??? idle is still not quite right but we ran out of time to get it as I want it. Cold start - ?????? ICV settings - still need working on. I need to get that AFR gauge. |
Posted By: stevesingo
Date Posted: 14-June-2005 at 12:24
|
My idle is almost there, this is what I did.
1, Switch off the Idle speed control i the ecu software. 2, still in the ecu software, go in to the Crip and set the checking value the same as your idle speed ign advance. This will give a constant ign advance. 3, Balance the throttles and set the idle speed to 950. 4, exit the Crip page and reactivate the idle speed control function. Now you can mess with the settings. Mine are Prop Gain 10 integral gain 20 derivative gain 0 Anti Stall 40 air con 0 integration limit 45 freq 80 min duty 0 max duty 90 I'll send my maps tomrrow Steve |
Posted By: 215DMX
Date Posted: 14-June-2005 at 14:30
|
the only real difference is the more torque on Steves
dyno sheet between 2000-3400rpm range. This I find a bit odd, as I have the original ex. manifold of my 2.3, which has much smaller primaries. If anything I would have expected mine to have more torque lower down and Steves having more above 5000rpm ??? Could be a cam timing issue i suppose, or ignition mapping. Other 'known' differences would be i have a 3.25 diff. Here's a VERY rough overlay (steves are the upper currves) 
|
Posted By: M3Pilot
Date Posted: 14-June-2005 at 15:31
|
Good stuff!
It's a shame we can't get my plot on there too, so it's a bit hard to make a comparison. But from what I can tell looking at those plots against mine it seems that my torque curve doesn't seem not to dip as much in the lower revs. But the Schrick cams do seem to leave bit of a hole down the bottom. The power on my looks like it climbs a faster at the top end. This is all probably down to the scale of the graph on my plot against the plots you guys have. Mine made 196 @ wheels, but I don't seen to have the drivetrain losses that you guys do as mine was calulated @ 244 crank. But I don't have the torque that you guys do. This would be a great test for tha ass dyno to see how they feel when being driven. My exhaust is still nice an sooty, but until I get a WB02 hooked up, it's hard for me to tell what's the AFR's are running at. It good to see that we have 3 Evo III engines in different states of tune. |
Posted By: 215DMX
Date Posted: 14-June-2005 at 17:33
|
Martin, we should get Uwe, and his little box of tricks
gismo one weekend and see what's what... You can can also see that my losses are higher yet the curve above 4000 is the same. To be honest in the real world all 3 are / should be there or there abouts around the same. My peak torque is 195 |
Posted By: stevesingo
Date Posted: 15-June-2005 at 14:46
|
The only thing that suggests a difference in header is the fact that mine hangs on to the power longer above 7k as the 50mm header will give better flow at highr RPM. The rest will be down to ign mapping or cam timing (I will send you my map tonight).
I will also measure my cams next time the rocker cover is off, but I,m convinced they are standard as I have good torque at 5k and max power at 7200. I would expect Shricks to produce peak power higher up. Steve |