e92 m3...best car ever?

e92 m3...best car ever?

Author
Discussion

jon-

16,492 posts

215 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
For the record mine was 382bhp on a accurate dyno, which seems about right for that car and dyno combination

Cl4rkyPH

265 posts

46 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
jon- said:
For the record mine was 382bhp on a accurate dyno, which seems about right for that car and dyno combination
Interesting... what age is that also?

jon-

16,492 posts

215 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
Cl4rkyPH said:
jon- said:
For the record mine was 382bhp on a accurate dyno, which seems about right for that car and dyno combination
Interesting... what age is that also?
2008

Tony B2

606 posts

174 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
jon- said:
For the record mine was 382bhp on a accurate dyno, which seems about right for that car and dyno combination
Is that at the wheels, or corrected for transmission/tyre losses?


jon-

16,492 posts

215 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
Tony B2 said:
jon- said:
For the record mine was 382bhp on a accurate dyno, which seems about right for that car and dyno combination
Is that at the wheels, or corrected for transmission/tyre losses?
Corrected. From what I've read a healthy one at the wheels, on an honest dyno, is around 350!

Tony B2

606 posts

174 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
jon- said:
Corrected. From what I've read a healthy one at the wheels, on an honest dyno, is around 350!
I probably asked the question the wrong way - so what you are saying is, it was estimated at 382 at the crank?

(Sorry for the Kathy Newman/Jordan Petersen interview-style...)

Buffy d

613 posts

196 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
Tony B2 said:
I probably asked the question the wrong way - so what you are saying is, it was estimated at 382 at the crank?

(Sorry for the Kathy Newman/Jordan Petersen interview-style...)
Just to chime in that on a Dyno Dynamics (generally considered to be a very accurate dyno) my 2009 made 386hp with primary de-cat and no remap and my friend's 2012 made 383hp on the same dyno completely stock, and those figures are estimated at the crank so it'll be the same with the above 382hp figure.

jon-

16,492 posts

215 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
Buffy d said:
Tony B2 said:
I probably asked the question the wrong way - so what you are saying is, it was estimated at 382 at the crank?

(Sorry for the Kathy Newman/Jordan Petersen interview-style...)
Just to chime in that on a Dyno Dynamics (generally considered to be a very accurate dyno) my 2009 made 386hp with primary de-cat and no remap and my friend's 2012 made 383hp on the same dyno completely stock, and those figures are estimated at the crank so it'll be the same with the above 382hp figure.
This smile

That's good information, thank you Buffy

Tony B2

606 posts

174 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
jon- said:
Buffy d said:
Tony B2 said:
I probably asked the question the wrong way - so what you are saying is, it was estimated at 382 at the crank?

(Sorry for the Kathy Newman/Jordan Petersen interview-style...)
Just to chime in that on a Dyno Dynamics (generally considered to be a very accurate dyno) my 2009 made 386hp with primary de-cat and no remap and my friend's 2012 made 383hp on the same dyno completely stock, and those figures are estimated at the crank so it'll be the same with the above 382hp figure.
This smile

That's good information, thank you Buffy
30bhp down, from the claimed output (414bhp) is a bit disappointing surely?

I do not know how many runs were involved - on the 2 occasions I have used a dyno I found the whole thing quite stressing for me, let alone the car and that was just 1 run each!

With BMWs (maybe others too) they do seem to give higher numbers with successive runs, which is perhaps due to "adaptive" mapping. And maybe BMW's sly approach to getting good emission numbers.

GTiWILL

778 posts

77 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
northnoble said:
Chunkychucky said:
200 mile range to a tank? Fairly big sticking point IMO..
Only if round town.....regularly get 285 on my 130 mile dual carriageway commute!

Best car ever though, that's a big title! Depends what you want out of a car. My M3 makes me smile everyday, but my Ariel Atom makes me grin from ear to ear every time I take it out!


Edited by northnoble on Sunday 17th January 18:47
A man called Malcolm took me around Oulton Park in a ratty old E92 M3 once. He drove at a rate of speed I thought impossible! I also drove an Atom around there on the same day. I wasn’t allowed to adjust the seat and could barely reach the pedals. I was also wearing a helmet that was too large and kept steaming up. I don’t know what speed I got to but it was bloody terrifying!

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
jon- said:
For the record mine was 382bhp on a accurate dyno, which seems about right for that car and dyno combination
Never heard of a dyno operator who claimed heir dyno wasn't accurate.

Buffy d

613 posts

196 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
Tony B2 said:
30bhp down, from the claimed output (414bhp) is a bit disappointing surely?

I do not know how many runs were involved - on the 2 occasions I have used a dyno I found the whole thing quite stressing for me, let alone the car and that was just 1 run each!

With BMWs (maybe others too) they do seem to give higher numbers with successive runs, which is perhaps due to "adaptive" mapping. And maybe BMW's sly approach to getting good emission numbers.
It's generally accepted that the E9x M3 doesn't actually make 420hp (or 414bhp if you prefer) - I've heard of healthy cars making anywhere from 375hp to 400hp+ but it completely depends on the dyno, of course. I wasn't expecting 420hp because of everyone generally accepting that it's overrated by BMW in terms of power output, so it was actually right around what I was expecting, especially considering what my friend's example made on the same dyno. In my case, I wasn't fussed as this was prior to supercharging so I just wanted a before figure so I had something to compare with afterwards smile

Edited by Buffy d on Friday 11th September 22:53

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
Buffy d said:
Tony B2 said:
30bhp down, from the claimed output (414bhp) is a bit disappointing surely?

I do not know how many runs were involved - on the 2 occasions I have used a dyno I found the whole thing quite stressing for me, let alone the car and that was just 1 run each!

With BMWs (maybe others too) they do seem to give higher numbers with successive runs, which is perhaps due to "adaptive" mapping. And maybe BMW's sly approach to getting good emission numbers.
It's generally accepted that the E9x M3 doesn't actually make 420hp (or 414bhp if you prefer) - I've heard of healthy cars making anywhere from 375hp to 400hp+ but it completely depends on the dyno, of course. I wasn't expecting 420hp because of everyone generally accepting that it's overrated by BMW in terms of power output, so it was actually right around what I was actually expecting, especially considering what my friend's newer, lower-mileage example made on the same dyno. In my case, I wasn't fussed as this was prior to supercharging so I just wanted a before figure so I had something to compare with afterwards smile
Taking the bolded. Any manufacturer who certifies an engine must do so to a very strict criteria. There are members on here who are much better qualified to comment on those criteria but, I understand enough to say that any claim that a manufacturer overstates the output of their engines is utter nonsense.

What a rolling road measures is different to what a certified engine dyno measures. Depending on the type, rolling roads measure either torque and speed at the rollers or rate of acceleration of the rollers, from both of which power (at the rollers) can be derived. In both cases the measurement is transient, that is the engine is accelerating all the time. Engine certification takes place at static load points. What is the difference? The power of the engine against a load at a fixed rpm is what i t puts out at that rpm. The power of an engine at a given rpm as the engine passes through that rpm. On order to pass through that rpm, the engine need to be accelerating - that consumes power.

Then look at what is connecting the engine to the measuring device. Engine dyno, a solid shaft with a couple of UJs - very low loss. Rolling road, gearbox (a manual has drag, but it is lowest in a 1:1 gear, a DSG has more drag), prop shaft, final drive (90deg turn of drive) and drive shafts. All of which have frictional losses. Then there is the tyres, the single largest loss of power between flywheel and road. The tyre deflects and the constant bending generates heat, heat which once was hp. When the tyre hits the road, it deflects one way and then the other. In this respect, a large single roller rolling road is more representative. Dual small roller dynos, deflect the tyre twice and to a greater degree. How much the tyre deflects is hugely influenced by how tightly strapped down the car is.

Once the rolling road takes the measurement, it will either add a (finger in the air) correction back to flywheel power, of will allow the drive drain to coast down in a de-clutched state to measure all the above mention frictions, only it cant as the drivetrain is not under the same load as it was when under engine power and the load is in the opposite direction.

So when we take all of the above (variable losses) in a transient state to measure power transmitted to the rollers, are we surprised the numbers don't match?

Buffy d

613 posts

196 months

Friday 11th September 2020
quotequote all
stevesingo said:
Taking the bolded. Any manufacturer who certifies an engine must do so to a very strict criteria. There are members on here who are much better qualified to comment on those criteria but, I understand enough to say that any claim that a manufacturer overstates the output of their engines is utter nonsense.

What a rolling road measures is different to what a certified engine dyno measures. Depending on the type, rolling roads measure either torque and speed at the rollers or rate of acceleration of the rollers, from both of which power (at the rollers) can be derived. In both cases the measurement is transient, that is the engine is accelerating all the time. Engine certification takes place at static load points. What is the difference? The power of the engine against a load at a fixed rpm is what i t puts out at that rpm. The power of an engine at a given rpm as the engine passes through that rpm. On order to pass through that rpm, the engine need to be accelerating - that consumes power.

Then look at what is connecting the engine to the measuring device. Engine dyno, a solid shaft with a couple of UJs - very low loss. Rolling road, gearbox (a manual has drag, but it is lowest in a 1:1 gear, a DSG has more drag), prop shaft, final drive (90deg turn of drive) and drive shafts. All of which have frictional losses. Then there is the tyres, the single largest loss of power between flywheel and road. The tyre deflects and the constant bending generates heat, heat which once was hp. When the tyre hits the road, it deflects one way and then the other. In this respect, a large single roller rolling road is more representative. Dual small roller dynos, deflect the tyre twice and to a greater degree. How much the tyre deflects is hugely influenced by how tightly strapped down the car is.

Once the rolling road takes the measurement, it will either add a (finger in the air) correction back to flywheel power, of will allow the drive drain to coast down in a de-clutched state to measure all the above mention frictions, only it cant as the drivetrain is not under the same load as it was when under engine power and the load is in the opposite direction.

So when we take all of the above (variable losses) in a transient state to measure power transmitted to the rollers, are we surprised the numbers don't match?
Me using the term overrated was incorrect in this case as there is no way to be absolutely certain smile

I agree that there are simply too many variables to be able to accurately use a rolling road-type dyno to determine exactly how much power your car is making, and this is further complicated by there being so many different dynos, all of which read slightly differently and produce different results.

However, some cars make exactly their stated power on a dyno or even more, whereas the E9x M3 is generally considered to never show the full 420hp on a dyno, for whatever reason. I can only go on personal experience at this particular dyno and what the dyno operator told me - he gave me an example of them dynoing a couple of Mk7 Golf Rs and they made exactly their stated 300hp, and I had a 4th gen Camaro Z28 that I dyno'd there, which is officially rated at 305hp but generally considered to be around 320hp and mine made 319hp.

As I said, I wasn't expecting 420hp because of all the other dyno results I'd seen and so I wasn't disappointed or surprised. Some people that saw the number, however, were and started questioning what was wrong with my car, lol.

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Saturday 12th September 2020
quotequote all
Buffy d said:
stevesingo said:
Taking the bolded. Any manufacturer who certifies an engine must do so to a very strict criteria. There are members on here who are much better qualified to comment on those criteria but, I understand enough to say that any claim that a manufacturer overstates the output of their engines is utter nonsense.

What a rolling road measures is different to what a certified engine dyno measures. Depending on the type, rolling roads measure either torque and speed at the rollers or rate of acceleration of the rollers, from both of which power (at the rollers) can be derived. In both cases the measurement is transient, that is the engine is accelerating all the time. Engine certification takes place at static load points. What is the difference? The power of the engine against a load at a fixed rpm is what i t puts out at that rpm. The power of an engine at a given rpm as the engine passes through that rpm. On order to pass through that rpm, the engine need to be accelerating - that consumes power.

Then look at what is connecting the engine to the measuring device. Engine dyno, a solid shaft with a couple of UJs - very low loss. Rolling road, gearbox (a manual has drag, but it is lowest in a 1:1 gear, a DSG has more drag), prop shaft, final drive (90deg turn of drive) and drive shafts. All of which have frictional losses. Then there is the tyres, the single largest loss of power between flywheel and road. The tyre deflects and the constant bending generates heat, heat which once was hp. When the tyre hits the road, it deflects one way and then the other. In this respect, a large single roller rolling road is more representative. Dual small roller dynos, deflect the tyre twice and to a greater degree. How much the tyre deflects is hugely influenced by how tightly strapped down the car is.

Once the rolling road takes the measurement, it will either add a (finger in the air) correction back to flywheel power, of will allow the drive drain to coast down in a de-clutched state to measure all the above mention frictions, only it cant as the drivetrain is not under the same load as it was when under engine power and the load is in the opposite direction.

So when we take all of the above (variable losses) in a transient state to measure power transmitted to the rollers, are we surprised the numbers don't match?
Me using the term overrated was incorrect in this case as there is no way to be absolutely certain smile

I agree that there are simply too many variables to be able to accurately use a rolling road-type dyno to determine exactly how much power your car is making, and this is further complicated by there being so many different dynos, all of which read slightly differently and produce different results.

However, some cars make exactly their stated power on a dyno or even more, whereas the E9x M3 is generally considered to never show the full 420hp on a dyno, for whatever reason. I can only go on personal experience at this particular dyno and what the dyno operator told me - he gave me an example of them dynoing a couple of Mk7 Golf Rs and they made exactly their stated 300hp, and I had a 4th gen Camaro Z28 that I dyno'd there, which is officially rated at 305hp but generally considered to be around 320hp and mine made 319hp.

As I said, I wasn't expecting 420hp because of all the other dyno results I'd seen and so I wasn't disappointed or surprised. Some people that saw the number, however, were and started questioning what was wrong with my car, lol.
Turbo cars will always make more in transient conditions. The certification process involves holding the engine at a fixed rpm for a period of time. An NA engine will normalise quickly, a turbo engine will gain more heat in the intake as the intercooler stabilises IAT. As such after 30secs at 5000rpm (example) the turbo engine will make less power than it will after 5sec at the same load/rpm. With a rolling road, the engine passes through the full rpm range in about 10secs, so the turbo engines IAT will never reach the level which the engine is certified at. Lower IAT = more power.

Was your Camero power figure taken from the US certification? This may be certified to SAE J2723 standard not the Euro DIN 70020 standard. An SAE hp is bigger than a DIN hp, due to the factors applied for correction of air density, temp and humidity.



Edited by stevesingo on Saturday 12th September 09:20

Buffy d

613 posts

196 months

Saturday 12th September 2020
quotequote all
stevesingo said:
Turbo cars will always make more in transient conditions. The certification process involves holding the engine at a fixed rpm for a period of time. An NA engine will normalise quickly, a turbo engine will gain more heat in the intake as the intercooler stabilises IAT. As such after 30secs at 5000rpm (example) the turbo engine will make less power than it will after 5sec at the same load/rpm. With a rolling road, the engine passes through the full rpm range in about 10secs, so the turbo engines IAT will never reach the level which the engine is certified at. Lower IAT = more power.

Was your Camero power figure taken from the US certification? This may be certified to SAE J2723 standard not the Euro DIN 70020 standard. An SAE hp is bigger than a DIN hp, due to the factors applied for correction of air density, temp and humidity.



Edited by stevesingo on Saturday 12th September 09:20
I didn't know about the certification process, so that's interesting regarding turbo vs NA cars, thanks for explaining smile

As for the Camaro, when it was on sale officially here in the UK it was rated at 288hp, which I assume would be the DIN figure.

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Saturday 12th September 2020
quotequote all
Buffy d said:
stevesingo said:
Turbo cars will always make more in transient conditions. The certification process involves holding the engine at a fixed rpm for a period of time. An NA engine will normalise quickly, a turbo engine will gain more heat in the intake as the intercooler stabilises IAT. As such after 30secs at 5000rpm (example) the turbo engine will make less power than it will after 5sec at the same load/rpm. With a rolling road, the engine passes through the full rpm range in about 10secs, so the turbo engines IAT will never reach the level which the engine is certified at. Lower IAT = more power.

Was your Camero power figure taken from the US certification? This may be certified to SAE J2723 standard not the Euro DIN 70020 standard. An SAE hp is bigger than a DIN hp, due to the factors applied for correction of air density, temp and humidity.



Edited by stevesingo on Saturday 12th September 09:20
I didn't know about the certification process, so that's interesting regarding turbo vs NA cars, thanks for explaining smile

As for the Camaro, when it was on sale officially here in the UK it was rated at 288hp, which I assume would be the DIN figure.
Yes, if it was an official EU regulated import.

jon-

16,492 posts

215 months

Saturday 12th September 2020
quotequote all
stevesingo said:
Buffy d said:
Tony B2 said:
30bhp down, from the claimed output (414bhp) is a bit disappointing surely?

I do not know how many runs were involved - on the 2 occasions I have used a dyno I found the whole thing quite stressing for me, let alone the car and that was just 1 run each!

With BMWs (maybe others too) they do seem to give higher numbers with successive runs, which is perhaps due to "adaptive" mapping. And maybe BMW's sly approach to getting good emission numbers.
It's generally accepted that the E9x M3 doesn't actually make 420hp (or 414bhp if you prefer) - I've heard of healthy cars making anywhere from 375hp to 400hp+ but it completely depends on the dyno, of course. I wasn't expecting 420hp because of everyone generally accepting that it's overrated by BMW in terms of power output, so it was actually right around what I was actually expecting, especially considering what my friend's newer, lower-mileage example made on the same dyno. In my case, I wasn't fussed as this was prior to supercharging so I just wanted a before figure so I had something to compare with afterwards smile
Taking the bolded. Any manufacturer who certifies an engine must do so to a very strict criteria. There are members on here who are much better qualified to comment on those criteria but, I understand enough to say that any claim that a manufacturer overstates the output of their engines is utter nonsense.

What a rolling road measures is different to what a certified engine dyno measures. Depending on the type, rolling roads measure either torque and speed at the rollers or rate of acceleration of the rollers, from both of which power (at the rollers) can be derived. In both cases the measurement is transient, that is the engine is accelerating all the time. Engine certification takes place at static load points. What is the difference? The power of the engine against a load at a fixed rpm is what i t puts out at that rpm. The power of an engine at a given rpm as the engine passes through that rpm. On order to pass through that rpm, the engine need to be accelerating - that consumes power.

Then look at what is connecting the engine to the measuring device. Engine dyno, a solid shaft with a couple of UJs - very low loss. Rolling road, gearbox (a manual has drag, but it is lowest in a 1:1 gear, a DSG has more drag), prop shaft, final drive (90deg turn of drive) and drive shafts. All of which have frictional losses. Then there is the tyres, the single largest loss of power between flywheel and road. The tyre deflects and the constant bending generates heat, heat which once was hp. When the tyre hits the road, it deflects one way and then the other. In this respect, a large single roller rolling road is more representative. Dual small roller dynos, deflect the tyre twice and to a greater degree. How much the tyre deflects is hugely influenced by how tightly strapped down the car is.

Once the rolling road takes the measurement, it will either add a (finger in the air) correction back to flywheel power, of will allow the drive drain to coast down in a de-clutched state to measure all the above mention frictions, only it cant as the drivetrain is not under the same load as it was when under engine power and the load is in the opposite direction.

So when we take all of the above (variable losses) in a transient state to measure power transmitted to the rollers, are we surprised the numbers don't match?
Thank you for the detailed explanation, it was super interesting.

I'm not sure how BMW got the e92 rated at 414, however you will be hard pressed to find one that makes that figure on any but the most optimistic dynos. While researching for this video (airfilter testing using an e92 and ea888 engined octavia vrs) I was finding posts back to 2008 with brand new e92's making less than 400. The general consensus is if you want over 400 fwhp you need exhaust and map.

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Saturday 12th September 2020
quotequote all
I would bet a virtual beer that if you took the engine out of a low mile E92 M3 and tested it in the same manner as it was certified, you would find it makes 420ps to DIN standards.

The difference in testing method is the reason a rolling road does deliver the same power. The method is massively different.

fido

16,735 posts

254 months

Saturday 12th September 2020
quotequote all
stevesingo said:
I would bet a virtual beer that if you took the engine out of a low mile E92 M3 and tested it in the same manner as it was certified, you would find it makes 420ps to DIN standards.
I have a new recently run-in engine from BMW - if someone can provide a free rolling road session .. smile