F31 335d remap - do I need to do this?

[Wills2]

Welshbeef said:

tjlees said:

Welshbeef said:

Since when does 390bhp in a heavy car get you 3.5 seconds to 62mph - never.

See http://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=...

Ecotune did the tune.

That’s as fast as a C63 AMG and barely slower than an F10 M5 30 year edition.

Mighty impressive

Timing yourself accelerating down a hill will do that. (just kidding) those numbers aren't from a 335d touring they are from a 435d a bit lighter and stock will hit 60 in 4.5 seconds.

I very much doubt the C63 or F10 M5 could get near that 3.5 0-60 time, I could never match my unverified 0-60 time achieved in my 335d xdrive (4.3) in my F10 M5, not enough skill or the right road./conditions

In comparison to another AWD car, when the GTR was first tested by EVO it logged the following at Santa Pod.

0-60 - 3.8 seconds
0-100 - 8.9 seconds

[anonymous-user]

Wills2 said:

Welshbeef said:

tjlees said:

Welshbeef said:

Since when does 390bhp in a heavy car get you 3.5 seconds to 62mph - never.

See http://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=...

Ecotune did the tune.

That’s as fast as a C63 AMG and barely slower than an F10 M5 30 year edition.

Mighty impressive

Timing yourself accelerating down a hill will do that. (just kidding) those numbers aren't from a 335d touring they are from a 435d a bit lighter and stock will hit 60 in 4.5 seconds.

I very much doubt the C63 or F10 M5 could get near that 3.5 0-60 time, I could never match my unverified 0-60 time achieved in my 335d xdrive (4.3) in my F10 M5, not enough skill or the right road./conditions

In comparison to another AWD car, when the GTR was first tested by EVO it logged the following at Santa Pod.

0-60 - 3.8 seconds
0-100 - 8.9 seconds

Those are properly bonkers times for any saloon car, much less a diesel automatic with 'only' 390BHP.

You'd almost expect an impressive 0-60 with the 4 wheel drive, but the 0-100 times show that they aren't exactly running out of puff once on the move. Seriously impressive.

[Welshbeef]

279 said:

Those are properly bonkers times for any saloon car, much less a diesel automatic with 'only' 390BHP.

You'd almost expect an impressive 0-60 with the 4 wheel drive, but the 0-100 times show that they aren't exactly running out of puff once on the move. Seriously impressive.

Those times destroy the E92 M3

[tjlees]

Wills2 said:

Timing yourself accelerating down a hill will do that. (just kidding) those numbers aren't from a 335d touring they are from a 435d a bit lighter and stock will hit 60 in 4.5 seconds.

I very much doubt the C63 or F10 M5 could get near that 3.5 0-60 time, I could never match my unverified 0-60 time achieved in my 335d xdrive (4.3) in my F10 M5, not enough skill or the right road./conditions

In comparison to another AWD car, when the GTR was first tested by EVO it logged the following at Santa Pod.

0-60 - 3.8 seconds
0-100 - 8.9 seconds

The 435d is still heavy at 1700kg and official 0-62 in 4.7s. The 335d is 1705kg and 0-62 in 4.8s the touring a shade heavier at 1770kg and 0-62 in 4.9s.

However this is pub banter talk - in standard form its more than quick enough on U.K. roads, and when I had the 335d on track, while not the last word in handling, it was a real hoot, well balanced and the adaptive suspension/m brakes came into their own. Unbelievable in the wet - drifting with ease thanks to 4WD and all DSC etc off. ASD set to a v8 made the sound good as well

[Wills2]

tjlees said:

Wills2 said:

Timing yourself accelerating down a hill will do that. (just kidding) those numbers aren't from a 335d touring they are from a 435d a bit lighter and stock will hit 60 in 4.5 seconds.

I very much doubt the C63 or F10 M5 could get near that 3.5 0-60 time, I could never match my unverified 0-60 time achieved in my 335d xdrive (4.3) in my F10 M5, not enough skill or the right road./conditions

In comparison to another AWD car, when the GTR was first tested by EVO it logged the following at Santa Pod.

0-60 - 3.8 seconds
0-100 - 8.9 seconds

The 435d is still heavy at 1700kg and official 0-62 in 4.7s. The 335d is 1705kg and 0-62 in 4.8s the touring a shade heavier at 1770kg and 0-62 in 4.9s.

However this is pub banter talk - in standard form its more than quick enough on U.K. roads, and when I had the 335d on track, while not the last word in handling, it was a real hoot, well balanced and the adaptive suspension/m brakes came into their own. Unbelievable in the wet - drifting with ease thanks to 4WD and all DSC etc off. ASD set to a v8 made the sound good as well

I said the 435d is a bit lighter than the 335d touring we're discussing here which it is, the 435d official 0-62 time equates to a 4.5 secs to 60.

1700kg isn't light but no one said it was, it's all pointless as it's how a car feels to drive that matters for me the 335d x-drive touring wasn't very nice to drive I found an s-drive 320/30d M sport better balanced and more enjoyable.

Which brings me back to my original point, better to improve the suspension and brakes before looking at remapping a 335d touring.

When was the last time anyone needed to out drag someone at the lights?

[anonymous-user]

Welshbeef said:

Those times destroy the E92 M3

Curiously, those times would destroy A45s and RS3s. Cars with similar power and 4WD, quicker dual clutch gearboxes but considerably less weight...

Dead impressive if true, but my B.S meter is starting to ping.

[Wills2]

279 said:

Curiously, those times would destroy A45s and RS3s. Cars with similar power and 4WD, quicker dual clutch gearboxes but considerably less weight...

Dead impressive if true, but my B.S meter is starting to ping.

The new RS3 has been tested by Motor trend at 3.6 to 60mph so pretty much the same the more powerful F80 M3 is slower to 60 (traction limited) but has a better 0-100mph time as tested by EVO at 8.6 seconds to 100mph so I think the numbers are in the ball park.

The torque of the tuned 435d motor and short gearing of the ZF8 help it launch to 60 very impressively but it doesn't maintain that advantage once rolling the M3 takes 4.5 seconds to go from 60-100mph the tuned 435d takes 5.8 seconds.

[Welshbeef]

Wills2 said:

The new RS3 has been tested by Motor trend at 3.6 to 60mph so pretty much the same the more powerful F80 M3 is slower to 60 (traction limited) but has a better 0-100mph time as tested by EVO at 8.6 seconds to 100mph so I think the numbers are in the ball park.

The torque of the tuned 435d motor and short gearing of the ZF8 help it launch to 60 very impressively but it doesn't maintain that advantage once rolling the M3 takes 4.5 seconds to go from 60-100mph the tuned 435d takes 5.8 seconds.

A question if two drivers one in the tuned 435d and another the M3 on U.K. roads and neither risk going above 100mph and bother are always accelerating as hard as is possible in the car could he M3 overtake the 335d?

I guess the starting point is from 0-100mph does the M3 gain any car lengths?

[Wills2]

Welshbeef said:

A question if two drivers one in the tuned 435d and another the M3 on U.K. roads and neither risk going above 100mph and bother are always accelerating as hard as is possible in the car could he M3 overtake the 335d?

I guess the starting point is from 0-100mph does the M3 gain any car lengths?

If it takes the 435d 154 feet to to 60 and 180 feet for the M3 then it's 26 feet behind, at 100mph it's taken the 435d 680 feet and the M3 630 feet so 50 feet less but then minus the 26 it was behind at 60 = 24 feet ahead at 100 mph. (all of that might be wrong I looked it up on a time and distance calculator)

Important if you're racing driver hoping to snatch the lead on the run down to the first corner not so much if you're an accountant from Orpington on your morning commute.

[Welshbeef]

Wills2 said:

If it takes the 435d 154 feet to to 60 and 180 feet for the M3 then it's 26 feet behind, at 100mph it's taken the 435d 680 feet and the M3 630 feet so 50 feet less but then minus the 26 it was behind at 60 = 24 feet ahead at 100 mph. (all of that might be wrong I looked it up on a time and distance calculator)

Important if you're racing driver hoping to snatch the lead on the run down to the first corner not so much if you're an accountant from Orpington on your morning commute.

So within that theroectical situation the M3 would only just be able to pass and to do so need to get to 100mph to do it
Conversely if the 435d was behind the M3 it could pass and pass at much lower (and more safe and legal speeds).

That’s mighty impressive.

I guess in some ways it’s similar to Tesla Model S where it destroys other cars and hyper bikes - they do pass it eventually but st such a high speed it would mean years in jail if caught.

[Mr Whippy]

Faster doesn't guarantee funner, all else being equal, which it is if you just remap a car.

With an 8spd box with short ratios for legal road speeds, and traction limited in the 0-40mph range, just what do you get with more power and torque?

Remember this is a car where it can kick down and spool turbos as fast as a manual car going wot would spool its turbo in a higher gear and get on its torque too.

I live around some amazing roads and our Fiesta ST with 200bhp and an old Z4 with 220bhp are amply powerful to be doing limit point driving or 1+ lepton prison time speeds within a short handful of seconds between bends.

Just why you'd feel any need to add speed to an already 'easy' fast car is beyond my understanding.


I guess if the highlight of your driving is slip road blasts then a remap might add some excitement, but I'm sure just buying an M3 would add excitement everywhere else instead!

[Elysium]

tjlees said:

Wills2 said:

Timing yourself accelerating down a hill will do that. (just kidding) those numbers aren't from a 335d touring they are from a 435d a bit lighter and stock will hit 60 in 4.5 seconds.

I very much doubt the C63 or F10 M5 could get near that 3.5 0-60 time, I could never match my unverified 0-60 time achieved in my 335d xdrive (4.3) in my F10 M5, not enough skill or the right road./conditions

In comparison to another AWD car, when the GTR was first tested by EVO it logged the following at Santa Pod.

0-60 - 3.8 seconds
0-100 - 8.9 seconds

The 435d is still heavy at 1700kg and official 0-62 in 4.7s. The 335d is 1705kg and 0-62 in 4.8s the touring a shade heavier at 1770kg and 0-62 in 4.9s.

However this is pub banter talk - in standard form its more than quick enough on U.K. roads, and when I had the 335d on track, while not the last word in handling, it was a real hoot, well balanced and the adaptive suspension/m brakes came into their own. Unbelievable in the wet - drifting with ease thanks to 4WD and all DSC etc off. ASD set to a v8 made the sound good as well

Stock 35d engines already have huge torque. The HP looks low for the performance because they can't make it at particularly high revs.

Interesting to see the comparison with F10 M5 here:

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel6195-3969.htm

630nm vs 680nm is not a huge shortfall. If the M5 could lay the power down it would be sub 4 secs 0-60 (as the new version and some of the US 'rolling start' road tests demonstrate).

It's very easy to remap a 335d, but I would share the view that it is quick enough already.

[Welshbeef]

I guess the question to those who raise why do you need more power - because you can buy cars as is which have vastly more power. Why do they even exist as anything beyond 335ds is more than fast enough.

Why buy a E63 S over an E63?
Why buy the 30 Year or Competition pack over the M5 standard version?

[gareth h]

Be aware that remapping an f31 requires the ecu to be removed and opened up, this involves heating the glue until it is soft and removing the lid, I have heard of more than one occasion where the Ecu has been damaged during this process, there aren't many people I would trust to do this on my car.
As others have said the car doesn't really need more power it needs to go round corners effectively, I don't think that a set of springs is the answer, ive fitted birds springs / dampers and to be perfectly honest am a bit underwhelmed and wish I had gone for a kw coilover set up, which is what I would recommend.

[Mr Whippy]

Welshbeef said:

I guess the question to those who raise why do you need more power - because you can buy cars as is which have vastly more power. Why do they even exist as anything beyond 335ds is more than fast enough.

Why buy a E63 S over an E63?
Why buy the 30 Year or Competition pack over the M5 standard version?

Those vastly more powerful cars are not just vastly more powerful in isolation, they're a vastly more capable overall package.

Stuff like oil pumps, dumps for high lateral g, brakes, bushings, geometry, lighter unsprung weights, oil coolers, yadda yadda.

A remapped car is just one part of a car that's been improved without any consideration of the package as a whole... because that is what most remappers do... just go for big dyno values and maximum ROI.
1s and 0s tweaked without concern of the whole car as a package, at bafflingly high costs!

[Welshbeef]

Mr Whippy said:

Those vastly more powerful cars are not just vastly more powerful in isolation, they're a vastly more capable overall package.

Stuff like oil pumps, dumps for high lateral g, brakes, bushings, geometry, lighter unsprung weights, oil coolers, yadda yadda.

A remapped car is just one part of a car that's been improved without any consideration of the package as a whole... because that is what most remappers do... just go for big dyno values and maximum ROI.
1s and 0s tweaked without concern of the whole car as a package, at bafflingly high costs!

But doesn’t the F30 440i have the exact same setup and parts but instead of 313bhp it’s well over 350bhp so there shouldn’t be any issue with body control and braking abilities given it already can deliver for that model.

[Mr Whippy]

Im sorry I'm confused on comparisons here.

We were on about 313bhp 3.0 diesel going to 390bhp and a similar boost in torque, which is a huge gain.

The dwindling efficiency of the turbos at higher operating output means more heat to dump in the same old intercooler for example.
That'll now heat up increasingly faster than it did for the ROI in power and torque.

The higher turbine input pressure will mean more heat to dump to oil, meaning limiters hit sooner under sustained use, or other values trimmed to suit, assuming the ECU was tuned appropriately.


The list just goes on and on and on.


As that Lotusy person said, just add less weight.
The same goes for a turbo diesel. Do the minimum work you can get away with.

For BMW to have left an easy 25% gain on the table is bonkers.

[Wills2]

Welshbeef said:

So within that theroectical situation the M3 would only just be able to pass and to do so need to get to 100mph to do it
Conversely if the 435d was behind the M3 it could pass and pass at much lower (and more safe and legal speeds).

That’s mighty impressive.

I guess in some ways it’s similar to Tesla Model S where it destroys other cars and hyper bikes - they do pass it eventually but st such a high speed it would mean years in jail if caught.

Please stop using the word "destroy" it makes you sound 12 years old or a tank commander issuing commands to his gunner, both of which I presume you aren't.

[Mr Whippy]

Just as a point of reference, my Z4 did 0-60mph in 5.77s once.
Once. With DSC off. On an empty road one evening.
It was mostly an exercise in seeing how fast it was, but ultimately pointless.

The only other time I even accelerated anywhere near as hard from a standstill my wife gave me a harsh telling off as it hurt her head.

40-80mph is much more important imo. Overtaking with ample in reserve to know you can get past stuff.
Or the between corners stuff on a half decent road.

Expending increasingly less driving effort or proportion of the cars capability to reach limit point driving speeds or illegal ones is ultimately boring.


If all you want is fast and easy, then get a 335d 'mapped'... the joke that never stops giving!

[xjay1337]

Mr Whippy said:

For BMW to have left an easy 25% gain on the table is bonkers.

25% is pretty standard for most turbocharged cars after a tune to be fair.

If you look up the turbo size and fuel available then ~380hp is perfectly within reach.

Sure other componets suffer but that's why you have egt and iat limiters.