M4 tuning

[tag1]

I have taken the plunge and had a remus exhaust deleting secondary cats, a Burger motorsport induction system and a JB4 fitted to my 2015 M4. The work was done by a well recommended company, I am not going to name them because this is in no way a post complaining about them .My question relates to the quoted power and torque figures my car seems to have managed on their dyno post the above mods.
The car achieved 488hp and 530 ib/ft. I know that it is impossible to compare different dyno figures and sometimes even figures from the same dyno (heat, temp etc) cannot be compared. But, given the no's quoted by people with stock cars achieving 500 ish hp and 600 lb/ft with nothing more than a map or tuning box makes me think something is not as it should be.
I was looking for some advice / thoughts ? thanks Sorry should have said I am running map2 on the JB4

Edited by tag1 on Saturday 30th September 18:10

[Exige77]

Did you do dyno run before and after mods ?

Diff dynos give diff results.

What transmission losses did the Dyno use ?

Hub dyno or rolling road ?

[rassi]

As above, if you don’t have a baseline the dyno run post mods is almost useless, as you have no idea what the gains are.

[tag1]

They did not do a base run ,my concern was simply as a comparison to the claims of greater power and torque from virtually stock cars . I have seen claims of 455hp from a stock car on the same dyno but a diffferent day.
I accept all cars are different but having put the upgrades on the car I would like to feel its been worth the £00's

[rassi]

Of your modifications, the JB4 is the one giving the most. Cat delete and Remus are insignificant, so what is the JB4 supposed to give?

[tag1]

That is the question I am asking really .I would have expected something from the exhaust and the induction kit sec cat del with better breathing should be worth something. Maybe I'm concerned abut nothing.. im interested in peoples opinion .

[ftypical]

Your quoted figures could be an indication of problems (a printout of the Torque/Power curves would provide some clues), or might just be the 'at the wheel' figures.

Does it feel quicker than before?

[tag1]

ftypical said:

Your quoted figures could be an indication of problems (a printout of the Torque/Power curves would provide some clues), or might just be the 'at the wheel' figures.

Does it feel quicker than before?

[Will try and post the graphs ,but I want to remove the co's name first.
The Honest answer is that it doesn't seem to have changed the performance to the extent I have read others posting about following similar upgrades.
I do need to give it more time to explore more of the performance probably.
I will say though the guys that did the work are a great team and did a fantastic professional job and this post is in no way a criticism of them.
The graphs are very smooth for both the power and torque, max power is at 5200 rpm and torque at 3000 rpm slowly dropping to just over 300 at 7500 rpm.
I understand that the figures are at the clutch, not at the wheel.

[Exige77]

The dyno will measure at the hubs/wheels and then use a formula to compensate for transmission losses.

[tag1]

Exige77 said:

The dyno will measure at the hubs/wheels and then use a formula to compensate for transmission losses.

In which case the numbers look worse ?

[ftypical]

Smooth is good.

If those figures are estimated flywheel figures, that would be bad - as they should be ~25% better.

But spot on if it is at the wheels.

[ftypical]

Heatsoak may be an issue though. Unless they have a really big fan sat right in front of the Intercooler, the ECU is going to panic and back off the timing and afr.

[tag1]

ftypical said:

Heatsoak may be an issue though. Unless they have a really big fan sat right in front of the Intercooler, the ECU is going to panic and back off the timing and afr.

They Have 2 big fans at the front of the car and the dyno is in a very well ventilated area.