S54 Dyno Database

[heinzboehmer]

I know I said I was done chasing power (and I am!), but I have all this incremental dyno data and recently got lighter wheels (~6 lbs per corner), so I couldn't help myself. Was back at the dyno this morning to see what effect they had on the whp.

Updated setup:

• 130000 mi
• US spec pre-facelift M3
• Karbonius full carbon intake with carbon snorkel
• Kassel MAP
• Stock CSL IAT location and sensor
• HP converted MSS54
• SSV1s and SS oversized section 1 with HJS cats
• Stock section 2 and 3
• All engine maintenance done
  • Rod bearings replaced ~17k mi ago
  • VANOS done ~17k mi ago, passes VANOS test with no issues
  • Engine retimed ~6k mi ago
  • Valve adjustment done ~6k mi ago
  • New front and rear TPSs ~2500 mi ago
  • New precat O2 sensors ~1500 mi ago
• No mechanical fan, just aux
• Rogue engineering water pump and power steering pulleys
• Dynoed at Sonoma racetrack so altitude is ~sea level
• 52ºF ambient temp
• 90% (!) humidity
• Running Shell V-Power 91 octane

Dyno graph comparing the run with 19" wheels (blue) vs today's run with 18" wheels (red):



312 max WHP, 250 max WTQ

Yes, you're reading that right. The car made less power with the lighter wheels. Or maybe more accurately, the car made less power today than the last time I was at the dyno. Would not be surprised if the 90% humidity played a big role in it. I'll mess around with correction factors and all that to see what I can learn from these plots, but I think it's pretty clear that doing these sorts of comparisons in different conditions (even with the same dyno, same operator and same car setup) is not very meaningful.

One thing I don't love is the AFRs. Car is leaning out a lot at 7k rpm. The AFR curve looks pretty similar between the two runs, except that today's is shifter up. Maybe also related to humidity? Definitely not an equipment problem, as we swapped out the AFR probe's O2 sensor for a brand new one when we saw how lean it was measuring. I'll reach out to Paul to see what his thoughts are on this.

[eXpensiveGears]

^Understood, thanks guys! The only reason I thought of Steve is because his stuff used to be CA/Smog Legal, or at least you got the certs? but maybe not even worth the trouble and $$$$ if I can't legally drive it.

[stash1]

Finally got the supercharged Z4mc back on the dyno after 5 years of work on the Frankenstein supercharger kit.

Thanks to the mss70 master Severn tuning really happy with the car as we now approach tune iteration 85.

12psi, e85, high rpm contoured Si trim impeller, stock pullies, id1050Xs, walbro 450, gigantic AtW heat exchanger

Car weighs in at 3125 full fluids (no driver), and is running low 8 60-130s and trapping mid 120s. Excited to get it back on track this fall for some sub 2:20s at Sebring.

video on my ig: _SB__Garage_

car made 308/280 when na with euro headers and a TTFS tune way back in the day.

Nice numbers, congrats, and thanx for contributing to the thread!

[stash1]

Yes actually. Runs were initially done at 2500lb load and the final run was raised to 3500lbs to make sure the tune was still safe on the road. Difference in power between the load changes was only 2hp which is pretty damn good when you factor in some heat soak.

Ha, yes, I saw that...but what you (and prolly most folks) don't realize is they're actually multiple ways to 'trick' an 'eddy current' type dyno. Weight is only 1 way, but weight doesn't typically have a huge affect on the numbers...especially for lower powered cars like our M3's. There are other 'multipliers' that can be changed as well, along w/the correct weather correction factors, tire strap tension, blah-blah-blah. So, again, that's why you can't just apply a random correction % to a Mustang number to arrive w/a comparable Dynojet number and vice-versa. Here's a quote from a random website where a customer's vehicle actually made more power on a Mustang vs. a Dynojet...this particular vehicle made approx. 15 more HP on the Mustang vs. the Dynojet-lol. This is the response from the tuner/operator:

Originally Posted by AWE-Tuning
Back in 2002, we changed multiple settings to get our Mustang AWD-500-SE to read more like a Dynojet, including settings that offset the curves higher than as-delivered, to settings that also change the weighting of the curves (shape) to mimic the Dynojet better. If you want all those figures, we're more than happy to share.

That was back in '02, and has since become even more common practice today. Again, because Mustang operators were losing business to Dynojet operators 'down the street' because their dyno's produced 'bigger' numbers...many of them have altered software to produce 'Dynojet' like numbers. I'm NOT trying to blow up your results man, just trying to educate-lol. Your car might make 20HP more on a Dynojet...it might make 20 HP less...or it might make about the same!? No way to know unless you strap it on a DJ.😉😁

[thegenius46m]

Right, like we always say, a dyno is simply a tool for testing/measuring one’s progress. A Mustang (load type dyno) is absotively the best type of dyno to use for tuning…because you can better simulate road conditions. However, it’s not necessarily the best for just generating numbers because of the built in variabilities.

Your dyno guy is correct in the fact that if you run a Mustang in a loaded state that it will generally produce figures lower than on a Dynojet. But again, that percentage is adjustable, and who knows how much load (if any) the operator has dialed in? Did he tell you, and would you or I understand it…even if he did? If the dyno was run in an unloaded state, then that would probably produce numbers that are actually higher than a Dynojet. My point is, you and I will never really know, and it doesn’t matter...as long as you go back to the same dyno every time, and the operator loads the same ‘calibration’, then that’s all one needs to worry about for tuning/testing.👌

Again, I’m no expert, but I know a little bit.😉 The dude in that link doesn’t know what he’s talking about btw—lol. Again, you can’t assign a random ‘correction’ percentage w/o knowing how a given dyno was set up. He’s assuming that the Mustang dyno in that example was being run in a fully loaded state (I'm assuming)…and I’m telling you, that’s rarely how most operators set them up.

EDIT: FAAAK, I hate posting from my phone, it’s a PITA!

Yes actually. Runs were initially done at 2500lb load and the final run was raised to 3500lbs to make sure the tune was still safe on the road. Difference in power between the load changes was only 2hp which is pretty damn good when you factor in some heat soak.

[cali chase]

Finally got the supercharged Z4mc back on the dyno after 5 years of work on the Frankenstein supercharger kit.

Thanks to the mss70 master Severn tuning really happy with the car as we now approach tune iteration 85.

12psi, e85, high rpm contoured Si trim impeller, stock pullies, id1050Xs, walbro 450, gigantic AtW heat exchanger

Car weighs in at 3125 full fluids (no driver), and is running low 8 60-130s and trapping mid 120s. Excited to get it back on track this fall for some sub 2:20s at Sebring.

video on my ig: _SB__Garage_

car made 308/280 when na with euro headers and a TTFS tune way back in the day.

[stash1]

Funny my guy says the opposite that dynojet is the clout king because they almost always read higher. The mustang seems to simulate more real world scenarios as it is load and temperature based for the correction. But honestly they're all bs. You can't compare ANY of these directly to each other because there are too many variables that are not kept consistent between them all. Time of the year, altitude and pressure differences, calibration of the dyno, etc.

A dyno reading is nothing more than simply a DATAPOINT that you can't compare directly with someone else unless they run their car on the same dyno at the same shop right after yours so weather conditions are also the same. The best you can use the numbers are for is a reference.

I REALLY wish I had the luxury to have dyno'd my car before the headgasket blew but that simply wasn't an option. That would have been my direct comparison of the modifications.

BTW give this a read on the types of dynos. Interesting info for anyone wondering:

https://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214597

Right, like we always say, a dyno is simply a tool for testing/measuring one’s progress. A Mustang (load type dyno) is absotively the best type of dyno to use for tuning…because you can better simulate road conditions. However, it’s not necessarily the best for just generating numbers because of the built in variabilities.

Your dyno guy is correct in the fact that if you run a Mustang in a loaded state that it will generally produce figures lower than on a Dynojet. But again, that percentage is adjustable, and who knows how much load (if any) the operator has dialed in? Did he tell you, and would you or I understand it…even if he did? If the dyno was run in an unloaded state, then that would probably produce numbers that are actually higher than a Dynojet. My point is, you and I will never really know, and it doesn’t matter...as long as you go back to the same dyno every time, and the operator loads the same ‘calibration’, then that’s all one needs to worry about for tuning/testing.👌

Again, I’m no expert, but I know a little bit.😉 The dude in that link doesn’t know what he’s talking about btw—lol. Again, you can’t assign a random ‘correction’ percentage w/o knowing how a given dyno was set up. He’s assuming that the Mustang dyno in that example was being run in a fully loaded state (I'm assuming)…and I’m telling you, that’s rarely how most operators set them up.

EDIT: FAAAK, I hate posting from my phone, it’s a PITA!

[thegenius46m]

lol at dyno operators, theirs always reads correct and everyone else's is wrong........

That 1addcits link is garbage info btw

Lol everyone claims to be an expert these days...

[digger]

Funny my guy says the opposite that dynojet is the clout king because they almost always read higher. The mustang seems to simulate more real world scenarios as it is load and temperature based for the correction. But honestly they're all bs. You can't compare ANY of these directly to each other because there are too many variables that are not kept consistent between them all. Time of the year, altitude and pressure differences, calibration of the dyno, etc.

A dyno reading is nothing more than simply a DATAPOINT that you can't compare directly with someone else unless they run their car on the same dyno at the same shop right after yours so weather conditions are also the same. The best you can use the numbers are for is a reference.

I REALLY wish I had the luxury to have dyno'd my car before the headgasket blew but that simply wasn't an option. That would have been my direct comparison of the modifications.

BTW give this a read on the types of dynos. Interesting info for anyone wondering:

https://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214597

lol at dyno operators, theirs always reads correct and everyone else's is wrong........

That 1addcits link is garbage info btw

[thegenius46m]

Mustang (load type dyno’s) can be made to read whatever the operator wants them to read…they are much easier to fudge then say a Dynojet…which is more or less why it’s become the industry std. You can’t just say Mustang’s automatically read X % lower than a Dynojet…that’s a myth. I’ve seen some Mustang’s actually read higher than a Dynojet. A lot of operator’s tend to calibrate their Mustangs to ‘approximate’ Dynojets because it is the industry std…and they don’t want to lose business to someone down the street w/a higher reading dyno. It is a business after all, and they realize that we as enthusiasts (and after dumping untold amounts of cash in our cars) like to see big numbers—lol.

Funny my guy says the opposite that dynojet is the clout king because they almost always read higher. The mustang seems to simulate more real world scenarios as it is load and temperature based for the correction. But honestly they're all bs. You can't compare ANY of these directly to each other because there are too many variables that are not kept consistent between them all. Time of the year, altitude and pressure differences, calibration of the dyno, etc.

A dyno reading is nothing more than simply a DATAPOINT that you can't compare directly with someone else unless they run their car on the same dyno at the same shop right after yours so weather conditions are also the same. The best you can use the numbers are for is a reference.

I REALLY wish I had the luxury to have dyno'd my car before the headgasket blew but that simply wasn't an option. That would have been my direct comparison of the modifications.

BTW give this a read on the types of dynos. Interesting info for anyone wondering:

https://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214597

[stash1]

Yeah you can’t compare dynos directly at all. It’s solely a datapoint but I’m still very happy especially given my injectors were a limiting factor.

I think you hit it dead on with the comparison or lack there of statement. WCF is indeed weather correction factor. I know for sure a dynojet will read higher, I believe 5-8%? In that case I’d still be in the mid 360whp range which is fairly impressive for a 125k mile stock bottom end if you ask me! Bottom end has impressive leak down but it’s still orignal. I’m happy either way.

Mustang (load type dyno’s) can be made to read whatever the operator wants them to read…they are much easier to fudge then say a Dynojet…which is more or less why it’s become the industry std. You can’t just say Mustang’s automatically read X % lower than a Dynojet…that’s a myth. I’ve seen some Mustang’s actually read higher than a Dynojet. A lot of operator’s tend to calibrate their Mustangs to ‘approximate’ Dynojets because it is the industry std…and they don’t want to lose business to someone down the street w/a higher reading dyno. It is a business after all, and they realize that we as enthusiasts (and after dumping untold amounts of cash in our cars) like to see big numbers—lol.

[thegenius46m]

I'm not the ultimate dyno guru or anything, but I believe that the WCF number is the generally accepted one to go by...someone please correct me if I'm wrong? The WCF number is the weather correction factor figure, and I KNOW that you can't directly compare dyno numbers, but I believe that the WCF number would more closely equate to the Dynojet SAE correction STD J1349. Who knows though how that Mustang dyno was even scaled in the first place...you can't directly compare numbers from a Mustang to a Dynojet...unless the operator calibrates his dyno to 'approximate' Dynojet figures. Again, just trying to educate and learn here folks!😉😎 Glad to see the car healthy again btw, and thanx for posting up the graphs man!

Yeah you can’t compare dynos directly at all. It’s solely a datapoint but I’m still very happy especially given my injectors were a limiting factor.

I think you hit it dead on with the comparison or lack there of statement. WCF is indeed weather correction factor. I know for sure a dynojet will read higher, I believe 5-8%? In that case I’d still be in the mid 360whp range which is fairly impressive for a 125k mile stock bottom end if you ask me! Bottom end has impressive leak down but it’s still orignal. I’m happy either way.

[stash1]

359whp on a mustang dyno and the stock injectors are completely maxed out because the head is too efficient lol. I will be going back for another round once I figure out what injectors to run.

Also before anyone complains, the load is at 2500lbs because the car was running lean on the initial pulls. After the final pull we raised it to 3500 to simulate real world conditions and got within 2hp.

I'm not the ultimate dyno guru or anything, but I believe that the WCF number is the generally accepted one to go by...someone please correct me if I'm wrong? The WCF number is the weather correction factor figure, and I KNOW that you can't directly compare dyno numbers, but I believe that the WCF number would more closely equate to the Dynojet SAE correction STD J1349. Who knows though how that Mustang dyno was even scaled in the first place...you can't directly compare numbers from a Mustang to a Dynojet...unless the operator calibrates his dyno to 'approximate' Dynojet figures. Again, just trying to educate and learn here folks!😉😎 Glad to see the car healthy again btw, and thanx for posting up the graphs man!

[thegenius46m]

Yeah I have been talking with a local tuner to so if the power up top after 7.5k rpms can be addressed. Did a bunch of work over the winter to include having the fuel injectors serviced. All of my injectors were out of spec. It sure how much that will contribute but I’m sure it will help. I’m also planning to get my coils replaced since they are over 10 years old.

Hoping to get back on the dyno this spring to see what happens. Can you share your dyno results? Who did your tune?

359whp on a mustang dyno and the stock injectors are completely maxed out because the head is too efficient lol. I will be going back for another round once I figure out what injectors to run.

Also before anyone complains, the load is at 2500lbs because the car was running lean on the initial pulls. After the final pull we raised it to 3500 to simulate real world conditions and got within 2hp.

[maw1124]

It is waste of money going with these name brand places, they aren't adding value that justifies the premium

This... pre-internet maybe because they were the only ones who knew... Dinan, Alpina, RENNtech and a few others caked out... now the computers run things so you can always go grab HP with a few lines of code, and after that Air, Fuel and Spark is air, fuel and spark... it's easier to understand the governing principles. My personal view is these and some others are pretty maxed out from the factory and any closer to the knife's edge comes at the expense of reliability -- it's all good until it ain't. But the hunt for exceptions to that rule becomes worthwhile (cams, tunes, airflow, exhaust, suspension) -- some of these are more about factory assumptions of customer preference than anything.

maw