S54 Dyno Database

[2004LSB]

Hi Anri,

I wasn't actually operating the dyno myself so can't confirm if the dyno fan was left running between passes / refashing the ECU or not, but I can confirm we did back to back runs on the same final tune and even after repeated passes the result was within 2whp. It's only natural that if engine is left standing without airflow, IAT will rise resulting in ECU reducing ignition timing and knock out lower power figures. I'd assume the guys are EAS have a good cooling setup to simulate road airflow so runs should be accurate in comparison of how the car will perform on the road in the real world.

On my own dyno I have a good cooling setup that i've setup simulate similar to road airflow conditions, as well as using the eddy brake control to set a ramp time that would be similar to the actual acceleration time on flat tarmac. We weren't shooting for social media numbers or anything like that, simply Blau's S54 is a particularly strong one so it made higher than usual numbers following tuning. I've tuned many of these engines and have also experienced a couple that make significantly better power than the majority of others. Why that is I don't know - maybe i'll get to strip one of them down one day and make some measurements and tests to find out

For the first run (and maybe even after the 2nd), I don't remember them turning on the HUGE cooling fan since the the room temps were in the 60s. According to the DynoJet run data, the recorded temps were 75 -76 degrees Fahrenheit, with 29% humidity and 29.99 inches of mercury for barometric pressure. After the 2nd run, they did switch it on the lowest setting to help circulate the air.

For quick reference, here's EAS' typical fan setup for dyno testing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs18ZIAfy08

[paulclaude]

Hi Paul,

Would you mind sharing the 348RWHP is this "Chilled" pass ? I assume yes ?

I call chilled passes those that you have the engine off but the fan is
still cooling the radiator down and say ~ 4min later you hop inside start the
engine and make immediate pass.

I call this passes "Social Media Number."

The S54 engine I put together made 354RWHP on a Chilled Pass but
run after run after run after run we land around +/-348-ish and this is the number
I care about.

There is a small tweak to be done but engine temp must be in low values or
slight hi octane will work as well, all on the same ignition timing number.

Thanks.


Regards,
Anri

Hi Anri,

I wasn't actually operating the dyno myself so can't confirm if the dyno fan was left running between passes / refashing the ECU or not, but I can confirm we did back to back runs on the same final tune and even after repeated passes the result was within 2whp. It's only natural that if engine is left standing without airflow, IAT will rise resulting in ECU reducing ignition timing and knock out lower power figures. I'd assume the guys are EAS have a good cooling setup to simulate road airflow so runs should be accurate in comparison of how the car will perform on the road in the real world.

On my own dyno I have a good cooling setup that i've setup simulate similar to road airflow conditions, as well as using the eddy brake control to set a ramp time that would be similar to the actual acceleration time on flat tarmac. We weren't shooting for social media numbers or anything like that, simply Blau's S54 is a particularly strong one so it made higher than usual numbers following tuning. I've tuned many of these engines and have also experienced a couple that make significantly better power than the majority of others. Why that is I don't know - maybe i'll get to strip one of them down one day and make some measurements and tests to find out

[Anri]

strong engine!

Hi Paul,

Would you mind sharing the 348RWHP is this "Chilled" pass ? I assume yes ?

I call chilled passes those that you have the engine off but the fan is
still cooling the radiator down and say ~ 4min later you hop inside start the
engine and make immediate pass.

I call this passes "Social Media Number."

The S54 engine I put together made 354RWHP on a Chilled Pass but
run after run after run after run we land around +/-348-ish and this is the number
I care about.

There is a small tweak to be done but engine temp must be in low values or
slight hi octane will work as well, all on the same ignition timing number.

Thanks.


Regards,
Anri

[2004LSB]

Great numbers! The engine is definitely running strong. However, I’m a little skeptical of the absolute numbers when I see you fully stock pull at 290 rwhp. It’s pretty well documented that stock Dynojet SAE numbers are between 275-280. Not sure I’d say these are the “best” numbers out there based on that. Especially on 91 octane.

Was there some new tuning technique you used? I’m running almost the exact same setup and am showing lower numbers with 288/280 cams??

The dyno operators @ EAS did say my car for whatever reason tested extremely high compared to other E46s that have come into their shop. From their experience, stock cars typically put down yep....275-280ish. Some cars even with full bolt-ons, cams, and E85 barely break 330s. So I guess I'm just really lucky and have a crazy strong motor from the factory.

For whatever its worth, I did do the full Beisan systems VANOS upgrades from the start, and always did annual oil changes w/ Castrol 10w-60, whether if I did 300 miles for the year or 4,500. Engine never burned a drop of oil in the 8+ years of ownership.

[stash1]

Great numbers! The engine is definitely running strong. However, I’m a little skeptical of the absolute numbers when I see you fully stock pull at 290 rwhp. It’s pretty well documented that stock Dynojet SAE numbers are between 275-280. Not sure I’d say these are the “best” numbers out there based on that. Especially on 91 octane.

Was there some new tuning technique you used? I’m running almost the exact same setup and am showing lower numbers with 288/280 cams??

It looks like it was dyno'd at EAS, and they seem to have an unusually high number of cars producing better than avg. numbers...sooo, I wouldn't get too hung up on the 'absolute' numbers, and that's all I'll say about that. I think the focus (as always) should be on the delta, and it looks like between the chosen mods and Paul's tune, that the car responded very well and made very nice gains!

[duracellttu]

Fantastic result Blau and a pleasure to tune it for you - exceptionally strong engine!

Great numbers! The engine is definitely running strong. However, I’m a little skeptical of the absolute numbers when I see you fully stock pull at 290 rwhp. It’s pretty well documented that stock Dynojet SAE numbers are between 275-280. Not sure I’d say these are the “best” numbers out there based on that. Especially on 91 octane.

Was there some new tuning technique you used? I’m running almost the exact same setup and am showing lower numbers with 288/280 cams??

[paulclaude]

Thank you PCS Tuning! Will start a dedicated thread for more details!

Fantastic result Blau and a pleasure to tune it for you - exceptionally strong engine!

[2004LSB]

^^^ Thanx for posting! Would you mind providing some details of the build in the dyno thread please—thanx!

More details can be found here:

https://nam3forum.com/forums/forum/m...r-yuge-numbers

Basically I went from the following:

1. Stock baseline run
2. Karbonius CSL carbon fiber intake, snorkel, Euro headers & cats, PCS Tuning (canned tune)
3. Karbonius CSL carbon fiber intake, snorkel, full Supersprint oversized system (stepped headers, HJS race cats, resonated twin pipe, street muffler), Mishimoto electric fan conversion, Paul Claude Smith's custom dyno tune & 91 octane pump gas on stock cams 👍

[stash1]

^^^ Thanx for posting! Would you mind providing some details of the build in the dyno thread please—thanx!

[2004LSB]

Thank you PCS Tuning! Will start a dedicated thread for more details!

[stash1]

Appreciate the commentary. It would have been reassuring to see Kassel raise a hand and say something looks off; he's more qualified than many others. In the video I linked, it was actually the guy filming who did this but nothing more was said on the matter, and we can see how that video was titled for upload to YT. At the end of the day, the allure of big results and YT clicks will win and this a good example of such.

Ya, I'm not sure how Kassel left it w/the customer, and we don't know what may or may not have been edited out of the conversation in the vid? Jim and Matt are both solid ppl, and I would choose not to believe that they would intentionally mislead the customer. I think we can let this rest here (at this point) knowing that his car isn't the "fastest stock S54"-lol.

[jbfrancis3]

Hmmm, I've never really seen any overly optimistic figures from Kassel...usually their numbers tend to be a bit lower than most Dynojets. Anyway, sooo...apparently Kassel's dyno developed an issue (computer had a board go up), and so they had to get new software. They are still dialing it in, and they estimated that it was somewhere around 20% high for that particular dyno session...which would bring the number down to a more realistic figure somewhere in the low 290's. Not sure if they informed the owner or not of the possible discrepancy, or if the guy just wanted to make a sensational YouTube vid-lol.

Appreciate the commentary. It would have been reassuring to see Kassel raise a hand and say something looks off; he's more qualified than many others. In the video I linked, it was actually the guy filming who did this but nothing more was said on the matter, and we can see how that video was titled for upload to YT. At the end of the day, the allure of big results and YT clicks will win and this a good example of such.

[digger]

Its not the first time recently that I've seen some strong numbers from Kassel. Here is a clip where some figures are reported and being discussed on an S54 with stock cams (I set the clip to start around 6:25). I'd be interested in some analysis from those that are well versed in reporting numbers. At first pass, you think "really, 275 - 280 ft lbs?"

https://youtu.be/hZbtIiUREbs?t=384

yeah they have themselves a good ole random number generator.

Dyno's are a tuning tool blah blah blah but i would advise anyone interested in seeing what their car makes to find a dynojet, as that seems to be the only consistent way remaining short of the black strip. Every tuner says their dyno is a heartbreaker and reads low they must goto the same school....lol

These other brand are dynos are good for tuning but operators can mess with a bunch of corrections to make them self look like gods when they are all just keyboard jockeys and there just isn't much to mess with to change the WOT output. There is no magic tuning where they magically unlock some previously undiscovered parameter. i mean a number of tuners or their customers have said they have calibrated their dynos to read same as a dynojet lol so they are just messing with corrections which makes numbers look better. I'm sure some aren't doing it to be deceitful.

Torque numbers are easily frigged if the rpm axis is wrong which it seems to be all too often on most brand dynos.

[stash1]

everyone knows a stock S54 with tune is not making anywhere near 350rwhp legit

Yep, we know...just had to confirm through someone first though

The owner is posting it on Instagram as WHP gains. That’s what made me wonder.

Yep, that's why I had to check it out. Not to be a dik, but guy is obviously clueless if he thinks his "stock" M3 is making that much to the tire-lol. (Hopefully he's not on here.) See comment below for an explanation.

Its not the first time recently that I've seen some strong numbers from Kassel. Here is a clip where some figures are reported and being discussed on an S54 with stock cams (I set the clip to start around 6:25). I'd be interested in some analysis from those that are well versed in reporting numbers. At first pass, you think "really, 275 - 280 ft lbs?"

https://youtu.be/hZbtIiUREbs?t=384

Hmmm, I've never really seen any overly optimistic figures from Kassel...usually their numbers tend to be a bit lower than most Dynojets. Anyway, sooo...apparently Kassel's dyno developed an issue (computer had a board go up), and so they had to get new software. They are still dialing it in, and they estimated that it was somewhere around 20% high for that particular dyno session...which would bring the number down to a more realistic figure somewhere in the low 290's. Not sure if they informed the owner or not of the possible discrepancy, or if the guy just wanted to make a sensational YouTube vid-lol.

EDIT: Just to add, the first run on the dyno measured 291 (you can briefly see it/hear it out of the owner's mouth)...then something changed and it bumped up to 351. This just confirms the low 290's I mentioned above. Something either glitched out in the dyno software or they were still trying to recalibrate.

[jbfrancis3]

Its not the first time recently that I've seen some strong numbers from Kassel. Here is a clip where some figures are reported and being discussed on an S54 with stock cams (I set the clip to start around 6:25). I'd be interested in some analysis from those that are well versed in reporting numbers. At first pass, you think "really, 275 - 280 ft lbs?"

https://youtu.be/hZbtIiUREbs?t=384