BMS/ER DP Racing s63tu 60-130 results and dyno testing!

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Hey guys,

BMS recently added a set of ER racing catless downpipes to their development M5 and I have a few performance metrics to share with you. The mods are a BMS stage1 tune (running a little higher boost setting), CF delete, recently added ER catless downpipes, and the BMS CT to keep the light off the dash.

First some dyno testing. Note the after tests were done on a similar ~94 octane fuel mix but with 25 degree higher dyno temps. So the after numbers should go up a few when they retest in colder weather.

4th gear runs:


5th gear runs:


This morning they took the car out in chilly 46 degree weather for a few 60-130 runs. For these runs they found the best times starting in 3rd gear at 40mph so there was only one shift in the run. 2nd gear starts were just spinning too much. With better tires allowing good 2nd gear starts these times may improve without adding any power! Note the race gas mix on the 60-130 runs is higher. Closer to 96 octane. Also note I think these are an s63 world record. If anyone has faster times plug them in vboxtools and post the verified file to claim your record.

< 1% slope. This is what the max slope standard should be.


< 3% slope. This is the max slope standard most use. They did both tests within a couple min of each other just to evaluate the difference the slope makes.



Finally a photo of some testing at Willow Springs yesterday. I heard they had almost 10 s63 cars out there having fun!



Mike

[Tom C]

Fantastic 60-130mph time! To put that 7.15s time in perspective, my FBO GT-R (3" intake, full catless exhaust, upgraded injectors, plugs, fuel pump and turbo inlets) with race gas tune ran a 7.04s 60-130mph on a 2% decline. That car in the same state of tune trapped 130.94mph.

[Drm5]

Nices....

[TunedM2C]

Nice job!

[gmd2003]

Am I the only one who thinks the AFR's look kind of scary ??? Please tell me there was a sampling problem .

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Am I the only one who thinks the AFR's look kind of scary ??? Please tell me there was a sampling problem .

It's sampled from the tailpipe so is subject to some interference. But It's a direct injection motor and they are tuned a lot leaner from the factory. The car did roughly the same AFR completely stock before they added the tuning and downpipes so it looks normal to me.

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

It's sampled from the tailpipe so is subject to some interference. But It's a direct injection motor and they are tuned a lot leaner from the factory. The car did roughly the same AFR completely stock before they added the tuning and downpipes so it looks normal to me.

Stock AFR's are in the 12's at the 5k rpm range , these are at 14 that's quite lean in a high compression motor if they are accurate . Just look at the stock logs in the S 63 TU database .
George

[Tom C]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Stock AFR's are in the 12's at the 5k rpm range , these are at 14 that's quite lean in a high compression motor if they are accurate . Just look at the stock logs in the S 63 TU database .
George

Also, when running on race gas it has a different stoichiometry than regular gas and can cause a leaner AFR condition being reported.

http://www.modularfords.com/threads/...s-of-Race-Gas?

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Stock AFR's are in the 12's at the 5k rpm range , these are at 14 that's quite lean in a high compression motor if they are accurate . Just look at the stock logs in the S 63 TU database .
George

Here is another dyno from another completely stock car on a completely different dynojet. AFR seems about the same here too as read from the tailpipe.

PS. I asked BMS and they said they read the AFR from the OBDII port factory wideband sensors instead which are more accurate and allow you to monitor both banks simultaneously. So the AFR shown on the dyno is just whatever the dyno read from the tailpipe if they happened to insert it properly for that particular run. Often it comes loose. They also said the DME is fully aware of the true air/fuel ratio. If it gets out of tolerance the DME can and will throw a limp mode.

[Timberwolf]

Wow 7.1 That is just nuts for such light mods. Not surprised Terry did it. This is what he does. So glad he found his way to the M5

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Here is another dyno from another completely stock car on a completely different dynojet. AFR seems about the same here too as read from the tailpipe.

PS. I asked BMS and they said they read the AFR from the OBDII port factory wideband sensors instead which are more accurate and allow you to monitor both banks simultaneously. So the AFR shown on the dyno is just whatever the dyno read from the tailpipe if they happened to insert it properly for that particular run. Often it comes loose. They also said the DME is fully aware of the true air/fuel ratio. If it gets out of tolerance the DME can and will throw a limp mode.

I know I've logged my CP M6 and its in the 12.5 range at 5500 rpm similar to this dyno not the 13.8 range. It would be helpful if you could post those data logs showing boost/AFR curves. It would put a lot of this to rest.
Thanks
George

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

I know I've logged my CP M6 and its in the 12.5 range at 5500 rpm similar to this dyno not the 13.8 range. It would be helpful if you could post those data logs showing boost/AFR curves. It would put a lot of this to rest.
Thanks
George

That isn't my data to post.

As far as public data goes, this 100% stock EAS dyno shows 14.5:1 @ 5000rpm, and 13.1:1 @ 5500rpm. BMS' 100% stock SpecialtyZ dyno shows 14.2:1 @ 5000rpm, and 13.8:1 @ 5500rpm. Since both readings are from a tailpipe sampler some variance is expected.

Data you collect from the wideband o2 sensors directly after ECU processing is not going to exactly match what you sample at the tailpipe externally. If you are going off OBDII numbers then that might explain your confusion.

Mike

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

That isn't my data to post.

As far as public data goes, this 100% stock EAS dyno shows 14.5:1 @ 5000rpm, and 13.1:1 @ 5500rpm. BMS' 100% stock SpecialtyZ dyno shows 14.2:1 @ 5000rpm, and 13.8:1 @ 5500rpm. Since both readings are from a tailpipe sampler some variance is expected.

Data you collect from the wideband o2 sensors directly after ECU processing is not going to exactly match what you sample at the tailpipe externally. If you are going off OBDII numbers then that might explain your confusion.

Mike

On a full catless vehicle which Terry's car is now it is very close however . 12.5 to 14 doesn't make any sense without cats . I'm not confused

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

On a full catless vehicle which Terry's car is now it is very close however . 12.5 to 14 doesn't make any sense without cats . I'm not confused

The dyno runs 100% stock and again tuned without cats when sampled via the same dyno both showed the same AFR curve @ 5000rpm and 5500rpm in post #6. So unless BMW mistuned this one from the factory I think it's within spec. While I can't share their boost/timing/AFR logs I can tell you they are sampling around 1/2pt richer via the OBDII than what the dyno reports.

Your car which you are using as a reference is running a different flash map and thus likely has different air/fuel targets. Between that and sampling via the OBDII differences are expected. The air/fuel ratios will also change based on outside factors like air intake temperature, EGT, gear, baro, etc.

Regardless I noticed in another post you also had a 60-130 time. Plug the file in the vboxtools site and post the run I'd love to see the details for comparison. The M6 is a lighter more aerodynamic ride but it doesn't seem people modify them as aggressively as the heavier M5. A properly setup M6 could probably best this 7.1s time by a few .ths!!

Mike

[undr8dempire]

Saw these beasts in action Saturday and rode in the 5150 Racing tuned one, using the Berger unit. Huge improvement over stock and ran HARD all day!

Terry is a great guy in person, it was nice to meet him.

[EuroKar]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The dyno runs 100% stock and again tuned without cats when sampled via the same dyno both showed the same AFR curve @ 5000rpm and 5500rpm in post #6. So unless BMW mistuned this one from the factory I think it's within spec. While I can't share their boost/timing/AFR logs I can tell you they are sampling around 1/2pt richer via the OBDII than what the dyno reports.

Your car which you are using as a reference is running a different flash map and thus likely has different air/fuel targets. Between that and sampling via the OBDII differences are expected. The air/fuel ratios will also change based on outside factors like air intake temperature, EGT, gear, baro, etc.

Regardless I noticed in another post you also had a 60-130 time. Plug the file in the vboxtools site and post the run I'd love to see the details for comparison. The M6 is a lighter more aerodynamic ride but it doesn't seem people modify them as aggressively as the heavier M5. A properly setup M6 could probably best this 7.1s time by a few .ths!!

Mike

Mike,
What boost setting is this being changed to ?
I know multiple S63T's running BMS kits and when asking Terry about changing boost setting his reply is always leave it alone.
So, for those of us that want more boost what are you changing it to ?

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by EuroKar

Mike,
What boost setting is this being changed to ?
I know multiple S63T's running BMS kits and when asking Terry about changing boost setting his reply is always leave it alone.
So, for those of us that want more boost what are you changing it to ?

The 93 octane setting is 2.25psi and the race gas mix setting is 3.00psi. The actual boost increases on both are a little higher than what that field indicates due to how the software is setup for both 2.5 and 3.5 bar MAP sensors. So they are just relative numbers.

Most 91 octane guys have been running the 2.25psi setting as well although originally BMS thought they may want to reduce it to 2.00 for 91 octane. So far I've not heard any official word from them on that though.

Mike

[EuroKar]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The 93 octane setting is 2.25psi and the race gas mix setting is 3.00psi. The actual boost increases on both are a little higher than what that field indicates due to how the software is setup for both 2.5 and 3.5 bar MAP sensors. So they are just relative numbers.

Most 91 octane guys have been running the 2.25psi setting as well although originally BMS thought they may want to reduce it to 2.00 for 91 octane. So far I've not heard any official word from them on that though.

Mike

Cool. That's what I figured as well. I would like to change it to see how well it performs just don't want to cause any unwanted issues.
I assuming Terry @BMS is working on another software level since they have a F10 M5.
Thanks for the feedback Mike

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by EuroKar

Cool. That's what I figured as well. I would like to change it to see how well it performs just don't want to cause any unwanted issues.
I assuming Terry @BMS is working on another software level since they have a F10 M5.
Thanks for the feedback Mike

The car will run too lean at 3 psi and have to pull a ton of timing , so you have to run a lot of race fuel to make it safe and for it to make more power . There won't be any higher official stages until control over fueling and timing can be had . I would wait if I were you .

[gmd2003]

Mike this is a bone stock CP with AFR's measured from the tailpipe at EAS . It's significantly richer than the BMS AFR's despite having full catalyzers and is very close to what I data logged in mine from the sensors . This is why I was concerned . I agree it's a different tune than standard but it's clear and logical that a simple boost control piggyback would run lean especially at high boost settings .( Also why it's so sensitive to the octane run ) I need to rerun my CP with 100 octane to see how much it would take off my 7.9 0 slope 60-130 . I don't have negative slope roads here though so 7.1 is out for me even with race gas , DP's and the CP tune .

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Mike this is a bone stock CP with AFR's measured from the tailpipe at EAS . It's significantly richer than the BMS AFR's despite having full catalyzers and is very close to what I data logged in mine from the sensors . This is why I was concerned . I agree it's a different tune than standard but it's clear and logical that a simple boost control piggyback would run lean especially at high boost settings .( Also why it's so sensitive to the octane run ) I need to rerun my CP with 100 octane to see how much it would take off my 7.9 0 slope 60-130 . I don't have negative slope roads here though so 7.1 is out for me even with race gas , DP's and the CP tune .

This piggyback when properly done should hit the same air/fuel ratios as stock. It would only "lean out" if maxing out the short and long term fuel trims at +33% more fuel than stock. The CP running higher boost targets from the factory means you can probably safely run even more boost on it than the non-CP flash and stay within that fuel trim limit. But BMS will need to flash their car at some point with the CP to evaluate the exact differences.

Mike

[lfelunden]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Mike this is a bone stock CP with AFR's measured from the tailpipe at EAS . It's significantly richer than the BMS AFR's despite having full catalyzers and is very close to what I data logged in mine from the sensors . This is why I was concerned . I agree it's a different tune than standard but it's clear and logical that a simple boost control piggyback would run lean especially at high boost settings .( Also why it's so sensitive to the octane run ) I need to rerun my CP with 100 octane to see how much it would take off my 7.9 0 slope 60-130 . I don't have negative slope roads here though so 7.1 is out for me even with race gas , DP's and the CP tune .

Is this dynorun done on a bonestock car with the CP?? First time I have found a stock CP dynorun.