tuned m5 - dragstrip results... meh

[mainly]

went to the drag-strip friday, to see how my tune would improve my times.

overall, not to impressed with the results. i did break into the 11's at least, but since stock m5's have done better, ...?

here's the slip from my best run, an 11.9 at 122.88 mph with a 60' time of 2.0.

i got this using launch control. - somehow i just got the hang of it, and once i did it yielded the best times. (for me at least)

most of my other runs were 12.1 - 12.3. so no better than what i did when i was stock.

raced a camaro ZL1. killed him by almost a full second.

raced the new 2013 (660 hp) mustang and beat him by about .3 seconds. (that felt good, hehe)

a camaro ss, full bolt on, supercharged, headers, with 600 rwhp. killed him.

still a fun night, but i think i should be into the mid 11's

[stealth.pilot]

Those runs are comparable with my stock runs. My 60' time was slightly lower than yours - 1.96.

Confirms what I thought which is that a tune is only useful above 100mph.

[Boss330]

Your trap speed is 122MPH, which basically is what a stock M5 does as well... Trap speed is the best indicator of increased power. ET is a indicator of grip and launch, and is hard to improve without getting the car set up on drag tires etc.

Your trap speed however, should definitely improve with a tune! Unless you are spinning the tires all the way to the finish line... From the moment you have decent grip, your tuned engine should start to give results and produce an improved trap speed.

Just check out the GT Board races on Youtube and you can see the difference between a tuned M and a stock, from 50km/h (31MPH) and above (even though you probably need to get closer to 100km/h (62MPH) to see any major improvement).

What tune do you have?

[Ahmed]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Your trap speed is 122MPH, which basically is what a stock M5 does as well... Trap speed is the best indicator of increased power. ET is a indicator of grip and launch, and is hard to improve without getting the car set up on drag tires etc.

Your trap speed however, should definitely improve with a tune! Unless you are spinning the tires all the way to the finish line... From the moment you have decent grip, your tuned engine should start to give results and produce an improved trap speed.

Just check out the GT Board races on Youtube and you can see the difference between a tuned M and a stock, from 50km/h (31MPH) and above (even though you probably need to get closer to 100km/h (62MPH) to see any major improvement).

What tune do you have?

Wow.. I should have been proud of myself then!

[mainly]

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

Those runs are comparable with my stock runs. My 60' time was slightly lower than yours - 1.96.

Confirms what I thought which is that a tune is only useful above 100mph.

comparable in ET yes, but my trap speed was significantly higher than yours, you left that out.

[mainly]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Your trap speed is 122MPH, which basically is what a stock M5 does as well... Trap speed is the best indicator of increased power. ET is a indicator of grip and launch, and is hard to improve without getting the car set up on drag tires etc.

Your trap speed however, should definitely improve with a tune! Unless you are spinning the tires all the way to the finish line... From the moment you have decent grip, your tuned engine should start to give results and produce an improved trap speed.

Just check out the GT Board races on Youtube and you can see the difference between a tuned M and a stock, from 50km/h (31MPH) and above (even though you probably need to get closer to 100km/h (62MPH) to see any major improvement).

What tune do you have?

what stock m5's trapped as high as 122.88?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by mainly

what stock m5's trapped as high as 122.88?

Car and Driver has brought us the meat of what we want to see regarding the new F10 M5, the performance numbers. They tested it at 12.0@122 which is not bad. With proper rubber and conditions this is an easy 11 second car stock. This is roughly a 7 mph trap speed gain on the previous generation E60 M5 which had roughly a 7 mph trap speed gain on the E39 M5 it replaced. We had hoped the car would be closer to the ~125 range though especially with the DCT.

But that was probably a press car, which has 620hp. Could actually be a quite good comparison, and indicates that you car is around 620hp!

If, that's the case, your tune is actually giving results

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review

[stealth.pilot]

Originally Posted by mainly

comparable in ET yes, but my trap speed was significantly higher than yours, you left that out.

Like I said the tune helps above 100mph.

[stealth.pilot]

Mainly - did you try doing a run in S3 with DSC On or MDM on. I got my best run with DSC on in S3.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

Like I said the tune helps above 100mph.

From my experience with the MHR car (though not extensive), it definitely is noticeable also well below 100MPH. They have done a 0-62MPH time of 3,9sec. And at 50MPH and above the traction issues seems not to be so restricting anymore.

The MHR M6 only lost out at 50km/h (31MPH) compared with the 458, but very quickly kept the distance and then overtook it. If you have uncontrollable wheelspin up to 100MPH, yes it would be hard to argue any gain from a tune. Grippier tires should also be on the shopping list when going for a tune though

[Tom C]

Originally Posted by Boss330

But that was probably a press car, which has 620hp. Could actually be a quite good comparison, and indicates that you car is around 620hp!

If, that's the case, your tune is actually giving results

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review

You need to understand how a car magazine and a drag strip derive 1/4 mile trap speeds first before comparing them.

A 1/4 mile drag strip (NHRA) has timing lights 66' before the end of the 1/4 mile (where there are additional timing lights). The timing equipment calculates the AVERAGE SPEED it takes to cover that 66' distance. A car magazine like Car & Driver, uses GPS equipment (usually a vbox or similar GPS datalogger) to get the terminal speed of the vehicle. Having run my vbox at the 1/4 mile track literally dozens of times, I have seen a timeslip trap speeds (on average) come in 1.8 mph SLOWER than the GPS trap speed on the same exact run. It makes complete sense, since the drag strip timeslip is an AVERAGE speed whereas the GPS trap speed is the the maximum speed on that same run.

Also, most US car magazines weather correct their acceleration data (I believe Road & Track is an exception).

With that said, a 122.88 mph at a drag strip is a fine showing. If it was my run, I wouldn't worry about the ET, as that is based on available traction (track prep and tire condition).

[Nate@IND]

Originally Posted by Boss330

But that was probably a press car, which has 620hp. Could actually be a quite good comparison, and indicates that you car is around 620hp!

If, that's the case, your tune is actually giving results

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review

The only tune file "tuners" have is the copy of the press file so numbers should be 100% the same.

[Tom C]

Also, all 3 tracks in Alberta (not sure which one the OP ran at)...are 2K'+ of elevation. When I plugged the weather in from 8 PM it came back with DA (Density Altitude) of 3,200' to 4,300'. So a 122.88mph drag strip trap is VERY impressive given those ambient conditions.

[Vic55]

Originally Posted by Tom C

Also, all 3 tracks in Alberta (not sure which one the OP ran at)...are 2K'+ of elevation. When I plugged the weather in from 8 PM it came back with DA (Density Altitude) of 3,200' to 4,300'. So a 122.88mph drag strip trap is VERY impressive given those ambient conditions.

Thanks Tom, I knew the text of reason would come from you.--- how can anyone think that 2 different tracks should yield the same results or carry the exact same measuring stick for how fast an M5 should be? This is like someone saying that a dyno jet dyno in NY should yield the same results as a dynojet in CA. There are just so many more factors.

Your 122.8 trap speed at your DA is excellent which shows that the tune is indeed working thru the ranges.

If you dyno'd your car before and after you would have seen where you got your gains from your tune (I dont recall seeing any posts with a dyno).

[M54ccibo]

Originally Posted by Nate@IND

The only tune file "tuners" have is the copy of the press file so numbers should be 100% the same.

Thanks for posting this Nate. IMHO we should refer to this "tune" as a "flash", as the parameters contained within were not modified or changed by the tuner, rather, BMW or M-GmbH.

[Nate@IND]

Originally Posted by M54ccibo

Thanks for posting this Nate. IMHO we should refer to this "tune" as a "flash", as the parameters contained within were not modified or changed by the tuner, rather, BMW or M-GmbH.

BIG to this.

[Tom C]

Originally Posted by Nate@IND

BIG to this.

Well...something changed because a 122.88 mph drag strip trap speed @ about 3,500' DA is much stronger than anything shown by any BMW press car...

[Vic55]

Originally Posted by Tom C

Well...something changed because a 122.88 mph drag strip trap speed @ about 3,500' DA is much stronger than anything shown by any BMW press car...

Tom what would the corrected numbers be? I know I know, I hate correction but just asking


And for those of you have not tried the "flash"; it works and it shows on the dyno.

[URBAN LEGEND]

You beat some great cars. You did well. Those guys you know are hurt about their defeats to a 4 door.

[Sharpie12]

I was just at the track for timmayfest and my best was a 12.2 but the track was terrible. my best 60 foot time was a 2.2 and my best trap was 124.5mph. I am also running a a tune (Eurocharged). The car is fast as hell. Im not that upset about not getting into 11s because i know the car is super fast. From the 1/8 mph and the 1/4 mph was a difference of 30mph

[Sharpie12]

This was one of my runs with my friends

btw..worst track ive ever been on. look at the track towards the end and how bumpy it is.

[Tom C]

Originally Posted by Vic55

Tom what would the corrected numbers be? I know I know, I hate correction but just asking


And for those of you have not tried the "flash"; it works and it shows on the dyno.

If the drag strip run were run on a dyno , the correction factor according to this site would show a 1.068 (pretty high):

http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp.htm

If you plug the timeslip and 3,500' DA into the dragtimes DA correction:

Stock and Mildly Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines
11.462 @ 128.422 MPH

Extensively Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines
11.603 @ 126.824 MPH

Extensively Modified Supercharged and Turbocharged Engines
11.766 @ 124.994 MPH

However, I am not sure the "Extensively Modified Supercharged and Turbocharged Engines" category would be appropriate with essentially a stock twin turbo car with just a tune.