BMS update

[M5Rlz]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf

Here's what I can say.
With only JB and charcoal filter delete, I did a best of 623 at the wheels at the original 2.2 boost over stock (old firmware) on a dynojet (In 4th gear).
A few months later I added K&N drop ins, catless DPs, Turner muffler delete, and JB on 3.5 (new firmware) made 647 at the wheels on the same dyno (5th gear).
Just adding 5 galons of MS109 to an empty tank, the power jumped 10whp with no changes just fuel.
I then bumped the boost to +4, did one run to 5400 to let the car adapt, then let her cool down. Thirty minutes later, we ran her again in 5th gear and she made 692 at 6k rpms which is the top speed limiter and 100 rpms to go. We left it at that. Ultimately, with more time to adapt, no top speed limiter, the car would have made low 700s at the wheels. Adding 2 more lbs of boost would have yielded even higher results, but I played it conservative...

Sigh... If only I'd bought an m6 with competition package this car would haul ass above 155 damn bmw and their locked down ecu

[shahano]

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

Sigh... If only I'd bought an m6 with competition package this car would haul ass above 155 damn bmw and their locked down ecu

Why not M5 competition package?

[M5Rlz]

Originally Posted by shahano

Why not M5 competition package?

m6 is lighter, more aerodynamic things I overlooked when saying give me at the dealer lol.

[Andym3100k]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf

Here's what I can say.
With only JB and charcoal filter delete, I did a best of 623 at the wheels at the original 2.2 boost over stock (old firmware) on a dynojet (In 4th gear).
A few months later I added K&N drop ins, catless DPs, Turner muffler delete, and JB on 3.5 (new firmware) made 647 at the wheels on the same dyno (5th gear).
Just adding 5 galons of MS109 to an empty tank, the power jumped 10whp with no changes just fuel.
I then bumped the boost to +4, did one run to 5400 to let the car adapt, then let her cool down. Thirty minutes later, we ran her again in 5th gear and she made 692 at 6k rpms which is the top speed limiter and 100 rpms to go. We left it at that. Ultimately, with more time to adapt, no top speed limiter, the car would have made low 700s at the wheels. Adding 2 more lbs of boost would have yielded even higher results, but I played it conservative...

Can share n post yr dyno chart so others can see what's the different between lower n higher psi power n TQ different too.

[greentrbo95gst]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf

Here's what I can say.
With only JB and charcoal filter delete, I did a best of 623 at the wheels at the original 2.2 boost over stock (old firmware) on a dynojet (In 4th gear).
A few months later I added K&N drop ins, catless DPs, Turner muffler delete, and JB on 3.5 (new firmware) made 647 at the wheels on the same dyno (5th gear).
Just adding 5 galons of MS109 to an empty tank, the power jumped 10whp with no changes just fuel.
I then bumped the boost to +4, did one run to 5400 to let the car adapt, then let her cool down. Thirty minutes later, we ran her again in 5th gear and she made 692 at 6k rpms which is the top speed limiter and 100 rpms to go. We left it at that. Ultimately, with more time to adapt, no top speed limiter, the car would have made low 700s at the wheels. Adding 2 more lbs of boost would have yielded even higher results, but I played it conservative...

Is that a high reading dyno? 690 with no meth sounds pretty high, but then again you were in 5th gear.

[shahano]

Originally Posted by greentrbo95gst

Is that a high reading dyno? 690 with no meth sounds pretty high, but then again you were in 5th gear.

He added octane to his tank.

[greentrbo95gst]

I read his post. It's still a high number with no meth

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by greentrbo95gst

I read his post. It's still a high number with no meth

I pretty much don't believe any dynos on this forum anymore. If everyone were making 6xx whp with a DCT and our power curves we would have 130mph traps all over the place .

[M6-Coupe]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

I pretty much don't believe any dynos on this forum anymore. If everyone were making 6xx whp with a DCT and our power curves we would have 130mph traps all over the place .

^ This!
No offence to anybody who post the dyno in this forum, but I don't believe either.

Here in M3/M4 Forum is another example! The guy posted 415 HP/448 lb-ft for stock M3. Adding JB4, he got 486 HP/512 lb-ft ! If this is truth, this M3 with 3490 lb weight must smoke any cars!
I'm not saying that people are lying, I say the dynos results are not reliable!

[Tylerstar]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

I pretty much don't believe any dynos on this forum anymore. If everyone were making 6xx whp with a DCT and our power curves we would have 130mph traps all over the place .

The problem is everyone is using a dynojet, they always read high and are not very accurate. Use a mustang dyno and I bet the Trap speeds will be much more accurate.

[(H)]

Originally Posted by (H)

To all that run the BMS Stage 1 on their S63tu M5:

a) What is your max daily drive setting for boost on 93 octane?

b) How much of a difference for the butt dyno does it make for example to go from 3.25 to 3.75 or from 3.5 to 4.5?

c) Everybody claims that the car needs to "adjust" to the tune and it takes a couple of days (I honestly don't understand given that it is a 1/0 type change). If I were to change for example from 3.5 at 93 octane to 4.5 at 100 octane, would it also take days to adjust? Obviously would be disappointing as that would make swift setting changes on the track impossible.

Thanks for any clarification.

#H

Gents, do you have any more input on this?

[M5Rlz]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

I pretty much don't believe any dynos on this forum anymore. If everyone were making 6xx whp with a DCT and our power curves we would have 130mph traps all over the place .

How many people are hooking good though at the track, very few from what I've seen.

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

How many people are hooking good though at the track, very few from what I've seen.

Several people have gotten 1.7x 60 ft a 1.6x and only hit 128 mph , one with meth and race gas in ( hot weather) . Wheel spin hurts ET wayyyy more than trap though , hooking up 100% actually lowers trap with most cars . Even with 1.9-2.1 60ft on my test road with PSS I'm hitting 130mph terminal speed ( 11.4-11.6 ET ). That should be > 128x trap as well. I in know way think I have 700 hp much less 800 and I have a M6 CP , SS DP's , Akra , and Gruppe M with a BMS running + 3.5 on 93 octane .

[(H)]

Back to the BMS setup. Went from +3.5 on 93 octane to +4.0 on 93 octane and went for a ride with a good number of hard pulls. Butt dyno said clear difference in 2nd gear (scary level), little change in 3rd gear and rev range and slight improvement in 4th and 5th gear on higher end of rev. band.

Is there a way that we back up any of this with facts rather than with feelings? What is the max + that somebody has run on 93 octane without engine failure and how much difference does a +0.5 make? In essence, see my questions above.

[Fantasm]

Turn off DSC if you are brave but make sure its empty.
I drive with DSC off all the time, I will go sideways from a roll in 2nd gear when switching lanes on the freeway and shit.

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by (H)

Back to the BMS setup. Went from +3.5 on 93 octane to +4.0 on 93 octane and went for a ride with a good number of hard pulls. Butt dyno said clear difference in 2nd gear (scary level), little change in 3rd gear and rev range and slight improvement in 4th and 5th gear on higher end of rev. band.

Is there a way that we back up any of this with facts rather than with feelings? What is the max + that somebody has run on 93 octane without engine failure and how much difference does a +0.5 make? In essence, see my questions above.

On a CP anyway 3.5 was the fastest reliable setup 130 Vbox speed at the 1/4 mile 7.8 sec 60-130 0 slope + 2 k DA . Got 140 mph ish DT malfunction with 3.75 and 4 psi and it wasn't any faster despite "feeling faster " even after adaptation . I think it does add more tq but hurts it up top on 93 octane .

[shahano]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

On a CP anyway 3.5 was the fastest reliable setup 130 Vbox speed at the 1/4 mile 7.8 sec 60-130 0 slope + 2 k DA . Got 140 mph ish DT malfunction with 3.75 and 4 psi and it wasn't any faster despite "feeling faster " even after adaptation . I think it does add more tq but hurts it up top on 93 octane .

Why would you increase the boost even more???

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by shahano

Why would you increase the boost even more???

Experimenting with data logging and Vbox measurements to see what worked best instead of going with the "butt dyno " my point was what felt faster in the end wasn't .

[Timberwolf]

Originally Posted by Andym3100k

Can share n post yr dyno chart so others can see what's the different between lower n higher psi power n TQ different too.

Here is a comprehensive dyno sheet of all the key runs:
Stock with charcoal filter delete. Run 007 (4th gear)
JB only at the original firmware's 2.2 with 93 octane. Run 008 (4th gear)
FBO with 93 octane. Run 012 (5th gear)
FBO with 5 gallons of MS109 at +4 over stock. (5th gear)
NOTE: I did not adapt the car to the race fuel, so further gains where likely possible through adaptation and 2 more PSI.

Originally Posted by greentrbo95gst

Is that a high reading dyno? 690 with no meth sounds pretty high, but then again you were in 5th gear.

I really wasn't looking to set any super high numbers, hence only 4 psi over stock. I just wanted to make sure she was running well and not lean for the July 19th Pocono roll race event.

Originally Posted by gmd2003

I pretty much don't believe any dynos on this forum anymore. If everyone were making 6xx whp with a DCT and our power curves we would have 130mph traps all over the place .

I understand your apprehensive approach to dyno readings. I feel the same way. FWIW, my m5 did set the fastest ET at the Pocono roll race event amongst a few other done up M5s.
I'm Greg on the list below btw

Originally Posted by M6-Coupe

^ This!
No offence to anybody who post the dyno in this forum, but I don't believe either.

Here in M3/M4 Forum is another example! The guy posted 415 HP/448 lb-ft for stock M3. Adding JB4, he got 486 HP/512 lb-ft ! If this is truth, this M3 with 3490 lb weight must smoke any cars!
I'm not saying that people are lying, I say the dynos results are not reliable!

I've heard of F80 with only race gas, JB4 and downpipes doing 580whp and 604wtq!! It's the absolute limit, but it's impressive none the less.
I think you need to come to terms with the notion of BMW actually being good at turbo charging. They dipped their toe in with the N54 which has proven itself time and time again. To me the numbers aren't a shock as I owned a 135i and watched them set absurd numbers. I knew that an M built V8 with twin turbos would be absurd. Sure enough! The only enemy and what makes you skeptical of the actual figures is the sheer weight of these cars. It really cancels out much of the impact and also makes the cars manageable.

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

How many people are hooking good though at the track, very few from what I've seen.

From a roll there were no traction issues in the July heat. You'll want drag radials for a good launch but with this kind of torque, that's when things can get stressed! Wheel spin saves drivetrains!! lol

FWIW guys I posted my numbers in STD corrected Dynojet format as that's what Terry Burger uses, and guys that I respect like George aka M6Beast use.
Naturally for those who have been around dynos, the uncorrected numbers come out lower. Here is my race gas run uncorrected which comes out to 673 SAE uncorrected. That's 692 STD corrected. All runs where performed on the same brand new Dynojet at P1 Performance in Stamford CT. Best group of guys and some of the most talented in the country on all platforms. Video below.

Sorry for the confusion guys!

Thanks,

G

[shahano]

so how many HP do you suspect is the real gain with the BMS tune. 50 hp over stock and 50 ft-lbs?????

[Timberwolf]

Originally Posted by shahano

so how many HP do you suspect is the real gain with the BMS tune. 50 hp over stock and 50 ft-lbs?????

It was 71 wheel hp and 46 ft/lbs tq in my car.

[Andym3100k]

My got 50whp more on 3psi n 65whp on 4psi running on a dynamic dyno.