my car went on the rollers today

[stevetigger]

anyone that chucks Ԛ£10,000 at the engine i believe !

17,688.0 USD

for our American Brothers

[stevetigger]

please

[Jordan]

17,688.0 USD
for our American Brothers

I've spent $3,500 USD on my engine, management, and dyno runs to tune.

I'm really curious now to see what $14,188 USD extra invested nets you at the rear wheels.

I'd definately love a Dbilias ITB setup, but those are well above my budget at the moment.

[stevetigger]

He has spent that much Jordan

[Jon_Bmw]

17,688.0 USD
for our American Brothers

I've spent $3,500 USD on my engine, management, and dyno runs to tune.

I'm really curious now to see what $14,188 USD extra invested nets you at the rear wheels.

I'd definately love a Dbilias ITB setup, but those are well above my budget at the moment.

But you seem to be forgetting that you are over the pond, you get everything much cheaper than us english. We get cained for anything we want to buy.

Also as and engine gets more powerful and close to its potential threshold you have to plow serious money in to get a fairly little return, unless you cheat and put NOS on it. No NOS aguments here boyos.

[stevetigger]

Damn right Jon, I went to America and bought some Trainers for like $45 (Ԛ£25) when I cam home, they were in the shops for Ԛ£110 ($194.5)

I know its trainers not car parts but you get the point!

[Jordan]

I well aware of the rules of deminishing return.. but there comes a point when you are no longer getting out what you are putting in and should just plain stop you know?

Did he up and die? POST NUMBERS!!! lol.

[stevetigger]

No its 01:48am here, lots of people are in bed!

[buster]

except us night owl's. coo coo coo

[Jordan]

Good point. I forget such things.

Carry on then.

[stevetigger]

Good point. I forget such things.

Carry on then.

I never forget, Hence posting both USD and GBP....Its in my brain to know America is 5 hours behind or 8 for you!

[stevetigger]

Have a read Jordan! A little article of said car!

[Jordan]

Thanks for that I guess, but it still tells me nothing I do not already know.

Like I said.. dyno chart with power/torque at the rear wheels is what we need to see.

[player6]

[Moofles]

that graph's @ the flywheel scot

i guess they didn't give you a graph @ the wheels, but there are plenty of rolling roads around who can give you a chart for not very much money - go to one of the zone-organised RR days maybe? (and ask for it @ the wheels, not @ the fly)

[Jimbob]

Damn that's a shame if Bexley don't do a graph for rwhp.

[player6]

its was last time what does it say in the box

[Jimbob]

So according to the text in the box the red line indicates rwhp, but at 250bhp that can't be right

Edit, that probably means flyWHEEL

[E30BeemerLad]

there must be a RWHP figure somewhere as that is surely the starting point before they start calculating power lost through transmission etc to get the power at the flywheel. If 260 is at the wheels then dude you have one seriously powerful M20 and it must be nearer the 300 mark!

Can't understand all the nonsense going on here though

[M5pilot]

Scots car made over 210 rwhp on this occasion - Thats ALOT!

On the same rollers my bone stock 3.6 M5 made 301 bhp which is about right

My Alpina made just under 200bhp (no 6 branch) which is about right.

Another Alpina makes 215 bhp there and its modified - again about right.

Most 325i's go there and make 160-170 bhp - again about right.

Given the spec of Scots engine I would expect it to make that power. The reason why Adam's car makes no where near that power is probably down to the compression ratio, lack of head work, no 6 branch, less duration camshaft and its not been mapped properly yet. I'm not surprised its not making huge power to be honest.

Also notice how high the that 260 bhp comes in at - 6900rpm! Its a very high revving engine.

Most of the 2.7's peak at about 6000rpm making 210bhp - Scots engine makes about 230bhp at this point but pulls for longer hence giving that huge figure.

I'm sure Scot wouldnt mind going to another rolling road and it would most definately put down similar power.

[M5pilot]

Just to add, the Bexley rollers consistently read low torque figures.

All of the M5's that have been dynoed there read out considerably less torque than stock and this is again the same with 325i's and 2.7's after they had the new software installed.

My Alpina on the old system made 196lb.ft torque and afterthe new software was installed it made 180 lb.ft.

[Jordan]

I feel the Bexley rollers, and the technicians running them are a bit fishy.

The curve on that graph is VERY smooth, and looks overly interpoliated. None of the characteristic dips and peaks of the m20 are present. I think it is fabricated. Just my opinion though, feel free to believe what you want to.

[M5pilot]

My M5 dyno graphs look very similar to that.

Infact, all of the dyno's ive had done there look like that.

I know for a fact my M5 (which only went for a dyno - nothing else) puts down 300+ bhp so its not wrong.

That graph I can assure you is not fabricated in any way.

Not that its going to change your opinion.

Just to mention, the last high powered engine they built was a 2.7 with 232bhp which did 14.5 sec 1/4 mile in the wet infront of alot of Zoners. Thats a bloody fast time seeing as on that day E36 M3's just did it over 14 secs.

That engine had no Throttle Bodies and was not as high spec so I know Scotts car is good for 250+ bhp. Its only another 18 BHP!