RIDOX Replica Garage-In Memory of TurnLeft-GT40,300ZX,F430,TVR,AEM S2000,Cizeta,TransAm Doug Nash

[OdeFinn]

I was standing next to the dyno. That's all the proof I need.

Well if I use Honda vtec as test engine, then there would be "zero" benefits.

Yes the reason HP ratings were not true in the 70's for insurance purposes.

And after that used for emission regulations by using lower octane fuel and different timing for it. "Anti knock sensor" equipped cars can benefit higher octane, if it's tuned from factory with bigger compromises on RPM range, i.e. Honda vtec has less compromises and practically zero benefits from higher octane.. But I won't continue to share this more, waste of time and reminds too much of school, instead now I might understand teacher point of view when he tried to sharpen blunt knifes of classroom.

 

[ALB123]

Yes. I've seen that Dyno sheet you posted regarding the M4. The people there are assuming 18% power loss from the flywheel to the rear wheels. That's simply not true. I'd be willing to bet every car that they dyno says to "divide by 0.82". BMW engineers specifically said to my brother who was in the process of picking up his $90,000 M4 and they proudly claim a 10% loss, possibly 11% as not all cars are the same. My brother is the biggest car enthusiast I know and that was probably the #1 question he was itching to ask people working on the M4 project. You also posted an example of a dyno with only 10% loss for a different car.

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=997077

This graph shows power loss:

P-Rad= Wheel HP
P-Mot= Flywheel HP
M-Mot= Torque at the flywheel

P-Schlepp = Drivetrain losses

I'm sure every BMW M4 owner would be thrilled to say that their cars produce 500hp at the crank, but that's simply not true. The dyno readout I uploaded shows 465hp at the flywheel and that's pretty much what you're going to find. Yes, there is probably a lucky owner here or there that gets 470hp for some reason, but it's probably 0.1% of M4 owners.

 

[killerjimbag]

Yes. I've seen that Dyno sheet you posted regarding the M4. The people there are assuming 18% power loss from the flywheel to the rear wheels. That's simply not true. I'd be willing to bet every car that they dyno says to "divide by 0.82". BMW engineers specifically said to my brother who was in the process of picking up his $90,000 M4 and they proudly claim a 10% loss, possibly 11% as not all cars are the same. My brother is the biggest car enthusiast I know and that was probably the #1 question he was itching to ask people working on the M4 project. You also posted an example of a dyno with only 10% loss for a different car.

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=997077

This graph shows power loss:

P-Rad= Wheel HP
P-Mot= Flywheel HP
M-Mot= Torque at the flywheel

P-Schlepp = Drivetrain losses

I'm sure every BMW M4 owner would be thrilled to say that their cars produce 500hp at the crank, but that's simply not true. The dyno readout I uploaded shows 465hp at the flywheel and that's pretty much what you're going to find. Yes, there is probably a lucky owner here or there that gets 470hp for some reason, but it's probably 0.1% of M4 owners.

I have the Car and Driver August 2014 Speed Issue on my phone. BMW M4 2015 American version.
Price as tested $ 80325
Length 184.5 inches
Width 73.6
Height 54.4
Wheelbase 110.7
Front track 62.2
Rear track 63.1
Engine twin turbo dohc 24 valve inline 6
182 cu in 2979 cc
Power HP@ RPM 425 @7300
Torque LB-Ft@RPM 406@1850
Redline/Fuel Cutoff 7500/7500 rpm
Lb per HP 8.4
Trans 7 speed dual clutch automatic
Rear drive
Gear ratio
1st 4.81/4.7/35
2nd 2.59/8.7/65
3rd 1.70/13.2/99
4th 1.28/17.7/133
5th 1.00/22.2/155
6th 0.84/26.8/155
7th 0.67/33.7/155
Axel ratio 3.46
Curb weight 3581 lbs
% front /%rear 52.6/47.4
Tank 15.9 gallons
Rating 91 octane
EPA City/HWY 18/25 mpg
There you go.
Car and driver
Speed Issue August 2014.
.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Octane is a just a measurement of how much compression the fuel can take before igniting. If a modern car is not designed with this in mind (computer & engine capability), running higher octane fuel is just going to empty your wallet faster and give you no performance increases.

Precisely this. I'd also add that the reason you'd see HP gains by using 98 in a Japanese import, is because they're tuned to run the 100 octane fuel they have over there. Running 91 in them without re-mapping the ECU would be knock city, especially in a turbocharged car. The knock sensor would pick it up and retard the hell out of the timing.

I dragged off an R34 GTT that was clearly running 91 octane fuel, in my 200hp Corolla, a couple of months back. The Skyline was driven by a young bloke, who looked like he knew more about One Direction than his car, and the car was running rich as ****, as was evidenced by the excessive amount of black smoke that poured out when he hit boost. I also heard some nasty ping when the boost came on when I was alongside him. I bet he would see a not insignificant HP gain if he dyno'd it on that fuel, and then again on 98, even with a small bottle of octane boost to bump it up to 100.

On a car tuned to run 91, you won't see any gain by running 98 without changing anything else. In my old Celica GT4 Group A, because it was an Aus delivered car, it was tuned to safely run 91, but the book recommended running 95 to be safe, particularly in hot conditions. There was no point running 98 on stock boost. However, once I upped the boost by 5PSI, I started running 98 as a precaution in hotter conditions, and only ran 95 in winter. I never ran into any issues with knock, so I obviously was still on the safe side there.

Oh and @ALB123 your regular fuel is the same octane as ours. 91RON is 87AKI. It definitely should be reserved for the shopping trolleys though lol. Even my little 'Rolla needs a minimum of 95, with it's 11.5:1 compression ratio lol.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Here is what I have known, rough average, AT usually up to 5% more than MT in power loss. The BMW dyno I showed is DCT ( not manual which I would believe to have 10-11% loss is a good number as some MT can have up to 15% loss ), though DCT power loss may be smaller than most AT transmission.

Dynojet RWD/FWD MT up to 15% loss, divide by 0.85 | RWD/FWD AT and AWD 18% loss, divide by 0.82
Dynapack RWD/FWD MT up to 15% loss, divide by 0.85 | RWD/FWD AT and AWD 18% loss, divide by 0.82
Mustang Dyno RWD/FWD MT up to 25% loss, divide by 0.75 | RWD/FWD AT and AWD 25% loss, divide by 0.75
Dyno Dynamics RWD/FWD MT up to 25% loss, divide by 0.75 | RWD/FWD AT and AWD 25% loss, divide by 0.75
Dyno Dynamics (shootout mode only) RWD/FWD MT and RWD/FWD AT and AWD 0% loss, no conversion required 0% loss, no conversion required

Those are from what gathered in the past ( also from the dyno software itself ) I think Dynojet would have known how to measure average power loss from using their own product. Those are average, and may vary, until there's an engine dyno run on the M4, we'll never know the real truth number.

Precisely this. I'd also add that the reason you'd see HP gains by using 98 in a Japanese import, is because they're tuned to run the 100 octane fuel they have over there. Running 91 in them without re-mapping the ECU would be knock city, especially in a turbocharged car. The knock sensor would pick it up and retard the hell out of the timing.

I dragged off an R34 GTT that was clearly running 91 octane fuel, in my 200hp Corolla, a couple of months back. The Skyline was driven by a young bloke, who looked like he knew more about One Direction than his car, and the car was running rich as ****, as was evidenced by the excessive amount of black smoke that poured out when he hit boost. I also heard some nasty ping when the boost came on when I was alongside him. I bet he would see a not insignificant HP gain if he dyno'd it on that fuel, and then again on 98, even with a small bottle of octane boost to bump it up to 100.

On a car tuned to run 91, you won't see any gain by running 98 without changing anything else. In my old Celica GT4 Group A, because it was an Aus delivered car, it was tuned to safely run 91, but the book recommended running 95 to be safe, particularly in hot conditions. There was no point running 98 on stock boost. However, once I upped the boost by 5PSI, I started running 98 as a precaution in hotter conditions, and only ran 95 in winter. I never ran into any issues with knock, so I obviously was still on the safe side there.

Oh and @ALB123 your regular fuel is the same octane as ours. 91RON is 87AKI. It definitely should be reserved for the shopping trolleys though lol. Even my little 'Rolla needs a minimum of 95, with it's 11.5:1 compression ratio lol.

Never knew there is an idiot running R34 with 91 octane fuel, I never use 91 when in Oz. Where I live now, the cheapest fuel that most people use is nightmare ( 88/89 RON ), even low power car like Yaris, Jazz, I often heard knocking loudly when people reversing or parking.

 

[ALB123]

Please, feel free to continue to believe DynoJet and I will believe the engineers who designed and built the car.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Please, feel free to continue to believe DynoJet and I will believe the engineers who designed and built the car.

I simply used that power level on one of my build, of which there are several version, one which I have posted long ago with lower power. The bottom line is official power claim is often misleading. One thing for sure is BMW uses wheel power reading as official power.

Anything else you would like to share ? or any problems with GT6 cars I have posted ?

I think we have gone off topic long enough.

 

[ALB123]

Off topic? You were the person who brought up BMW M4's actually produce over 500hp. Don't you say that you're always looking for accuracy? To right the wrongs? That's all I tried to do because this is particular car that I am well acquainted with. For anyone else reading, this person actually knows a thing or two... In fact, he even uses DynoJet dyno results in his test for the truth. Again, he breaks down how the 10% drivetrain power loss is achieved.

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1022745

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Off topic? You were the person who brought up BMW M4's actually produce over 500hp. Don't you say that you're always looking for accuracy? To right the wrongs? That's all I tried to do because this is particular car that I am well acquainted with. For anyone else reading, this person actually knows a thing or two... In fact, he even uses DynoJet dyno results in his test for the truth. Again, he breaks down how the 10% drivetrain power loss is achieved.

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1022745

The proper way to find power loss is to use engine dyno on the same car that was tested on the dynojet. I simply used what Dynojet state to get flywheel power for the dyno power version M4. Until there's engine dyno reading data that can be used, I will keep it that way, along with older version with lesser power, people are free to use either of them. Will you be happy if I add 470HP version as well on that replica post ?

 

[killerjimbag]

Please, feel free to continue to believe DynoJet and I will believe the engineers who designed and built the car.

Yes or perhaps the data provided to Car and Driver by BMW America. Here this should be enough.
http://www.caranddriver.com/bmw/m4

 

[OdeFinn]

Nice post, something really useful(^) there, still answers "nothing", just open statement of "For example, I know that race gas mix vs 91 octane consistently adds 8- 10 bhp. E30 Mix adds 20 bhp; every -30 change mpar pressure ~ 5bhp. I know the S55 will adjust for these conditions and produce more consistent power, but the S65 dynos I’ve seen understate results except for 2 of them: Dinan and Rototest, which show the engine to be rated about where it should be from the factory –and surprise those are the two dynos that best replicate ambient road conditions and full heat exchange."

 

[killerjimbag]

Did you ever read my post about the M4 and 991 Carrera S on AC thread ? I uploaded both dyno sheets ( Dynojet ). The M4 I uploaded is DCT model, 2015 M4, stock with 91 octane fuel ( which would be 95 RON ) and it was done by reputable tuning garage in California and the dynojet power correction from wheel to flywheel explained in the dyno readout brings it to over 500HP ( divide by 0.82 )

.View attachment 613861




Regarding octane, I know there's differences of fuel quality standard used between continents and I talked about octane (RON) used in Oz, I was also talking about JDM cars I drove a lot in Australia. Any lower than 98 Shell and cars like Skylines are more prone to detonation ( it was scary putting premium on these cars ), especially when running non stock boost levels ( most are , at least either of these exhaust, intercooler, BOV, ECU, S-AFC etc ), and I even had to take extra precaution putting octane booster to keep detonation at bay, because I know the Shell 98 is not really guarantee.
JDM cars recommended fuel is 100 RON for max performance, though it can take lower, but the lower the fuel, it will go rich ( burns more fuel ), retard the timing and power loss ( when ECU detects knocking/detonation ) Turbo cars are more sensitive to fuel quality + power increase/decrease than NA cars.

Sorry if I didn't put explanation about the M4 and Carrera S which were tested in the US.

As for Lotus Carlton, here is a dyno session with stock car ( dyno dynamics which often reads lower than dynojet ) :



and another dyno run with different dyno, 381HP at the wheel, which should translate at least 420HP at the engine ( using 10% loss )



Back then, there's one Carlton imported in Australia that were up for sale asking for astronomical price, and the owner said about 430+HP with around 0.1 Bar boost increase, 0.8 Bar boost , apparently his Carlton ran 0.7 Bar stock boost, this is why I wrote 420-440 HP stock engine HP approximation. The Carlton max boost stock is 0.98 Bar before ECU cuts injector pulse.

What often bothers me is manufacturer claims often just a number, no explanation in condition of measurement, like dyno ( engine or chassis ), fuel etc. The JDM 280PS gentlemen agreeement was even worse

Is this what your talking about perhaps? Don't worry I found it for you.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2015-bmw-m4-vs-2014-porsche-911-carrera-comparison-test

 

[coryclifford]

This seems to have turned into a conversation between people that have had real life experience and people that read too much on the Internet.

 

[killerjimbag]

This seems to have turned into a conversation between people that have had real life experience and people that read too much on the Internet.

Yes some of us have "Digital subsciptions"

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Is this what your talking about perhaps? Don't worry I found it for you.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2015-bmw-m4-vs-2014-porsche-911-carrera-comparison-test

No, nothing to do with that. The Carrera S dyno was from 2017 model, done by Cobb Tuning.

This seems to have turned into a conversation between people that have had real life experience and people that read too much on the Internet.

Are you implying me ? You don't know me at all.

Why are you guys still here ? Don't you have better things to do than posting everything but GT6 ? This is tuning garage thread after all.

 

[killerjimbag]

No, nothing to do with that. The Carrera S dyno was from 2017 model, done by Cobb Tuning.



Are you implying me ? You don't know me at all.

Why are you guys still here ? Don't you have better things to do than posting everything but GT6 ? This is tuning garage thread after all.

Well if you want replica's and accuracy,get the facts correct.Isn't this what your garage is all about? I'm actually going to go through the rest of my magazines. Fact check some stuff just to make sure.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Well if you want replica's and accuracy,get the facts correct.Isn't this what your garage is all about? I'm actually going to go through the rest of my magazines. Fact check some stuff just to make sure.

Well, I'm not going to entertain anymore, I'm not your friend, you dislike me from a few years back already, mocking my replica. Obviously you are here just to stir the pot. So, I'll be blunt like I always do, you can post all you like here, but I will just read it. The same goes to some others who clearly have the same agenda. I have been very nice on my own thread thus far.

 

[killerjimbag]

I don't know we're you think I don't like you? Actually it was you that said my Nascar tune was no good.
Did I ever tell you my wife is an Engineer for Toyota Motor Manufacturing in Cambridge. She's built over a million cars in the last 27 years. She's forgot more than you and I know. I show here some stuff on here and she just laughs.Any how. Is this the site for your dyno test?
http://rennlist.com/forums/991/9179...991-carrera-carrera-s-and-carrera-gts-15.html

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I don't know we're you think I don't like you?
Did I ever tell you my wife is an Engineer for Toyota Motor Manufacturing? She's built over a million cars in the last 27 years. She's forgot more than you and I know. Any how. Is this the site for your dyno test?
http://rennlist.com/forums/991/9179...991-carrera-carrera-s-and-carrera-gts-15.html

Keep pretending you don't know why I think that way, what you wrote in the past clearly tells me that. I don't care about your wife, nor do I care about your posts here, and that link is wrong. This is my last response to you. At least 2 member are on my "won't bother" list now, and for the better of my stay in GTP. Keep quoting me or replying further would just mean to me that you are intentionally wanted to annoy me.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Nice post, something really useful(^) there, still answers "nothing", just open statement of "For example, I know that race gas mix vs 91 octane consistently adds 8- 10 bhp. E30 Mix adds 20 bhp; every -30 change mpar pressure ~ 5bhp. I know the S55 will adjust for these conditions and produce more consistent power, but the S65 dynos I’ve seen understate results except for 2 of them: Dinan and Rototest, which show the engine to be rated about where it should be from the factory –and surprise those are the two dynos that best replicate ambient road conditions and full heat exchange."

Who are you quoting? Race gas vs 91 octane consistently adds 10 hp? In what cars? You can use a bloody million octane fuel in a car tuned to run 91 and it won't add anything. Octane rating is just a measurement of a fuel's knock resistance. Unless you're changing the tune on a car, using higher octane fuel than the car has been tuned for makes no difference other than costing more.

This reminds me of a friend of mine who was convinced he could "feel the difference" in his crappy old Commodore when he ran 98RON premium in it lol.

 

[OdeFinn]

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1022745

Who are you quoting?

Only useful founded was this:

 

[Jimmy Haight]

I don't know we're you think I don't like you? Actually it was you that said my Nascar tune was no good.
Did I ever tell you my wife is an Engineer for Toyota Motor Manufacturing in Cambridge. She's built over a million cars in the last 27 years. She's forgot more than you and I know. I show here some stuff on here and she just laughs.Any how. Is this the site for your dyno test?
http://rennlist.com/forums/991/9179...991-carrera-carrera-s-and-carrera-gts-15.html

LOL you wife may be laughing at some of the posts on here but i am laughing at this one, of course your wife knows more than you, couldnt be that hard could it?, anyway thanks for making me laugh today i really needed it

 

[killerjimbag]

LOL you wife may be laughing at some of the posts on here but i am laughing at this one, of course your wife knows more than you, couldnt be that hard could it?, anyway thanks for making me laugh today i really needed it

As for my wife,she's very smart and paid very well.Are you upset that a woman can be smart and successfull? Yes I know nothing about cars.Rebuilt my 65 Impala,just going to start my 71 Chevelle.It sucks to be me

 

[ALB123]

@OdeFinn I guess you missed the part where I mentioned that engineers who designed the BMW M4 and oversee the entire BMW M4 project had a face to face conversation with my brother who was picking up his recently purchased BMW M4 at the factory and articulated what I tried to do with my very first post.

So, you think Ridox's screenshot of a dyno is correct, but my thread written by a 3rd party professional who did extensive testing, using multiple sources & dynos is incorrect? One of the actual BMW engineers is lying? That's what you're telling me.

I think I'll take the word of an engineer who creates these things for a living...enjoy your popcorn.

Looks like P1 Motorsport might have actually handled an actual car or two in their time. http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/northeast/339337-new-shop-stamford-ct-p1-motorcars.html

Nice post, something really useful(^) there, still answers "nothing", just open statement of "For example, I know that race gas mix vs 91 octane consistently adds 8- 10 bhp. E30 Mix adds 20 bhp; every -30 change mpar pressure ~ 5bhp. I know the S55 will adjust for these conditions and produce more consistent power, but the S65 dynos I’ve seen understate results except for 2 of them: Dinan and Rototest, which show the engine to be rated about where it should be from the factory –and surprise those are the two dynos that best replicate ambient road conditions and full heat exchange."

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1022745

Show me where the person who did the testing used the word Octane. You quoted someone down in the thread. I posted a link from a reputable company representative who provided immense data & proof. Are you really that obtuse?

And furthermore, why the heck would anyone want to argue for their car having LESS horsepower? The answer is because it's accurate and true.

 

[Jimmy Haight]

As for my wife,she's very smart and paid very well.Are you upset that a woman can be smart and successfull? Yes I know nothing about cars.Rebuilt my 65 Impala,just going to start my 71 Chevelle.It sucks to be me

You sure your wife didnt build it for you? anyway i think having a wife that gets paid more and is smarter is a great thing, gives me alot more playstation time

 

[killerjimbag]

View media item 11823

You sure your wife didnt build it for you? anyway i think having a wife that gets paid more and is smarter is a great thing, gives me alot more playstation time

No she didn't build it,and doesn't drive it. 3 speed on the column, standard drum brakes and no power steering, you know a real man's car. You drive an automatic?

 

[OdeFinn]

So, you think Ridox's screenshot of a dyno is correct, but my thread written by a 3rd party professional who did extensive testing, using multiple sources & dynos is incorrect? One of the actual BMW engineers is lying? That's what you're telling me.

You take things too serious, believing in one argument is failure on most cases.
I'm not taking this so serious, what you should seen already.
Don't know is Ridox sheer right or wrong, just it might be either way.

And no I don't trust most of engineers who think at they're "pro specialist" and explaining how precisely they investigate things and on same claims they made failures on other precisely taken things. Had faced few German automotive companies with my "feelings" and "hearings" and every time they had to admit at they were wrong and I was right. MB even toke broken(what they claim to be mint, and impossible to be broken) part to lab and investigated it under few different microscopes and x-rayed it before they admit at it's broken, l felt it instantly when driving and pinpointed it after 10 min of driving.. So just big talks from manufacturers.

 

[Mike_grpA]

You sure your wife didnt build it for you? anyway i think having a wife that gets paid more and is smarter is a great thing, gives me alot more playstation time

Are you 12 years old by chance? Because this comment makes you look about 12.

And no I don't trust most of engineers who think at they're "pro specialist" and explaining how precisely they investigate things and on same claims they made failures on other precisely taken things. Had faced few German automotive companies with my "feelings" and "hearings" and every time they had to admit at they were wrong and I was right. MB even toke broken(what they claim to be mint, and impossible to be broken) part to lab and investigated it under few different microscopes and x-rayed it before they admit at it's broken, l felt it instantly when driving and pinpointed it after 10 min of driving.. So just big talks from manufacturers.

Do you have an engineering degree? because if not, this post just looks ridiculous.

 

[killerjimbag]

Are you 12 years old by chance? Because this comment makes you look about 12.




Do you have an engineering degree? because if not, this post just looks ridiculous.

This is the exact reason my wife laughs. Like she said,it's real easy to sue someone for false advertising due to a crash or mechanical failure.That's also why warranties become void if it's not a factory installed option or exceeds manufactures specifications.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

The proper way to find power loss is to use engine dyno on the same car that was tested on the dynojet. I simply used what Dynojet state to get flywheel power for the dyno power version M4. Until there's engine dyno reading data that can be used, I will keep it that way, along with older version with lesser power, people are free to use either of them. Will you be happy if I add 470HP version as well on that replica post ?

@ALB123 , You haven't answered my question ? Is this why you are here ?