[boostaholic786]

I def think the same thing after looking at them as well... every car is different so dont get discouraged by your dyno numbers man. thats alot of power but these over the shelves arent made for every N54 in the world. Even from the factory they arent going to dyno the exact same side by side. It will be close but not exact meaning every car is different. But I would def suggest looking at maybe going to a less aggressive map.....just my 2cents

[enrita]

u should log off the dyno and see if you still get corrections on almost all cylinders (which probably left over 20whp on the table) .
Change pump and try again.
Basically before going to the dyno u should make sure the car is running right on the map.

[woptang22]

Originally Posted by BrianMN

Although that seems quite low for a "Stage 2+" tune, it looks to be pretty in-line with the other COBB cars. It would appear that Cobb is just not at the point where they want to start pushing more power yet with OTS maps, which isn't by accident or lack of ability.

Simply put- the numbers in the dyno above would be similar of a bone-stock car with a procede/new maps, and maybe a little less with the JB. Assuming your car is similar to the other FBO N54s, with your mods you would likely be around 400hp/440tq with a piggyback (without meth).

I'd definitely suggest getting your car protuned and get off of these OTS maps

Does a pro tune make that much of a difference over the OTS maps? Im curious as to ILL be getting DPs installed soon and switching to COBB stage2+FMIC aggressive maps. But I wasnt sure if its worth the $499 to have a company protune the car. I didnt know if they actually squeeze that much more power out of the tune they put in. And when you get a protune, is it as "safe" for the vehicle as using the OTS maps or could there be more issues due to the fact they are hitting more power? Or are their parameters just as safe as the OTS maps? Im not trying to hijack the thread. I apologize.

[2Times]

Thanks for posting your graphs. The timing could be pulled because of several reasons. Easiest thing to do is just make sure you're up on your maintenance (injector recall? changed your plugs? etc)

[va05sti]

yea I'm not not really disappointed with the numbers, there are a bit low but the car feels great, its just the amount of knock there is at this point that I'm concerned about

[eric86]

what shop did you do this at?

[Laid Black 335i]

Numbers are similar to mine, I put down 353 whp on the same map.

[rader1]

With the timing pulls he's having he's definitely giving up some power.

[themyst]

Am I the only person that sees he is using SAE correction? The numbers aren't "low". Remember, corrections will add whp in warmer ambient temperatures and reduce in cold ambient temperatures.

IATs aren't rising much because the car isn't under any sort of load on a dynojet, which is inertia based. I do agree that those timing corrections are troubling however.

Real world, no piggyback can reliably replicate the quarter mile results attained by these "weak performing" Cobb cars on pump gas.

[Zasquatch]

Originally Posted by Lulz_M3

Thanks to Zasquatch for providing this, i like it.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=665232

You're welcome

[dfv2]

They are still "low" for SAE corrected numbers on a dynojet.

I still want your log files OP!

[eric@helix]

Originally Posted by themyst

Am I the only person that sees he is using SAE correction? The numbers aren't "low". Remember, corrections will add whp in warmer ambient temperatures and reduce in cold ambient temperatures.

IATs aren't rising much because the car isn't under any sort of load on a dynojet, which is inertia based. I do agree that those timing corrections are troubling however.

Real world, no piggyback can reliably replicate the quarter mile results attained by these "weak performing" Cobb cars on pump gas.

SAE correction will typically be fractions of a percent and won't have a huge bearing on the final numbers.

[BrianMN]

Originally Posted by themyst

Real world, no piggyback can reliably replicate the quarter mile results attained by these "weak performing" Cobb cars on pump gas.

Sorry, can you please explain this?

Let's take a regular FBO N54 Automatic car, (NO Meth)

With Cobb Stage2+FMIC map = 355hp/380tq

With a piggyback FBO Map = 390hp/440tq

How can you get quicker and faster times with less power?

[themyst]

Originally Posted by eric@helix

SAE correction will typically be fractions of a percent and won't have a huge bearing on the final numbers.

Depends on ambient temp. Corrections are there to be a uniform metric across any elevation or temperature variations. SAE is about 4% lower than STD typically.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by BrianMN

Sorry, can you please explain this?

Let's take a regular FBO N54 Automatic car, (NO Meth)

With Cobb Stage2+FMIC map = 355hp/380tq

With a piggyback FBO Map = 390hp/440tq

How can you get quicker and faster times with less power?

Because dynojet numbers are not indicative of how a car performs under load. Explain how a full weight MANUAL 135i can trap almost 118 mph on plain Jane 93 octane pump gas then? Turn your PWM kit off and try to come close. With 40 more whp it should be easy, right?

[dfv2]

No it's not. At a certain temp and elevation it's 1:1

I calculate SAE corrections all the time with the J1349 formula. Its not meaningful on an FI car but it will significantly skew a dyno run in very cold or very hot weather.

This community should post only uncorrected numbers, you know, the calculated power you *actually* made.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by BrianMN

Sorry, can you please explain this?

Let's take a regular FBO N54 Automatic car, (NO Meth)

With Cobb Stage2+FMIC map = 355hp/380tq

With a piggyback FBO Map = 390hp/440tq

How can you get quicker and faster times with less power?

Run at Atco or Englishtown in the winter

Seriously, some of those east coast tracks are ridiculous. FWIW, when i was running 129mph traps at Sac raceway, the vbox was showing 133mph. For some reason, some of the tracks in the northeast show traps close or equal to VBOX traps, despite averaging the last 60'. Sac used to be like this a while back but the timing system has been changed. ETs always seemed to be consistent given equal prep. AFAIK, only the traps vary widely from track to track.

[BrianMN]

Originally Posted by themyst

Because dynojet numbers are not indicative of how a car performs under load. Explain how a full weight MANUAL 135i can trap almost 118 mph on plain Jane 93 octane pump gas then? Turn your PWM kit off and try to come close. With 40 more whp it should be easy, right?

And what were your traps with the Procede? With your procede you should have been around 425hp/475tq.

I'm comparing the identical cars; identical days. The car that puts down more power (regardless of how realistic the load is) should be faster to accelerate. This is common sense...are you claiming the opposite?


Are you trying to say that if we put a car on a Mustang dyno and only changed between Cobb Stage 2+ and the procede, it would put down the same amount of power?

[silvermist99]

Originally Posted by themyst

Because dynojet numbers are not indicative of how a car performs under load. Explain how a full weight MANUAL 135i can trap almost 118 mph on plain Jane 93 octane pump gas then? Turn your PWM kit off and try to come close. With 40 more whp it should be easy, right?

? a 135i is like 3400lb vs 3590~lb e90. does the 180lb or whatever make that much of a difference?

op, that number do seem low consider that cobb test dyno their car on mustang which typically result in much lower number than dynojet/dynapack

[dfv2]

So shiv is hinting that Cobb tuned cars run faster because northeast tracks trap artificially fast... am I reading this right?

[themyst]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Run at Atco or Englishtown in the winter

Seriously, some of those east coast tracks are ridiculous. FWIW, when i was running 129mph traps at Sac raceway, the vbox was showing 133mph. For some reason, some of the tracks in the northeast show traps close or equal to VBOX traps, despite averaging the last 60'. Sac used to be like this a while back but the timing system has been changed. ETs always seemed to be consistent given equal prep. AFAIK, only the traps vary widely from track to track.

Actually, VBOX reads 1 mph faster than the slip at Atco. They recalibrated the track last month and it's now 2 mph slower than the VBOX, or so I'm told.

Sac raceway was a good 3 mph faster in its heyday than the vbox which means it was about 4 mph faster than Atco before the recalibration.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by dfv2

So shiv is hinting that Cobb tuned cars run faster because northeast tracks trap artificially fast... am I reading this right?

*shrug* there are plenty of people trapping 116-117 on Cobb pump gas on tracks not named atco.