[scalbert]

Originally Posted by dsswain

Now you need to get MarkP to make some pretty charts and this community would be off and running with more data than it can handle. If and when I start modding this 335i I will definatley take a stab at creating a charting template to make these comparisions easier.

Yea, I do recall using those macros often.

http://www.flwse.com/images/steve/Au...h_01182007.htm

I had actually started creating a similar macro but never got around to finishing it up. Maybe one day I will get back at it again.

[edo]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

This shouldn't come as a surprise. But if your wheelspeed calibrations are off, your times will be off too. So if you care about comparing your time to others, you will NEED to calibrate your settings. If you do this, your acceleration times will be 100% accurate.

Shiv

I haven't calibrated anything. It could be the reason of a big difference between Proceede and Pbox times.

[Prince ///M]

Originally Posted by scalbert

Correct me if I am wrong, aren't the 135i overall wheel/tire diameter about 1.2 inches smaller? Did you rescale the PROcede data logger to account for this? That is about a 4.5% difference and could account for the error.

The maximum difference between the standard tires of 135i and the possible choices for 335i (at least in Italy) is 1.7%.

For sure it is possible to compensate for it but, in order to have an affordable indication from Procede logs, you still need an additional gps reference for your specific tire size (and brand... They are not created equal).

Small errors on speed calibration (as can be demonstrated in an easy way) lead to huge difference in speed trap times in the 100mph range.

P.S. For Jcarlucci
The jb3 map 7 car (full bolt on manual e90 94oct) did the 60-100 in 4.75s (average on three tests).

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

The maximum difference between the standard tires of 135i and the possible choices for 335i (at least in Italy) is 1.7%.

What is the front tire size in your vehicle. Shiv did the initial calibration based on his car which is US spec.

[Prince ///M]

Originally Posted by scalbert

What is the front tire size in your vehicle. Shiv did the initial calibration based on his car which is US spec.

215/40 r18 front
245/35 r18 rear

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

P.S. For Jcarlucci
The jb3 map 7 car (full bolt on manual e90 94oct) did the 60-100 in 4.75s (average on three tests).

This is more like it.
60-100 in 4.5 seconds is really good.

I would really like to see a Procede logged car do some fun runs with another tuned car with a Vbox and see how they compare. We can then check the video and compare times at the same time.

I have a Vbox so if anyone wants to hook up this weekend then let me know.
BTW, I think that my average 60-100 is around 4.4

[Prince ///M]

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

This is more like it.
60-100 in 4.5 seconds is really good.

I would really like to see a Procede logged car do some fun runs with another tuned car with a Vbox and see how they compare. We can then check the video and compare times at the same time.

I have a Vbox so if anyone wants to hook up this weekend then let me know.
BTW, I think that my average 60-100 is around 4.4

I don't have the performance calculator on the iPhone but with some rough estimation I think that 4.4s are spot on for a 400-410whp car.

Basic physics states that 3.7s 60-100 is pretty laughable for a mid drag car that weights 1700kg... unless you have more than 480 whp.

Tomorrow I'll give you the real power figures needed for both performance levels (mid four and high three seconds 60-100mph).

[jcarlucci1]

I think you're pretty close. My car made 390whp and does 60-100 in 4.5..

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

I don't have the performance calculator on the iPhone but with some rough estimation I think that 4.4s are spot on for a 400-410whp car.

Basic physics states that 3.7s 60-100 is pretty laughable for a mid drag car that weights 1700kg... unless you have more than 480 whp.

Tomorrow I'll give you the real power figures needed for both performance levels (mid four and high three seconds 60-100mph).

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

I don't have the performance calculator on the iPhone but with some rough estimation I think that 4.4s are spot on for a 400-410whp car.

Basic physics states that 3.7s 60-100 is pretty laughable for a mid drag car that weights 1700kg... unless you have more than 480 whp.

Tomorrow I'll give you the real power figures needed for both performance levels (mid four and high three seconds 60-100mph).

I'm at the dragstrip running 123+mph traps with larger diameter Hoosiers slicks at 17psi and 100lbs of dead weight in the trunk. Using the same map I ran when I did that video. I think it's quite reasonable. This car will trap at over 125mph with fully inflated tires. I have no idea what it puts down on the dyno.

Shiv

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I'm at the dragstrip running 123+mph traps with larger diameter Hoosiers slicks at 17psi and 100lbs of dead weight in the trunk. Using the same map I ran when I did that video. I think it's quite reasonable. This car will trap at over 125mph with fully inflated tires. I have no idea what it puts down on the dyno.

Shiv

Once I see it proven to be true with a a Vbox then I'll be happy and I think I speak for a lot of people here.

[hotrod182]

I would like to see the 60-130 times on some of these cars also. When I got my 60-130mph times in 9.34 seconds, my 60-100 times were a seemingly "disappointing" 4.28 seconds. (before the downpipes). But this wasn't on any on board data logger, but on the GPS Vbox. Since this is the standard used by some of the magazines, many boards, etc, we should try and use the same type of GPS/Vbox equipment if attempting to make apples to apples comparisons. Also, if you are getting 60-100 miles times in under 4 seconds, I believe your 60-130mph times should be somewhere around 8.5 seconds, which is pretty impressive! But lets see these times on a Vbox, so we can make similiar comparisons.

[hotrod182]

Does Shiv has LSD also?

[enrita]

I calculated with this
http://www.hopesystemsinc.com/bmw_fats.asp
and got 4.56 on GIAC Stage 2 EU 94 octane.

[jcarlucci1]

With or without meth?

Originally Posted by enrita

I calculated with this
http://www.hopesystemsinc.com/bmw_fats.asp
and got 4.56 on GIAC Stage 2 EU 94 octane.

[enrita]

Originally Posted by jcarlucci1

With or without meth?

94 octane

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by enrita

I calculated with this
http://www.hopesystemsinc.com/bmw_fats.asp
and got 4.56 on GIAC Stage 2 EU 94 octane.

That's a really good time without meth.
Just something to think about...

If I'm going for a 1/4 mile run or a 60-130 run then the times will be slower than if I'm just going for a 60-100 run.
1/4 mile runs, I shift at around 65 ish so there will be an extra shift in there.
60-130 runs, I will shift to 4th before 100 so my 60-100 times will be slower.

[easy2speed]

I would be surprised if the fastest (128mph) n54s were doing less than 3.9 60-130 times. There is no way Shiv's car is under 4.2 secs.

[Prince ///M]

As I promised, below you can find the third gear acceleration curves of N54 e92 manual vehicles (1685kg with the driver) for different power figures.

In particular I simulated three cases:

- Green curve - stock engine (260whp).

- Blue curve - 410whp engine able to perform 60-100 in 4.5s (common case for full bolt ons).

- Red curve - 495whp engine able to perform 60-100 in 3.7s(representative of Shiv's car).

In order to avoid misunderstanding the whp curve are reported in the same graph as reference.





Just FYI on street tires and with 'mild' gear changes (0.3s for full clutch operation) the three cars close the quarte mile respectively in:

- 13.6s - 102 mph
- 12.1s - 120 mph
- 11.6s - 128 mph

Probably with better tire models / faster gear changes, the times culd be shaved by 0.2s on all tests... but the exit speeds would remain unchanged.

Nothing else to add beside the fact that with very basic calculations I obtained the same results of a full car dynamics simulator.

[oddjob2021]

nice graph and all, but you're saying shivs car has 495wheel? on stock turbos? or you're saying thats the only hp number that could get a 60-100 in 3.7?

[jcarlucci1]

He is saying that 3.7 is not possible..although I believe the graph is a bit off, as I dont think 410whp is necessary to get 4.5 60-100..more like 390-395. Either way, something is up with the procede logs.

Originally Posted by oddjob2021

nice graph and all, but you're saying shivs car has 495wheel? on stock turbos? or you're saying thats the only hp number that could get a 60-100 in 3.7?

[GeorgiaTech335coupe]

Interesting. My brothers car made ~500 whp/530 wtq and his car only traps about ~121-123 on a cold night. Another friend made 540 whp (different dyno and heavier car) and only traps about 123-125 on a cold night. I guess either everyone's dyno in Orlando is off, or those numbers from the simulation could be a little high for mph or low for hp requirement when translated to the real world. Granted this is comparing apples to oranges, but you'd think they would have to be reasonably close.

[dtp3347]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaTech335coupe

Interesting. My brothers car made ~500 whp/530 wtq and his car only traps about ~121-123 on a cold night. Another friend made 540 whp (different dyno and heavier car) and only traps about 123-125 on a cold night. I guess either everyone's dyno in Orlando is off, or those numbers from the simulation could be a little high for mph or low for hp requirement when translated to the real world. Granted this is comparing apples to oranges, but you'd think they would have to be reasonably close.

I dont know if this is a stupid statement or not but do you think the reason our cars are so quick is because of how flat and instant our power curve is?