[Cornhusker]

I have proceed, AT, 275 ps2's in the rear. Version 1.2 proceed.

I did about 10 runs with 1/8 tank, nothing in the car, on 93 octane. Temp was 60.

My best two runs were:

60ft. 1.97-12.63@113.3 0-60 said 4.23

60ft. 2.020-12.66@112.4 0-60 said 4.27

My worst run was 60ft. 2.150 13.5@108.3 I screwed the launch and shifted at the wrong points.

Anyways. I'm pretty sure that the g-tech runs optimistically. I'm thinking if you add 2/10th's to my best 1'4 mile times, and minus about 2-3 mph off that that's more realistic. In otherwords,

60ft. 1.97-12.83@111.3...0-60 4.43
60ft. 2.020-12.86@110.4...0-60 4.47

My car was probably running on 100 octane. Although the map only adjusts for 93. I had shell 91 and when the "gas empty" light first starting coming on I then put in about 2.5 gallons of 110 octane dirt bike race gas (unleaded).

Although I am postitive this thing is inaccurate to some degree, it does allow me to notice what works and what doesn't. I believe is consistently inaccurate or inaccurate at the same rough rate. I have learned alot about launching. Even in the AT, when looking at my 60' times, there's is such a delicate balance between torque loading just enough or too much, such a balance between too much spin or not enough so that the engine bogs and you lose a couple tenths there. Also, the shift point. My best times I used slight progressive shifting. In m1 I shift at about 6100, m2 I shift at about 6300 and m3 I shift at about 6400. The early shift in first seems to be the most important. I wan't even watching the road, simply watching the tach (it was an empty freeway, I drove 30 miles out of town).

Anyways, I'm looking forward to a turboback exhaust for 2000.00, not 8000.00 like supersprint. Since supersprint is getting 26 hp with the stock system, I bet those of us who are pushing more boost will benefit even more. With an additional 35 hp, this will be a thing of beauty.

Cheers!

[ArmyBimmerDude]

Ok, so even if it is off by 2/10ths of a sec...you're disappointed that did 0-60 in 4.43 seconds? I'm confused.

[CoralRedPlz]

i think he is disappointed bc those results are obviously way too optimistic, and just saying, 'i think its off by 0.2 sec' isnt very official and doesnt really give u a good idea of anything?

[bronco]

those are very nice numbers, even if you correct them

[Cornhusker]

Originally Posted by CoralRedPlz

i think he is disappointed bc those results are obviously way too optimistic, and just saying, 'i think its off by 0.2 sec' isnt very official and doesnt really give u a good idea of anything?

Thanks for explaining for me. I'm simply dissapointed because my g-tech is obviously not accurate. There isn't a car in the world with RWD and the power/weight ratio of mine that can do 0-60 in 4.23 or 4.27. I'm incliined to believe that 4.43 or 4.47 is possible because I have 275 ps2's in the back. I get less spin with procede and 275's then I did without procede and stock runflats.

[Jonmartin]

I think it'a believable others have gotten numbers similar to your with different G-tech type meters.I doubt they are all wrong.Besides power to weight isn't as important as good old engineering like gearing and the way the engine makes the power.So why deny it.

[PresaMat]

Those numbers are great! People on hear have gotten those kinda #s with drag radials with AA tune. I think its completely possible that your non changed numbers are real.

Mat

[Driver72]

Nice numbers in theory.
But gotta say, I don't know about putting 110 Octane dirt bike race gas.
Not sure, but I'd think if that Dirt Bike race gas is NOT formulated for automobiles with cats and sensors and so forth, it might of made your car scream, but could be at the detriment of damaging your internals.

Oh, and do you have the G-Tech or the G-Tech PRO??
The G-Tech PRO reads a bit optimistic, the regular G-Tech has read VERY optimistic in the past.
Even "correcting" your numbers by .2 tenths and 2 mph would not be enough.

Plus 275 tires are tall...which will give you a good launch due to their increased contact patch, but once you get traction they are working against you as it raises your final drive ratio and will slow your trap speeds.

So unless that 110 Octane Dirt Bike race gas makes the car scream above and beyond what the PROcede can adjust too, there is no way an auto with 275 tires will trap at 111+ mph. (well maybe if the road you were running on ran downhill a bit).

Oh, and you are correct, as I stated before, you do want to shift before redline in this car...regardless of what some computer program has told other people.

No go out there for some more fun and this time try the runs on straight 91 Octane. And I wouldn't put non auto approved race gas in your car in the future, that was like pouring moonshine down your throat. Yikes.

[Cornhusker]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Nice numbers in theory.
But gotta say, I don't know about putting 110 Octane dirt bike race gas.
Not sure, but I'd think if that Dirt Bike race gas is NOT formulated for automobiles with cats and sensors and so forth, it might of made your car scream, but could be at the detriment of damaging your internals.

Oh, and do you have the G-Tech or the G-Tech PRO??
The G-Tech PRO reads a bit optimistic, the regular G-Tech has read VERY optimistic in the past.
Even "correcting" your numbers by .2 tenths and 2 mph would not be enough.

Plus 275 tires are tall...which will give you a good launch due to their increased contact patch, but once you get traction they are working against you as it raises your final drive ratio and will slow your trap speeds.

So unless that 110 Octane Dirt Bike race gas makes the car scream above and beyond what the PROcede can adjust too, there is no way an auto with 275 tires will trap at 111+ mph. (well maybe if the road you were running on ran downhill a bit).

Try the runs again when on straight 91 Octane. And I wouldn't put non auto approved gas in your car in the future.

It's a normal g-tech not a PRO.

I'm not sure about the 275's taller height being against you. When you look at how I'm short shifting and the fact that my Peak WHP on a dyno is at 5300 rpm it changes things. For example, when I'm in fouth gear hitting about 110mph I'm right in the 5k range which is peak whp. It could be looked at either way.

Shiv hit 111 in the 1/4 on 91 octane with a cat back and stock runflats.. I was running 93 without. I think 110-111 is reasonable on 93.

But like I said, I think it was optimistic. We will find out soon, I'm goint to the strip next week.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Cornhusker

It's a normal g-tech not a PRO.

I'm not sure about the 275's taller height being against you. When you look at how I'm short shifting and the fact that my Peak WHP on a dyno is at 5300 rpm it changes things. For example, when I'm in fouth gear hitting about 110mph I'm right in the 5k range which is peak whp. It could be looked at either way.

Shiv hit 111 in the 1/4 on 91 octane with a cat back and stock runflats.. I was running 93 without. I think 110-111 is reasonable on 93.

But like I said, I think it was optimistic. We will find out soon, I'm goint to the strip next week.

The taller the tires, the more it slows acceleration.
275's are taller than then stock 255's.
Here's how it works, in a sense.
With the stock 255's and stock Final Drive ratio is 3.46 on the auto.
If you get tires that are say 3% taller (275's are probably about this much taller) your final drive ratio will be reduced by 3% so instead of 3.46, you are now at 3.35
A car with 3.35 final drive ratio won't accelerate as hard as a car with 3.46 all else being equal.
Shiv's car is also a manual making probably 30 hp more even on 91 Octane.

Again, unless that 110 Octane race gas does more for you than what the PROcede will adjust too (they say it will adjust up to 93 Octane) on a true flat drag strip with true times you won't trap at 111 mph in a PROceded auto sedan with 275 tires.

335i auto sedan with just PROcede best times are probably in high 12.8's @ 108-109 on 91 Octane and 12.7's @ 109-110 on 93 Octane (that is with 255 or 265 street tires, not the crappy run flats...add a couple tenths to the ET's if you have the tractionless runflats.)

Corrected for elevation on a NHRA drag strip I ran a 12.95 @ 108.1 (uncorrected at 635 ft it was 13.030 @ 107.6) with a 1.97 60 foot time. That was on 265 rear General street tires, on 91 Octane. It was only my 3rd of 3 runs with this car. I think I could of probably done a bit better with a bit more practice, but certainly not much.

Those old G-Techs are way optimistic.
Not being pessimistic or flaming or anything, just trying to keep it real.
Give it a try again once all that 110 Octane Dirt Bike race gas is out of your system and run with just 91 Octane. See what that old G-Tech says.
Have fun and be safe.

[lkraven]

Would love for you to go to an actual drag strip with your monster, Cornhusker!

[Driver72]

Oh, cool didn't see the part where you said you are going to the strip next week.
This will give you a better idea of how optimistic that old G-Tech is.

[BMWPower06]

:werd: go to a strip i wanna see this 12.6 repeated

[sflgator]

NICE NUMBERS!!!! I don't care if other poster's theories are accurate or not, those are still some great numbers, and like you said, even if you add a couple 1/10ths, they still show < 4.5 sec. 0-60mph and < 13 sec. @ ~ 110-113mph 1/4 mi. I knew it could be done in a PROcede-equipped 335i...now it's my turn to duplicate your times! Great job!!!

[Insider]

[QUOTE=Driver72;835837]
Shiv's car is also a manual making probably 30 hp more even on 91 Octane.

QUOTE]


The auto loses 30hp I thought the dyno's showed about the same hp to the rear wheels with auto and manual?

[sflgator]

[QUOTE=Insider;835887]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Shiv's car is also a manual making probably 30 hp more even on 91 Octane.

QUOTE]


The auto loses 30hp I thought the dyno's showed about the same hp to the rear wheels with auto and manual?

No, some dynos have showed ~ +10HP & ~ +10 lb.-ft. RWTQ on the 335i 6MTs, but for the most part, they're about equal. The thing w/ Shiv's car is that he also has his own custom exhaust as well, so his car (running on 91 octane) is making similar power to those PROcede-equipped 335i's with stock exhaust running on 93 octane.

[musc]

[QUOTE=Insider;835887]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Shiv's car is also a manual making probably 30 hp more even on 91 Octane.

QUOTE]


The auto loses 30hp I thought the dyno's showed about the same hp to the rear wheels with auto and manual?

The auto doesn't lose 30hp. Most of the Dynos have been within 10hp for MT vs AT. Shivs car has exhaust and was using 93 octane when he dyno'd 357/405.

[CoralRedPlz]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

I think it'a believable others have gotten numbers similar to your with different G-tech type meters.I doubt they are all wrong.Besides power to weight isn't as important as good old engineering like gearing and the way the engine makes the power.So why deny it.

bc those #'s are wayyy under what anyone has got before.

so whats more likely, the device is very optimistic, 0.2 or more maybe, or that his car is much quicker than everyone else's 335?

im as big of a 335 + procede fan as you'll find, but saying 'why deny it? is the type of blind following that can make car forums insufferable.

[leftcoastman]

While I think 4.2 is a bit optimistic, keep in mind that at high altitude, for some reason, we were getting better torque nums compared to at sea level.

Bone stock, I was doing over 300 wtq.

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by CoralRedPlz

bc those #'s are wayyy under what anyone has got before.

so whats more likely, the device is very optimistic, 0.2 or more maybe, or that his car is much quicker than everyone else's 335?

im as big of a 335 + procede fan as you'll find, but saying 'why deny it? is the type of blind following that can make car forums insufferable.

No, that's to true. I got 4.50 sec. 0-60mph (with a 1.95 sec. 60ft.) and 13.02 sec. @ 108.3mph 1/4 mi. times using my Beltronics Vector FX1 timer. I think with a better launch, I could definitely get into the 4.3-4.4 sec. 0-60mph and 12.6-12.8 sec. ~ 110mph 1/4 mi. range...it's only a matter of time before I get similar times...he he.

[CoralRedPlz]

ill give you 4.4, but 4.25 just aint happening with this car under normal conditions. neither is a trap over 110-111mph, imo, and even that will take procede, better tires, perfect conditions and some luck. you would prob need 100 octane as well. and once u get to that point, i dont really think it 'counts' when comparing it to other stock cars.

[Raider]

All these little gadgets and gismos are fun to look at...

To get real results, you gotta hit the drag strip, period...

I think i have a better shot counting 1 Mississippi 2 Mississippi until my car reaches 60...by then the speedo would be a little off anyways..