[Cornhusker]

Long story short, I baselined at 240whp and 275wt, after procede, 278whp and 350wtorque. Obviously these are the lowest number reported by far, which makes you think it must be because it wans't a dynojet?

Thing is, the guy before me dyno typical number, he was 270/280 baseline and 310/375 after procede.

If you look at my gain and his gain they are very close. But why are my numbers so low? Shiv didn't seem to have an answer. He did say that he would expect the number I had because of the different type of dyno, but that doesn't explain the guy before me?

They double checked to make sure all the settings were the same from what I could tell, and still no answer.

In the end, shiv said, as long as the gain is there that's what matters. But it still doesn't solve the problem. I did have some very soft dedicated snow tires on the vehicle that had alot of flex in them, but that certainly couldn't cause a 30whp loss when compared the what everyone else is getting.

I'm interested to see what shiv says, maybe he's come up with some ideas by now.

One thing I can say, I g-teched my 0-60 stock and I've run 4.87, 5.0. and 5.1 consistently, at 5000 feet.

I'm confused.

I'm getting m6 reps in a couple weeks to swap out my winter tires with some ps2's, I'll go to a local dynojet dyno and see what happens and then post.

On to the good stuff.

It's fast, very fast. As soon as I get my new tires, I'll go to the strip and post some g-tech times.

I raced a tuned saab turbo on the way home, a buddies of mine, it puts down 265whp. From 40-90 I beat him by about 4 car lengths. And from a stop, he wasn't even close. This new AT is so great at putting the power down.

Bottom line is, I'm very confused being a noob to this stuff, it was a bit anticlimatic to pull the smallest numbers I've seen so far after driving so far to make it to boulder just in the nick of time. Yet, my car is decisively faster.
And now I know what the other procede guys were taking about when it comes to drivability at low rpm's with all the extra low end grunt.

I'm excited to try some 0-60's, this at puts the power down with only a little slippage and my new 275 ps2's should fix most of that. I'm betting I can run 4.5 with the 275's, probably better at a lower elevation.

[garyhgaryh]

Shiv is right, it's the gain (delta) that matters when doing mods. Your car may seem like it's lower on power. It might be due to the fact your snow tires are not grippy enough to grip those rollers on the dyno. That would explain why a guy before you dyno'ed more. It could be your tranny (what mode did you have it in and what gear (not that gearing makes that much of a difference in dyno #s)).
No car is exactly the same coming off the assembly line, but your figures still are within tolerences of a 300HP car, abeit on the low side.
Gary

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Cornhusker

I did have some very soft dedicated snow tires on the vehicle that had alot of flex in them, but that certainly couldn't cause a 30whp loss when compared the what everyone else is getting.

I suspect most of that extra loss came from those jello sidewalled snow tires. I could move those giant soft treadblocks with my hand. I can only imagine how badly they were deforming against the dyno rollers when supporting half the weight of the car. Imaging how much power is sucked up when 1-2" of tire deflection is rotating around a tire that is spinning at 100+mph. That was the only variable in the equation and the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. It would be like dyno testing a car with flat tires which would result in huge losses. And that would also explain how incredibly loud the car was during the dyno pulls. Best bet would be to swap on some normal roadworthy tires on the back and bring it back to a dyno (preferably the same one).

-shiv

[uhaulball]

damn, the procede bumped u up to "stock" numbers

[ArmyBimmerDude]

Originally Posted by uhaulball

damn, the procede bumped u up to "stock" numbers

I was gonna say the same thing.

Get new tires man.

[garyhgaryh]

If the tires are that soft and low on pressure, I bet he lost it due to friction.

[bmwzimmer]

Well, when you look at the percentage gains, it's close to where it should be HP wise. But with torque, most of the big gains are made down low explaining why the tq. nubers aren't bad.

[canucklion]

no need to panick, it is the delta that matters

[NaViT]

Originally Posted by canucklion

no need to panick, it is the delta that matters

yea with those numbers imagine how u would feel without the delta

[teknochild]

why dont you change the topic of the thread? give noobs the wrong idea

[OpenFlash]

That would be nice

[Cornhusker]

I will take it to a local dyno in the next month or so and post my findings.

Like I said, it's alot faster, I thought it would be an interesting topic since I've never seen it discussed before.

My tires are crazy bad, except in the snow.

Seems weird you would lose 30 whp from tire flex assuming the tires aren't slipping.

If that's true, how come my torque is where it should be but not hp?

One thing that's funny with these tires is that when I gun it, the front lifts up like a muscle car, which is probably because of the weird tires.

[David 12]

Cornhusker - Where in Nebraska do you live? I would have liked to drive out to Boulder, but the distance from Omaha is a little too much.

Plus, I also have my snow tires on (thank God).

Dave

[bmwzimmer]

Originally Posted by Cornhusker

I will take it to a local dyno in the next month or so and post my findings.

Like I said, it's alot faster, I thought it would be an interesting topic since I've never seen it discussed before.

My tires are crazy bad, except in the snow.

Seems weird you would lose 30 whp from tire flex assuming the tires aren't slipping.

If that's true, how come my torque is where it should be but not hp?

One thing that's funny with these tires is that when I gun it, the front lifts up like a muscle car, which is probably because of the weird tires.

As I explained, Max tq. is around 3K rpms or so where the tire rotational speed is not as high as it is at 6K rpms. It appears the faster the rotation, the less accurate the reading is....

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by bmwzimmer

As I explained, Max tq. is around 3K rpms or so where the tire rotational speed is not as high as it is at 6K rpms. It appears the faster the rotation, the less accurate the reading is....

Yep, friction losses increase with wheel speed. This is why cars aren't always dyno'd in the 1:1 gear since that is often waaay too tall and results in 150+mph wheel speeds. And the torque number was also a bit lower than it would have been with normal tires.

Here are the two dyno graphs from CO. The first one is the 6MT with normal tires. The second one is the Step with the snow tires. The file didn't copy properly to my floopy so the bottom half got chopped off! But it should still be good enough for comparisons sake.


Stock vs. PROcede


Stock vs. PROcede

5200' above sea level on 91oct. Correction factor that was used was 1.15. SAE Correction was a 1.25 CF which would have artificially inflated the numbers beyond reason

-shiv

[NaViT]

Shiv.... whats happened to the "us men we like to Mod... who do u think invented the breast implant?"

[vase330]

Originally Posted by Cornhusker

I will take it to a local dyno in the next month or so and post my findings.

Like I said, it's alot faster, I thought it would be an interesting topic since I've never seen it discussed before.

My tires are crazy bad, except in the snow.

Seems weird you would lose 30 whp from tire flex assuming the tires aren't slipping.

If that's true, how come my torque is where it should be but not hp?

One thing that's funny with these tires is that when I gun it, the front lifts up like a muscle car, which is probably because of the weird tires.

Ever seen a dragstrip race? Its not the front lifting, its your rear tires deforming. Sort of like Jell-o. They deform and their profile shrinks so the car definitely sinks out back, like a dragster.

[schneid4323]

I had a problem with the procede losing power also, changed my map and regained it, but it seems like im lossing it again. Its a newer 335 I wonder if the ECU is trying to compensate for the PROcede Shiv can you look into this?
Also I had a random loss of all power from my turbos today, no boost leak no nothting, but after a while it came back. My performance shop thinks the ECU is trying to compensate also, please look into this issue shiv.

Car was produced on December 21st if that helps at all.

Thanks,
MS

[schneid4323]

wasnt there a software change in december? Did you test this with the PROcede shiv? Should I have the dealership reflash my ecu?

[teknochild]

are you ever going to change the topic from something that points at the procede unit as at fault when its just your stupid tires?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by schneid4323

I had a problem with the procede losing power also, changed my map and regained it, but it seems like im lossing it again.

Who else is having problem with the procede losing power?

Its a newer 335 I wonder if the ECU is trying to compensate for the PROcede Shiv can you look into this?
Also I had a random loss of all power from my turbos today, no boost leak no nothting, but after a while it came back. My performance shop thinks the ECU is trying to compensate also, please look into this issue shiv.

Car was produced on December 21st if that helps at all.

Mike, what you are describing hasn't been reported by anyone else or seen by ourselves over 10k miles of testing. I know you reverted your bypass valve setup back to stock after the dyno day so you might want to pressure test intake plumbing. You'll be surprised how big of an effect just a tiny leak in the signal line that goes to the top of the bypass valves will have on how the car runs. As for the ECU trying to compensate for the PROcede... it really doesn't work that way. Just as long as you use the appropriate gas, the ECU will not dial back timing (and lose power). Also, you reported that switching the PROcede map helped regain power temporarily. This does not make sense because the map you loaded was essentially the same as your original map (and the same map that everyone else is running). So I suspect the problem lies elsewhere. I'd really like to see a dyno chart of your car in low output mode and see what it is doing. Perhaps that will reveal the cause of what you are describing.

shiv

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by schneid4323

wasnt there a software change in december? Did you test this with the PROcede shiv? Should I have the dealership reflash my ecu?

The software change had nothing to do with adaptation. We've tuned around 50 cars so far, some with the original flash and some with the revised flash. No differences as far as mapping requirements or learning behavior.

Shiv