# My Dyno Results (Graph&Videos Included)



## KP (Apr 16, 2002)

I finally got to take my car to a dyno last week. I didn't quite reach the figures I was hoping to get, but fairly close. The car (2001 325Ci, 5sp) was dynoed with the following modifications: Conforti Shark+CAI/SS Headers+High Flow Cats/Custom T304 pipe/Eisenmann Race muffler on a Dynojet. I managed to take some crappy videos with a digicam. I figured this would be a good time to host some videos as well with the header setup, although the sound quality isn't that great. Here are the links to the videos (right click save as):
Video 1 
Video 2

The results were: best run *181.8hp/170.6tq* to the wheels. Here is the dyno graph (did 3 runs):


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

That's an awful lot of mods to get 10hp.


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

Kaz said:


> That's an awful lot of mods to get 10hp.


 :dunno: :eeps:


----------



## SonTon2003 (Nov 22, 2004)

Damn, with all those factory options how come you skimped on the displacement?


----------



## equ (Aug 11, 2004)

Nice car, nice mods and thanks for posting the graph. :thumbup:


----------



## JAWJr (May 4, 2004)

I think your car sounds SWEET!! :thumbup:


----------



## KP (Apr 16, 2002)

Compliments/Criticisms are always welcome. I do realize that for the money I have spent on the car, I could easily upgraded to another car/330. I didn't have this mindset when purchasing the car several years back, and if I had to start over with another purchase I would have either opted for a stripped 3.0 or a stripped m3 if finances allowed  . A little late to do that now, however. I could stop spending money on the car, but it's something I enjoy doing (although it is an expensive hobby..). I do the majority of changing things on the car for my pleasure only, and I have been through a lot with the car, and would hate to see it go for another. Even if it was a 3.0 or an M3, I probably wouldn't have left it alone. I do agree that if I had to do it again, I would probably skip out on the exhaust manifold (which shouldn't be considered a bang for the buck by any means), but these were something I purchased secondhand for a very good price. The dyno graph was more of an FYI, and I do agree that it's an extensive list for the amount of power gained. But as NA goes in E46s, you can't expect too much.


----------



## RSPDiver (Jul 14, 2004)

KP, I think you have done well with your car. It stands out, has good performance, and obviously has brought you some fun. Good on you!


----------



## BlackChrome (Nov 16, 2003)

RSPDiver said:


> KP, I think you have done well with your car. It stands out, has good performance, and obviously has brought you some fun. Good on you!


What he said. :thumbup:


----------



## brave1heart (Jan 7, 2002)

KP said:


> Compliments/Criticisms are always welcome. I do realize that for the money I have spent on the car, I could easily upgraded to another car/330. I didn't have this mindset when purchasing the car several years back, and if I had to start over with another purchase I would have either opted for a stripped 3.0 or a stripped m3 if finances allowed  . A little late to do that now, however. I could stop spending money on the car, but it's something I enjoy doing (although it is an expensive hobby..). I do the majority of changing things on the car for my pleasure only, and I have been through a lot with the car, and would hate to see it go for another. Even if it was a 3.0 or an M3, I probably wouldn't have left it alone. I do agree that if I had to do it again, I would probably skip out on the exhaust manifold (which shouldn't be considered a bang for the buck by any means), but these were something I purchased secondhand for a very good price. The dyno graph was more of an FYI, and I do agree that it's an extensive list for the amount of power gained. But as NA goes in E46s, you can't expect too much.


Well, that's pretty respectable power for a car that weighs ~ 3,250-3,330 lbs. It's the flat torque curve that matters more than the peak power rating :thumbup: With the right driver, suspension and tires it will do pretty well at the track and autoX. You've gained ~ 12 rwhp from stock - that helps too :thumbup:


----------



## moneydumper (Oct 31, 2003)

nice ride...you figure you would have at least 190 + HP with those mods...

BMW says that a 2001 2.5 Inline 6 has 184 hp, Max Horsepower: 6000 rpm Torque: 175 ft-lbs. Max Torque: 3500 rpm.

Does BMW fudge their numbers for marketing purposes? :dunno:


----------



## BlackChrome (Nov 16, 2003)

moneydumper said:


> nice ride...you figure you would have at least 190 + HP with those mods...
> 
> BMW says that a 2001 2.5 Inline 6 has 184 hp, Max Horsepower: 6000 rpm Torque: 175 ft-lbs. Max Torque: 3500 rpm.
> 
> Does BMW fudge their numbers for marketing purposes? :dunno:


The BMW numbers are measured at the crank, not at the wheels.


----------



## Fast Bob (Jun 4, 2004)

Well, you can take a little solace in the fact that the full benefits of a CAI (as well as it`s effect on the other components) will never be revealed on a dyno....it`s full potential can only be reached when out on the open road, with the car breathing nice, cold,dense air....I`m pretty sure there`s a few HP not accounted for....anyway, be proud....you drive a *very* nice car....

Regards,
Bob


----------



## KP (Apr 16, 2002)

Thank you for the kind words guys  . 
Moneydumper, the consensus on the 2.5 model is that it comes underrated from factory. If we consider some of the dyno results of stock 325's with factory specs (184/175), we get anywhere from 7-10%ish (give or take) drivetrain loss, which I don't think is an ideal figure for a road car. For example, if we take Eurosport's dyno figures for a stock 325, it put out 169.3hp/162.8tq to the wheels. If we consider a more ideal 15% drivetrain loss, this would equate to 199.17hp/191.52tq at the crank, although this can't be 100% correct, because I'm sure there are other factors that play into this matter that I am unaware of...


----------



## moneydumper (Oct 31, 2003)

that's right....I was thinking at the rear wheels...You know, I get a lot of weird looks when people find out I have only 170 hp...but I tell them it's a fast car. (At least I think so... )


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

moneydumper said:


> that's right....I was thinking at the rear wheels...You know, I get a lot of weird looks when people find out I have only 170 hp...but I tell them it's a fast car. (At least I think so... )


BMW seems to be conservative when quoting HP numbers. Safer than saying it has some high HP number then having a bunch of less-than-thrilled people when they find out their car isn't making the advertised numbers.

But yes the nice flat torque curve really seems to help the inline 6 make good use of the power it does have. These cars may not be wicked fast, but aren't slouches by any means either.


----------



## norihaga (Aug 25, 2004)

KP said:


> Compliments/Criticisms are always welcome. I do realize that for the money I have spent on the car, I could easily upgraded to another car/330. I didn't have this mindset when purchasing the car several years back, and if I had to start over with another purchase I would have either opted for a stripped 3.0 or a stripped m3 if finances allowed  . A little late to do that now, however. I could stop spending money on the car, but it's something I enjoy doing (although it is an expensive hobby..). I do the majority of changing things on the car for my pleasure only, and I have been through a lot with the car, and would hate to see it go for another. Even if it was a 3.0 or an M3, I probably wouldn't have left it alone. I do agree that if I had to do it again, I would probably skip out on the exhaust manifold (which shouldn't be considered a bang for the buck by any means), but these were something I purchased secondhand for a very good price. The dyno graph was more of an FYI, and I do agree that it's an extensive list for the amount of power gained. But as NA goes in E46s, you can't expect too much.


Do you have a pre-mod dyno figure?


----------



## Rob325_in_AZ (Oct 22, 2004)

Thanks for posting the graphs. Very interesting. I would agree with others that this flat torque curve goes a long way towards explaining how a 2.5L 184hp engine can feel the way it does (probably goes for the 3.0 liter as well, but I've only driven one and it was a step)


----------



## Andy (Jul 16, 2003)

KP said:


> ...I could stop spending money on the car, but it's something I enjoy doing (although it is an expensive hobby..). I do the majority of changing things on the car for my pleasure only, and I have been through a lot with the car, and would hate to see it go for another.


These are the signs of a true car enthusiast. Kudos my friend!! :thumbup:


----------



## KP (Apr 16, 2002)

norihaga said:


> Do you have a pre-mod dyno figure?


No, this is the first time dynoing the car, and the reason why I didn't bother to dyno it stock was because people were getting nearly the same results. I pretty much based it off other's stock figures, but it would have been nice to dyno it when it was stock. Oh well...


----------



## KP (Apr 16, 2002)

On a sidenote...I found it interesting that while the car was being dynoed, the nav went crazy, because while it was detecting wheel movement even though the car wasn't actually moving. But on the nav screen, it acted as if I was travelling. Pretty funny, since it showed my position about 3 miles from where I really was after I got done


----------



## jgrgnt (Apr 27, 2002)

Those dyno numbers look pretty good. Glad to see someone representing the 2.5L crew.


----------



## fso_BamBam (Dec 9, 2002)

Here's a question. What is the expected drivetrain loss on our cars? I'm talking about both the 2.5 and 3.0L engines.

The common belief has been that for Japanese cars (especially those with VTEC engines) the drivetrains losses are in the 15% range, while the Bimmers are closer to 10%, although I have no data to back this up. I've only heard about this on various message boards.

FWIW, my Integra Type-R, rated at 195HP at the crank, dynoed at 168HP to the wheels, a loss of about 15%. If the same is true for Bimmers, then my 330ci would come in at about 192HP (15% drivtrain loss). At 10%, it would be 202HP.

I'm curious, since I have a bunch of Dinan parts installed, and will be dynoing the car, but I never dynoed stock, so I can't measure the difference. A ballpark figure would be nice.


----------



## Andy (Jul 16, 2003)

fso_BamBam said:


> Here's a question. What is the expected drivetrain loss on our cars? I'm talking about both the 2.5 and 3.0L engines.
> 
> The common belief has been that for Japanese cars (especially those with VTEC engines) the drivetrains losses are in the 15% range, while the Bimmers are closer to 10%, although I have no data to back this up. I've only heard about this on various message boards.
> 
> ...


Mine came in right at 12%... 235 HP at the crank and 207 HP at the wheels.

&#8230; of course, mine could have a little more or less HP at the crank, I'm going off the published 235 HP


----------



## brave1heart (Jan 7, 2002)

Andy said:


> Mine came in right at 12%... 235 HP at the crank and 207 HP at the wheels.
> 
> &#8230; of course, mine could have a little more or less HP at the crank, I'm going off the published 235 HP


I suspect the ZHP may be 240+ at the crank but they didn't want to advertise that a non-M 3-series has the same or even more HP than the last M3


----------



## Gabe (Sep 20, 2004)

You also have to take dyno inaccuracies into consideration. Sport Compact Car had an article a while back where they tested 10 (or so) different dynos with the same cars and received drastically different numbers. I will try to dig up the article/results for anyone who is interested.

Shouldn't an FWD car have less drivetrain loss than a RWD car?


----------



## ClubSpec330i (Oct 22, 2003)

Andy said:


> Mine came in right at 12%... 235 HP at the crank and 207 HP at the wheels.
> 
> &#8230; of course, mine could have a little more or less HP at the crank, I'm going off the published 235 HP


 I have seen several E36 M3 dynoed around this number. Therefore, your car is definitely more than 235HP @ crank.


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

What about dynos on, say, mustang or others? Dynojets are notorious for reading high.


----------



## KP (Apr 16, 2002)

Gabe said:


> Shouldn't an FWD car should have less drivetrain loss than a RWD car?


yes, that should be the case if I'm not mistaken...
12% just doesn't sound ideal to me for some reason. From what I've heard, nascars have about 10-12% loss, while some of the best race cars have about 5%. Although my figures may not be correct, it seems ideal to me that our cars should have about 15% loss, which is why a lot of people have come up with the conclusion that the 2.5/3.0s are underrated from factory (moreso the 2.5)


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

RWD has less drivetrain loss than FWD. FWD is a lot more awkward, and you have to cope with the steering mechanism.


----------



## KP (Apr 16, 2002)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> RWD has less drivetrain loss than FWD. FWD is a lot more awkward, and you have to cope with the steering mechanism.


Interesting, I heard otherwise. I've heard rwd has a little more loss than fwd because of of some part in the differential... I'll have to do some research on this... :dunno:


----------



## Matthew330Ci (Sep 9, 2002)

I also always heard that RWD loses more than FWD. Some say it's not that different, but I've never heard that RWD loses less...

Do you have any examples, Nick?


----------



## Matthew330Ci (Sep 9, 2002)

fso_BamBam said:


> Here's a question. What is the expected drivetrain loss on our cars? I'm talking about both the 2.5 and 3.0L engines.
> 
> The common belief has been that for Japanese cars (especially those with VTEC engines) the drivetrains losses are in the 15% range, while the Bimmers are closer to 10%, although I have no data to back this up. I've only heard about this on various message boards.
> 
> ...


From back in my honda days.... FWIW, 99-00 Civic Si's were rated at 160 crank, and most dynoed around 140 whp. a loss of around 12.5%. mine dynoed around 144 whp with a CAI (which supposedly makes little difference on a dyno) Integra GSR's (15% loss), preludes and the ITRs were a little less efficient for whatever reason. (they both dynoed around 165whp) However even at 15% drivetrain loss, hondas are more efficient than the other japanese manufacturers (or they underrate their engines)

BTW, did your ITR dyno at 168 whp stock or with those mods?


----------



## norihaga (Aug 25, 2004)

KP said:


> yes, that should be the case if I'm not mistaken...
> 12% just doesn't sound ideal to me for some reason. From what I've heard, nascars have about 10-12% loss, while some of the best race cars have about 5%. Although my figures may not be correct, it seems ideal to me that our cars should have about 15% loss, which is why a lot of people have come up with the conclusion that the 2.5/3.0s are underrated from factory (moreso the 2.5)


FWD 3G Eclipses lose 15%...either that or Mitsu overstates the horsepower. The V6 is [email protected] crank = c. [email protected] You would think the lower drivetrain mass would = less loss, but not in that case. :dunno:


----------



## RSPDiver (Jul 14, 2004)

norihaga said:


> FWD 3G Eclipses lose 15%...either that or Mitsu overstates the horsepower. The V6 is [email protected] crank = c. [email protected] You would think the lower drivetrain mass would = less loss, but not in that case. :dunno:


This is true about the 3G (former Club3Ger), and many dynos showed the 205 crank attaining ~170 at the wheels. I'm guessing it has a lot to do with driveline efficiency. Also, very important to note that driveline loss between manual and auto is completely different.


----------



## fso_BamBam (Dec 9, 2002)

Matthew330Ci said:


> BTW, did your ITR dyno at 168 whp stock or with those mods?


stock, no other mods. IIRC, we did 3 runs (about 18 months ago), and it came up with 165, 168, 168. So, that was slightly above average in terms of what other ITRs are getting, anywhere from 155-170whp.


----------



## Iniquity (Sep 3, 2003)

brave1heart said:


> I suspect the ZHP may be 240+ at the crank but they didn't want to advertise that a non-M 3-series has the same or even more HP than the last M3


i dunno.. my ZHP with pullies and AA gen 3 dyno'd only 194whp/191wtq.. so assuming i was even got any gains with the pullies and the exhaust, that means I'm getting 20% or more drivetrain loss...I was pretty disappointed.... especially seeing andy dyno out 207 stock and another guy get 205 stock... i was hoping to get at around 210 with the pullies and exhaust.. no such luck... anyway, that's with about 500 miles on OEM 5w30.. and about 14.5k miles..just had an oil change..car seems to rev crappier with the oem stuff than it did with mobil 1..

then again, i've seen a stock zhp dyno 188whp/200tq.. from 235 factory that's 20% loss

on the flip side.. the dyno was a before and after thing.. i installed an aFe intake on the spot and dynoed 205whp/201wtq immediately after....good gain with the intake..

i want to redyno with different oil.... i'll do it again soon because ZHP more zhp software options are scheduled to be out end of january.. so i'll be doing anothre before and after thing..

I also remember reading how wheel weight affects dynos also.. some guy dynoed his car with 18s and later on some lighter 17s and gained 24whp.. no mods done at all.. just changed the wheels... so i'm also kinda curious to dyno with some 17 bbs rk which i plan to purchase for my track wheels..


----------



## ClubSpec330i (Oct 22, 2003)

Iniquity said:


> i dunno.. my ZHP with pullies and AA gen 3 dyno'd only 194whp/191wtq.. ..


Maybe you aftermarket pully and AA gen 3 costed you 10whp? If I am not mistaken, Andy's car is stock.


----------



## Iniquity (Sep 3, 2003)

ClubSpec330i said:


> Maybe you aftermarket pully and AA gen 3 costed you 10whp? If I am not mistaken, Andy's car is stock.


I doubt the pulleys would cause a loss ot power..

the exhaust.. that's a possibility too.. could be causing the car to run lean or rich or whatever.. but comparing the stock to the aa gen 3, the gen 3 is definitely a straighter design than the stock muffler... but i wouldn't count it out.. i know their 13whp gain was also with software.. so I'm sure my afr is not ideal.. oh well..i'm kinda regretting i didn't just go with a full supersprint catback system.. coulda gotten the whole thing for $1200.. i had supersprint on my old car and that was awesome.... gotten love the rolled tips

anyway.. then again I might just be getting that 20% drivetrain loss.. i've seen a stock zhp dyno 188whp also.. which is 20% loss.. so the pullies and exhaust may have given me 6whp.. who knows.. :dunno: wish i had a baseline..

another factor..

i do a lot of city driving, full of old people and 30 mph speed limits.... i drive like a granny.. whereas andy seems to autox often and pushes the car hard.. bmw's have been known to give low numbers for lightly driven cars and high numbers for cars driven like they've been stolen because the ecu adapts to the style of driving.. the e46 m3's seem to be very prone to this behavoir.. i've seen stock ones dyno at around 250whp.. my friend's dyno out 280 whp.. and this other guy.. also completely stock dyno out 308 whp.. but he apparently drives the car insanely hard.. my friend drives his car fairly hard also....

if andy gets good gains with the tse3, conforti, and uuc pulleys i might switch to the tse3....


----------



## Andy (Jul 16, 2003)

Iniquity said:


> if andy gets good gains with the tse3, conforti, and uuc pulleys i might switch to the tse3....


I'll be making that dyno run the first or second week in January.


----------

