# Today's dyno results:



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

There were 5 E46s at today's LA chapter CCA/EvoSport DynoDay. There were a number of other cars (18 total scheduled with some no-shows) but I didn't stay till the very end. I did manage to get (crappy) screenshots of the 5 E46s that pulled today, though.

Runs were performed by EvoSport staff on their Dynojet (I don't know the model) at their facility in Huntington Beach. People had their choice of running a A/F reading simultaneously, a good thing for some, as a few people were having lean-out problems that forced their runs to be aborted.

1st up (these are in chronological order, though weather conditions were pretty much unchanged)

2003 330i ZHP, stock

edit: I realize the pics are hard to see at this res, so I'll put in the HP/torque of the best pull.

197.4/200.8


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

2003 330Ci 5MT (Shark, ECIS CAI, Borla cat-back)

209.4/210.1


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

2001 330i 5AT (Dinan ECU, Dinan CAI, Dinan AT SW, Eisenmann exhaust)

There are 2 readings here because they took a reading in 3rd and 4th.

198.7/192.7


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

2001 M3 (not sure about mods though I was told it's stock)

284.0/238.0


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

2001 325iT 5MT (stock)

The pic looks different because I took a pic of my printout, not the monitor at the shop.

171.7/161.8


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

Gratuitous shot of my car being readied for a pull.


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

<------  :eeps: :angel: :clap:

:rofl: :bustingup

:fruit:

DHP PWNS....  



Kaz said:


> 2003 330Ci 5MT (Shark, ECIS CAI, Borla cat-back)
> 
> 209.4/210.1


----------



## italia550i (Mar 25, 2002)

Kaz said:


> 2001 330i 5AT (Dinan ECU, Dinan CAI, Dinan AT SW, Eisenmann exhaust)
> 
> There are 2 readings here because they took a reading in 3rd and 4th.
> 
> 198.7/192.7


Thanks for posting this Kaz, but just to clarify: I have a Dinan Stage 3 (CAI, Software, Throttle Body), UUC Pulleys, and Eisenmann exhaust with connecting pipes (ie one resonator removed).

I have to say that I am pretty darn happy with the dyno results considering it is a Steptronic and all. Afterall, the car put down more RWHP than a ZHP stick. Ouch! :thumbup:

Considering a 20% drivetrain loss for the step, my at the crank numbers would be:

*HP: 248 Torque: 241* 

Bigger pic of my graph:


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

italia330i said:


> Thanks for posting this Kaz, but just to claify: I have a Dinan Stage 3 (CAI, Software, Throttle Body), UUC Pulleys, and Eisenmann exhaust with connecting pipes (ie one resonator removed).
> 
> I have to say that I am pretty darn happy with the dyno results considering it is a Steptronic and all. Afterall, the car put down more RWHP than a ZHP stick. Ouch! :thumbup:
> 
> ...


So we have two ZHP killers? :eeps:

If I did the same thing and take say... a 14% drivetrain loss, then my crank numbers should be: 226.5 ft-lbs torque and 243.5 hp

:bigpimp:


----------



## SONET (Mar 1, 2002)

Great info. :thumbup:

--SONET


----------



## italia550i (Mar 25, 2002)

doeboy said:


> So we have two ZHP killers? :eeps:
> 
> If I did the same thing and take say... a 14% drivetrain loss, then my crank numbers should be: 226.5 ft-lbs torque and 243.5 hp
> 
> :bigpimp:


Hey check that torque number you came up with, are you sure it is right?


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

italia330i said:


> Hey check that torque number you came up with, are you sure it is right?


I calculated drivetrain loss figures independently for torque and hp... about 14% for hp, about 7.24% torque.


----------



## italia550i (Mar 25, 2002)

doeboy said:


> I calculated drivetrain loss figures independently for torque and hp... about 14% for hp, about 7.24% torque.


Gotcha. :thumbup:


----------



## Sierra_Nevada (Jan 21, 2004)

Thank you all for the info and dyno results. They are pretty interesting. Those are some pretty nice results for you self proclaimed ZHP killers. You have several mods to bring your car there too. However, the hp results are all taken in 1 gear. The gearing is different in the cars which will likely make the ZHP quicker and definately faster than your cars. You might want to hold off on the killer part until you actually kill some. They haven't even broken the software to the ZHP yet which is expected to bring some nice results. Who knows, we will see. As for killer, I've owned both a step 330ci and a ZHP and I'm positive the ZHP would kill it every time in every category.


----------



## Tanin (Dec 21, 2001)

doeboy said:


> DHP PWNS....


" *2004 ZHP FOR SALE * "

*DHP* forces sale 



hmmmmmm I wonder how a JC CAI and Borla Exhaust would affect those #'s


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

doeboy said:


> DHP PWNS....


///D :rofl:


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

Sierra_Nevada said:


> Thank you all for the info and dyno results. They are pretty interesting. Those are some pretty nice results for you self proclaimed ZHP killers. You have several mods to bring your car there too. However, the hp results are all taken in 1 gear. The gearing is different in the cars which will likely make the ZHP quicker and definately faster than your cars. [


Well, hold on a sec here.

I've wondered about the effects of gearing on chassis dyno readings as well, and I'm still in the process of finding some definitive info on this. But from the impression I got yesterday, as well as some somewhat vague information I've come across so far, it somehow doesn't make a difference. I'm interested in finding out exactly why.

As for the ZHP still being quicker or faster, acceleration would be harder to judge, though the gearing between a 330 5MT and the ZHP isn't different enough (2.93 vs 3.09) to make up for an assumed 20hp deficit. Topspeed-wise, that's a matter of gearing vs revlimiter vs power vs drag that these numbers in no way could indicate.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

Kaz said:


> But from the impression I got yesterday, as well as some somewhat vague information I've come across so far, it somehow doesn't make a difference.


I'm totally making this up on the fly here, but here's my take:

If they are reporting raw numbers of what was measured at the wheels, the gearing MUST matter. If you reduce the gearing, and you have more torque at the wheels at the same engine RPM. Period.

However, it's possible that the number being reported is not raw measurement numbers, but the result of some forumla that takes the garing into consideration. By scaling the numbers by the known gearing of the car, they are estimating the torque and HP coming out of the engine (except for the drivetrain losses). And given that the numbers being reported are in the ballpark of 200 ft*lb, which is right near the peak torque of the engine itself, my guess is that this is what they are doing. Anyone know for sure?

Also, can someone explain to me the methodology used when testing the car? You can't simply get in the car and step on the gas, because that won't tell you the MAX torque at any given RPM. I would think that you need to FLOOR the throttle, and the dyno machine needs to keep increasing the resistance to the point that the engine can not keep up. (and do this for all RPMs)


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

Pretty good site on dyno's. Doesn't answer the question about whether the gearing is taken into consideration though.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/stevebm/Dyno_Info.htm#top


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

:bustingup :lmao: :rofl:

Congrats!


----------



## Dr. Phil (Dec 19, 2001)

Tanin said:


> I paid a few points more than $39k :dunno:
> 
> Call me next time you buy a car. It sounds like you need my help negotiating.


Hehehe......Dr. Phil got his for 38,500  But I was an unhappy camper ready to leave the family :angel:


----------



## Dr. Phil (Dec 19, 2001)

The HACK said:


> One of the "appeal" for some ZHP owners is that the car came pretty much, in Stock form, already all tuned out and you don't need to "mod it".
> 
> If it were me, and it isn't so I'm talking out of my @ss here again, I'd buy a regular 330i and mod it instead of getting a ZHP then mod that. You're already spending a $6,000 premium on top of a stock 330 to get marginal power at best. :dunno:
> 
> ...


I agree on your points, but if you recall (or care to) I basically got the ZHP packaged comped to me  My mod direction will likely go simple, sway bars, pulleys, etc. When the time is right an exhaust, etc.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

Kaz said:


> But the figures are NOT adjusted to reflect crank HP.


Then shouldn't the title of the graph be titled "Torque a the wheels when your car is in 3rd gear?"

Wouldn't the number be completely different if the car were in a different gear?


----------



## ClubSpec330i (Oct 22, 2003)

This is bugging me. I am switching wheels with my wife's 330i SP and go back to the dyno soon. There should be a slight increase in HP, right? After that, I am taking it to the track at Street of Willow to see if it will lap faster or slower than my stock ZHP setup. Then again, it will not be comparable since stock Conti on M68 sucks compare to RE040 on ZHP. 

For some reason, my ZHP with 9K miles on the odometer felt faster than when it was at 4-5K miles. Maybe I should take it back to the dyno to see if there is any change in HP.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

rumratt said:


> Then shouldn't the title of the graph be titled "Torque a the wheels when your car is in 3rd gear?"
> 
> Wouldn't the number be completely different if the car were in a different gear?


I'm still trying to figure this out. I may see if Dynojet has a whitepaper they can send me about how their machine works. But take a look at italia330i's reading. There are 2 curves; one in 3rd and one in 4th. The 4th gear one actually reads a tiny bit higher from what I can tell.

The fact that the Dynojet measures HP then calculates torque (instead of the other way around, which is traditional) that might be the trick as to how it works. Remember that HP is a function on torque applied over time. Less torque applied over greater time can be the same as more torque applied over less time.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

Kaz said:


> The fact that the Dynojet measures HP then calculates torque (instead of the other way around, which is traditional) that might be the trick as to how it works.


Yep. I think this is the trick. Because it's an inertia dyno, it measures HP, and computes torque from that, then the gearing doesn't matter. (The link I posted earlier also describes inertia dynos, vs "steady-state" or brake dynos).

Say you dyno'd the car in both 1st and 3rd gear: In 1st gear the drum will accelerate much faster. However, the 3rd gear run will achieve a much higher top speed of the drum. Power is computed by by work/time, so the power will come out to be the same in either case, regardless of gearing (higher gears take more time, but also do more work since they make the drum spin faster).

If the dyno were a steady-state dyno that measured torque at the wheels, then it would need to know the gearing.


----------



## italia550i (Mar 25, 2002)

Kaz said:


> The fact that the Dynojet measures HP then calculates torque (instead of the other way around, which is traditional) that might be the trick as to how it works.


Then how is it that the ZHP and my car had similar HP numbers, but the ZHP produced a lot more torque?

197.4/200.8
198.7/192.7

Is the dyno simply taking into account that it is a step and doing a drfivetrain loss conversion?


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

italia330i said:


> Then how is it that the ZHP and my car had similar HP numbers, but the ZHP produced a lot more torque?
> 
> 197.4/200.8
> 198.7/192.7
> ...


Hmm.. Well, those are just peak torque and HP number. The readings on the machine are taken ever so often. My guess is that your engine had less torque in the peak torque range, but similar torque in the RPM range near peak HP. :dunno:

EDIT: I just took a look at the graphs to see if my theory made sense. What's up with the broken torque/HP curves for your car.


----------



## J. Kidd (Dec 26, 2001)

italia330i said:


> Then how is it that the ZHP and my car had similar HP numbers, but the ZHP produced a lot more torque?
> 
> 197.4/200.8
> 198.7/192.7
> ...


Horsepower is a function of torque and rpms. So, assuming this type of dyno measures hp and then back-calculates torque, it would just need to invert the equation to find the unknown. The ZHP probably made its peak horsepower at a lower rpm.


----------



## EZ (Feb 27, 2003)

Kaz said:


> I'm still trying to figure this out. I may see if Dynojet has a whitepaper they can send me about how their machine works. But take a look at italia330i's reading. There are 2 curves; one in 3rd and one in 4th. The 4th gear one actually reads a tiny bit higher from what I can tell.
> 
> The fact that the Dynojet measures HP then calculates torque (instead of the other way around, which is traditional) that might be the trick as to how it works. Remember that HP is a function on torque applied over time. Less torque applied over greater time can be the same as more torque applied over less time.


It's really very simple. Power at the wheels is the product of force (applied by the wheels) times the velocity. The wheel's force is countered exactly by dyno's friction, which is carefully calibrated. And the speed is known. The torque (at the wheels) is calculated as the ratio of the power (at the wheels) to the angular velocity of the wheels (i.e., the speed of the car divided by the wheel's radius).

To the best of my knowledge, no gear-ratio calibration is required. (This is not to say that the gear ratio may NOT (edit) affect the dyno reading of the power and torque at the wheels.)

EDIT: may not affect


----------



## italia550i (Mar 25, 2002)

rumratt said:


> Hmm.. Well, those are just peak torque and HP number. The readings on the machine are taken ever so often. My guess is that your engine had less torque in the peak torque range, but similar torque in the RPM range near peak HP. :dunno:
> 
> EDIT: I just took a look at the graphs to see if my theory made sense. What's up with the broken torque/HP curves for your car.


With a step they start the run in third and then shift to fourth.


----------



## Mr Paddle.Shift (Dec 19, 2001)

italia330i said:


> With a step they start the run in third and then shift to fourth.


James, you can eliminate that *break*. Just tell them not to use the kickdown switch. Your Dinan tranny s/w should hold the gear.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

italia330i said:


> With a step they start the run in third and then shift to fourth.


Ahah! So what does the x-axis of that graph look like? It's cut off in the picture.  The fact that the two curves are similar (the second looks like the second part of the first curve) strongly suggests (and almost guarantees) that the computation is done in a way to eliminate the effects of gearing.

Similarly, how is the x-axis computed if the machine is hooked up to the wheels only? Do you input the starting and ending RPM, and it scales it accordingly?


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

EZ said:


> It's really very simple.
> 
> [...]
> 
> This is not to say that the gear ratio may NOT (edit) affect the dyno reading of the power and torque at the wheels.)


It's very simple, yet you're not answering the question at hand? :dunno:

I don't think it's very simple, and I don't think anyone here actually has a good grasp at the meaning of these graphs and can explain a) preciseley what conclusions can be drawn from these numbers, and b) how they were computed.

My current theory (as described a few posts up) is that because the dyno measures HP and approximates torque based on it, that means the gearing is totally irrelevant (except for drivetrain loss issues, etc). Thus the above graphs represent an approximatoin of the power and torque that the ENGINE is producing (minus drivetrain losses). Somehow, the RPM's of the engine must have been feed back into the forumula to a) create the x-axis, and b) to compute the torque from the measured HP.


----------



## italia550i (Mar 25, 2002)

rumratt said:


> Ahah! So what does the x-axis of that graph look like? It's cut off in the picture.  The fact that the two curves are similar (the second looks like the second part of the first curve) strongly suggests (and almost guarantees) that the computation is done in a way to eliminate the effects of gearing.
> 
> Similarly, how is the x-axis computed if the machine is hooked up to the wheels only? Do you input the starting and ending RPM, and it scales it accordingly?


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

It's interesting to note that italia330i's is speed. Doing 2-gear pulls on a AT makes this inevitable, I guess. All the other ones are RPM.


----------



## EZ (Feb 27, 2003)

rumratt said:


> It's very simple, yet you're not answering the question at hand? :dunno:


Well, rumratt, I thought that I answered the question. :dunno:

Let me be more specific. I believe (!) that the HP reading on the graphs is the HP applied by the wheels. And it is also equal to the HP of the engine minus the power train loss (by the definition of latter).

As far as the torque is concerned, it is not as obvious what is actually plotted. Clearly, the dyno set up MEASURES the torque applied by the wheels. Most likekely it then recalculates this value to achieve the engine's torque (minus the losses), which requires the knowledge of the transmission and final drive ratios.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

EZ said:


> Well, rumratt, I thought that I answered the question. :dunno:
> 
> Let me be more specific. I believe (!) that the HP reading on the graphs is the HP applied by the wheels. And it is also equal to the HP of the engine minus the power train loss (by the definition of latter).
> 
> As far as the torque is concerned, it is not as obvious what is actually plotted. Clearly, the dyno set up MEASURES the torque applied by the wheels. Most likekely it then recalculates this value to achieve the engine's torque (minus the losses), which requires the knowledge of the transmission and final drive ratios.


Thanks for clarifying. I think we are in total agreement.

What I THINK might happen is that you don't actually enter the gear ratios manually. By simply entering the RPM information (somehow, I'm not sure. Maybe the the start and end points) it has all the information it needs. Essentially, it can compute the gear ratios based on the data. (If you know the speed of the engine AND the speed of the wheels, then you can do the math to get the gear ratios).


----------



## EZ (Feb 27, 2003)

rumratt said:


> Thanks for clarifying. I think we are in total agreement.
> 
> What I THINK might happen is that you don't actually enter the gear ratios manually. By simply entering the RPM information (somehow, I'm not sure. Maybe the the start and end points) it has all the information it needs. Essentially, it can compute the gear ratios based on the data. (If you know the speed of the engine AND the speed of the wheels, then you can do the math to get the gear ratios).


Agreed. :angel:


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

EZ said:


> Well, rumratt, I thought that I answered the question. :dunno:
> 
> Let me be more specific. I believe (!) that the HP reading on the graphs is the HP applied by the wheels. And it is also equal to the HP of the engine minus the power train loss (by the definition of latter).
> 
> As far as the torque is concerned, it is not as obvious what is actually plotted. Clearly, the dyno set up MEASURES the torque applied by the wheels. Most likekely it then recalculates this value to achieve the engine's torque (minus the losses), which requires the knowledge of the transmission and final drive ratios.


The question rumratt and I are trying to answer is HOW the HP figure is obtained, and whether or not that method is affected by gearing. Because horsepower is traditionally not measured directly but is in the case of the Dynojet, we want to know how.

I do know that the torque is computed from HP either directly from the formula or with some correction factor in it, since the machine will not spit out a torque curve unless the tach pickup is installed and connected to the car.

I also know that these figures are not estimated power at the crank, since we didn't do the coast-down test to estimate 'negative horsepower' that the machine also supports.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

rumratt said:


> Thanks for clarifying. I think we are in total agreement.
> 
> What I THINK might happen is that you don't actually enter the gear ratios manually. By simply entering the RPM information (somehow, I'm not sure. Maybe the the start and end points) it has all the information it needs. Essentially, it can compute the gear ratios based on the data. (If you know the speed of the engine AND the speed of the wheels, then you can do the math to get the gear ratios).


It definitely knows the over all ratio of the entire drive mechanism. Very straightforwardly, in fact. It compares the RPM of the drum to the RPM of the engine (done through the ignition pickup). That takes into tranny and diff ratios, as well as the size of the tire. But it only needs this info to calculate torque. It knows HP without engine RPM info at all.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

Kaz said:


> I do know that the torque is computed from HP either directly from the formula or with some correction factor in it, since the machine will not spit out a torque curve unless the tach pickup is installed and connected to the car..


I think this answers all of our questions.

1) Horsepower is independent of gearing. Since it is work/time, the lower gears produce less total work (drum doesn't spin that fast) but it gets there more quickly. The ratio of work/time is the same, regardless of which gear you use.

2) The torque is computed using the the gear ratios to give you an estimate of torque at the crank. Since the computer has the tach pickup, it can compute the gear ratios.

EDIT: You posted essentially the same thing I did while I was typing this. uch: So we are all happy now?


----------



## EZ (Feb 27, 2003)

Kaz said:


> The question rumratt and I are trying to answer is HOW the HP figure is obtained, and whether or not that method is affected by gearing.


rumratt just answered this, question, but let me elaborate. The bottom line is that a dyno measures the HP at the wheels directly, and that the directly measured HP should not corrected by the gear ratio.

This is how the measurements are done: HP = Fource * displacement/time = Fource * speed, where Fource is the actual fource applied by the wheels against the dyno rollers, and the 'speed' is the speed measured by the vehicle's speedometer (assuming that it is precise). The fource of the wheels is balannced exactly by the resistance of the dyno's rollers, which is carefully calibrated and therefore known.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

EZ said:


> The fource of the wheels is balannced exactly by the resistance of the dyno's rollers, which is carefully calibrated and therefore known.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "force of the wheels is balanced exactly by.." If it's an inertia dyno, it doesn't adjust the amount of resistance to what it sees from the wheels. It simply measure the amount of time it takes to spin a big drum. That's it.

And this technique does NOT provide precise torque measurements at all RPM's. The inertia of the drum will make a torque curve with many short spikes look more smooth (said another way, if you had a very short weak spot at a particular RPM, it might not be picked up on a inertia dyno). However, what the drum measures IS similar to what you will feel when accelerating, because you care about how the car accelerates as it moves through the RPM range.


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

rumratt said:


> It's very simple, yet you're not answering the question at hand? :dunno:
> 
> I don't think it's very simple, and I don't think anyone here actually has a good grasp at the meaning of these graphs and can explain a) preciseley what conclusions can be drawn from these numbers, and b) how they were computed.
> 
> My current theory (as described a few posts up) is that because the dyno measures HP and approximates torque based on it, that means the gearing is totally irrelevant (except for drivetrain loss issues, etc). Thus the above graphs represent an approximatoin of the power and torque that the ENGINE is producing (minus drivetrain losses). Somehow, the RPM's of the engine must have been feed back into the forumula to a) create the x-axis, and b) to compute the torque from the measured HP.


I just noticed this.... on his chart, since he has A/F ratio readings, the X axis gets shown as speed for the bottom graph. On charts without A/F readings, the X-axis reads rpms... the bold vertical line is approximately 6000rpm. It's like they superimposed the A/F chart over the HP/Tq chart and it covered up the X axis markings for rpm.


----------



## EZ (Feb 27, 2003)

rumratt said:


> I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "force of the wheels is balanced exactly by.." If it's an inertia dyno, it doesn't adjust the amount of resistance to what it sees from the wheels. It simply measure the amount of time it takes to spin a big drum. That's it.


I was speeking out of general physics principles, without knowing the fine details.


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

The HACK said:


> I can't wait until the Frankenstein monster go up against the "DINAN 3". :eeps:


One of these days... 



The HACK said:


> I'll be happy enough if I spank *the DINAN 3* at the SCTS Dyno day.


It was all fine and dandy until you made it personal! We'll see who spanks who... loser buys dinner!


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

sergiok said:


> One of these days...
> 
> It was all fine and dandy until you made it personal! We'll see who spanks who... loser buys dinner!


You're on. None of that "bringing the spouse along" crap though. This is PERSONAL!

So Scott, when are you going to be able to pimp us some dyno runs at Evosports?


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

The HACK said:


> You're on. None of that "bringing the spouse along" crap though. This is PERSONAL!
> 
> So Scott, when are you going to be able to pimp us some dyno runs at Evosports?


  :thumbup: Um, you do like the combo meals at McDonald's, right?


----------



## ClubSpec330i (Oct 22, 2003)

OK guy let's do it. How about we do the dyno next week? Maybe afterward I can go trade-in my ZHP in for M3 6spd at Shelly BMW. Man, I wonder if I can get $35k for my 5 months old ZHP with 9K miles. But then again, I can just upgrade the brake pad and tires - enough to spank most 330i with higher dynoed HP at Street of Willow - that would really make me happy. j/k

On a serious note, I just got an exhaust for my ZHP and really curious how much improvement I got from this upgrade.


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

ClubSpec330i said:


> On a serious note, I just got an exhaust for my ZHP and really curious how much improvement I got from this upgrade.


What did you get?


----------



## EZ (Feb 27, 2003)

I see that it's getting serious, but I'd like to interject a question. 

When one does a dyno run, is it going to matter what the car's milage is? My old late Honda got its minimal mpg when it got 150-200K under its belt. Does not it suggest the minimal drivetrain losses, and respectively, the maximum HP at the wheels?

If this is so, is it even fare to compare a brand new car with a well broken-in one?


----------



## ClubSpec330i (Oct 22, 2003)

doeboy said:


> What did you get?


Magnaflow, just like the one I had it in my '99 MCoupe

Not too loud just nice and deep..but I thought I was going to get a more raspy sound but guess not.


----------



## RKT BMR (Sep 7, 2002)

ClubSpec330i said:


> OK guy let's do it. How about we do the dyno next week? Maybe afterward I can go trade-in my ZHP in for M3 6spd at Shelly BMW. Man, I wonder if I can get $35k for my 5 months old ZHP with 9K miles. But then again, I can just upgrade the brake pad and tires - enough to spank most 330i with higher dynoed HP at Street of Willow - that would really make me happy. j/k.


HACK, can I bring my lil' ol' convertible to the dyno party too? I doubt it has much chance of spanking anyone, being a convertible, you know.


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

RKT BMR said:


> HACK, can I bring my lil' ol' convertible to the dyno party too? I doubt it has much chance of spanking anyone, being a convertible, you know.




Yeah, only a SUPERCHARGED 3.0 liter convertible. I think the only one in the tribe that is capable of keeping up may be either Paddleshift or the Retro-Racer, or Henrik's IR M3.


----------



## RKT BMR (Sep 7, 2002)

The HACK said:


> Yeah, only a SUPERCHARGED 3.0 liter convertible. I think the only one in the tribe that is capable of keeping up may be either Paddleshift or the Retro-Racer, or Henrik's IR M3.


It's supercharged? Golly garshk. Gonna have to go out and pop the hood at lunch and see. 

BTW, HACK, when's the next TS? I miss you guys. :grouphug:


----------



## stylinexpat (May 23, 2004)

*New ZHP 18" wheels quite heavy*

Either get COMP SSR'S in 18" or try some in the 17"!! Watch it take off then!


----------



## SoN][c (May 25, 2004)

Taz: I thought ZHP's are supposed to have 235hp, why is it only showing ~200 ?


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

SoN][c said:


> Taz: I thought ZHP's are supposed to have 235hp, why is it only showing ~200 ?


235 at the crank...

the dyno numbers are at the wheel...


----------



## SoN][c (May 25, 2004)

doeboy: thanks for the clarification. I'm a newbie around all this gearhead talk


----------



## allaboutme (Dec 22, 2003)

doeboy said:


> 235 at the crank...
> 
> the dyno numbers are at the wheel...


i demand a retest


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

allaboutme said:


> i demand a retest


tell that to a local shop to you, then report back with the results...


----------

