# Stock vs. Mod 330i = No difference!



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Vehicle:

2001 BMW 330i 5-Speed

Modifications:

Jim C CAI, TriFlow Muffler, RD Sways

Test area:

1.5 miles, 15 ft. elevation above sea level, straight and level smooth blacktop, no traffic or cross streets, 50-55 F ambient temperature.

Test equipment:

Passport G-Timer GT2, identical driver

Summary:

We tested the car late last week with all modifications in place. The average 0-60 run (best in each direction) was 5.91 seconds. 0-90 mph was 13.26 seconds.

We took all modifications off last night (lease return) and tested again. The average 0-60 run was 5.85 seconds. 0-90mph was 12.51 seconds.

The only difference in the vehicles was about extra 10 gallons of gasoline in the "modified 330i" tank. The road was identical, and the ambient temp was within 5 degrees of each other.

Would the 10 gallons of gas (70 lbs?) be most likely responsible for the "slower" test times of the modified 330i.

Bottom line? I don't think the CAI or exhaust helps with performance. If anything, the mods may slow it down a bit (80-90 mph with mods = 3.00 seconds / stock is 2.56 seconds)!

Interesting.


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

10 gallons= 60 pounds


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

No surprise to me. I've always thought CAI and exhaust are bling mods more than performance modifications (not that bling mods are necessarily bad...said the guy who's buying 18" wheels).


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

No surprise. Those mods are probably even less effective on a 325 which already shares most of the intake and pretty much the whole exhaust with the 330.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

doesnt suprise me either. Would be nice to slap them up on the dyno too.

thanks for testing


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

it's just too darn hard to get anything more out of n/a engines without serious hardware.

(not so true with forced induction -->  )


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

pdz said:


> it's just too darn hard to get anything more out of n/a engines without serious hardware.
> 
> (not so true with forced induction -->  )


 :thumbup: , 

amazing what some software changes do for a turbocharged car :angel:


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

i've always thought that short of tinkering with cams, compression ratios, or final drive ratios that it's too damn hard to get useable/quantifiable gains out of any n/a engine'd BMW.


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

This isn't Tanin's car, is it? I thought he was keeping it?


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

The HACK said:


> This isn't Tanin's car, is it? I thought he was keeping it?


Yes, it is his car. It is a very quick 330i (when I had my identical 330i, he could pull on me in all the gears - but mine could hit 131 and his topped at 129!  ).

The dealer made him an incredible deal on the ZHP, so he is getting it on Friday.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

Emission said:


> Yes, it is his car. It is a very quick 330i (when I had my identical 330i, he could pull on me in all the gears - but mine could hit 131 and his topped at 129!  ).
> 
> The dealer made him an incredible deal on the ZHP, so he is getting it on Friday.


cool!

obviously you're going to document and test that car, for good comparison, RIGHT!???!?!?


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

pdz said:


> cool!
> 
> obviously you're going to document and test that car, for good comparison, RIGHT!???!?!?


Yes, we will test the ZHP in the identical manner, on the identical road. Before upgrades, and after. He is thinking of putting the muffler and CAI on the ZHP. They may not add speed, but they sound pretty cool!

Unfortunately, it may take about a month to break-in the vehicle before I can post numbers.


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

Emission said:


> Yes, it is his car. It is a very quick 330i (when I had my identical 330i, he could pull on me in all the gears - but mine could hit 131 and his topped at 129!  ).
> 
> The dealer made him an incredible deal on the ZHP, so he is getting it on Friday.


Ask him to bring the car down to the next techsession. I will not publish the results of the inspection online, it's just to satisfy Paddle.Shift's and my curiosity.

It's good that a SCTS member is getting a ZHP, we can finally put that stupid question to bed. Heck, that ZHP may be as popular at the next TechSession as the Z4 from the last one.

(Do not fret ZHP owners, we at *SCTS* have vowed NOT to further the ZHP discussion online, it is purely to satisfy our own curiosity.)


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

The HACK said:


> Ask him to bring the car down to the next techsession. I will not publish the results of the inspection online, it's just to satisfy Paddle.Shift's and my curiosity.
> 
> It's good that a SCTS member is getting a ZHP, we can finally put that stupid question to bed. Heck, that ZHP may be as popular at the next TechSession as the Z4 from the last one.
> 
> (Do not fret ZHP owners, we at *SCTS* have vowed NOT to further the ZHP discussion online, it is purely to satisfy our own curiosity.)


we're curious, too.

damn west coast mafia.

:angel:


----------



## TAMPABAYBIMMERS (Nov 19, 2003)

it might benefit to get the jim conforti shark injector if you dont have one already ... when paired up with those mods is when you will see the difference....but im not sure if they make one for your car


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

The HACK said:


> Ask him to bring the car down to the next techsession. I will not publish the results of the inspection online, it's just to satisfy Paddle.Shift's and my curiosity.


Tanin already said he is going to file all the numbers off the parts when he gets the car. 

In all honesty, we (Tanin and myself) wonder if the ZHP can do as well to 60 mph as it may need a 2-3 shift. That 2-3 shift killed the G35 6M to 60, but it made up the loss by 80 mph (and was faster than the 330i).

Shifting = lost time


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

TAMPABAYBIMMERS said:


> it might benefit to get the jim conforti shark injector if you dont have one already ... when paired up with those mods is when you will see the difference....but im not sure if they make one for your car


We've all been waiting 3 years for one but it still doesn't exist.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

TAMPABAYBIMMERS said:


> it might benefit to get the jim conforti shark injector if you dont have one already ... when paired up with those mods is when you will see the difference....but im not sure if they make one for your car


True, but none for the 330i - yet.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

Emission said:


> Tanin already said he is going to file all the numbers off the parts when he gets the car.
> 
> In all honesty, we (Tanin and myself) wonder if the ZHP can do as well to 60 mph as it may need a 2-3 shift. That 2-3 shift killed the G35 6M to 60, but it made up the loss by 80 mph (and was faster than the 330i).
> 
> Shifting = lost time


exactly.

higher redlines are our friends. 

if i could get an extra 1000rpms on my engine, it would work some wonders to let me stay in gear longer per shift. would need some serious tweaking, though.

it would also help the slug, aka the xiT.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

pdz said:


> exactly.
> 
> higher redlines are our friends.
> 
> ...


my 5 speed is nice and widely spaced, you want to trade?


----------



## Tanin (Dec 21, 2001)

Sergiok,
Bring your car out here one night and we can run the #'s.



Jason, I would love to see the comparison. 
LA to Thousand Oaks is a very short drive for you to make to prove your point. What's your availability?


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

The HACK said:


> Just make sure there's no law enforcement around. :eeps:


"On the next episode of 'COPS'...." :rofl: :eeps:


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

sergiok said:


> Hmm... when I get my car back from Imad's shop I'll have to test that. I could swear that I can do almost 67mph at 6770rpm (the Dinan's chip's redline).


Sergio, what size tires are you running (compared to stock)? If they are smaller (in diameter), you will see higher speeds. 67 mph in second is pretty damn fast (and pretty rare in a 5-speed).


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

Emission said:


> Sergio, what size tires are you running (compared to stock)? If they are smaller (in diameter), you will see higher speeds. 67 mph in second is pretty damn fast (and pretty rare in a 5-speed).


235.40.18s. They're actually OVERSIZED by .4".

And no matter what size rim/tires you're working with, the speed reading on a speedometer is directly related to the RPM. Either Sergio is just euphoric over getting married and can't think straight, or I'm smokin' the good stuff again. :eeps:

On the way home today I'll drop the car into 2nd on the freeway and see where my RPM ends up.


----------



## EZ (Feb 27, 2003)

doeboy said:


> *S*o *C*al *T*ech *S*essions....
> 
> and locations vary... it "roams" from place to place.


Thanks! May I show up at your next SCTS? I have 2.5K on my 330 (with ZHP), so we could do some tests with it, providing they cause no
harm  and it's not way too far (I live few miles inland from Malibu).


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

EZ said:


> Thanks! May I show up at your next SCTS? I have 2.5K on my 330 (with ZHP), so we could do some tests with it, providing they cause no
> harm  and it's not way too far (I live few miles inland from Malibu).


We don't do speed test (at least not yet...) so I think you'd want to set something up with Emission and Tanin.


----------



## JetBlack330i (Feb 8, 2002)

How come in your attached spec sheet, HP and torque are identical for both cars? You didn't really dyno them, did you? The whole premise of a CAI is that it increases HP and torque. If they are identical, then the CAI is dead weight, and of course it would slow down the victim, eh, the donor car.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

JetBlack330i said:


> How come in your attached spec sheet, HP and torque are identical for both cars? You didn't really dyno them, did you? The whole premise of a CAI is that it increases HP and torque. If they are identical, then the CAI is dead weight, and of course it would slow down the victim, eh, the donor car.


Maybe because it's the same car? And it's not like the CAI weighs 100lb more than the stock airbox or something.


----------



## JetBlack330i (Feb 8, 2002)

Kaz said:


> Maybe because it's the same car? And it's not like the CAI weighs 100lb more than the stock airbox or something.


The point is, if the CAI doesn't add any HP, why use it? Even if it's only 1 lb more, if it doesn't add HP, it's 1 lb of dead weight.
If the dyno says it didn't add any HP, that's one thing, but you can't just assume it won't add any HP. 
Even though I agree CAIs won't add any HP because the OEM box is already a CAI, the assumption made in the experiment is wrong.
It's just a nitpick. it doesn't affect the outcome. But your comment is wrongly placed.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

JetBlack330i said:


> How come in your attached spec sheet, HP and torque are identical for both cars? You didn't really dyno them, did you? The whole premise of a CAI is that it increases HP and torque. If they are identical, then the CAI is dead weight, and of course it would slow down the victim, eh, the donor car.


The spec sheet has manufacturer quoted figures. Weight, HP, and Torque all vary from car to car (manufacturing tolerances). There are claimed numbers (gains) for the exhaust and CAI, but I don't know how accurate they are. For all practical purposes, the numbers at the top of the chart are for my use - just to compare. Most likely, they are all a bit off.

The claimed gains from CAI and exhaust are 8-12 horsepower. :dunno:

No, we never put the car on a dyno - good question.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

Emission said:


> The spec sheet has manufacturer quoted figures. Weight, HP, and Torque all vary from car to car (manufacturing tolerances). There are claimed numbers (gains) for the exhaust and CAI, but I don't know how accurate they are. For all practical purposes, the numbers at the top of the chart are for my use - just to compare. Most likely, they are all a bit off.
> 
> The claimed gains from CAI and exhaust are 8-12 horsepower. :dunno:
> 
> No, we never put the car on a dyno - good question.


Does the LA BMWCAA have dyno day? SD one does every once in awhile, you guys should come down for the next one.


----------



## JetBlack330i (Feb 8, 2002)

Emission said:


> The spec sheet has manufacturer quoted figures. Weight, HP, and Torque all vary from car to car (manufacturing tolerances). There are claimed numbers (gains) for the exhaust and CAI, but I don't know how accurate they are. For all practical purposes, the numbers at the top of the chart are for my use - just to compare. Most likely, they are all a bit off.
> 
> The claimed gains from CAI and exhaust are 8-12 horsepower. :dunno:
> 
> No, we never put the car on a dyno - good question.


I understand perfectly what you did.
Like I said, this was a nitpick comment. Something that jumped out when I saw it and set off my personal sanity check alarm.

The premise for a shoot out like this is that the two cars have different engine outputs. Quoting manufacturer claimed numbers for the stock car is valid, but not for the modified car. If a dyno says the CAI+exhaust have no effect, then sure, that's one thing, but not until then.
Leaving it as N/A would be better, IMHO.
After all, if you start out with the assumption that the engine outputs are the same, there is no point is doing this test. It would be like a shootout between a red 330i and a blue 330i, no?

That nitpick aside, thanks for your post. 
You provide real-world validation for what I've always told anyone who would care to argue this point with me. That chips, CAIs and exhausts don't do squat, at least for BMWs.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

i'm glad that E did this test. it's pretty interesting.

just one caveat, though, is that the major magazines adjust all of their clocking sessions to ambient temperature, barometric pressure and so forth so everything is equalized.

using such a more sensitive adjustment equalizer like this, it may display a slight delta between OEM car and non-OEM status car.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

pdz said:


> i'm glad that E did this test. it's pretty interesting.
> 
> just one caveat, though, is that the major magazines adjust all of their clocking sessions to ambient temperature, barometric pressure and so forth so everything is equalized.
> 
> using such a more sensitive adjustment equalizer like this, it may display a slight delta between OEM car and non-OEM status car.


I've "tested" about 15 cars with this G-Timer GT2 device. I've come to realize that every test, with every car, is different. A bit of gravel on the road, or moisture, can mean a huge difference in launch. Cold tires don't stick, and too much air pressure causes less of a contact patch... Headwind, ambient temperature, humidity, etc... on and on and on... all have a say with test results.

You must have noticed that each time a "major" car magazine tests a vehicle, even of the same make and model, they get different times. I'd love to see four identical vehicles tested over four different days. I bet the times would be all over the place.

My point? You can only use these numbers as a guide. My brother and I expected the modified 330i to be faster - especially at higher speeds. We found it to be slower. What does that tell us? Maybe the gas LEVEL made a huge difference. Maybe the gas BRAND made the difference. Maybe we hit more bugs one evening! We'll never know.

The best way to test is side-by-side at a dragstrip. Both vehicles are subject to the same temps, winds, and humidity. One wins, one loses.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

Emission said:


> I've "tested" about 15 cars with this G-Timer GT2 device. I've come to realize that every test, with every car, is different. A bit of gravel on the road, or moisture, can mean a huge difference in launch. Cold tires don't stick, and too much air pressure causes less of a contact patch... Headwind, ambient temperature, humidity, etc... on and on and on... all have a say with test results.
> 
> You must have noticed that each time a "major" car magazine tests a vehicle, even of the same make and model, they get different times. I'd love to see four identical vehicles tested over four different days. I bet the times would be all over the place.
> 
> ...


yup. and every time there is a compendium in the back of car and driver, for example, each measurement is with an n=1. normalized, but still incredibly anecdotal.

i know they tend to test in both directions of a straightaway, but still......your point is incredibly valid. it's like comparing dyno plots on different days and different machines. guidelines, but not exactly comparative.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

Am I the only person who has absolutely no idea what Jetblack is trying to day? It doesn't make a lick of difference if the car being tested had 225HP or 2. The same car was tested both with and without the mods and the one with was slower. That "proves" (within all the variables we've discussed) that the mods don't let the engine make any more power.


----------



## 1RADBMR (Sep 24, 2003)

Emission said:


> The spec sheet has manufacturer quoted figures. Weight, HP, and Torque all vary from car to car (manufacturing tolerances). There are claimed numbers (gains) for the exhaust and CAI, but I don't know how accurate they are. For all practical purposes, the numbers at the top of the chart are for my use - just to compare. Most likely, they are all a bit off.
> 
> The claimed gains from CAI and exhaust are 8-12 horsepower. :dunno:
> 
> No, we never put the car on a dyno - good question.


Do dyno results matter, if real world performance is not affected? Great post...and confirms ones observations of the real world: Where there are bucks to be made, and folks who have nothing better to do with their bucks, the bucks will be separated from the folks...or something like that.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

Granted, this is the Fest and not Fanatics or something, but I'm surprised by the lack of people accusing Emission of being full of shit and that something is wrong with him because the modded car was slower.


----------



## 31st330i (Jan 11, 2002)

Emission said:


> Stock vs. Mod 330i = No difference!


didn't some guy named 1stDinan330i say that a long time ago? 

actually, my car does feel slightly faster with the conforti intake but it has never been proven as you have done. the gear ratio change did a lot more. the car feels pretty fast now.


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

Dude, them's dope mods yo. No fockkin' way the stock piece of [email protected] can smoke that hot pimpin' ride, fo shizzle my nizzle.:thumbdwn:

Happy Kaz?


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

racerdave said:


> Yeah, I think that the BMW dynos must be very stingy. Almost all of their vehicles perform like something with 20-30 HP more. It wouldn't surprise me if they had some dynos that were skewed low at the factory.


Actually, I think most european manufacturers benchtest their powerplants via electric generators. They simply see how many kilowatts the engine will put out. Then, using a conversion formula of 1kw=1.341hp they come up with their horsepower ratings.


----------



## Akakubi (Dec 21, 2001)

: popcorn: 

Interesting discussion. :thumbup: Yep, Intakes and especially exhaust on the 330's offer very marginal gains. The 330 exhaust was designed to be as a free-flow system when BMW upgraded the car from the 328. In fact the Intake and exhaust accounted for 65% (I think) of total HP gains over the 328.

It's mostly about sound, weight saving and looks, as OEM intake and exhaust are too "quiet" and heavy. 

Now, if you decide to do software upgrade, headers, TB, sport cats/straight pipe, etc then the a/m intake and exhaust will be more beneficial as they potentially can flow more air/gas through the system. But to dig into the gains you must upgrade other components as well.

Now for the 350Z....  

I watche Best Motoring Japanese car-testing video recently where they tested out 330i MII (I suspect it's a ZHP in Japan), 350Z, G35 Coupe, RX-8 and S2000 head to head on the track and mini AutoX.

330i killed all of them at the AutoX easily. The 350Z was the slowest, beaten soundly by the Coupe. :yikes: 

Then on the track (tight Tsukuba circuit), they omitted the Bimmer, but the G35 beat the crap out of the 350Z again. I wonder why... :dunno: 

The testers also did not rave about the car calling it more of a poser/beginner than a true sports car.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

Akakubi said:


> : popcorn:
> 
> Interesting discussion. :thumbup: Yep, Intakes and especially exhaust on the 330's offer very marginal gains. The 330 exhaust was designed to be as a free-flow system when BMW upgraded the car from the 328. In fact the Intake and exhaust accounted for 65% (I think) of total HP gains over the 328.
> 
> ...


i think many people have written about this in the press, but the 350Z is not a sports car. it IS a GT vehicle. historically, there may be cases where a sports car has been assembled from a hodgepodge of parts from more "common" vehicles, but the Z suffers from the modern platform sharing. it uses the same chassis that has to support the G35 and FX vehicles and nissan doesn't put enough money into aluminum chassis components. so, it lost the weight battle.

nissan is also strapped to differentiate (in a major way) the VQ engine. look, it's a solid engine in the maxima, but not in the Z. it has a low redline, tame compression and tame cams. its displacement cannot save it from mediocrity in the sports car arena; gearing may play a role here, but not as much as weight and the engine.

one of the beauties of BMW is that when you pony up the money for a 3 series, you know you're getting a proprietary platform that isn't derived from some lowest cost bidder econocar a la lexus or infiniti or acura. and it shows.

the cars are, in general, brilliant.


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

pdz said:


> it's just too darn hard to get anything more out of n/a engines without serious hardware.
> 
> (not so true with forced induction -->  )


True. Nothing compares to forced induction. Howerver, UNICHIP, a pretty popular mod here in Brazil, seems to be very effective. Check out these results (Passat V6):


----------



## fastfour (Nov 24, 2003)

New member here. Was hoping to see more dyno's posted. Here is mine w/ a drop in K&N filter:










Zach


----------



## JetBlack330i (Feb 8, 2002)

Thanks for the dyno chart. BTW, which is which?
Are you saying that the drop in K&N filter does nothing to power/torque? I don't see anything significant there. The differences are within background noise levels.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

sergiok said:


> Actually, I think most european manufacturers benchtest their powerplants via electric generators. They simply see how many kilowatts the engine will put out. Then, using a conversion formula of 1kw=1.341hp they come up with their horsepower ratings.


Nope. They use dynos just like everyone else.

It is just that they use the metric system. HP and pounds - feet of torque are English units measures.

KW and Newtons are the metric units.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Oops, Newton meters for torque.


----------



## blackhawk77 (Mar 16, 2003)

Emission said:


> Yes, we will test the ZHP in the identical manner, on the identical road. Before upgrades, and after. He is thinking of putting the muffler and CAI on the ZHP. They may not add speed, but they sound pretty cool!
> 
> Unfortunately, it may take about a month to break-in the vehicle before I can post numbers.


-----

Is it time for an update yet? I await your results to help in better understanding this great ZHP problem. 

Also-- What kind of track/course are you doing this on? Your post eludes to conducting it on a public byway ("identical road") and, if thats true, you better get ready for some hate mail from Mr. Imola--mbr129, because he's gonna freak out....... :bawling: :rofl:

-----


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

blackhawk77 said:


> -----
> Is it time for an update yet? I await your results to help in better understanding this great ZHP problem.
> 
> Also-- What kind of track/course are you doing this on? Your post eludes to conducting it on a public byway ("identical road") and, if thats true, you better get ready for some hate mail from Mr. Imola--mbr129, because he's gonna freak out....... :bawling: :rofl:
> -----


The ZHP has about 800 miles on it as of today. We don't want to "test" it until it breaks 1200 or so... even then it will still be "green" as far as loosening up.

Yes, it is a public road. Don't be thinking a well traveled highway - it is a rural farming road that is untraveled at night. It just happens to be 9000 feet long, with no cross streets, and perfectly smooth (and level) asphalt!


----------



## Tanin (Dec 21, 2001)

Emission said:


> The ZHP has about 800 miles on it as of today.


Just broke 900 tonight taking the long way to Blockbuster and an 8 mile detour on the way home


----------



## blackhawk77 (Mar 16, 2003)

Emission said:


> The ZHP has about 800 miles on it as of today. We don't want to "test" it until it breaks 1200 or so... even then it will still be "green" as far as loosening up.
> 
> Yes, it is a public road. Don't be thinking a well traveled highway - it is a rural farming road that is untraveled at night. It just happens to be 9000 feet long, with no cross streets, and perfectly smooth (and level) asphalt!


-

Cool--Let us know when you have the numbers. :drive: :thumbup:

-


----------



## Kempe (Feb 18, 2002)

Must waste space and chime in here. Thanks, great thread.


----------



## Wallenrod (Nov 25, 2003)

So is the ZHP broken in yet? Any interesting results or did I miss it and it's been mentioned somewhere else? 
Really curious. Just something to kill time as I wait for Spring and my ZHP ED.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Yes, the ZHP passed 1400 miles... and we tested it. 

Results...  

I will start a new thread, with detailed results (all the numbers) tomorrow.


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

Emission said:


> Yes, the ZHP passed 1400 miles... and we tested it.
> 
> Results...
> 
> I will start a new thread, with detailed results (all the numbers) tomorrow.


At least tell us the 0-60 so we know how it compared to the regular 330i .. . please :bow:


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

rumratt said:


> TOMORROW! ??? :yikes:  :nono:


I have to agree.

!


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

My brother (Tanin) and I need to discuss the results. We are meeting tomorrow morning for an early Malibu/Mulholland run (I'm in the 930, he's in a 360!) to enjoy the nice weather and carve some canyons - we'll discuss how to post the results then. 

Sorry. :dunno:


----------



## JetBlack330i (Feb 8, 2002)

As in Ferrari Modena 360? Diam! :droll:


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

JetBlack330i said:


> As in Ferrari Modena 360? Diam! :droll:


Yes. 

I'll post some pics tomorrow.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

So everyone is so concerded about 0-60 1/4 mile times, shoehorn a small block chevy crate motor in there. 

Or...

Forget the E46 engine, lose weight and spend your money on the trany and dif.

Or...

Maybe the best and cheapest solution, practice your 0-60 shifting.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Artslinger said:


> So everyone is so concerded about 0-60 1/4 mile times, shoehorn a small block chevy crate motor in there.
> 
> Or...
> 
> ...


Simple. 0-60 is the easiest to measure, and the easiest to "nearly replicate" for 90% of drivers.

In a 325i vs. 330i stoplight race (stock vehicles), the 330i should win EVERY TIME (hence the obsession with 0-60 times).

However, on a track it's up to the driver (either could win).
In braking, it's up to the driver (either could win).
In handling (cones or skidpad), it's up to the driver (either could win).
Shifting, well... you get my point.

Understand why every is so concerned with 0-60? It's the easiest way to jump up and say "My car can kick your a$$!"


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

I have really never understood the obsession with 0-60 times when it comes to the 3 Series. 

I've owned many cars with quick zero to sixty times but, when it comes to my 325, 0-60 times are the furthest thing from my mind. I bought this car for good highway drivability, and excellent braking and road handling. 

When I read 0-60 and 3 Series mentioned together I get .


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

dankykev04 said:


> so how might a Toyota Supra achieve a 9.8 sec quarter mile? from thousands of dollars in placebos? still not getting it. or is it just european cars that cant be modded












Mind you, 1000hp Supras aren't done with bolt-ons. In fact, there aren't that many parts left in the engine that haven't been replaced or massaged. And they're not really streetable (that goes away at around 500hp) either.

Can BMWs get 1000hp? Sure, the old Brabham F1 car did ~1400hp 20 years ago with a stock block from a 320i.


----------



## wheel-man (Sep 28, 2004)

Kaz said:


>


Nice hair-dryer


----------



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

I personally don't care too much about 0-60. Heck, I don't even care about the 240rwhp I have my own dyno sheet. See I didn't post it anywhere. 

But in Mike's defense, there has got to be a measure of some kind for applied performance. You can have all the hp/lb or hp/l you want, but the 0-60 is where it all happens. Whether you agree/loathe/hate/love it, 0-60 is the measure. Even developmental psychology has tons of measures for a child's correlated behavior, as a car community, I am sure we can have at least one measure for applied performance!


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Mr Paddle.Shift said:


> I personally don't care too much about 0-60. Heck, I don't even care about the 240rwhp I have my own dyno sheet. See I didn't post it anywhere.


...um, you just "posted" about it... :rofl:

0-60 is some sort of "manly" way of proving yourself. Funny, I never do 0-60 blasts in my fastest car... it is my slower cars that I am always out to "prove myself" in with quick stoplight blasts!

It's just a measurement.


----------



## SpeedFreak! (May 1, 2005)

I find it extremely funny how much of a debate this topic happens to be. 
FACT: Every reputable publication doing reputable metered testing in a controlled situation has yielded results stating that the 330 w/ ZHP is a faster and better performing car then the non-ZHP. We can argue all day about from what and from where and why... FACT is... the package just works.
FACT: EVERY test I have personally performed with 6spd ZHP & non... Auto ZHP & non... has yielded similar results. Both metered and seat of the pants. 
FACT: The OP did a great job of putting this thing together... and for whatever reason... got a different result then the majority of ALL other tests... 
... So for all of you singing the praises of this test and its results... take your non-ZHP 3 and go find yourself a ZHP that you can toe the line against... I would LOVE to see a thread with an ongoing accounting of toe to toe runs... provable runs... of course, in the spirit of friendly competition...


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

I agree the 330i with the ZHP Package is faster than a stock 330i. Unfortunately, in this case, we have a very fast 330i being tested against a very slow ZHP!

In the defense of the ZHP, this particular car has been to the shop countless times for injector and fuel mapping issues (it is out of service as I type!). Maybe it was never running properly?

Every indication points to the ZHP Package offering increased performance. I don't doubt the claims.


----------



## SpeedFreak! (May 1, 2005)

As far as the real issue... Stock 330i vs. Mod 330i... this is ONE test... 
My hat's off to the OP and the job he has done conducting this process. Making changes to a brilliantly built car already near its N/A limit... takes lots of testing and planning to come up with the "best" formula. I, for one, have never believed that you could simply bolt on a bunch of relatively inexpensive parts and call it a day. A proper modification includes ample Dyno time for Dyno tuning. Done properly... with the proper mix of products can yield really impressive results. :thumbup:


----------



## SpeedFreak! (May 1, 2005)

Emission said:


> I agree the 330i with the ZHP Package is faster than a stock 330i. Unfortunately, in this case, we have a very fast 330i being tested against a very slow ZHP!
> 
> In the defense of the ZHP, this particular car has been to the shop countless times for injector and fuel mapping issues (it is out of service as I type!). Maybe it was never running properly?
> 
> Every indication points to the ZHP Package offering increased performance. I don't doubt the claims.


How sad... deff. sounds like you had a dud... :tsk: Shouldn't even be possible...


----------



## Tanin (Dec 21, 2001)

Not really a "dud"........ Just slight engine issues.  

Faulty DME was replaced. Few thousand miles later the leaky fuel injector was replaced (with harnesses and fuel rail removed it was shooting out like an artery). 
Currently with 18k miles, I dropped it off this morning because the issues resurfaced. Told my service advisor to check for the bulletin regarding faulty DME and valve problems associated with the 330. 

Forget about racing a standard 330i......recently, the loss of power has forced me step aside to for min vans at onramps.


----------



## SpeedFreak! (May 1, 2005)

Tanin said:


> Not really a "dud"........ Just slight engine issues.
> 
> Faulty DME was replaced. Few thousand miles later the leaky fuel injector was replaced (with harnesses and fuel rail removed it was shooting out like an artery).
> Currently with 18k miles, I dropped it off this morning because the issues resurfaced. Told my service advisor to check for the bulletin regarding faulty DME and valve problems associated with the 330.
> ...


That, my friend... is clearly a DUD! I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. :tsk:


----------



## kurichan (May 1, 2004)

Is the ECU aware of the mods?


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

kurichan said:


> Is the ECU aware of the mods?


Elaborate.

We threw the mods on, and let the ECU figure it out by itself.


----------



## crash8168 (May 26, 2004)

that is because the engine is pretty darned efficient right out of the box. not a lot of improvement to be had with modifications other than turbos or superchargers.


----------



## Tanin (Dec 21, 2001)

The only modifictions on the vehicle are a JC CIA (carrried over from my '01 330i) and a Borla exhaust system. Nothing major enough to screw up the engine.

** UPDATE **

Defective DISA Valve was replaced and DME was reprogrammed

Seems to be have solved to problem.......so far


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

Tanin said:


> The only modifictions on the vehicle are a JC CIA (carrried over from my '01 330i) and a Borla exhaust system. Nothing major enough to screw up the engine.
> 
> ** UPDATE **
> 
> ...


No problem keeping up with the Odysseys now?


----------



## Tanin (Dec 21, 2001)

Plaz said:


> No problem keeping up with the Odysseys now?


Apprehensive to try.

I'm going to wait until I get my replacement steering wheel. With all the alcantara droppings floating around my car my forward vision is limited.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

Tanin said:


> Apprehensive to try.
> 
> I'm going to wait until I get my replacement steering wheel. With all the alcantara droppings floating around my car my forward vision is limited.


 :rofl:


----------

