# My ride from the other night 60-140



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

Keep in mind almost nobody on the road and it was 11:40 pm on the highway.


----------



## lalitkanteti (Nov 15, 2009)

i never tried that. It must have felt awesome


----------



## Stugots (Jan 1, 2010)

Stussy109 said:


> Keep in mind almost nobody on the road and it was 11:40 pm on the highway.


Quick comparison.


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

It was fun and handled like it was on rails. Definitely happy so far, only complaint I could have is some rattles from the inside when on bumpy roads, it could be the window shades, I'm not exactly sure.


----------



## BayouBimmerGal (May 20, 2010)

Re: the 335d....

I noticed that once the speed had stabilized at 140mph/3500 rpm the mpg-o-meter went immediately from "this car sucks fuel like an RV" to "Fuel? This car don't need no steenking fuel". Bear in mind that I'm a natural blonde with all that it entails, but what's up with that?


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

BimmerGal, its because I went from "Pedal to the Medal" to light throttle, then began to coast back down to normal speeds essentially using no fuel.


----------



## Flyingman (Sep 13, 2009)

Stugots said:


> Quick comparison.


Stug, he has much better music!:rofl:

Did you crash or just throw your camera to the seat when you saw that cop duirng daylight run?:dunno:


----------



## lalitkanteti (Nov 15, 2009)

So its 5 sec improvement
Stussy:60-130; 22secs; D; No tune
Stugots:60-130; 17secs;M; with a tune


----------



## Stugots (Jan 1, 2010)

lalitkanteti said:


> So its 5 sec improvement
> Stussy:60-130; 22secs; D; No tune
> Stugots:60-130; 17secs;M; with a tune


It's actually 14.05 seconds, not 17. I've got the cut video as well. 






Notice that I start just below 60 with the cut.

5 seconds is a pretty dramatic difference, if you ask me (not bagging on the OP, because at the end of the day, the 60-130 run is SOOO much fun), especially considering the tunes are still pretty new.

I also did a quick edit of his, and his isn't 22 seconds, either...it's 19.02.






And, for easier viewing, here are the 2 side by side. 








Flyingman said:


> Stug, he has much better music!:rofl:
> 
> Did you crash or just throw your camera to the seat when you saw that cop duirng daylight run?:dunno:


There were cars on the 'closed course', so it was easier to stop the recording and toss the phone. 

As far as music is concerned, that depends. Engine sound = SO hot. 

I'm also pretty confident that given the right conditions, I can shave more time off that 60-130. I may do that today (plus, I have one of the new tunes I'm going to be testing here (arrived earlier this week), so there will be some runs with that, as well).


----------



## lalitkanteti (Nov 15, 2009)

lalitkanteti said:


> So its 5 sec improvement
> Stussy:60-130; 22secs; D; No tune
> Stugots:60-130; 17secs;M; with a tune


My bad. I didnt realize Stugots is starting less than 50. 5 secs gain is huge. I want to get this but want to wait for car to get little more old and relocate to location when I could go at such speeds once in a while


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

Keep in mind two things, I wasn't planning on going to 140, so at early 100's I had to think, in addition was using crappy rest area sunoco diesel with no diesel kleen. I will do a real run tonight as I gave it a shot of powerservice when I filled up last time. I'll run it in sport mode this time so we get an aples to apples comparison. By the way sunoco diesel really soots up the back. This is what inspired the diesel kleen purchase


----------



## Stugots (Jan 1, 2010)

Higher cetane content isn't like better octane content, mate. Don't fool yourself. 

And the additives for the tank are only for lubricity, not increased power.


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

Stugots said:


> Higher cetane content isn't like better octane content, mate. Don't fool yourself.
> 
> And the additives for the tank are only for lubricity, not increased power.


not according to their claims...
from their website
***9632;Boosts cetane up to 6 numbers ***8212; engines run smoother with less power lag and faster cold starts
***9632;Boosts power ***8212; reduces need for downshifting during high-load conditions
***9632;Cleans dirty fuel injectors ***8212; goes beyond the industry standard of keeping injectors clean to actually clean dirty injectors


----------



## Stugots (Jan 1, 2010)

Stussy109 said:


> not according to their claims...
> from their website
> ***9632;Boosts cetane up to 6 numbers - engines run smoother with less power lag and faster cold starts
> ***9632;Boosts power - reduces need for downshifting during high-load conditions
> ***9632;Cleans dirty fuel injectors - goes beyond the industry standard of keeping injectors clean to actually clean dirty injectors


That sounds like what a properly done tune does (well, part of it...a tune is obviously not going to clean your injectors  ). I'd bet money that you'd never be able to tell the difference, mate. Let us know your findings, though.


----------



## Penguin (Aug 31, 2003)

FYI:

http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/documents/Diesel_Fuel_Tech_Review.pdf

http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/researchdevelopment/a/cetane.htm

http://me.engin.umich.edu/autolab/Publications/P1997_05.htm

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/0709dp_september_2007_making_diesel_fuel/index.html


----------



## Stugots (Jan 1, 2010)

Interestingly enough, some of those links contradict each other.  Thanks for sharing them, though, Penguin.

Oh, and of the ones that speak of gains (one of which said significant), there weren't any #'s to show those gains. At least one mentioned that, just like using higher Octane doesn't matter on an engine that can't make use of it, same is true for Cetane, which is exactly what I was saying.

I'll read through each one more thoroughly tomorrow, as maybe I missed some integral data in them.


----------



## Penguin (Aug 31, 2003)

Stugots said:


> Interestingly enough, some of those links contradict each other.


Not uncommon on the internet. I would put the highest weighing on the Chevron link myself.

BMW has said they recommend 50 cetane for their diesel engines; however, no damage will be done with the lower cetane of typical U.S. diesel fuel, as the engine will adapt.


----------



## Neutrinolad (Jun 23, 2009)

Dang. Flying. Fastest I've gone is 105 mph.


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRvcuvoHNug&feature=related

updated In sport mode with powerservice diesel kleen, and intending to hit 140...Looks like 50-130 is 19 seconds or so on my count...starts around 2 seconds, finishes around 21


----------



## Stugots (Jan 1, 2010)

60-130 is 19.27. I spliced it out with Sony Vegas for ya.


----------



## Stugots (Jan 1, 2010)

Know what the funny bit is? It doesn't even matter, cuz it's not really 130...hahaha


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

Stugots said:


> Know what the funny bit is? It doesn't even matter, cuz it's not really 130...hahaha


speedo's are wrong in these?


----------



## Stugots (Jan 1, 2010)

In all bimmers, the speedos all report a higher rate of speed than the car is actually going.


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

Stugots said:


> In all bimmers, the speedos all report a higher rate of speed than the car is actually going.


kind of like my 08 cbr 1000. I know that thing is wrong. i'll be doing 85 according to the bike, yet I'm still cruising with traffic


----------



## Flyingman (Sep 13, 2009)

Stussy109 said:


> kind of like my 08 cbr 1000. I know that thing is wrong. i'll be doing 85 according to the bike, yet I'm still cruising with traffic


Around here at 85 the traffic will be passing you!

As school is out traffic has lightened up a lot and on I-75 80-90MPH is the norm, and you'll still get passed by folks going 95+.

On the upside my MPG has improved about 10% with less stop & go traffic.


----------

