# What are your 335d Wheel Dyno Wheel TQ/HP Estimates?



## Never Enuff (Jul 3, 2011)

Hi Guys,

Knowing that there is a "15% rule that applies to parasitic drivetrain loss in the performance auto world, what are your best guess estimates of the actual rear wheel torque and horsepower of our cars? :dunno:

All manufacturers provide SAE brake horsepower/torque numbers which are actually crankshaft engine numbers using an engine brake to measure the torque and convert to horsepower at RPMs. Given that the rule of thumb is 15% of crankshaft horsepower is lost in the drivetrain, what do you think our cars actually produce at the wheels?

Simple math would be BMW advertised HP = 265 * .85 = 225 HP and 425 TQ * .85 = 361 right?

What are your real world at the rear wheel dyno estimates?

For purposes of discussion let's assume SAE correction factor, which is typical.

Not to spoil the fun, but my car was on a fairly stingy dyno today both before and after my JBD was installed, so I have baseline dyno numbers before and after the JBD install. My JBD was set at only about 60%, so if you want to estimate those JBD numbers please feel to give it a shot.

Go ahead, give the true HP/TQ dyno reuslts a shot  

I'll share the actual at wheel dyno results if there are enough forum members who are interested, Dave


----------



## tonyspumoni (May 23, 2010)

You are killing me man. I wish I even had a guess just so I could get the dyne numbers with the JBD. I just cranked mine up to 100% from a long time having it at just 60%.


----------



## hotrod2448 (Jun 2, 2007)

I'll guess 250hp and 430lbft to the rollers stock.

And yeah, I'm sure forum members are interested in the before and after dynos.


----------



## BMW Power (Jul 25, 2007)

I am interested, but I dong have a guess.


----------



## cssnms (Jan 24, 2011)

Stock 238 hp / 276 torque

JBD 277 hp / 304 torque

Very interested to see your dyno graph.


----------



## bimmerdiesel (Jul 9, 2010)

I am interested. I will probably never get JBD but still curious 
My guess 
stock 260 hp and 400 TQ 
with juice 300hp and 450TQ


----------



## Austindrvr (May 29, 2011)

Interesting...

Stock 220hp, 350lbtq

JBD 250hp, 400lbtq


----------



## 62Lincoln (Sep 26, 2004)

Alright Enuff, quit teasing and start pleasing! Put up the dyno graph!


----------



## Capt_Amazing (Apr 29, 2011)

are we talking a mustang dyno? if so, I say 205hp and 337ft-lb torque. http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=356117


----------



## Never Enuff (Jul 3, 2011)

*Dyno Test Results*

OK guys, here is the dyno graph.

We needed to have some fun and build a little anticipation right? :dunno:

Baseline/stock AWHP was 250, AWTQ was 404.
JBD AWHP was 278, and AWTQ was 440.

This was done on the 1000 HP capacity AWD Dyno Jet at Mach V in Sterling PA. Based on my prior experience tuning and modding on the Mitsubishi platform, this Dyno Jet has results that are very similar to those of CBRD in York PA that is known to have one of the stingiest Mustang dynos anywhere in the country.

The high level comment I would make is that 15% drivetrain reduction is very typical and customary, so in fact the BMW advertised TQ and HP numbers really do appear to very conservative.

I opened up the JBD to see how to make adjustments, but left it pretty much the way it came from Burger. I think it came set at about 60%, I may have set it to 65%, but not much more. If the real potential increases from the JBD are as advertised (and I am not suggesting they are not) then I am guessing that TQ increases must be made on a greater than linear level as the potentiometer dial is turned towards the higher settings. But this is just my guess based on my observations of the limited increased power observed at about 65% on the potentiometer dial.

I hope you guys find this as interesting as I have.

By the way my car seems a little more responsive post JBD install, and my observed fuel economy readings since yesterday have actually appeared to be a little better. I don't yet know if the actual fuel consumption is greater than what the ECU is calculating, I suspect that could very well be the case. Perhaps others have more insight on this point based on their experience.


----------



## SteveGu (Nov 3, 2010)

Thanks very much, *Never Enuff*!

I am quite impressed, first with the 10% improvement in power from your mod, and also with the very modest 5% (as I calculate it) drivetrain loss for stock. Thanks very much!


----------



## tonyspumoni (May 23, 2010)

Very humbly grateful for a most interesting experiment!


----------



## 62Lincoln (Sep 26, 2004)

Thank you for sharing! Do you intend to leave the JBD at the 60/65% setting, or will you move it upward over time?


----------



## Capt_Amazing (Apr 29, 2011)

why would the actual drive-train loss be so minimal?? It's certainly great to know that those figures represent the whp/wtq.....did BMW (like Nissan with the GT-R) short-change the crank power these engine's put out?


----------



## GB (Apr 3, 2002)

I think BMW tends to be conservative on hp/tq figures for several reasons. One, it's a diesel and is being pitched as an "eco" model by BMW, so too much emphasis on power figures might not be what they're looking for (and neither is your insurance company). Two, they also have the 335i and M3 sedan to worry about making them look weak by comparison  . And third, I'm sure they'd rather err on the side of understating hp/tq then find themselves in the position Ford did with the Cobra fiasco http://www.muscularmustangs.com/2005/svtcobraslow99.php .

Graham


----------



## Never Enuff (Jul 3, 2011)

62Lincoln said:


> Thank you for sharing! Do you intend to leave the JBD at the 60/65% setting, or will you move it upward over time?


For now my plans are "street driving" only, so I will leave it set where it is. But if I do take her back out for another day at the track (and I will absolutely be going back to the track with one of my cars) I will probably try turning it up.

Here are some photos of my car with me at the helm being coached by my instructor around the Summit Point Main course. Still having temporary tags on the car, I was pretty conservative, but managed to hit 110 on the main straightaway a couple times. Of course after getting up to speed I slowed early and then slammed on the brakes for the tight 180 degree turn that waits at the end of the straightaway. :yikes:


----------



## wxmanCCM (Feb 17, 2010)

@ Never Enuff - thank you for the dyno data.

That's actually fairly close to what _Diesel Power magazine_ got on a 2009 335d (258/421 - http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/0912dp_2009_bmw_335d/diesel_engine.html).


----------



## cssnms (Jan 24, 2011)

Thanks for going through the trouble and posting the data, much appreciated! :thumbup: Nice to see some solid HP and torque numbers.


----------



## Talstar (Jun 11, 2011)

Thanks for taking the time to do this.


----------



## EYE4SPEED (Apr 19, 2010)

Good stuff - I had mine on a Mustang dyno. They were having problems calibrating - starting in 1 vs 2, factors, etc. Had four runs total, need to dig up the sheets. Turn your JBD up to 85% and report some more good stuff please.


----------



## Never Enuff (Jul 3, 2011)

:hi::hi:I have enjoyed doing this, and had seen prior anecdotal information that peaked my interest to get both baseline anbd JBD numbers. Some reports that did not share actual dyno redults had lead me to believe our cars were actually a little stronger than BMW was advertising, and that lead me to believe their power estimates were probably on the conservative side. 

To those of you who have graciously extended your gratitude and appreciation, you are most certainly welcome!  I hope all forum members can benefit from knowing the actual ppwer these stout little cars can produce.

I think GB's comments regarding why BMW's power estimates might be as conservative as they really are is probably spot on. While these cars are certainly economocal to operate since they are so efficient, IMHO they are not really what one would usually call an economy car due the moderatly high cost of the car.

Another point I would share based on the dyno reports, is that not only do we realize more peak HP and TQ with the JBD, the power band has moved slightly to the left indicating that the turbos appear to be spooling up a litte quicker. This should indicate that our cars should be a little quicker when accelerating since the turbos are spooling a little quicker. 

I can say that it seems a little more responsiveto me, and that should allow quicker acceleration leading to a more enjoyable driving experience. JBD seems to be the only real option for tuning these cars at his point, and I hope this little experience shows the the type of benefit other fourum members might get from adding this little mod.

Cheers Gang:hi:


----------



## SixShotEspress0 (Jan 25, 2011)

:bow:"Baseline/stock AWHP was 250, AWTQ was 404.
JBD AWHP was 278, and AWTQ was 440."

Can this be real? Those stock #'s are unbelievably close to the manufacturer claims. The JBD proves to be THE tune to get. Please keep us updated on codes or the like. I had originally planned to wait till warranty was up for JBD, but now I'm drooling.

Once again thanks for the legwork Bro.


----------



## KarlB (Nov 21, 2004)

seems like a really nice increase , if you get a chance to turn up the JDB and dyno it please let us know what you get then also!!!


----------



## bimmerdiesel (Jul 9, 2010)

I was close on stock estimate . I have read in multiple threads that HP is usually under rated by BMW across all engines. Everyone had their own opinion. Some said to save on taxes coz in EU vehicle is taxed based on HP.


----------



## Terry @ BMS (Apr 27, 2007)

Thanks for taking the time to dyno test and post the results! The delta looks about right for the default setting / SAE dyno correction. There is probably another 15-30hp in there for you should you decide to crank it up, but most customers simply install with the default setting and enjoy the nice power bump and improved response.


----------



## Stugots (Jan 1, 2010)

Man, I need to really get off my ass and find a dyno out here and get things done, eh? lol

Thanks for your results...they aren't far off (HP wise) from what I've seen. I've seen JBD show up to 320hp at the wheels (at least the version I have), with a stock # @ 245hp. One hell of an improvement, if you ask me.


----------

