# "ZHP" vs. Stock 330i - Acceleration Numbers



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

After some interesting acceleration results with the ’01 E46 330i (owned by Tanin) when we took the modifications off (there's another long thread on that)… we decided to test his new ’04 E46 330i with the “ZHP” Performance Package for acceleration times. The car is new, so we’ve had to wait for the miles to accumulate before we did any legitimate testing. When the odometer rolled to 1400 miles, we hooked up the instruments. Some (myself included) will argue we didn’t wait long enough.  

Testing was done by a Passport G-Timer GT2, at our “secret” test location (flat, level, and no traffic). Ambient temp was about 58 F, elevation about 10 feet above sea level.

In any case, I have attached the spreadsheet with the three different variations of E46 we tested (Stock, ZHP, Mod). 

You’ll notice the “ZHP” was slower than the stock 330i to 60 mph, and in the quarter mile. We were surprised, but not shocked. The “ZHP” accelerated faster in some gears, while the stock 330i took others. At the end of the quarter, the “ZHP” was only .12 seconds behind (a blink). These numbers may reflect the “newness” of the engine, or the “newness” of the vehicle/transmission to the driver! :dunno: 

The ZHP is still very new. It is common knowledge that German engines (BMW in particular) tend to “loosen-up” and get faster as they age. The “Stock” 330i had nearly 50,000 on the clock, and was a very quick production example (it would beat my ’01 330i in every drag race  ). I firmly believe the “ZHP” will shave some time as it ages… and, of course, we’ll test it!  

BTW - The “ZHP” is now at Borla getting a new exhaust which we will follow with a CAI.


----------



## mquetel (Jan 30, 2003)

Perhaps the ZHP was a tad slower b/c of all the extra baggage the option carries with it? :eeps: :angel:


----------



## Tanin (Dec 21, 2001)

Emission said:


> BTW - The "ZHP" is now at Borla getting a new exhaust which we will follow with a CAI.


The car will be put on a dyno "stock" and after the Borla has been installed. I promise to post the #'s when available. In theory I should have the car back next Friday


----------



## Rich_Jenkins (Jul 12, 2003)

: popcorn:


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

Those times for the ZHP are pretty impressive . . . Tanin's regular 330i was a faster then usual 330 so the fact that a ZHP with only 1400 miles on it turned in such low times is impressive.

I would bet when that ZHP has about 7000 miles on it, you'll get even better times . . .


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

I would like to see the results with the ZHP wheels swapped with the 2001 330i (I assume they are the 17" sport model standard). It has been my iimpression that the ZHP 18" wheels with Bridgestone tires are heavier than most think and that the ZHP bump in torque/Hp is negated by the extra wheel weight.


----------



## Dr. Phil (Dec 19, 2001)

DaveH said:


> I would like to see the results with the ZHP wheels swapped with the 2001 330i (I assume they are the 17" sport model standard). It has been my iimpression that the ZHP 18" wheels with Bridgestone tires are heavier than most think and that the ZHP bump in torque/Hp is negated by the extra wheel weight.


My thoughts as well.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

Thanks Emission.

I agree with Alan and DaveH. That 330i is one of the fastest we've seen, so the ZHP's times aren't too bad given that it has only 1400 miles on it. That said, this thread will be great ammuniition for ZHP bashers. :eeps:

It would be REALLY interesting to repeat the tests when the ZHP has 20K miles and run with stock ZHP wheels and also a set of M68's.


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

Though I would say the ZHP would definitely get better times with the M68's wrapped in Pilot's or Contisports . . . it wouldn't make much difference in the real world because 99% of the ZHP's have the heavier 18's.

Rumatt & I have faster cars then the ZHP owners, that's all that matters  



BTW I bet this thread will be up to 4 pages by the end of the day . . .


----------



## Dr. Phil (Dec 19, 2001)

AF330i said:


> BTW I bet this thread will be up to 4 pages by the end of the day . . .


 

:flipoff:

Wait til I get new pulleys and a set of these.....









Then we will talk


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

AF330i said:


> Though I would say the ZHP would definitely get better times with the M68's wrapped in Pilot's or Contisports . . . it wouldn't make much difference in the real world because 99% of the ZHP's have the heavier 18's.


I think you answered your own question. We wanted to test a stock ZHP, and those were the numbers - objective.

I may add that we did three good runs (we actually did more, but with missed shifts or too much wheelspin at launch) - all were within .1 of each other. Two actually had the identical 1/4 mile times (in different directions).

I am adding two columns to the spreadsheet - my X5 3.0 and my dad's 540i 6-speed (new attachement below). My X5 seems a bit quicker than most (not as slow as you all thought!), while the 540i seems right on the money. Remember, every car is slightly different (ever wonder why a car magazine doesn't ever test five identical cars? Yeah, the numbers would be all over the board!).


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

Personally, I think your testing is a great addition to the information on this site and please take my humble suggestion as an addenda to the already fine work you have done. I do not wish to see this on all of your tests-only the ZHP vs 330i test..

The reason I would like to see the test of the 17" & 18" wheel swap is to place a pseudo-control on the experiment for those like myself who feel the added unsprung wheel weight is *very costly* to the ZHP. I also believe that the small ZHP engine modifications were needed in order to keep up with the stock 330i set up. Although the outcome is predictable, I would like to verify the _severity_ of the wheel weights on acceleration. All I have read on the subject has been in theory only. No one has ever put numbers on an actual test before.

Since some on this site are always looking to increase the performance of their vehicles, what modification that you know of could improve overall handling and acceleration in one package other than rims/tires? CAI? Exhaust? Sway bars? Chips? Without voiding the BMW warranty, none of these do in my mind. The potential for ZHP owners to see that wheel size and weight has reached it's apex as far as return of investment on performance (theoretically, of course). They should actually be looking to downsize back to 17" rim which I feel is the optimum size for the E46 chassis size and curb weight


----------



## jeffinohio (Oct 9, 2003)

If possible I would love to see the numbers a 330 coupe can put up and see how they compare to the zhp and 330 sedan!


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

DaveH said:


> The reason I would like to see the test of the 17" & 18" wheel swap is to place a pseudo-control on the experiment for those like myself who feel the added unsprung wheel weight is *very costly* to the ZHP. I also believe that the small ZHP engine modifications were needed in order to keep up with the stock 330i set up. Although the outcome is predictable, I would like to verify the _severity_ of the wheel weights on acceleration. All I have read on the subject has been in theory only. No one has ever put numbers on an actual test before.


The stock rear width is 245 while the "ZHP" option bumps it to 255. This should give more grip at launch and (maybe) offset the added weight. I know the issue with heavy wheels is the increased resistance to breaking inertia - for some reason (maybe that added width) the 0-10 mph time of the "ZHP" was quicker (.34 vs .36) for the "ZHP" making me question that inertia issue - and wondering if it is really a non-issue when offset with wider tires.

I don't think my testing equipment (or anyone's for that matter) can accurately differentiate between the two wheels - short of a drag strip with lights. For that matter, what about the increased aerodynamic drag from the wider wheels? Shouldn't they slow the car?

There are so many things that affect acceleration, not just vehicle-related. The atmospheric pressure, temperature, humidity, altitude, road surface, road condition, etc... :tsk: Frustrating, really. We try to eliminate these variables by testing on the identical road...


----------



## Andy (Jul 16, 2003)

Emission, thanks for posting your test results. I look forward to seeing some more test results once she's a little more broken in.

I can't help but wonder how Car & Driver got a 0 to 60 time of 5.6 seconds out of a 330i ZHP. :dunno:



Car & Driver's Test Results said:


> Displacement: 182 cu in, 2979cc
> Power (SAE net): 235 bhp @ 5900 rpm
> Torque (SAE net): 222 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
> Transmission: 6-speed manual
> ...


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

jeffinohio said:


> If possible I would love to see the numbers a 330 coupe can put up and see how they compare to the zhp and 330 sedan!


We plan on testing those too. We just need to get our hands on some.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Andy said:


> Emission, thanks for posting your test results. I look forward to seeing some more test results once she's a little more broken in.
> 
> I can't help but wonder how Car & Driver got a 0 to 60 time of 5.6 seconds out of a 330i ZHP. :dunno:


Press vehicles are all very scientifically broken-in (at least the Nissan/Infinitis are!), and most have miles on them. They may be hand-selected by the manufacturer too. Other than that... :dunno:


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

Emission said:


> The stock rear width is 245 while the "ZHP" option bumps it to 255. This should give more grip at launch and (maybe) offset the added weight. I know the issue with heavy wheels is the increased resistance to breaking inertia - for some reason (maybe that added width) the 0-10 mph time of the "ZHP" was quicker (.34 vs .36) for the "ZHP" making me question that inertia issue - and wondering if it is really a non-issue when offset with wider tires.
> 
> I don't think my testing equipment (or anyone's for that matter) can accurately differentiate between the two wheels - short of a drag strip with lights. For that matter, what about the increased aerodynamic drag from the wider wheels? Shouldn't they slow the car?
> 
> There are so many things that affect acceleration, not just vehicle-related. The atmospheric pressure, temperature, humidity, altitude, road surface, road condition, etc... :tsk: Frustrating, really. We try to eliminate these variables by testing on the identical road...


The added tire width from 245 to 255 equates to about a 4% increase in tire contact patch. This may affect launch since you were experimenting with wheel spin for optimum times. The aerodynamic drag is negligible based upon the percent increase versus total frontal area. The speeds are also too low for the forces of drag to have any real consequences on these differences as well. The fact that you measure all the environmental conditions as a basis for your report shows that you and your colleagues understand how they affect the testing data and performance variations. That is why I find your posts very informative and valid.


----------



## hugh1850 (Jun 20, 2003)

So she's a little slow, but she still looks good doin' it. :bigpimp:


----------



## ezsce46 (Mar 7, 2002)

What's the launch rpm for all three cars? 3000rpm-ish? do you do power shifts? 



Excellent info.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

ezsce46 said:


> What's the launch rpm for all three cars? 3000rpm-ish? do you do power shifts?


Good question.

First of all, these cars are privately owned, so nothing nasty or abusive.

Launches are generally 2000-3000 rpm and with a dumped clutch (no slipping as it is abusive in my book). Shifts are hard, but we do use the clutch!

"Tanin" can better describe the launches, as all the BMW times are his (except for the X5 which I did).


----------



## binaryfarms (Feb 2, 2003)

I've got a 330coupe that would love to see the "secret testing facility".  

Completely stock, manual, and I'm in the area. Thanks for the numbers, very interesting to see. Lemme know if you'd like a willing lab rat to continue your tests on.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Emission said:


> There are so many things that affect acceleration, not just vehicle-related. The atmospheric pressure, temperature, humidity, altitude, road surface, road condition, etc... :tsk: Frustrating, really. We try to eliminate these variables by testing on the identical road...


So you do as much as you can to eliminate as many variables as possible. If all of the weather conditions are recorded, they, along with the day's results, can be calibrated against a known standard (such as ISA) so that multiple testing sessions can be meaningfully compared (and even different runs in the same testing sessions)

You're off to a good start by using the same location (so long as the surface condition doesn't change). Are you recording and monitoring the other conditions throughout your sessions?

Also, are you trying to get the best possible times out of each vehicle or are you using constant launch and shift techniques? Also, are you keeping track of tire pressures during your tests?


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

·clyde· said:


> So you do as much as you can to eliminate as many variables as possible. If all of the weather conditions are recorded, they, along with the day's results, can be calibrated against a known standard (such as ISA) so that multiple testing sessions can be meaningfully compared (and even different runs in the same testing sessions)
> 
> You're off to a good start by using the same location (so long as the surface condition doesn't change). Are you recording and monitoring the other conditions throughout your sessions?
> 
> Also, are you trying to get the best possible times out of each vehicle or are you using constant launch and shift techniques? Also, are you keeping track of tire pressures during your tests?


Or, instead of doing that, have a "control" vehicle that you run, like one of the cars that you're always going to have at these tests, and run a couple of runs each time and compare the sessions and see how much pressure, temperature and humidity affect the actual runs themselves.

Maybe *we* can all pitch in to buy you some proper test equipment or new clutches for the 930 Turbo. :thumbup:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

The HACK said:


> Or, instead of doing that, have a "control" vehicle that you run, like one of the cars that you're always going to have at these tests, and run a couple of runs each time and compare the sessions and see how much pressure, temperature and humidity affect the actual runs themselves.
> 
> Maybe *we* can all pitch in to buy you some proper test equipment or new clutches for the 930 Turbo. :thumbup:


 Using a single car as a control device wouldn't do a whole lot to provide a reliable baseline over time as parts age, wear and get replaced. Different cars and/or parts will respond differently to different atmospheric conditions as well. Converting to ISA isn't foolproof, but the standard is fixed while another mechanical object is not.


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

·clyde· said:


> So you do as much as you can to eliminate as many variables as possible. If all of the weather conditions are recorded, they, along with the day's results, can be calibrated against a known standard (such as ISA) so that multiple testing sessions can be meaningfully compared (and even different runs in the same testing sessions)
> 
> You're off to a good start by using the same location (so long as the surface condition doesn't change). Are you recording and monitoring the other conditions throughout your sessions?
> 
> Also, are you trying to get the best possible times out of each vehicle or are you using constant launch and shift techniques? Also, are you keeping track of tire pressures during your tests?


Clyde, forgive me if this sounds rude, but how exactly are you going to apply ISA standards to a set of acceleration tests using a handheld device which may or may not have ISA Certs or the ability to get Certs? What about the weather data off an ISA calibrated device? They cost several thousand dollars. Should we request certificates of calibration from the airport weather station instead? What about the O2 sensor on the engine? Does this mean that you are going to try to baseline all weather conditions, instrumentation and apply a stoichiometric calculation for engine efficiency for that day? C'mon now, that's a little too anal for what Emission was trying to do-and I might mention also, worthy of a Doctoral dissertation if anyone tries!

By the way,using the ISA specification for calibration on one instrument or sensor and not following through on all other measurement devices is scientifically flawed.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

DaveH said:


> Clyde, forgive me if this sounds rude, but how exactly are you going to apply ISA standards to a set of acceleration tests using a handheld device which may or may not have ISA Certs or the ability to get Certs? What about the weather data off an ISA calibrated device? They cost several thousand dollars. Should we request certificates of calibration from the airport weather station instead? What about the O2 sensor on the engine? Does this mean that you are going to try to baseline all weather conditions, instrumentation and apply a stoichiometric calculation for engine efficiency for that day? C'mon now, that's a little too anal for what Emission was trying to do-and I might mention also, worthy of a Doctoral dissertation if anyone tries!
> 
> By the way,using the ISA specification for calibration on one instrument or sensor and not following through on all other measurement devices is scientifically flawed.


 I don't find that rude at all  ...it was kind of my point.

I agree that it would be anal to try to do that, but what was Emission trying to do (or more accurately, how do we as a group respond to his tests)? Compare different cars on different days in different conditions?

The cars themselves are so similar that comparing the results of these tests is of limited and dubious value beyond anecdotal reference material IMO. It provides great fodder for bench racing, but I just can't walk away with very much from it that's useful. I find the original 330i tests more interesting because IIRC, they were done at the same time and the varience of conditions between tests was likely to have been much smaller than comparing the new car to those previous tests.


----------



## Tanin (Dec 21, 2001)

You will never be able to have a 100% controlled environment or performance experiment. For our purpose (general reference guideline) anything more anal would be a waste of energy. However, the #’s we have turned with these cars have been extremely consistent across the board so I feel confident with them. 

With the ZHP I shifted just shy of redline on each run. Yes, I do feel the ZHP will improve as it ages but at the time of the test I was pushing the car to the best of my knowledge/experience. 

My ’01 330 had the advantage break-in and extended seat time. I knew exactly when, where and how to shift. The power band on that car was not necessarily at redline in each gear and I was able to drive accordingly to achieve the best results. In addition we tested the ’01 on three separate occasions to get the best results possible – allowing me to play with the RPM shift points.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

The HACK said:


> Maybe *we* can all pitch in to buy you some proper test equipment or new clutches for the 930 Turbo. :thumbup:


Don't say the "C-word" around the 930. Rumor has it a clutch replacement requires the removal of the engine. :bawling: SHhhhhh....


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Addressing the issue of more exacting testing... probably won't happen.

Even C&D, R&T, and Motor Trend have vastly different numbers when they test (the identical) cars. Why waste thousands, and yield what? Maybe a bit more accurate numbers? Why?

Imagine resetting your trip computer, driving your BMW 50 miles, then observing the fuel economy. Now, repeat the exact same trip - and you won't get the same mileage. Try it over and over again. Won't happen.

Much like Carl Lewis rarely ran the identical 100-meter time, I don't expect a machine with so many variables (we haven't even touched on fuel type, or exact vehicle weight) to turn the same time consistently. 

This information is just that - information. Take it, or leave it. Personally, I think it is quite interesting (and I think you do too!).

Our fear was this thread was going to be a "Ha Ha, the ZHP is slower than a stock 330i" conversation. I think most members realize these numbers are for information only - to be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

Emission said:


> Our fear was this thread was going to be a "Ha Ha, the ZHP is slower than a stock 330i" conversation.


Never!

But I am considering changing my user name to ZHP_Eater


----------



## fastfour (Nov 24, 2003)

I think this info is great. I applaud all the testing to let us know what is really going on w/ these cars, rather than relying on manufacturers telling us what they are capable of.

I'll be dynoing my 330Ci again hopefully tomorrow after my Dinan exhaust is installed and will be curious to see how minimal the gains will be. But at least I'll know.

Thanks again.

Zach


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

My personal opinion says exhaust helps, but CAI doesn't.

I think the CAI confuses the ECU and the engine actually loses some power. 

When Tanin gets his "ZHP" back with exhaust, we will test it again. Then, we will put the CAI on and test yet again. It will be interesting to see the results.


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

Emission said:


> My personal opinion says exhaust helps, but CAI doesn't.
> 
> I think the CAI confuses the ECU and the engine actually loses some power.
> 
> When Tanin gets his "ZHP" back with exhaust, we will test it again. Then, we will put the CAI on and test yet again. It will be interesting to see the results.


That will definitely be interesting to see. I'm thinking it will help me decide... CAI or no...

What could be happening is even though hp may be going up.... torque may actually be staying the same or dropping a bit... which could be effecting the end results?


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

fastfour said:


> I think this info is great. I applaud all the testing to let us know what is really going on w/ these cars, rather than relying on manufacturers telling us what they are capable of.


Agreed. I love this stuff. Thanks Emission and Tannin. If I were closer I would volunteer my car so you could add another datapoint (it's all in the name of science!)

Hopefully people will keep their conclusions in check with this data. It doesn't prove that all ZHP's are slower than non-ZHP's.



> When Tanin gets his "ZHP" back with exhaust, we will test it again. Then, we will put the CAI on and test yet again.


If you have it in you to dedicate even more of your time to this wonderful cause, I think a lot of people would love to know exactly how much the heavier wheels affect performance. I'd like to give one more gentle nudge trying to convince you to do some runs with M68's.

Of course, you could spend 3 months replacing each part, one at a time, to see how it affects performance. But the issue of wheel weight is a topic that is heavily debated in general and there is almost no hard data on it. Throw that together with the hype around the ZHP and thet it's wheels *may* be taking away any performance gains that the other mods gave it, and this experiment would be at the top of my list to test.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Rich_Jenkins (Jul 12, 2003)

fastfour said:


> I think this info is great. I applaud all the testing to let us know what is really going on w/ these cars, rather than relying on manufacturers telling us what they are capable of.
> 
> I'll be dynoing my 330Ci again hopefully tomorrow after my Dinan exhaust is installed and will be curious to see how minimal the gains will be. But at least I'll know.
> 
> ...


:hi: Zach - Cool, be interested in the results; will you post a thread on this?

I also agree with Rumratt on the wheels - be interesting to see the results if someone can volunteer a donor car with M68s. I shamelessly got the ZHP 50% for the handling/roadholding and 50% for the looks (I admit it) but I do think the M68s are VERY attractive wheels...


----------



## fastfour (Nov 24, 2003)

wingspan said:


> :hi: Zach - Cool, be interested in the results; will you post a thread on this?
> 
> I also agree with Rumratt on the wheels - be interesting to see the results if someone can volunteer a donor car with M68s. I shamelessly got the ZHP 50% for the handling/roadholding and 50% for the looks (I admit it) but I do think the M68s are VERY attractive wheels...


 I sure will. Here is the dyno with the car in it's stock form w/ K&N drop in filter. 2003 5 speed 330Ci.


----------



## JetBlack330i (Feb 8, 2002)

Thanks for your efforts, Emission.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Super work guys. Keep it up.


----------



## Rich_Jenkins (Jul 12, 2003)

fastfour said:


> I sure will. Here is the dyno with the car in it's stock form w/ K&N drop in filter. 2003 5 speed 330Ci.


Zach - Any news on that dyno run w/ Dinan exhaust installed?


----------



## wag-zhp (Apr 8, 2004)

Another excelent post. Keep up the good work!


----------



## hector (Jul 14, 2003)

DaveH said:


> Personally, I think your testing is a great addition to the information on this site and please take my humble suggestion as an addenda to the already fine work you have done. I do not wish to see this on all of your tests-only the ZHP vs 330i test..
> 
> The reason I would like to see the test of the 17" & 18" wheel swap is to place a pseudo-control on the experiment for those like myself who feel the added unsprung wheel weight is *very costly* to the ZHP. I also believe that the small ZHP engine modifications were needed in order to keep up with the stock 330i set up. Although the outcome is predictable, I would like to verify the _severity_ of the wheel weights on acceleration. All I have read on the subject has been in theory only. No one has ever put numbers on an actual test before.
> 
> Since some on this site are always looking to increase the performance of their vehicles, what modification that you know of could improve overall handling and acceleration in one package other than rims/tires? CAI? Exhaust? Sway bars? Chips? Without voiding the BMW warranty, none of these do in my mind. The potential for ZHP owners to see that wheel size and weight has reached it's apex as far as return of investment on performance (theoretically, of course). They should actually be looking to downsize back to 17" rim which I feel is the optimum size for the E46 chassis size and curb weight


would anyone take this argument one step further and suggest that the stock 16" wheels/205/50 series tires are truly optimal given yet less overall and unsprung weight? granted some lateral grip and launch traction would be lost but acceleration other than from a standstill might be improved. this thread has made me question whether the $600 that i spent on the sport package plus the ongoing tire expense was worth it.


----------



## Andy (Jul 16, 2003)

hector said:


> would anyone take this argument one step further and suggest that the stock 16" wheels/205/50 series tires are truly optimal given yet less overall and unsprung weight? granted some lateral grip and launch traction would be lost but acceleration other than from a standstill might be improved. this thread has made me question whether the $600 that i spent on the sport package plus the ongoing tire expense was worth it.


Most 16" wheels won't fit up front on the 330i. You'd be better off with a set of 15 lb. 17x8 SSR Comps. I plan to get a set of these if/when I decide to move out of the stock class (auto-x).


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

There is also something to be said about tire loading.

I tested two G35's (sedan and coupe). Both 6-speed manuals.

The Coupe was wearing 245's on the rear tires, while the sedan had 215's. You'd think the Coupe would get a better launch. In reality, the Sedan did a better job loading the surface area of the tire (pounds per square inch) and stuck much better. The Coupe tires just spun and spun as they weren't pressed as tightly to the ground. Sounds crazy, but something to think about.

It is possible the 255's aren't "loaded" enough on the 330i with ZHP option... :dunno:


----------

