Print Page | Close Window

Alpha N Mapping Results

Printed From: Bavarian-Board.co.uk - BMW Owners Discussion Forum
Category: Technical & Model Specific Forums
Forum Name: BMW ///M Power
Forum Discription: Ask your BMW M Power Technical Questions here (M1, M2 hybrids, M3, M5 & M6)
URL: http://www.bavarian-board.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=17835
Printed Date: 24-May-2024 at 14:40


Topic: Alpha N Mapping Results
Posted By: 2002SportEvo
Subject: Alpha N Mapping Results
Date Posted: 19-May-2005 at 08:12

I had my 2002 / Alpha N mapped yesterday at the same rolling road as Toby.  Before and after graphs attached (before was carried out on the same rollers last September)

Alpha N Results (flywheel): 246 BHP at 7290 and 192 lb/ft at 6000

Engine is standard Sport Evo - 7800 rev limit, custom manifold and single 3" exhaust.  Standard plenum but with 4" inlet and ITG Filter.

My torque and power curves have a couple of 'holes' at 3000 and 4000 RPM - probably due to the manifold arrangement necessary to fit an S14 into the 2002.

Mapping took about 3hrs - the final power runs were done after 3hrs running so heat could be a bit of an issue - used a full tank of optimax and covered about 90 miles on the rollers !

Note that the table of figures only gives readings at 500 rpm intervals - i got the screen capture for maximum power reading but cannot link to it - as i said, it was 246 at 7290.

The car drives much better with the Alpha N - better than the figures would have you believe.

Before

 

After



-------------
http://www.bmwccscotland.co.uk/cars/2002/evo.html" - 2002 SportEvo     
http://www.freesmileys.org">



Replies:
Posted By: UweM3
Date Posted: 19-May-2005 at 08:25
Don't you think that the DYNO used is abit optimistic?
239bhp for a standard E3 engine??
Most of the SPORT EVO's struggle to get past 220bhp in the E30 shell.

here are your graphs for comparision



-------------
E61 520d, slow and buzzy but my wallet likes the mpg.....


Posted By: 2002SportEvo
Date Posted: 19-May-2005 at 08:40

I forgot to say that the before run had a 'AMD' chip but when i installed the Alpha N i got a standard chip from Martin but with limit raised to 7800 therefore ignition timing may have made a slight difference. I thought it a bit optimistic at the time.

The subject of how accurate DYNOs is a LARGE topic !!!

Can't really answer how accurate their one is - i'm more interested in comparison between pre / post mods and i had Tobys car there to compare against as well

I know from speaking to Lester Owen that he had mapped a standard Sport Evo with Motec and got 215 at the wheels - roughly equating to 250 flywheel.

Colin

PS - Thanks for the graph Uwe



-------------
http://www.bmwccscotland.co.uk/cars/2002/evo.html" - 2002 SportEvo     
http://www.freesmileys.org">


Posted By: UweM3
Date Posted: 19-May-2005 at 08:53
215 at the wheels from a standard Sport EVO??
You must be kidding!
Mine is pulling 190hbp at the wheels (+/- can't remember) and 245 crank with 2.5 and 290 cams.
But as you said, DYNO's are a looooong story

-------------
E61 520d, slow and buzzy but my wallet likes the mpg.....


Posted By: 215m3
Date Posted: 19-May-2005 at 08:59
Uwe

Mine showed a shade under 200 at the wheels. Gerry has said the rwp can depend on many issues: -

1. what gear the power run is attempted in, 3rd will give more than 5th
2. how wide the rollers are apart
3. the friction from the transmision back to the rollers
4. what state the rollers are in

My curve is no curve, but a striaght line i'll post a pic soon.

-------------
Toby
http://www.bmminiparts.com - New Genuine BMW & Mini OEM parts - www.bmminiparts.com

1987 E30 M3 with turbo being added


Posted By: UweM3
Date Posted: 19-May-2005 at 10:08
Originally posted by 215m3 215m3 wrote:

Uwe

Mine showed a shade under 200 at the wheels. Gerry has said the rwp can depend on many issues: -



Yeah agree. And the main issue is what the Dyno operator wants to show to you to make you a happy customer.

-------------
E61 520d, slow and buzzy but my wallet likes the mpg.....


Posted By: 215m3
Date Posted: 19-May-2005 at 11:16
Uwe it would not have bothered me if he showed me 180 rwp it's how the car performs i'm interested in.

-------------
Toby
http://www.bmminiparts.com - New Genuine BMW & Mini OEM parts - www.bmminiparts.com

1987 E30 M3 with turbo being added


Posted By: stevesingo
Date Posted: 19-May-2005 at 12:07
Colin, did the operator tell you what it was putting out at the wheels?

Also, what do they charge for a power run. I will be passing by that way soon and might pop in for the sake of science.

My Sport evo with Milltek and Motec put out 190 at the wheels which the machine equated to 258 at the fly wheel.

Steve


Posted By: SHEPSM3
Date Posted: 19-May-2005 at 19:17

I think crank/flywheel figures should be ignored. These are only calculated to certain calculations fed into the computer.

The one to look at is the wheel power. As long as nothing has changed, ie same tyre size/wear/pressures, dyno room temperature, gear used (should be the straight through gear - 4th for a 5 speed overdrive box), the wheel power should be the same on whatever dyno you use. Opening myself for a beating

The Dyno I use is old, installed in 1985  Its Bosch and does not calculate flywheel power. However, the wheel power IS accurate. I have mapped cars here and just for the sake of getting a flywheel figure I took a couple down to another local chap who has a spanking new Sun dyno. The wheel figures were bang on the same as I had on our dyno. Bosch stopped making dyno's earlier this year. Gerry has also used our dyno, and commented on how good and sensitive it is.

Some dynos have software which calculate the power figure and correct it by whatever the room temperature is.

The Dastek dyno is "probably" one of the best. Gerry certainly wouldn't make the dyno read figures just to make the customer happy. I certainly wouldn't either. Whats the point in that. If the car only makes 180 bhp after being carefully mapped, thats all its going to give - no matter who maps the car.

Perhaps we should consider getting the frictional losses down produced by the transmission, wheel bearings, etc. Different gearbox/diff oils, etc. Maybe a new topic?   



-------------
[IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/ShepsM3/New-1a1.jpg">[IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/ShepsM3/New-1b1.jpg">


Posted By: M3Pilot
Date Posted: 19-May-2005 at 19:31
Well I should know very soon what my car has done.

I'll post the plots and figures as soon as I get them.


Posted By: 2002SportEvo
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 02:56
Originally posted by SHEPSM3 SHEPSM3 wrote:

I think crank/flywheel figures should be ignored. These are only calculated to certain calculations fed into the computer.

The one to look at is the wheel power. As long as nothing has changed, ie same tyre size/wear/pressures, dyno room temperature, gear used (should be the straight through gear - 4th for a 5 speed overdrive box), the wheel power should be the same on whatever dyno you use. Opening myself for a beating

The Dyno I use is old, installed in 1985  Its Bosch and does not calculate flywheel power. However, the wheel power IS accurate. I have mapped cars here and just for the sake of getting a flywheel figure I took a couple down to another local chap who has a spanking new Sun dyno. The wheel figures were bang on the same as I had on our dyno. Bosch stopped making dyno's earlier this year. Gerry has also used our dyno, and commented on how good and sensitive it is.

Some dynos have software which calculate the power figure and correct it by whatever the room temperature is.

The Dastek dyno is "probably" one of the best. Gerry certainly wouldn't make the dyno read figures just to make the customer happy. I certainly wouldn't either. Whats the point in that. If the car only makes 180 bhp after being carefully mapped, thats all its going to give - no matter who maps the car.

Perhaps we should consider getting the frictional losses down produced by the transmission, wheel bearings, etc. Different gearbox/diff oils, etc. Maybe a new topic?   

Toby and myself had a good chat with Gerry about rear wheel power, flywheel power etc and he was very adamant about the accuracies of his set up.

Ready now for all the arguments starting - my car put down about 218 at the wheels which on my car equated to 246 at the flywheel.  Had less losses than Tobys.  3.64 diff, smaller tyre etc

However, as Toby said, we are interested in how the car performs - not necessarily the *highest* power readings.

We have a fair bit of data on Dastek Dynos now - Toby's late 215, Tobys Track Car, my car, various other M Models and I know that Steve M had his Cecotto run on the Dastek as well.

Very subjective discussion....

 



-------------
http://www.bmwccscotland.co.uk/cars/2002/evo.html" - 2002 SportEvo     
http://www.freesmileys.org">


Posted By: 2002SportEvo
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 03:13

Originally posted by stevesingo stevesingo wrote:

Colin, did the operator tell you what it was putting out at the wheels?

Also, what do they charge for a power run. I will be passing by that way soon and might pop in for the sake of science.

My Sport evo with Milltek and Motec put out 190 at the wheels which the machine equated to 258 at the fly wheel.

Steve

Steve

Read my post above about rear wheel power / comments etc.

Dastek charge £60 / Hr for mapping - Gerry has also done a lot of work on Motec systems as well.

If your passing by it would be good to get a comparison reading ! Give us a shout if you are nearby.

Colin 



-------------
http://www.bmwccscotland.co.uk/cars/2002/evo.html" - 2002 SportEvo     
http://www.freesmileys.org">


Posted By: UweM3
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 04:13
I have added another plot of Toby's road car.



-------------
E61 520d, slow and buzzy but my wallet likes the mpg.....


Posted By: 2002SportEvo
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 04:24
Interesting plots Uwe as they are all on the same rolling road so compariosons *Can* be made !!!!

-------------
http://www.bmwccscotland.co.uk/cars/2002/evo.html" - 2002 SportEvo     
http://www.freesmileys.org">


Posted By: 215m3
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 08:34
Need to get Gary's to plot his on there as well. i'll maybe have asearch, or Uwe can, in the scottish section.

-------------
Toby
http://www.bmminiparts.com - New Genuine BMW & Mini OEM parts - www.bmminiparts.com

1987 E30 M3 with turbo being added


Posted By: UweM3
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 08:41
Originally posted by 215m3 215m3 wrote:

Need to get Gary's to plot his on there as well. i'll maybe have asearch, or Uwe can, in the scottish section.


I had a look at it already this morning but could not force myself to put another 250 bhp STANDARD EVO3 on it.

-------------
E61 520d, slow and buzzy but my wallet likes the mpg.....


Posted By: 215DMX
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 09:56
I can't believe after looking at loads of 2.5 plots that
215 with just Motec or 218 with Maxx at the wheels
can be accurate with a standard evo sport engine
with just A/N.

Of the other plots ( I've collected 39 so far) I have
seen that achieve these figures they are running at
least 284/276 shricks and 11.25 + high
compression pistons...    

eg's

284/276 etc




Steve's (sport with Motec)




Mine with 284/272 and Motec is around 195 @
wheels


All in my humble opinion of course....


Dave


Posted By: UweM3
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 09:59
215DMX, the beast is alive then?

-------------
E61 520d, slow and buzzy but my wallet likes the mpg.....


Posted By: M BLUR
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 10:07

Originally posted by UweM3 UweM3 wrote:

Originally posted by 215m3 215m3 wrote:

Uwe

Mine showed a shade under 200 at the wheels. Gerry has said the rwp can depend on many issues: -



Yeah agree. And the main issue is what the Dyno operator wants to show to you to make you a happy customer.

Rubbish m8! That may be true in the case of some operators but not with Gerry at Dastek who are not just RR but also create and supply piggy ecus and dynos to various forms around the country. Their rollers are some of the most frequently calibrated I've come across.

Gerry once mapped my car for 6 hours - got only 1.5% gain through their unichip and so removed the chip and charged me nothing.

He's highly respected, ex rally wrx, more knowledegable than most.. rollers do vary but I do know that the conditions used by Dastek are more accurate than most (this results on apparently 'optimistic' figures.. E.g. few dynos cool exhaust as well as intake to replicate driving conditions and has a massive effect. Nuff said.

Col, glad to see the wee beast is nearing conclusion - glad Alpha N working out -  bring her up one night.



-------------
www.lbmracing.com


1998 Zeemax M Roadster
2005 X5 3.0D Sport
1991 Esprit SE Race car



Posted By: Jonners
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 10:11
believe it or not tyres can make a difference to the results...

the ONLY comparison worth making is your own car before and after modifications and then only if everything else is the same....and that's not likely in the real world...even atmospheric temperature can make a difference

even if the rolling road operator standardises the results - as he should - comparing figures still doesn't mean a lot if one car uses good tyres and another uses old/hard/dody ones

anything can be proved by rolling road results and the quality of the operators does vary

the real point of them is to set up installations and to optimise them, or to diagnose misfires etc

getting hung up on actual figures can cause false euphoria or manic depression...

still good fun though - i love big engines but the sound of a four at full chat 2 feet away is just magic....


Posted By: UweM3
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 10:57
Originally posted by M BLUR M BLUR wrote:


Rubbish m8! That may be true in the case of some operators but not with Gerry at Dastek who are not just RR but also create and supply piggy ecus and dynos to various forms around the country. Their rollers are some of the most frequently calibrated I've come across.




I suggest you read my post again and please tell me where I have said that Gerry has botched up DYNO figure????
We had a GENERAL chat about Dynos and operators....

BTW I still think 249bhp for a standard EVO3 is not possible


-------------
E61 520d, slow and buzzy but my wallet likes the mpg.....


Posted By: jon90
Date Posted: 20-May-2005 at 11:00
"Mine with 284/272 and Motec is around 195 @
wheels"

Dave,your cars knackered

I think I would have to agree with Uwe on the E3 figures,but I wouldn`t get to hung up about the numbers,as they are only good for pub banter.

Jon


Posted By: SHEPSM3
Date Posted: 21-May-2005 at 17:27

When Gerry visited me, he did say his Dastek dynos are extremely accurate. He can get readings off his dyno, go to another Dastek dyno elsewhere in the country with different atmospheric temps and get identical readings with the same car.

If we were to upgrade, this dyno would probably be our choice.



-------------
[IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/ShepsM3/New-1a1.jpg">[IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/ShepsM3/New-1b1.jpg">


Posted By: stevesingo
Date Posted: 22-May-2005 at 15:15
Originally posted by 215DMX 215DMX wrote:

I can't believe after looking at loads of 2.5 plots that
215 with just Motec or 218 with Maxx at the wheels
can be accurate with a standard evo sport engine
with just A/N.

Of the other plots ( I've collected 39 so far) I have
seen that achieve these figures they are running at
least 284/276 shricks and 11.25 + high
compression pistons...    

eg's



284/276 etc




Rich (sport with Motec)




Mine with 284/272 and Motec is around 195 @
wheels


All in my humble opinion of course....


Dave


The "Rich" plot is actually mine. Mapped by Rich!
Sport Evo with Milltek and Motec on Optimax with power runs done in 3rd gear.

The powerstation dyno was calibrated in April this year. And for what it is worth I find it hard to believe that the transmission losses (215@wheels=250@flywheel) of 35bhp are a little small.

Steve


Posted By: SHEPSM3
Date Posted: 22-May-2005 at 17:34

The transmission losses will be less if the run was done in 3rd gear as the overall speed wasn't as fast as it would be in 4th. Also the ration won't be 1:1 more like 1.2:1 making the engine turn over easier. I usually calculate between 18 and 20% losses in 4th gear. BUT, as I said earlier, these chassis dynos which calculate flywheel power are only calculated by figures being put into the computer by the operator to start with. Some people say that it doesn't matter if you get the readings in 3rd or 4th gear, but actually it does. When I map cars I do it in 3rd as the dyno will be even more sensitive to any adjustments you make, but I use 4th for the initial and final power runs as 4th is normally the "straight through" gear. Mind you looking at that graph...202kmh at 7290 rpm isn't 3rd gear, I would have said that was 4th??

The only real way you can "accurately" measure flywheel power is by removing the engine and bolting it to an engine dyno.

Steve...any news from Chris yet about the bolsters?



-------------
[IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/ShepsM3/New-1a1.jpg">[IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/ShepsM3/New-1b1.jpg">


Posted By: stevesingo
Date Posted: 23-May-2005 at 06:18
I thhought 5th was the 1:1 gear on the M3 gearbox?

Shep, PM for you.

Steve


Posted By: 215DMX
Date Posted: 23-May-2005 at 07:52
Sorry Steve, I have quite a few dyno charts, yours
obviously didn't get put down right.

Problem sorted.


Posted By: stevesingo
Date Posted: 23-May-2005 at 14:09
Chhers Dave

Uwe,

Can you add mine for a comparison.

cheers

Steve



Print Page | Close Window