Re-map on the M
Re-map on the M
Went to evolve in Luton today to have the M re-maped.
Very pleased with the results and also the power it made
standard and after the re-map.
We know theese engines are down on power from factory figures
and most make between 280 and 300bhp
Mine made stock 310 and gained 20 bhp and almost 20 torque after the map.
It drives like a different car and has sooooo much more pick up low down.
Very pleased with the results and also the power it made
standard and after the re-map.
We know theese engines are down on power from factory figures
and most make between 280 and 300bhp
Mine made stock 310 and gained 20 bhp and almost 20 torque after the map.
It drives like a different car and has sooooo much more pick up low down.
- Attachments
-
- bm rr.JPG
- (143.92 KiB) Downloaded 192 times
- whiteminks
- Joined: Tue 26 Sep, 2006 09:58
- Posts: 2768
- Location: Lincoln
c_w wrote:I don't think these have them even though they're officially supposed to.skinny wrote:sorry the speed limiter?dooby wrote:Its now at 8k
Has anyone got further than 155mph? On a track or the autobahn of course.
I expect the coupe would feel a lot more stable than the roadster?
big cheesy wrote:'I nearly cacked my trolleys till I quickly tuned in'. Yorkshire Cruise 2008.
The top speed was always quoted at 160 as that's what they recorded for magazine tests, only the official BMW top speed was quoted at 155 but all road tests got higher speeds.whiteminks wrote:c_w wrote:I don't think these have them even though they're officially supposed to.skinny wrote: sorry the speed limiter?
Has anyone got further than 155mph? On a track or the autobahn of course.
I expect the coupe would feel a lot more stable than the roadster?
I had 160 on the speedo 155 gps and she was still pulling on an autobahn, off to the ring in a couple of weeks, was thinking about a remapc_w wrote:The top speed was always quoted at 160 as that's what they recorded for magazine tests, only the official BMW top speed was quoted at 155 but all road tests got higher speeds.whiteminks wrote:c_w wrote: I don't think these have them even though they're officially supposed to.
Has anyone got further than 155mph? On a track or the autobahn of course.
I expect the coupe would feel a lot more stable than the roadster?
!79mph on the GPS with BB topless, now where do I have that picture again?whiteminks wrote:c_w wrote:I don't think these have them even though they're officially supposed to.skinny wrote: sorry the speed limiter?
Has anyone got further than 155mph? On a track or the autobahn of course.
I expect the coupe would feel a lot more stable than the roadster?
-
- Z Register member
- Joined: Sat 30 Jul, 2005 19:34
- Posts: 4054
- Location: Belfast
- whiteminks
- Joined: Tue 26 Sep, 2006 09:58
- Posts: 2768
- Location: Lincoln
Geez the most I have dared go is 120mph and that feels quite fast with the roof down ............. but I do like a fast acceleration off a roundabout I leave people for dust and then have a saunter in the slow lane watching them try to burn the nuts off their car to catch up.
big cheesy wrote:'I nearly cacked my trolleys till I quickly tuned in'. Yorkshire Cruise 2008.
Most mag reviews are quoting 160mph indicated which usually means about 155 actual. There IS a speed limiter on the //M but mine has been removed with the remap after the supercharger installation.
Also with the wheels and tyres on mine the actual is about 1.4% faster than indicated so I do have to be careful near Gatso's etc.
Fastest I have gone in mine is 160 mph with the top down (not recommended as the buffeting from the wind is not pleasant) and just under 170 mph with the top up (both times on an airstrip). I had a lot more space under my right foot and plenty of get up and go available but until I have completed my mods did not want to push it too hard. Fastest I have driven in any car (a friend's Lambo) is 190 mph on the Autobahn between Frankfurt and Dusseldorf.
Generally with the //M I would suggest keeping the top up for speeds over 140 mph.
Cheers
Also with the wheels and tyres on mine the actual is about 1.4% faster than indicated so I do have to be careful near Gatso's etc.
Fastest I have gone in mine is 160 mph with the top down (not recommended as the buffeting from the wind is not pleasant) and just under 170 mph with the top up (both times on an airstrip). I had a lot more space under my right foot and plenty of get up and go available but until I have completed my mods did not want to push it too hard. Fastest I have driven in any car (a friend's Lambo) is 190 mph on the Autobahn between Frankfurt and Dusseldorf.
Generally with the //M I would suggest keeping the top up for speeds over 140 mph.
Cheers
Now with both the 411 bhp Supercharged Z3MR and a WRX STi Wagon getting a 3.4 litre transplant and an XKR with mods planned.
Fast is good, faster is better. Wheeeeee !!!
Fast is good, faster is better. Wheeeeee !!!
I'm not sure any magazine will use the car's speedo for performance testing. Most magazines, Autocar, EVO etc use timing gear (eg Daytron) to figure a car (they usually also compare real speeds vs speedo speeds for info).namatjira wrote:Most mag reviews are quoting 160mph indicated which usually means about 155 actual. There IS a speed limiter on the //M but mine has been removed with the remap after the supercharger installation.
Gains
You engine gained 20 bhp and 20 'torque' after its remap? Think again - the graph - and the headline figure - shows a gain of about 10 bhp.
While in terms of torque it gained 20 lb-ft across the mid-range (very worthwhile) the peak torque only increase by 10 lb-ft.
I would be interesting to know how much power was measured as being absorbed by the transmission - any ideas?
While in terms of torque it gained 20 lb-ft across the mid-range (very worthwhile) the peak torque only increase by 10 lb-ft.
I would be interesting to know how much power was measured as being absorbed by the transmission - any ideas?
Re: Gains
I thought that at first but I think he means 20bhp more and almost 20lb/ft increases in places? (@ 6000rpm there is a 20bhp increase shown). Either way it doesn't look too bad!Mike Fishwick wrote:You engine gained 20 bhp and 20 'torque' after its remap? Think again - the graph - and the headline figure - shows a gain of about 10 bhp.
Gains
Yes - there's not much point in having more peak power, except to impress people with! It depends on if you want to quote the maximum power, or the maximum gain.
I'm just a bit suspeicious of RR figures, as they depend so much on the individual RR, and the transmission losses. I remember seeing one MR graph which looked great, but on examining the data, it was based on about 115 bhp transmission losses - which would have had the gearbox ol boiling nicely!
I'm just a bit suspeicious of RR figures, as they depend so much on the individual RR, and the transmission losses. I remember seeing one MR graph which looked great, but on examining the data, it was based on about 115 bhp transmission losses - which would have had the gearbox ol boiling nicely!
Torque
'20 Torque' - whatever is that? Too much listening to Jeremy Clarkson methinks!
Torque is expressed in terms of Pounds-Feet (Imperial) or Newton-Metres (SI) a rough conversion being that 70% of the N-M figure equals Lbs-Ft.
Similar units for power would be Horsepower (Imperial) and Kilowatts (SI) with 1 HP being nearly 0.75 of a KW, or 1 KW being about 1.3 HP.
Incidentally, have you ever wondered why BMW like to quote power in Horsepower (Imperial) but use Newton-Metres (SI) for torque? I think the reason is simply to be able to quote the largest numbers possible, and hope the potential customers don't notice the mixture of standards.
Torque is expressed in terms of Pounds-Feet (Imperial) or Newton-Metres (SI) a rough conversion being that 70% of the N-M figure equals Lbs-Ft.
Similar units for power would be Horsepower (Imperial) and Kilowatts (SI) with 1 HP being nearly 0.75 of a KW, or 1 KW being about 1.3 HP.
Incidentally, have you ever wondered why BMW like to quote power in Horsepower (Imperial) but use Newton-Metres (SI) for torque? I think the reason is simply to be able to quote the largest numbers possible, and hope the potential customers don't notice the mixture of standards.
Re: Torque
Not sure im not a techno freak! I was told the left had collum was torque and it gained around 20 of it which is good enough for me.Mike Fishwick wrote:'20 Torque' - whatever is that? Too much listening to Jeremy Clarkson methinks!
Torque is expressed in terms of Pounds-Feet (Imperial) or Newton-Metres (SI) a rough conversion being that 70% of the N-M figure equals Lbs-Ft.
Similar units for power would be Horsepower (Imperial) and Kilowatts (SI) with 1 HP being nearly 0.75 of a KW, or 1 KW being about 1.3 HP.
Incidentally, have you ever wondered why BMW like to quote power in Horsepower (Imperial) but use Newton-Metres (SI) for torque? I think the reason is simply to be able to quote the largest numbers possible, and hope the potential customers don't notice the mixture of standards.
Just looked at the wheel power which was 268.
Wheel Power
258 bhp at the wheels means a transmission loss of 50 to 60 bhp, depending on what rpm you measure at - that is about twice the usual figure.
Either the rolling road is not measuring your transmission losses accurately, or you have a problem.
Sorry to be pessimistic, but your bhp figures are probably about 30 bhp lower than indicated. That's why most rolling roads are only useful for before and after comparisons, rather than accurate measurements. You are better off just taking the power at the wheels, and adding about 30 bhp, which is the usual level of transmission loss.
Either the rolling road is not measuring your transmission losses accurately, or you have a problem.
Sorry to be pessimistic, but your bhp figures are probably about 30 bhp lower than indicated. That's why most rolling roads are only useful for before and after comparisons, rather than accurate measurements. You are better off just taking the power at the wheels, and adding about 30 bhp, which is the usual level of transmission loss.
Disagree with you there on drive train losses Mike. All the stats I have got from both BMW and from BMW Race Tuners indicate a normal loss from flywheel to rear wheel of about 17%. With any manual transmission car if the claimed losses are less than 12% - 15% then I would distrust the figures.
I have checked this with a number of engines that have been benchtested for flywheel hp and then RR tested after installation and the results are consistently 15% to 20%. Certainly if the losses are higher than 20% for a manual or about 23% for an auto box there is probably something wrong.
It would be interesting to get a standard factory build, RR test it for RWHP and make sure that the tester does not "tweak" the findings as so many are wont to do.
Cheers
I have checked this with a number of engines that have been benchtested for flywheel hp and then RR tested after installation and the results are consistently 15% to 20%. Certainly if the losses are higher than 20% for a manual or about 23% for an auto box there is probably something wrong.
It would be interesting to get a standard factory build, RR test it for RWHP and make sure that the tester does not "tweak" the findings as so many are wont to do.
Cheers
Now with both the 411 bhp Supercharged Z3MR and a WRX STi Wagon getting a 3.4 litre transplant and an XKR with mods planned.
Fast is good, faster is better. Wheeeeee !!!
Fast is good, faster is better. Wheeeeee !!!
Re: Wheel Power
You said 258 its 268 as stated which is near as dam it 19% so ties in with above.Mike Fishwick wrote:258 bhp at the wheels means a transmission loss of 50 to 60 bhp, depending on what rpm you measure at - that is about twice the usual figure.
Either the rolling road is not measuring your transmission losses accurately, or you have a problem.
Sorry to be pessimistic, but your bhp figures are probably about 30 bhp lower than indicated. That's why most rolling roads are only useful for before and after comparisons, rather than accurate measurements. You are better off just taking the power at the wheels, and adding about 30 bhp, which is the usual level of transmission loss.