Re-map on the M

For the M Powered Z3 derivatives
Post Reply
User avatar
dooby
Joined: Fri 23 May, 2008 21:07
Posts: 209

  M roadster S50
Location: essex

Re-map on the M

Post by dooby »

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.
Attachments
bm rr.JPG
(143.92 KiB) Downloaded 192 times
User avatar
Gazza
Joined: Tue 04 Oct, 2005 20:58
Posts: 9521

  M roadster S54
Location: Romford Essex

Post by Gazza »

What was the cost?
Gazza

"Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car, oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car. Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall and torque is how far you take the wall with you"

Z3 S54 M roadster Image, BMW Z1, BMW M3 CSL, Z4M Coupe
ImageImage
User avatar
dooby
Joined: Fri 23 May, 2008 21:07
Posts: 209

  M roadster S50
Location: essex

Post by dooby »

skinny
Joined: Tue 21 Feb, 2006 18:45
Posts: 313

  M roadster S50

Post by skinny »

I'm interested, do you know if it takes the limiter off?
User avatar
dooby
Joined: Fri 23 May, 2008 21:07
Posts: 209

  M roadster S50
Location: essex

Post by dooby »

Its now at 8k
User avatar
Deano1712
Z Register organiser
Joined: Sat 05 Aug, 2006 12:56
Posts: 1396

  M roadster S50
Location: Leeds

Post by Deano1712 »

Sounds interesting. Is the fuel ecomony better, as claimed?
Z3M with a few mods...and a little bit more power
User avatar
dooby
Joined: Fri 23 May, 2008 21:07
Posts: 209

  M roadster S50
Location: essex

Post by dooby »

Dont know ..been puttin my foot down more, but then we dont really by this type of car for economy lol.
skinny
Joined: Tue 21 Feb, 2006 18:45
Posts: 313

  M roadster S50

Post by skinny »

dooby wrote:Its now at 8k
sorry the speed limiter?
User avatar
c_w
Joined: Thu 19 Aug, 2004 16:50
Posts: 4032

  M roadster S50

Post by c_w »

skinny wrote:
dooby wrote:Its now at 8k
sorry the speed limiter?
I don't think these have them even though they're officially supposed to.
User avatar
whiteminks
Joined: Tue 26 Sep, 2006 09:58
Posts: 2768

  M roadster S54
Location: Lincoln

Post by whiteminks »

c_w wrote:
skinny wrote:
dooby wrote:Its now at 8k
sorry the speed limiter?
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. :wink:

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.
User avatar
c_w
Joined: Thu 19 Aug, 2004 16:50
Posts: 4032

  M roadster S50

Post by c_w »

whiteminks wrote:
c_w wrote:
skinny wrote: sorry the speed limiter?
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. :wink:

I expect the coupe would feel a lot more stable than the roadster?
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.
skinny
Joined: Tue 21 Feb, 2006 18:45
Posts: 313

  M roadster S50

Post by skinny »

c_w wrote:
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. :wink:

I expect the coupe would feel a lot more stable than the roadster?
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.
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 remap
User avatar
dooby
Joined: Fri 23 May, 2008 21:07
Posts: 209

  M roadster S50
Location: essex

Post by dooby »

Couldn't recommend one more ...very pleased
User avatar
ChrisXL
Joined: Fri 06 May, 2005 21:16
Posts: 1193

  M roadster S50
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow
Contact:

Post by ChrisXL »

whiteminks wrote:
c_w wrote:
skinny wrote: sorry the speed limiter?
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. :wink:

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?
Image
Member of Team Lauterbrunnen
http://www.fnbc.nl/
///M_aniac
Z Register member
Joined: Sat 30 Jul, 2005 19:34
Posts: 4054

  M roadster S50
Location: Belfast

Post by ///M_aniac »

79 isn't fast. :twisted:
BMW Z3, the only way to build a true roadster

Image - The most powerful letter in the world.
Cloz wrote:There is something that will never change is my love for Z3
smartypants wrote:Conor?

With an M??


The World's gone mad :D
smartypants wrote:The Z3 rear is a great thing to behold ;)
User avatar
whiteminks
Joined: Tue 26 Sep, 2006 09:58
Posts: 2768

  M roadster S54
Location: Lincoln

Post by whiteminks »

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 :wink: 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. :lol: :lol: :lol:
big cheesy wrote:'I nearly cacked my trolleys till I quickly tuned in'. Yorkshire Cruise 2008.
User avatar
namatjira
Z Register member
Joined: Mon 19 Feb, 2007 00:29
Posts: 129

  M roadster S50
Location: Brookmans Park

Post by namatjira »

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
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 !!!
User avatar
c_w
Joined: Thu 19 Aug, 2004 16:50
Posts: 4032

  M roadster S50

Post by c_w »

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.
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).
User avatar
SpunkyM
Joined: Mon 08 Mar, 2004 18:26
Posts: 1142

  M roadster S54
Location: Harrogate

Post by SpunkyM »

162mph GPS in Germany last summer. Wasn't done at that either (but I was)!
Image
Sapphire Black 02 S54 M Roadster
Guest

  

Gains

Post by Guest »

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?
User avatar
c_w
Joined: Thu 19 Aug, 2004 16:50
Posts: 4032

  M roadster S50

Re: Gains

Post by c_w »

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.
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!
Guest

  

Gains

Post by Guest »

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!
User avatar
dooby
Joined: Fri 23 May, 2008 21:07
Posts: 209

  M roadster S50
Location: essex

Post by dooby »

Thats right around 5500 - 6500rpm 20 bhp increase and 20 torque across most the rev range. I do have the wheel figures ill put them up as well when i get a chance.

The dyno dynamics are considerd to be one of the better systems
Guest

  

Torque

Post by Guest »

'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.
User avatar
c_w
Joined: Thu 19 Aug, 2004 16:50
Posts: 4032

  M roadster S50

Post by c_w »

I think with regards to any transmission losses, it's irrelevant IMO as long as you have a basis to compare before and after figures on the same dyno so you can see any gains compared to what it was before rather than determining the accuracy of the actual figures.
User avatar
dooby
Joined: Fri 23 May, 2008 21:07
Posts: 209

  M roadster S50
Location: essex

Re: Torque

Post by dooby »

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.
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.
Just looked at the wheel power which was 268.
Guest

  

Wheel Power

Post by Guest »

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.
User avatar
namatjira
Z Register member
Joined: Mon 19 Feb, 2007 00:29
Posts: 129

  M roadster S50
Location: Brookmans Park

Post by namatjira »

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
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 !!!
User avatar
dooby
Joined: Fri 23 May, 2008 21:07
Posts: 209

  M roadster S50
Location: essex

Re: Wheel Power

Post by dooby »

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.
You said 258 its 268 as stated which is near as dam it 19% so ties in with above.
Post Reply