Remap and Dyno results S54 Z3M Roadster

Gazza · Post by **Gazza** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 12:08

I attended Evolve Automotive based in Luton on Saturday as part of a Zroadster group remap and Dyno deal.

My main purpose for the remap was to improve the day to day drivability of the car and any increase in BHP would also be welcome.

Mine was the last car of the day to be put on the Dyno Machine. I am in no way a 'Techie' and do not claim to fully understand the processes involved in a Remap but the process was explained to my by Imran and Sal from Evolve. The only thing that I was aware of before the Remap is that the equation for calculating BHP & Torque involved a measurement of the RPM to be at 5250. This RPM figure would be the crossover point at which the Torque and BHP lines would cross on the graph if the scale for Flywheel Torque and Flywheel Power were the same. Those eagle eyed among you will notice the crossover RPM of 5750. I queried this with Imran and he explained the reason of the Scale difference causing the crossover point to be higher than 5250 RPM and he explained it would make no difference to the results of the Dyno run figures. He then showed me the effects of changing the Flywheel Power Scale to the same as the Flywheel Torque Scale and the results in terms of BHP remained the same. He explained the reason for the Scale difference was to show a clearer graph.

I won't list the processes involved with carrying out the Dyno Run except to say that it is quite involved and is a bit noisy

.

I don't imagine I'll be able to answer Technical questions about the Dyno Run but I'm happy to answer any general questions.

I'd like to thank Imran and Sal for their hospitality on Saturday and also their diligence for the time and maybe a little brain ache for remapping my ///M.

Before figures are in Green and after figures are in Red.

Post by **Robert T** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 12:57

Not quite sure I get the point of the "crossover". On any graph drawn like this where one line is being drawn against one scale and the other line against the other scale, the crossover point it entirely down to the scales used. On the above, torque is being measured in ft/lb and power in HP, so they aren't the same units - and I don't know what the relationship is between the them, but it very likely isn't 1 to 1. So for example, if you change the scale on the left so that it reads 0-300 ft/lb it will cross the power line at a completely different point.

What is more significant is that the torque tails off as the revs rise above a certain point and the power just keeps increasing. I think what the guy was trying to express to you is that the optimum torque and power combination will be at a certain number of revs and that they try to scale the graphs to show this point as the crossover point, but that they haven't in this case.

Cheers R.

Desiro · Post by **Desiro** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 14:49

Thanks for sharing Gazza

I would like to know how the real world driving experience has improved when you have had the chance to go for a good run.

Cheers
J

Gazza · Post by **Gazza** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 14:52

I had another Dyno at another company and the Guy said the calculation for BHP is.....

Torque X RPM divided by 5252 = BHP @ the wheels, add 20% for approx Flywheel BHP

Gazza · Post by **Gazza** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 14:58

Desiro wrote:Thanks for sharing Gazza

I would like to know how the real world driving experience has improved when you have had the chance to go for a good run.

Cheers
J

The real world driving is a much smoother power delivery and the car pulls like a train all the way to the rev limit. I had some previous issues with 'Pinking' and a flat spot around 3500 rpm when accelerating in 4th gear, that has now gone along with the 'Pinking'.

I'm very pleased with how the remap has transformed the drive.

Post by **Robert T** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 15:28

garythefish wrote:Torque X RPM divided by 5252 = BHP @ the wheels, add 20% for approx Flywheel BHP

In which case, the crossover point will always be 5252 RPM if the torque and hp use the same scale.

If they use a different scale, then if you divide the max hp by the max torque and then multiply by the 5252 you will get the new crossover rpm.

Not sure where the 5252 constant comes from - does this vary from car to car?

Cheers R.

Gazza · Post by **Gazza** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 15:34

Robert T wrote:
garythefish wrote:Torque X RPM divided by 5252 = BHP @ the wheels, add 20% for approx Flywheel BHP
In which case, the crossover point will always be 5252 RPM if the torque and hp use the same scale.

If they use a different scale, then if you divide the max hp by the max torque and then multiply by the 5252 you will get the new crossover rpm.

Not sure where the 5252 constant comes from - does this vary from car to car?

Cheers R.

AFAIK it's constant

Jonttt · Post by **Jonttt** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 16:16

Gary, I see you did not get the redline moved as part of the remap

Did you have any issues with the traction control as I've read the dyno can trip the traction into action making it impossible to get full revs and BHP ?

Gazza · Post by **Gazza** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 16:36

Jonttt wrote:Gary, I see you did not get the redline moved as part of the remap

Did you have any issues with the traction control as I've read the dyno can trip the traction into action making it impossible to get full revs and BHP ?

They did ask if I wanted the Rev Limit increased, I decline due to the Bearing/Con rod bolt issue that some had experienced. They suggested renewing the shells and replacing the bolts with ARP bolts then up the limit.

I did have the speed limiter increased

No issues with the traction, I assume they switched it off prior to the run. I know the traction/abs lights will be tripped as only the rear wheels are turning, the lights will cancel themselves after a short period or you can have the lights reset. This happened to one of the others on Saturday.

PERRIN Z3M · Post by **PERRIN Z3M** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 17:43

Looks like you had fun Gary just noticed your before BHP was 337 hp that is well above standard.

Steve

shantybeater · Post by **shantybeater** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 18:26

^^ i was going to say thats well above standard, especially without an increased redline. do you have any mods done other than the map?

Also do you know what other Z's ran on the day? any S50's? i'd just be interested so you have something to benchmark against

Thanks for posting Gary, this is exactly the sort of thread i've been keeping an eye out for

Jonttt · Post by **Jonttt** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 19:05

You should have taken a video though Gary

stu · Post by **stu** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 19:24

Good result mate, as looking at the torque plot, the fuelling must have been pretty poor before (pinking) as the S54 has individual knock sensors per cylinder and would have been backing the ignition off a lot to try to prevent this.

Was it a custom map tweaked for your car or a generic map for the S54 MZ3? I take it you must run 98 or 99 octane only?

billz · Post by **billz** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 19:30

Sal told us that he couldnt get true weather readings on the day, so the readings were a bit false. He told us not to be bothered about the actual figures, but to look at the graph as that shows the true gains and where they were gained.
bill

Gazza · Post by **Gazza** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 19:57

stu wrote:Good result mate, as looking at the torque plot, the fuelling must have been pretty poor before (pinking) as the S54 has individual knock sensors per cylinder and would have been backing the ignition off a lot to try to prevent this.

Was it a custom map tweaked for your car or a generic map for the S54 MZ3? I take it you must run 98 or 99 octane only?

The fuelling was actually ok, just **** fuel used previously.

On the day I was using 97.

Sal spent a lot of time tweaking the map, even overlaying a map for the S54 M3 which wasn't suitable so I would say mine was a custom map.

The vanos timing was infact backed off to get the best figures

Gazza · Post by **Gazza** » Mon 04 Oct, 2010 20:03

shantybeater wrote:^^ i was going to say thats well above standard, especially without an increased redline. do you have any mods done other than the map?

Also do you know what other Z's ran on the day? any S50's?

Thanks for posting Gary, this is exactly the sort of thread i've been keeping an eye out for

There are no mods to the engine.

There was an S50 which produced good figures, the guys name was Clive, can't remember his forum name.

zedebee · Post by **zedebee** » Tue 05 Oct, 2010 19:29

Gary,

Good to meet you and Bill, Murf etc. at Evolve.
Trust you don't mind me adding some input here for my S50 Z3M that might be useful to others.

My understanding of the issue relating to the barometric pressure on the day was that the input (to Evolve's software program) of a false pressure reading gave rise to false BHP outputs from their software program. Therefore Sal/Imram said I should be more concerned with the actual increase in torque/BHP rather than the absolute output figures.

The Baro. Pressure reading was 982, fairly low, when outside there was glorious sunshine which led Sal/Imram to the conclusion that their reading was on the low side of reality. Somewhat disappointing that I still don't know what the actual outputs are!

As can be seen from the graph:-

1) There is a slight smoothing effect at about 2750 rpm of both the torque and BHP outputs.

2) There is a fairly consistent increase in both torque and BHP from around 4750 rpm to 7500 rpm.

3) The 'redline' appears to have been moved from 7500 rpm to circa. 7700 rpm without any impact on either torque/BHP.

My reason for the Remap was to achieve gains that could be exploited on track days. Therefore, on paper, it would appear this has been achieved.

My thanks to Bill for organising

Gazza · Post by **Gazza** » Wed 06 Oct, 2010 09:26

zedebee wrote: My understanding of the issue relating to the barometric pressure on the day was that the input (to Evolve's software program) of a false pressure reading gave rise to false BHP outputs from their software program. Therefore Sal/Imram said I should be more concerned with the actual increase in torque/BHP rather than the absolute output figures.

The Baro. Pressure reading was 982, fairly low, when outside there was glorious sunshine which led Sal/Imram to the conclusion that their reading was on the low side of reality. Somewhat disappointing that I still don't know what the actual outputs are!

So no one has a true Dyno Readings due to faulty equipment ?

As I said earlier, BHP gains were not my main reason for having a remap, it would have been nice to have accurate figures or at least a calculation to correct the readings, slightly disappointed now

siwilson · Post by **siwilson** » Wed 06 Oct, 2010 10:19

garythefish wrote:So no one has a true Dyno Readings due to faulty equipment?

As I said earlier, BHP gains were not my main reason for having a remap, it would have been nice to have accurate figures or at least a calculation to correct the readings, slightly disappointed now

Not faulty, just not accurate due to a number of factors including the conditions on the day. Whether you read 325, 330 or 345 is largely irrelevant (other than bragging rights). The true value is in the before and after. When I had my car on that same dyno I registered 323.6 HP and something like 280 Ft lb or torque. On another dyno (Austec) 2 years earlier I had 255.7 HP and 260.8 Ft lbs. Granted the Evolve one was a calculation to show the flywheel power, but even the curves were different. I don’t think my engine has changed all that much and I had the same V-Power in the tank, so it must be something else. Dyno, operator or conditions on the day. Who knows?

Like you said, you didn't do this just for the numbers.

So do you recommend I go do this then

Gazza · Post by **Gazza** » Wed 06 Oct, 2010 10:44

Ok, not accurate equipment.

Does the graph show a true reading if the equipment isn't accurate ?

I can tell that the car drives better and smoother than before so I am in no doubt that changes have been made to the map. The whole point of using a Dyno is to show those changes/gains on paper.

The work the Guys at Evolve have done isn't the issue, I'm very pleased with that and yes Si, I would recommend you have you car remapped

shantybeater · Post by **shantybeater** » Wed 06 Oct, 2010 11:39

Obviously the HP results are wrong but it's interesting to see after a map the s54 is only c13hp ahead, do either of you have supporting mods (exhaust/filter?)

Thanks for posting it's interesting to see the difference between the two engines

Also anyone any good at Photoshop? It would be good to see the two graphs overlaid so we can compare torque lines etc..

After owning both and comparing I'd expect more torque/hp low down on the s54 and perhaps more torque/hp on the s50 higher up the rev range..that's how they feel different to drive anyway

Post by **Robert T** » Wed 06 Oct, 2010 12:05

shantybeater wrote:Also anyone any good at Photoshop? It would be good to see the two graphs overlaid so we can compare torque lines etc..

Will this do?

Cheers R.

Gazza · Post by **Gazza** » Wed 06 Oct, 2010 12:38

shantybeater wrote:Obviously the HP results are wrong but it's interesting to see after a map the s54 is only c13hp ahead, do either of you have supporting mods (exhaust/filter?)

Mine totally standard.

shantybeater · Post by **shantybeater** » Wed 06 Oct, 2010 16:35

Thanks rob

if another one of these group trips gets arrange i'm definately in

zedebee · Post by **zedebee** » Wed 06 Oct, 2010 17:12

Mine totally standard too.

However I am thinking about fitting a Simota carbon air box. For about the same money as a Remap, it can increase BHP by 7-10 or even 16-32 depending upon who one listens to!

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has a Simota fitted to a Z3m and particularly if they can support an increase in BHP with some sound evidence?

shantybeater · Post by **shantybeater** » Wed 06 Oct, 2010 17:15

^^ i've heard very good things about the Simota on an S50, ideally you should have mapped after fitting to get the full benefit but you will see gains

PERRIN Z3M · Post by **PERRIN Z3M** » Wed 06 Oct, 2010 22:02

I would like to go on an Evolve day shanty as I missed this one due to my wife being over due so if we start a thread organising another run I AM IN.
On the plus side we got a baby girl today!!!

Steve

peterandjenny · Post by **peterandjenny** » Wed 06 Oct, 2010 22:13

anyone with a 2.8 have a remap ?

billz · Post by **billz** » Thu 07 Oct, 2010 04:48

Congrats on the baby perrin. I am thinking of going back to Evolve around the begining of December to have mine re-dyno'd now that i am running a higher octane fuel. If you want me to organise another one let me know and i will start a new thread and get in touch with sal at Evolve to see when it can be arranged for.
bill

markrnorton · Post by **markrnorton** » Thu 07 Oct, 2010 07:29

Its strange, i had a Simota carbon filter on my previous engine, Ihad many sessions on the RR. I was advised that they're experience (AMD) of the Simota hampered power.
This was borne out with a change to an ITG filter, i gained 8hp over the Simota straight away.

The ITG was significantly cheaper as well !

shantybeater · Post by **shantybeater** » Thu 07 Oct, 2010 09:10

Congrats Perrin!

As for another evolve day please do arrange it billz, ideally for me late Jan is best suited. My bro might also be interested as well (user tcrichton)

stu · Post by **stu** » Thu 07 Oct, 2010 09:56

Congrats on your new arrival Steve.

PERRIN Z3M · Post by **PERRIN Z3M** » Fri 08 Oct, 2010 00:26

Thanks everyone, January would be better for me too, If it is arranged I am in.

Steve

Jonttt · Post by **Jonttt** » Fri 08 Oct, 2010 07:19

zedebee wrote:Mine totally standard too.

However I am thinking about fitting a Simota carbon air box. For about the same money as a Remap, it can increase BHP by 7-10 or even 16-32 depending upon who one listens to!

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has a Simota fitted to a Z3m and particularly if they can support an increase in BHP with some sound evidence?

http://www.zroadster.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20284

For what its worth from my experience, If you've got £250 to spend get the simota over the remap, if you've got more to spend get them both (nb check with them but if evolve have any in stock they will do a deal on Simota and remap

)

Its worth noting that the BMW is a "learning" engine and adapts in certain ways to your driving style. So after a remap it can take a few runs before the performance settles down (its the same if you buy a Z3 of "an old lady", it will need a few good runs to get the best out of it

)

Re the Simota on an S50 I think c8BHP increase is a fair expectation. It definately helps the engine rev "free'er", oh and makes a nice sound

Alfie · Post by **Alfie** » Fri 08 Oct, 2010 09:23

Jonttt wrote:....if you buy a Z3 off "an old lady", it will need a few good runs to get the best out of it

Speaking from personal experience Jon?
After all, yours WAS previously owned by DavidM.....

A.

Jonttt · Post by **Jonttt** » Fri 08 Oct, 2010 15:11

Alfie wrote:
Jonttt wrote:....if you buy a Z3 off "an old lady", it will need a few good runs to get the best out of it
Speaking from personal experience Jon?
After all, yours WAS previously owned by DavidM.....

A.

More my first ///M which had a "mature" lady driver for 3 years before me

zroadster.net

Remap and Dyno results S54 Z3M Roadster

Remap and Dyno results S54 Z3M Roadster

Z3M S50 Remap by Evolve

Re: Z3M S50 Remap by Evolve

Re: Z3M S50 Remap by Evolve

did