[jahwerx]

Setup:
E90 335i MT, Sport (18" wheels, runflats), OEM Exhuast
Dynojet; 4th gear pulls

Relevant Mods:
Ultimate Racing Catless DP
JB2HR
02 Simms
100 Octane Sunoco
"reset" the ECU, and was driving in "R" mode (relatively hard) for about 75 miles prior to dyno for a bit of "adaptation" (FWIW).

Run 1: The air filter was removed (the airbox was latched closed), R switch on
Run 2: OEM air filter was replaced, R switch on
Run 3: R switch off ("daily driver mode")

Observations:
1) The wideband kept having issues, so that data isn't relevant... sorry!
2) Using a mechanical boost gauge, I noticed that when the R switch is on, boost "holds" right at 15.0-15.5 psi. With the R switch off - 10.5-11.0 PSI. I didn't notice any spiking.
3) All this banter about different air filters, I wanted to see some real difference bewteen no air filter and the OEM air filter. Look past the peak numbers, my conclusion: don't waste your $$$ on an air filter. (replacing the whole airbox may be a different story, but that's not for me.)
4) No codes were thrown.

Note: I paid for all of the modifications except the "H" resistor that Terry provided me to beta test a few weeks back.

See graph. (I'm sure you already have)

Speculation:
So let's use the "Car & Driver" 15% parasitic loss and the daily driver is putting out crank:
(350/.85) = 411 HP
(356/.85) = 419 Ft-Lb.
Race trim:
(371/.85) = 436 HP
(398/.85) = 468 Ft-Lb.

More importantly - that torque curve is simply astounding.

Before you ask, I didn't do any baseline dynos prior to this.

Cheers

[RedGT3]

Great numbers.

[e90AW335i]

Congrats, those are great numbers....

[Terry335]

Hey Josh, I was looking at the .drf files and noticed the correction factor on these runs was -1%. But your file above says the dyno is at 4500'? Seems like a mistake. Might want to post uncorrected graphs before the boo birds come out.

PS. Awesome numbers! Right on par with my car.

[jahwerx]

Originally Posted by Terry335

Hey Josh, I was looking at the .drf files and noticed the correction factor on these runs was -1%. But your file above says the dyno is at 4500'? Seems like a mistake. Might want to post uncorrected graphs before the boo birds come out.

PS. Awesome numbers! Right on par with my car.

Great catch - I'll post the uncorrected numbers (a little better actually) and the armchair dyno folks can have at it!

There IS NO WAY we were at 4500' - probably 200 ft. (I pulled these right from the .drf files - so maybe they don't have their dyno set up correctly?? )

BTW, the temp and humidity "felt" correct!

[jahwerx]

Uncorrected pulls - It was only a 1% correction factor, so pretty close to what was posted already!

[jahwerx]

Originally Posted by Terry335

Hey Josh, I was looking at the .drf files and noticed the correction factor on these runs was -1%. But your file above says the dyno is at 4500'? Seems like a mistake. Might want to post uncorrected graphs before the boo birds come out.

PS. Awesome numbers! Right on par with my car.

Yes, I noticed on your web site that your #'s are a little higher (420 ft-lb, 380 HP) . . . And the torque curve is more "rounded" than mine.

I'm guessing the higher numbers could be reduced rotational inertia to overcome (your wheels/tires are super light right?)

Ultimately, every car is a little different!!

[Terry335]

Originally Posted by jahwerx

Yes, I noticed on your web site that your #'s are a little higher (420 ft-lb, 380 HP) . . . And the torque curve is more "rounded" than mine.

I'm guessing the higher numbers could be reduced rotational inertia to overcome (your wheels/tires are super light right?)

Ultimately, every car is a little different!!

The 383rw was with no filter and no lid, around 377rw with the filter/lid in place. I also have an automatic which might have an effect, and I'm sure the lighter rims help a bit too.

I just installed a dual cone air filter setup (which is noisy as hell and really sucks on a daily driver BTW), just to see if there are any gains. Hopefully I can make it back to the dyno next week.

[NRG]

Amazing numbers. Nice to see HP getting closer to TQ theretory.

[hotrod2448]

That is a pretty nice looking curve.

[E90ice]

[jahwerx]

Here is a video of one of the preliminary runs, so you can hear the UR downpipes with the OEM exhaust.

Please note that I didn't get a "full bore" 4th gear run - it sounded awesome - simply my bad for not recording.

I've only heard this through crappy laptop speakers, so I can't attest to the sound quality or realism.

Overall, my impressions inside the car are great - not raspy or tinny, just a nice off-idle burble, plus not too different than stock when you start to "get on it"

[DLSJ5]

Nice numbers, congrats.

[O-cha]

Is it just me or does that torque curve look infinitely better than a certain other one.

[Driver72]

Are you running pure 100 Octane full time?

I like your "daily driver" numbers too.

Did you dyno a "daily driver" JB2H with UR Catless DP's on pump 93 Octane before?

I'd be curious as to what that would do for you?
Would give you an idea if it is worth spending so much on 100 Octane (if you are running pure 100 Octane full time).

[e90AW335i]

Originally Posted by O-cha

Is it just me or does that torque curve look infinitely better than a certain other one.

Which certain other one?

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by kyleh4852

Which certain other one?

Mmm would you believe me if I said SSTT?

[DLSJ5]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Are you running pure 100 Octane full time?

I like your "daily driver" numbers too.

Did you dyno a "daily driver" JB2H with UR Catless DP's on pump 93 Octane before?

I'd be curious as to what that would do for you?
Would give you an idea if it is worth spending so much on 100 Octane (if you are running pure 100 Octane full time).

Hey Bro, I gained 40WHP just by adding MS109! No tune was needed and no WI. Back to back runs, 91 octane vs. MS109, @ 8psi, it appears the S54 is very aggressive with timing. Not sure how aggressive timing is on the N54though.

[jahwerx]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Are you running pure 100 Octane full time?

I like your "daily driver" numbers too.

Did you dyno a "daily driver" JB2H with UR Catless DP's on pump 93 Octane before?

I'd be curious as to what that would do for you?
Would give you an idea if it is worth spending so much on 100 Octane (if you are running pure 100 Octane full time).

Sure why not - just pull up to the other pump! (see below)

Seriously, no . . . not all the time. My typical ride is 93 octane and certainly NOT with the R switch on. I've run a blended mix of 96 with H+R and have no issues (its been cool in NJ though). For purposes of the dyno, (no air flow over the oil cooler), I didn't want to put my car at risk at all, hence play it safe with some pure 100. Except for risk of detonation and PERHAPS the computer getting a little smarter with some advanced timing, I don't think Octane plays too much. I have an OBDII scanner hooked up and almost across the board I've seen timing of "about +10 degrees" in almost all circumstances of R, non-R, H, no H under WOT.

Hope that helps.

(no previous dynos - too inconvienient for me)

[e90AW335i]

Originally Posted by O-cha

Mmm would you believe me if I said SSTT?

LOL, probably not.....

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by DLSJ5

Hey Bro, I gained 40WHP just by adding MS109! No tune was needed and no WI. Back to back runs, 91 octane vs. MS109, @ 8psi, it appears the S54 is very aggressive with timing. Not sure how aggressive timing is on the N54though.

I got your text Drew.
Yep, it sure looks like the MS109 made a huge difference for you.
500 whp is pretty fricken awesome!

[jahwerx]

Originally Posted by DLSJ5

Hey Bro, I gained 40WHP just by adding MS109! No tune was needed and no WI. Back to back runs, 91 octane vs. MS109, @ 8psi, it appears the S54 is very aggressive with timing. Not sure how aggressive timing is on the N54though.

Good point, I think on the VP website, they actually produce fuels with more "energy" per gallon than typical pump gas. Not sure of the specifics on the Sunoco 100 . . . but getting a 50 gal drum of the VP 109 Octane is a little excessive for me ($9/gal, plus the logistics...)