Supersprint MAHA dyno; 471 PS

[Epoustouflant]

471 PS on Supersprint's MAHA dyno with room temperature sprayed water on the radiator and intercooler.

Quite the underrating by BMW.

[m3incorp]

Sorry, can't really see your graph.

[CanAutM3]

This is consistent with the 465ps that Sport Auto obtained on their Maha dyno run.

40ps more than the official rating, pretty good

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

This is consistent with the 465ps that Sport Auto obtained on their Maha dyno run.

40ps more than the official rating, pretty good

Also agree that it's quite consistent with the Sport Auto Supertest dyno.

However, just to add some context to even MAHA dyno results...

Originally Posted by Boss330

A interesting comparison in the last issues of Sport Auto and Auto Bild Sportscars. Sport Auto tests the M5 CP while Auto Bild Sportscars test the M5 30 Jahre.

Both magazines do dyno testing. Sport Auto use MAHA as we have discussed in this thread. Auto Bild use INSORIC, which is not a chassis dynometer, but uses wheel sensors, barometric data, weight of vehicle, tire diameter to measure acceleration and rolling power. The INSORIC has been VERY accurate in testing and has the benefit of testing the car under it's normal conditions. Cooling, air resistance, rolling resistance etc is as under normal everyday driving conditions. I also happen to have the INSORIC test equipment myself (received it about a month ago) and can confirm it's accuracy, even when tested on a wide variety of vehicles.

Noteworthy is it that Sport Auto do not use any correction factor since the DME allready does this correction. Exactly the double dipping effect we discussed in a different thread.

The interesting thing is the difference in measured power on these two dynos...

The M5 CP is supposed to have 575PS / 680Nm
The M5 30 is supposed to have 600PS / 700Nm

M5 CP measured on a MAHA chassis dyno 649PS / 760Nm
M5 30 measured on INSORIC "road" dyno 607PS / 734Nm


The M5 CP apparently makes 74PS / 80Nm more than stated!!! A significant 12,8% more than official numbers!!! This dyno result also implies that the CP actually is 42PS and 26Nm stronger than the supposedly more powerful M5 30 Jahre...

So, could the M5 CP have been a "press car" as Sport Auto discussed in their editorial, or does it really make that much power stock?

Let's look at the acceleration numbers posted in both magazines, that should at least give us a clue as to their relative power level.

M5 CP:

0-100km/h: 4,2s
0-160km/h: 8,4s
0-200km/h: 12,6s

80-120km/h:
5th gear: 4,4s
6th gear: 5,6s
7th gear: 8,5s


M5 30 Jahre:

0-100km/h: 4,0s
0-160km/h: 7,9s
0-200km/h: 11,8s

80-120km/h:
5th gear: 4,2s
6th gear: 5,2s
7th gear: 7,4s


So, in every acceleration test above, the M5 30 Jahre is quicker, as it should be! Between 0,2s to 1,1s quicker than the M5 CP actually.

Considering the M5 CP, according to the MAHA, should have 42PS more than the 30 Jahre, the results doesn't make sense... In fact, what doesn't make sense are the relative dyno results... IMO, the INSORIC result at 607PS seems plausible. It's just 7PS more than BMW claims for the car. The MAHA result on the other hand makes no sense at all in this context... Not only does the MAHA report a massive underrating, it even implies that the 575PS M5 CP is stronger than the 600PS M5 30 Jahre...

This just illustrates the flaws of chassis dynos. Real world acceleration numbers prove the opposite of what the MAHA/INSORIC dyno sheets say. The INSORIC almost measures spot on what BMW claims while the MAHA tells a different story. Regardless of which dyno is correct, the relative measurements are way off...

To me, one more example that dyno measurements are to be taken with many grains of salt

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Also agree that it's quite consistent with the Sport Auto Supertest dyno.

However, just to add some context to even MAHA dyno results...

I did see your other post regarding Maha vs Insoric. The comparison is pretty meaningless IMO, apples to oranges. To truly compare, we would need to see how much the 30jahre M5 puts down on the Maha.

Further, the shape of the power curve obtained on Maha is much closer to the one published by BMW compared to the one from Insoric.

I've said it many times, validating how accurate (or innacurate) a dyno is has to do with more than just the the peak power number. At which RPM the peak is produced and the overall shape of the curve are just as important.

[solstice]

Sounds just about right. You will never get rid of the arguments against this level of under rating since there is no perfect methodology or environment that matches all conditions but for me the case has been closed for months. Relative to how cars are usually rated by buyers this is the level of hp the car makes. Thanks for sharing.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I did see your other post regarding Maha vs Insoric. The comparison is pretty meaningless IMO, apples to oranges. To truly compare, we would need to see how much the 30jahre M5 puts down on the Maha.

Further, the shape of the power curve obtained on Maha is much closer to the one published by BMW compared to the one from Insoric.

I've said it many times, validating how accurate (or innacurate) a dyno is has to do with more than just the the peak power number. At which RPM the peak is produced and the overall shape of the curve are just as important.

Why is it meaningless?

I agree that just looking at two dyno sheets and compare them is meaningless. However in this case we have context! Or did you not see how the acceleration times compared?

That was IMO, the whole point in my post. Not which dyno was correct, but that the car with the highest dyno numbers was slower than the car with lower dyno numbers... And in fact, the acceleration times was as they should be! A M5 30 Jahre with 600hp should be faster than the M5 CP with 575hp. So in every aspect, apart from the dyno results, the two cars act like two cars with different power output. In the real world the stronger car is faster! On the dyno the slower/weaker car has more HP... So, on the dyno, the real world test results, and BMW's claimed power ratings, are turned upside down...

And in that context the dyno numbers don't add up (regardless of which dyno one prefer to believe). My point wasn't about over- or underrating, but about dynos not being a very reliable comparison tool without a fair amount of scepticism. My point was about validating the relative dyno numbers with real world acceleration tests and see how they compared.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Why is it meaningless?

I agree that just looking at two dyno sheets and compare them is meaningless. However in this case we have context! Or did you not see how the acceleration times compared?

That was IMO, the whole point in my post. Not which dyno was correct, but that the car with the highest dyno numbers was slower than the car with lower dyno numbers... And in fact, the acceleration times was as they should be! A M5 30 Jahre with 600hp should be faster than the M5 CP with 575hp. So in every aspect, apart from the dyno results, the two cars act like two cars with different power output. In the real world the stronger car is faster! On the dyno the slower/weaker car has more HP... So, on the dyno, the real world test results, and BMW's claimed power ratings, are turned upside down...

And in that context the dyno numbers don't add up (regardless of which dyno one prefer to believe). My point wasn't about over- or underrating, but about dynos not being a very reliable comparison tool without a fair amount of scepticism. My point was about validating the relative dyno numbers with real world acceleration tests and see how they compared.

It is just than when reading your post, it seems that you wanted to promote the accuracy of the Insoric and discredit the Maha as consequence:

Originally Posted by Boss330

The INSORIC has been VERY accurate in testing and has the benefit of testing the car under it's normal conditions. Cooling, air resistance, rolling resistance etc is as under normal everyday driving conditions. I also happen to have the INSORIC test equipment myself (received it about a month ago) and can confirm it's accuracy, even when tested on a wide variety of vehicles.

Insoric gives a peak power number that is closer to the BMW rating, while the shape of the power curve on the Maha is closer to the BMW rating.

If your point is that both are innacurate, then we are in agreement .

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

It is just than when reading your post, it seems that you wanted to promote the accuracy of the Insoric and discredit the Maha as consequence:



Insoric gives a peak power number that is closer to the BMW rating, while the shape of the power curve on the Maha is closer to the BMW rating.

If your point is that both are innacurate, then we are in agreement .

I did question the MAHA in that post and wrote that I have first hand experience with the INSORIC and have been impressed with it's accuracy compared with factory numbers on a wide variety of cars.

But, I did write the following as a closing remark in the post:

This just illustrates the flaws of chassis dynos. Real world acceleration numbers prove the opposite of what the MAHA/INSORIC dyno sheets say. The INSORIC almost measures spot on what BMW claims while the MAHA tells a different story. Regardless of which dyno is correct, the relative measurements are way off...

To me, one more example that dyno measurements are to be taken with many grains of salt

I hoped that would have explained that I was open to any one of the dynos being incorrect...

[Alex07M3]

Personnaly, I believe that crank hp ratings from Maha dynos are very accurate.

Me and some friends have rented a Maha dyno at Lachute Performance two weeks ago to do a little friendly shootout and the whp ratings for all our cars were pretty low(which was to be expected) but the crank hp ratings seemed pretty spot on IMO, specially looking at my friend's stock C63 507 that made 510bhp which is exactly where it should be.

Here's some of the results for those interested(all cars on 94 octane):

-C7 Stingray manual, Corsa Sport valve-back exhaust and Green Performance drop in filter

-C63 507 stock

-E92 M3 manual, ESS VT1-550 and Turner test pipes

[Gardus]

Hi guys.
I was there when Supersprint tested the F82 M4, as well as many other tests.

Here are a few considerations:
1) Supersprint has a custom water spray system for the intercooler. While less relevant on the m4 F82 / M3 F80 (and the M5 F10 as well) because of the air/water system compared to a air/air traditional intercooler, it does make a difference as it increases the heat exchange on the radiators surface.
Basically it emulates the perfect conditions even when the dyno room is hot

2) Maha itself has recommended to NOT use the EWG or DIN correction factor when testing turbo cars.
This is because even if the ambient temperature, humidity and pressure are not adequate to get the best performance, the turbocharger and intercooler will make the air going into the engine basically spot on all the time, unless it's overheating but the water spray system takes care of that.
This is the reason why if you check the latest dyno testing on the SS website you'll see the NA and supercharged cars have the EWG correction factor applied, the turbo cars not.
Here's a sample of a turbo car, Mini F56:

Here's a sample of a NA car, GT86:


The Insorit system, as well as other similar systems based on GPS, accelerometers and car specs, work pretty well for in-gear acceleration figures, less so in accelerations from still because the tyre slip must be taken into account.
Also, the mass of the car must be measured accurately with scales before the testing, including the driver and fuel.

These systems are more useful to check power gains than absolute figures. You can use the system, for example, before and after a remap. As you use the exact same values (weight, tyre size etc) and the car is the same, the difference before and after will be pretty accurate.

[MaynardZed]

I should have another MAHA dyno result for my F82 by the end of the day. I've already had my car dynoed on a DynoDynamics, but I've found the MAHA to be very accurate in other cars I've had in the past and I'm just anal. I'll be using this as my pre Dinan Stage 1 baseline which will be installed next week.

They usually ask me if I want crank or wheel numbers, I'll ask for both.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by MaynardZed

I should have another MAHA dyno result for my F82 by the end of the day. I've already had my car dynoed on a DynoDynamics, but I've found the MAHA to be very accurate in other cars I've had in the past and I'm just anal. I'll be using this as my pre Dinan Stage 1 baseline which will be installed next week.

They usually ask me if I want crank or wheel numbers, I'll ask for both.

excellent

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by MaynardZed

I should have another MAHA dyno result for my F82 by the end of the day. I've already had my car dynoed on a DynoDynamics, but I've found the MAHA to be very accurate in other cars I've had in the past and I'm just anal. I'll be using this as my pre Dinan Stage 1 baseline which will be installed next week.

They usually ask me if I want crank or wheel numbers, I'll ask for both.

Keep in mind that the Maha dyno is designed to measure crank power. The wheel power obtained is just an intermediate step to calculate the crank power and cannot be used as a comparison with other chassis dynos.

[MaynardZed]

441.2 crank hp, 356-371 whp today on the MAHA. My car has already dynoed 415 whp on a DynoDynamics, so I think this more or less underscores how different dyno machines can be. I'm really looking at deltas for my Dinan tune next week. I may have the car done at both places after the tune. My car does not feel any less powerful.

The real measurement will be my lap times this weekend. I'll be doing the same track for the second time in the F82, so we'll see.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by MaynardZed

441.2 crank hp, 356-371 whp today on the MAHA. My car has already dynoed 415 whp on a DynoDynamics, so I think this more or less underscores how different dyno machines can be. I'm really looking at deltas for my Dinan tune next week. I may have the car done at both places after the tune. My car does not feel any less powerful.

The real measurement will be my lap times this weekend. I'll be doing the same track for the second time in the F82, so we'll see.

Attachment 1123325
Attachment 1123326

Wow, that makes me feel really good about the numbers my car is putting down!

Very interested in seeing your dyno post Dinan!

[Sam@Alekshop]

Here's a teaser of the Alekshop M4 Maha results in California. On the first run, we hit 480 crank horsepower at part throttle. Since this was the first run, it was part throttle until about 6000 RPMs, and that's probably why the torque curve doesn't look like normal. On the second run, we had nearly 40 more horsepower at 6000 RPMs, but had to cut the run short. We will have a full write up in a few days.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by Sam@Alekshop

Here's a teaser of the Alekshop M4 Maha results in California. On the first run, we hit 480 crank horsepower at part throttle. Since this was the first run, it was part throttle until about 6000 RPMs, and that's probably why the torque curve doesn't look like normal. On the second run, we had nearly 40 more horsepower at 6000 RPMs, but had to cut the run short. We will have a full write up in a few days.

Have you had the chance to do that write up finally, very interested in seeing those numbers?!

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by MaynardZed

441.2 crank hp, 356-371 whp today on the MAHA. My car has already dynoed 415 whp on a DynoDynamics, so I think this more or less underscores how different dyno machines can be. I'm really looking at deltas for my Dinan tune next week. I may have the car done at both places after the tune. My car does not feel any less powerful.

The real measurement will be my lap times this weekend. I'll be doing the same track for the second time in the F82, so we'll see.

Attachment 1123325
Attachment 1123326

Interestigly, your uncorrected HP number is 425HP...

And, MAHA recommends NOT using the correction on these cars since the DME "autocorrects". By using the dyno correction on top of that you actually get a double dipping...

Your car actually makes EXACTLY the HP number as stated by BMW... But made 415rwhp on a Dyno Dynamics! Hmmmm...

The second run, was that done with the MAHA in "RWHP mode"?
I noticed that RWHP is diifferent than from the other dyno run.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Interestigly, your uncorrected HP number is 425HP...

And, MAHA recommends NOT using the correction on these cars since the DME "autocorrects". By using the dyno correction on top of that you actually get a double dipping...

Your car actually makes EXACTLY the HP number as stated by BMW... But made 415rwhp on a Dyno Dynamics! Hmmmm...

The second run, was that done with the MAHA in "RWHP mode"?
I noticed that RWHP is diifferent than from the other dyno run.

the SAE correction factor is listed as 0 on that sheet. the conditions also suggest zero correction. those are basically identical to standard SAE conditions

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

the SAE correction factor is listed as 0 on that sheet. the conditions also suggest zero correction. those are basically identical to standard SAE conditions

Corrected HP is 16,2HP higher so there definitely was some correction added

[MaynardZed]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

Wow, that makes me feel really good about the numbers my car is putting down!

Very interested in seeing your dyno post Dinan!

Dinan tune in, but there appears to be an issue with the post tune dyno testing. I'll post more when I get more info, sorry.