The BMW UUC Digest Volume 2 : Issue 892 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: Dinan Chips Re: Dinan Chips Re: Dinan Chips Re: Dinan Chips Re: Dinan Chips Re: Dinan Chips Re: Dinan Chips Re: Dinan Chips Re: Dinan Chips <Smiller-length> p/s fluid leak Re: p/s fluid leak Re: Dinan Chips Re: Dinan Chips Re: Dinan Chips
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:54:31 -0500 From: Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Dinan Chips Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/10/05 5:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dinan does smooth out the powerband through the vanos transition. But > they, and other tuners too, give their max hp improvement claims where > the improvement is greatest. It makes the best advertising. Ah yes, that subtle distinction between 'maximum hp gain' and 'gain in maximum hp,' illustrating once again that it pays to read the fine print, and carefully at that. Neil Fort Wayne, IN 96 M3 - Bastard child 03 525iT - Sterling Grey Metallic 77 MGB - Original owner, need to sell 05 Mini - Cooper S with LSD! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:53:42 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Dinan Chips Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Interestingly, there is not much, if any, difference between aftermarket chips at wide open throttle. There are differences at part-throttle. Conforti makes his chips feel faster at mid-RPMs by enhancing fuel and spark curves. Most of Dinan's improvement comes around WOT. This is how Dinan is able to certify his chips in Kahleefornya. Conforti never bothered to jump through those hoops. You can get similar mid-RPM performance from a Dinan chip by pressing a bit farther on the accelerator pedal. Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA >Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:41:20 -0800 >From: "Curtis A. Ingraham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Dinan Chips >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >There are a couple of differences between Dinan chips and >the others. First, most Dinan chips are smog legal in >California. I'm not saying others won't pass a smog check, >but you can be confident that Dinan's won't cause a failure. > Second, Dinan is a bit more conservative than the others, >which may improve reliability but reduce power gain. > >For some interesting comments on dyno tests, read this: > ><http://dinancars.com/whitepapersFile.asp?ID=9> > >Curt Ingraham ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:42:37 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Dinan Chips Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'd rather have dyno testing done on a DynaPack dynamometer (which I will do once I have some actual engine mods to test, which will not be any time soon). It does not use the big inertial rollers and is more sensitive to small changes in output. It also is not affected by tire pressures, which apparently is a bigger variable than one might think. Yes, a conversion factor to get crank power is still needed, but tire pressures are eliminated as a variable. http://www.dynapackusa.com/index.htm (No affiliation.) Dinan bought a DynaPack dyno set-up a few years ago. Any Dinan numbers published before that are not comparable to the numbers published since. Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA >Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 14:13:54 -0800 (PST) >From: P Kroon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Mark Dadgar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] >Subject: Re: Dinan Chips >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Mark, > >Maybe it is different with BMWs, but from my >experience with Mustangs, the conversion between crank >and wheel hp ratings is anything but straight forward. > Many people ASSume a drivetrain lose (often about 15% >for a manual and 20% for an auto), but many will argue >that a straight percent is not accurate. Case in >point, why would the exact same drive train require >(lose) 20 hp with a 100 bhp engine but 40 hp from a >200 bhp engine? Granted things are accelerating >faster with a more powerful engine, I doubt twice as >much power is lost from the drivetrain with the second >motor. Is there a well documented percent drivetrain >loss for BMWs? > >I have NO preference between ANY of the chip >manufacturers; heck, I know very little about any of >them. Since Dinan almost certainly measured the power >at the wheels with their chip, however, why not report >it that way. There is a LOT less wiggle room that way >IMO. > >-Paul ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:07:41 -0800 From: Mark Dadgar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Dinan Chips Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Dec 12, 2005, at 9:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd rather have dyno testing done on a DynaPack dynamometer (which > I will > do once I have some actual engine mods to test, which will not be > any time > soon). It does not use the big inertial rollers and is more > sensitive to > small changes in output. It also is not affected by tire > pressures, which > apparently is a bigger variable than one might think. Yes, a > conversion > factor to get crank power is still needed, but tire pressures are > eliminated as a variable. > > http://www.dynapackusa.com/index.htm > (No affiliation.) It's apparently pretty hard on wheel bearings, though. Right, Jim? - Mark ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out my JustRacing Home Page at: http://www.justracing.com/homepage/mdadgar ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:58:26 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Dinan Chips Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think the cause and effect on wheel bearings is yet to be proven. I've had my car on a dynapack numerous times with no problems. Marco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Dadgar Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [UUC] Dinan Chips On Dec 12, 2005, at 9:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd rather have dyno testing done on a DynaPack dynamometer (which > I will > do once I have some actual engine mods to test, which will not be > any time > soon). It does not use the big inertial rollers and is more > sensitive to > small changes in output. It also is not affected by tire > pressures, which > apparently is a bigger variable than one might think. Yes, a > conversion > factor to get crank power is still needed, but tire pressures are > eliminated as a variable. > > http://www.dynapackusa.com/index.htm > (No affiliation.) It's apparently pretty hard on wheel bearings, though. Right, Jim? - Mark ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out my JustRacing Home Page at: http://www.justracing.com/homepage/mdadgar Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] __________________________________________________________________________ In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:29:10 -0800 (PST) From: "Jim Bassett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Dinan Chips Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Mon, December 12, 2005 10:58 am, Marco Romani said: > I think the cause and effect on wheel bearings is yet to be proven. I know of 2 people who suffered rear wheel bearing failures *immediately* after running cars on a DynaPak - myself and another Club Racer. Not saying that the DynaPak was the "cause", but I believe it was a contributing factor. > I've had my car on a dynapack numerous times with no problems. Which only shows that YMMV :-) Just providing a data point, something to think about. Jim Bassett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:20:11 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Dinan Chips Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> That's my point. correlation does not infer causality. I tend to be a bit anal on this point since it's how I make a living ;-) I remember when this happened and went and looked at the dynapack and how it is installed/used. I honestly can't say how it would damage wheel bearings. Marco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jim Bassett Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 11:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [UUC] Dinan Chips On Mon, December 12, 2005 10:58 am, Marco Romani said: > I think the cause and effect on wheel bearings is yet to be proven. I know of 2 people who suffered rear wheel bearing failures *immediately* after running cars on a DynaPak - myself and another Club Racer. Not saying that the DynaPak was the "cause", but I believe it was a contributing factor. > I've had my car on a dynapack numerous times with no problems. Which only shows that YMMV :-) Just providing a data point, something to think about. Jim Bassett Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] __________________________________________________________________________ In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:41:53 -1000 From: Jay G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Dinan Chips Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> so i'm guessing to get higher numbers on a dyno, the tire pressures need to be higher...any general rule as to how much tire pressure to run on a dyno??? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >It also is not affected by tire pressures, which >apparently is a bigger variable than one might think. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:57:42 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Dinan Chips <Smiller-length> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Also not to defend Dinan, since I also prefer Confroti's software, but Dinan is extremely careful in doing before and after testing, making sure the results are repeatable. I have no problem with Dinan's, or Conforti's, published software results. I do, however, have a problem with the marketing that uses the numbers that come from the dyno runs. What they SHOULD tell you: What is the before and after peak HP and peak torque? What they usually tell you instead: The gain in HP and torque at some point on the RPM curve that will allow them to publish the biggest improvement number. This is virtually never at the same RPM as the engine's previous peak HP and peak torque. And, to get the whole picture, you need to look at the before and after HP and torque curves. Where aftermarket software helps most is in raising the RPM limit. For example, my stock M20B25 has a rev limit of 6200 RPM. With the Conforti chip, it is 6900 RPM. If you remember the formula for HP, the three variables are displacement, mean brake effective pressure, and RPM. To increase power, you have to increase one or more of those three variables. Generally speaking, chips were pretty effective in the older single cam, two valve per cylinder engines. BMW left a lot of safety margin on the rev limits, and the chips took advantage of that by raising the rev limits. They also tune for premium fuel by advancing spark timing and re-mapping the fuel curves to match. As BMW engines became more sophisticated with twin cams, four valves per cylinder, etc., they left less for the software guys to exploit. When I bought my Conforti chip, I did before and after acceleration testing. My car accelerates faster with the Conforti software. The increase is most noticeable in the highest part of the rev range, where you can run to a higher redline before having to shift. We also did some back-to-back tests in a '91 318is at a GGC autocross a couple of years ago. The car was about a half second faster (on about a 50 second course) with the Conforti chip. HP and torque numbers don't mean as much as improved acceleration in the real world, which is why I didn't bother with dyno testing when I changed chips. But if anyone is doing dyno testing, make sure that environmental factors are properly accounted for (easier to avoid this problem by testing on the same dyno on the same day and at the same approximate time of day when possible). Also, remember the effect of ECU adaption when changing chips. This has more effect with the newer OBD-II ECUs, so plan on doing a little driving after the chip change before testing. Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA >Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 13:53:11 -0800 >From: Mark Dadgar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Dinan Chips >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >On Dec 9, 2005, at 1:19 PM, P Kroon wrote: >> I was a little suspicious when I looked at the Dinan >> website and they quoted crankshaft hp numbers. Unless >> they actually tested for crank hp, that is meaningless >> IMO. > >Not to defend Dinan, since I prefer the Conforti chips, but the >conversion from crank to wheel horsepower is pretty well-understood >at this point. > >- Mark >----- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:10:30 -0600 From: "r.mackrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: p/s fluid leak Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As a result of a recent master cylinder and brake accumulator install I'm left with a persistent drip on the driveway. Thoughts were some spillage that found it's way down through a drain hole in the lower chassis rail. (prev. exp.) All hoses and fittings snug. The suspected source appears to be the pressure flow regulator top mounted pressure switch, where the outer face of the red plastic insert meets the inside ring of the brass fitting. Any comments appreciated. Randy, Regina, SK. BMWCCA 103317 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:36:15 -0800 (PST) From: "Jim Bassett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: p/s fluid leak Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Mon, December 12, 2005 10:10 am, r.mackrill said: > Any comments appreciated. Actually, a couple of questions: - Your subject mentions "power steering leak", but your email talks about brake fluid/system. Which is it? - More importantly, what kind of car?!? (Sorry, my crystal ball is in the shop :-)) Jim Bassett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:58:36 -0800 (PST) From: P Kroon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mark Dadgar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, UUC Digest <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Dinan Chips Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mark, Check out: http://www.ktrperformance.com/services/dyno_faq.htm This is a decent discussion there about converting rwhp to crank hp. One way to estimate crank hp is to use a strict %, however, the article suggests "A rule of thumb we use which is quite accurate is to treat the losses as being 12% of the flywheel power plus 10 bhp for RWD cars." Fact is there are MANY different ways to estimate flywheel numbers based on rwhp numbers, and that was simply my point. 18% for a manual RWD car seems to be on the higher side to me, but not unreasonably so. Are BMW drivetrains particularly inefficient? I would have expected that BMW would have minimized their drivetrain losses. -Paul --- Mark Dadgar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 9, 2005, at 2:13 PM, P Kroon wrote: > > Maybe it is different with BMWs, but from my > > experience with Mustangs, the conversion between > crank > > and wheel hp ratings is anything but straight > forward. > > Many people ASSume a drivetrain lose (often about > 15% > > for a manual and 20% for an auto), but many will > argue > > that a straight percent is not accurate. Case in > > point, why would the exact same drive train > require > > (lose) 20 hp with a 100 bhp engine but 40 hp from > a > > 200 bhp engine? Granted things are accelerating > > faster with a more powerful engine, I doubt twice > as > > much power is lost from the drivetrain with the > second > > motor. > > Seems straightforward to me. All else being equal > (aero, etc), you > want to accelerate an object to twice the speed, you > need twice the > power. And accelerating and decelerating drivetrain > parts is what > we're doing. > > Plus friction, of course, but that's affected by > applied power, too. > > Hey Derian, WTF are you? > > > Is there a well documented percent drivetrain > > loss for BMWs? > > > 18%, per Jim Conforti, for a manual trans. Don't > much care about > automatic. :) > > - Mark > ----- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Check out my JustRacing Home Page at: > http://www.justracing.com/homepage/mdadgar > > Search the > ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, > founder of the BMW CCA. > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and > home of the Ultimate > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:56:53 -0800 From: Kazuto Okayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: UUC Digest <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Dinan Chips Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At 10:58 AM 12/12/2005, P Kroon wrote: [...] >Fact is there are MANY different ways to estimate >flywheel numbers based on rwhp numbers, and that was >simply my point. 18% for a manual RWD car seems to be >on the higher side to me, but not unreasonably so. >Are BMW drivetrains particularly inefficient? I would >have expected that BMW would have minimized their >drivetrain losses. > >-Paul I would say on the contrary that BMW drivetrains are particularly efficient. On one dyno day I attended, I went with two other friends with M cars, and two with FWD VW/Audi products (all manual trans) . The three BMWs seemed to exhibit much less drivetrain loss, just from the standpoint of looking at published crank bph vs what we saw on the Dynojet. Obviously there are other factors, but we did note that particular consistency. And if my E46's 184 published BHP is to be believed, it only has a 7% loss. Kazuto Okayasu Manager, Desktop Support Services Administrative Computing Services, University of California, Irvine [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:50:22 -0800 (PST) From: P Kroon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Kazuto Okayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, UUC Digest <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Dinan Chips Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Let me clear up a potential issue, I'm NOT saying that BMW drivetrains are inefficient. In fact, I would expect them to be more efficient than most manufacturers. However, if 18% drivetrain loss for a manual rwd BMW has been determined to be accurate as stated earlier, than they are not terribly efficient. "And if my E46's 184 published BHP is to be believed, it only has a 7% loss." This is just my point. BHP numbers (especially directly from the OM) are not particuarly meaningfull. I don't think anyone here would argue that your E46 has only a 7% drivetrain loss. The reality, of course, is that the BMW engine numbers are underrated (there was a big stink recently about how Toyota was overrating their numbers or at least "maniputulating" them). Now, how meaningful would it be for a chip manufacturer to then compare their chip's performance on a chassis dyno and then converting them to to BHP using a 18% drivetrain loss factor??? WOW, an instant 11% performance upgrade without changing ANYTHING. -Paul --- Kazuto Okayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:58 AM 12/12/2005, P Kroon wrote: > > [...] > > >Fact is there are MANY different ways to estimate > >flywheel numbers based on rwhp numbers, and that > was > >simply my point. 18% for a manual RWD car seems to > be > >on the higher side to me, but not unreasonably so. > >Are BMW drivetrains particularly inefficient? I > would > >have expected that BMW would have minimized their > >drivetrain losses. > > > >-Paul > > > I would say on the contrary that BMW drivetrains are > particularly > efficient. On one dyno day I attended, I went with > two other friends > with M cars, and two with FWD VW/Audi products (all > manual trans) > . The three BMWs seemed to exhibit much less > drivetrain loss, just > from the standpoint of looking at published crank > bph vs what we saw > on the Dynojet. Obviously there are other factors, > but we did note > that particular consistency. > > And if my E46's 184 published BHP is to be believed, > it only has a 7% loss. > > > Kazuto Okayasu Manager, Desktop Support Services > Administrative Computing Services, University of > California, Irvine > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Search the > ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, > founder of the BMW CCA. > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and > home of the Ultimate > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(14 messages) **********
