Page 2 of 2
Posted: Oct 01, 2007 3:26 AM
by dan101smith
Boring, boring, boring.
I think everyone is switched on enough to know that you don't get exact results from a rolling road. The point is that now most of us have done two runs on the same dyno, using the same "approximating technique", so the useful comparison is between this run and the previous run.
In Stranter's case, he was down on power compared to other M535is on the first run, which enabled him to track down and fix the problem, showing a marked improvement on the second day.
Seems odd to be having the same discussion over these results as the last time
And before anyone offers, no dick for me thanks.
Posted: Oct 01, 2007 10:18 AM
by Jeremy
What I keep trying to get through to you is that your numbers could be used by more than just you guys if you'd just post the rear wheel numbers instead of that odd approximated stuff.
As for Dan and Andy, I dunno. Somebody must've pissed in their wheaties or something.
Jeremy
Posted: Oct 02, 2007 10:31 AM
by Tusker
Jeremy wrote:... Now, none of this would matter if you hadn't posted all the numbers as bhp. It many be "all in fun" for you guys, but this board is a form or reference material for many. Posting incorrect numbers with no care for the consequences of doing so is how internet rumors get started. You may not think this a big deal, but your M535i numbers showing 220 and 224 bhp should be more like 204 and 208, respectively, which is more in line with where a high compression motor with mileage should be.
Basically, if you're going to post data, make sure it's correct. Your numbers are only comparable to other numbers from that day and that tuner because of this funky approximated bhp debacle. rwhp numbers are comparable to a much broader base of information, and are thus far more useful information both for the people that were there that day and for anyone else trying to gain something useful from what you did and recorded.
Jeremy
Jeremy wrote:What I keep trying to get through to you is that your numbers could be used by more than just you guys if you'd just post the rear wheel numbers instead of that odd approximated stuff.
Thanks for your comments and I take your point. Let me try to correct my faux pas
Here are all the roadwheel graphs for the all the E28s run on the day (except AndyB's 535iSe - we are still waiting for the graph) ...
Sharky's 86/87 M535i:
ATOHT's 86/87 M535i:
Stranter's 86/87 M535i:
dog man's 86/87 535i:
Duncan-UK's 86/87 M535i:
JAM172's 87/88 528i:
pugboyracer's 87/88 528i (M5 drive train):
tandino's 84/85 M535i:
Tusker's 85/86 528i SE:
Jeremy wrote:The dip in the hp curve strikes me as odd. Do you have a graph with the torque curve as well?
Yes, it is odd, I didn't have it last time I ran and the only change since then was the fuel I ran on. No torque graph atm. I'm not worried since I know the car has a clean power & torque curve when it's running on
Shell V-Power 99 RON 
It has demonstrated to me that the fuel you use really makes a difference.
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 3:13 PM
by Tusker
All gone quiet now
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 3:47 PM
by Martin in BellevueWA
turbodan wrote:...If you guys like posting up fantasy dyno numbers, thats fine..
You ever plan to post an uncorrected dyno sheet?
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 4:11 PM
by turbodan
Martin in BellevueWA wrote:turbodan wrote:...If you guys like posting up fantasy dyno numbers, thats fine..
You ever plan to post an uncorrected dyno sheet?
http://www.mye28.com/viewtopic.php?t=38164
That said, we're not talking about altitude correction here. We're talking about driveline losses in this thread. That would be like me correcting my SAE numbers by the UK standard factor and claiming 430 crank hp and 520 foot pounds of torque.
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 5:57 PM
by Tusker
Oh and for reference here are my charts from 12th May running on a paper filter and 99 RON...
Ignore the hp and check out the curves
