[cptcrunch]

I'm separating this from the official launch thread about the MPPSK because I feel that a lot of people are interested in the numbers and may not know they are available without reading the entire thread. If the Mods feel that this is a duplicate, or un-necessary, it can be removed.
***

Before I installed the MPPSK on my 2016 340i RWD AUTO, I did a before dyno. The after dyno was done today, and here are the results:


Alright, here we go!

Dyno run today at 4PM went well after they fixed an issue with the atmospheric calculation numbers. Heres a few youtube clips of the dyno runs

Exhaust sounds great! Really love the deep and aggressive tones the car now produces. I've started to notice that people are getting out of my way on the interstate, and I'm thinking it has something to do with the exhaust.

Someone asked for a video of the exhaust at idle in sport mode

*all videos taken with a Nexus 6P


And here are the final results!

Before:

331 HP and 325 TQ


After:

368 HP and 370 TQ

Based on my dynos (disclaimer: Your Mileage WILL Vary), the MPPSK increased the HP by 37 and TQ by 45 at the wheels. BMW claims a 35HP and 39TQ increase over the stock motor, and I am seeing exactly that. These numbers do show that BMW has under rated their engines, as usual, by a significant number. If we account for a 15% drivetrain loss (and correct me if this number is inaccurate), we are looking at 433HP and 435TQ at the crank after the MPPSK.

<Insert emojis here>

Overall I am pleased with the kit. Yes we have seen tunes that produce bigger numbers, exhausts that are bigger, prettier and sound better, but none of these come with the backing by BMW to fix whatever is broken, no questions asked. Is $3,000 a lot for a tune and exhaust? Sure is. But with the peace of mind of a BMW factory warranty, I feel that it is worth the cost.

With the numbers now posted, I am curious if this will increase sales. Is a 10% increase in HP/TQ and warranty enough for many to purchase this kit? Or will a larger increase in HP/TQ for cheaper without warranty win people over? Time will tell.

Finally, after all of these years of taking from the forums, I have helped science the shit out of something! (well, really, I didn't do a lot, just paid the dyno guys $200 and walked around their shop)

[ACZakka325i]

WOW, you now have one fast car.

This car has plenty of power in stock form. I picked my car up a few days ago and I keep saying to myself NO WAY this car is 325hp. If you Dyno'd at 331WHP stock, its safe to say this car really is producing 360 Crank HP? Is that possible? I'm assuming 10% drive train loss.

[cptcrunch]

Originally Posted by ACZakka325i

WOW, you now have one fast car.

This car has plenty of power in stock form. I picked my car up a few days ago and I keep saying to myself NO WAY this car is 325hp. If you Dyno'd at 331WHP stock, its safe to say this car really is producing 360 Crank HP? Is that possible? I'm assuming 10% drive train loss.

I quoted 15% because that is what I have heard is the "safe" loss. Maybe it is more like 10% now? If so stock is 370hp and 360tq? Need someone to confirm what % is more correct, 10 or 15.

[HitmanHearns]

Sweat freakin numbers! MPPSK raises the stock boost to what (how much more psi)?

[Jaghave]

Originally Posted by ACZakka325i

WOW, you now have one fast car.

This car has plenty of power in stock form. I picked my car up a few days ago and I keep saying to myself NO WAY this car is 325hp. If you Dyno'd at 331WHP stock, its safe to say this car really is producing 360 Crank HP? Is that possible? I'm assuming 10% drive train loss.

Honestly I think direct from engine it 400 stock.

[ACZakka325i]

Originally Posted by Jaghave

Honestly I think direct from engine it 400 stock.

375BHP x .88 = 330WHP

Assume 12% loss and we have a very powerful car in stock form. Don't want to derail thread. Carry on!

[goj]

15% is safe for RWD. That number makes me feel like I don't need a tune. But holy cow is that a sweet deal!

[auf Deutsch]

12% is a popular consensus for drivetrain loss

368 WHP x 1.12 = 412 crank...very respectable and thus, a C43/450 and B9 S4 killer

About 60 more WHP than a 335/435 MPPK

[Bee Pee]

Both dyno lines looks like max rpm is beyond 7k rpm. My understanding is B58 rev limiter kicks in 7k rpm.

MPPSK dyno line looks like rev limit is raised by ~ 250rpm, which is contrary to oem tech specs that show no change in rev limit.

A chap on FB had his stock m140i dyno'd



361/380 power/torque at the crank which aligns with your findings given that BMW rate B58m, used in M140i/M240i, at 335/369 crank power/torque. His euphoria was short-lived however as on closer inspection, dyno shows rev limit is circa 7300rpm which hints at dyno calibrations being out hence numbers are optimistic.

BP

[Taskmaster]

Holy shit...

[theEZV]

Impressive. Guess I need a JB4 and DP to just be able to keep up

[F30_SixSpeed]

Awesome comparison.... great info to silence the haters

Those B58 engines are real stout in factory form! Some real impressive numbers both before and after the power kit was installed.

[goj]

Very nice, 91 or 93 octane?

[cptcrunch]

Originally Posted by goj

Very nice, 91 or 93 octane?

93 Octane from the local UDF.

Brings up a good question though, I wonder how the car would perform with anything lower.

[goj]

Originally Posted by cptcrunch

93 Octane from the local UDF.

Brings up a good question though, I wonder how the car would perform with anything lower.

Yeah, I wish we had 93 in CA. I'm sure we have 91 for some emissions reason but I sure do wish we had 93

[HitmanHearns]

Originally Posted by goj

Yeah, I wish we had 93 in CA. I'm sure we have 91 for some emissions reason but I sure do wish we had 93

91 + e85

12.8 gallons of 91 and 3 gallons of e85 makes it 93

[goj]

Originally Posted by HitmanHearns

91 + e85

12.8 gallons of 91 and 3 gallons of e85 makes it 93

Hmm, what is the cost of e85?

[eluded]

They also sell 100 octane in a few bay areas

[HitmanHearns]

Originally Posted by goj

Hmm, what is the cost of e85?

It's cheaper than 91. Right now, our 91 is between 2.99-3.30 (I live in LA). E85 is around 2.50.

I've been pumping it for a while. It's just a mission because not everywhere has e85. If you have a location near you, it's addicting.

[jeebus]

badass. Thanks for providing the info too!

[Beek]

Regarding drivetrain loss, here is an interesting article on the so called 15% rule but the bottom line is it's best to not even try to figure it out. BMW lies about the crank number to begin with and I'm not pulling my engine and testing it to find out by how much. I'm more concerned with what I'm putting to the ground and don't really care what the Marketing Rep's say.

http://www.superstreetonline.com/how...in-power-loss/

[Gio72]

Originally Posted by auf Deutsch

12% is a popular consensus for drivetrain loss

368 WHP x 1.12 = 412 crank...very respectable and thus, a C43/450 and B9 S4 killer

About 60 more WHP than a 335/435 MPPK

Originally Posted by Bee Pee

Both dyno lines looks like max rpm is beyond 7k rpm. My understanding is B58 rev limiter kicks in 7k rpm.

MPPSK dyno line looks like rev limit is raised by ~ 250rpm, which is contrary to oem tech specs that show no change in rev limit.

A chap on FB had his stock m140i dyno'd



361/380 power/torque at the crank which aligns with your findings given that BMW rate B58m, used in M140i/M240i, at 335/369 crank power/torque. His euphoria was short-lived however as on closer inspection, dyno shows rev limit is circa 7300rpm which hints at dyno calibrations being out hence numbers are optimistic.

BP

Sorry, but for me those results are TOO MUCH optimistic to be real... According to me, the dyno results are already corrected for the drivetrain losses and they show power&torque at the crank.
It is almost impossible to think about a B58 with PK with a maximum power of 433hp at the crank!!!
Even the revs at max power are very very strange...