PencilGeek
10-14-2008, 09:53 AM
Here's the dyno results for 2008 BMW M3 and Active Autowerke ECU Upgrade on 91 octane gas. The baseline is the same motor with the Gruppe-M Cold Air Intake + Evo Sport pulley.
Company: Active Autowerke (http://www.activeautowerke.com/)
Price: $795 (Introductory price)
Contact Information:
Omar Murray (omurray@activeautowerke.com)
Instructions for removing your ECU:
See this posting. (http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170655)
Background:
An ECU upgrade affects a broad range of motor performance. Therefore comparing before and after results cannot be summed up by a single number. Max HP and max toque will not be enough; we need to look at the entire graph of performance over the broad RPM range.
The Active Autowerke ECU upgrade gains its performance by opening the throttle valves earlier and changing some of the fuel/air mapping tables, spark timing, and camshaft timing.
Previous Testing:
In all previous testing, I relied on the Dynapack Dyno to correct the horsepower to the SAE 1349 horsepower correction standards. These correction factors account for temperature, humidity, altitude, and air density. If all of the dyno instruments are working properly, then the corrected HP measurements are intended to adjust for atmospheric conditions -- thus equalizing the readings taken from one dyno to the next, on days with different weather and atmospheric conditions.
In the previous testing at my normal dyno shop, we placed the air temperature sensor in the top air intake. During a recent discussion with Dynapack USA, I discovered placing the temperature sensor in the air intake leads to erroneous 'corrected' results (even though many dyno testers do the same thing). This causes the previous correction factors to read higher than they should have been, and causes the results to be higher as well.
This problem came to my attention when we captured the dyno results for the AA ECU upgrade at a dyno in Orange California. My car is 400 miles away from my home dyno, and the temperature sensor on this dyno was broken. Therefore I had to learn the math behind the SAE 1349 horsepower correction standards, and write my own computer programs to adjust the uncorrected readings myself.
This extra work caused me to re-investigate our previous methodogy, and lead to this discovery that our previous methods were faulty. Therefore to have a real baseline and valid set of results, I was forced to re-open my older dyno tests, collect the hour-by-hour weather temperatures from the national weather service, and use the same computer programs to re-apply the SAE 1349 horsepower correction factors to my older results as well. Therefore my baseline will appear lower than my previously posted results.
I also made one more methodology change to ensure more reliable results. Instead of hand-picking the best of three dyno results and presenting it as 'fact' -- I examined all of the dyno runs for each configuration. I threw out the dyno run that was the furthest away from the other two (whether it was higher or lower). Then I averaged the remaining two dyno runs. Therefore all of the results below are an average of two similar dyno runs -- not the "best" dyno run from each configuration.
Features:
HP/Torque Gains Throughout Entire RPM Band
Crisper throttle response
More Aggressive Throttle Mapping
Fuel Curve Remapping on locked ECU's and open ECU's
Camshaft Vanos Remapping (No more Rough startup (experienced when car is cold for emmissions purposes). Car will idle smooth at startup.
Remove speed limiter
Adjust or remove RPM limiter at customer request
Stationary RPM limiter changed. Holds RPM at constant rate until the car starts moving. RPM is specified by customer. 3500 RPMs recommended. This feature is the equivalent of 'Launch Control' for 6MT owners.
Rev Limiter by Gear if Requested
Offroad features: Remove rear O2 sensor mapping at customer request -- for customers who run straight pipes in place of rear catalytic converters.
Does not affect smog ratings or certifications (unless 'offroad features' are enabled)
Dyno results:
The Dyno: Dynapack 4000 Chassis Dyno (wheel hub attachment).
RPM Range: 2000-8400
Baseline Performance (Gruppe-M + Evo Sport Pulley)
Baseline TQ: 260 ft/lbs @ 3963 RPM
Baseline HP: 347 hp @ 8066 RPM
Active Autowerke:
AA TQ: 268 ft/lbs @ 3923 RPM
AA HP: 369 hp @ 8070 RPM
Peak Differences:
Peak Torque Difference: 21.75 ft/lbs @ 6843 RPM
Peak HP Difference: 28.34 hp @ 6852 RPM
http://www.rcollins.org/m3/dyno/20081010/AA%20Dyno%20vs%20CAI.jpg
To help decipher where the AA ECU adds and subtracts power, The following graphs demonstrate where the gains and losses occurred. Since measuring below 3000 RPMs is difficult and produces wildly erratic results, the deltas in the lower RPM ranges can safely be ignored.
Torque Delta:
http://www.rcollins.org/m3/dyno/20081010/Torque%20Delta.jpg
Horsepower Delta:
http://www.rcollins.org/m3/dyno/20081010/HP%20Delta.jpg
Driving Results:
Unlike the ESS ECU upgrade which seemed to emphasize plenty of bottom-end torque, the gains of the AA ECU are so broad, you don't really notice the bulk of the power in any specific RPM band. That is until you get above 7000 RPMs and expect the power to start dropping off. But instead of dropping off, the AA ECU keeps making more, and more power, until you literally bounce off of the RPM limiter. AA will increase the RPM limiter if you desire. Since the motor only makes maxHP at 8100 RPMs to begin with, I saw no point to increasing the RPM limiter.
AA removed the speed limiter, thus allowing us to go above 165 MPH for the first time. But instead of testing this feature on the road, we tested it on the dyno. On the dyno, we ran 5th gear up to readline, and saw a speedometer reading at 180 MPH -- thus proving the speed limiter has been removed.
I also had a chance to test the "Launch Control" (stationary RPM limiter). I had AA set this to 3500 RPMs. While stationary, you can floor the gas, and the AA ECU will hold the RPM to this level (3500 RPMs) until you pop the clutch. Once you pop the clutch, the stationary limiter is no longer in effect. This was a very cool feature, something I used while trying to run some 1/4 mile times.
Gas mileage:
AA claims that gas mileage should increase with their ECU upgrade. I saw nothing in my driving that would indicate otherwise. Gas mileage really seemed the same to me. I never had a chance to drive the car on a long distance trip, so I never came up with any real highway results. However, mixed city/highway driving certainly didn't lose any MPG, though I would be hard-pressed to say I gained anything.
Problems during testing:
I had one small problem during testing. With the AA ECU upgrade, my check-engine light went on. I used an OBD2 scanner to read the code (0068), and it says there is a constency problem with the fuel-air maps. This is probably easy enough for AA to fix...but I never had a chance to let them fix it.
Comparing AA and ESS ECU upgrades:
I know everybody wants me to compare the AA ECU to the ESS ECU upgrades. It would be very unfair for me to compare the two because I never got any valid dyno results on the ESS software (due to a testing problem), and I only drove around with it for less than one week.
I will say that it seems like the AA ECU upgrade got better gas mileage, and a broader power increase. I also liked how the AA ECU seemed to continue to make LOTS of power until it bounced off of the RPM limiter, whereas the ESS ECU seemed to tone itself down at the upper RPM ranges.
Disclosure:
AA offered me a deal on the ECU upgrade in exchange for dyno testing and this review. The results presented here were the best results we observed (same thing I've done in all past postings). I tried not to let their generocity influence my review. My goal was to give an honest and accurate review that contains both the pros and cons of the ECU upgrade.
Company: Active Autowerke (http://www.activeautowerke.com/)
Price: $795 (Introductory price)
Contact Information:
Omar Murray (omurray@activeautowerke.com)
Instructions for removing your ECU:
See this posting. (http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170655)
Background:
An ECU upgrade affects a broad range of motor performance. Therefore comparing before and after results cannot be summed up by a single number. Max HP and max toque will not be enough; we need to look at the entire graph of performance over the broad RPM range.
The Active Autowerke ECU upgrade gains its performance by opening the throttle valves earlier and changing some of the fuel/air mapping tables, spark timing, and camshaft timing.
Previous Testing:
In all previous testing, I relied on the Dynapack Dyno to correct the horsepower to the SAE 1349 horsepower correction standards. These correction factors account for temperature, humidity, altitude, and air density. If all of the dyno instruments are working properly, then the corrected HP measurements are intended to adjust for atmospheric conditions -- thus equalizing the readings taken from one dyno to the next, on days with different weather and atmospheric conditions.
In the previous testing at my normal dyno shop, we placed the air temperature sensor in the top air intake. During a recent discussion with Dynapack USA, I discovered placing the temperature sensor in the air intake leads to erroneous 'corrected' results (even though many dyno testers do the same thing). This causes the previous correction factors to read higher than they should have been, and causes the results to be higher as well.
This problem came to my attention when we captured the dyno results for the AA ECU upgrade at a dyno in Orange California. My car is 400 miles away from my home dyno, and the temperature sensor on this dyno was broken. Therefore I had to learn the math behind the SAE 1349 horsepower correction standards, and write my own computer programs to adjust the uncorrected readings myself.
This extra work caused me to re-investigate our previous methodogy, and lead to this discovery that our previous methods were faulty. Therefore to have a real baseline and valid set of results, I was forced to re-open my older dyno tests, collect the hour-by-hour weather temperatures from the national weather service, and use the same computer programs to re-apply the SAE 1349 horsepower correction factors to my older results as well. Therefore my baseline will appear lower than my previously posted results.
I also made one more methodology change to ensure more reliable results. Instead of hand-picking the best of three dyno results and presenting it as 'fact' -- I examined all of the dyno runs for each configuration. I threw out the dyno run that was the furthest away from the other two (whether it was higher or lower). Then I averaged the remaining two dyno runs. Therefore all of the results below are an average of two similar dyno runs -- not the "best" dyno run from each configuration.
Features:
HP/Torque Gains Throughout Entire RPM Band
Crisper throttle response
More Aggressive Throttle Mapping
Fuel Curve Remapping on locked ECU's and open ECU's
Camshaft Vanos Remapping (No more Rough startup (experienced when car is cold for emmissions purposes). Car will idle smooth at startup.
Remove speed limiter
Adjust or remove RPM limiter at customer request
Stationary RPM limiter changed. Holds RPM at constant rate until the car starts moving. RPM is specified by customer. 3500 RPMs recommended. This feature is the equivalent of 'Launch Control' for 6MT owners.
Rev Limiter by Gear if Requested
Offroad features: Remove rear O2 sensor mapping at customer request -- for customers who run straight pipes in place of rear catalytic converters.
Does not affect smog ratings or certifications (unless 'offroad features' are enabled)
Dyno results:
The Dyno: Dynapack 4000 Chassis Dyno (wheel hub attachment).
RPM Range: 2000-8400
Baseline Performance (Gruppe-M + Evo Sport Pulley)
Baseline TQ: 260 ft/lbs @ 3963 RPM
Baseline HP: 347 hp @ 8066 RPM
Active Autowerke:
AA TQ: 268 ft/lbs @ 3923 RPM
AA HP: 369 hp @ 8070 RPM
Peak Differences:
Peak Torque Difference: 21.75 ft/lbs @ 6843 RPM
Peak HP Difference: 28.34 hp @ 6852 RPM
http://www.rcollins.org/m3/dyno/20081010/AA%20Dyno%20vs%20CAI.jpg
To help decipher where the AA ECU adds and subtracts power, The following graphs demonstrate where the gains and losses occurred. Since measuring below 3000 RPMs is difficult and produces wildly erratic results, the deltas in the lower RPM ranges can safely be ignored.
Torque Delta:
http://www.rcollins.org/m3/dyno/20081010/Torque%20Delta.jpg
Horsepower Delta:
http://www.rcollins.org/m3/dyno/20081010/HP%20Delta.jpg
Driving Results:
Unlike the ESS ECU upgrade which seemed to emphasize plenty of bottom-end torque, the gains of the AA ECU are so broad, you don't really notice the bulk of the power in any specific RPM band. That is until you get above 7000 RPMs and expect the power to start dropping off. But instead of dropping off, the AA ECU keeps making more, and more power, until you literally bounce off of the RPM limiter. AA will increase the RPM limiter if you desire. Since the motor only makes maxHP at 8100 RPMs to begin with, I saw no point to increasing the RPM limiter.
AA removed the speed limiter, thus allowing us to go above 165 MPH for the first time. But instead of testing this feature on the road, we tested it on the dyno. On the dyno, we ran 5th gear up to readline, and saw a speedometer reading at 180 MPH -- thus proving the speed limiter has been removed.
I also had a chance to test the "Launch Control" (stationary RPM limiter). I had AA set this to 3500 RPMs. While stationary, you can floor the gas, and the AA ECU will hold the RPM to this level (3500 RPMs) until you pop the clutch. Once you pop the clutch, the stationary limiter is no longer in effect. This was a very cool feature, something I used while trying to run some 1/4 mile times.
Gas mileage:
AA claims that gas mileage should increase with their ECU upgrade. I saw nothing in my driving that would indicate otherwise. Gas mileage really seemed the same to me. I never had a chance to drive the car on a long distance trip, so I never came up with any real highway results. However, mixed city/highway driving certainly didn't lose any MPG, though I would be hard-pressed to say I gained anything.
Problems during testing:
I had one small problem during testing. With the AA ECU upgrade, my check-engine light went on. I used an OBD2 scanner to read the code (0068), and it says there is a constency problem with the fuel-air maps. This is probably easy enough for AA to fix...but I never had a chance to let them fix it.
Comparing AA and ESS ECU upgrades:
I know everybody wants me to compare the AA ECU to the ESS ECU upgrades. It would be very unfair for me to compare the two because I never got any valid dyno results on the ESS software (due to a testing problem), and I only drove around with it for less than one week.
I will say that it seems like the AA ECU upgrade got better gas mileage, and a broader power increase. I also liked how the AA ECU seemed to continue to make LOTS of power until it bounced off of the RPM limiter, whereas the ESS ECU seemed to tone itself down at the upper RPM ranges.
Disclosure:
AA offered me a deal on the ECU upgrade in exchange for dyno testing and this review. The results presented here were the best results we observed (same thing I've done in all past postings). I tried not to let their generocity influence my review. My goal was to give an honest and accurate review that contains both the pros and cons of the ECU upgrade.