znod

My car has been lightened via after-market wheels tires, removing the spare/jack, and replacing the muffler with a B&B. On the other side of the coin, I have comfort seats. I wear only my bikini underwear with my windows up.

grogan and I have never been surprised that we can beat the magazines. But, of course, using a meter, not correcting for weather and altitude, etc., introduces uncontrolled variables. Still, grogan's meter has been dragstrip calabrated--which is a big plus.

His car and my car used to be equal, but he is faster now. His car is completely stock although, when you factor in the differences in our cars, they may weigh about the same. He doesn't have an after-market muffler or throttle body--which by defintion may add no SOP performance (but the difference may be measurable on average). I may even go back to my stock muffler to see what happens, but I do like the sound
(98% of it) and looks of my B&B.

cobradav

Your package is in the UPS system and is on time with a scheduled delivery date of 02/10/2006.

Well looks like Friday after work for the Gtech RR to arrive. Get some relief on Saturday on about 50% of my honey do's and get installed. While she is at church I can sneak off and make first runs, I hope

znod

I have aways figured you for a spy. Now, I know for sure. I assume that you are talking about my return to Tesla. I had them ship me my Pro RR two-day Fed Ex--as they won't ship UPS. I just paid again knowing that I won't have a problem getting my credit. My new meter is supposed to arrive on Wednesday, but I may not get it until Thursday because of away-from-the-house commitments.

Thanks for talking up the Pro RR. You helped me get interested in testing again even though my car has lost time. I know that you did a write up on another thread on what can be done with the Pro RR. How about summarizing its high points on this thread? I'll do the same for the GT2 below.

GT2:

I purchased my GT2 here--paying $179.99--and not shopping for price. For another $30 or so, you can get a guick-turn around repair warranty and the right to lifetime software updates--which I got. For about $25 more, you can get software and a computer download cable. There is no mention of an AC adapter so it appears that your have to download from car to laptop.

I don't really investigate anything on my meters except for their abilties to time to distance and speed, but the GT2 will also do braking and cornering tests. The GT2 will give zero to whatevers for all ten-mile increments covered by a run up to a distance of 1/4 mile. It gives speed to distance values for 30,' 60,', 300,', 1k,' 1/8 mile, and 1/4 mile. It also gives peak HP between 7 (as I recall) and 60 MPH and average HP over this interval.

The GT2 is very easy to setup and use. Do your setup, attach the meter to your windshield, find a safe, flat, and level strip, stop your car, push a button, wait for the meter to say "go," and, then, go for it. After an eigth mile run, for example, the meter clearly displays one's 0 to sixty time. Scrolling through the additional data is easy by using up and down arrow keys. All data are displayed very clearly. The meter stores the data for many runs so you don't have to write your data down immediately.

Also, UUronL posted this article link earlier. The article provides much info on meters used in testing (including both the GT2 and the Pro RR) and related matters. Check it out; its a great article.

grogan545

[quote name='Znod' date='Feb 7 2006, 06:23 PM' post='236429']
Hi Friends:

I am starting "The Official G-Meter Testing Thread" here because the performance and testing of 5-Series autos is a matter of general interest. The predecessor thread linked here really doesn't belong in the "Parts, Accessories, and Mods" discussion. I am making a fresh start with my car here although I have attached one item related to my testing prior to and after my update to 20.01.00. My dealer is trying to deal with my performance loss (PUMA case begun), but this is where I am, and here we go.

To date, besides me, grogan545, EuroCarFan, and Bokke are involved in testing--using Passport GT2's--which provide good, easy-to-access-data without using software and downloading to a computer (which can be done if one spends a bit more). Previously, Realtyman was involved in testing using the same type meter (best 0 to 60 of 5.35 with his SMG). And, once the winter weather let's up, I think he is going to began again. Finally, cobradav's meter, a Tesla Pro RR, is on the way. I exchanged my more than two-month's old Tesla Pro SS for the Pro RR (also on its way)--through the generosity of Tesla. For more comparability with others now; easier to view data of most immediate interest; and a less expensive meter, the GT2 may be the better choice for the average tester. But, for one wanting to delve more deeply into test data, after computer download, the Pro RR may be the better choice. Or, if you are like me, then the better choice is both.

Guys, please bring anything you want over from any prior threads. For example, grogan, you may want to bring over your summary data and the results of your recent post-20.01.00 test data. And, Bokke, you might want to bring over all your test data since you have just begun. EuroCarFan, when is it going to stop raining on you? Here are some of the data from the big-three US auto magazines for the 545i.

BMW 545i--Manual CD 5/04 5.5 14.1 103
BMW 545i--Step RT 6/05 5.2 13.7 104.0
BMW 545i--Step MT 8/04 5.4 13.7 102.1
BMW 545i--Step MT 11/05 5.5 13.8 102.8
BMW claims 0 to 60 of 5.8 for the Step and 5.7 for the SMG and manual, respectively

Today, I did my last tests before going to my dealer for what I think was a reset of my "DME Engine management ME9." I will begin my post-dealer testing probably starting tomorrow. Here are my two best (of four) runs from today. grogan545 introduced the idea that using D might be good after 20+ updates. One of my best today was in D.

Run in D--GT2 Used--No Brake Torquing--DSC/DTC Off--55 Degrees

HP 327 @ 55; Ave HP 275
0 - 80 8.80
0 - 70 7.05
0 - 60 5.30
0 - 50 3.97
0 - 40 2.87
0 - 30 1.70
0 - 20 .92
0 - 10 .28
1/8 Mile Time 8.90
1/8 Mile Speed 79
330' 5.75
60' 1.95

Run in DS--GT2 Used--No Brake Torquing--DSC/DTC Off--55 Degrees

HP 328 @ 55; Ave HP 276
0 - 80 8.80
0 - 70 7.05
0 - 60 5.32
0 - 50 4.03
0 - 40 2.90
0 - 30 1.73
0 - 20 .98
0 - 10 .28
1/8 Mile Time 8.93
1/8 Mile Speed 79
330' 5.80
60' 1.98

Below are my before and after 20.01.00 data. I am not going to dwell here on what is causing the differences. This matter is dealt with elsewhere. My goal, with respect to this thread, is to test, document, and improve my results given where I am starting and to share all pertinent information garnered with all interested.

Enjoy.

Great thread started Znod.I think there is a much larger exposure in this forum.
Below are some of my times
speed R1 R2 R3 R4 Ave
0-10 .33 .35 .33 .33 .34
0-20 1.05 1.02 1.05 1.00 1.03
0-30 1.80 1.73 1.85 1.73 1.78
0-40 2.93 2.80 2.83 2.80 2.84
0-50 4.02 3.83 3.83 3.88 3.89
0-60 5.33 5.03 5.00 5.17 5.13
0-70 6.93 6.55 6.52 6.78 6.70
0-80 8.65 8.12 8.05 8.45 8.32
60' 2.05 2.02 2.05 2.00 2.03
330' 5.83 5.72 5.75 5.75 5.76
1/8 8.93 8.75 8.75 8.83 8.79
1/8 spd 80.0 82.1 82.6 80.6 81.3
Runs 1 & 4 are in one direction,runs 2 & 3 are in the opposite direction.There is obviously a slight grade in my test road so I test both directions to equal it out.All above runs were in warm weather(May,August 2005)
using manual mode in the step with DTC/DSC disabled

I made 2 runs recently using D and leting the step shift for itself.Due to tremendous traction problems I left DTC/DSC enabled.Standard Goodyear tires are terrible in cold weather(30 F).Updated to 20.01 before these runs.
speed R1 R2
0-10 .30 .30
0-20 1.10 .97
0-30 1.88 1.70
0-40 3.00 2.85
0-50 3.97 3.90
0-60 5.10 5.25
0-70 6.60 6.88
0-80 8.08 8.50
0.90 9.68 10.40
0-100 11.65
60' 2.08 2.00
1/8 spd 83.1 80.4
330' 5.83 5.75
1/8 8.83 8.85
1/4 13.48
1/4 spd 102
Again run 1 & run 2 in opposite directions.Note I had a better start in "uphill" direction but by 60mph Run 1(downhill)is faster.The grade is not apparant to the eye

znod

Great grogan. Thanks for posting your data. We are off and running. I am looking forward to seeing what we can do with 20.01.00.

grogan545

[QUOTE=Znod;236462]Great idea ECF:

I have corrected the test you mentioned and two others resulting from copy, paste, and distractions. Here are the settings that all of us using the GT2 are using, except that grogan545 is using a 10" rollout to maintain comparability with his earlier testing.

My setup values for the time/speed related GT2 settings are as follows.

1. Rollout distance for both 0 to 60 and the ? mile?12??which is a "shallow-staging" standard that often is attemped on dragstrips and often is used in magazine tests.

2. Pitch correction?1.9?I used this correction factor because the GT2 manual indicates that, in trying to develop pitch correction factors for the C5 Z06 and the Audi S4, values of 1.5 and 2.0 had worked well. Note that my manual indicates that an increase/decrease in the pitch correction factor of .2 will result in ?a .03 slower/faster ? mile time. So, I am trying to be conservative in setting the pitch correction.

My setup values for the flywheel-horse power (FHP)-related GT2 settings are as follows.

1. Test weight of car?4,150 lbs. In this regard, Car and Driver test used a test weight of 4,150 lbs for a car equipped similarly to mine--but with some + and - adjustments needed. Since I don't have all the values needed for the adjustments, I decided just to use the Car and Driver value.

2. Drive-train loss?.20?because of my Steptronic?the value recommended by my manual for an automatic transmission

3. Rolling resistance--.13?the GT2 default?left it alone since I had no idea what better to assume

4. Aerodynamic drag?6.5?I assumed a value .3 lower than the one that worked well for Passport on the Audi S4.
[/quote

I am going to set my GT2 to 12' rollout,4150#,pitch to 1.9,and CD to 6.5 for all future runs so we have a direct comparison.

znod

Great, but do you have other suggestions for the settings? While the setting is conservative, I wonder if the 1.9 for pitch is too high. Oops, but I just remembered you don't have the sport package. So, your car is not sprung as stiffly as mine. Do you think I should use 1.7 or you should use 2.0--like the Audi--for comparability?

grogan545

Great, but do you have other suggestions for the settings? While the setting is conservative, I wonder if the 1.9 for pitch is too high. Oops, but I just remembered you don't have the sport package. So, your car is not sprung as stiffly as mine. Do you think I should use 1.7 or you should use 2.0--like the Audi--for comparability?
[/quote]

I forgot about your sport package I will keep mine at present setting of 2.0.I think all other settings are the same for us.

znod

Perfecto.

Bokke

I removed the charcoal filter but have yet to test - so it should be interesting!

The weather for this weekend looks some what favorable....