Last post on Feb 16, 2013 at 10:05 PM
You are in the BMW 5-Series
What is this discussion about?
BMW 5 Series, Sedan
#12018 of 12737 Re: 535 vs 550 [sdg380]
Aug 16, 2007 (7:13 pm)
Disclaimer: I know both Steve Dinan and Jim Conforti and have tracked and competed in cars using their software(my Dinan chipped 1988 M6 won its Autocross class at Oktoberfest 1994) I have never had any reason to doubt the truthfulness of their claims regarding their chips or ECU reflashes.
Is peak power boosted at the expense of mid-range?
Usually not, based on the cars I've driven and their dyno results. Conforti began re-mapping the part-throttle curves when Dinan was still just modifying WOT parameters- or as Jim puts it:
"Not only do we re-map part-throttle fuel and spark, we also re-map other areas of chips other tuners don't touch - such as acceleration enrichment, transition fueling (how the car responds to rapid change in pedal, and VANOS control as needed to optimize the vehicle for operation on premium fuel (91+ octane)."
Note that the newer naturally aspirated Bimmers(mostly 2004+) leave little additional HP on the table.
Are you saying that optimizing for one fuel grade is the source of the extra hp?
Partially. Dinan and Conforti both assume that you will only use the highest grade of pump gas available and that you will keep the car properly tuned(correct spark plugs, clean air and fuel filters, etc.). Putting it another way, they remove a bit of the safety cushion that BMW built in to compensate for less than optimal maintenance and care.
Actually, with knock sensors on modern engines, I thought they were capable of optimizing performance for fuel grade. Why aren't the original ECM maps designed to offer this performance if mileage doesn't suffer (or is improved)?
See above. Also, the factory ignition map may provide for a maximum ignition advance of say, 25 degrees. The engine may actually be able to handle several degees more advance when running 91 AKI fuel. The re-map will increase the advance and rely on the detonation sensors in a worst case scenario. Why doesn't BMW build them this way from the factory? Beats me. On the M42 engines fitted with the DISA dual resonance intake system there is a hiccup at 4500 rpm when the DISA valve switches to the high rpm intake tracts. Conforti's chip eliminates the surge entirely, while adding 11 hp at 5500 rpm and 19 lb. ft of torque at only 2500 rpm. Dinan and Conforti also freely admit that some BMWs don't respond to chipping or re-mapping. Of course, in other cases there's even more power to be found by modifying the intake, exhaust, injector capacity, etc. A classic example is the Conforti Euro Intake kit for the 1995 M3. The combination of a CAI, a Euro HFM, and a dedicated chip yields 32 hp. In contrast, my Mazdaspeed3 will pick up 20+ hp by merely adding a MS CAI. Go figure.
#12019 of 12737 Re: 535 vs 550 [roadburner]
Aug 16, 2007 (7:28 pm)
Yeah, what HE said. LOL
#12020 of 12737 Kia Amanti safer than 2008 5 series
Aug 18, 2007 (11:17 pm)
BMW may have a longstanding (and well-deserved) reputation for safety, but the results of the latest round of IIHS crash testing may cloud that perception a bit in the U.S., at least for safety-conscious shoppers. In a batch of six sedans recently tested, the 2008 BMW 5-Series sedan was rated 'Marginal' - the next-to-lowest possible score - in the agency's side-impact tests despite having standard head and torso side airbags.
It is inexcusable that a car of this caliber should receive only a marginal rating in side impact testing.
Perhaps BMW should spend less time on foolishness like i-Drive and more time and effort on improving the structural rigidity and crashworthiness of their 5 series. Simply appalling.
#12021 of 12737 Re: Kia Amanti safer than 2008 5 series [priggly]
Aug 19, 2007 (8:10 am)
I think it is a disapointment to the BMW name!! I agree with you on the i-drive but the kia is no match to the Bimmer. Now when the new Hyundai comes out they may have a proublem. I would never buy a kia over a Bmw but as we know they will fix it to bmw quilty.
#12022 of 12737 Re: Kia Amanti safer than 2008 5 series [priggly]
Aug 19, 2007 (8:11 am)
You know..., I've been hearing where various BMWs have performed less than satisfactorily on many IIHS crashes for at least a decade, and yet, insurance company actuarial data suggests that BMWs are just about the safest cars one can drive these days. Geez, my brand new 2002 530i with an MSRP of nearly $49,000 was as inexpensive to insure as our (then) four year old Dodge Grand Caravan. I asked my agent why it was so inexpensive to insure and she said, "They're hard to steal and they're safe to be in when in an accident."
So, why the disconnect? The best explanation that I've heard is that BMW engineers engineer their cars to be safe in many, many scenarios, tests be damned. Sometimes the IIHS tests coincide with their analysis of what is safe, and the car gets a good score on that test, some times the tests don't.
I liken this situation in a weird way to the whole Hybrid debacle, Hybrids it seems were developed to exploit the flawed EPA mileage testing, and as such these cars were released to the market with obscenely exaggerated mileage numbers, numbers that the cars cannot hope to achieve in real world driving. Meanwhile, cars like the BMWs that I have driven have had absolutely no problem exceeding their EPA ratings, even at extra legal speeds.
Long story short, I'll gladly take my chances in a BMW, even in a side impact collision.
Aug 19, 2007 (11:13 am)
In addition to what shipo said, you have to take the test results with a grain of salt. The E60 (current body style) BMW 5 series was completely redesigned for the 2004 model year. Every car in its class (E-Class, Volvo S80, Audi A6...) are pretty much brand new cars for '07 or '08.
Read real life testimonials in BMW Magazine, Roundel Magazine (official magazine of the BMWCCA), and Posts & pictures on Bimmerfest. BMW isn't building flimsy cars!
My wife's '07 X3 3.0si is a little cheaper to insure than her former 7 year old Mazda Protege.
#12024 of 12737 Re: BMW safety [nyccarguy]
Aug 20, 2007 (9:35 am)
I think all these cars are still pretty safe with side airbags and such. But this will no doubt cause BMW some business with people on the fence of which car they want to buy a car via safety ratings. But I doubt this will hurt the loyal BMW-ists that much and keep them from buying a 5 series.
#12025 of 12737 Re: BMW safety [nyccarguy]
Aug 21, 2007 (1:35 pm)
"In addition to what shipo said, you have to take the test results with a grain of salt. The E60 (current body style) BMW 5 series was completely redesigned for the 2004 model year. Every car in its class (E-Class, Volvo S80, Audi A6...) are pretty much brand new cars for '07 or '08."
The one they tested was the new model.
Shipo's point about there being some types of collisions where a car does better/worse is surely correct. It's just impossible to make objective comparisons among cars given the vagaries and anecdotal nature of real world collisions. Watch the video presentation on the IIHS site http://www.iihs.org/news/default.html (Aug 16 news release) and decide for yourself on whether the scenario that their engineers developed to simulate being T-boned in the drivers door relates to a situation one might possibly encounter.
Unfortunately all cars are a bit flimsy when they get hit in this location. Just take a look at the penetration that happens for any of them with a 30 mph impact. It appears that the side airbag in the 5 didn't protect the driver as well as it did in the other cars. Seems like a problem that their excellent engineers could solve.
Aug 21, 2007 (3:29 pm)
I wonder why they don't have at least one diesel engine for the 5 series to compete with the E320 Blutech. BMW could send the 535d. It has a 3.0 liter I6 with 272 hp and 414 lb ft of torque. 0-60 mph is 6.5 seconds yet it still gets about 40 mpg.
#12027 of 12737 Re: Diesels [tgkoenigsegg]
Aug 21, 2007 (4:12 pm)
The diesel is gonna happen. They are getting cleaner, power is up, torque is phenomenal, and fuel prices will soon make it a real choice.