Are you sure this is correct? Seems very slow for the claimed mods and power considering a car with just a downpipe, XHP flash and MHD OTS tune (200 engine hp less than your car) does it in 8.2 seconds.... High elevation?
@@wheresf06 a 200 crank hp advantage can’t be scrubbed off by just ”circumstances”, it should be way faster than what it is for the claimed power. There’s a 340i Xdrive here in sweden with a catted downpipe, custom tune, XHP stage 3 and hpfp on 93 with a dyno’d 470 crank hp that recently managed 60-130 in around 8 flat, and 100-200 in the mid 7s, and the car in the video does 100-200 in 7.3 with all that extra power, e50, wmi and more hardware mods so something seems wrong with it for having all that extra shove and even being RWD which equates to better rolling performance, had the car in the video been an Xdrive i doubt that it would’ve been any faster than the swedish 340i i quoted stats from.
@@MrToastyman900 nobody records a dyno in crank horsepower so i think you’re mistaken on the power of the car you mentioned, plus rwd differs the most bc of traction loss
@@wheresf06 i calculated the crank hp based on the whp that the tuner provided, they claim 18% drivetrain loss on their dyno combined with the xdrive and achieved a figure of 386whp which equates to about 470 crank hp, i didn’t get anything mixed up. And 4wd vs rwd the rwd will be faster during the speeds we are discussing.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W3D1 | Fall | สัปดาห์ตัดสิน ทีมไปไฟนอล](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZBU3GyzqErI/mqdefault.jpg)
That area of Mexico looks pretty nice
Mexico's quite the divergent land!
also, GREAT food
That guy walking on shoulder got passed at 140mph....I wonder what he was 🤔?
"fkn BMW drivers..."
the bone stock ones are slow with those 380hp, but once upgraded like this guy, u know its pulling time
Where did you come up with that number? Stock 340i’s make nowhere near that
@@officialelonmuskyoutubecha4905he’s thinking the m340i
🔥
What’s ur 0-60 and how much power do you think you would gain on E 👀👀👀👀
0.60 is 3.2-3.5 depending on traction on this old setup. It was on E50, made 530whp/630wtq. Im on an upgraded turbo now
60-130's in the 6's now👀
@@trevorjelam so ur on E50 with WMi
@@xcashinx7370 on stock turbo i never had meth spraying, im on a bigger turbo now with meth and an even bigger hpfp
@B58 check my vids
Have you tried flashing back to stage 2+ e50 and see how different is from the custom tune?
The car is built motor/trans big turbo and nitrous now
Did you build the motor yourself or have a shop do it?
wtf is going on here. why does 140mph look like you're moving at about 70mph?
I thought these were faster, my m2 does it in 6.8
This car would now dog walk your m2.
@@trevorjelam I'd hope so, I only have a tune and a downpipe. Stock everything else
@@hellohunter8583 n55s are duds lol
@@howdyimdan i dont have n55. but yes they are
M2 has s58 and ots map is like 25 26psi on twins, and high timing and light weight. I would hope it would be a lot faster lol
Are you sure this is correct? Seems very slow for the claimed mods and power considering a car with just a downpipe, XHP flash and MHD OTS tune (200 engine hp less than your car) does it in 8.2 seconds.... High elevation?
it’s common for 60-130 from the same car to differ from .5 seconds depending on the circumstances
@@wheresf06 a 200 crank hp advantage can’t be scrubbed off by just ”circumstances”, it should be way faster than what it is for the claimed power. There’s a 340i Xdrive here in sweden with a catted downpipe, custom tune, XHP stage 3 and hpfp on 93 with a dyno’d 470 crank hp that recently managed 60-130 in around 8 flat, and 100-200 in the mid 7s, and the car in the video does 100-200 in 7.3 with all that extra power, e50, wmi and more hardware mods so something seems wrong with it for having all that extra shove and even being RWD which equates to better rolling performance, had the car in the video been an Xdrive i doubt that it would’ve been any faster than the swedish 340i i quoted stats from.
@@MrToastyman900 nobody records a dyno in crank horsepower so i think you’re mistaken on the power of the car you mentioned, plus rwd differs the most bc of traction loss
@@wheresf06 i calculated the crank hp based on the whp that the tuner provided, they claim 18% drivetrain loss on their dyno combined with the xdrive and achieved a figure of 386whp which equates to about 470 crank hp, i didn’t get anything mixed up. And 4wd vs rwd the rwd will be faster during the speeds we are discussing.
@@MrToastyman900 386 whp for a stage 2 that’s odd. maybe bc it’s catted, idk why anyone would bother getting a downpipe that’s not catless
Are you at a high elevation?
This log was at 600ft da
U have xhp?
I do
whats done to it
At the time it was tu pump, afe intaks, downpipe, xhp stage 3, wmi custom e50 tune