Dyno Results BPMSport Tuned 240E Software Dyno Results - 430HP
Vital Statistics
  • Vehicle / Motor
  • Dyno Type
  • Dyno Correction
  • Download Dyno Files
  • Notes
BMW E9x M3 (S65 Motor)
Dynojet
Uncorrected
Download-1
Pre 240-E software update
Dyno Database Dispute
Dispute Record:  100617 Dyno Database Entries Affected:
Received: 2014-06-17, 17:42:00 Disputed By: Mike "Benvo" Benveniste
Responsed: 2014-06-24, 22:30:00 Dyno Database Response
Dispute Text Mr. Collins,

...[Excerpts unrelated to Dyno Database removed]...

Furthermore, come (sic) of the entries in your dyno database related to our customer cars are not correct. We've brought this to your attention in the past and you have showed no willingness to enter the correct data, yet you continue to try to externally link others to this incorrect information.

...[Excerpts unrelated to Dyno Database removed]...

Thank you.

CC: Jason Forum Administrator

Dyno Database Response Before receipt of this message, the only prior allegation he sought to address and change in the Dyno Database was Dyno Dabase ID00616 on September 6th, 2013.  That item was immediately addressed and responded to Mr. Benveniste in a public forum on September 12th, 2013 at m5board.com.  At the time this message was sent, the Dyno Database administrator had received no other allegations or investigation requests of factually incorrect entries from Mr. Benveniste or any agents of his company or any of his customers.  This appears to be one of Mr. Benveniste's attempts to create a false narrative that only he can explain the motivation.

Mr. Benveniste also used this correspondence to file a formal complaint with the forum administrator with an apparent purpose of having any references to his product lackluster performance removed from the public record.  The forum administrator is an uninvolved third party and has no frame of reference for any of Mr. Benveniste's allegations and no way to fact check his story.  The forum administrator did not know that Mr. Benveniste's complaint was misleading and factually incorrect (he lied).

The day following this message, Mr. Benveniste sent a six-point message  to the Dyno Database administrator alleging factual errors in the Dyno Database.  This letter came a day after the allegations above stating that he had already sent these complaints (or something like these) before, and he alleged these fictitious complains were ignored by the Dyno Database administrator.

It is the belief of the Dyno Database administrator, that Mr. Benveniste brought this allegation up to an uninvolved third party for the purpose to mislead, request punitive action, and have factually accurate, scientifically accurate, but unflattering tests of his products removed from the public record.  It is further believed that Mr. Benveniste did not submit a multi-faceted complaint prior to making these comments, but did send one a day later in an attempt to write his own narrative and provide a false cover story.  The dates and timestamps of Mr. Benveniste's correspondence very clearly tell a different story than the one he writes.

 

Receive Date/Time: 2014-06-18, 01:18:00 Disputed By: Mike "Benvo" Benveniste
Response Date/Time: 2014-06-22, 17:30:00 Dyno Database Response
Dispute Text I will start by identifying the inaccuracies I see in your dyno database:
1. 
http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=620&vType=1&dynoID=2
The title of this entry is "BPMSport Tuned 240E Software Dyno Results - 430HP"
If you follow the article, you'll find this link: 
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=748613

-This dyno was performed on a Dynapack, however, the chart listed is a dyno jet.
-Under notes it states that this is "Pre 240E software update", however, both runs listed use 240E software.
-The dyno files for download are not from a dynapack.
-The modification since baseline field states "BPM Stage-I tune". The link to the article contains information that this vehicle was equipped with a full Akra Evo, and therefore the modifcation since baseline would be the "BPM Stage II Tune". The blue line in the grpah is a different vehicle that Mr. Church had dynoed prior to this dyno, of a stock BMW M3.
-The dyno type, correction, files, notes, and charts are incorrect.
Dyno Database Response This was point-1 of a six point message alleging factual errors to the Dyno Database administrator.  The Dyno Database will address each of these items separately.

 

Disputed point #1 This dyno was performed on a Dynapack, however, the chart listed is a dyno jet.
Dyno Database Response That is correct.  Mr. Benveniste posted these results himself on post-75 of this same thread.  He is apparently unaware of his own actions and didn't fact check his own story.  This is not an error in the Dyno Database.
Disputed point #2 Under notes it states that this is "Pre 240E software update", however, both runs listed use 240E software.
Dyno Database Response The first recorded reference of "240E" is on or about September 07, 2012. The timestamps on these dyno files show they were recorded on September 30, 2011 between 11:53 AM and 1:56 PM. These dyno results pre-date the existence of 240E by nearly one year.

The Dyno Database finds these dyno tests were performed approximately one year before the existence of 240E software.  Therefore it is impossible for these dyno test results to be based on 240E software when 240E software didn't yet exist for another year.

Mr. Benveniste didn't fact check his own story.  This is not an error in the Dyno Database.

Disputed point #3 The dyno files for download are not from a dynapack.
Dyno Database Response The dyno charts show Dynojet results, and therefore the dyno files for download are from a Dynojet also.  Mr. Benveniste posted these results himself on post-75 of this same thread.  He is apparently unaware of his own actions and didn't fact check his own story.  This is not an error in the Dyno Database.
Disputed point #4 The modification since baseline field states "BPM Stage-I tune". The link to the article contains information that this vehicle was equipped with a full Akra Evo, and therefore the modifcation since baseline would be the "BPM Stage II Tune". The blue line in the grpah (sic) is a different vehicle that Mr. Church had dynoed prior to this dyno, of a stock BMW M3.
Dyno Database Response The dyno files themselves were annotated with the following notes on September 30, 2011:
Runs 003 - 006: Stock Tune, MS S2 intake/scoops, RD Pulley, Akrapovic evo exhaust
Runs 007 - 011: MB Tune, MS S2 intake/scoops, RD Pulley, Akrapovic evo exhaust

The relationship and purpose of tying these results to Church's Automotive or blue lines on a graph is unknown and apparently made in error.  Mr. Benveniste is apparently unaware he posted these results himself on post-75 of the same thread. 

The dyno files are encoded with the modifications list on the day of the dyno session as directly quoted above.  The software revision is not recorded on the dyno file modifications list.  Therefore the Dyno Database sees no reason to deny Mr. Benveniste's request to change the software revision from BPM Stage-1 to BPM Stage-2.

Software revision has been updated as per Mr. Benveniste's request.

Disputed point #5 The dyno type, correction, files, notes, and charts are incorrect.
Dyno Database Response This Dyno Database entry is located within the "DynoJet" section of the database. The dyno files available for download can load under Dynojet software. The allegation above has a very wide scope and far reaching implications.  When taken literally, the allegations state the dyno type is incorrect and therefore these files are not from a Dynojet (even though they load with Dynojet software).  The graphs are printed with SAE correction, but the allegation above says SAE correction is incorrect.  The charts themselves are alleged incorrect (forgeries?) and therefore not an accurate representation of what the Dyno software (WinPep) will produce when you load these files.

Mr. Benveniste offers no proof to substantiate any of these alleged errors.  He offered no proof that the dyno was not in fact a Dynojet.  He offered no proof that the graphs printed showing SAE correction were not SAE correction.  He offered no proof that the charts themselves were forgeries or altered by anything other than the Dynojet software.  The dyno files are available for download and any attempt to recreate the images with the Dynojet WinPep software will clearly show the results exactly as recorded in the Dyno Database.  There is no error whatsoever in the Dyno Database.

The Dyno Database is very perplexed with this aspect of Mr. Benveniste's allegations as they are so far fetched and demonstrably false.  Mr. Benveniste should fact check his own stories before wasting other people's time to investigate frivolous claims.

Summary from the Dyno Database

When graphs and dyno results are posted within a car forum thread, the Dyno Database often times records the thread title and provides a forum link for reference.  Mr. Benveniste is apparently unaware he posted these same dyno results himself in the thread noted and linked in the Dyno Database; and now Mr. Benveniste is alleging these graphs are taken out of context to embarrass his company.  Mr. Benveniste is apparently unaware of his own actions and didn't bother to fact check his own allegations.  The following graph shows the forum thread title, link, and graphs posted by Mr. Benveniste, and clearly shows the references in the Dyno Database are correct:


(Click to Enlarge)

The Dyno Database believes this complaint was made in error.  Most of Mr. Benveniste's complaints seem exclusively based on an erroneous assumption that this Dyno Database entry was made in error by taking it out of context to paint his company (BPM) in a negative light.  In his haste to make this complaint, Mr. Benveniste didn't perform any due diligence to check his own facts.  Quite frankly, it would appear Mr. Benveniste didn't care about the facts and didn't care to investigate his own allegations because the Dyno Database administrator corresponded with Mr. Benveniste on at least two occasions urging him to check his facts before moving forward with this complaint.  Mr. Benveniste's last message indicated he was satisfied with the complaint and believed it to be true and correct.  Had he taken the Dyno Database administrator's advice to perform more thorough and accurate due diligence and fact checking his own story, Mr. Benveniste would have discovered all of these allegations of factual errors were false and all of his assumptions were made based on the fruit of his own poison tree (not realizing he posted these results himself in the same thread).

The Dyno Database makes the following findings about this complaint:
 

  • Even though the original post in the thread shows Dynapack results, Mr. Benveniste also posted these Dynojet results later in the thread.  He is apparently unaware of his own actions.  This is not an error on the part of the Dyno Database.
  • Mr. Benveniste posted these same dyno results in the following forum post location in post #75:  http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13162543&postcount=75.  This is not an error on the part of the Dyno Database.
  • The thread title recorded in the Dyno Database correctly reflects the title of the thread where Mr. Benveniste posted the dyno results himself.  Mr. Benveniste's claim of a wrong thread title is false.
  • The thread link recorded in the Dyno Database correctly points to the thread where Mr. Benveniste posted the dyno results himself.  Mr. Benveniste's claim of a wrong thread link is false.
  • The Dynojet results were recorded approximately one year before 240E software existed.  Therefore Mr. Benveniste's claim that this software was based on 240E is false.
  • Whereas this entry represents Dynojet results, the dyno files are also Dynojet files (of course they are).  Mr. Benveniste's claim is false.
  • The modifications list is fully documented in the notes of the Dynojet files at the time of the dyno session.  The software version number was not recorded in the Dynojet files, and Mr. Benveniste would know better than the Dyno Database what software revision was contained therein.  The Dyno Database has changed the software revision according to Mr. Benveniste's requests.  All other modifications will remain as documented in the Dynojet files.
  • No proof was offered that the dyno was not a Dynojet.  No proof was offered that the SAE correction shown on the graphs was not SAE correction.  No proof was offered charts were forgeries or altered by any program other than the Dynojet software.  The Dynojet files are available for download from the Dyno Database.  When these files are viewed in SAE correction, with Smoothing = 3, with RPM on the X-axis, the Dynojet (WinPep) software produces these exact results.  It's unclear whether Mr. Benveniste possesses enough knowledge and experience with Dynojet software to have fact checked his own story.  If he did possess such knowledge and used it to fact check his own story, it would have been apparent that this claim was also false.


Other than changing the software from BPM Stage-1 to BPM Stage-2, the Dyno Database administrator finds all other claims of Mr. Benveniste's made in this complaint to be false and mostly based on his own errors and lack of attention to detail.
 

Receive Date/Time: 2014-06-18, 01:18:00 Disputed By: Mike "Benvo" Benveniste
Response Date/Time: 2014-06-22, 20:15:00 Dyno Database Response
Dispute Text 4. http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=621&vType=1&dynoID=2
-The downloaded files are the same as #1 listed above.
-Modifications since baseline should be BPM Stage II
-The baseline used should be run #6, as runs 4 and 5 were establishing a baseline, and runs 1-3 had different modifications (AFE intake vs MS)
-The Modification since baseline should be BPMSport 220E Stage II (even though this was not an official release of software - this was solely testing the AFE vs MS intake at the beginning, and then a few tuned runs. On Run 11 a different calibration was flashed to the car.)
-This is a proper chart exported to show the before/after at that time: 
https://www.bpmsport.com/bpm_dyno_eas.jpg
-Max Gains would have been 5.72hp and 1.86tq
-Peak gains were about 15whp and 13wtq
Dyno Database Response This was point-4 of a six point message alleging factual errors to the Dyno Database administrator.  The Dyno Database will address each of these items separately.

 

Disputed point #1 The downloaded files are the same as #1 listed above.
Dyno Database Response Of course they're the same download files.  These are the same dyno results printed in STD instead of SAE correction.  This is not an error in the Dyno Database.
Disputed point #2 Modifications since baseline should be BPM Stage II
Dyno Database Response Already addressed and fixed as per above.
Disputed point #3 The baseline used should be run #6, as runs 4 and 5 were establishing a baseline, and runs 1-3 had different modifications (AFE intake vs MS)
Dyno Database Response RunFile_001 and RunFile_002 are not printed on any of the graphs referenced by the Dyno Database so in this regard, Mr. Benveniste is in error making reference to them.  However RunFile_003 does appear in the graphs. The Dyno Database doesn't really consider this an error since no numerical or analytical comparison is made between RunFile_003 and RunFiles 004 - 006; the results are numerically and visually indistinguishable from each other.  This complaint seems more like a nit pick by Mr. Benveniste to write his own narrative of errors found in the Dyno Database than an actual request to fix a factual error.  Although technically not considered an error in the Dyno Database graphs, to avoid confusion the Dyno Database will remove RunFile_003 from the graphs.

Regarding the second matter of using the correct baseline.  The Dyno Database always records the highest results whether it's a baseline or final results.  Whereas using lower baselines is a common vendor technique to manipulate larger final gains of their products, the Dyno Database aggressively polices this practice and exposes it whenever it is discovered.  "Tuners" and vendors aren't allowed to dictate to the Dyno Database to use a lower baseline when a higher one is available and does not appear to be a gross numerical outlier. 

The baseline for this comparison was RunFile_004 because it is the highest baseline.  RunFile_006 is a lower baseline than RunFile_004.  Mr. Benveniste is requesting to use a lower baseline when a higher baseline is available, and the higher baseline is not a gross numerical outlier.  Whereas this practice of using lower baselines does not meet the Dyno Database standards for truth and accuracy, Mr. Benveniste's request to use the lower baseline is hereby denied.

Disputed point #4 The Modification since baseline should be BPMSport 220E Stage II (even though this was not an official release of software - this was solely testing the AFE vs MS intake at the beginning, and then a few tuned runs. On Run 11 a different calibration was flashed to the car.)
Dyno Database Response In complaint #1 (above), Mr. Benveniste claimed these runs were all made on 240E software, and in this complaint #4 he claims the baseline is 220E software.  Mr. Benveniste apparently isn't terribly attentive to details and doesn't realize these are the same dyno results in STD correction instead of SAE correction.  He's therefore making contradictory claims against the same results.  To the Dyno Database, this distinction is important to the veracity of Mr. Benveniste's complaint.  In complaint #1, he has states that the "Notes" in the Dyno Database which state "Pre 240-E software update" is incorrect because the base software is supposedly 240E.  But in this complaint (#4), he claims the software for the same dyno results to be based on 220E.  The latter complaint contradicts his earlier complaint.  Whereas BMW software version 240E did not exist until a year after these dyno tests were performed, and Mr. Benveniste's acknowledgement that 220E software was used as the baseline is further proof that the "Notes" of the Dyno Database are indeed correct.  But more to the point...

The Dyno Database doesn't record base software revisions, and raising it as an investigation point is a waste of the Dyno Database administrator's time.  The actual software revision of the base software is irrelevant and the discussion is more academic and a waste of the Dyno Database administrator's time chasing down another of Mr. Benveniste's frivolous claims.

Furthermore, although RunFile_011 is shown on some graphs, it is not used in the Dyno Database calculations.  So using it as another point of investigation is another waste of Dyno Database time and not germane to the accuracy of results reported in the Dyno Database.

Disputed point #5 This is a proper chart exported to show the before/after at that time: https://www.bpmsport.com/bpm_dyno_eas.jpg
Dyno Database Response This Dyno Database entry is an STD dyno chart, and the graph linked above is an SAE dyno chart.  Therefore the chart linked above cannot be replaced as the "proper chart" but it can be used to illustrate why Mr. Benveniste has requested the incorrect baseline and to show how vendors manipulate dyno results to use lower baselines and higher final results to show higher gains for their products.


(Click to Enlarge)

The graph below was printed using the same files, same SAE correction factor, and smoothing factor as Mr. Benveniste's graph immediately above.  This allows a direct comparison between the two to illustrate the selection and use of a correct baseline value.


(Click to Enlarge)

RunFile_004 and RunFile_006 are recorded in their dyno files with the same modifications list.  The Dyno Database always records the highest results whether it's a baseline or final results.  RunFile_004 is the highest baseline showing 366.15 whp; RunFile_006 is a lower baseline at 364.61 whp. 

Whereas RunFile_004 is the highest recorded baseline and is not a gross numerical outlier, it is therefore the correct baseline.  RunFile_006 is not the correct baseline because it is not the highest results of the dyno set of results.  Mr. Benveniste is in error both in comparing an SAE graph to STD results and claiming the SAE graph "correct."  But he is also in error claiming that RunFile_006 is the correct baseline.

Disputed point #6 Max Gains would have been 5.72hp and 1.86tq
Dyno Database Response The dispute above seems to imply that the gains calculated by the Dyno Database software is incorrect.  The results under dispute are taken from the following graph:


(Click to Enlarge)

But since this complaint involves the STD correction entry in the Dyno Database, the same graph viewed in STD correction is as follows:


(Click to Enlarge)

In the Dyno Database, all results are rounded to the nearest whole decimal.  For the purposes of this example, the graphs are shown with SMOOTHING=5, the same as Mr. Benveniste's "proper chart" listed above.  RunFile_004 showed 374.93 whp and would be recorded as 375 whp STD correction in the Dyno Database. The highest final results came from RunFile_010 and showed 379.12 whp and would be recorded as 379 whp STD correction in the Dyno Database.  Using the correct baseline and final results, this Dyno Database entry would yield 4whp gain as follows:  379 - 375 = 4.  If we used Mr. Benveniste's preferred baseline (RunFile_006), 373.35 whp would be recorded as 373 whp in the Dyno Database, and the net gains would be 379 - 373 = 6 whp.  This example shows the importance of choosing the proper baseline for fairness and accuracy of reporting.  The example also shows how some vendors, whether intentional or not, will compare a lower baseline to higher final results to show larger gains for their products than would be achieved using consistent measuring and reporting techniques.  In this case, the baseline manipulation gained an extra 2 whp (6 - 4 = 2 whp).

Furthermore, in Complaint #4, Disputed point #3, Mr. Benveniste mentions the runs 4 and 5 were used to establish a baseline.  Mr. Benveniste's point seems to be that although RunFile_004 is higher than RunFile_006, since it was establishing a baseline, the higher results should be ignored.  Applying this same philosophy to post-tuning results, RunFile_011 should be used instead of RunFile_010.  Yet in his own "proper chart exported to show the before/after" results, Mr. Benveniste doesn't follow this same methodology.  The inconsistency is clear, but the motives are not.

 

Disputed point #7 Peak gains were about 15whp and 13wtq
Dyno Database Response The Dyno Database doesn't record or have any way to record this metric.  It is superfluous to this discussion and another waste of the Dyno Database administrator's time to mention it and request an investigation.  It seems like another "cry wolf" false allegation of factual errors put forth by Mr. Benveniste.
Summary from the Dyno Database With each complaint filed by Mr. Benveniste, the more outrageous and ludicrous his claims become.  Without knowing Dyno Database ID's 620, 621, and 622 were all the same results recorded as SAE, STD, and Uncorrected respectively, Mr. Benveniste filed a second complaint against the same results but with contradictory claims.  The Dyno Database makes the following findings regarding this second set of claims on the same dyno results:
 
  • Of course the download files are the same when the recorded dyno session is the same.  Dynojet software does not store different files for SAE, STD, Uncorrected, etc.  Dynojet software saves one set of files, and the WinPep software can convert from one correction type to the next.  Mr. Benveniste is apparently not familiar with Dynojet software enough to know how to use it correctly.
  • Modifications since baseline has been changed to BPM Stage-2 as per Mr. Benveniste's request.
  • The Dyno Database always compares the highest baseline to the highest final results.  The Dyno Database doesn't allow "tuners" or other vendors to dictate to use a lower result in an attempt to manipulate the public record and show higher gains.
  • The Dyno Database rejects the request to use the lower baseline and compare to the highest post-tuning results.  The Dyno Database finds such a tactic manipulative, misleading, and inconsistent with the philosophies of the Dyno Database.
  • Mr. Benveniste's claim that this is a different base software than above is perplexing.  The results discussed above are the same as these.
  • Mr. Benveniste's claim that an SAE dyno chart containing a lower baseline to replace an STD chart using the highest baseline is denied.  The Dyno Database always use highest to highest comparisons, and takes a dim view of "tuners" who try to manipulate the record by using lower baselines.
  • The Dyno Database automatically calculates the deltas between baseline and final results.  These calculations are not entered by hand and no proof has been shown that they are in error.  Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the Dyno Database made these calculations (simple subtraction) correctly.
  • The Dyno Database does not record or use peak gains.  Attempting to use it as an allegation of an error shows lack of attention to the contents and purpose of the Dyno Database.
     
   
Receive Date/Time: 2014-06-18, 01:18:00 Disputed By: Mike "Benvo" Benveniste
Response Date/Time: 2014-06-23, 19:30:00 Dyno Database Response
Dispute Text 6. http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=622&vType=1&dynoID=2
-Same as #4, but uncorrected. All of the other points apply.
Dyno Database Response This is an Uncorrection version of Dyno Database ID 620, and 621.  All of the same responses apply here as applied to them.
Configuration / Modifications:
  • RD Sport Underdrive Pulley
  • Macht Schnell Stage 2 Intake
  • RPI Air Scoops
  • Both CAT Delete
  • Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust System (Titanium)
  • 91 Octane (US), 95 Octane (RON)
  • 6-Speed Manual Transmission
  • The vendor/user has disputed the validity or accuracy of this Dyno Database entry.
Measured Results:
  • Torque
  • Horsepower
271 FT/LBS
367 HP
@ 4285 RPM
@ 8125 RPM
(367.4 NM)
(372.1 PS)
(37.47 KGM)
(273.7 KW)
Dyno Graphs: