Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 310

Thread: ATI Harmonic Crank Balancer - Want to safely rev your S52 to 8k?

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    678
    My Cars
    95 Dakar M3, 02 Dodge Ram 1500
    Quote Originally Posted by jworms View Post
    response to that:


    it's no surprise that there aren't performance modifications out there right now for the s52 that take advantage of a 7400+RPM redline because as of right now, there is no point...but what if there was a point? what if people figured out that with this simple mod you could now safely rev there? i think the aftermarket would probably be more than willing to accommodate. all it takes is someone willing to try this out. so far, i haven't seen any solid proof that this won't work. all signs are still pointing to it potentially working
    I completely agree with you, I would love to see more NA love. As the market currently stands, even though Im in the built NA club, I think that it is mostly a waste of time given the tried and trued methods of forced induction. But since I am NA, if we could get same OBD-1 love, I would be willing to test it out with some crazy cams. If anything it will give me a bit more piece of mind running anywhere over 7k.


    It looks stock.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    407
    My Cars
    '99 M3
    Quote Originally Posted by jworms View Post
    could be the same "calculated" risk with raising the red line to 7000rpm like some tuners do, or even when sunbelt wanted raise it to 7400RPM. also to consider, there are S54 engines revving to over 9000RPM. those engines surely weren't set to do that from the factory. who is to say that these engines can't withstand a bit more RPM with little downside?

    these engines might actually be capable of withstanding 10,000RPM (hyperbole), but nobody really knows because nobody has really tried and the ones who have tried didn't have this harmonic balancer available to them.

    it would be great to see people run one of these in an S52 and rev the car to 7400RPM. then, after it has been field tested and people are satisfied that 7400RPM is fairly safe, people could try for more.

    again, i haven't seen any cold-hard-facts that completely shoot this idea down. i understand the fear associated with this, but talking about "what if/hypothetical" situations can only get us so far. unless anyone has any show-stopping facts that would stop this from going any further, i'd love to see somebody try this out...
    So why don't we turn this discussion around and think about how this could be validated to work on the E36 M3?

    • Is there a way to measure harmonics/vibrations while a car is running at 7K+ on a dyno?
    • Will doing regular oil analysis help determine if there is any issues going on with the block?
    • What's a safe RPM limit to start validation at? It seems like 7,000 is safe, maybe 7,200 or 7,400?
    Michael Spiegle
    2006 Triumph Daytona 675 - Leo Vince, Full Titanium Exhaust, BMC Filter, TuneBoy Custom Tuned
    1999 BMW M3 - UUC LTW Flywheel, VAC Oil Pan Baffle, UUC TME, UUC DSSR, Dinan BBTB, MM Differential, Z3 Rack, M50 Manifold, 24# Injectors, 803 MAF, Custom RomRaider Tune

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,885
    My Cars
    don't ask
    Quote Originally Posted by jworms View Post
    could be the same "calculated" risk with raising the red line to 7000rpm like some tuners do, or even when sunbelt wanted raise it to 7400RPM. also to consider, there are S54 engines revving to over 9000RPM. those engines surely weren't set to do that from the factory. who is to say that these engines can't withstand a bit more RPM with little downside?

    these engines might actually be capable of withstanding 10,000RPM (hyperbole), but nobody really knows because nobody has really tried and the ones who have tried didn't have this harmonic balancer available to them.

    it would be great to see people run one of these in an S52 and rev the car to 7400RPM. then, after it has been field tested and people are satisfied that 7400RPM is fairly safe, people could try for more.

    again, i haven't seen any cold-hard-facts that completely shoot this idea down. i understand the fear associated with this, but talking about "what if/hypothetical" situations can only get us so far. unless anyone has any show-stopping facts that would stop this from going any further, i'd love to see somebody try this out...
    Yes the "risk" of failure, if you want to call it that, could be calculated...but it would go up exponentially with RPM most likely. Maybe that risk is acceptable to you.

    If you have the curiosity and the money to burn should something go boom, go ahead and try it.

    Someone eventually is going to bring up the "a turbocharged S52 will run circles around your 12,000 rpm S52" argument.
    -Peter

    Current toy: none
    Past cars: 88 M3, 99 M3 x2, 04 M3, 91 NSX, 06 S2000, 01 911TT, 06 Exige, 00 NSX, 04 GT3

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    10,247
    My Cars
    Audi RS4. BMW S1000RR.
    Quote Originally Posted by jworms View Post
    could be the same "calculated" risk with raising the red line to 7000rpm like some tuners do, or even when sunbelt wanted raise it to 7400RPM. also to consider, there are S54 engines revving to over 9000RPM. those engines surely weren't set to do that from the factory. who is to say that these engines can't withstand a bit more RPM with little downside?

    these engines might actually be capable of withstanding 10,000RPM (hyperbole), but nobody really knows because nobody has really tried and the ones who have tried didn't have this harmonic balancer available to them.

    it would be great to see people run one of these in an S52 and rev the car to 7400RPM. then, after it has been field tested and people are satisfied that 7400RPM is fairly safe, people could try for more.

    again, i haven't seen any cold-hard-facts that completely shoot this idea down. i understand the fear associated with this, but talking about "what if/hypothetical" situations can only get us so far. unless anyone has any show-stopping facts that would stop this from going any further, i'd love to see somebody try this out...
    Basically you're suggesting trial and error method, which is fine... except when the error eventually comes from constantly pushing the limits of the engine will take, and when you finally find that limit you're going to be left with a popped motor.

    It's an expensive method, but hey if you're up for it.

    Just realize that an with the s52 you're stuck between a rock and a hard place... you either rev the piss out of it with basic bolt ons and the thing runs out of breath at 7200rpm or you spend $7,000 making it breath at 8,000+ revs but now you're stuck with something only making s54+header power with race engine reliability. It just isn't worth it unless you're restricted by racing class.

    The other problem is that ever redline RPM you increase puts exponential forces on critical components while you're subject to decreased HP gains due to the basic structure/components of the s52... greater chance of failure for lower return of power.
    Last edited by Serious; 06-02-2010 at 02:56 PM.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    2,771
    My Cars
    991 911 Turbo S, Model 3
    Quote Originally Posted by GotBHP? View Post
    Yes the "risk" of failure, if you want to call it that, could be calculated...but it would go up exponentially with RPM most likely. Maybe that risk is acceptable to you.

    If you have the curiosity and the money to burn should something go boom, go ahead and try it.

    Someone eventually is going to bring up the "a turbocharged S52 will run circles around your 12,000 rpm S52" argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Serious View Post
    Basically you're suggesting trial and error method, which is fine... except when the error eventually comes from constantly pushing the limits of the engine will take, and when you finally find that limit you're going to be left with a popped motor.

    It's an expensive method, but hey if you're up for it.
    no, i'm not about to blow my motor up by trying to make it rev to something that it can't do safely. at the same time, we don't know what it can do safely and it seems like there is a lot of assuming going on here about that. i'm curious, who originally said 7000RPM is safe on these motors? what about when sunbelt suggested 7400RPM? what did they do to test this?

    i think mspeigle summed it up quite nicely. instead of crushing this idea with hypotheticals, let's figure out how this could be adequately tested...

    Quote Originally Posted by mspiegle View Post
    So why don't we turn this discussion around and think about how this could be validated to work on the E36 M3?

    • Is there a way to measure harmonics/vibrations while a car is running at 7K+ on a dyno?
    • Will doing regular oil analysis help determine if there is any issues going on with the block?
    • What's a safe RPM limit to start validation at? It seems like 7,000 is safe, maybe 7,200 or 7,400?
    UUC EVO III SSK | M50 Intake Manifold | Conforti 3.5" CAI | AA Software | 3.5" HFM (unplugged)
    Fan Delete | Strömung Exhaust | UUC Stg2 Ltw Flywheel | X-Brace | AA Track Pipe | 3.46 Differential


    1/4 mile: 13.3@104.2mph; 8.6 in 1/8; 2.04 60' | Best 1/8 mile: 8.3@83mph; 1.81 60'
    Dyno: 242rwhp/232rwtq
    SOLD

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SW, Florida
    Posts
    1,584
    My Cars
    Z3
    Quote Originally Posted by shaeff View Post
    I'm a n00blet when it comes to these cars. Is it just the belt type that's different, or is the crank snout a different size?

    If the crank snout is the same size, I don't see any issues with swapping to s52 style pulleys. At that point, might as well go with underdrive pulleys, as I'm getting to that point of not too many more bolt-ons.
    ^Never took that into consideration, and you may be correct. I looked up the Real Oem part numbers of the S50/S52 crank and they are indeed different (and of course they would be, right?)

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    So.California
    Posts
    19,595
    My Cars
    1995 M3
    Quote Originally Posted by jworms View Post
    no, i'm not about to blow my motor up by trying to make it rev to something that it can't do safely. at the same time, we don't know what it can do safely and it seems like there is a lot of assuming going on here about that. i'm curious, who originally said 7000RPM is safe on these motors? what about when sunbelt suggested 7400RPM? what did they do to test this?

    i think mspeigle summed it up quite nicely. instead of crushing this idea with hypotheticals, let's figure out how this could be adequately tested...

    Well then, we need someone who is willing to sacrifice an engine or parts to test.
    Computer modeling won't do it.
    It would only be an approximation.

    Maybe contact Sunbelt and get some info, first.
    Walk a mile in my shoes and you are a mile away in someone else's shoes.
    Goodridge*UUC sways* Black TME's and mounts( switched from Red)* x-brace*brembo rotors*Zimmerman rear*Pagid*Kumho Ecsta SPT's* Roja Formula 7's (Bronze)* Stromung*Powdercoated AA DSB* OMP strut bar*GC RSM's* M3 alum/leather knob*JTD underpanel *Traffic PRO (sold) *Black hella Ellipsoids w/celis rings * ACS Pedals*ACS handbrake*RE Octane SSK*Wheelskins Eurotones S/ Wheel Cover( tossed-replaced with new one)* Totally Covers Front seat velour covers with custom styling *Rieger roof spoiler-lost it on fwy Stock A/B*URI CP (ditched years ago)*540 HFM (sold) Stock HFM (BeckArnley)*FMS 24 lb inj*Alum rad and some other stuff*Konis w/adj rr's*Vogtland springs ** Passport 8500(sold)*Passpprt 7500 (sold V1-1.8 with POP) No detectors at all.
    Coming...nada

    BMWCCA-303681

  8. #33
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,524
    My Cars
    '95 M3 + 86.5T Supra
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceman00 View Post
    ^Never took that into consideration, and you may be correct. I looked up the Real Oem part numbers of the S50/S52 crank and they are indeed different (and of course they would be, right?)
    Yeah, someone with a decent set of calipers would have to measure and compare. In any case, I'm not looking to rev the piss out of my s50, just for lighter weight parts to toss into the mix.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    407
    My Cars
    '99 M3
    Quote Originally Posted by Serious View Post
    Basically you're suggesting trial and error method, which is fine... except when the error eventually comes from constantly pushing the limits of the engine will take, and when you finally find that limit you're going to be left with a popped motor.

    It's an expensive method, but hey if you're up for it.

    Just realize that an with the s52 you're stuck between a rock and a hard place... you either rev the piss out of it with basic bolt ons and the thing runs out of breath at 7200rpm or you spend $7,000 making it breath at 8,000+ revs but now you're stuck with something only making s54+header power with race engine reliability. It just isn't worth it unless you're restricted by racing class.

    The other problem is that ever redline RPM you increase puts exponential forces on critical components while you're subject to decreased HP gains due to the basic structure/components of the s52... greater chance of failure for lower return of power.
    Quote Originally Posted by GotBHP? View Post
    Yes the "risk" of failure, if you want to call it that, could be calculated...but it would go up exponentially with RPM most likely. Maybe that risk is acceptable to you.

    If you have the curiosity and the money to burn should something go boom, go ahead and try it.

    Someone eventually is going to bring up the "a turbocharged S52 will run circles around your 12,000 rpm S52" argument.

    While there is a certain level of "unknown" and risk, isn't this how the aftermarket/tuning community got to where it is? Someone saw a need, did some research, then took a risk. Nobody had all of the answers right away. Nobody knew the limits of this platform from the start.

    If you had told someone in 1995 that E36 M3s would be pushing 1,000rwhp (regardless of aspiration method), they would have cited all the potential reasons why it would never work. Yet, we now have examples of extremely high-HP cars and people are continuing to innovate.

    I also don't believe anyone is intending to slap an ATI damper onto an otherwise stock motor (probably with over 100K miles on it), expect to rev to the moon safely, AND get a significant power increase. I would imagine at a minimum, you would need a proper rotating assembly in the block, and the proper internals in your head to support speeds at 8K and beyond.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaeff View Post
    Yeah, someone with a decent set of calipers would have to measure and compare. In any case, I'm not looking to rev the piss out of my s50, just for lighter weight parts to toss into the mix.
    If anyone has an S50 crank in my area, I just got a set of micrometers for doing an engine rebuild and I can verify the size of the S50 snout against the size of the S52 snout.
    Last edited by mspiegle; 06-02-2010 at 03:29 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    Michael Spiegle
    2006 Triumph Daytona 675 - Leo Vince, Full Titanium Exhaust, BMC Filter, TuneBoy Custom Tuned
    1999 BMW M3 - UUC LTW Flywheel, VAC Oil Pan Baffle, UUC TME, UUC DSSR, Dinan BBTB, MM Differential, Z3 Rack, M50 Manifold, 24# Injectors, 803 MAF, Custom RomRaider Tune

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    10,247
    My Cars
    Audi RS4. BMW S1000RR.
    Quote Originally Posted by mspiegle View Post
    I would imagine at a minimum, you would need a proper rotating assembly in the block, and the proper internals in your head to support speeds at 8K and beyond.
    At that point, what is the point... you've already spent so much $$$ that you could have a better platform (s50b32 or s54) to mod off of and make way more power.

    It's like trying to make a civic go fast, at some point you should just realize that instead of dumping $15,000 into your civic to hit 13's you should spend that cash on a vette and hit 11.5's. (numbers pulled out of thin air).

    If you want to test the limits of the s52 then either be willing to pop some motors in the process or at least do full teardowns and inspect for wear and stress indicators, because while bmw uses theoretical prilimary designs for their engines during development nothing can replicate real world testing of blowing one up, and bmw blow up alot of motors during development... it's just part of the process.
    Last edited by Serious; 06-02-2010 at 03:42 PM.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,885
    My Cars
    don't ask
    Quote Originally Posted by mspiegle View Post
    While there is a certain level of "unknown" and risk, isn't this how the aftermarket/tuning community got to where it is? Someone saw a need, did some research, then took a risk. Nobody had all of the answers right away. Nobody knew the limits of this platform from the start.

    If you had told someone in 1995 that E36 M3s would be pushing 1,000rwhp (regardless of aspiration method), they would have cited all the potential reasons why it would never work. Yet, we now have examples of extremely high-HP cars and people are continuing to innovate.

    I also don't believe anyone is intending to slap an ATI damper onto an otherwise stock motor (probably with over 100K miles on it), expect to rev to the moon safely, AND get a significant power increase. I would imagine at a minimum, you would need a proper rotating assembly in the block, and the proper internals in your head to support this kind of speed.
    Yes, someone is going to have to go do this themselves if they want to prove anything. I can crunch numbers, do modal analysis of crankshafts, and state laws of physics and vibration all day... but there are always going to be people who don't believe in things like math or modeling and have to see it with hi-res photos. Thrown in a scan of a dyno graph and a time slip for good measure and everyone will be on board.

    I must respond to your last point though: no amount of work on the rotating assembly is going to change the fact that there are natural frequencies of vibration here. Those frequencies are what will cause bolts to come loose, round bearings to become elliptical, and fatigue failure in certain parts. This is assuming of course you don't change to using some unobtanium metal that is different than all other known metals and alloys.

    I will never understand the E36 M3 owner's obsession with 8000+ rpm.
    -Peter

    Current toy: none
    Past cars: 88 M3, 99 M3 x2, 04 M3, 91 NSX, 06 S2000, 01 911TT, 06 Exige, 00 NSX, 04 GT3

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    2,771
    My Cars
    991 911 Turbo S, Model 3
    Quote Originally Posted by Serious View Post
    At that point, what is the point... you've already spent so much $$$ that you could have a better platform (s50b32 or s54) to mod off of and make way more power.

    It's like trying to make a civic go fast, at some point you should just realize that instead of dumping $15,000 into your civic to hit 13's you should spend that cash on a vette and hit 11.5's. (numbers pulled out of thin air).
    what about higher revving for FI applications on the E36 M3? i could see this greatly benefitting the E36 FI crowd as well.

    and to your same example, why don't E46 M3 owners throw in an LSX motor and run 10s? why spend lots of money on a motor that requires top dollar when there are much cheaper alternatives out there? sometimes it's not just about what you run; how you get there can be just as satisfying
    UUC EVO III SSK | M50 Intake Manifold | Conforti 3.5" CAI | AA Software | 3.5" HFM (unplugged)
    Fan Delete | Strömung Exhaust | UUC Stg2 Ltw Flywheel | X-Brace | AA Track Pipe | 3.46 Differential


    1/4 mile: 13.3@104.2mph; 8.6 in 1/8; 2.04 60' | Best 1/8 mile: 8.3@83mph; 1.81 60'
    Dyno: 242rwhp/232rwtq
    SOLD

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    407
    My Cars
    '99 M3
    Quote Originally Posted by Serious View Post
    At that point, what is the point... you've already spent so much $$$ that you could have a better platform (s50b32 or s54) to mod off of and make way more power.
    Quote Originally Posted by GotBHP? View Post
    I will never understand the E36 M3 owner's obsession with 8000+ rpm.
    Some people want to stick with NA, and as far as NA goes, it's the only other way to make more power. Heck, even the FI guys could benefit from this. If you can hold more torque at a higher RPM, you've got more HP. Making buttloads of torque at a low RPM stresses your rods more, but doesn't give you more peak HP.

    As an example, let's say someone has a hot race motor making 280rwhp at 7,000RPM. Math says that they should be making 210rwtq. If they were able to extend their RPMs to 7,500 and make the same torque (assuming hot cams here), then they're now at 299.8rwhp. If you were able to maintain that torque at 8,000 RPM,now you're at 319.8rwhp. So adding 1,000 RPM could mean nearly 40rwhp. That's some significant power to road racers.

    We can sit here all day long and argue about why it does or doesn't work, but at the end of the day, if nobody tries it, nobody wins.
    Michael Spiegle
    2006 Triumph Daytona 675 - Leo Vince, Full Titanium Exhaust, BMC Filter, TuneBoy Custom Tuned
    1999 BMW M3 - UUC LTW Flywheel, VAC Oil Pan Baffle, UUC TME, UUC DSSR, Dinan BBTB, MM Differential, Z3 Rack, M50 Manifold, 24# Injectors, 803 MAF, Custom RomRaider Tune

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    So.California
    Posts
    19,595
    My Cars
    1995 M3
    Quote Originally Posted by mspiegle View Post
    Some people want to stick with NA, and as far as NA goes, it's the only other way to make more power. Heck, even the FI guys could benefit from this. If you can hold more torque at a higher RPM, you've got more HP. Making buttloads of torque at a low RPM stresses your rods more, but doesn't give you more peak HP.

    We can sit here all day long and argue about why it does or doesn't work, but at the end of the day, if nobody tries it, nobody wins.
    I'd suggest contacting people in the arena who've already done some work on testing the limits.
    Pro's who've spent the money.

    One pulley isn't going to change much.
    You're looking at a lot more than one part in this quest.
    Walk a mile in my shoes and you are a mile away in someone else's shoes.
    Goodridge*UUC sways* Black TME's and mounts( switched from Red)* x-brace*brembo rotors*Zimmerman rear*Pagid*Kumho Ecsta SPT's* Roja Formula 7's (Bronze)* Stromung*Powdercoated AA DSB* OMP strut bar*GC RSM's* M3 alum/leather knob*JTD underpanel *Traffic PRO (sold) *Black hella Ellipsoids w/celis rings * ACS Pedals*ACS handbrake*RE Octane SSK*Wheelskins Eurotones S/ Wheel Cover( tossed-replaced with new one)* Totally Covers Front seat velour covers with custom styling *Rieger roof spoiler-lost it on fwy Stock A/B*URI CP (ditched years ago)*540 HFM (sold) Stock HFM (BeckArnley)*FMS 24 lb inj*Alum rad and some other stuff*Konis w/adj rr's*Vogtland springs ** Passport 8500(sold)*Passpprt 7500 (sold V1-1.8 with POP) No detectors at all.
    Coming...nada

    BMWCCA-303681

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    10,247
    My Cars
    Audi RS4. BMW S1000RR.
    Quote Originally Posted by mspiegle View Post
    Some people want to stick with NA, and as far as NA goes, it's the only other way to make more power. Heck, even the FI guys could benefit from this. If you can hold more torque at a higher RPM, you've got more HP. Making buttloads of torque at a low RPM stresses your rods more, but doesn't give you more peak HP.

    As an example, let's say someone has a hot race motor making 280rwhp at 7,000RPM. Math says that they should be making 210rwtq. If they were able to extend their RPMs to 7,500 and make the same torque (assuming hot cams here), then they're now at 299.8rwhp. If you were able to maintain that torque at 8,000 RPM,now you're at 319.8rwhp. So adding 1,000 RPM could mean nearly 40rwhp. That's some significant power to road racers.

    We can sit here all day long and argue about why it does or doesn't work, but at the end of the day, if nobody tries it, nobody wins.
    In theory except in the real world it's nearly impossible to keep torque from falling off... hell it took BMW 4.0L to get something that would make enough torque in the midrange to be daily drivable and still make enough torque in the higher revs to maintain good peak HP.

    Attempting to do the same with 3.2l and no double vanos or advanced control as the s65 has is just going to result in a peaky ass powerband, which isn't any good for track driving anyways.


    Quote Originally Posted by jworms View Post
    what about higher revving for FI applications on the E36 M3? i could see this greatly benefitting the E36 FI crowd as well.

    and to your same example, why don't E46 M3 owners throw in an LSX motor and run 10s? why spend lots of money on a motor that requires top dollar when there are much cheaper alternatives out there? sometimes it's not just about what you run; how you get there can be just as satisfying
    That's the thing about FI, as a general rule you actually put less stress on the components by turning up the boost rather then cranking up the revs past what they were designed for.

    As for e46 m3 owners, well they run into the same thing just at a higher HP level vs. the e36 guys, so ya probably around the 350whp point... it becomes financially more efficient to just swap to a v8. (leaving out FI options here because its irrelevant to the argument at hand).

    I would be posting the same thing on m3forum right now if someone was looking to squeeze 370whp out of an s54.
    Last edited by Serious; 06-02-2010 at 04:16 PM.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    407
    My Cars
    '99 M3
    Quote Originally Posted by Balthazarr View Post
    I'd suggest contacting people in the arena who've already done some work on testing the limits.
    Pro's who've spent the money.

    One pulley isn't going to change much.
    You're looking at a lot more than one part in this quest.
    Again people, let's talk about moving forward - not backwards. It has already been stated that this isn't a 1-part-fixes-all situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serious View Post
    good theory except in the real world it's nearly impossible to keep torque from falling off... hell it took BMW 4.0L to get something that would make enough torque in the midrange to be daily drivable and still make enough torque in the higher revs to maintain good peak HP.

    Attempting to do the same with 3.2l and no double vanos or advanced control as the s65 has is just going to result in a peaky ass powerband, which isn't any good for track driving anyways.
    Most track cars HAVE "peaky ass" powerbands. For a given platform in N/A form, rarely do you ever get to increase your power across the entire range. It's usually always a trade-off towards high-RPM power, and low-to-midrange power. A track car spends most of it's time above 4K, so whatever happens below that isn't as important.

    You're right about the torque falling off, you'd need to do something to make your torque higher. Currently, all modifications to the head are done assuming a maximum RPM. If that RPM limit were raised, then you would need to design your head with more bias towards your new RPM range.
    Last edited by mspiegle; 06-02-2010 at 04:20 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    Michael Spiegle
    2006 Triumph Daytona 675 - Leo Vince, Full Titanium Exhaust, BMC Filter, TuneBoy Custom Tuned
    1999 BMW M3 - UUC LTW Flywheel, VAC Oil Pan Baffle, UUC TME, UUC DSSR, Dinan BBTB, MM Differential, Z3 Rack, M50 Manifold, 24# Injectors, 803 MAF, Custom RomRaider Tune

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    10,247
    My Cars
    Audi RS4. BMW S1000RR.
    Quote Originally Posted by mspiegle View Post
    Most track cars HAVE "peaky ass" powerbands. For a given platform in N/A form, rarely do you ever get to increase your power across the entire range. It's usually always a trade-off towards high-RPM power, and low-to-midrange power. A track car spends most of it's time above 4K, so whatever happens below that isn't as important.
    A car that makes power at 8,000+rpm on an s52 won't have any balls at 4 or 5000rpm. thats the problem. On a track you spend jsut as much if not more time around 5500revs then at 8000.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles | CA
    Posts
    6,119
    My Cars
    95 M3 Turbo, 07 650XChlg
    Buy me one and I'll be the test pig for my turbo s52

    WTB: E36 ZKW Headlights, ACS Rear Diffuser,E36 M mudflaps front + rear

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,885
    My Cars
    don't ask
    Quote Originally Posted by mspiegle View Post
    Some people want to stick with NA, and as far as NA goes, it's the only other way to make more power. Heck, even the FI guys could benefit from this. If you can hold more torque at a higher RPM, you've got more HP. Making buttloads of torque at a low RPM stresses your rods more, but doesn't give you more peak HP.

    As an example, let's say someone has a hot race motor making 280rwhp at 7,000RPM. Math says that they should be making 210rwtq. If they were able to extend their RPMs to 7,500 and make the same torque (assuming hot cams here), then they're now at 299.8rwhp. If you were able to maintain that torque at 8,000 RPM,now you're at 319.8rwhp. So adding 1,000 RPM could mean nearly 40rwhp. That's some significant power to road racers.

    We can sit here all day long and argue about why it does or doesn't work, but at the end of the day, if nobody tries it, nobody wins.
    Fine I'll bite on this one since work is slow today -

    You are right, HP is almost an arbitrary number. It is only calculated based on torque and rpm. And wouldn't you know, torque is what really matters.

    Producing "buttloads" of torque at a low rpm doesn't stress the rods anywhere NEAR as much as running 1000 more rpm does for more HP. The acceleration the piston is subjected to increases as the square of RPM... and consequently so does stress. For an S52:

    @7000 RPM the max acceleration your piston is experiencing is ~3327 G.
    @8000 RPM the max acceleration your piston is experiencing is ~4345 G.

    An increase of over 1000x the acceleration due to gravity is a lot. And go any higher and it obviously becomes worse.

    You (or someone else, I forget) asked how a limit of 7000 RPM is somehow designated as a "safe" limit for a stock-ish S52. Well people consider things like piston speed and acceleration, size/capacity of the bearings, quality of the materials used, cooling/lubrication capacities, and lots of prior experience with similar setups etc. and they come up with something that works pretty well.
    Last edited by GotBHP?; 06-02-2010 at 04:49 PM.
    -Peter

    Current toy: none
    Past cars: 88 M3, 99 M3 x2, 04 M3, 91 NSX, 06 S2000, 01 911TT, 06 Exige, 00 NSX, 04 GT3

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    407
    My Cars
    '99 M3
    Quote Originally Posted by Serious View Post
    A car that makes power at 8,000+rpm on an s52 won't have any balls at 4 or 5000rpm. thats the problem. On a track you spend jsut as much if not more time around 5500revs then at 8000.
    I don't completely agree with that. The car WILL have fewer "balls" at lower RPMs, but you won't be spending much time down there. Remember, if our rev limit is 1K higher, than your average RPM on the roadcourse would theoretically be 1K higher as well. An S2000 might be anemic below 6K (estimate), but if they can rev up to 9k (estimate), then your powerband is now 6-9k and that's where you'll spend your time on a roadcourse. All things being equal, you will have access to more average HP under the curve because your new powerband is 1k higher.
    Michael Spiegle
    2006 Triumph Daytona 675 - Leo Vince, Full Titanium Exhaust, BMC Filter, TuneBoy Custom Tuned
    1999 BMW M3 - UUC LTW Flywheel, VAC Oil Pan Baffle, UUC TME, UUC DSSR, Dinan BBTB, MM Differential, Z3 Rack, M50 Manifold, 24# Injectors, 803 MAF, Custom RomRaider Tune

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    2,771
    My Cars
    991 911 Turbo S, Model 3
    Quote Originally Posted by GotBHP? View Post
    Fine I'll bite on this one since work is slow today -

    You are right, HP is almost an arbitrary number. It is only calculated based on torque and rpm. And wouldn't you know, torque is what really matters.

    Producing "buttloads" of torque at a low rpm doesn't stress the rods anywhere NEAR as much as running 1000 more rpm does for more HP. The acceleration the piston is subjected to increases as the square of RPM... and consequently so does stress. For an S52:

    @7000 RPM the max acceleration your piston is experiencing is ~3327 G.
    @8000 RPM the max acceleration your piston is experiencing is ~4345 G.

    An increase of over 1000x the acceleration due to gravity is a lot. And go any higher and it obviously becomes worse.

    You (or someone else, I forget) asked how a limit of 7000 RPM is somehow designated as a "safe" limit for a stock-ish S52. Well people consider things like piston speed and acceleration, size/capacity of the bearings, quality of the materials used, cooling/lubrication capacities, and lots of prior experience with similar setups etc. and they come up with something that works pretty well.
    that person who asked how it was determined that 7000RPM is "safe" was probably me. i also asked how 7400RPM was determined to be "safe" when the sunbelt cams first came out. if they went through the same process that you mentioned, then considering the harmonics issue is solved with this, we should probably be ok to rev to 7400RPM, right?

    the numbers are cool to look at, but like you said, until we know the other variables mentioned and how they will handle higher RPMs, we are just guessing if it will take to it well. those are the figures i'm interested in seeing.
    Last edited by jworms; 06-02-2010 at 05:06 PM.
    UUC EVO III SSK | M50 Intake Manifold | Conforti 3.5" CAI | AA Software | 3.5" HFM (unplugged)
    Fan Delete | Strömung Exhaust | UUC Stg2 Ltw Flywheel | X-Brace | AA Track Pipe | 3.46 Differential


    1/4 mile: 13.3@104.2mph; 8.6 in 1/8; 2.04 60' | Best 1/8 mile: 8.3@83mph; 1.81 60'
    Dyno: 242rwhp/232rwtq
    SOLD

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    407
    My Cars
    '99 M3
    Quote Originally Posted by GotBHP? View Post
    Fine I'll bite on this one since work is slow today -

    You are right, HP is almost an arbitrary number. It is only calculated based on torque and rpm. And wouldn't you know, torque is what really matters.
    I would comment on this, but it would just derail the thread. Some people think TQ is all that matters, some people think HP is all that matters, some people think "area under the usable curve" is all that matters.


    Quote Originally Posted by GotBHP? View Post
    Producing "buttloads" of torque at a low rpm doesn't stress the rods anywhere NEAR as much as running 1000 more rpm does for more HP. The acceleration the piston is subjected to increases as the square of RPM... and consequently so does stress. For an S52:

    @7000 RPM the max acceleration your piston is experiencing is ~3327 G.
    @8000 RPM the max acceleration your piston is experiencing is ~4345 G.

    An increase of over 1000x the acceleration due to gravity is a lot. And go any higher and it obviously becomes worse.

    You (or someone else, I forget) asked how a limit of 7000 RPM is somehow designated as a "safe" limit for a stock-ish S52. Well people consider things like piston speed and acceleration, size/capacity of the bearings, quality of the materials used, cooling/lubrication capacities, and lots of prior experience with similar setups etc. and they come up with something that works pretty well.
    Maybe all the talk about FI in this thread is mucking things up. I don't want this to continue to derail the conversation, but I just want to say that my comment was more directed to FI applications. People are bending rods due to the massive amount of low/mid-range torque some turbos are able to produce (not because of RPM). Sure, you can upgrade your rods, but that particular problem will keep following you. At some point, pushing 125+rwtq per cylinder is going to bend upgraded rods as well. If you were able to lower the torque force on an individual rod, but move it faster, then you can get the same HP with less risk of bending your rod. While having 1000rwhp is totally useless for most people, it doesn't stop anyone from trying.
    Michael Spiegle
    2006 Triumph Daytona 675 - Leo Vince, Full Titanium Exhaust, BMC Filter, TuneBoy Custom Tuned
    1999 BMW M3 - UUC LTW Flywheel, VAC Oil Pan Baffle, UUC TME, UUC DSSR, Dinan BBTB, MM Differential, Z3 Rack, M50 Manifold, 24# Injectors, 803 MAF, Custom RomRaider Tune

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    2,771
    My Cars
    991 911 Turbo S, Model 3
    Quote Originally Posted by mspiegle View Post
    I don't completely agree with that. The car WILL have fewer "balls" at lower RPMs, but you won't be spending much time down there. Remember, if our rev limit is 1K higher, than your average RPM on the roadcourse would theoretically be 1K higher as well. An S2000 might be anemic below 6K (estimate), but if they can rev up to 9k (estimate), then your powerband is now 6-9k and that's where you'll spend your time on a roadcourse. All things being equal, you will have access to more average HP under the curve because your new powerband is 1k higher.
    not to forget the numerous gearing options that would become available with a higher redline. that alone could make up for anything "lacking" in the lower RPM range.

    slightly ot, but i honestly feel that my car has too much mid range torque (more than a stock S54). i would gladly sacrifice some of it (shift it to the right) to get 20+rwhp later on.
    UUC EVO III SSK | M50 Intake Manifold | Conforti 3.5" CAI | AA Software | 3.5" HFM (unplugged)
    Fan Delete | Strömung Exhaust | UUC Stg2 Ltw Flywheel | X-Brace | AA Track Pipe | 3.46 Differential


    1/4 mile: 13.3@104.2mph; 8.6 in 1/8; 2.04 60' | Best 1/8 mile: 8.3@83mph; 1.81 60'
    Dyno: 242rwhp/232rwtq
    SOLD

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    6,539
    My Cars
    E36
    The word "safely" is thrown around way too often. Many of the first guys who started taking their Sunbelt-equipped S52's to 7400 were rebuilding their bottom ends not long after. Fact is those big cams everyone likes to praise lose significant low end power. First it starts with a crank pulley, then cams, then a fresh valvetrain at the least, and some headwork while you're in there, and a new exhaust to match the increased flow, and new gearing to keep the motor in its powerband because it doesn't want to run under 3000rpm, and then rebuild the bottom end with better bearings since the motor probably has 100k+ mi as mentioned above, and the rods you'll stretch, plus the pistons with shorter sleeves, oh and don't forget the custom tuning to accomodate the vanos delete, oops gotta upgrade the oil pump assembly too.....

    Congrats you just built yourself an S54 for 10x the price you can buy a better one for. Hell, Stickley's full blown race motors only revved to ~7500rpm and he's a guy who has done his homework. If he could have "safely" gotten more power, he wouldn't have spent $45,000 building his S54 to rev to 9,000. You think you can get an S52 that high? These are not linear equations; good luck with a motor that was only intended to see 6800. It's already impressive they make the power they do and you guys want to get another 25% out of it just by revving it a little higher?
    '04 Jet Black + Cinnamon ///M3 coupe (SMG)
    V-CSL, BBS CH, Öhlins R&T, Brembo GT, Supersprint, Z4M seats, Avant-2

    '99 Estoril Blue + Dove Grey ///
    M3 coupe
    Technique Tuning Stage 1 Turbo, TC Kline DA,
    Rallyroad Brembo BBK, Recaro SRD, ZF 6spd, BMW Traffic Pro 4771, ZKW FX-R

    Gone but not forgotten:

    '99 M3 Estoril Blue/Dove Grey (bought new), '95 M3 Arctic Silver/Black (3.5 HFM setup), '97 318ti Arctic Silver/Red Millpoint (M-Tech Dinan), '02 325XiT Black/Black/5MT (wintermobile), '98.5
    "M3 RS" Cosmos Black/M-cloth (GrpN S50b32), '02 M3 Alpine White/Impulse/SMG (sunroof delete), '04 X5 4.8iS Estoril Blue/M-texture, '02 M3 Alpine White/Black/6MT (CSL wh0re), '97 M3 Techno Violet/Modena (Eurosport Twinscrew), '04 M3 Alpine White/Black/SMG (garage queen)




  25. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    2,771
    My Cars
    991 911 Turbo S, Model 3
    Quote Originally Posted by jvit27 View Post
    The word "safely" is thrown around way too often. Many of the first guys who started taking their Sunbelt-equipped S52's to 7400 were rebuilding their bottom ends not long after.
    that's why this thread is so great. the reasons those engines had to be rebuilt so often might finally have a solution.

    as far as what else will need to be done to rev it to 8000RPM and beyond...that is to be determined. who knows, it might not require much of the stuff you mentioned.

    again, it would be benefit the community much more if we steer this thread in the direction of "how can we do this" instead of "this is why it might/potentially/hypothetically/nobody has done this before/etc. not work"
    UUC EVO III SSK | M50 Intake Manifold | Conforti 3.5" CAI | AA Software | 3.5" HFM (unplugged)
    Fan Delete | Strömung Exhaust | UUC Stg2 Ltw Flywheel | X-Brace | AA Track Pipe | 3.46 Differential


    1/4 mile: 13.3@104.2mph; 8.6 in 1/8; 2.04 60' | Best 1/8 mile: 8.3@83mph; 1.81 60'
    Dyno: 242rwhp/232rwtq
    SOLD

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •