Dyno day for the M60B44

[nonturbodan]

This was the first dyno since October 2013 when I did something of a baseline run on the old M60B40 with modified camshaft timing. The best previous run with the 4.0 resulted in 266 RWHP at 5800 RPM. The best run today resulted in 280 RWHP at 5700 RPM. I also took the opportunity to test the M60B30 DME against the B40 DME. On this motor, with stock software in both DME's the difference was 10 RWHP. The B30 DME makes better low end and is dead even until 4300 RPM where the AFR drops down towards the 12:1 range where it stays until redline.

The big gain was torque. The previous baseline made 256 RWTQ at 4900 RPM. The high comp M60B44 pulled a best of 295 RWTQ at 4500 RPM. I don't have a record of the cam timing used on the 4.0 baseline but the current setup is pretty mild. The intake cam lobe center is at 117 degrees and the exhaust is at 109 degrees. I will mess with the timing some more after I get the intake manifold testing completed. I feel like this motor should be doing better on the top end. Theres no reason for it to be choking up like it is with the same heads, cam and intake.

[moroza]

Thanks for posting this. Torque is about what I expected, and I agree that there's got to be a little more power to squeeze out. My M62B44 running modified B40 software put down 264whp at 5700, 296wtq at 3800, with an undersized B30 exhaust as well. I never messed with cam timing. AFR never went below 14.0.

[atl530i]

This an M62 block with M60 heads? Sorry if this has been discussed before...

[nonturbodan]

This an M62 block with M60 heads? Sorry if this has been discussed before...

This is correct

[atl530i]

Nice. I want to do something like this to my car. What tune are you running?

[Sam Son]

no replacement for displacement. Love the engine setup.

[nonturbodan]

Just stock B40 software. The swap makes good power and I think there is more left in it judging by the dyno plot.

[Leonator134]

Sweet! Definitely a cool swap, been wanting to do it. Making this summer.

[mboor]

THANK YOU DAN! I've been waiting for a dyno run of the M60B44. I'm about to start putting one together myself. Is this with stock cam timing?

[JGood325]

Nice! Thanks for sharing.

So you are not running stock m60 timing on this engine? Definitely weird that the power falls off above 5700.

Do you have an aftermarket b40 chip to try (Mark D, etc...)?

[nonturbodan]

Cam timing is definitely not stock. What works on the B40 doesn't seem ideal for the B44. The first thing I'm going to try is retarding both cams about six degrees. Then I'll try opening the intake much earlier and closing the exhaust around TDC. I don't know which half of the stroke isn't filling the cylinders so more experimentation will follow.

Seems like I could go later on the intake closing with what I believe to be fairly efficient intake ports and relatively large valves compared to the volume of the cylinders. On the other hand, if everything is breathing well you shouldn't need a lot of time after BDC to allow the cylinder to continue filling. Opening the intakes sooner would maximize filling during the first part of the stroke where piston speed is greatest and also trap a greater amount of mixture in the cylinders for a higher dynamic compression ratio. Considering the long intake manifold runners and how long it likely takes the column of air within them to get moving I suspect a later intake closing point ABDC is going to be the best bet. That was the kind of timing I used on the original M60B40 dyno that you can see pulling up pretty close to the current B44 on the top end. A later intake closing point also seems to make better power past the peak where the B44 dyno drops off more sharply.

First things first though, I need to clean up and swap out the intake manifold with M62B44 item and dyno again. Once I get that settled I can pull the stupid valve covers back off and mess with the cams some more.

One interesting item I just noticed is what appears to be the rev limiter kicking in early on the pulls made with the 4.0 DME. The 3.0 DME runs to 6500 while the 4.0 hits the fuel cut at 6300. Since these pulls were done in fourth gear it looks like this was actually the speed limiter kicking in. 6300 in 4th would be 131.6 MPH. Apparently the 3.0 DME is not limited at 130 like the 540i/6 is. Looks like just another way they hobbled the 540 against the M5.

[E38740iMD]

How much was the dyno

[nonturbodan]

$80 for four pulls.

[Sankekur]

Very interesting, thank you for posting.

[JGood325]

To be clear, you have not dyno'd the m60b44 with *factory* m60 timing (set with factory cam locks)?

[mboor]

To be clear, you have not dyno'd the m60b44 with *factory* m60 timing (set with factory cam locks)?

+1 ?

[5mall5nail5]

Thanks for posting this. Torque is about what I expected, and I agree that there's got to be a little more power to squeeze out. My M62B44 running modified B40 software put down 264whp at 5700, 296wtq at 3800, with an undersized B30 exhaust as well. I never messed with cam timing. AFR never went below 14.0.

Uhh...

[BruinBimmer]

Thanks for posting this. Torque is about what I expected, and I agree that there's got to be a little more power to squeeze out. My M62B44 running modified B40 software put down 264whp at 5700, 296wtq at 3800, with an undersized B30 exhaust as well. I never messed with cam timing. AFR never went below 14.0.

Wouldn't the knock sensors/DME just cut the engine if it's that lean?

[nonturbodan]

14:1 isn't too bad. 15:1 would be a concern but 14:1 is only a little lean. If your knock sensors aren't detecting detonation they will pull no timing.

I have not dyno'd the M60B40 or B44 with the stock timing. I did have the B44 timed to the factory specs for a week or so before I gave up on it and went back to the previous setting. Stock timing advances the exhaust cam well beyond what I would consider appropriate. The valves are closed pretty much at TDC. The intake valves open around 10 degrees BTDC. I get it from the emissions perspective but in terms of performance theres no good reason for it. It did make good low end power but I was not impressed with any other aspect. I was similarly unimpressed with the stock B40 timing.

[5mall5nail5]

Wouldn't the knock sensors/DME just cut the engine if it's that lean?

Hopefully the ECU pulls timing if it pings, but it won't cut anything if its lean. These ECUs aren't that advanced, I'd be surprised if it did much more than pull timing long term.

14:1 isn't too bad. 15:1 would be a concern but 14:1 is only a little lean. If your knock sensors aren't detecting detonation they will pull no timing.

I have not dyno'd the M60B40 or B44 with the stock timing. I did have the B44 timed to the factory specs for a week or so before I gave up on it and went back to the previous setting. Stock timing advances the exhaust cam well beyond what I would consider appropriate. The valves are closed pretty much at TDC. The intake valves open around 10 degrees BTDC. I get it from the emissions perspective but in terms of performance theres no good reason for it. It did make good low end power but I was not impressed with any other aspect. I was similarly unimpressed with the stock B40 timing.

14.0:1 is somewhat concerning. I've seen a few people mention "timing" and cam advance. These are two different things. Ignition timing has no correlation to how advanced or retarded the cam is. Guys, these are non vanos engines. There is no "stock timing advances the exhaust cam" - the exhaust cam does not move. Peak torque production is almost always achieved around 12.5 - 13.0:1 AFR on port injection engines. Ignition timing and cam timing are two totally different discussions.

[nonturbodan]

I'm not sure if you understand what I mean when I say that. The stock timing setting advances the exhaust cam relative to where I have it set now. Obviously the cam timing is fixed. Ignition timing is not relevant to the cam timing discussion.

I like an AFR closer to 13.5:1 for a non-boosted engine. Half a point away from that is nothing to sweat. I would expect an AFR like that on a car tuned to run with a catalytic converter.

[strang3majik]

That seems kind of low. A buddy of mine made 278whp/289wtq with an m62b44 converted to OBD1 with an sssquid chip in his e30. Unless the large case diff is really robbing that much power.

If this really is the case then the extra compression from the b40 heads creates minimal difference in power. I would hope it would at least break 300.

[nonturbodan]

The peak power was low. Just accounting for the displacement increase the previous dyno at 266 should bump up to 292. This run was with different cam timing and a flowmaster muffler that was not in place for the previous run. I do not know how much the flowmaster might be holding back but its staying in there because it quieted the car down to a satisfactory level compared to the previous system.

I will redyno soon with the M62B44 intake manifold and after that I'm going to try some more things with the cam timing. At some point I'm going to ditch the stock software which will probably good for another few HP.

[moroza]

14.7 is the stoichiometric ratio; 14.0 is slightly rich, at least on paper. To be clear, I don't know much about tuning AFRs for the real world. My only experience was on a turbo SC300 with a massive intake leak. The fireballs it shat would get bigger next to cow fields along the I5 - something about the methane, I suppose.

Is it possibly the intake that's holding you back? To get that theoretical 292 it needs to flow more air than either the stock M60B40 or M62B44, right? FWIW, I thought I picked up a little power with a wider airbox velocity stack (the very first intake pipe, from under the airfilter to the other side of the plastic panel behind the starboard headlights).

Also, what exhaust system is between the downpipes and muffler?

[BruinBimmer]

I will redyno soon with the M62B44 intake manifold and after that I'm going to try some more things with the cam timing. At some point I'm going to ditch the stock software which will probably good for another few HP.

I thought M62 guys used our B40 manifolds as an upgrade. Or, did only the vanos guys have a restrictive manifold, and the non vanos B44 manifold have the same one as a B40? I haven't heard of a NV B44 manifold be an upgrade to our B40 engines.

14.7 is the stoichiometric ratio; 14.0 is slightly rich, at least on paper. To be clear, I don't know much about tuning AFRs for the real world. My only experience was on a turbo SC300 with a massive intake leak. The fireballs it shat would get bigger next to cow fields along the I5 - something about the methane, I suppose.

Is it possibly the intake that's holding you back? To get that theoretical 292 it needs to flow more air than either the stock M60B40 or M62B44, right? FWIW, I thought I picked up a little power with a wider airbox velocity stack (the very first intake pipe, from under the airfilter to the other side of the plastic panel behind the starboard headlights).

On paper, 14.0 may be slightly rich, but I don't think it's that simple, especially when you consider ignition advance, time to burn, etc. That's why you never really see anyone tune to 14.0.

OP's engine should already flow more air than a stock M60 or M62. The extra displacement should draw more vacuum through the runners/ports than a stock M60, and the M60 heads should allow better flow/more air than a stock M62. IMO I think OP just needs a tune (Miller, DUDMD, RK), design III injectors, and maybe the vstack B40 manifold could help. Assuming all the norm is fine - compression/rings, plugs, etc. I feel that that could be an awesome relatively-cheap N/A build close to 300whp/320wtq. I am curious to see how the different cam timing will come into play; the overlap on our engines seems a little excessive.

EDIT: Just realized all of this was done on a Dynojet. I was hoping for slightly higher numbers if done on a Dynojet.