Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 126 to 145 of 145

Thread: Why is Getting All Motor HP So Hard?

  1. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    22,823
    My Cars
    skateboard
    Can’t go wrong with CES


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
    ― George Orwell

  2. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    25,402
    My Cars
    F90 M5; E36 M3 Turbo
    7500 should be no problem for hydraulic lifters. My E90M3 runs 8600 with hydraulic lifters. Someguy2800 is a member with a built turbo M52 who runs 8000 with stock hydraulic lifters. He uses radical cams and M50NV springs.

    I run only 7200 on my built turbo S52. My Schrick 264/256 would drop off fast after that. Many say the S52 crank is not stable at much higher rpm so I have not pushed it. I do have an ATI damper but that won’t make the crank more rigid. Plus the turbo is so responsive and provides so much torque that there is no need for me to run to 8000.

    Someguy2800 has an E30 drag car that runs 150 in the quarter and uses a built auto with 7000 stall converter, whereas my E36M3 has full interior with AC and heat and stereo and 6 speed manual and is a street car that I drive 6k miles per year. He probably makes 1000 rwhp on E85 or race gas, while I make only 750 on pump gas.

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, BC Ca
    Posts
    3,255
    My Cars
    1993 325is
    Quote Originally Posted by blckstrm View Post
    Good grief - these are full blown race motors. Because if they're not, they're making less than stock power. So they cost as much as full blown race motors, too. And surely have less than ideal manners around town.

    Every race class I'm aware of that would allow a non-factory motor swap is pure power-to-weight. And I'm not aware of any that make all those allowances and then block a turbo.

    Even still - the answer to that question is and will always be an LS.

    And no need to tell everyone to LS swap their E36. That's what everyone already does because it actually makes sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by propcar View Post
    Don't hate you. But it's the best way to ruin an E36 M3. Do it to a standard E36 and good luck. It'll probably cost $10-14k to get the power of an S54 and then you get to deal with all the fun part of having a shoehorned engine that has splices, who knows what adapted to make it work, and the many compromises that'll come with it.

    I think that, often, people that end up doing crazy swaps like that enjoy their cars for a short time and then get tired of dealing with having to chase things to make it work instead of driving it. And to some people, that is what they enjoy, the build instead of the drive - fair enough. But, it's good to distinguish the end goal and be realistic of what will be given up.
    The autocross class that I race in has a displacement based minimum weight limit, and the turbo increases that weight to the tune of 280lbs. So with the 2.0 Honda motor and the turbo, my car was a minimum weight of 2,480 lbs. I am currently under that so don't worry about me struggling to reach that weight. With a turbo 2.8 or 3.2, the weight would go up to 2,640 or 2,720. With an NA LS 5.3 that'd be 2,860. Realistically for autocross and the tire sizes that I can run, 400-ish whp and 400 ft/lbs torque is about the limit of what can be used. Getting that with a 2.0 turbo Honda motor is simple and I will be there without too much effort. That and being at 2,480lbs of weight is the ideal scenario.

    And though it's taking a ton of planning and some interesting technical solutions and work, it'd most definitely not going to be a trailer queen, or a weekend warrior. It'll be back to full daily driver status as it was before and just as pleasant to drive as it's always been, with the added bonus of about double the power it had before (on the street).

  4. #129
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    612
    My Cars
    1 Blue, 1 White, 1 Black
    If I weren't a "purist" and was chasing more power/less weight, I'd be all aboard the K swap train. That trend is blowing up with good results.
    Past: '99 Hellrot/Dove M3 | '97 S14 1JZ | '06 Triumph Daytona 675 | '01 330I M-Tech I | '99 Silvia S15 | Current: '96 Estoril/Black M3

    Instagram

  5. #130
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    6,481
    My Cars
    E30 E36 E46 E90
    Quote Originally Posted by jakermac View Post
    The autocross class that I race in has a displacement based minimum weight limit, and the turbo increases that weight to the tune of 280lbs. So with the 2.0 Honda motor and the turbo, my car was a minimum weight of 2,480 lbs. I am currently under that so don't worry about me struggling to reach that weight. With a turbo 2.8 or 3.2, the weight would go up to 2,640 or 2,720. With an NA LS 5.3 that'd be 2,860. Realistically for autocross and the tire sizes that I can run, 400-ish whp and 400 ft/lbs torque is about the limit of what can be used. Getting that with a 2.0 turbo Honda motor is simple and I will be there without too much effort. That and being at 2,480lbs of weight is the ideal scenario.

    And though it's taking a ton of planning and some interesting technical solutions and work, it'd most definitely not going to be a trailer queen, or a weekend warrior. It'll be back to full daily driver status as it was before and just as pleasant to drive as it's always been, with the added bonus of about double the power it had before (on the street).
    Ah, yes, competition rules. You won't get any argument from me on a build-to-suit.
    2011 M3 Sedan
    2006 GMC Sierra 2500HD LBZ
    1999 323i GTS2
    1995 M3 - S50B32/S6S420G/3.91
    1990 325is
    1989 M3 - S54B32/GS6-37BZ

    Hers: 1996 Porsche 911 Turbo
    Hers: 1989 325iX


  6. #131
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    Posts
    4,937
    My Cars
    e90 M3,X5,e46 racer
    We run hydraulic lifters with our CAT cams (290*). The issue is the diameter of the lifter at such a high lift long duration cam. We switched to the 92 lifters (larger diameter) so the cam would not be hitting the edge of the lifter. It MIGHT work with the s52 lifters, but I think you'd get a lot of wear, and possibly binding because of lateral load on the lifter.

    We also run solid lifters on our M54 engines. Giant PITA to setup since the lifter needs to be removed to replace the shim (which means removal of cams). Once setup they are fine for couple years though. We rev those engines to ~7900 (with s52 crank, ATI damper though). Used to run to 8400, but longevity at this point is more important. I think with solid lifter you gain a repeatable lift on the cam, so the valve opens a bit more consistent, and porbably faster that it would with hydraulic. It a tiny compromise. The bigger benefit is that the valve train is way lighter, so much better suited for high RPM.
    Check out the 8legs Racing page: https://www.facebook.com/8legsRacing/


  7. #132
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    6,481
    My Cars
    E30 E36 E46 E90
    Quote Originally Posted by ScotcH View Post
    We run hydraulic lifters with our CAT cams (290*). The issue is the diameter of the lifter at such a high lift long duration cam. We switched to the 92 lifters (larger diameter) so the cam would not be hitting the edge of the lifter. It MIGHT work with the s52 lifters, but I think you'd get a lot of wear, and possibly binding because of lateral load on the lifter.

    We also run solid lifters on our M54 engines. Giant PITA to setup since the lifter needs to be removed to replace the shim (which means removal of cams). Once setup they are fine for couple years though. We rev those engines to ~7900 (with s52 crank, ATI damper though). Used to run to 8400, but longevity at this point is more important. I think with solid lifter you gain a repeatable lift on the cam, so the valve opens a bit more consistent, and porbably faster that it would with hydraulic. It a tiny compromise. The bigger benefit is that the valve train is way lighter, so much better suited for high RPM.
    Talk about a great explanation of why an S54 makes so much more sense for anyone who is not constrained by racing rules!
    2011 M3 Sedan
    2006 GMC Sierra 2500HD LBZ
    1999 323i GTS2
    1995 M3 - S50B32/S6S420G/3.91
    1990 325is
    1989 M3 - S54B32/GS6-37BZ

    Hers: 1996 Porsche 911 Turbo
    Hers: 1989 325iX


  8. #133
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    Posts
    4,937
    My Cars
    e90 M3,X5,e46 racer
    Quote Originally Posted by nick325xit 5spd View Post
    Talk about a great explanation of why an S54 makes so much more sense for anyone who is not constrained by racing rules!
    Completely agree In our e36 enduro car, we run a mild s54 build. 325rwhp on pump gas, and 345rwhp on race fuel. Runs for hours without issues, revs to 8600, and is a joy to race
    Check out the 8legs Racing page: https://www.facebook.com/8legsRacing/


  9. #134
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba
    Posts
    2,911
    My Cars
    1997 BMW M3
    Hello world haven't posted in ages. Our litttle e36 s52 weren't quite as cool as the european version with their claimed 333HP but the balance, gearing, weight, and handling made and still makes them a lot of fun.
    That parts from the wrecker were readily available made it "cheap" to turn into a poor man's race car. 100hp per litre was remarkable at the time. Except to put a medium sized turbo on this engine (for ~500HP) there is really no good reason to touch the engine and that is just changing the rings on the head.

    It is a wonderful value and still much more car than most amateur drivers will ever need. It was never a great platform for a 1/4 mile car although I know you lunatics did so. It was never a great platform for power add-ons although I have the old vortech supercharger kit on mine and would love a turbo

    Buying a salvage car with a blown engine and sticking an lsx type engine in it is probably the best route to NA torque and horsepower on the chassis, the engine sits low and you get an almost 50/50 weight distribution with it.

    That said it doesn't need it. If you manage your revs you have about as much power as you could want with a set of fresh michelin ps2's on it.

    I would love to put a turbo in it similar to pbonsalb had in his darn near 10 years ago. Great fully streetable power without the need for traction control that you can use to get groceries or change the tires and take to a track day.


    If I was young again I would probably look at a Miata but instead I should probably go to the garage and bolt my M3 back together and see how much damage has been done from not starting it for almost 5 years.

    ... getting the long 6 cylinder crank shaft to spin at higher revs was said to induce vibration that would grenade your engine. There were a couple of highly tuned race motor that were very expensive and required post race rebuilds that could do more but there is no reason to build such a thing unless "rules". Completely unreliable past race day.
    Last edited by RobertFontaine; 08-16-2020 at 05:17 PM.
    97 BMW M3 (s52b32) - VF-Supercharger kit ( Vortech V2-SQ supercharger, 32 pound injectors, VF tuning ), VDO/LeatherZ Gauge Kit (Oil Temp, Oil Pressure, and Boost), UUC Motorwerks RSC36 Exhaust, Stainless Steel 6-2 Exhaust Headers, Bilstein Sports, Rear Adjustable Camber bushings, Wheel Spacers 10mm in front 25mm in back, Uprated Clutch, UUC Shift Knob, Short Shifter and Clutch Stop, Cross Brace, Mason Engineering front strut bar, Contour Wheels, Euro Ellipsoid (Angel Eyes) HID Headlights, braided steel brake lines, aluminum thermostat housing, mishimoto aluminum radiator and silicone hoses and a partridge in a pear tree

  10. #135
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    10
    My Cars
    1998 BMW M3 Convertible
    Quote Originally Posted by pbonsalb View Post
    You can buy a used E90M3 for $20k.
    but e36’s look so much better :-) plus it’s a lot
    more fun to build up a slow car than to just buy a fast one

  11. #136
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    10
    My Cars
    1998 BMW M3 Convertible
    Quote Originally Posted by blckstrm View Post
    That was the best off-topic save I've seen in a long time.

    Way to bring us back to the topic at hand!

    It was interesting to look up those motors. I'm not super familiar like I am with our motor or the LS (I have an Escalade I've had to pull the head on twice), but they make a surprising amount of power (and a disappointing amount of torque). I guess about what you'd expect from a 2 liter that revs to the moon.

    I AM curious what happened to our OP? He's been MIA since he posted that drag motor...
    hahah I’m still here! just catching up on the thread right now and reading what everyone has to say.

  12. #137
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    10
    My Cars
    1998 BMW M3 Convertible
    Quote Originally Posted by RRSperry View Post
    Ok, WTF? IMO, (yes, it's my opinion) what's the big deal with all motor? Who the hell cares other than bench racing?

    1.) You aren't going to want to drive a full on 400hp K24 in a street car or any race motor. They don't make squat for power where you actually use it. They don't idle well, they won't pass emissions.

    2.) just put a turbo on it and call it a day. You can make 450hp and still have some torque, and be way faster than the chassis needs. Or... Put in a LS1 and make 500 cheap, reliable Hp that's lighter than the M5x anyway.

    If you have a garage queen you aren't going to be ripping out the engine anyway, and if it's a normal $10k? M3, who cares what's in it?
    To me there’s just something really special about a high revving NA motor. The sound, the fun of revving it out, the immediate throttle response, the linear powerband (not having to wait for boost to hit), plus less complications and headaches than running a F/I setup; it’s just a really great feeling and visceral experience.

  13. #138
    MauiM3Mania's Avatar
    MauiM3Mania is offline Observer/Master Skeptic Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Central Pacific
    Posts
    10,809
    My Cars
    88M3 99M3 04M3 ITBx16
    Quote Originally Posted by mfinbimmerboy View Post
    To me there’s just something really special about a high revving NA motor. The sound, the fun of revving it out, the immediate throttle response, the linear powerband (not having to wait for boost to hit), plus less complications and headaches than running a F/I setup; it’s just a really great feeling and visceral experience.
    Swap in a S54 and call it a weekend.
    04M3 TiAg 69k slick-top 3 pedal
    99M3 Cosmos 61k S50B32 euro 6Spd

    88M3 AW 43k miles Project FS


    WTB: 3.5" Eurosport/Conforti CAI

  14. #139
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    25,402
    My Cars
    F90 M5; E36 M3 Turbo
    Quote Originally Posted by mfinbimmerboy View Post
    but e36’s look so much better :-) plus it’s a lot
    more fun to build up a slow car than to just buy a fast one
    I’ve fully built and turbocharged my E36 M3 to be much faster than my bolt-on modified E90 M3, but I think the E90 M3 has a much better value to build today since E36 are overpriced or piles of junk

  15. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    493
    My Cars
    1995 M3
    Sub'd

  16. #141
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    935
    My Cars
    LS E46
    Quote Originally Posted by mfinbimmerboy View Post
    Why is it so hard compared to some other cars to make an S52 build that's high revving, high HP? Before my M3 I owned a TSX with a K24, and all motor builds with those could get you 300, 400, even 500hp out of a 2.4 liter 4 cylinder. I would have assumed it'd be easier to make power with a sturdy 3.2L inline 6, but I guess I was wrong. Why is that?
    Thanks in advance
    LMAO that because honduh tards will remortgage their house just to make 500hp when BMW guys are smart enough to know that’s just absolutely retarded. I also don’t know where you got the idea that it’s “easy” to make 500hp from an NA 2.4L. No one cares about honduhs. Also, literally every single other 4 banger on the planet is more capable than a honduh engine, that’s why there isn’t a single honduh engine to be found anywhere on the list of the worlds fastest 4-cylinders.

    https://www.dragimportnews.com/top-10/quickest-4cyl/

  17. #142
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Des Moines, IA
    Posts
    1,051
    My Cars
    '97 M3/4/5.0
    Quote Originally Posted by Liquidity View Post
    honduh
    Hahaha I'm flashing back to 2002 when people used to say this.

  18. #143
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    447
    My Cars
    E36 Compact,Coupe,E30
    Quote Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
    Hahaha I'm flashing back to 2002 when people used to say this.
    Remember when 4 pot people would ask about exhausts and everyone said don't do it it'll sound like a Honda. Now 4 cyl Honda motors are being swapped in. We've truly gone full circle.

    In regards to the whole topic, if you've got the money to play I see reason why not to build an S52. Plenty of people blow 20-30K on far less and don't bat an eye. However if you'd like to keep say under 10K I agree with the room, S54 all day. Back to back the S54 was a better feeling motor to me.
    S52 E36 Compact
    E36 325is Coronaproject
    08 Saab 9-3 in Oxford Green

  19. #144
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Des Moines, IA
    Posts
    1,051
    My Cars
    '97 M3/4/5.0
    Quote Originally Posted by ZEKTI View Post
    Remember when 4 pot people would ask about exhausts and everyone said don't do it it'll sound like a Honda. Now 4 cyl Honda motors are being swapped in. We've truly gone full circle.
    I mean, they still sound like garbage but the performance has improved enough that it's worth it if you want the lowest possible weight with a reliable ~400hp for not that much money.

  20. #145
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sid Knee
    Posts
    1,329
    My Cars
    325is, 96 M3 Euro
    Quote Originally Posted by Liquidity View Post
    LMAO that because honduh tards will remortgage their house just to make 500hp when BMW guys are smart enough to know that’s just absolutely retarded. I also don’t know where you got the idea that it’s “easy” to make 500hp from an NA 2.4L. No one cares about honduhs. Also, literally every single other 4 banger on the planet is more capable than a honduh engine, that’s why there isn’t a single honduh engine to be found anywhere on the list of the worlds fastest 4-cylinders.

    https://www.dragimportnews.com/top-10/quickest-4cyl/
    pretty sure he's talking about NA though
    BMW E30 325is M20B33 in the making....... ITB's, roller rockers and stroked to the hilt

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

Similar Threads

  1. Pulling m30 motor from e23...Hard to do?
    By SpunkyE30nOk in forum 1988 - 1994 (E32)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-24-2007, 01:06 AM
  2. 1.8l all-motor hp
    By phil9922 in forum 1991 - 1999 (E36)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-05-2004, 08:30 PM
  3. e36 1.8l dohc all-motor hp?
    By phil9922 in forum 1991 - 1999 (E36)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-01-2004, 12:04 PM
  4. S54 Motor HP Questions
    By ///MTV in forum 1996 - 2002 Z3 (E36/7, E36/8)
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 08-05-2002, 09:39 AM

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
  •