Close

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 101
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,708
    Rep Points
    31,535.2
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Then it'd still be slower. And the car would be heavier lol. This is a losing argument. Its like fighting with a kid over which capri sun tastes better.
    I think the point he was making that since the car weighs so much less it doesn't need the quicker spool of the N63 since it isn't trying to get so much mass moving, not a point based on which is faster.

    I don't really even see the winning or losing "argument" in this, sometimes it's just a discussion...

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Sticky lets get real here since you're a non believer:

    N63: Engine dyno'd obviously with current brake: 600 Nm (440 lbft)@1750-4500 (at the flywheel)
    Jays car: Chassis dyno'd on a non-loading dyno (later spool, less load) 642 lb ft @ 3500 - 4500 RPM. Tapering to 550 lb ft @ 5000 RPM, tapering to 450 lb ft @ 6200 where he let off.

    Now... let's realize something. He doesn't even lay into it until later, but just to humor you. He has 250 lb ft @ 2700 RPM at the WHEEL (again, non-loading dyno). Thats about 260 lb ft at the flywheel. 350 lb ft at the wheel at 3000 RPM, thats 406 lb ft at the flywheel. He peaks 642 lb ft and holds that nice for a big midrange portion. Thats without VANOS tweaking or hundreds of thousands of hours of dyno time like a factory would spend. Thats approx. 744 lb ft at the flywheel. How can you compare this at all to an N63? How can you call this laggy? This car is making more torque than an LS1 engine. The LS1 has him beet at like 2000 RPM - 2500 RPM, which we didn't start the pull out and wasn't loaded, so it would be awfully interesting to see.

    Yes a 6 liter V12 with two turbos makes good torque however, did you notice how the 6.0L V12 biturbo torque falls off faster than the 3.2L L6 single turbo in this thread? Hrm. Weird! (not).

    Again - provide any car with similar displacement making the same or more torque RPM for RPM and I'll concede. Remember - the topic here was that you are calling his car laggy. Then comparing it to a 6 liter V12 biturbo lol. Cmon bro. Seriously.


  3. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,159
    Rep Points
    526.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    So what? And if the N63 was in the car in question then what?
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Shouldn't you at least give them a chance to get going? Considering they are higher compression, direct injected, and the exhaust manifold is much more advanced namely on the S63, don't you think you should look at their potential optimistically?

    So they are only hitting 464 all wheel torque with just a tune, heh, I think the future is pretty bright.

    Hell the new Benz is hitting 600 rear wheel torque STOCK at around 2600 rpm lol and 644 pound feet stock: http://www.benzboost.com/content.php...e-2011-S63-AMG
    Man you are all over the place on this topic
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlarge

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,708
    Rep Points
    31,535.2
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Sticky lets get real here since you're a non believer:
    What do I not believe? I appreciate all these setups. There is no argument here, I have my preferences and my own ideas of what type of powerbands I like. I'm going to have a peaky top end rev the $#@! out of it car, but I know I would prefer the power delivery of a twin screw just for driving.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    N63: Engine dyno'd obviously with current brake: 600 Nm (440 lbft)@1750-4500 (at the flywheel)
    Jays car: Chassis dyno'd on a non-loading dyno (later spool, less load) 642 lb ft @ 3500 - 4500 RPM. Tapering to 550 lb ft @ 5000 RPM, tapering to 450 lb ft @ 6200 where he let off.
    Just to get up to speed on the N63, its powerband, and WHEEL dynos of it on a lead bearing dyno, here: http://www.bimmerboost.com/content.p...and-S63-motors

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Now... let's realize something. He doesn't even lay into it until later, but just to humor you. He has 250 lb ft @ 2700 RPM at the WHEEL (again, non-loading dyno). Thats about 260 lb ft at the flywheel. 350 lb ft at the wheel at 3000 RPM, thats 406 lb ft at the flywheel. He peaks 642 lb ft and holds that nice for a big midrange portion. Thats without VANOS tweaking or hundreds of thousands of hours of dyno time like a factory would spend. Thats approx. 744 lb ft at the flywheel. How can you compare this at all to an N63? How can you call this laggy? This car is making more torque than an LS1 engine. The LS1 has him beet at like 2000 RPM - 2500 RPM, which we didn't start the pull out and wasn't loaded, so it would be awfully interesting to see.
    For my taste, compared to the new breed of direct injected turbo motors coming from BMW and Mercedes, that setup is laggier than I would like it. There is nothing wrong with his setup, it is moving less mass, and it's clearly tuned very well. I don't see the issue you have here.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,708
    Rep Points
    31,535.2
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by GG///M3 Click here to enlarge
    Man you are all over the place on this topic
    If it's hard for you follow I can break it down for you? It's all good man, post some other graphs in the thread so we can get it on the topic of S52 powerbands and their spool so it serves as a useful reference.

    I think you guys prefer to dole out criticism rather than receive any at all.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    What do I not believe? I appreciate all these setups. There is no argument here, I have my preferences and my own ideas of what type of powerbands I like. I'm going to have a peaky top end rev the $#@! out of it car, but I know I would prefer the power delivery of a twin screw just for driving.



    Just to get up to speed on the N63, its powerband, and WHEEL dynos of it on a lead bearing dyno, here: http://www.bimmerboost.com/content.p...and-S63-motors



    For my taste, compared to the new breed of direct injected turbo motors coming from BMW and Mercedes, that setup is laggier than I would like it. There is nothing wrong with his setup, it is moving less mass, and it's clearly tuned very well. I don't see the issue you have here.
    It makes more torque and more horsepower than any setup you have linked to. It makes no sense. If you like doing pulls from 40 RPM then go for it. Honestly we don't put the car on the dyno that low. I would love to pop the motor out of the car and put it on a braked engine dyno but its not worth it. The car has no lag whether you think so or not. I dunno where you're from but if you want "fast" redefined maybe he'll grace you with a ride. This car leaves harder than supras with 3 times the horsepower. Acceleration is unbelievable. You keep talking up these biturbo V12s. Well dude, if you had an extra $38,000 or some ridiculous amount and a car that can support a presumably 800 lb engine, then go for it. But to beat the torque with half the displacement and half the turbos and make more horsepower at the big end as well...... how can you possibly have a gripe?

    Unless of course you haven't actually experienced a car like this before and you're just talking... which seems to be the case time and again. There's a reason those V12s exist. They move 6,000 lb vehicles. The motors don't fit and weigh to much to put in anything smaller. Its an irrelevant conversation.

    If you want to talk about irrelevant engines in irrelevant cars... then you lose:

    http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/02/v...ned-rover-sd1/

    How's 1500 lb ft by 2000 RPM? Who cares that its a 27 liter motor... its got more torque, right?


  7. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,159
    Rep Points
    526.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    So what? And if the N63 was in the car in question then what?
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Shouldn't you at least give them a chance to get going? Considering they are higher compression, direct injected, and the exhaust manifold is much more advanced namely on the S63, don't you think you should look at their potential optimistically?

    So they are only hitting 464 all wheel torque with just a tune, heh, I think the future is pretty bright.

    Hell the new Benz is hitting 600 rear wheel torque STOCK at around 2600 rpm lol and 644 pound feet stock: http://www.benzboost.com/content.php...e-2011-S63-AMG
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    If it's hard for you follow I can break it down for you? It's all good man, post some other graphs in the thread so we can get it on the topic of S52 powerbands and their spool so it serves as a useful reference.

    I think you guys prefer to dole out criticism rather than receive any at all.
    LOL..... Dude get that car of ur's up and running to show us the first 800whp s65 please. We have nothing to prove here. The topic was spool. I bet you will not hit full boost on that s65 until after 5500rpms.
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlarge

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,708
    Rep Points
    31,535.2
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    It makes more torque and more horsepower than any setup you have linked to. It makes no sense. If you like doing pulls from 40 RPM then go for it. Honestly we don't put the car on the dyno that low. I would love to pop the motor out of the car and put it on a braked engine dyno but its not worth it. The car has no lag whether you think so or not. I dunno where you're from but if you want "fast" redefined maybe he'll grace you with a ride. This car leaves harder than supras with 3 times the horsepower. Acceleration is unbelievable. You keep talking up these biturbo V12s. Well dude, if you had an extra $38,000 or some ridiculous amount and a car that can support a presumably 800 lb engine, then go for it. But to beat the torque with half the displacement and half the turbos and make more horsepower at the big end as well...... how can you possibly have a gripe?
    I'm sure it feels amazing and it is the greatest thing ever in the history of BMW tuning.

    I haven't mentioned a single bi-turbo V12, I was referring to the new generation of twin turbo direct injected V8's as evidence of setups with greater response that still produce great torque. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out the potential in them when some of them are making the same wheel torque stock, and earlier.

    I don't really have a gripe, it seems that you do for whatever reason. It's all good over here...

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Unless of course you haven't actually experienced a car like this before and you're just talking... which seems to be the case time and again. There's a reason those V12s exist. They move 6,000 lb vehicles. The motors don't fit and weigh to much to put in anything smaller. Its an irrelevant conversation.
    Um, once again, no V12's mentioned and secondly yes the point of mass was made. I thought we were discussing quick spool? Well, there are quicker spooling setups producing just as much torque. Isn't that good thing? Isn't it a good there are more turbo powerplants coming out? Plenty of choices to meet all kinds of tastes.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    How's 1500 lb ft by 2000 RPM? Who cares that its a 27 liter motor... its got more torque, right?
    I didn't realize BMW was offering these in their production models and that the community will be tuning them? Take a breath guys.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,708
    Rep Points
    31,535.2
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by GG///M3 Click here to enlarge
    LOL..... Dude get that car of ur's up and running to show us the first 800whp s65 please. We have nothing to prove here. The topic was spool. I bet you will not hit full boost on that s65 until after 5500rpms.
    With a centrifugal the boost keeps climbing with the revs GG, technically I won't hit full boost until redline for my setup.

    Yes, the topic is spool so like I said post some more graphs and details of various M50/S50 setups so we can have a good reference. Heh, why so serious and sensitive? Smile bud.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    So what are you arguing again? What motivated you to make this a thread? To tell us we're wrong in that this car has virtually no lag and isnta-torque? Again, Vimeo video, 2 mins 17 seconds. Tell me where the lag is.


  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    With a centrifugal the boost keeps climbing with the revs GG, technically I won't hit full boost until redline for my setup.
    No not technically, literally. So the guy building a low pressure FI motor won't make full boost until some 8000+ revs is lecturing us on a 3.2L T3 turbo making 640 tq by 3500 RPM on an inertia dyno.

    Now I've heard it all rofl


  12. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    878
    Rep Points
    891.7
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    As much as I hated my E36 M3, and the S52 boat anchor that was under the hood - those dyno plots and power curve are amazing.

    I'd love that type of power / spool in a built E30 325i chassis as a burnout/drift beater. I'd have to worry about ripping the rear end out of the car though.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,708
    Rep Points
    31,535.2
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    So what are you arguing again? What motivated you to make this a thread? To tell us we're wrong in that this car has virtually no lag and isnta-torque? Again, Vimeo video, 2 mins 17 seconds. Tell me where the lag is.
    What motivated me to move the posts is out of respect for ccsykes thread since it for some reason managed to get off topic and turned into an S52 turbo discussion... odd. Anyway, moved those posts here to the section where they belong.

    Look, I have a bunch of updates still to do for tomorrow. It's a very nice turbo setup that you posted, I like it and I provided my point of view. There is nothing wrong with the various perspectives here. Hopefully when I check this thread again we can continue discussing S52 turbo setups and their spool since this is the right forum section for it.

    It would even be a good idea to collect various graphs to post in here. Our S52 information definitely needs to be bolstered since it is a popular turbo modding platform in the BMW community.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
    As much as I hated my E36 M3, and the S52 boat anchor that was under the hood - those dyno plots and power curve are amazing.

    I'd love that type of power / spool in a built E30 325i chassis as a burnout/drift beater. I'd have to worry about ripping the rear end out of the car though.
    Thankfully someone understands Click here to enlarge

    You need not worry about ripping the rear out, the car won't make traction. That's why this particular car is tubbed with a 4 link setup. So not only is it making immense immense torque, but Jay removed his Racelogic traction control because he actually has traction now. Its unbelievably quick.


  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,708
    Rep Points
    31,535.2
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    No not technically, literally. So the guy building a low pressure FI motor won't make full boost until some 8000+ revs is lecturing us on a 3.2L T3 turbo making 640 tq by 3500 RPM on an inertia dyno.

    Now I've heard it all rofl
    Just because you have one thing doesn't mean you can't recognize or discuss others. I fully understand what my powerband will be like as I have that all important experience factor you quote as relevant with it. It will be linear though and it really has nothing to do with this topic anyway.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    What motivated me to move the posts is out of respect for ccsykes thread since it for some reason managed to get off topic and turned into an S52 turbo discussion... odd. Anyway, moved those posts here to the section where they belong.

    Look, I have a bunch of updates still to do for tomorrow. It's a very nice turbo setup that you posted, I like it and I provided my point of view. There is nothing wrong with the various perspectives here. Hopefully when I check this thread again we can continue discussing S52 turbo setups and their spool since this is the right forum section for it.

    It would even be a good idea to collect various graphs to post in here. Our S52 information definitely needs to be bolstered since it is a popular turbo modding platform in the BMW community.
    Why didnt you make a new thread when he brought up him being a super crazy bazerillion dollar negotiator legal financial public sector leader of the world?

    Or where he talks about being a program manager?

    Or when he talks about.....


    Oh roight.

    I need not collect graphs and post. You clearly disregard data.

    You're right, its a popular platform. So popular that those who have built them are astonished at this torque curve and boost curve... yet, you're colored unimpressed. Oh well another rainy day in Stickville. Maybe someone will split atoms in a salt shaker tomorrow and we can be excited about something. 640 tq by < 3500 RPM in a 3.2L 6 banger is just so depressing.


  17. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,159
    Rep Points
    526.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Thankfully someone understands Click here to enlarge

    You need not worry about ripping the rear out, the car won't make traction. That's why this particular car is tubbed with a 4 link setup. So not only is it making immense immense torque, but Jay removed his Racelogic traction control because he actually has traction now. Its unbelievably quick.
    Plus 1 i consider this thread done honestly.
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlarge

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    878
    Rep Points
    891.7
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Thankfully someone understands Click here to enlarge

    You need not worry about ripping the rear out, the car won't make traction. That's why this particular car is tubbed with a 4 link setup.
    For the displacement and size of the turbo that spool is god damn phenomenal. Supras and VR-T's take notice. We tune 16g 2L twinscrooled evos and 2.5L STi's that barely make 25psi on small 16g sized turbos at those revs. What's the magic behind it? That's a wide ass powerband.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,708
    Rep Points
    31,535.2
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Why didnt you make a new thread when he brought up him being a super crazy bazerillion dollar negotiator legal financial public sector leader of the world?
    Because it's his thread?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Or where he talks about being a program manager?

    Or when he talks about.....

    Oh roight.
    A lot of that was in response to you egging him on.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Oh roight.

    I need not collect graphs and post. You clearly disregard data.

    You're right, its a popular platform. So popular that those who have built them are astonished at this torque curve and boost curve... yet, you're colored unimpressed. Oh well another rainy day in Stickville. Maybe someone will split atoms in a salt shaker tomorrow and we can be excited about something. 640 tq by < 3500 RPM in a 3.2L 6 banger is just so depressing.
    Hehe, well I'm chuckling though, it's a nice night. It's very impressive, come on, look at the thread title.

    I wasn't asking you to collect graphs for fun it would be nice to have more to reference for the topic which hopefully we can get back on.

    Like I said, all good, you guys are great.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,159
    Rep Points
    526.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Why didnt you make a new thread when he brought up him being a super crazy bazerillion dollar negotiator legal financial public sector leader of the world?

    Or where he talks about being a program manager?

    Or when he talks about.....


    Oh roight.

    I need not collect graphs and post. You clearly disregard data.

    You're right, its a popular platform. So popular that those who have built them are astonished at this torque curve and boost curve... yet, you're colored unimpressed. Oh well another rainy day in Stickville. Maybe someone will split atoms in a salt shaker tomorrow and we can be excited about something. 640 tq by < 3500 RPM in a 3.2L 6 banger is just so depressing.
    Another plus 1 of truth
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlarge

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Your thread title is flawed. This car is not an E36.


  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,708
    Rep Points
    31,535.2
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Your thread title is flawed. This car is not an E36.
    I know, part of the thread title is a joke.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Where's the joke? All I see in here is torque torque torque. Its not funny this sort of torque kills people.

    next up - E92 torque thread right?


  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,708
    Rep Points
    31,535.2
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Where's the joke? All I see in here is torque torque torque. Its not funny this sort of torque kills people.
    Or causes miscarriages from what I hear.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    next up - E92 torque thread right?
    Sure, why not?

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,159
    Rep Points
    526.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Because it's his thread?



    A lot of that was in response to you egging him on.



    Hehe, well I'm chuckling though, it's a nice night. It's very impressive, come on, look at the thread title.

    I wasn't asking you to collect graphs for fun it would be nice to have more to reference for the topic which hopefully we can get back on.

    Like I said, all good, you guys are great.
    5mall5nails was posting good info that ccykes didn't understand since it wasn't carbie car he was used to playing with in his youth

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I know, part of the thread title is a joke.
    Umm not so great of a joke "to say the least"
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlarge

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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