Close

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 86
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    75
    Rep Points
    45.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PEI330Ci Click here to enlarge
    I do:

    http://www.bimmerboost.com/showthrea...ad-Development

    What's even more interesting is the port velocity at RPM intervals, but I'm not going to get into posting that data yet.
    That was some awesome info man....thanks for sharing. As Sticky mentioned the GT3 vs Turbo heads...and how some tuners swap NA heads on Turbo bottom ends for high hp applications is right on. We do the same on the Audi 2.7Ts, we would run the NA 2.8L head on some applications. I wonder if the N54 heads were made somewhat restrictive for a reason, at least on the intake side...low rpm turbo response, maybe? Not sure.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    The N54 hasn't really been pushed yet with proper fueling....there were days pre-HPF when everyone thought low-mid 400s whp was the ABSOLUTE RELIABLE LIMIT on these engines because they were high compression, not engineered for boost...bla bla bla. And now look, the S54 on stock bottom end does alright, we're talkin numbers in the 600 range with Meth and Race. Not bad at all. Boost vs Boost comparisons on these two different engines is kind of ridiculous considering different displacement, Turbos, compression ratio, general architecture, just to name a few.
    It doesn't matter if the N54 has more fueling, can't you see what it is putting out at the boost levels it is at? What, suddenly with more fuel 40 psi is going to happen? Not likely, sorry, and that is what it would take. It is far more inefficient.

    When everyone was making low 400's prior to HPF they were doing that on stock internals with a centrifugal SC which is less efficient and without meth. There will not be a power adder change on the N54 that will suddenly change things, sorry. All it can do is go to a large single turbo and hope to get out of the 500 whp range, that's it.

    Boost vs. boost isn't ridiculous, it goes to show what motor is more efficient. You seriously think the N54 is going to get into the 800+ whp range with more fuel? Heh, are you serious? Hasn't the S54 cracked 1000 hp anyway on stock heads? What does that tell you?

    The N54 would have to become an S54, equivalent heads, better valvetrain, better cam profiles, etc. It is fighting a never ending uphill battle the way it is.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    I'm not saying the N54 WILL make as much or more power....but no one here can say without BS speculation and keyboard tuning, that it in FACT won't....its just asinine, we haven't even seen a real turbo with proper fueling on this motor yet; really!?
    No, I can say for a fact it won't. Because more fuel won't address the issue that hold it back vs. the S54. The S54 is a far more efficient engine because it has to make 100 hp per liter NA. The N54 has junk heads and a crappy curve compared to the S54. With far less revs it would need to make much more torque just to get near. Don't you get it? The rev multiplication of the S54 with a large turbo will ALWAYS win out, no matter what.

    What exactly do you have to support your assertions? Nothing, yet I have the entirety of N54 tuning and S54 tuning thus far to support mine.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    For the record i don't own an N54 or a N55 for that matter. But Sticky...i must say, you surely love to hate these turbo BMW engines, and the 1///M ;-). You don't have to come out and say it, but its between every line you type, man. Not trying to be confrontational, but lay off the Haterade, mkay? :-) And for the record I do love the BMW NA powerplants too...having spent time in both E30, E36, and E92 M3s (two of which i've owned)...I feel you, but give them a chance! In a couple years we won't have an option if we want to be in a new M car. Cheers....
    I'm not hating on the N54 by saying the S54 is a superior motor and a better platform for boost. It is, that is where we stand currently and that is where we will stand 10 years from now.

    I like the N54 a lot and respect it, but the S54 is a whole different league because of what M had to do to it in NA form making it more potent with boost. That isn't hating on the N54, that is assessing the reality of the situation.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    That was some awesome info man....thanks for sharing. As Sticky mentioned the GT3 vs Turbo heads...and how some tuners swap NA heads on Turbo bottom ends for high hp applications is right on. We do the same on the Audi 2.7Ts, we would run the NA 2.8L head on some applications. I wonder if the N54 heads were made somewhat restrictive for a reason, at least on the intake side...low rpm turbo response, maybe? Not sure.
    The N54 heads simply didn't need to be made to the level M heads in the S65 and S54 were. They cut costs and we lose out as this example shows.

    Unfortunately due to DI there is no current solution to improving the N54 top end significantly. I think a couple guys were looking into headwork and we will see their results hopefully in the future but that is one area that is a major liability in this comparison.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    75
    Rep Points
    45.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    You took a lot of what i said out of context and jumped into your defensive shoes...why the hostility, lol.

    Where the hell did i ASSERT anything?? The tone of my post was, "We'll have to wait and see". Never did i assert the N54's capabilities or its superiority to the S54, so WTF are you going on about? And for the sake of argument I was not going into "built" internals....cause now its an discussion of who wants to throw more money at it. As of right now...Fueling is a limitation. How much of a limitation, I don't know...neither do you, because we don't know yet what the stock block can hold with proper fuel and tuning. Did i say it was going to make 800, no...did I say it wasn't going to need 40psi, no. Instead of taking a belittling tone, why can't you just keep ur cool, man?

    And comparing boost numbers on different platforms especially with DRASTICALLY different compressors IS SILLY. I'm sure the N54 will need more boost to make the same power level, I never said it wouldn't. (its smaller, revs lower, and has lower volumetric efficiency) I'm still not understanding the reason or direction of you rpost because i never said anything to the contrary in mine. I know Centri's are less efficient...but my point wasn't that, it was that back then all the "internet genius keyboard tuners" thought that was the limit of the S54...guess what it wasn't. My point in saying that was that we just don't know where the limit is until someone with the proper resources can test and push those limits; such as HPF has with the S54. Thats ALL i'm saying. I don't give a $#@! if the limit is 550whp or if it ends up making 5000whp with a Pratt-Whitney strapped to the headers on stock internals.

    For arguments sake a Stock Internal S54 can do say 450whp on straight pump and 630 on race/meth... I don't think it would be far fetched for a N54 to do the same with proper injectors and right size single turbo. I think its totally doable for the N54 to match or get very close to a S54 (stock internal for stock internal). And again....you went on about how the S54 is a better platform, because of xyz....where did I say it wasn't? When did I imply the N54 was even ultimately as good?

    I said a lot of same things you did in your post, just maybe not with that same tone... Not trying to start a fight here, bro... plus you live too far anyways. ;-) This is all in good fun.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    You took a lot of what i said out of context and jumped into your defensive shoes...why the hostility, lol.
    I'm not being hostile at all, I'm just being me. Some people confuse my tone with hostility, I have nothing against you, I just have my own style.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    Where the hell did i ASSERT anything?? The tone of my post was, "We'll have to wait and see".
    The tone was that fueling would change things. Your assertion is regarding the fuel. That is the point, not that the N54 is superior but that somehow more fuel will change the things that hold it back. It won't, sorry if that is belittling you but that is how it is.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    And comparing boost numbers on different platforms especially with DRASTICALLY different compressors IS SILLY.
    No, it isn't, and secondly, what is the S54 compression ratio when built and what does it put out at similar boost? The ratios are likely very close to one another.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    I'm sure the N54 will need more boost to make the same power level, I never said it wouldn't. (its smaller, revs lower, and has lower volumetric efficiency) I'm still not understanding the reason or direction of you rpost because i never said anything to the contrary in mine.
    You support my argument right here, the N54 is smaller, revs lower, less efficient, everything works against it. There is nothing to wait and see, we already know. We can wait and see how a single turbo with more fuel improves things but it simply can't match the S54.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    For arguments sake a Stock Internal S54 can do say 450whp on straight pump and 630 on race/meth...
    Yep, at 11.5:1 on low boost in comparison... that is an efficient motor.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    I don't think it would be far fetched for a N54 to do the same with proper injectors and right size single turbo.
    You are comparing a low compression motor with more boost from a single turbo to a stock internal S54? Yes, it may get close to what a stock internal car can do although I believe Taza stated the S54 hit over 700 whp on stock internals. However, when the S54 lowers compression it is no comparison, correct?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    And again....you went on about how the S54 is a better platform, because of xyz....where did I say it wasn't? When did I imply the N54 was even ultimately as good?
    You implied we do not know for a fact the N54 can reach the S54 due to fueling. I think we know for a fact the S54 is so much stronger that it does not matter what kind of fuel the N54 gets.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    where did I say it wasn't? When did I imply the N54 was even ultimately as good?
    True, but you state the N54 can grow by leaps and bounds essentially providing the implication it will see gains like the S54. The S54 started its forced induction life in a different manner so that can't be used to bolster your argument as SC to turbo changes the entire game right there.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    I said a lot of same things you did in your post, just maybe not with that same tone... Not trying to start a fight here, bro... plus you live too far anyways. ;-) This is all in good fun.
    I agree! I'm not trying to be mean I always am a bit aggressive but I don't mean you any ill will. People sometimes get upset or get the wrong impression as I feel you have and if that was my doing I apologize. I am enthusiastic in how I post and that sometimes rubs people who don't know me the wrong way. I could sit here debating this with you for days and sometimes I get under peoples skin even though I am just having a discussion. So, I apologize if my tone was too aggressive, definitely all in good fun. You should see what happens when people debate me in person.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    116
    Rep Points
    67.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Some of the best arguments come about when both parties are right Click here to enlarge

    I agree with Sticky that the S54 is a superior breathing engine. The power that has been produced without head work is a testament to the M divisions great engineering of a naturally aspirated engine that made more than 100 hp/liter. Boost for boost, the S54 will move more air and be able to make more power. This is fact and can't really be argued.

    However, I do think BASELINE has a good point that the N54 has room to show more power once a fueling solution is developed. I'm impressed that the stock injectors have taken the engine as far as 500whp but more fuel and more boost (3 bar map sensors) should go even further.

    The N54s more restrictive heads will eventually limit the power, but at what level? Up to point, the restrictions of the head can be overcome with more boost literally shoving the air down the engines' throat. However, once you get to that level the turbos are going to become less efficient, generate more heat, and limit the intake air flow to the engine. Is that level at 25 psi, 30 psi? Nobody can say until they do the testing!

    It will be great to see N54 development take the next step with HPFs (and others hopefully). It can only bring good things for those of us with N54 powered bimmers!
    2009 335i: PROcede V4 with BMS DCI (still not sure how they get along!)

  7. #57
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PEI, Canada
    Posts
    1,123
    Rep Points
    1,665.0
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Doug007 Click here to enlarge
    Some of the best arguments come about when both parties are right Click here to enlarge

    I agree with Sticky that the S54 is a superior breathing engine. The power that has been produced without head work is a testament to the M divisions great engineering of a naturally aspirated engine that made more than 100 hp/liter. Boost for boost, the S54 will move more air and be able to make more power. This is fact and can't really be argued.

    However, I do think BASELINE has a good point that the N54 has room to show more power once a fueling solution is developed. I'm impressed that the stock injectors have taken the engine as far as 500whp but more fuel and more boost (3 bar map sensors) should go even further.

    The N54s more restrictive heads will eventually limit the power, but at what level? Up to point, the restrictions of the head can be overcome with more boost literally shoving the air down the engines' throat. However, once you get to that level the turbos are going to become less efficient, generate more heat, and limit the intake air flow to the engine. Is that level at 25 psi, 30 psi? Nobody can say until they do the testing!

    It will be great to see N54 development take the next step with HPFs (and others hopefully). It can only bring good things for those of us with N54 powered bimmers!
    The solution is pretty simple actually: Compound turbo charging.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PEI330Ci Click here to enlarge
    The solution is pretty simple actually: Compound turbo charging.
    Was reading about that recently and it seems to be incredibly complex.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    116
    Rep Points
    67.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    I guess it depends on the power CURVE you are looking for.

    Compound (series) twins would improve the peaky nature of the very high whp HPF cars. Notice that peak torque doesn't show up until about 4500 rpm: http://www.horsepowerfreaks.com/imag...F/Stage2-5.gif

    I think compound turbos are more trouble than they will be worth as Sticky noted. It will take a very dedicated team to sort them out properly and it's not clear what the gains would be. It's more complex not only in the turbo engineering, but also trying to package the plumbing of two sequential turbos in a tight engine bay.

    Nobody has been able to run upgraded N54 turbos past about 22 psig due to fueling and limits of the stock MAP sensor. Both of those obstacles will be knocked down soon. 3 bar MAP sensors are already starting to show up...
    2009 335i: PROcede V4 with BMS DCI (still not sure how they get along!)

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Doug007 Click here to enlarge
    I guess it depends on the power CURVE you are looking for.

    Compound (series) twins would improve the peaky nature of the very high whp HPF cars. Notice that peak torque doesn't show up until about 4500 rpm: http://www.horsepowerfreaks.com/imag...F/Stage2-5.gif

    I think compound turbos are more trouble than they will be worth as Sticky noted. It will take a very dedicated team to sort them out properly and it's not clear what the gains would be. It's more complex not only in the turbo engineering, but also trying to package the plumbing of two sequential turbos in a tight engine bay.

    Nobody has been able to run upgraded N54 turbos past about 22 psig due to fueling and limits of the stock MAP sensor. Both of those obstacles will be knocked down soon. 3 bar MAP sensors are already starting to show up...
    its not the 3bar sensors that havent been around, its been the fuel system, or 2ndary system itself that hasnt shown up for production yet..

  11. #61
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PEI, Canada
    Posts
    1,123
    Rep Points
    1,665.0
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I never said compound turbos were easy, just that it was a simple solution.

    Being that they are typically used for 40+ PSI applications, I doubt it would be a practical solution for the N54 unless a stand alone EMS is used. Both appear to be a fair ways off. (I'm assuming you'd ditch the DI anyway in this case)

    Of course if you had a "port limited engine", wouldn't you want to use nitrous as much as you could? Hmmm....starting to give away my M54 secrets....

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    75
    Rep Points
    45.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Sticky,

    Thanks for clearing that up man....I love getting into vehement discussions as well, mostly in person however as in forums its always so tough to read tone. LOL

    Again, I really think we're saying the same things.... I don't won't wanna beat a dead horse. My whole discussion was around a stock for stock internals...as you've said, and I agree; the S54 built, with its higher displacement, redline, and flowing heads has a higher ceiling potential for power. I wansn't implying the N54 would grow by leaps and bounds after proper fueling, only that we'd see it true limits and potential once fuel wasn't the limiting factor. If you totally built an N54, including valvetrain and bad ass port'n'polish job you are still stuck with the Aluminum block vs. the S54 old school boat anchor cast iron goodness. I just dont know if when pushing the absolute limits that Aluminum block could hold as much "twist". So for the record, I never argued the side of the N54 being a better ALL OUT platform than the S54. :-)

    Reason I didn't say it would grow in "leaps and bounds" is that I can't make that statement. If the stock block's limit was 580whp and the cars now on stock fueling and Meth are doing around 500whp....that doesn't really leave a lot of room, and would prove that fueling wasn't a huge limitation. We don't know where that limit is yet, so thats why I just find it to be interesting and exciting.

    And yes...the N54 started as a Turbo so there won't be as drastic of a change in FI methods such as there was with the S54 (SC vs Turbo). But I think its at least valid to argue the point that the stock turbos are running WAY beyond their efficiency range...they are blowing hot air at these boost levels and that lowers their overal rated efficiency dramatically. That is what I was referring to...when replacing the small stock snails with a larger much more efficient unit there will be a pretty significant increase in power per psi at these higher boost levels. At that time it would be a more relevant comparison boost vs boost against the S54. Again not saying it would equal the S54 but it would just be a more fair comparison. Hope that makes sense.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PEI330Ci Click here to enlarge
    I never said compound turbos were easy, just that it was a simple solution.

    Being that they are typically used for 40+ PSI applications, I doubt it would be a practical solution for the N54 unless a stand alone EMS is used. Both appear to be a fair ways off. (I'm assuming you'd ditch the DI anyway in this case)

    Of course if you had a "port limited engine", wouldn't you want to use nitrous as much as you could? Hmmm....starting to give away my M54 secrets....
    Ditching DI on the N54 would be interesting but is it possible? Physically I understand it would be but what about the ECU?

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    Thanks for clearing that up man....I love getting into vehement discussions as well, mostly in person however as in forums its always so tough to read tone. LOL
    That is always the problem, people are always getting pissed off at me when I'm not trying to be a dick.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BASELINE Click here to enlarge
    Again, I really think we're saying the same things.... I don't won't wanna beat a dead horse. My whole discussion was around a stock for stock internals...as you've said, and I agree; the S54 built, with its higher displacement, redline, and flowing heads has a higher ceiling potential for power. I wansn't implying the N54 would grow by leaps and bounds after proper fueling, only that we'd see it true limits and potential once fuel wasn't the limiting factor. If you totally built an N54, including valvetrain and bad ass port'n'polish job you are still stuck with the Aluminum block vs. the S54 old school boat anchor cast iron goodness. I just dont know if when pushing the absolute limits that Aluminum block could hold as much "twist". So for the record, I never argued the side of the N54 being a better ALL OUT platform than the S54. :-)

    Reason I didn't say it would grow in "leaps and bounds" is that I can't make that statement. If the stock block's limit was 580whp and the cars now on stock fueling and Meth are doing around 500whp....that doesn't really leave a lot of room, and would prove that fueling wasn't a huge limitation. We don't know where that limit is yet, so thats why I just find it to be interesting and exciting.

    And yes...the N54 started as a Turbo so there won't be as drastic of a change in FI methods such as there was with the S54 (SC vs Turbo). But I think its at least valid to argue the point that the stock turbos are running WAY beyond their efficiency range...they are blowing hot air at these boost levels and that lowers their overal rated efficiency dramatically. That is what I was referring to...when replacing the small stock snails with a larger much more efficient unit there will be a pretty significant increase in power per psi at these higher boost levels. At that time it would be a more relevant comparison boost vs boost against the S54. Again not saying it would equal the S54 but it would just be a more fair comparison. Hope that makes sense.
    This is reasonable and I agree with it for the most part. I think it comes to more of we haven't seen the most from the N54 yet, obviously, but we haven't seen the top end of the S54 yet either as turbo size and placement has held it back a bit.

    I just believe we have a pretty good idea of N54 gains as it stands even with upgraded twins. More fuel will allow more boost, but the other areas still need to be addressed at some point because they are limitations.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PEI, Canada
    Posts
    1,123
    Rep Points
    1,665.0
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Ditching DI on the N54 would be interesting but is it possible? Physically I understand it would be but what about the ECU?
    The whole point of DI is fuel efficiency, and I don't think people care about that much when making over 500hp. So ditch the DI, weld that port shut, and run big injectors in a custom intake manifold with an SQ6. Of course at that point, you might as well just put an S54 in.....

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by PEI330Ci Click here to enlarge
    The whole point of DI is fuel efficiency, and I don't think people care about that much when making over 500hp. So ditch the DI, weld that port shut, and run big injectors in a custom intake manifold with an SQ6. Of course at that point, you might as well just put an S54 in.....
    Exactly, and going to the SQ6 creates a host of other problems (I-Drive, DCT, etc.).

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,053
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Why would you ditch DI? Having the fuel shoot directly in keeps cylinder temps down, especially with higher mixes of ethanol or race fuel. Port injection + Direct injection seems like the smarter/more logical choice. The N54 has a relatively high compression ratio for a turbo car running on pump gas, and one reason it can get away with it is because of the evaporative cooling effects of that fuel being pushed into the cylinder at very high pressures (compared to "normal" gas cars).

    The change of state (fuel going liquid to vapor) sucks up a bunch of energy/heat, not to mention the N54 seems to be very good at controlling A/F ratios considering all the boost and meth/water/nitrous that people throw at it.

    To be honest, I think the N54 will be able to take more on stock internals than the S54. If the N54 had the head cfm of the S54 and the RPM capability it would be no question.

    As far as the blocks go, I'm going to give it to the S54 for strength, but maybe the N54 is better at managing heat. Which is least likely to have the head separate? Only time will really tell which one will hold up better.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    Why would you ditch DI? Having the fuel shoot directly in keeps cylinder temps down, especially with higher mixes of ethanol or race fuel. Port injection + Direct injection seems like the smarter/more logical choice. The N54 has a relatively high compression ratio for a turbo car running on pump gas, and one reason it can get away with it is because of the evaporative cooling effects of that fuel being pushed into the cylinder at very high pressures (compared to "normal" gas cars).
    DI just complicates things and doesn't offer an advantage over port injection when going for max power. It is primarily included for fuel efficiency because the car can run leaner. Dropping the compression with port injection would give you a better base, alleviating fuel concerns. Notice how all the top aftermarket cars are port injected and how many issues there are with modding DI cars? Not worth the trouble.

    Port + DI isn't the smarter choice, it simply is what works with the N54 and the only way to get around the fueling limitations.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    To be honest, I think the N54 will be able to take more on stock internals than the S54. If the N54 had the head cfm of the S54 and the RPM capability it would be no question.
    The S54 is 11.5:1 and made NA and still hits over 700 whp on stock internals. Make the compression equal and it is no contest, the S54 is far stronger with its iron block. If the N54 became an S54 it would be no question? Uh, it would just be another S54.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    As far as the blocks go, I'm going to give it to the S54 for strength, but maybe the N54 is better at managing heat.
    No proof of this.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,159
    Rep Points
    526.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I wonder what the power figures will be(whp & wtq)?
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlarge

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,053
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    DI just complicates things and doesn't offer an advantage over port injection when going for max power. It is primarily included for fuel efficiency because the car can run leaner. Dropping the compression with port injection would give you a better base, alleviating fuel concerns. Notice how all the top aftermarket cars are port injected and how many issues there are with modding DI cars? Not worth the trouble.

    Port + DI isn't the smarter choice, it simply is what works with the N54 and the only way to get around the fueling limitations.



    The S54 is 11.5:1 and made NA and still hits over 700 whp on stock internals. Make the compression equal and it is no contest, the S54 is far stronger with its iron block. If the N54 became an S54 it would be no question? Uh, it would just be another S54.



    No proof of this.
    What? No, the N54 with head mods to flow like a S54 would be a modded N54......

    The N54 has Direct Injection. It is new technology. Why would you expect to see lots of modded cars with DI? Of course there will be more high power PI cars, they've been out for decades.......

    You do realize you would have to pull apart the S54 to drop the compression, right? At that point you could have a built N54 as well....

    The N54 is better at using fuel. It can get away with more boost at the same compression ratio and fuel vs a port injection motor. This gives it a performance advantage.

    If the head was modified to flow as well or close to the S54, and it's max RPM was increased to 8000RPM, it would very easily surpass the performance of the stock internal S54 without exploding.

    It may even be able to do so without modding the head..... somebody has already hit almost 600WHP on 93 pump only with just a medium frame turbo....... and it was not close to the turbo's max supported boost pressure.....

    Like I said, only time will tell.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    What? No, the N54 with head mods to flow like a S54 would be a modded N54......
    I know, but you are essentially making it an S54. Can the N54 heads even flow like S54 heads?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    The N54 has Direct Injection. It is new technology
    It's old technology actually, just recently being applied again.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    Why would you expect to see lots of modded cars with DI? Of course there will be more high power PI cars, they've been out for decades.......
    Not just that, they are easier to work on when going for big power upgrades. Really, DI doesn't offer you a power upgrade all it does is allow you to run higher compression before detonating as you can be leaner. With meth or the right fuel, what is the point really vs. PI? It is an efficiency/green thing, not performance.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    The N54 is better at using fuel. It can get away with more boost at the same compression ratio and fuel vs a port injection motor. This gives it a performance advantage.
    It isn't better at using fuel, it is better at running leaner without detonating. It is all about compression and a PI motor can run high compression as well it just needs the proper fuel to go with it. Look at boosted 12.0:1 compression motors like the S65 for example. Does the N54 use fuel better than it? What the N54 can do is run leaner when off boost which is where you get the MPG gain. What does this have to do with performance?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    If the head was modified to flow as well or close to the S54, and it's max RPM was increased to 8000RPM, it would very easily surpass the performance of the stock internal S54 without exploding.
    Based on what? So if it had a valvetrain and heads equivalent to the S54 (which it does not, and where the major advantage for the S54 is) it would surpass the performance of the stock internal S54? Don't think so, especially if the S54 gets a thicker head gasket and compression is a level playing field.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    It may even be able to do so without modding the head..... somebody has already hit almost 600WHP on 93 pump only with just a medium frame turbo....... and it was not close to the turbo's max supported boost pressure.....
    Who? When?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    Like I said, only time will tell.
    I keep seeing people say this but it isn't a question of if time will tell, the S54 is simply a better power platform now and will be in the future. Even if the N54 were given all the advantages of the S54, it can only hope to be close to as good, not superior as ultimately that 200 cc's would be the deciding factor. That is assuming it could get equivalent in every other area and it can't.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,716
    Rep Points
    826.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Someone here his user name begins with a U and he's pretty close to 600
    JB4LIFE

  23. #73
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PEI, Canada
    Posts
    1,123
    Rep Points
    1,665.0
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    On the fueling side with DI: I won't get into it too much here, but Bosch is really the only game in town on this. When Audi partnered with them on the LMP cars back in the early 2000s....it was that exact system that GM bought from Bosch to go racing with their GT1 cars. (And kept is a secret until someone noticed a high pressure pump on a crate engine) You need serious $$$ to pursue this independently, and even then, you'll end up on Bosch's door step. Austin Martin did last year as an example.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,053
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Reputation: Yes | No
    My point is, with equivalent displacement, internals, block, head cfm, max rotating speed, compressor, intake/exhaust desgin, drivetrain-loss and fuel, the Direct Injection motor will be able to make more power than the Port Injection motor because it will always be able to run a higher compression ratio at the same boost level.

    This is purely for PERFORMANCE. If the increased PERFORMANCE of the engine's ability to handle fuel allows for a leaner A/F ratio at a certain horsepower level, then yes it will save fuel. This is what BMW did.


    To say it is JUST to save fuel is ridiculous. That would be like saying switching from carburetors to EFI was just to save fuel. You WILL save fuel but it is a byproduct of the engine PERFORMING better because it handles fuel better.

    Is aluminum on aluminum more likely to separate, or aluminum on iron? Which will dissipate heat better?

    You say DI is old technology. This may be true, but how many sports cars, specifically ones that have been modified, are around that use DI? DI is new to the performance modding scene..... It is relatively new technology for the sports automobile that can be purchased by the average person.

    You think 200cc of volume is the ultimate deciding factor? I'd say bore spacing and block strength is more important if everything else is upgraded to the max (this may go to the S54). There is a reason why people don't build super-high-boost LS7s.......

    With porting by PAW Motorsport on the intake ports, the N54 is only 30cfm short of the S54 head. Hmm, I wonder what Unfor could do with that.........

    Anyway, I'm tired of arguing this. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I just hate when people say they have a crystal ball and can predict the future, especially when there are new variables which could change things up. You do not KNOW, you THINK.

    In regards to stock internals vs stock internals, I believe the N54 is the more reliable, cheaper and easier engine to modify for power. Not to mention that even this early in the game it is knocking on the stock internal record of the S54, without running a ridiculously large compressor that can only be spooled with nitrous.

    By the way, do you happen to have a dyno-chart of that 700whp run, and a list of mods?

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    espaņa
    Posts
    749
    Rep Points
    819.7
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlargeClick here to enlarge
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Page 3 of 4 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
  •