Close

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,322
    Rep Points
    1,955.5
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No

    My Turbo M3 Motor from the 90's

    Since everyone is a boost maniac on the forum I am sure you will appreciate a pic of the motor that was fitted in my Euro E36 M3 in the late 90's. Who can figure out what is going on?

    Click here to enlarge

    and some magazine coverage

    Click here to enlarge

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Encino, CA
    Posts
    1,161
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Turbo and supercharger?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,096
    Rep Points
    31,291.3
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Man... more details on that motor, please.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,215
    Rep Points
    1,142.0
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by MSpiredM3 Click here to enlarge
    Turbo and supercharger?
    Ok...well the turbo is apparent, but where is the blower?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Encino, CA
    Posts
    1,161
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Dark Phantom Click here to enlarge
    Ok...well the turbo is apparent, but where is the blower?
    I see dedicated COG belt coming from the crank pulley.... and the crank looks custom....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,322
    Rep Points
    1,955.5
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Its quite a deception. The cog is for a dry sump oil system. The motor used Mahle internals with a 9.2:1 compression ratio. You will notice it ran twelve injectors, there is a second rail in the intake manifold. The car ran on the OEM DME up till .4 bar boost and then a stand alone took over timing and the second row of 1000cc injectors. The car drove like stock until boost set in. Final turbo used was a Turbonetics T76 Big Shaft with a Q Trim with a .96 exhaust housing. I only managed to take it to the track a few times and ran a 11.9@141mph on 13psi and 235/40 Bridgestone S02's. The track had zero prep hence the bad ET. At higher boost on the road it was crazy, I could crank it up to 27psi with on 91 octane with no detonation. Those days drag radials where unheard of in SA so never really attempted quicker track times. The car was stripped out and weighed in at 1250kg which was a major advantage for highway runs vs superbikes. My half mile exit speed was 169mph with the first quarter wheel spinning. I moved to Greece from South Africa so the motor went into storage and I sold the car. I think my balls have shrunk to drive something like that again.
    Below is a pic of the exhaust manifold, a work of art for a right hand drive car and a pic of the car front view.

    Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Encino, CA
    Posts
    1,161
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    141MPH trap on low boost! NICE!

    That is a lot of fuel being thrown at the motor!

    So the the OEM ECU was being used up to .4 bar when boost exceeded that, the piggy back would take over? Never heard of anything like that! How was the transition from the OEM to the piggy back?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    847
    Rep Points
    176.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Seriously nice setup!

    13psi, a 141 trap? That's unheard of, 141 trap would probably need 800whp or so depending on weight. With 13psi i find it hard to believe the motor would make anything more then 600whp. Can you give us more info??

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Encino, CA
    Posts
    1,161
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TaZaM3 Click here to enlarge
    Seriously nice setup!

    13psi, a 141 trap? That's unheard of, 141 trap would probably need 800whp or so depending on weight. With 13psi i find it hard to believe the motor would make anything more then 600whp. Can you give us more info??
    I have to agree with you Vic, I don't know how 13psi made enough power on that motor to get you such a nice trap on a 2750 pound car.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,096
    Rep Points
    31,291.3
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Who has the car now?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,322
    Rep Points
    1,955.5
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by MSpiredM3 Click here to enlarge
    141MPH trap on low boost! NICE!

    That is a lot of fuel being thrown at the motor!

    So the the OEM ECU was being used up to .4 bar when boost exceeded that, the piggy back would take over? Never heard of anything like that! How was the transition from the OEM to the piggy back?
    Up to .4 bar the stock DME would do the fueling, over .4 the extra injectors would kick in that where run by a standalone system and not a piggy back. Going flat out you would not feel anything but when going on and off the throttle continuously it was a problem with a bit of hunting caused by the injectors being before the throttle bodies.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TaZaM3 Click here to enlarge
    Seriously nice setup!

    13psi, a 141 trap? That's unheard of, 141 trap would probably need 800whp or so depending on weight. With 13psi i find it hard to believe the motor would make anything more then 600whp. Can you give us more info??
    I would estimate the power on the 141 trap to have been in the region of 600 but at the time we had no dyno indication. The turbo was rated at 900whp at 1.5bar of boost. I also forgot to mention this time was run at 1650 meters above sea level.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Who has the car now?
    I still have all the turbo components including the drive train improvements. The car was banged up a few times by the guy I sold it to but recently I heard it was rebuilt with a interior and sold. Quite a pity because it was one of the few you could find locally that was not banged up in some way.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    847
    Rep Points
    176.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by George Smooth Click here to enlarge



    I would estimate the power on the 141 trap to have been in the region of 600 but at the time we had no dyno indication. The turbo was rated at 900whp at 1.5bar of boost. I also forgot to mention this time was run at 1650 meters above sea level.
    141 trap and 600hp doesnt add up, unless the car weighs 2000lb's.

    Also 13psi with race gas and aggressive tuning would yield maybe 600whp, but again thats very tough! I know when i run 17psi on 91 i can make roughly 680whp but that is with an S54 motor (flows better).

    Not doubting your car or the trap (very impressive) but the psi and power just dont sound accurate to me.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,322
    Rep Points
    1,955.5
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TaZaM3 Click here to enlarge
    141 trap and 600hp doesnt add up, unless the car weighs 2000lb's.

    Also 13psi with race gas and aggressive tuning would yield maybe 600whp, but again thats very tough! I know when i run 17psi on 91 i can make roughly 680whp but that is with an S54 motor (flows better).

    Not doubting your car or the trap (very impressive) but the psi and power just dont sound accurate to me.
    The trap does sound high and was surprising but based on fueling and duty cycle the power was not more than 600whp. The only time the car was run on a dyno for base mapping was at 5.8psi and it made 420whp. I guess it has a lot to do with turbo configuration etc. It is not easy to compare one turbo with another even though you know both are 76mm, I know on this car going from a .81 exhaust housing to a .96 there was a yield of close to 40whp. There is no chance of a mistake with the speed on the track as the cars 800m and 1km speeds add up to the exit at other tracks at the same boost.
    On another day with 9.28psi the car did a 12.1@139
    In regard to comparing the output to a S54 the vehicle has larger exhaust and intake valves with the port enlarged. On a naturally aspirated S50 the power output was comparable to a S54.
    If I decide some day to put the engine back into a E36 or maybe a E46 M we will be able to see what it can do. At high boost on the highway there was very little that could keep up. I raced a GT2 with twin GT30's and a proven 800whp it was neck on neck even though it had traction advantages. That same car ran a 10.2sec quarter with a 172mph half mile exit. What was the most fun is that most races would last 8-10seconds max as we would be doing silly speeds of 300+. Even more fun was that I built the car myself and really went through major school fees. The dry sump was eventually removed as the pulley in the front use to cause the crank to whip and snap. I eventually braced the crank but it did not solve anything. Another mistake was that the oil system with 20L was to much and I would rarely get the car to the right operating temperature for racing.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    847
    Rep Points
    176.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by George Smooth Click here to enlarge
    The trap does sound high and was surprising but based on fueling and duty cycle the power was not more than 600whp. The only time the car was run on a dyno for base mapping was at 5.8psi and it made 420whp. I guess it has a lot to do with turbo configuration etc. It is not easy to compare one turbo with another even though you know both are 76mm, I know on this car going from a .81 exhaust housing to a .96 there was a yield of close to 40whp. There is no chance of a mistake with the speed on the track as the cars 800m and 1km speeds add up to the exit at other tracks at the same boost.
    On another day with 9.28psi the car did a 12.1@139
    In regard to comparing the output to a S54 the vehicle has larger exhaust and intake valves with the port enlarged. On a naturally aspirated S50 the power output was comparable to a S54.
    If I decide some day to put the engine back into a E36 or maybe a E46 M we will be able to see what it can do. At high boost on the highway there was very little that could keep up. I raced a GT2 with twin GT30's and a proven 800whp it was neck on neck even though it had traction advantages. That same car ran a 10.2sec quarter with a 172mph half mile exit. What was the most fun is that most races would last 8-10seconds max as we would be doing silly speeds of 300+. Even more fun was that I built the car myself and really went through major school fees. The dry sump was eventually removed as the pulley in the front use to cause the crank to whip and snap. I eventually braced the crank but it did not solve anything. Another mistake was that the oil system with 20L was to much and I would rarely get the car to the right operating temperature for racing.

    Thanks for the details, very interesting stuff to read.

    141 mph trap with 600whp or less and a 139 trap with probably less then 550whp just don't add up unless the car is very light. Its very impressive, 141 trap is definitely fast.

    I hope one day you can use that motor again as it sounds very well setup!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Encino, CA
    Posts
    1,161
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by George Smooth Click here to enlarge
    The trap does sound high and was surprising but based on fueling and duty cycle the power was not more than 600whp. The only time the car was run on a dyno for base mapping was at 5.8psi and it made 420whp. I guess it has a lot to do with turbo configuration etc. It is not easy to compare one turbo with another even though you know both are 76mm, I know on this car going from a .81 exhaust housing to a .96 there was a yield of close to 40whp. There is no chance of a mistake with the speed on the track as the cars 800m and 1km speeds add up to the exit at other tracks at the same boost.
    On another day with 9.28psi the car did a 12.1@139
    In regard to comparing the output to a S54 the vehicle has larger exhaust and intake valves with the port enlarged. On a naturally aspirated S50 the power output was comparable to a S54.
    If I decide some day to put the engine back into a E36 or maybe a E46 M we will be able to see what it can do. At high boost on the highway there was very little that could keep up. I raced a GT2 with twin GT30's and a proven 800whp it was neck on neck even though it had traction advantages. That same car ran a 10.2sec quarter with a 172mph half mile exit. What was the most fun is that most races would last 8-10seconds max as we would be doing silly speeds of 300+. Even more fun was that I built the car myself and really went through major school fees. The dry sump was eventually removed as the pulley in the front use to cause the crank to whip and snap. I eventually braced the crank but it did not solve anything. Another mistake was that the oil system with 20L was to much and I would rarely get the car to the right operating temperature for racing.
    Well, that makes more sense now. Your 13psi would have been more if the head wasn't opened up. If I remember correctly, that guy Wizeguy with the custom supercharger project that was running a Vortech YSI, when he ported his head and did all the valve/head work, his psi dropped from 18ish to around 14psi. That's with a a s54 that already has a very nice free flowing head, I can imagine the s50 seeing much more of a drop in psi.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,322
    Rep Points
    1,955.5
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by MSpiredM3 Click here to enlarge
    Well, that makes more sense now. Your 13psi would have been more if the head wasn't opened up. If I remember correctly, that guy Wizeguy with the custom supercharger project that was running a Vortech YSI, when he ported his head and did all the valve/head work, his psi dropped from 18ish to around 14psi. That's with a a s54 that already has a very nice free flowing head, I can imagine the s50 seeing much more of a drop in psi.
    Boost pressure is basically a measure of air resistance so what happened to Wizeguy is correct. So not all boost is relative a comparable.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Encino, CA
    Posts
    1,161
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Exactly, you allowed more CFM in with it building less pressure. I wouldn't be surprised that with a stock head you would be at around 18psi+

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,096
    Rep Points
    31,291.3
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by MSpiredM3 Click here to enlarge
    Well, that makes more sense now. Your 13psi would have been more if the head wasn't opened up. If I remember correctly, that guy Wizeguy with the custom supercharger project that was running a Vortech YSI, when he ported his head and did all the valve/head work, his psi dropped from 18ish to around 14psi. That's with a a s54 that already has a very nice free flowing head, I can imagine the s50 seeing much more of a drop in psi.
    When he ported his heads his PSI dropped? But power was the same or increased right? So less resistance, was producing less boost?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    847
    Rep Points
    176.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Trap still doesnt make much sense, <600whp and a 141 trap is unheard of on a car weight over 2800lb's.

    My S54 has modified valves which were opened up alittle more as well. At 29-30psi we made 906rwhp with race gas.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,096
    Rep Points
    31,291.3
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TaZaM3 Click here to enlarge
    Trap still doesnt make much sense, <600whp and a 141 trap is unheard of on a car weight over 2800lb's.

    My S54 has modified valves which were opened up alittle more as well. At 29-30psi we made 906rwhp with race gas.
    Yes, it doesn't exactly add up. Maybe he has the slip and we could see it?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Encino, CA
    Posts
    1,161
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    When he ported his heads his PSI dropped? But power was the same or increased right? So less resistance, was producing less boost?
    Yes, power increased. Boost (PSI) is built by the restrictions in your head, before the valves. So, if you port and polish your head, you are creating more room for air, and less of an obstruction for it. This will flow the same amount of air (CFM), but produce less boost (PSI). At least this is how I understand it, the whole CFM vs. PSI is still a little confusing to me, even after trying to learn about it a good amount.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TaZaM3 Click here to enlarge
    Trap still doesnt make much sense, <600whp and a 141 trap is unheard of on a car weight over 2800lb's.

    My S54 has modified valves which were opened up alittle more as well. At 29-30psi we made 906rwhp with race gas.
    Looking at various online 1.4 calculators, they all say that 600rwhp and 2800lbs will yeild a 140mph trap, so it looks right actually.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,096
    Rep Points
    31,291.3
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    ^ So when he saw the boost pressure dropped, did he bump it back up? 4 psi with the ported heads seems like a huge difference on heads that are already pretty damn good.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Encino, CA
    Posts
    1,161
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    ^ So when he saw the boost pressure dropped, did he bump it back up? 4 psi with the ported heads seems like a huge difference on heads that are already pretty damn good.
    No, it doesn't work like that. Just cause the PSI drops, doesn't mean the combustion chamber isn't seeing the same amount of air, it's the same amount of air... So if the engine can only take 300CFM without detonating, porting the heads doesn't mean you can now throw 350CFM in there.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,096
    Rep Points
    31,291.3
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by MSpiredM3 Click here to enlarge
    No, it doesn't work like that. Just cause the PSI drops, doesn't mean the combustion chamber isn't seeing the same amount of air, it's the same amount of air... So if the engine can only take 300CFM without detonating, porting the heads doesn't mean you can now throw 350CFM in there.
    But you are generating less heat, correct?

    Oh, and why did the dude abandon such a sweet project? I thought the YSI was one of the most interesting things I saw someone do on the S54.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Encino, CA
    Posts
    1,161
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    But you are generating less heat, correct?

    Oh, and why did the dude abandon such a sweet project? I thought the YSI was one of the most interesting things I saw someone do on the S54.
    Yes, less heat/more efficient.

    He didn't abandon it completely, he took the motor out and is dropping it into either an e30 or e36!

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •