12-15-2013, 03:07 PM | #111 |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 387
Rep 3,932
Posts |
what happens if BMW makes the F80 impossible to tune ? i know its not likely. does BMW care about the after market ? i know the M5s had some problems.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2013, 03:10 PM | #112 |
Major General
![]() ![]() 3544
Rep 5,001
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2013, 04:09 PM | #113 |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
From this photo it seems the S55 has a TF015 (?) turbo (Mitsubishi).
![]() This is the flow chart of a TF035: ![]() But we don't know compressor sizes etc, so probably not bringing us any closer... I can't find any information of a TF015 turbo, the only TF turbo I can find is the TF035. But to me it doesn't say TF035 on the turbo in the pic, does it? The numbers I can read from the designation is: TF015HI 4W-11HE17-6.0 Or could it possibly be: TF035HI 4W-11HE17-6.0 The latter makes more sense as the TF035 is a Mitsu turbo: http://www.mtee.eu/products/turbocha...harger-line-up The number should decode as follows: TF035: Turbo Family 4W: No idea ![]() HI: Shaft and Wheel combination 11HE17: Turbine and compressor sizes (a "normal" TF035 usually has a 10-14 size compressor - and a "normal" TF035 supports around 240hp) 6: Turbine housing A/R Last edited by Boss330; 12-15-2013 at 04:23 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2013, 04:30 PM | #114 |
Moderator
![]() 7543
Rep 19,368
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2013, 04:43 PM | #115 |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Yes, I think you are correct (I've studied it more closely).
If I have the numbers correctly, it seems to have a much larger compressor side than the one I had a flow chart for (that can support enough air for 240hp roughly). Indicating a compressor side that can flow more than enough air for 250hp (per turbo). ![]() |
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2013, 04:47 PM | #116 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 1645
Rep 1,618
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2013, 05:13 PM | #117 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() 1645
Rep 1,618
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2013, 07:33 PM | #118 |
Major General
![]() ![]() 5494
Rep 7,060
Posts |
Nice detective work there Boss330. To me it looks like you got it right with this line:
TF035HI 4W-11HE17-6.0 I'm having the most difficulty to see the W though, looks like an H but I guess H and W is easy to mistake so if W has a known meaning in that position and H doesn't it's likely a W. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2013, 09:31 PM | #119 | |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 166
Rep 444
Posts |
Quote:
That's just what scares me. I am drawn to cars with engines that are over-engineered and under-stressed with lots of potential left on the table (Mezger Porsche Turbos, GT-Rs, Supra Turbos, Mustang 5.0's, etc). With this car, I'm honestly going to feel like I'm being propelled by something that is a little too similar to what is under the hood of some teenager's '07 FBO 335i. I would bet good money that this will be the least expensive M3 engine (in relation to car price) ever. It just smacks of irritating thriftiness. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 12:33 AM | #120 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
143x2 = 286hp 143x3 = 430hp 143x4 = 572hp A few examples: A45 AMG = 360hp from 2l (180hp/l) RS6 V8 = 560hp from 4l (140hp/l) GT-R = 545hp from 3.8l (143hp/l) 991Turbo S = 560hp from 3.8l (147hp/l) MP4-12C = 616hp from 3.8l (162hp/l) Volvo T6 = 306hp from 2l (153hp/l) - New T6 engine replacing the old 3l I6 There are other examples as well. Please explain what make the above engines less "humble" than the S55 and why we should be concerned with the capabilities of the S55 and not the 991, GT-R, RS6 or A45 AMG? Please at least try to do some fact checking before claiming things... It improves credibility ![]() Last edited by Boss330; 12-16-2013 at 12:43 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 12:46 AM | #121 |
Major General
![]() ![]() 5494
Rep 7,060
Posts |
If you just look at hp and displacement 3l is plenty to work with.
The F1 engines in the late 1980s generated over 1000hp with 1.5l engines ( 666hp/liter ). It's when you want to balance a relatively lag free, very powerful and sufficently cooled and reliable engine that it starts to hurt with a smallish engine. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 12:52 AM | #122 | |
Brigadier General
![]() ![]() 387
Rep 3,932
Posts |
Quote:
so that teenager with his JB4 335i with down pipes and exhaust is going to match your engine note also. have fun with that, i know i will never be put in that position. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 03:20 AM | #123 |
Second Lieutenant
![]() ![]() 73
Rep 288
Posts |
An S55 at 600hp/500 ft-lb would be tempting. And I hope it will sound better than the 335i when tuned.
__________________
![]() Drives: 2010 E70 X5M Carbonschwarz Loved and lost: 07 E92 M3 Silverstone II / 96 E36 M3 Evo Estoril Blue / 07 E84 Z4 M Coupe Interlagos Blue |
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 03:37 AM | #124 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
![]() Just like a E46 M3 sounds like a NA 6 cyl, just turned up to 11, so does a E9x M3 compare with a V8. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 09:04 AM | #125 | ||
Major General
![]() ![]() 5282
Rep 5,875
Posts |
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 11:46 AM | #126 | |
Kaskasero
55
Rep 345
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
Rides:
BSM E53 X5 3.0i | Mods: 4.8is Style 168 wheels 1996 MB C280 Sport 2001 E39 M5 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 12:28 PM | #127 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 12:44 PM | #128 |
Brigadier General
![]() 1863
Rep 3,021
Posts |
If you are into tracking that much on a RWD platform, I doubt bumping the S55 up significantly in power is going to be the first factor on your list. This is a longer wheelbase vehicle with a still-substantial weight already near the limits of adhesion and with a massive, flat torque delivery.
Let's actually evaluate what we know of the S55: 1. It has serious primary and secondary cooling systems in place (look at the diagrams and radiators we know exist, good Lord that's a lot of cooling) 2. It's a closed deck block. The n54 was an open deck block. A closed deck block will be significantly more capable of taking much higher levels of boost/pressure/heat. 3. The n54 is capable of supporting very high HP figures. The S55 appears, by what we know so far, of being a N54-based engine that is significantly more built for safe power from day one. ... If you want to look at n54 tuning compared to the S55, evaluate only what you know so far. It appears to make an excellent platform for 500+ whp goals, on paper. Also, the N54 is not suitable to run heavily tuned on the track without significant cooling capacity. The n54, even with stock oil coolers, couldn't handle it's heat when driven hard. It appears that's been taken care of in the s55, or at least was a major goal. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 12:56 PM | #129 | |
Brigadier General
![]() 1863
Rep 3,021
Posts |
Quote:
However, heat is a byproduct of turbo design, intercooling, airflow, engine design, and engine cooling. The S55 has more radiators and apparently notably more weight as a result. The intercooler setup is more advanced and capable of keeping charge air cool. The exhaust manifolds have been re-designed. And the S55 itself is a closed deck block - which better manages heat. I'm also going to assume that the magnesium oil sump has more capacity and that the cooling system is likely higher capacity of coolant. On top of that we don't know what additional airflow/heat transfer things they built in. I agree heat is a limiting factor, but the N55 and most N54 applications have always been mass-produced street cars that a very elect few take to the track and usually had to modify a good bit just to be ready for basic track duty. The m3/m4 is built for extended track duty. And they emphasized how much effort was put into cooling. In other words, don't worry about cooling until it becomes a true concern. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 01:28 PM | #130 | ||
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 166
Rep 444
Posts |
Quote:
Your response does not apply to my question. Yes, we know the 2 liter in the new AMG makes a lot of power, it is the character of the power and the ability to extract more power from the engine that we're discussing here. We all know that a RB26DETT is capable of immense power (>1000whp), but this isn't a discussion about hp per liter. Quote:
The M3/M4 turbo stock boost will probably be anywhere between 14-18.9psi depending on humidity and altitude. If we just start at the low end in ideal conditions, a factory 14psi map can go as high as...what....20psi? 21? We don't know the flow characteristics of these turbos but my guess is that they're small and are going to have to work as hard if not harder than the N54 turbos (this is based on BMW's claims of lag-free operation and low RPM spool-up) So no I have no hard evidence. But I have owned turbo cars for 15+ years and have modified most of them and maybe I am not providing the correct science to satisfy your inquiry but I just think it seems highly unlikely that people are going to see 50+whp from this car with a tune-only like they're seeing in the N54 world. It is just not hard to conceive that this engine is coming from BMW "pre-optimized" and therefore it is really hard to expect significant, inexpensive power gains. For many of you, the stock power levels are PLENTY. But for guys like me who want 4-door sports cars that can run with AMG C63s and CTS-V's, this just isn't enough. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 01:45 PM | #131 |
Brigadier General
![]() 1863
Rep 3,021
Posts |
There are two separate discussions going on here:
1. A discussion of how much power the S55 is likely to be able to make with tune and exhaust mods 2. A discussion of how much power the S55 is likely to be able to make with all sorts of modifications including new turbos, etc. Also, there are plenty of engines that can handle 700-900whp, sure. But they aren't daily driven for 50k miles without serious repair AND/OR they aren't turbo engines that aren't seriously laggy. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-16-2013, 01:48 PM | #132 |
Major General
![]() ![]() 5494
Rep 7,060
Posts |
Can someone explain to me the notion that the turbos will work at +18 psi at high altitude and several psi lower at sea level? I get the physics with thinner air and the need for higher boost to make the advertised hp what I don't get is why would BMW not run a psi that the engine obviously has been designed and tested to handle at all altitudes? Yes it means that it would make more power than advertised at sea level but so what? It's not like that is a bad thing, why program the ECU to always generate the same hp at all altitudes instead of the same psi, doesn't make sense to me?
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|