12-14-2013, 05:02 PM | #89 |
Major General
5505
Rep 7,075
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 05:06 PM | #90 |
New Member
4
Rep 19
Posts |
Multiplying CR with the boost pressure is wrong.
What you want to do is to calculate the absolute pressure inside a cylinder. Boost pressure is the relative pressure above atmospheric pressure. So if you want to calculate absolute pressure inside a cylinder (ignoring other factors like for example volumetric efficiency or that the pressure at the cylinder intake port is lower than the pressure generated by the turbo) you need to use absolute pressure - atmospheric pressure (that is not constant) plus the boost pressure. The result of this addition can than be multiplied by the CR to get a somewhat meaningful number. Atmospheric pressure at sea level is around 14,7 psi. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 05:18 PM | #91 |
Major General
5505
Rep 7,075
Posts |
Agree, Boost x CR is simplified and flawed but IMO still works reasonably well for comparison purposes and to get a rough idea without getting lost in complexity.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 05:32 PM | #92 | ||
Major General
1740
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
Let's take a different example: Audi RS6 with the 4.0 V8 TFSI engine. It has a 10.1:1 CR and max boost of 1.2 bar Quote:
MTM has developed several stages of tuning with the highest output being the 722hp version. Similar output to the Manhart and G-Power versions of the F10 M5. http://www.mtm-online.de/en/Audi/RS6...FZID=RS6C7412q I find it unlikely that BMW has left so little safety margins in the S55, when the S63 hasn't and other manufacturers also have high CR engines that can achieve a 25% boost in power. You really don want a turbo setup that runs at 100% in Competition Pack mode. That would very likely not be up to BMW quality standards and needed longevity of components (warranties etc). If, BMW has built in so small margins, then I suspect that will allmost be a world first... |
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 05:47 PM | #93 | |
Second Lieutenant
17
Rep 239
Posts |
Incorrect assumption
Quote:
I am guessing the actual "normal condition" max psi on the stock S55 is going to be ~14 psi to make the 431 hp. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 06:01 PM | #94 |
Major General
5505
Rep 7,075
Posts |
The anti-lag system operates on-off-on throttle it does not help from idle rpms. Here you benefit from small turbos to get on boost quickly. My guess is small turbos and that in a strive to keep as much as possible of the M high rpm character they use most of their potential to pump air at high rpms but your guess is probably as good as mine here.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 06:05 PM | #95 |
3423
Rep 7,488
Posts |
There is going to be some power left on the table tuning wise with the S55 motor - but it's not going to be as much as we've seen from the N54 motors. The biggest battle the S55 will face is controlling temperature. With upgraded cooling, there is much more potential, but with the factory cooling system, there may issues keeping temperatures down on more aggressive software.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 06:18 PM | #96 | |
Major General
1740
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
Do we know everything about how the anti lag system works, and that it is only operative during those conditions? But anyway, look at RS6 spec, F10 M5 spec and notice how soon they build pressure (and power) from idle. And both have been tuned to increase power by 25% on stock turbos. Let's say that the S55 relatively has slightly smaller turbos, should still be able to do a 20% increase. Which brings us to 515hp, or +85hp. And a turbo also consists of both a compressor and turbine unit. Turbine unit can be small to aid spool up. But with a good wastegate it can bleed off excess exhaust at high rpm's to avoid backpressure and overspooling. The compressor unit needs to flow a decent amount of air, and since BMW has said that the S55 shall make it's 430hp also in low density, high altitude and high temp situations I suspect that the compressor unit is able to flow decent amounts of air. If you tune it to 520hp, sure it might not make that power on the hottest day in Death Valley or at Mount Everest altitudes (like the stock S55 shall at 430hp). But that's part of tuning. If you push the envelope to 95% at ideal conditions, you won't get the same power under less ideal conditions. To me the turbine unit looks fairly small, but notice how the wastegate is positioned and the large diameter of the exhaust part that routes exhaust past the turbine. To me that indicates exactly what I said above. A small turbine to aid spool up, but a large exhaust bypass to exit exhaust outside the turbine at higher rpm's. The compressor unit on the other hand looks fairly big. Last edited by Boss330; 12-14-2013 at 06:30 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 06:23 PM | #97 | |
Major General
1740
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 06:31 PM | #98 | |
Lieutenant
170
Rep 444
Posts |
Quote:
If a full-bolt-on 335i is capable of 450ish hp (or whatever, not sure of that #), and the limitations are not fuel-related, I do not see how the F8X is going to be able to do much more than that. The golden rule needs to be repeated more on this forum than it is: There is no replacement for displacement. Now yes, this engine is more robust, can take more boost, has forged internals, etc but NONE of that matters if the small and quick-spooling turbos on this car just can't flow. By the way, are we really happy with straight-line performance equal to a bolt-on, last-generation 3-series? We need to aim higher in our expectations. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 06:39 PM | #99 | |
Major General
1740
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
And I believe the turbos combine quick spool up and good flow, see my post above for details. Since the S55 turbos operate at 200.000rpm (50.000 more than in NeXT years F1 engines), a small turbine with a large wastegate can spin a fairly big compressor wheel and make good boost even at low rpm's (due to high rpm of turbine shaft). |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 07:34 PM | #100 |
Lieutenant Colonel
1652
Rep 1,619
Posts |
The problem with the S55 is the 3.0L. If the car were to have a 3.2L or 3.4L engine then it'll be a bit harder to compare the S55 with the N54, but since both are the same exact CR, bore and stroke then the only difference might be the turbos, cooling, and potentially different fueling system. An N54 struggles to break 400whp on pump gas without meth. But again, this is not an N54.
If the S55 runs 12-14psi stock (18.9psi is MAX), and it's rated at 425hp (431ps), and we all know BMW is underrating this engine, then you are looking at least 370-390whp STOCK. That's STOCK! Perhaps we are underestimating the size of the stock turbo or the tuning potential of this car. Now we go to the "limited" tuning potential predicted by many of you. At 370whp-390whp stock, that is already running close to a FBO N54 with a full warranty at your disposal and stock drive-ability and reliability. That right there should be plenty enough for most of us. Now, BMW will NEVER produce an engine where it's working at its full potential just because of reliability issues, warranty and even potential lawsuits. A FBO S55 should be over 450whp easily. Spent the $10k you'd have spent on an S65 SC on an pair of upgraded turbos and you`ll be over 550whp without a doubt. So relax. The fact that you don't see the potential doesn't mean it is not there. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 07:40 PM | #101 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
1652
Rep 1,619
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 07:43 PM | #102 | |
Second Lieutenant
17
Rep 239
Posts |
But
Quote:
And the same philosophy went into designing the S55, therefore it will have the same percentages for margin when stock. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 08:12 PM | #103 |
Major General
5505
Rep 7,075
Posts |
I'm not so sure about that the flat power curve on top indicates that the turbos are under utilized. Isn't this what you would expect when the turbos spin at full capacity and as rpm grow and they no longer can support peak pressure the rpm linear power growth by more combustion cycles per time unit is equalized by the linear inability of the turbos to support the air volume resulting in the same volume of fuel per time unit and a flat power curve?
Last edited by solstice; 12-14-2013 at 08:23 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 09:31 PM | #104 | |
Lieutenant
170
Rep 444
Posts |
Quote:
I am not arguing that there isn't power left on the table, I am just saying that I find it highly unlikely that there is gobs of power waiting to be untapped by the aftermarket as there was with the N54. While I think we can get more out of this engine than we did the S65, I don't see people cracking 500hp without full bolt ons (FBO), a tune, intake, and supporting fuel mods. Compare this to other modern turbo engines in performance cars such as GT-R, M5, and 911 Turbo where they develop 50+ whp with simply a tune and you can see why I'm disappointed in what many expect to be the "tuneability" of this motor. Bottom line, 3.0 liters isn't cutting it in this price bracket. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 09:38 PM | #105 | |
Lieutenant
170
Rep 444
Posts |
Quote:
Looking at the history of M3s, I think all of them came to market pretty much tweaked as much as you could possibly expect. Compare this with the AMG C63 engine which basically burps out 50 whp with a tune alone...which is incredible for a NA engine. My point: BMW squeaks by with the bare minimum. We're beat over the head constantly with their "handling" and "chassis" to make up for the lack of "crude power". How about this, guys? GIVE US BOTH. Or at least, do what Mercedes and Audi do and give us the option (Black series, RS series) of putting TRUE hot hi-po engines in your cars. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-14-2013, 09:44 PM | #106 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
1652
Rep 1,619
Posts |
Quote:
And I agree with you, the issue here is the 3.0L. This engine should have been 3.2-3.4L.
__________________
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2013, 12:47 AM | #107 | |
Lieutenant General
640
Rep 10,404
Posts |
Quote:
540 hp is a better estimate though since the car will likely put down 450 crank, being underrated by 20-30 hp. I'm pretty confident, that the S55 with stock turbos and little to no other hardware changes will reliably permit this, i.e. around 550 hp. Of course the question may be can the ECU be cracked/augmented/circumvented and how long will that take? It certainly begs the question if the "absolutely lag free" throttle response can be maintained at such power levels.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2013, 01:06 AM | #108 | |
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
|
12-15-2013, 01:30 AM | #109 | |
Major General
5295
Rep 5,875
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-15-2013, 04:01 PM | #110 | |
Major General
1740
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Some info on the electric wastegate actuators:
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|