Autotalent
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   BMW M3 and BMW M4 Forum > BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 Technical Topics > Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust / Bolt-ons / Tuning

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      11-05-2013, 09:09 PM   #1
basscadet
Lieutenant
basscadet's Avatar
148
Rep
434
Posts

Drives: '17 Giula Quadrifoglio
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Overland Park, KS

iTrader: (0)

Power potential limited?

I would be interested in having a technical discussion about what limitations there might be of the S55.

With the small Mitsubishi turbos already wheezing up to 18.9 psi on a stock M3/M4, is there any real hope of significant gains to be unleashed by the aftermarket?

For me this is an important issue as I do not feel that this car is going to be competitive in a straight line against the next gen C63 AMG, the Cadillacs, or even the Mustang in the power department. I don't think this car shed enough weight to make 430hp acceptable.

Thoughts?

Last edited by basscadet; 11-05-2013 at 11:14 PM..
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2013, 09:26 PM   #2
pkimM3r
Banned
pkimM3r's Avatar
161
Rep
7,304
Posts

Drives: m3 saloon in granny mode.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: lost angeles

iTrader: (0)

Theres always freeing up everything and a retune for some minor gains but hard to tell right now isnt it?

I can see a new turbo coming out consisting of stock size housing and redone internals like CBRD or FP has done perhaps?
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2013, 09:43 PM   #3
paddy335
Major
61
Rep
1,131
Posts

Drives: M140i;X5 40d
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Zealand

iTrader: (0)

I'm not exactly technical, but I would expect there will be plenty of tolerance left in the turbos to get more out of them.

Air intake and intercooling upgrades also.

More extremely there will probably eventually be plenty of options for bigger turbos.

None of it will come cheap. At all.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2013, 09:47 PM   #4
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1946
Rep
4,373
Posts

Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by basscadet View Post
I don't think this car shed enough weight to make 430hp acceptable.

Thoughts?
What? The F80/2 has more hp, more torque, and less weight than it's predecessor. So how is this not acceptable?
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2013, 10:19 PM   #5
JoeFromPA
Colonel
1450
Rep
2,854
Posts

Drives: '15 AW M3 6MT Stripper
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SE PA

iTrader: (0)

You live in Kansas, you have plentiful access access to e85 most likely, your tuning potential is enormous just from that fueling.

On e85 and with some mild bolt-ons, I'd expect reliable 500 crank HP all day long. Just because the fuel is so knock resistant and so tuning friendly.

That being said, really? Car is not even out yet and you feel it's not powerful enough? If you prefer the feeling of big displacement, then go get an AMG.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2013, 10:22 PM   #6
Sedan_Clan
Law Enforcer
Sedan_Clan's Avatar
Brazil
3522
Rep
15,280
Posts

Drives: '17 Nardo Grey M4
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: On 2 wheels clipping an apex!

iTrader: (26)

With money comes power and tuning potential. The end!
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2013, 11:16 PM   #7
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
455
Rep
10,408
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

I've heard rumors of BMW making their ECU more and more "mod resistant". Not my area of expertise at all and on top of that just a rumor.
__________________
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
      11-05-2013, 11:20 PM   #8
basscadet
Lieutenant
basscadet's Avatar
148
Rep
434
Posts

Drives: '17 Giula Quadrifoglio
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Overland Park, KS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
What? The F80/2 has more hp, more torque, and less weight than it's predecessor. So how is this not acceptable?
Unfortunately, BMW does not live in a bubble and the competition is adapting and improving at a very fast pace.

I want a M3 in my garage. But I don't want some kid with a JB4 and 5 year-old 335i to blow my doors off on the street either.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 01:06 AM   #9
templarklimek
templarklimek
United_States
108
Rep
869
Posts

Drives: 15' X6M, 12' R8 V10,
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Houston Texas

iTrader: (0)

IMHO BMW made a mistake by not retaining the S65 at 4.4L(440hp stock). an engine they already have. They dropped in the S55 to save money on production. Plain and simple. No special M motors anymore. BMW said it was to save gas, nonsense. Audi, Mercedes, Ford, GM still use V8's.

The S55 will be a fine engine. At the very least I wish BMW just said "look, we want to save money by having the parts shared with all of our products."
Rather than the false mantra of saving gas. I don't drive an M to save damn gas.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 02:03 AM   #10
pkimM3r
Banned
pkimM3r's Avatar
161
Rep
7,304
Posts

Drives: m3 saloon in granny mode.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: lost angeles

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeFromPA
You live in Kansas, you have plentiful access access to e85 most likely, your tuning potential is enormous just from that fueling.

On e85 and with some mild bolt-ons, I'd expect reliable 500 crank HP all day long. Just because the fuel is so knock resistant and so tuning friendly.

That being said, really? Car is not even out yet and you feel it's not powerful enough? If you prefer the feeling of big displacement, then go get an AMG.
Crank only?

I made 425hp on an evo ix with e85. Could have gone more.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 02:03 AM   #11
pkimM3r
Banned
pkimM3r's Avatar
161
Rep
7,304
Posts

Drives: m3 saloon in granny mode.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: lost angeles

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by templarklimek
IMHO BMW made a mistake by not retaining the S65 at 4.4L(440hp stock). an engine they already have. They dropped in the S55 to save money on production. Plain and simple. No special M motors anymore. BMW said it was to save gas, nonsense. Audi, Mercedes, Ford, GM still use V8's.

The S55 will be a fine engine. At the very least I wish BMW just said "look, we want to save money by having the parts shared with all of our products."
Rather than the false mantra of saving gas. I don't drive an M to save damn gas.
That stroker motor would have been dope. I would have taken that over the new turbo any day all day.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 02:04 AM   #12
pkimM3r
Banned
pkimM3r's Avatar
161
Rep
7,304
Posts

Drives: m3 saloon in granny mode.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: lost angeles

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by basscadet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
What? The F80/2 has more hp, more torque, and less weight than it's predecessor. So how is this not acceptable?
Unfortunately, BMW does not live in a bubble and the competition is adapting and improving at a very fast pace.

I want a M3 in my garage. But I don't want some kid with a JB4 and 5 year-old 335i to blow my doors off on the street either.
Oh that will always happen.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 04:14 AM   #13
paddy335
Major
61
Rep
1,131
Posts

Drives: M140i;X5 40d
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Zealand

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I've heard rumors of BMW making their ECU more and more "mod resistant". Not my area of expertise at all and on top of that just a rumor.
I wouldn't be surprised. They are bringing out more and more Performance items of their own all the time so it follows that they would try and limit the competition.

But regardless it is just software and there are lots of clever people around to get around restrictions.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 04:15 AM   #14
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
991
Rep
4,832
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by basscadet View Post
I would be interested in having a technical discussion about what limitations there might be of the S55.

With the small Mitsubishi turbos already wheezing up to 18.9 psi on a stock M3/M4, is there any real hope of significant gains to be unleashed by the aftermarket?

For me this is an important issue as I do not feel that this car is going to be competitive in a straight line against the next gen C63 AMG, the Cadillacs, or even the Mustang in the power department. I don't think this car shed enough weight to make 430hp acceptable.

Thoughts?
Tuning potential on a turbo engine is alluring, so much easier than on a NA...

Agree with other posters on BMW probably making the ECU pretty much very hard to break in to with software mods. Expect piggybacks from Hartge, AC Schnitzer etc to give a 480-500hp tune pretty soon after release of the car.

And remember that the 18,9PSI will only be seen under "worst case scenario" conditions, i.e high temperatures at high altitude with high humidity or similar. BMW wants to make sure that the S55 makes the announced HP under every circumstance and has said that boost will be adjusted according to conditions.

This means that under ideal circumstances you will NOT see 18,9PSI of boost. Which also means that if you did have 18,9PSI of boost under ideal conditions, the engine will make considerably more than 430hp. So if the turbos are big enough to flow enough air at 18,9PSI under high temeprature/low air density conditions, they should be large enough for a lot more than 430hp at sea level and normal temperatures (if you can trick them into making the same boost then - which is where the tunes come into play ).
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 07:08 AM   #15
BMW M3 CRT
Lieutenant
BMW M3 CRT's Avatar
143
Rep
464
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Germany

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I've heard rumors of BMW making their ECU more and more "mod resistant". Not my area of expertise at all and on top of that just a rumor.
It´s not only an rumor !!!

Until today no one has ever tuned an BMW F..-Model ECU. Also well known tuners with tight relations with BMW as AC Schnitzer only offer Tuning-Boxes (piggybacks), because it is nearly impossible to tune the ECU itself. According to my informations there are not alone electronical/software problems but also simple "mechanical" problems to open the ECU-box without destroying it ... minimum one of two boxes breaks if they try to open it - the most simple tuning blocker!!!

Greetings BMW M3 CRT
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 08:44 AM   #16
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
5405
Rep
18,411
Posts

Drives: No BMW for now
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by templarklimek View Post
IMHO BMW made a mistake by not retaining the S65 at 4.4L(440hp stock). an engine they already have. They dropped in the S55 to save money on production. Plain and simple. No special M motors anymore. BMW said it was to save gas, nonsense. Audi, Mercedes, Ford, GM still use V8's.
The problem is that the S65 is not an efficient engine. It's true that they could have made it more efficient (by employing direct injection for example). But the fact is that efficiency and high RPM power production are diametrically opposing goals. At some point you hit the point of diminishing returns and have to change course. Note that GM and Ford have more displacement to work with and generally these engines make peak power at much lower RPM than the S65. By the way, these engines borrow heavily from the light truck siblings so there is cost sharing here just like there is with BMW. And Audi and Mercedes are abandoning naturally aspirated V8s just like BMW is. The 4.2L Audi V8 is being dropped despite its use of GDI, so they see the writing on the wall just like BMW does.

I will say that I wish BMW would have made a case for a smaller displacement turbo V8 for the M3/M4 like Mercedes is doing with AMG.

Quote:
The S55 will be a fine engine. At the very least I wish BMW just said "look, we want to save money by having the parts shared with all of our products."
Rather than the false mantra of saving gas. I don't drive an M to save damn gas.
It's not realistic to expect a company to just abandon standard marketing practice. None of BMWs competitors have stopped extolling the virtues of their products and BMW would surely be foolish to try and compete on those uneven grounds.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 08:51 AM   #17
basscadet
Lieutenant
basscadet's Avatar
148
Rep
434
Posts

Drives: '17 Giula Quadrifoglio
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Overland Park, KS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post

And remember that the 18,9PSI will only be seen under "worst case scenario" conditions, i.e high temperatures at high altitude with high humidity or similar.
Thank you for your input, this is a point I overlooked.

Now, of course, the two questions are:

1) What are stock boost levels on the car at average air density (14-16psi, tapering off?)

2) What is likelihood we will see piggyback ECUs?

3) Are piggyback systems too difficult to quickly remove for visits to dealership?

If there is a good chance that there will be power untapped on this car in the future, I do not mind waiting until Spring (?) to order one as a leased car. If, however, this is an unlikely scenario I am hesitant to wait and might look at alternatives.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 08:54 AM   #18
basscadet
Lieutenant
basscadet's Avatar
148
Rep
434
Posts

Drives: '17 Giula Quadrifoglio
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Overland Park, KS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post

I will say that I wish BMW would have made a case for a smaller displacement turbo V8 for the M3/M4 like Mercedes is doing with AMG.
Is the 4.4 liter Turbo V8 (sorry, I forgot the engine code) just too big to fit into the F80 chassis?

I don't know if that engine is too big/heavy for the M3/M4, but I can only drool thinking about how that car would have truly been the "hot 3er" that we all wanted.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 08:59 AM   #19
Sedan_Clan
Law Enforcer
Sedan_Clan's Avatar
Brazil
3522
Rep
15,280
Posts

Drives: '17 Nardo Grey M4
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: On 2 wheels clipping an apex!

iTrader: (26)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
The problem is that the S65 is not an efficient engine. It's true that they could have made it more efficient (by employing direct injection for example). But the fact is that efficiency and high RPM power production are diametrically opposing goals. At some point you hit the point of diminishing returns and have to change course. Note that GM and Ford have more displacement to work with and generally these engines make peak power at much lower RPM than the S65. By the way, these engines borrow heavily from the light truck siblings so there is cost sharing here just like there is with BMW. And Audi and Mercedes are abandoning naturally aspirated V8s just like BMW is. The 4.2L Audi V8 is being dropped despite its use of GDI, so they see the writing on the wall just like BMW does.

I will say that I wish BMW would have made a case for a smaller displacement turbo V8 for the M3/M4 like Mercedes is doing with AMG.



It's not realistic to expect a company to just abandon standard marketing practice. None of BMWs competitors have stopped extolling the virtues of their products and BMW would surely be foolish to try and compete on those uneven grounds.
Well said man.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 10:03 AM   #20
BMW M3 CRT
Lieutenant
BMW M3 CRT's Avatar
143
Rep
464
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Germany

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by basscadet View Post
Is the 4.4 liter Turbo V8 (sorry, I forgot the engine code) just too big to fit into the F80 chassis?

I don't know if that engine is too big/heavy for the M3/M4, but I can only drool thinking about how that car would have truly been the "hot 3er" that we all wanted.
The perfect turbo engine for the M3/M4 would be an short stroke 4.0ltr.V8TT based on the 4.4ltr.V8TT S63Tü from the M5 ... look at the bore/stroke ratio of the S55 and imagine this for an S63Tü derivate and with the same weight saving measures developed for the S55.

The S63Tü is a little bit heavy (230kg) for the lightweight M3/M4 but with the neasures taken at the S55, I am sure it would be possible to bring the weight down to the S65 weight or at least to 210kg.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 10:13 AM   #21
BMW M3 CRT
Lieutenant
BMW M3 CRT's Avatar
143
Rep
464
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Germany

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by templarklimek View Post
IMHO BMW made a mistake by not retaining the S65 at 4.4L(440hp stock). an engine they already have. They dropped in the S55 to save money on production. Plain and simple. No special M motors anymore. BMW said it was to save gas, nonsense. Audi, Mercedes, Ford, GM still use V8's.

The S55 will be a fine engine. At the very least I wish BMW just said "look, we want to save money by having the parts shared with all of our products."
Rather than the false mantra of saving gas. I don't drive an M to save damn gas.
+1000

Very well said ... and in the famous german car magazine SPORTAUTO in an interview the M3 development chief says more or less that cost savings were an important factor also on the engine decision !!!

My opinion is also that the M-GmbH made an big mistake with their engine decision ... as I postet in an other thread in this forum:
Quote:
Agree ... an M3 was never about numbers, but much about engine fascination, but if I get to the opinion that ~430hp is enough für an new F8x M3/M4 then I stay with the great and unique N/A S65, look if I can get the fuel consuption a little bit lower and market the car over the great and unique and special engine ... and the lower weight.

In this case no one would care about numbers ... and don´t forget an M3 was also never about torque numbers!

BUT if I decide to bring an new engine, than I must orientate this decision also on the cars I will compete with - not hp wise but concept wise! So in my opinion an 4.0ltr.V8TT based on the S63Tü - bore and stroke like S55 and with the same "lightweight" features was the way to go.

If the base C205 gets really ~100kg lighter and the C205 AMG C63 even a little bit more ... and if this car gets an V8TT with ~500+hp than I fear this car was the first AMG that beats an M3(M4) also on track ... and the last and best argument for the M3 as the "best trackcar in its class" will be gone ... with little chance to react because of the engine limitations.

Than it would be clever if they could argue with an more refined and racier engine like the S65 ... and that an M3 is nothing about numbers.
.

Last edited by BMW M3 CRT; 11-06-2013 at 10:29 AM..
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2013, 10:50 AM   #22
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
5405
Rep
18,411
Posts

Drives: No BMW for now
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Regarding the potential of the S55 as the OP inquired about, well, where do things stand with the N54 today on stock turbos? The S55 should be hitting those levels at least in short order. I believe the S55 has forged internals also, or at least a forged crank, so that too may open more doors. Not sure if Valvrtronic is more win or break even or detriment from a tuning perspective.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 AM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST