BlownV8

Are you saying that if you removed the supercharger from your CLS55 that it would make 300 RWHP or that it would make 350 crank hp? If so, you may want to test your theory because I think it may be flawed.

skratch77

I dont know what your problem is as I was just throwing out numbers.Everything with you has to be proven by this and that.

I posted a dyno of an m3 running 9psi.I dont care if you dont believe it or not.The dyno is right there for you to study it.im not going by any stupid calculator.I didnt bring that up.I posted a real dyno of a supercharged m3.What more proof do you want.

now your saying that a 4.0 V8 with 12:1 compression cant make 600whp on 9psi?You dont know the flow rate of the charger on there.At 9 psi it might flow twice the amount of air than a e55 blower.

either way who cares the dyno is right there.Bolt on m3s are already trapping 115,Im sure this car will break 130.

9psi on a c38 94 trim blower will make more power than a c38 with a 71 trim wheel,but going by your laws of physics (by the way we dont even know what blower there using)it cant be made with 9psi.

the 10x flow was an exageration I should of used 100x,that might of been more clear.

I will be the first to let you know what that car runs,but you will come up with some other bs.

btw my mechanic just tuned a f40 with custom lm turbos and a motec.Take a guess what it put down at 13psi.

Im not going to tell you becuase you think every engine reacts to boost like your amg.

check this out,a bone stock e46 m3 with a hpf kit on it.518whp with 7psi OMG how did they make so much power with little boost.

and thats a 3.2 inline 6.thats am engine with 2 less pistons,less disp.,and less boost of an e55 and its making more power.Now what does your laws say about that?I guess bore,stroke,compression and flow has nothing to do with its power it made with less boost.

I already know why,and they are using a huge turbo on that setup.but thats not why because 7 psi is only 7 psi right?and if 7 psi on your car cant make 300whp dosnt mean a turbo that flows more air cant.same goes for the blower ess might be using.

Improviz

It uses the same internals as the 210, although compression is lowered to allow higher boost without detonation, and that motor was 350 crank, around 290-300 rwhp.

Improviz

My problem is your making asinine, bogus, made-up, stupid, ignorant, and worthless claims like "the M3 has 10x the flow rate of an AMG engine".

What I want is proof of your claim that M3 engines have 10x the flow rate of any given AMG engine.

Because I maintain that it was a total garbage claim, unsubstantiated by any reference, basically an ignorant claim by an ignorant person.

Supposition does not equal facts. Do you know the flow rate? Of either supercharger?

No?

Didn't think so.

So STFU with your guesswork, and present some facts. You come in here constantly trying to pass yourself off as an expert, but never present anything other than dyno charts and buzzwords like "flow rate", as though this qualifies you as some sort of expert.

So, Mr. Expert, present some facts. Present any snippet of info to support your claim that M engines have 10x the flow rate of AMG engines.

Fine, and as I said: when it does, I'll believe it's making that much rwhp.

But I'm not gonna accept a dyno from a tuner who has a financial conflict of interest. Because, unlike you, I'm not gullible, and don't worship a bloody car brand like some people worship Jesus Christ.

I'm assuming that the tuner in question has enough sense to select a blower with enough efficiency to produce optimal horsepower for a given engine; if otoh they put one on there with less than optimal efficiency and it in turn blows hotter air into the engine to produce the same PSI, then yes, one would expect lower horsepower, as hotter air tends to have a detrimental effect upon power.

So any more dumb examples you'd care to use to try and look like you know what you're talking about?

So since you now admit you're just making it up as you go, why not instead produce any data to support your contention that the "flow rate" on an M car is vastly superior to that on an AMG?

Just as soon as you wipe the jizz off of your screen...right?

No, what I said is that the calculator you used says my engine produces 630 or so crank horsepower.

Which it doesn't.

Don't your keys get sticky from all of that splooge? I picture you as a pimply-faced little teen who literally has no life other than fantasizing about M cars. So sad....


I mean, it's like clockwork: someone posts a thread about any M car, or any BMW, and ka-pow, here you are, like a fly at a picnic....what do you do, scour the forums each and every day for any mention of BMW, and think "Wow, here's my big chance to show those AMG guys what I know about BMWs!".

Get a life.

skratch77

I dont see any 1500whp amgs on the road.There are plenty of bmw inline 6s making well north of 1000whp.Would you not think that they flow well?.There was a test done years ago that compared a s54 head to a supra head and the s54 nearly flowed twice the cfms threw it.It was said that the s54 would not gain anything from a port and polish because it was flowing so well from the get go.

I dont know the flow rate,that was my whole point neither do you,You asumed that a given engine cant make x amount of hp with x amount of boost without knowing the details.Forget bmw all together,you clearly said with that amount of boost its not possible,ignoring the fact that its a 12.1 compression 4.0 v8.

my data is from knowing how far bmws engines have gone being boosted.People are running more boost and nos on an e55,why is it it hasnt broke 1000whp yet?

Now I would love to get a chance to take a e55 apart and have the head flow benched to see how well it flows,but thats not going to happen so you win there with no hard evidance,but I can find a dozen or soo 1000+whp dynos if that makes you happy.

the e46 can make 900+whp on its stock cams,how is that not flowing more than an amg?

I havnt been here in years,I only visited because I might trade my friend my car for his 04 e55.Btw Im not a teen and dont have any zits.
Its also amusing on how you post in every bmw thread,its like you get off on your internet ego or something

MHP

CF: DIN, nuff said.

MHP

Not trying to jump into someone else's argument but it's all about the size of the blower/turbo and no one that I know is running a larger blower or has a turbo 55k. There are 2.3L Evo's making 1000whp, again due to the size of the head unit of the turbo.
When you're talking N/A power the cylinder heads dictate how much potential power any motor can make, cam(s), intake, bottom end displacement merely dictate how much of that potential is reached and at what rpm.


BlownV8 As far as the explanation of boost. As he stated, it's just a measurement of backpressure relevant only to the motor in question.

edit: I can tell you right now that an E46 M3 head outflows a 55K 3v head all day long even with the smaller bore. The reason MB introduced FI to the 3v motors was because they couldn't make sufficient power N/A. With that being said, it's definitely possible to make 1000rw with a large blower/turbo with a 55k (durability/longevity at that power level would obviously require better bottom end components and a fuel system to support it), but as to why no one's done it yet, I'm not sure either...

skratch77

ess is from europe

European Supercharging Systems and use the din system

MHP

FWIW, lowering static C/R as MB did with the boosted 5.4s would kill N/A power. A friend dyno'd his E55 without the blower engaged. I believe it made 240-260rw.

MHP

Yeah I got that, but they need to realize the rest of the world uses SAE (DIN is inflated).

Improviz

Changing the subject won't work. I didn't say that BMW engines don't "flow well"; you said that AMG engines don't "flow well".

So I'm again going to ask you: prove it.

Which is, yet again, another attempt to change the subject. We are not discussing Supra engines, we are discussing AMG engines.

And I again ask you to present anything, other than simple guesswork on your part, to substantiate this claim.

No, that wasn't your whole point. Your point was that AMG engines don't flow as well as M engines.

And I'm again going to ask you: prove it.

No, I didn't ignore the fact.

Well, here's your big chance: present any evidence that you have that would prove that the E55 engine is not capable of being tuned to horsepower levels above 1000 horsepower.

I'm afraid that this is not relevant to your claim. So if you admit that you have no evidence to support it, then why not STFU and **** off, rather than pollute our forums with stupid claptrap that you just invent? Because honestly, reading made-up wannabe drivel is probably pretty down on the forum readers' list of things they want to do before they die.

Do you have any evidence that an E55 cannot make 900+ whp on its stock cams?

No?

Didn't think so.

You lie. You've been coming here for years. You joined in 11/04, and a quick perusal of your posting history shows that you've posted throughout every year since, including 2008, in each and every case simply jizzing about the Mighty, Magnificent M cars. I've seen you poo-poo videos that showed clear AMG victories over M cars, even when presented with snapshots from the videos clearly showing that the AMG was in front at the end of the race. So what's the deal? Do you fancy yourself some sort of voice in the wilderness, here to convert the heathens, or what?

I simply do not understand this phenomenon. I've driven, and owned, BMWs, but for the life of me I do not understand what it is that drives people like you to spend so much time in so many forums around the net, trying to promote this brand. I do not see this phenomenon exhibited with any other brand, and I'm honestly starting to wonder if this is some sort of viral marketing campaign...I really see no benefit to it...perhaps you might assist me in understanding: what motivates you to do this? What sort of strange satisfaction do you get from going to competitors' forums and talking down their cars while talking up BMWs?

What is the thrill? What is the point? What is the motivation?

Projecting? You're in a Mercedes forum, dude. You're the troll, and have now been trolling here for over four years.

Why?

E55Pilot

It would be interesting to bolt the supercharger onto the E63's engine... We know those heads are flowing better than the E55's

Improviz

Interesting...I double checked, and they took it from 10:1 to 9:1 according to C&D. Now, if you figure a 7-9% loss per point of compression, that 260 figure sounds plausible, but 240 sounds low.

So let me check out the compression page from earlier w/260 crank....that puts it at 569 w/11 psi, 586 w/12. Still a bit high.

OK, so let's try 240. That works out a bit more nicely, about 530 crank at the 11.6 psi figure. Based upon traps, I'd put these things in the 530-550 depending upon the car, so this makes it a bit more plausible. But the hit to rwhp from a one point compression loss seems excessive...any ideas?

MHP

Yes but the relatively high 11.3:1 static C/R and PFI (not DI) won't allow for more than 4-5psi with a very efficient intercooler and 93 octane. In order to boost a 6.2 you need to do a piston swap (which involves R&R ing the bottom end new slugs, rebalance) then you have the trans to deal with as the 7As were never designed to handle that type of torque especially with the rpms 6.2s are capable of. Figure $12-15k to "prep" the engine/trans for FI duty, then factor in the cost of the kit. Not cheap.
Prelimary testing of our own ported 6.2 heads shows around 400-410cfm/330-340cfm (intake/exhaust) @ .500" lift with stock valves and seats. We are doing larger intake/exhaust valves for 2 customers, which will allow for more flow and higher velocity.
Honestly based on the numbers and what we've seen from other comparable moderate displacement 4Vs we should be able to hit 580-600rw SAE N/A with H/C, full exhaust, and bolt-ons with a 6.2.
If that's not enough 700rw N/A on 100 octane is feasible with our 7.0L stroker kits. You may see one or two running around by late spring.

MHP

Ok, sorry, it's late and I'm a bit confused. The 240-260 hp data I gave for a 55k without blower were in rear wheel hp not crank. Not sure if you took that into account or not?
I'm not sure where you're doing the calc's but does it take into account the additional (albeit not huge) powertrain loss due to the auto trans vs a manual?
I'm sure a lot of the losses also stem from the differing ECU tuning (N/A v FI). Obviously there won't be anywhere near the amount of timing advance in a FI version, and the A/F will be richer which would also hurt the N/A motor.

Improviz

I did...as far as I recall, the 210 motors were dynoing around 290-310.

No, as I was going by wheel horsepower.

Ah, that's probably it...it's mapped expecting full boost at full throttle and retards timing accordingly (sound of light bulb coming on).

Hmm, well, in that case that s/c calculator may be more in the ballpark than I'd thought at first. I actually did a bit more research on this "rule of thumb" I'd read about previously, and it turns out that a better one is on the order of a 7% increase per psi....but I'm wondering if that would still hold true on a motor that's already running 12:1 compression, as it seems to me that they would have to retard timing *very* severely to avoid detonation cramming that much boost into a motor with that high of a comprression ratio, particularly if it's using an air-air intercooler, which would almost certainly be the case here...although I do see that the stage 2 AA system does use water/alcohol injection, which would seem to be a must here....still, you've gotta wonder how those things will do long-term...that's a lot of heat to dissipate in a fairly small motor.

BlownV8

You have also got to consider that the M revs to 8000 RPM. If an E55 could hold on to 500 RWTQ to 8000 RPM, the engine would make over 700 RWHP. HP = (torque * RPM)/5252. Since the E55K's rev limiter is at 6100 RPM, the 55K would need to hold on to 517 RWTQ at 6100 RPM to make 600 RWHP.

The last time I checked, if my memory does not fail me, the 210 E55's engine was 10.5:1 compression and most of the engines are/were dynoing between 280 to 290 RWHP. Let's just assume the engine is making 285 RWHP on average. If you figure 10% loss in hp from the loss in compression, you would have around 256 RWHP. You have also got to consider the inefficient intake tract of the E55K since that blower is sitting in the way and you would have an even greater loss in RWHP.

Using that calculator and 256 RWHP, the E55K should be around 434 RWHP at 10 psi. I'd bet that the E55K is probably closer to 240 RWHP with the blower on the engine but disconnected. Either way, the calculator is very close. It's not absolute but it does give you an idea of what the supercharged engine would make at x boost pressure, if you know the before RWHP, of a NA engine or a supercharged engine with the blower disconnected.

MHP

Improviz,
Because of DI (better fuel atomization, a more precise burn, and a cooling effect) you don't have to limit timing advance nearly as much as you would with PFI.
I haven't taken the time to check all the links posted, did the 600rw DIN blown E92 have meth injection? If so, knock off around 40-50rw w/out it.


BlownV8, I would agree to the 10% rule (per point of C/R) as well.

IMO, The M motors and the 6.2s were never meant for boost. However given the inherent displacement disadvantage the M motors have I can see why more Bimmer owners want to explore the FI route. Too bad because they are all naturally aspirated pieces of art. Any jackass can make 1000hp with a large enough blower/turbo, it takes real skill and knowledge to make power out of thin air.

BlownV8

Not to mention, dollar for dollar it takes much more money and much more skill to make it produce very high hp keeping it NA. It is hard to beat a forced induction engine in the $/hp ratio.

MHP

No question.

Improviz

Yes, I'm aware of this equation; search my posts, you'll find I'm no stranger to it.

I've seen 208 CLK55s normally putting out 290 or so; Chappy's put out something like 310....so to me, 290 would be better (18% driveline loss from rated, but imo those motors were a bit underrrated).

True.

It would be very close if the 55k cars put out 10 psi, but they don't. They put out 11.6 psi. And that calculator gives 446 rwhp at 11psi, 462 at 12, giving interpolated results of (roughly) 454 rwhp at 11.6. Most of the ones I've seen are around 400-430, so that's an error approaching 10% in some cases.

I think it gives you an idea, but there are an awful lot of intangibles here. We'll find out once those get released....me, I wouldn't risk it, as supercharging an M3 will basically throw your engine/powertrain warranty out the window, and if something breaks, it ain't gonna be cheap to fix.

For the money it would cost to get an M3 and do that to it, I'd rather have a GT-R with some mods, but that's a whole 'nuther story.

BlownV8

Yes, using the M3's engine as a testbed can get very expensive very quickly.

I'm not sure if I'd go with the new GT-R because it looks horrible. But, yes, from a performance standpoint, it's a much better platform. It will be even better when the Nissan tuners can get the tranny strengthened or make them cheaper to rebuild/swap.

Improviz

Definitely. Blow one of those babies, or that tranny, and you're well into five figures.

Yeah, they definitely could've made that more robust, lol....I actually like the looks of the thing though, believe it or not.

New M3s are pretty cool looking, though, although they've really gotten too expensive imo for a 3 Series. But then that holds true for German cars in general these days, grrr....

SCM3

Just to help stop the bickering, i would not believe anything ESS says at this point. For years all they do is post up shocking dyno numbers with no proof at all...

lexaltezza

I think the new twin-turbo M's and AMG's will be more fun and torque monsters.