m50 manifold on 328i

[thorburn 120]

vac line for fuel pressure regulator

[e30ftw 394]

A - vacuum line, Use it with the FPR

B - Intake air temp sensor, won't work with m52. Hopefully you know you need to mount your M52 one somewhere, it's normally clip in style won't fit in B.

[MoJoJoe 46]

where can I get one? anybody got a spare vac line clip to fit A? my manifold doesn't have one and I cant do the swap till I get one. anybody got a spare m50 manifold laying around that would let me have the vac thing, will gladly pay you.

yea i got a place to fit the B, it will go into the intake boot with some gasket maker or rubber silicon hopefully be okay.

Edited April 15, 2014 by MoJoJoe

[MoJoJoe 46]

I agree with you on the note that the M50 is a dog, it felt slugish compared to my 318is when I test drove one.

now after reading what you had to say now I want to use the m52 manifold again, but I already took it all out. but honestly it seems the m50 supposedly loses some torque (10nm?) around the midrange, 3 - 4K. after that its pulling hard. A friend did it and hes also liking it, So I am going with the swap, to see how it goes, if the power is there at the low end for DD and there if I need it when I floor it at 4000-5000RPM then I am okay with a little torque loss for overall gains/faster car. In DD I dont see myself going over 2.5K -3K, I drive slow and gentle but sometimes around the mountains and on open roads or motorways I let it open and floor it, so I think it may be what may benefit for me.

edit: ron, do you have an fuel pressure regulator clip for the m50 or whats its called that I am missing, I may buy it off you since my manifold didnt come with one (the thing in A of the picture)?

Edited April 15, 2014 by MoJoJoe

[MoJoJoe 46]

ok fine, fine i will put it back on

edit: stock to stock when i floor it my car would be faster vs a 328i car with m50 manifold?

Edited April 15, 2014 by MoJoJoe

[jom 96]

On a slightly different topic.....

Ron, do you have before and after dyno curves for the M3 header on an M52?

[jom 96]

I really didn't want to do this, but...

Ron knows everything about manuals. But not necessarily nasty Japanese autos....

If you look at a standard 328 power curve it dies at 5500rpm. The Jatco box in sport mode changes at 6200rpm. That's where you get the extra power with the M50 - at the top end. I agree it's probably not what you want in a manual, but with the auto it does make a positive difference. Your choice, less torque, more power up to gear change point.

Jo (Flat earth, and Eric the Red farming in Greenland Society)

[MoJoJoe 46]

Solve this :::

My car (A) makes 300Nm@ 3900 RPM ( and about 160kw because power is basically torque x RPM),

My mates car (B ) is identical but makes 10% less torque (& therefore power)

We are side by side at 3900 RPM and we floor them -------------- Which will be faster --A or B ???

NO BUTS !!! just straight answer, B or C ?

This whole thing is a conspiracy isn't it? so that noob guys like me cant have a faster car. isn't it? you get paid by bmw to say these things. you are all in on it! OMG.

okay okay, kidding. i really appreciate your replies, its obviously A. I know about the thing about this being worthy for track guys who are always over 4k. but i was hoping this would be a good add on if it drives normally in the DD/city roads, and when i want the power, want a rush or go around twists and mountains or the motor way I can floor it and the extra power is there kinda thing. I wish I could keep the cars current power curve and just do some small modification that would give me more go when i floored it. maybe if i added m3 headers and deleted my clutch fan it would make up for the torque loss at the low end? seriously the m50 hype got to me and I wanted best of both worlds but that seems like an very far fetched wish at best.

Edited April 16, 2014 by MoJoJoe

[MoJoJoe 46]

I really didn't want to do this, but...

Ron knows everything about manuals. But not necessarily nasty Japanese autos....

If you look at a standard 328 power curve it dies at 5500rpm. The Jatco box in sport mode changes at 6200rpm. That's where you get the extra power with the M50 - at the top end. I agree it's probably not what you want in a manual, but with the auto it does make a positive difference. Your choice, less torque, more power up to gear change point.

Jo (Flat earth, and Eric the Red farming in Greenland Society)

more info needed.

this responds better on jatco/auto boxes doesn't it?

i see you have an similar auto like me.

[Ahmedsinc 414]

Just as an aside, Ron - are you aware of any research / threads / real world experience on fitting an M52 intake to a dirty old M50B25? All the research I've done corroborates your input on the intake swap, but I haven't yet seen anything about an M52 -> M50 swap. Is part of the difference in the cam profiles or is there a bit more black magic to it?

[jom 96]

Joe, faulty logic/ maths and Physics:

yes the auto changes at 6200RPM but that makes no difference to how much torque/ power is available at the flywheel at a given engine speed.

Not only that but when I am driving is sports mode I change at 6200 -6,400 RPM because this drops me right on the power curve in the next , and, Finally:

The manual loses only 20% through the transmission whereas an auto will lose 25% for a very good one or 30% for an average one and you will loose more under hard acceleration due to torque converter slip.

That means the manual gets at worst 6% more to the wheels and potentially more than 14% more assuming the same engine power - add the M50 manifold and rob yourself of another 10% of your torque/ power and you really do have a slug at all points except the redline - and who drives there??

So:

M52 set-up makes more torque, Manual loses less power in transmission and you can select / optimise you shift point

MoJoejoe, also faulty logic the M3 headers can only work with what you have - if you have tossed 10% away you are starting from a lower point. The only rush you will get in the mountains is the fuel needle heading for empty as you rev the crap out of your car to make even reasonable power - just do the maths 10% more power IS 10% more power

The whole point of my swap was faster lap times with an auto. Comparing an auto to a manual is a red herring. Driving at peak revs (on a track) in sports mode, the power stops increasing at about 5,700 and drops off fairly rapidly. I have to sit and wait for the gearbox to decide to change at 6200. Having the power up to those revs - and smooth power delivery through the gearchange - make it go quicker - by 1sec a lap. It's acceptable on the road too when overtaking, for the same reason. Otherwise I don't use max revs.

The Jatco box does have it's own issues, like changing up early under high g loadings, but that is another story.

Jo

[yng_750 247]

M3 throttle bodies.... That is all

[e30ftw 394]

Making 60% more air available as the M50 manifold does is fine , but where does it go???

-

Hi Ron, According to my physics calculations, it still flows out the exhaust. Hope this helps. Cheers.

[jom 96]

Ron, you are only comparing engine and exhaust differences. It's matching that to the drivetrain that makes the difference in the auto. You have to consider the entire package.

[jom 96]

Your maths and physics stops at the flywheel, you need to consider the whole package. I drive a car, not an engine

[yng_750 247]

Basically comes down to is peak power worth giving up your whole.midrange.

I hit peak power in my car maybe a dozen times a week for three seconds at a time . Spend the whole time in the midrange. Torque gets you going and provides fuel economy. Power beats resistance of top speed. Thats about it

[yng_750 247]

Manual and auto still spend 99% of the time shifting at 4k

[Ahmedsinc 414]

Hi Matt,

No I haven't seen any evidence of it actually being done or any published results any results and I don't know what the complications are either. But the maths and physics stacks up - you will end up with more mid range torque better economy and about the same top end on a 2.5 litre.

One of the mods to an M52 is to use M50 cams, from memory just one cam is used and they are transposed in the M52 head. I can't remember which way. I think it 's an M50 exhaust on the inlet side.

The outcome is a little more lift and duration on the intake to aid breathing so this would suggest that the cams and manifold will work okay together.

Yup, seems the cam of choice is an M50B25NV intake cam used on the exhaust side of the M52. Off the top of my head provides 9.7mm (?) lift and 240 deg duration.

Following the advice of a member on here who knows a great deal more about this cam change than I do I'm following his advice and using said cam on my M54B30 build. What I'm wondering, is will using the M50 NV intake manifold have a similar detrimental effect on low to midrange torque on the B30? Or will the hotter cam profile serve as a counter to the torque loss? The engines he has built are for competition use, so naturally they're spending most of their time above 3.5k rpm. I'm going to be using the B30 I have downstairs as a replacement for the M50B25 so I'm looking for a torque curve more appropriate to a road engine. As it isn't viable to convert the E36 to drive by wire am I better off to fabricate an adaptor plate for the B30 intake manifold or run with the B25NV unit?

The build is a rather ingenious one, and I'm looking forward to the results once it's been tuned on the dyno. However, I'd appreciate the input, even if it is only based on theory

[smiddy 76]

One would think M54 manifold would be the go with throttle body adapter plate.

Turners sell them and some US forums have cad drawings to download.

Good luck.

[polley 916]

Hi Matt,

No I haven't seen any evidence of it actually being done or any published results any results and I don't know what the complications are either. But the maths and physics stacks up - you will end up with more mid range torque better economy and about the same top end on a 2.5 litre.

One of the mods to an M52 is to use M50 cams, from memory just one cam is used and they are transposed in the M52 head. I can't remember which way. I think it 's an M50 exhaust on the inlet side.

The outcome is a little more lift and duration on the intake to aid breathing so this would suggest that the cams and manifold will work okay together.

M50 non vanos inlet cams are the hot ones. good luck trying to fit into a m52 head though and retain vanos. even when doing it on an m50 the cam shaft needs to be machined to retain cam chain alignment.

Edited April 18, 2014 by polley

[Ahmedsinc 414]

M50 non vanos inlet cams are the hot ones. good luck trying to fit into a m52 head though and retain vanos. even when doing it on an m50 the cam shaft needs to be machined to retain cam chain alignment.

Will be deleting Vanos and running a silver label DME from an NV B25, remapped for the different fuelling rates. The build (if I can get away with calling it that) consists of an M54B30, B25NV intake cam on B30 exhaust side, B30 cam dialled to full advance and locked, Vanos delete and DME remap, plus a couple other tweaks on the cam sensor plate. The engine I'm basing my build on has been run in a race car for multiple seasons with great reliablity, but as I mentioned earlier I won't be driving around constantly in the upper rev ranges, hence my musings on whether using the M50 intake would be counterproductive. So far everything Ive heard supports a roughly 30 hp gain over stock, which I'm certainly not complaining about, but as my main goal for going down the 3 litre route is torque, torque and more torque. Or at least more torque that my current donk produces. Which isn't very much at all

There is a small possibility of going down the FI route in the future, which could open up the need for the NV intake, but for the meantime my budget dictates that I stay the NA course. But for the interim, I think the jump from 150 rwhp to 200-odd, manual trans and a 3.46 LSD ought to keep me entertained

[jom 96]

Jo, No I my maths doesn't end at the flywheel.

If you look a bit further back you will see commentary on the effect of the auto box and the changing of diff ratios

As you are not changing either the diff or the gearbox then these are Constants, then as in any maths you can effectively take them out of the equation and focus on the variables.

The Auto gear box doesn't create po hot air ballons. when you have driven and tuned an auto I'll listen. Until then, I'll keep taking the pills and back away from the wall and wer , it just transfers it, albeit less efficiently than a manual ,

if your gearbox possesses magical powers that defy physics and maths perhaps you would like to share ?? but given it's a JATCO this would seem unlikely?

I will say this only once:

You are comparing apples with hovercraft. When you have concise data on a 328 with an auto box I'll listen. Until then, I will back away from the wall and stop nodding my head. Enough entertainment everybody, nothing to see here, move along now.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Jo M

[thorburn 120]

For all this talk off maths and physics, there seems to be a lack of numbers and examples in this thread.
This is a fairly good example.
http://forum.evotechnik.net/showthread.php?38476-BMW-328i-difference-between-remap-and-m50-manifold-no-remap-graph-bwchiptune

Edited April 18, 2014 by Thorburn

[BM WORLD 1258]

For all this talk off maths and physics, there seems to be a lack of numbers and examples in this thread.

This is a fairly good example.

http://forum.evotechnik.net/showthread.php?38476-BMW-328i-difference-between-remap-and-m50-manifold-no-remap-graph-bwchiptune

well done ,

people only want to fit the cheap mod then not spend the bucks to finish the job off properly

[polley 916]

It actually says "system no longer in shootout mode", all three runs could of been done with it disabled.

Someone posts proof and you just call it bullshit... Dont think you've posted any proof here other than "I've done it, take my word for it" ?