dirtydoogle

M50tu and b28 are exactly the same casting 

Depends how much you want to spend. I would do a tu/m52b28 head with a spring and retainer package, plus a better cam design (you should pick up torque too) 

But if you're not keen to drop that kind of money on a relatively small increase, measure the seat pressures on the existing head, replace the cams if you can, and at least new retainers and collets. Have seen quite a fair few pull through from fatigue. Check for coil bind at max lift too 

I'm hoping you have oil pump lock mods, a tensioner and new gear and shaft? If not, you will have to keep the revs down 

23 hours ago, wrs said:

Thanks for the info. It would be a shame to throw out the cams as I purchased them new from Turners (Schrick S50 Intake: 252 degree, 10.2mm lift Exhaust: 244 degree, 9.5mm lift ). That said if there are much better options then why not. I went with the Shrick's because it meant no messing round with lifters and having to check spring binding, valve clearances etc and the duration and lift were better than standard M50 cams.

It also sounds like I don't need to do anything special in the way of pistons and can put those dollars towards something else (cams). If I do go with better cams I could likely on-sell the S50US cams to help offset the cost of replacements. There's another local guy with a real nice 328 M52 engine making around 316Hp, maybe I can talk to him about which cams he's using - it's a race car though and might not be that driveable round town...

As you say though, I don't need much more to crack 300Hp but why stop there, 320+ should be possible quite easily.

We are making 300 wheel with an m54 thats fairly basic. 

What work has been done to the head? 

I'm not a fan of the NV set up for a high rpm n/a motor, heavy springs and heavier valves. Modern spring, retainer and collet package is much better and lighter. 

Also have found mega seat pressure variations across stock motors, and usually not enough seat pressure anyway (typical beige OEM stuff)

We have a RS2000 Escort rally car here, it had the head done by a well reputed outfit. Seat pressure was almost double what it should be, set it up to be around 95Lbs and gained 16whp 

Assuming new pistons are stock m54 comp height @ 28.32mm, and a standard thickness head gasket will net you 10.28cr 

M50nv head should be an average chamber of 33ish-cc 

I would go with a .050" compressed gasket, this would put you around 11.3cr 

It's a decreasing gain after that kind of comp though, and can create more issues 

Have used piston coatings, I'm not entirely convinced it's needed in a road going motor, especially one with low cylinder tenps and lower pressures, have yet to see a measurable or tangible benefit 

The key to your 300hp goal is, throw the cams in the bin and get something decent. All OEM BMW cams of that era are poo. The average valve lift is poo. Plenty of excellent options to suit your needs. You are already making very nice HP though 

Edit: block checking, I'd ring Marsh or Hartley for advice there

I should have bought it back. 

But I don't think it would be comfortable to live in after the missus breaks my legs and nose 

23 minutes ago, jon dee said:

The internet suggests that there was such a thing as an "anti-scuttle shake" battery. It was specified for convertibles that, because of their reduced torsional rigidity due to the lack of a roof, were susceptible to scuttle shake. I would guess that this would really only be a problem in convertibles that had the battery mounted in the engine compartment close to the firewall. The internet also says that there was at one stage a special "wobbly" battery mounting bracket using rubber anti-vibration mounts that was used to reduce the damaging effects of vibration on the battery. NB: I didn't make this sh*t up... blame the internet  

Legend has it that the anti-scuttle shake battery had a more robust internal construction than standard batteries to enable it to withstand higher levels of vibration. However, common sense seems to indicate that if the battery is mounted in the trunk it is unlikely to be affected by scuttle shake, and therefore a standard battery of your choice mounted with factory hardware should be fine (if your battery is mounted in the trunk). If it is mounted in the engine compartment you are on your own

 Cheers...

 

 

Funnily enough, I've found e53 x5s with the sport pack eat batteries from rough roads/rural driving 🤦‍♂️ love to knock a plate loose 

You're not wrong about finding the data! 

I used 17.2kw/h used per 100km +15% for charging. Those were the most realistic seeming average I found for a current leaf. Ad another 15% on top for an early model. 

And I used 150gm co2e/kWh as the emissions base for supply, national average is a wee bit lower and a little added in for transmission loss. 

So  yeah. Funnily enough EVs are less emmitty 

15 hours ago, nick496 said:

I've recently purchased a second hand leaf, mostly because the cost of it was so low (4 figures), and it meets 90% of my driving requirements. (E30 suits the longer distances funnily enough)
But they do seem to have gone up in price with that clean car discount, which is achieving it's true goal of driving more initial interest in purchasing a new EV.
Which is ok as a short term strategy, but debatable long term, as I feel that simply continuing to hike fuel prices would be the easy way to force people into more efficient vehicles, or public transport.

In terms of running costs, there's no question that EVs are currently super cheap to run.
However it really depends on what the government decide to do once the RUC exemption expires in 2024, and if they'll charge them at the standard RUC rate, or come up with another scheme.

After that I'd guess that having a Hybrid would probably still be the vehicle of choice as a single vehicle.
But I imagine there will continue to be a large number of enthusiast who will hold onto their vehicle(s) of choice

I put together a wee calculator based off some claimed economy figures from fuelly to play around with to justify the purchase of a third car.

I did up a similar spreadsheet myself, out of curiosity, I'm not in the market for a Leaf, but it's interesting to look at the real costs of cars I'll probably never buy
One thing to factor in, charging losses of 15-20%, most calculations I have seen miss this.

And it seems that unless I can get 10 years out of a Leaf, I'm better off driving my clunky 406 HDi
From an emissions standpoint it's quite hard to work out, lines losses to my house are pretty hard to calc (I work for a transmission equipment outfit, sort of) but from what I can figure out in terms of just energy consumed, a Leaf would be around 40% cleaner than my Pug, in a commuting only situation

 

6 minutes ago, Michael. said:

I wonder what they mean by this

Cheaper to run on electricity when the subsidies expire, electric RUCs are added and electricity prices rise? Will be curious to see what the costs end up being. 

Cheaper to buy electric cars when semi affordable used ones have 50-60% battery health and new ones are way more than most low to average income owners would want to spend verses a 5-10k used Japanese import (eg Corolla) 

A lot of things to play out, I'll watch with interest. 

I don't believe there is a particularly large amount of thinking going on by the people involved. 

Well, certainly not aimed at the consumer. But no doubt James Shaw will make a buck somehow, the limp wristed womble. 

I use Star Insure. 

Have never found them great to deal with, no worries about the values I put on the cars either, which is fairly important 

Vanos or non vanos? 

5 hours ago, zero said:

Omg, I just googled this.

That is so funny.

I still have a screenshot from him somewhere where he says all western women are whores, and worse.

Careful, he is a man of money and will play with you, kid. 

Quite a few clutch kits come with the wrong bearing, your ZF has a 15mm spigot and requires a 6002-2rs bearing. 

6 minutes ago, jon dee said:

When I ran my car (not a BM and N.A.) on a Dynapack I got a similar series of humps/dips in the torque curve. This seems to be a quirk of the hub dyno. It does not have the huge inertia of a steel roller to smooth out fluctuations in torque, so you are seeing how the torque actually fluctuates due to intake and exhaust resonances.

Not saying you didn't have belt slip, but seeing as the power required by the blower increases with boost/rpm, I would expect slip to commence and increase as the engine starts to rip at the top end rather than be coming and going across the rev range.

Cheers...

Yeah we have seen the same thing. Typically the data is smoothed over to make it look sexier when this happens.  

Here is an n/a Ford pinto on a hub dyno, same thing. 

3 hours ago, The H. Behemoth said:

 

 

.

 As you know, morons with money can afford to play with you and have a laugh at your expense doing it, if they took you seriously that is. 😅 All the best!

======================

 

👍

Seriously? Dude, you live in an apartment complex in Germany and you're making vague threats at people in NZ again? Grow up mate. 

Won't be changing my mind  

Got the t-shirt from playing with this crap. I wouldn't put this kind of set up on a customer vehicle. 

I have no doubt the bigger blowers work well, reliably. No argument there. 

Water meth done after the charger and the cooler, obviously. Mine had the cooler under the intake manifold 

Even the old fashioned M90 is running well outside its efficiency area with your figures, go read a map. 

You can manage 290whp on an n/a 2.8 without a piss poor compromised blower set up running miles past peak efficiency, creating hot air and reliability problems. 

You can clearly see on your 3psi dyno run that the engine starts to out breathe the blower significantly, which would be pretty bang in line with what an m90 chart says will happen, and the sc14 is less efficient 

A non intercooler set up, and no water injection is rubbish and should have been left in the Bently blower days. 

I'm not worried about the hp. It's just a crap set up and a crap blower. I wouldn't have my name on it

25 minutes ago, polley said:

Has anyone managed to repair the teflon on the coated rotors of any of these super chargers? I have a TX20 (SC20) that needs attention.

Talk to Thermo Poly Coating, they may have an idea 

Certainly a bit tight in there. I managed to fit it with my own brackets, with a small PWR barrel cooler under the manifold. 

All up, with water meth and intercooler, you could make less power than a reasonably basic n/a m54 I also take care of (just shy of 300whp) 

The problem is, and even Hyde has posted sheets showing this, the sc14 cannot produce enough air in the high rpm and the pressure drops dramatically 

That dyno sheet is reading a whopping 200whp, with calculated crank hp highlighted, and a fairly cold ambient. A healthy standard m50 does 165-170whp at those temps 

Good on him for trying to make money out of it, but there's a good reason not many people bother. I just don't like the spouted bullsh*t with poor calculations, probably aimed at duping people that don't actually get paid to make cars fast

Edit note: after all that though, I wouldn't think twice about throwing an SC14 on my mx5. That would work well

Pretty common on those. Same with PK/PJ rangers, they just have cheap components fitted to them 

Megiuars do one I have had good results with 

But I would recommend talking to Sam at United Car Car,  he is a super helpful guy and would have good recommendations 

7 minutes ago, leichtbau said:

God I miss being a mod. I would just ban this moron and his previous accounts.

Tis all fun and games, if an m52 consumed 9800L/min it should be making 450-500hp N/A 

Luckily engines don't work that efficiently. 

An m50/52 oem head will flow a theoretical 235cfm/6650L/m at max valve lift. 

And it doesn't spend much time at max valve lift, hence the 190ish crank hp from factory, which would equate to around 3800L/m actual air consumption 

Even these are relatively rough numbers, the reality is spinning an sc14 (which are diabolical inefficient) nice and fast on an m52b28 is unlikely to push much over 160wkw 

Boost is a measure of restriction. The sc14 set up I put together was frankly mediocre, and rightly so. They never did much when retro fitted to a 4age, so expectations were low on a b28. 

I sold that to him. Very honest car. Has had money spent in the right places, a very good car mechanically. 

He has spent a fair bit of time and effort tidying it up, was pretty rough when I got it from a friend 

To think a couple years ago that car owned me less than 4k, after I spent 1500 in parts on it 🤦‍♂️ I made the wrong decision selling it 

51 minutes ago, Gaz said:

Manual conversion is worth almost 3k now days

Yeah, but, there is almost nothing else worth taking off an e36 and selling, especially a really rough 320 

Good, tidy cars are going up, but piles of crap are still piles of crap

Would need to be pretty large amount of bearing wear to be leaving copper flakes, usually you will see silver schmoo in the oil a long time before that happens

You would have to overdrive the piss out of an SC14 to get close to 8psi at reasonable rpm on an engine that size  

It's not worth the hassle on an m54b30