PDA

View Full Version : i want my e36 300hp without f!#$ing it up


///sporter
12-05-2005, 03:04 PM
what can i do to my 99 m3 to get it up to 300hp, i was thinking german spec cams or something of that nature, i have a hoist and proper tools for any upgrade. what do you think

thilton59
12-05-2005, 07:29 PM
300 wheel or 300 crank? For wheel, the most economical way, would be forced induction. SC and turbo kits go for 3-5k, plus labour. Active Auto Werk has some good stuff. Building an all motor 300hp M would take some trying, cams, intake, injectors, tune, etc... I say you could do an all motor project for about 3-4k plus labour. I believe it to be possible to extract 350 at the wheels of a fully built E36 M3, but thats with some time and a whole lot of money put in. So, best bet... super or turbo charger.

2003330IBMW
12-06-2005, 03:52 PM
I have a 3 series and have almost 300 hp and I didn't do force induction yet. You can do a Dinan Cold Air Intake, Throttle body, Exhaust, New Cams, Light weight fly wheel and so on and so forth...golfer1659@aol.com email me with any questions

2003330IBMW
12-06-2005, 03:57 PM
Also don't get a Turbo because they do not work well with BMW's, a supercharger is alot more compatible.

Pinecone
12-06-2005, 11:44 PM
Sunbelt cams, CAI, M50 intake manifold, software, 24 lb injectors.

About 305 at the crank according to BimmerWorld. But they don't have OBDII software yet, so you will have to convert to OBD I, which in some states is a problem.

thilton59
12-07-2005, 12:57 AM
Also don't get a Turbo because they do not work well with BMW's, a supercharger is alot more compatible.

So turbos dont work well with BMWs? Like the 1000hp turbo E36 m3 kit that is sold by DA motorsprt, or the ones by AAW, those dont work? Or you mean like a 2002 turbo, because those didn't work? And of course there's the 900 hp 320 turbo that david hobbs used to race, so I'm sure turbos and BMWs dont mix, surely we havent seen them mesh in the past...

PHROZENM3
12-07-2005, 07:52 AM
what can i do to my 99 m3 to get it up to 300hp, i was thinking german spec cams or something of that nature, i have a hoist and proper tools for any upgrade. what do you think
the easiest way hands down would be to go FI. Turbo or Supercharger depending on the type of power that you want and where you want to feel it the most. hit me up if you have any questions pcalloway@activeautowerke.com. I have plenty of ideas of ways you can get the power.

ImperialDuckM3
12-07-2005, 03:44 PM
Also don't get a Turbo because they do not work well with BMW's, a supercharger is alot more compatible.

Where did you get this information? :confused: Dude, stop spreading false information :tsk:

2003330IBMW
12-07-2005, 04:04 PM
Obviously this guy does not have race car modifications to his engine that could even handle a turbo like that (1000 hp). I'm more or less saying, how many more superchargers do you see on a BMW than Turbos. And we are not talking about race cas, were talking about an everyday driving vehicle!! So I'm sure he isn't looking to import a larger engine, maybe a V8 like in the old M5 that could handle even a bi-turbo upgrade. I'm saying that Dinan which is the most well known upgrade company for BMW's, hasn't even mad a turbo, but they do have a supercharhger. So before you get personal and start posting information about RACE CARS and not about a 6 cylinder e36, don't talk. But I do know there are Turbo's out there made for the M3, ActiveAutoWerks...I was more or less giving a personal opinion:tsk:

chuck92103
12-07-2005, 04:08 PM
I don't think I would increase the HP on an E36 M3 without first strengthening the body.

E36 had issues in the rear where welds broke loose.

Increasing the HP in an E36 will most likely exacerbate the situation. :eek:

ImperialDuckM3
12-07-2005, 05:28 PM
I don't think I would increase the HP on an E36 M3 without first strengthening the body.

E36 had issues in the rear where welds broke loose.

Increasing the HP in an E36 will most likely exacerbate the situation. :eek:


That defect has been known. To be honest, you don't need to weld the stock tower unless you planning on tracking or racing the car. If its daily driven, any stock M3 can handle up to 300 wrhp without any damage to the stock suspension. You might have traction problem when hitting first and second gears. And sometime, the shock mounts fail on its own with or without FI.

The reasons Dinan didn't presue Turbo's is one thing, they can't get it Smog legal in Cali (where most tuner located). They would have invest large sum of cash (R&D) just to make it legal. Just look at Mechtech, they have a smog legal turbocharger for BMW E36's, but those only pushing 6psi and only gain like 20-30whp. Would you spend 6-7k to get 20hp?

Most use either AA, Nick G's, etc... they're not smog legal but they do give you the massive HP, that most owner looks for.

SoloII///M
12-08-2005, 08:17 AM
It's amazing how often people who don't know the answer to a question will just throw something out there that sounds right to them but is still so wrong.

The E36 ///M cars are stronger in the rear subframe than the regular E36 cars. The weak areas are the rear shock towers and the trailing arm mounts. The best thing to do would be to go ahead and replace the rear trailing arm bushings and inspect the unibody while you're in there. If things are starting to fail, find it now before they pull out. Lots easier to reinforce the mounts now than repair a torn unibody later. A set of Z3 reinforcement plates with new rear shock mounts go a long way to strengthening the rear towers.

E36 M3s respond great to turbos. The reason you see a lot of centrifugal supercharger kits is they're cheaper and easier to install. Simple as that. They don't perform as well as a proper turbo system. Even better, in my opinion, is the twin-screw supercharger setup that a few cars are running around with. I've driven an MCoupe with this setup, and the power delivery is amazing. It's like someone stuffed a 350 chevy under the hood. Well - one that revs to 7,000 RPM. :p

If FI is not the route you want to go, the route Terry suggested will get you pretty close to 300chp.

John

ImperialDuckM3
12-08-2005, 12:38 PM
It's amazing how often people who don't know the answer to a question will just throw something out there that sounds right to them but is still so wrong.

The E36 ///M cars are stronger in the rear subframe than the regular E36 cars. The weak areas are the rear shock towers and the trailing arm mounts. The best thing to do would be to go ahead and replace the rear trailing arm bushings and inspect the unibody while you're in there. If things are starting to fail, find it now before they pull out. Lots easier to reinforce the mounts now than repair a torn unibody later. A set of Z3 reinforcement plates with new rear shock mounts go a long way to strengthening the rear towers.

E36 M3s respond great to turbos. The reason you see a lot of centrifugal supercharger kits is they're cheaper and easier to install. Simple as that. They don't perform as well as a proper turbo system. Even better, in my opinion, is the twin-screw supercharger setup that a few cars are running around with. I've driven an MCoupe with this setup, and the power delivery is amazing. It's like someone stuffed a 350 chevy under the hood. Well - one that revs to 7,000 RPM. :p

If FI is not the route you want to go, the route Terry suggested will get you pretty close to 300chp.

John
I disagree you on the rear subframe on M3 is stronger then a regular E36's. If you're talking about suspension components, then yes, M3's are better then regular E36's. M3's and regular E36's are build from the same platefourm with the same unibody from the same Factory in Germany. Only difference is the engine and suspension, that set an M3 apart from its sibling.

Yes, you are right about replacing the brushing on the suspension, because over time, they do fail/crack. You have to understand most E36's that still on the road today have an average age of 5+ years on them. So yes, rubber component will fail, they can't last forever.

reidconti
12-08-2005, 04:49 PM
Also don't get a Turbo because they do not work well with BMW's, a supercharger is alot more compatible.

I would absolutely never turbo a BMW, or any car I liked for that matter. It's a tuning nightmare because the person who writes the chip has NO CLUE how fast the turbo will be spinning at a given engine speed. In my mind, it's a crapshoot. The programming for a chip in an S/C car has got to be more robust. Anyway, who wants the driveability issues with a turbo? Go twin screw S/C or go home. Turbos are only for people who want to brag to their homeboys about huge HP numbers, the week before they toast their engine.

thilton59
12-08-2005, 07:33 PM
I would absolutely never turbo a BMW, or any car I liked for that matter. It's a tuning nightmare because the person who writes the chip has NO CLUE how fast the turbo will be spinning at a given engine speed. In my mind, it's a crapshoot. The programming for a chip in an S/C car has got to be more robust. Anyway, who wants the driveability issues with a turbo? Go twin screw S/C or go home. Turbos are only for people who want to brag to their homeboys about huge HP numbers, the week before they toast their engine.

You and 2003330IBMW need to start a new forum. This one directed towards hating turbos, and furthermore why is an E46 330 talking about the fineries of an E36 M3? hmm....
Let's just stick to what we know.

reidconti
12-08-2005, 08:14 PM
Good idea, stick to what we know. I'll stick to linear power delivery and driveability, you can stick to bench racing cars with massive turbo lag and getting schooled by the rednecks at the dragstrip anyway.

SoloII///M
12-09-2005, 04:19 AM
I would absolutely never turbo a BMW, or any car I liked for that matter. It's a tuning nightmare because the person who writes the chip has NO CLUE how fast the turbo will be spinning at a given engine speed. In my mind, it's a crapshoot. The programming for a chip in an S/C car has got to be more robust. Anyway, who wants the driveability issues with a turbo? Go twin screw S/C or go home. Turbos are only for people who want to brag to their homeboys about huge HP numbers, the week before they toast their engine.

"NO CLUE how fast the turbo will be spinning..."

The speed the turbo is spinning has no bearing on how to tune an engine control system to handle boost. The key factors for tuning such a system are the pressure ratio, airflow, and air temperature. Airflow and air temperature are already measured by the engine computer. Pressure can be accounted for in a number of ways (rising rate fuel pressure regulators, boost sensors, boost dependent knock retardation, boost dependent water / alcohol injection) but it's no different than tuning for a supercharger system. The two systems have the same requirements.

SoloII///M
12-09-2005, 04:21 AM
I disagree you on the rear subframe on M3 is stronger then a regular E36's. If you're talking about suspension components, then yes, M3's are better then regular E36's.

You can disagree if you want, but you're mistaken.

All but the very early E36 M3s came with beefed-up subframe reinforcements from the factory. None of the vanilla E36 cars had them.

Proof:

http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=4111225649

BMWME
12-09-2005, 07:06 AM
Obviously this guy does not have race car modifications to his engine that could even handle a turbo like that (1000 hp). I'm more or less saying, how many more superchargers do you see on a BMW than Turbos. And we are not talking about race cas, were talking about an everyday driving vehicle!! So I'm sure he isn't looking to import a larger engine, maybe a V8 like in the old M5 that could handle even a bi-turbo upgrade. I'm saying that Dinan which is the most well known upgrade company for BMW's, hasn't even mad a turbo, but they do have a supercharhger. So before you get personal and start posting information about RACE CARS and not about a 6 cylinder e36, don't talk. But I do know there are Turbo's out there made for the M3, ActiveAutoWerks...I was more or less giving a personal opinion:tsk:

What the HELL are you talking about? Damn :mad:
Do you know anything about the mechanics of engines or cars in general??
"race car modifications"? Explain those to me. Oh and "larger engines" can handle turbos but what..."smaller engines" couldn't?? Good lord you are ignorant on these matters. Dude, just so you know, the 3.2L E36 motor can handle plenty of boost (and it does not matter if it is turbo or sc), probably better then the "Bigger" M5 motor. Just stop posting on matters you don't know anything about...please.

SoloII///M
12-09-2005, 07:21 AM
There are a lot of false facts being spread around. Frustrating. :mad:

ImperialDuckM3
12-09-2005, 07:38 AM
You can disagree if you want, but you're mistaken.

All but the very early E36 M3s came with beefed-up subframe reinforcements from the factory. None of the vanilla E36 cars had them.

Proof:

http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=4111225649


What's the "proof" :confused: You link to Tuner reinforcement bracket. So what does that prove? Yes, early E36's and Early M3 has their inherite problems. The problem still exist today in newer E36's and M3's. Many member who drive 1996+ M3's had to reineforce their strut towers. But you're talking about the construction of the rear subframe which was build from the same factory in Germany and are build the same. Only difference is the suspension components between the M3's and regular E36's.

Now if you say Seden M3's are better constructed then Coupe M3's , I would agree with you on this issue.

Come on bro, I own four BMW's and have seen many with failure and some that don't exhibit any problems. Most failure that I seen and heard are from member's who have drop their car's and gone wild, in regards to tracking their cars. Which by the way put alot of stress on the body.

We can agree to disagree...

ImperialDuckM3
12-09-2005, 07:42 AM
As for those who say Turbo's are not meant for BMW's. Please get your fact straight and stop spreading false information.

It has been proven from AA, TT, and others. BMW's with the right turbo and properly tune, can be a monster. You're saying go with Twinscrew SC, it still don't match the power that TC gives.

SoloII///M
12-09-2005, 07:56 AM
What's the "proof" :confused:

Did you actually read what turner wrote?

All but the very early E36 M3s were equipped with reinforced rear subframes. The non-M E36's DID NOT HAVE the subframe reinforcement. The E36 ///M cars DO NOT have the problems of subframe mounts tearing out that the non-///M cars do. Go talk to any of the BMW CCA club racers or SCCA ITS racers who compete with these cars, they will tell you the exact same thing. So contrary to what you've been posting, there are significant differences between the E36 318, 323, 325, 328s and the ///M3s. They may have all come from the same factory but they are NOT built the same.

Are you confusing the shock towers with the subframe? You refer to them as "strut towers" which they are not. Strut towers only exist in the front of the car. The rear of the car has shock towers. The shock towers are weak on ALL the cars, and yes, the E36 ///M cars are identical to the non-///M cars. The rear subframe is a seperate section of metal bolted to the unibody which houses the differential and the inboard links for the rear suspension.

The sedans are no better built than the coupes with regard to drivetrain or suspension strength. They might be slightly stiffer because they don't have fold-down rear seats, but that has nothing to do with drivetrain strength :confused: . They also weigh more.

ALL E36 cars have problems with the shock towers and the trailing arm mounts, but they are fairly easily addressed.

These are all commonly misunderstood concepts, but just want to make sure whoever is reading this thread knows the facts.

SoloII///M
12-09-2005, 07:59 AM
As for those who say Turbo's are not meant for BMW's. Please get your fact straight and stop spreading false information.

It has been proven from AA, TT, and others. BMW's with the right turbo and properly tune, can be a monster. You're saying go with Twinscrew SC, it still don't match the power that TC gives.

The turbo cars will make more peak power than the supercharged (centrifugal OR twin screw) cars do. This is a fact. However, if we compare two cars - one which is turbocharged and one which is twin-screw supercharged, both with the same max boost - the twin screw car will have a broader, flatter torque curve while making only slightly less peak power than the turbo car.

I'd rather have the turbo car for a drag race, but I'd rather have the twin-screw car for the track, autocross, and street.

John

Chonn
12-09-2005, 08:49 AM
So what about engine wear? turbos or supers? I was at the Fife BMW dealership this week getting an oil change and I spoke with the Dinan "guru." He has been doing Dinan upgrades for years. He said that supers cause less wear on the engine than turbos. My concern was eninge life... I want the extra horses but I don't want to lose my engine 25k after it is installed. What do you guys think?

3-To-5
12-09-2005, 10:12 AM
I've been doing some reading through out the forum, but still haven't come to a definit answer on whether a CAI on an E36 will result in water ingestion or not...

whats the verdict?

SoloII///M
12-09-2005, 10:59 AM
So what about engine wear? turbos or supers? I was at the Fife BMW dealership this week getting an oil change and I spoke with the Dinan "guru." He has been doing Dinan upgrades for years. He said that supers cause less wear on the engine than turbos. My concern was eninge life... I want the extra horses but I don't want to lose my engine 25k after it is installed. What do you guys think?


He probably said that because he is the Dinan "guru" and Dinan doesn't sell a turbocharger kit.

The stress on an engine that has been converted to forced induction is primarily caused by a couple factors. Number one is detonation control. BMW motors are typically high compression and high compression generally doesn't play well with forced induction because forced induction raises the effective compression ratio of the engine. Detonation can be caused by charge temperature, combustion chamber hot spots, lean fuel mixture, and preignition due to compression.

The only one of these parameters that is affected by the method of FI (centri s/c, turbo, twin screw s/c) is charge temp. Charge temp is a function of boost, compressor efficiency and intercooler efficiency. Turbos, when properly sized for an application, have higher compresser efficiencies than centrifugal s/cs. When you compress a gas, it gets hotter. If a compressor was 100% efficient it would still heat the charge - any inefficiency inherent in the compressor will only add additional heat. A proper intercooler can remove a lot of the added heat, but not all (hence, intercooler efficiency).

So... the short answer is no, a turbo is no harder on the motor than a supercharger when they're operating with the same constraints.

PHROZENM3
12-09-2005, 11:51 AM
So what about engine wear? turbos or supers? I was at the Fife BMW dealership this week getting an oil change and I spoke with the Dinan "guru." He has been doing Dinan upgrades for years. He said that supers cause less wear on the engine than turbos. My concern was eninge life... I want the extra horses but I don't want to lose my engine 25k after it is installed. What do you guys think?
Any Forced Induction that you do to you car is going to decrease engine life. Most superchargers are completely bolt-on so there is less work done to the engine and consequently less stress on the engine compared to the turbo. However, the thing that will mostly affect the life of your engine is the way that you drive the car and the way that you maintain the car. Many people have turbo'd their cars and gone way farther than 25K without having any problems.

thilton59
12-09-2005, 11:54 AM
Depends on boost. If you're running a GT42 at 2 bar then yeah your motors not going to last very long without some... extra maintainace, and new internals. If running at a much lower boost, like most kits that are available, which are at about .4-.5 bar, then you're not going to encounter any strange and unusual problems. I'd say a SC system will have longevity just due to much cooler temp of it's components, unlike a turbo setup. But if you're just looking for longevity, a low boost application from either with a proper tune will not blow your motor.

PHROZENM3
12-09-2005, 11:58 AM
I've been doing some reading through out the forum, but still haven't come to a definit answer on whether a CAI on an E36 will result in water ingestion or not...

whats the verdict?
The only way that you will get water ingestion is if you have a CAI that dips down low and u drive your car through a high puddle of water. A lot of CAIS simply use a heat shield and leave the air filter in the engine bay. Other's that have lower the air filter often have the problem of sucking up water if the car is driven through a high puddle.

3-To-5
12-09-2005, 12:49 PM
The only way that you will get water ingestion is if you have a CAI that dips down low and u drive your car through a high puddle of water. A lot of CAIS simply use a heat shield and leave the air filter in the engine bay. Other's that have lower the air filter often have the problem of sucking up water if the car is driven through a high puddle.

Thank you very much. I suppose here in Toronto water ingestion is rather probable. Is there a significant difference between a HS set up as opposed to a lowered CIA, in regards to performance etc.

SoloII///M
12-09-2005, 01:02 PM
I'd say a SC system will have longevity just due to much cooler temp of it's components, unlike a turbo setup.

Not really true. Many S/C kits don't include intercoolers. Bad, bad idea from a longevity standpoint.

The turbo's turbine housing will run hotter than a supercharger but with proper shielding, not an issue. From an intake charge perspective, the turbo will be better.

PHROZENM3
12-09-2005, 01:09 PM
Thank you very much. I suppose here in Toronto water ingestion is rather probable. Is there a significant difference between a HS set up as opposed to a lowered CIA, in regards to performance etc.
You may experience slightly more gains by going with the lowered setup but IMO its not worth the hassle of risking your engine flooding. email me and i can give u more info.

thilton59
12-09-2005, 03:22 PM
Not really true. Many S/C kits don't include intercoolers. Bad, bad idea from a longevity standpoint.

The turbo's turbine housing will run hotter than a supercharger but with proper shielding, not an issue. From an intake charge perspective, the turbo will be better.

Of course I was including an intercooler/aftercooler in my statement, but why would you say that a turbo has lovgevity over a supercharger? I'm not being sarcastic, I'd like to know, I could very well be wrong in my assertions and I don't want to give out bad information so what is your argument that supports your opinion?

fm_illuminatus
12-09-2005, 04:47 PM
Also don't get a Turbo because they do not work well with BMW's, a supercharger is alot more compatible.

Supercharger is just more cost effective at lower price ranges (5K-8K) a turbo would actually preform better and allow for more upgradability into the extreme power ranges (hence the 900 and 1000 hp cars mentioned above). Or so evosport tells me. :dunno: :)

SoloII///M
12-09-2005, 06:15 PM
Of course I was including an intercooler/aftercooler in my statement, but why would you say that a turbo has lovgevity over a supercharger? I'm not being sarcastic, I'd like to know, I could very well be wrong in my assertions and I don't want to give out bad information so what is your argument that supports your opinion?

I explained above. :dunno:

Intake charge temperature is a contributor to long-term performance. Charge temp is a function of compressor efficiency. A properly sized turbo has a higher compressor efficiency than a centrifugal supercharger. Therefore...

thilton59
12-09-2005, 11:34 PM
I explained above. :dunno:

Intake charge temperature is a contributor to long-term performance. Charge temp is a function of compressor efficiency. A properly sized turbo has a higher compressor efficiency than a centrifugal supercharger. Therefore...

But you aren't saying why a SC with aftercooler is less reliable than a turbo. Ok a turbo has the potential of producing more power, but how is it more reliable? If the SC has an aftercooler then the charge temp is lower, an SC produces lower charge temps anyway... :dunno:

thilton59
12-09-2005, 11:40 PM
Oh, and before we too off topic...
What did ///Sporter, the guy who put this thread up, decide to do for his 300hp, and did he decide if he wanted 330whp or 300chp?

X2theZ3
12-10-2005, 01:07 AM
Oh, and before we too off topic...
What did ///Sporter, the guy who put this thread up, decide to do for his 300hp, and did he decide if he wanted 330whp or 300chp?

chp?

You mean bhp or am i missing something here?

thilton59
12-10-2005, 10:13 AM
crank horse power = chp (not california highway patrol)
wheel horse power = whp

I dont think it's an SAE term but...

SoloII///M
12-11-2005, 03:49 PM
But you aren't saying why a SC with aftercooler is less reliable than a turbo. Ok a turbo has the potential of producing more power, but how is it more reliable? If the SC has an aftercooler then the charge temp is lower, an SC produces lower charge temps anyway... :dunno:

An aftercooler is just another name for an intercooler, and there's nothing magic about them. A turbo with an intercooler will have a lower charge temperature than a supercharger with an aftercooler because the turbo has better compressor efficiency. That's all.


JV

thilton59
12-11-2005, 09:06 PM
An aftercooler is just another name for an intercooler, and there's nothing magic about them. A turbo with an intercooler will have a lower charge temperature than a supercharger with an aftercooler because the turbo has better compressor efficiency. That's all.


JV

um... If you say so sir. ;)

eurocar318
12-11-2005, 09:30 PM
just put a euro spec engine in there...since your a 99, 3.2L euro spec would run u 6-8K but get you 320-330 hp, add a supercharger and yur lookin at an easy 400hp

PALELLA
12-11-2005, 10:43 PM
FI is an awesome route to take. Boost rocks, but the main thing is tuning. Tuning is the most important factor in a forced induction car. Turbo BMW's have proven to be a bit harder to tune than supercharged ones.

Pinecone
12-12-2005, 12:50 AM
And Euro motor will have less grunt down low. The Euro and US versions are supposedly similar in performance up to about 100 MPH. Euro runs away above that.

Funny that people are so down on turbos, then go ga-ga over Porsche turbos.

A well engineered turbo is very nice to drive. A poorly engineered mechanically driven supercharger is crap to drive. It is easier to engineer a properly running mechanically driven supercharger than to do a GOOD turbo setup.

One small point, if both the intercooler and aftercooler have the same efficiency, then the turbo will have lower intake charge temp due to lower discharge temp.

Also a TRUE intercooler is between first and second stage superchargers. In cars, there are really aftercoolers.

SoloII///M
12-12-2005, 03:42 AM
um... If you say so sir. ;)

If you have something to debate constructively, I'm all ears. Nothing I've said so far is false. Oversimplified, yes. False, no. So have at it!

PHROZENM3
12-12-2005, 06:52 AM
If you have something to debate constructively, I'm all ears. Nothing I've said so far is false. Oversimplified, yes. False, no. So have at it!


Actually, I would have to play devil's advocate. A turbo with an intercooler is going to be more reliable than a supercharger with an aftercooler. BUT, many superchargers, like Active Autowerke's, come with a front mounted intercooler, so in that respect the supercharger would deliver a coller charge and hence be more reliable.
Also, there is a difference between an intercooler and an aftercooler. I am sure you knew that and didn't feel like breaking it all the way down. But if you are gunna teach the kid you might as well teach him everything. (IMO)

BMWME
12-12-2005, 07:14 AM
Don't you all forget that turbos are oil and or water cooled. This adds heat into vital engine fluids. If additional cooling is not used this could lead to problems. I believe most CF blower also require cooling.
I'm a big fan of PD blowers which is why I'll have a TS on my M some day :thumbup:

Stuka
12-12-2005, 07:51 AM
what can i do to my 99 m3 to get it up to 300hp, i was thinking german spec cams or something of that nature, i have a hoist and proper tools for any upgrade. what do you think

Easiest thing would be to:

1. Get a crate real E36 M3 Evo engine, at 321HP, or the regular M3 engine, at 286HP.

2. The DME with EWS that go with the motor.

3. Register the car outside of CA (at your own risk, though I have seen plenty of cars with out of state plates in LA).

4. If you want to go all the way Evo, the 6 speed tranny as well.

I actually looked into this, but since I don't gots the hoist or tools or more importantly, the know how, I ended up getting an E46 M3.

And our fake M3 is slow in every respect compares to the real one, don't believe the over 100mph to make any difference deal, it just aint true, especially with the Evo motor and the 6 sped.

PALELLA
12-12-2005, 08:31 AM
Easiest thing would be to:

1. Get a crate real E36 M3 Evo engine, at 321HP, or the regular M3 engine, at 286HP.

2. The DME with EWS that go with the motor.

3. Register the car outside of CA (at your own risk, though I have seen plenty of cars with out of state plates in LA).

4. If you want to go all the way Evo, the 6 speed tranny as well.

I actually looked into this, but since I don't gots the hoist or tools or more importantly, the know how, I ended up getting an E46 M3.

And our fake M3 is slow in every respect compares to the real one, don't believe the over 100mph to make any difference deal, it just aint true, especially with the Evo motor and the 6 sped.


Better hit the lotto first. :thumbup:

Stuka
12-12-2005, 08:39 AM
Better hit the lotto first. :thumbup:

If he has all the equipment and can do the work, it's not horribly expensive, considering that it's essentially all OEM gear.

Check bimmerworld.com

SoloII///M
12-12-2005, 08:55 AM
Don't you all forget that turbos are oil and or water cooled. This adds heat into vital engine fluids. If additional cooling is not used this could lead to problems. I believe most CF blower also require cooling.
I'm a big fan of PD blowers which is why I'll have a TS on my M some day :thumbup:

Good point, any proper turbo system will include additional oil cooling and at the very least a gone-through stock water cooling system.

I much prefer the driveability of positive displacement blowers as compared to turbos or centrifugal blowers. It's the next best thing to yanking the iron boat anchor I-6 and dropping an LS6 in.

PALELLA
12-12-2005, 09:31 AM
If he has all the equipment and can do the work, it's not horribly expensive, considering that it's essentially all OEM gear.

Check bimmerworld.com


You must have some DEEP pockets!!! That's about $10,000.00 in parts. Seems pretty expensive for someone that only wants 300 hp. A simple supercharger could do that and more.

thilton59
12-12-2005, 09:57 AM
And as for the merits of SC versus TC, yes a turbo is more efficient. I know this, but is it really all that more reliable? So far your argument has been:
1. Many S/C kits don't include intercoolers. Bad, bad idea from a longevity standpoint.
2. A turbo with an intercooler will have a lower charge temperature than a supercharger with an aftercooler because the turbo has better compressor efficiency.

So, if a turbo has a higher level of compressor efficientcy then it produces more power with less power. A supercharger uses more power to produce its affect. So, how does that make a turbo more reliable. Lets assume that both examples have aftercoolers. ( The non magic kind) What would be the cause of the supercharger to fail before the turbo?

thilton59
12-12-2005, 10:29 AM
.
Also, there is a difference between an intercooler and an aftercooler. I am sure you knew that and didn't feel like breaking it all the way down. But if you are gunna teach the kid you might as well teach him everything. (IMO)

Yes I know the difference, and what is on cars today is an aftercooler. When was the last time you saw a true intercooler? In airplane engines in the 30's and 40's.
Aftercoolers are for cars! Whats it doing... It's cooling the air after it's charged. The unit goes by both names, I'd say the proper nomenclature is aftercooler. (We finnaly agree Pinecone)

SoloII///M
12-12-2005, 11:42 AM
So, if a turbo has a higher level of compressor efficientcy then it produces more power with less power.

No. You're missing the meaning of compressor efficiency. It's not a direct measure of how much power the turbo consumes en route to making a given pressure. It's a measure of how much the compressor heats the air above ideal:

Tout = Tin + Tin x [-1+(Pout/Pin)^0.263] / efficiency

An intercooler can remove SOME but not ALL of this heat. But the turbo will in general have a lower Tout for the same Pout/Pin because the efficiency is higher, when compared to a supercharger.

Superchargers are also driven all the time by the engine. There is no declutching of the supercharger on an aftermarket kit. A turbocharged engine can be driven so the turbo is not used.

A supercharger uses more power to produce its affect. So, how does that make a turbo more reliable. Lets assume that both examples have aftercoolers. ( The non magic kind) What would be the cause of the supercharger to fail before the turbo?

I'm not speaking to the reliability of the individual components. I'm sure the aftermarket superchargers and turbos out there will last a good long while. But a turbo will make more reliable horsepower than the centri supercharger will.

SoloII///M
12-12-2005, 11:43 AM
Yes I know the difference, and what is on cars today is an aftercooler. When was the last time you saw a true intercooler? In airplane engines in the 30's and 40's.
Aftercoolers are for cars! Whats it doing... It's cooling the air after it's charged. The unit goes by both names, I'd say the proper nomenclature is aftercooler. (We finnaly agree Pinecone)

And a sway bar is an "anti-roll bar." So what. We all know what we're talking about.

RyanCarag
12-12-2005, 03:46 PM
hello, the eurosport twinscrew kit is where it's at! the components are beautifully engineered and masterfully manufactured. i have said before that i am torn between installing the kit and displaying it as art! :)

i am slowly installing it now into my 99 m3 with help of buddies to do heavy lifting/reachin due to an injured back i have that is a few weeks from being ok. the motor is a 2.8L alumimum block with very minimal bottom end fortification, a small deck shave, and an s52 head held on with arp studs. the 2.8L displacement gets the motor under the 3.0L displacement cap for scca street modified class and the aluminum block's reduced weight cancels out the weight added by the blower. also the aluminum block m52 has piston bottom oil squirters, cross bolt mains and the 84mm bore for more meat between cylinders.

i have not had the pleasure of driving a twinscrewed car (as john v has) but john v is a great driver and if he says it's good, then it's good. :) so if you want that v8 grunt in your e36, eurosport is where it's at. :)

also questions about bimmerfest: what other than the show and meet happen during the event? how do we register, etc? i'm in seattle, but i'm working arrangements to keep my car in california for the first half of the solo2 season in 06 and bimmerfest just happens to fall in that timeframe. :D

some pictures:
the kit:
http://img304.imageshack.us/img304/4415/screwall8pb.jpg

the motor:
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/804/motoraaheaders5dl.jpg

SoloII///M
12-12-2005, 04:58 PM
i have not had the pleasure of driving a twinscrewed car (as john v has) but john v is a mediocre driver and if he says it's good, then it's good. :) so if you want that v8 grunt in your e36, eurosport is where it's at. :)


Ryan,

Fixed your post. :rofl:

You're going to love the twin-screw. It develops power in a totally transparent way. The power is just everywhere.

You gonna be heading to the West Coast tours or Pros? I'd absolutely love to buy a co-drive at one of them. I'm definitely going to be at San Diego's tour for sure - no ride yet - but if your car isn't done by then maybe we can work something else out... :angel:

RyanCarag
12-12-2005, 06:47 PM
lol i'll let you know about sd. my arranged transport rig for the rest of 06 isn't sure about going to sd yet, so i may need to get the car down to california still and may need to buy the transport with a co-drive. car will be running with teh blowercharger mos def, not sure about "done"... :rofl: hopefully there will be some narrowbody v710s by then. hopefully with the right setup it won't be: "oh noes my car has teh 0V3R5+33r!!!11one!11!"

but yah man i really want to get down to mission bay again and freakin surf mang. it will be teh awesome if you're gonna be down there, there's lots of trouble to get into down there. :angel:

zydeone
12-14-2005, 11:26 AM
If you have the time and put in the effort you can crank out 300rwhp easy.

Alot of the enthusists on this forum don't know the possible potential of their cars.

how many actually know what type of engineering went into the e36 design by Klaus? My friend has 540rwhp e36 M3 and eveyone around here respects him even the guys with ferrari's because he usually smokes em. Let me know what questions you have if you get stuck. Also, when you step up to headers and have a balanced machine i'll see you on the streets.

http://www.dtmpower.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=110353

'97 M3 black on black

PALELLA
12-14-2005, 11:35 AM
If you have the time and put in the effort you can crank out 300rwhp easy.

Alot of the enthusists on this forum don't know the possible potential of their cars.

how many actually know what type of engineering went into the e36 design by Klaus? My friend has 540rwhp e36 M3 and eveyone around here respects him even the guys with ferrari's because he usually smokes em. Let me know what questions you have if you get stuck. Also, when you step up to headers and have a balanced machine i'll see you on the streets.

http://www.dtmpower.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=110353

'97 M3 black on black


Dado's car also has TONS of money into it. Enough to buy a new M5. :rolleyes:

HolE39
12-28-2005, 12:21 PM
He probably said that because he is the Dinan "guru" and Dinan doesn't sell a turbocharger kit.

The stress on an engine that has been converted to forced induction is primarily caused by a couple factors. Number one is detonation control. BMW motors are typically high compression and high compression generally doesn't play well with forced induction because forced induction raises the effective compression ratio of the engine. Detonation can be caused by charge temperature, combustion chamber hot spots, lean fuel mixture, and preignition due to compression.

The only one of these parameters that is affected by the method of FI (centri s/c, turbo, twin screw s/c) is charge temp. Charge temp is a function of boost, compressor efficiency and intercooler efficiency. Turbos, when properly sized for an application, have higher compresser efficiencies than centrifugal s/cs. When you compress a gas, it gets hotter. If a compressor was 100% efficient it would still heat the charge - any inefficiency inherent in the compressor will only add additional heat. A proper intercooler can remove a lot of the added heat, but not all (hence, intercooler efficiency).

So... the short answer is no, a turbo is no harder on the motor than a supercharger when they're operating with the same constraints.


Ture and most SC applications are at ~6PSI for a few good reasons, one of which is the life of stock internals (valves, pistons, rings, and rods). At 6PSI, you can generally add larger injectors and chip with optimized timing/fuel maps and motor on. You can also avoid piggybacks and larger fuel pumps or radiators. This means simplicity and lower cost and there is nothing wrong with that. Not many people have the time, skill or desire to monitor and tweak settings which make bolt on SC kits attractive.

TC and SC systems can benefit from water injection to reduce charge temps and control detonation. :thumbup:

Vikram
09-07-2006, 12:49 PM
Good idea, stick to what we know. I'll stick to linear power delivery and driveability, you can stick to bench racing cars with massive turbo lag and getting schooled by the rednecks at the dragstrip anyway.

Have you heard about Variable Vane Turbo, the kind which BMW ITSELF IS USING (335i) as i write this. Who says that turbos don't mix with BMW's well. VVT has little or no turbo lag, it has a boost threshold of as low as 1500-1800rpm Which means that all the boost is available at very low rpm's. Boost threshold is NOT turbo lag! It merely is a point on the rpm range where the boost is set to come by. One of the best VVT turbos in the market is the one made by Mec-Tech. This turbo is ideal for Z3, the M roadster and the 3 series. ADD direct fuel injection (relatively new technology) and you'll save 8-12% on gas as well. Another advantage of direct fuel injection in a VVT is cooler intake gas temperature which increases reliability but that is another story. These kind of turbos, sometimes,don't even require a waste gate, no beefing up of drivetrain components, and in case of Mec-Tech VVT the factory software is more than sufficient. VVT's work as a small turbos at the lower rpm and large turbos at higher. The every day drive-ability is unchanged.

For those who wish ultimate turbo bliss, VVT's are the way to go.
For people against turbos in BMW's, please enjoy your cars the way you want to BUT kindly do not publish false or wrong information for others.

Vikram
09-07-2006, 01:03 PM
reidconti
Santa Clara, CA Wrote:
"Good idea, stick to what we know. I'll stick to linear power delivery and driveability, you can stick to bench racing cars with massive turbo lag and getting schooled by the rednecks at the dragstrip anyway."

Have you heard about Variable Vane Turbo, the kind which BMW ITSELF IS USING (335i) as i write this. Who says that turbos don't mix with BMW's well. VVT has little or no turbo lag, it has a boost threshold of as low as 1500-1800rpm Which means that all the boost is available at very low rpm's. Boost threshold is NOT turbo lag! It merely is a point on the rpm range where the boost is set to come by. One of the best VVT turbos in the market is the one made by Mec-Tech. This turbo is ideal for Z3, the M roadster and the 3 series. ADD direct fuel injection (relatively new technology) and you'll save 8-12% on gas as well. Another advantage of direct fuel injection in a VVT is cooler intake gas temperature which increases reliability but that is another story. These kind of turbos, sometimes,don't even require a waste gate, no beefing up of drivetrain components, and in case of Mec-Tech VVT the factory software is more than sufficient. VVT's work as a small turbos at the lower rpm and large turbos at higher. The every day drive-ability is unchanged.

For those who wish ultimate turbo bliss, VVT's are the way to go.
For people against turbos in BMW's, please enjoy your cars the way you want to BUT kindly do not publish false or wrong information for others.

cwsqbm
09-07-2006, 08:04 PM
The turbo cars will make more peak power than the supercharged (centrifugal OR twin screw) cars do. This is a fact. However, if we compare two cars - one which is turbocharged and one which is twin-screw supercharged, both with the same max boost - the twin screw car will have a broader, flatter torque curve while making only slightly less peak power than the turbo car.


Actually, this is myth. A properly setup turbo system can make more low rpm torque than a supercharger. The supercharger is tied to engine rpm, so it can't build boost w/o rpm. Just look at the new 335i motor - peak torque at a ridiculous low rpm (and then held there.) Also consider the new MINI is changing from supercharger to turbo.

Hot Rod magazine did a comparison several years ago between a root-style blower, centrifugal blower, and a turbo system on the same engine with the same amount of boost. The turbo blew the others away for low rpm torque and made almost the same peak hp as the centrfugal blower. Its area under the curve that counts, so the turbo would be faster.

The reason blowers are more popular is they are much simpler to design- You only need to design plumbing for one side - the intake, but you've not have to design something that withstands the heat.

Pinecone
09-08-2006, 03:20 PM
Actually you can make any systme make power where you want by proper design. But both systems requires some form ofo boost limiting at the higher RPM ranges if you want to make power down low.

It is just the mechanical superchargers delivery boost directly according to RPM, so they are very linear naturally, and can do a nice across teh board boost without extraordinary means. Turbos making power down low need things like variable vanes or pop off valves to keep the engine together at higher RPM levels.

SoloII///M
09-11-2006, 06:55 AM
Actually you can make any systme make power where you want by proper design. But both systems requires some form ofo boost limiting at the higher RPM ranges if you want to make power down low.

It is just the mechanical superchargers delivery boost directly according to RPM, so they are very linear naturally, and can do a nice across teh board boost without extraordinary means. Turbos making power down low need things like variable vanes or pop off valves to keep the engine together at higher RPM levels.

You're mixing terms. A pop-off valve for a turbo has nothing to do with power delivery whatsoever. It's a mechanical backup device in case the wastegate fails to open.

A turbo can make mad wicked torque at low RPM, this is true. The price you pay is a loss of efficiency at high RPM / airflow. Compressors are only efficient over a narrow operating band, just look at a compressor map sometime. It's what causes the VW/Audi factory turbo systems to run out of steam at 5000 RPM - they're sized to make boost at low RPM.

The variable vane technology BMW is using is not new, but it certainly can help.

For my money, having driven turbocharged cars and a twin-screwed car, the twin-screw is where my money would go.

iateyourcheese
09-12-2006, 03:32 PM
Have you been following the posts by Vishnu (Evo people will know this name) about their 335i toy?


http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1912906&postcount=18

dUMpEdE39
09-25-2006, 04:11 PM
Here you go...a 300 hp kit
http://www.namotorwerks.com/products/description.php/II=353