Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

N52 Swap Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • hubcapboy
    replied
    The tilt from vertical on the m20 is 20 degrees, the tilt on all 24v engines is 30 degrees. This allows for more room for the more complicated cylinder head.

    the angle we’re looking at right now is unrelated to that... on all of these cars the motor mounts (rubber part, not the arm) are tilted to the interior at the top.

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    all 24v motors have the same angle relative to the chassis (is it 20 or 30 degrees? I don't remember - I think 20?). But that doesn't mean the angle on the subframes are the same, although I think they'd be?

    Leave a comment:


  • hoveringuy
    replied
    Or even if the e36 mount arms are 15 or 20 degrees?

    Leave a comment:


  • LukeJ
    replied
    Originally posted by hubcapboy View Post

    The pads that the motor mounts sit on are sloped in. So the taller mounts will also be closer together.
    Another thing that I found and thought was interesting is the difference in angles when comparing motor mount arms and subframe mount locations. The E85 mount arms had a 15 degree angle sloping/tilting toward the center. The E30 front subframe mount locations are 20 degrees. I figured they would be the same. I don't know if the M20 mount arms share the 15 degree angle or the 20. I'll probably try to measure it once I get the M20 out of the engine bay.

    Leave a comment:


  • LukeJ
    replied
    Yes, my subframe did arrive. That's how I was able to determine that I'll be going with a front sump oil pan. ;-)

    Leave a comment:


  • hubcapboy
    replied
    If the offset is only that much you could probably cast your own urethane mounts. The machine work to create the inserts would be trivial.

    Offset the top and bottom by an inch, retain the complete z4 arm and no need to modify the subframe.

    Leave a comment:


  • hubcapboy
    replied
    I love where this is going.

    Has your subframe arrived yet? The pads that the motor mounts sit on are sloped in. So the taller mounts will also be closer together.

    Mine are EVEN taller... because they’re sitting on those 1/4” spacers.

    If you retain the m20 mounts and have extra height to spare, your collar could make up the difference if you added a flange and stud to bolt to the original hole?

    i tried to draw it with my 2-year-old’s crayons just now and it doesn’t make it any clearer lololol

    Leave a comment:


  • LukeJ
    replied
    Originally posted by nando View Post
    That's a cool idea. Surely, easier than fabbing an entire mount! But it does require you have a machine shop and some skill. :p
    Yeah, Thanks !! It's about time I use these skills to make something for myself for a change.

    Still won't know if it's a good idea until I put the engine in the car. Maybe the fabbed mounts will be the better way to go?

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    That's a cool idea. Surely, easier than fabbing an entire mount! But it does require you have a machine shop and some skill. :p

    Leave a comment:


  • LukeJ
    replied
    I was also able to machine the left side E85 mount arm. I haven't had the parts welded yet. Here's what I'm trying to do.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	20200803_151308 (2).jpg Views:	0 Size:	80.2 KB ID:	9942685 Click image for larger version  Name:	20200803_151329 (2).jpg Views:	0 Size:	71.5 KB ID:	9942686 Click image for larger version  Name:	20200803_151335 (2).jpg Views:	0 Size:	78.3 KB ID:	9942687

    Leave a comment:


  • LukeJ
    replied
    I made some discoveries in the last week or so. One thing I'd like to mention is the height difference between the stock E30 M20 (47.5mm) engine mount and the Z4 E85 (67.5mm) engine mount.
    The Z4 mount is 20mm taller than the E30 mount. Sorry about the reflection off of my calipers.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	20200801_211802.jpg Views:	0 Size:	58.1 KB ID:	9942669 Click image for larger version  Name:	20200801_211824.jpg Views:	0 Size:	64.3 KB ID:	9942670 Click image for larger version  Name:	20200801_212417.jpg Views:	0 Size:	67.9 KB ID:	9942671 Click image for larger version  Name:	20200801_212457.jpg Views:	0 Size:	60.8 KB ID:	9942672 Click image for larger version  Name:	20200801_212441.jpg Views:	0 Size:	56.3 KB ID:	9942673

    I was also able to get into the machine shop for a bit and I machined the right side E85 mount arm. Once that was done, I could test fit the two different mounts. It turned out that the E30 mount that I planned to use is too large in diameter to fit down flush against the mount arm. The E85 mount fits fine, but then there's the 20mm change in height towards the hood.... It looked like the Garagistic 80A mounts were smaller in diameter, so I'll find out later in the week. I could probably machine the E30 or 80A mounts to fit, but it would be better if it didn't need it.
    Last edited by LukeJ; 08-03-2020, 04:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nick496
    replied
    Originally posted by hubcapboy View Post
    The brake booster is the only thing that should conflict with the 3 stage. Unless it’s hopeless, I’ll probably take a swing at finding a smaller booster that’ll work, but looking at the sliver of clearance on the other m5x swaps I think it’s probably a nonstarter.

    looking at how it’s set up I expect that it’s more work to delete ABS, since you have to re-route the lines.
    I look forward to your progress :) I would be more inclined to swap to an N54 manifold if it doesn't fit, but as Nando says, our end goals are slightly different.
    You would think that, but I don't have ABS, so it's more work for me to retrofit it :P

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    It's more of an ix thing. The simplest and cheapest way to get a faster ratio is to send your rack to Britain, but it can only be manual. Someone figured out you can use an X3 rack that (mostly) lines up, but it's a bit expensive, and the tie rods need to be shorter which messes with steering geometry (Ackerman, bump steer, etc).

    So it really depends on which compromise you're willing to live with - better geometry and harder input, or power input and potentially worse handling? I don't daily the E30, so I'm leaning towards manual.

    Leave a comment:


  • hubcapboy
    replied
    The brake booster is the only thing that should conflict with the 3 stage. Unless it’s hopeless, I’ll probably take a swing at finding a smaller booster that’ll work, but looking at the sliver of clearance on the other m5x swaps I think it’s probably a nonstarter.

    looking at how it’s set up I expect that it’s more work to delete ABS, since you have to re-route the lines.

    Leave a comment:


  • hubcapboy
    replied
    I haven’t thought of a reason why power steering can’t be retained. I think the n52 pump is conventional... I hope I haven’t overlooked that.

    The car this is all going into already has the 2.7 turn z3 rack, which is a phenomenal improvement over the 4.0 turn factory e30 power rack. The biggest difference for me isn’t that it’s faster at the center, but that you rarely have to change your hand position (for most corners you can just cross over) which means you never lose track of center.

    Don’t forget that without power, steering input effort increases with the reduction in rate... I can’t turn the wheels sitting still without the engine running, and I could with the factory rack. On a track car you could easily go with the fastest rack without power, but I have to be able to parallel park.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X