Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

N52 Swap Discussion

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

  • LukeJ
    replied
    These are all the reasons why I started with the stock mount, captured it's actual geometry, and then only changed what 'needed' to be changed. As I currently understand it.

    You have a lot of variables going on here.

    I just don't want to see you get too far past this point and then discover there are other issues.

    On the other hand, if you continue as is, and you're able to accomplish everything you want and end up with a great car that gives you minimal problems. Then I'm rooting for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • hubcapboy
    replied
    True, but the shifter would be about 2” to the right and I wouldn’t be able to select 5th or 6th...

    There’s no denying that what you’re modeling reproduces CWLO’s relationship between the motor mount and the two bolts on the block. I’m just pretty sure that my block is straight, and I don’t have a reason to move it back that far. I’m honestly curious whether the z4 mounts would have just worked for me. Maybe I’ll find out that I’m miscalculating my radiator clearance.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	9ACF9E47-832A-42C7-BC8E-F66A4F4D14C6.jpeg
Views:	78
Size:	81.1 KB
ID:	9940979

    Last edited by hubcapboy; 07-25-2020, 06:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LukeJ
    replied
    I wasn't pointing out a 'mistake' as much as giving a possible reason why your 'otherwise good' engine placement still doesn't completely jive with other documented instances.

    If the motor was pivoted, then the bolt would be more in the center of your left mount arm Click image for larger version

Name:	image_153498.jpg
Views:	100
Size:	77.6 KB
ID:	9940975

    Leave a comment:


  • hubcapboy
    replied
    Here's that bracket bolted back in place:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8354.JPG
Views:	69
Size:	94.6 KB
ID:	9940953

    The red squiggle is the vertical web that needs to come over. This just means my square plate on the motor mount becomes a little rectangle. Super easy to move that over 3/4" and have tons of room. I don't have enough bolts for all the holes right now anyway (since I now have six on this side) and the one in the bottom left needs to be cleaned with a tap before it'll go in any further on either block.

    Here's how they relate to each other. This photo isn't particularly aligned with anything, and the shadows and fillets make everything look weird, but pulling a line across the image is looks like the rear side of the arms aligns pretty cleanly (which they should)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8355.jpg
Views:	75
Size:	92.0 KB
ID:	9940954

    LukeJ once again has me on my toes more than the rest of you... so everyone else better catch up looking for mistakes. the boresighting is... yea. super rough. I don't think the output shaft of the trans is aligned with the crankshaft anyway, so there's going to be an offset. I thought it was a cool shot and was reality-checking the declination angle.

    I *don't* and *didn't* have a great way of nailing down alignment with the chassis... the chassis rails taper inwards here, so centered between them is meaningful, but they're not useful for much else. The alignment was done with the transmission attached, and centering the shifter in the tunnel port, So my control is that the shifter is centered and the e90 motor mounts holes were equal distance to the frame rails on each side (each of these probably to about 1/8"). I still don't have a great check for this not being skewed in the car because the block is leaned over, but here's a straight edge along the bores with a speed square against the radiator:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8359.jpg
Views:	73
Size:	92.4 KB
ID:	9940955
    The radiator here was pushed up tight against the firewall and the speed square is just nudging it.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • hubcapboy
    replied
    I picked up engine arm Rev 1 pieces on Thursday. The plates against the block and against the motor mount are 1/4", the rest of the webs and gussets are 3/16. I'm going to start with the starboard side because it went perfectly (ominous). I fitted the upper stiffeners to the motor mount plate and the web and tacked them in place, set the plate on the motor mount and rotated the web until it made continuous contact with the plate on the engine, tacked that, and then fitted the lower stiffeners. Here it is from the above-front:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8350.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	92.4 KB
ID:	9940942

    This is from the front, but the underside:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8349.jpg
Views:	75
Size:	89.6 KB
ID:	9940943

    and this is the bracket in place after going back and filleting one side:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8357.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	92.5 KB
ID:	9940944

    Basically no complaints about this side. I didn't have the relationship between the upper and lower stiffener established (because it depended on the thickness of the material) but now I can trace one side of this and the upper and lower stiffeners can "slot into" the web. There's no great way of locating this perfectly on the engine plate at the weird angle, but I have a spare engine plate and motor mount plate to create a fixture for this so it can be recreated if we need to without disassembling my car.

    The port side went almost as well. Almost. I was a little too attached to the arm being the same width as the motor mount plate:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8348.JPG
Views:	73
Size:	89.3 KB
ID:	9940945

    Similar to the other side, the motor mount side is pretty nailed down geometry. The vertical webs match up to the motor mount plate, and the flat web matches up with the corner. I'd kinda figured that this was going to be close, but it ended up being some grinding to clear the bolt. To actually be able to feed the bolt? Might not be possible. Luckily my brother was here and asked me why I hadn't made it wider. duuuuuuh. There was also some grinding to get the vertical webs pulled back a little so the flat web was touching. I didn't quite get that right. Both easily fixable, and this'll do for now. After easing back those two areas I dropped the web against the engine plate and tacked it in place, then pulled it off and filleted one side:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8353.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	83.7 KB
ID:	9940946

    Leave a comment:


  • LukeJ
    replied
    If you look at your picture of the 'bore sighted' engine block..... And look at the concentricity of the main caps...

    It looks to me like the front of your engine is 'tilted' toward the right side of the car. If you move the front of the motor to the left, using the right side mount as a pivot point, you may get closer to that " alleged one inch " dimension on your left side mount.

    You may be in the right spot, it just may be that the crankshaft is not parallel to the frame rails.
    Last edited by LukeJ; 07-25-2020, 02:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eric
    replied
    Originally posted by hubcapboy View Post

    My ambition for weight was 4 cylinder weight. It looks like we're within 30-40 lbs of an M42. I'll take it. That means we're probably on-par with an S14 as well. If you don't need AC, you're there.
    I'd put money on the S14/G265 combo weighing more than the M42/G240 combo.

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    the 3.07 should work fine with the 3-stage. I run the stock 3.15 in my 330i (actually, it might be a 3.07, I'd have to check) - lots of people rant and rave about the 3.64 or whatever from the automatics, but, meh. It feels like it has torque for days, I rarely downshift to pass anyone. I feel like all shorter gearing would accomplish is more shifting and a buzzier highway drive. Also, I never turn the A/C off. I just leave it on "Auto" and let it do it's thing. Never seems to be an issue.

    My E30 is more of the fun car though, and the gearing on the ix sort of is what it is (short). So for me, having power higher up with a higher redline is a huge bonus.

    I think either is fine, as long as you know what you're looking for. if the 3.07(?) in a 330i is enjoyable (which weighs like 3400lbs), the same thing in an itty bitty E30 is going to be a riot.

    Oh, don't worry about weight without the trans. If it was easy, that'd be cool. But looking at the weights in the ETK, plus what was already posted before - I feel pretty confident that it's going to end up between 326-330lbs, which is lighter than my M20 by a good stretch.

    Leave a comment:


  • hubcapboy
    replied
    AC compressor is included... it's sitting right there above the water pump (I still can't believe that's the water pump). I'd be happy to weigh it without the trans but... I'm not even going to separate them. I don't need to upgrade the clutch and if it needs clutch or flywheel work I'll just yank it again. It's not like I won't have practice.

    I have absolutely no doubt that there's more high end power to be found in the engine, and that it'll keep turning past its redline, and that the intake to accommodate that higher end is shorter and maybe even resembles the N54 manifold. I'm used to driving this car at a 4700 rpm redline. 7000 is already going to feel like a party trick.

    A few years before my e30 was my daily driver, I had a 2nd gen Honda S2000. Between that and the e30, I commuted on a BMW motorcycle every day. I'm going to disappoint you all when I say that I'm planning on keeping my 3.07 torsen rear end and don't plan on shortening the gearing...

    I fell in love with the eta m20 and the effortless grunt it put out low down. I'm never going to win the all-out e30 power war... I hope for this to be a daily driver, and I need usable torque when I put my foot down (and for the AC to work). In the high end power vs available torque at 2500rpm trade-off, I want the torque... no question.

    My ambition for weight was 4 cylinder weight. It looks like we're within 30-40 lbs of an M42. I'll take it. That means we're probably on-par with an S14 as well. If you don't need AC, you're there.

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    The EKT says the GS6-37BZ weighs 99lbs. The pressure plate is 16lbs, the clutch is 2.4 and the fork is 1.7. the dual mass flywheel is 22.7lbs. Put that all together (without fasteners) and you have 141.8lbs for the full 6 speed assembly (in your pic, there's no shifter, so I'm not counting that).

    The front manifold with cat is 10.8lbs, The rear is 8lbs. Call it 20 total (gaskets, bolts, etc). Aftermarket will probably be lighter, with no cats.

    So 462 + 20 - 141.8 = 340.2lbs, and that's with the AC compressor. Nice.

    I won't be running A/C,, so subtract another 12lbs for 328, fully dressed. That really closely matches the weight listed in this thread, 326lbs (must be without CATs and A/C). https://www.r3vlimited.com/board/for...-weights-guide

    FWIW, a full M20B25 is almost 400lbs. http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=99913

    I alrready don't have A/C, so I stand to lose a good 50lbs over the front wheels. :)
    Last edited by nando; 07-24-2020, 03:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • cwlo
    replied
    I really don't see much advantage with the 3 stage intake for an e30 installation. I've also never dynoed my car because it wouldn't really provide much info in isolation. Now Bob at StageFP back in the day dynoed the N54 and N52 3 stage intake with tune, and they were pretty darn close, with the N54 having more top end at the expense of some torque mid-range compared to the 3 stage. In additon, the N54 manifold has a smoother curve, without the disa flaps. I do have my heater hoses connected, and I think the hp/torque in the e30 is about perfect. I did have the 3.0 M54 in the car before the N52, and while the M54 is a nice setup for a street car, anything over 4500 rpm was unbalanced, and weak.

    https://www.1addicts.com/forums/show....php?t=1451616

    https://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1267573

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    BTW..

    Click image for larger version

Name:	142053371_w3v4X-M-1.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	83.2 KB
ID:	9940776
    And that's with the much lighter Getrag 240. The N52 is missing the manifolds, but they are actually really light.

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    Originally posted by hubcapboy View Post
    Presumably interesting news. This is the fully dressed weight of the engine and transmission. No fluids. Tared to exclude the weight of the balance arm. No headers, no engine arms. Everything else ready to run. 462 lbs.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	3A16981E-72DF-415D-A9F6-65C064CC235A.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	83.9 KB ID:	9940766 Click image for larger version  Name:	2BF5C2E1-A09C-49F1-B261-440CC3972D62.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	116.7 KB ID:	9940767
    I'd like to see a weight without the transmission, since not everyone will use the same one. I'm almost certain the 6 speed is heavier than the Getrag 260, for example. My flywheel weighs like ~6 lbs.

    Does that include the AC compressor as well?
    Last edited by nando; 07-24-2020, 01:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    The only issue with the 3-stage is it's tuned to specific frequencies. So basically, it limits the maximum potential of the engine to frequencies that fall into those ranges. Anything above ~6900rpm is pretty much pointless, and that's where the potential is for more power (without internal mods). It's already been proven that the N52 can rev significantly higher than stock. All the lightweight components are a huge benefit there. But if you dig that torque curve, it's definitely really good, even in a heavy ass E90.

    The N54 manifold definitely isn't optimal (you need to at least line up the ports better for one), but by eliminating the factory tuned frequencies, you can unlock that potential. The cost is some low end torque - but the E30 is so light, I feel like it wouldn't matter too much, especially with shorter gearing (I could at best, put in a 3.64).

    What we have never actually seen, except some guy's expensive race engine built years ago - is what an optimized manifold could do. Think of the N54 manifold like being the dbilas ITB kit (which is crap), vs the RHD kit which makes significantly more power even on otherwise stock engines.

    FWIW, my 330i put down 225whp totally stock. Torque starts at like 2000rpm and goes close to redline. There's no other BMW N/A 6 like it really - except maybe the M engines, but they all have high weight penalties.

    Leave a comment:


  • hubcapboy
    replied
    Presumably interesting news. This is the fully dressed weight of the engine and transmission. No fluids. Tared to exclude the weight of the balance arm. No headers, no engine arms. Everything else ready to run. 462 lbs.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	3A16981E-72DF-415D-A9F6-65C064CC235A.jpeg
Views:	67
Size:	83.9 KB
ID:	9940766 Click image for larger version

Name:	2BF5C2E1-A09C-49F1-B261-440CC3972D62.jpeg
Views:	68
Size:	116.7 KB
ID:	9940767

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X