The Poor Man's M50 3.0l Stroker Dyno Numbers are in.

[Paradox]

Why did you use a non vanos head with a vanos block and then convert it to run vanos?
Parts availability?

[BMWerke]

Still a nice budget idea. You can pick up the head/block for $500 all day long, and the internals are probably not far off of that either. Add in some machine work, preventative maintenance and new bearings, and you're probably around $2500 which isn't bad. I'm not sure what s50/s52s are going for these days though.

Im doing the same thing, just waiting for the g260 swap brace to get here. Everything is new and im def under $2k all together.

[CorvallisBMW]

Still a nice budget idea. You can pick up the head/block for $500 all day long, and the internals are probably not far off of that either. Add in some machine work, preventative maintenance and new bearings, and you're probably around $2500 which isn't bad. I'm not sure what s50/s52s are going for these days though.

[RobertK]

Is there any way to check if the vanos is working/runing?

Yes, shows on the print out. Kicks in ~ 3500 / 3700ish.

I think you guys are overestimating based on most dynos posted are on DynoJets (usually 10-12% higher read outs than Mustang) and the fact that compression is lower which is definitely a factor.

M50 deck height is higher than a M54 so the best route on a 3.0l stroker build would be to have a machine shop deck the block a few mm. How much? IDK.. I haven't had time to figure the calculations out.

If on a DynoJet it would have been 201whp / 183tq still considering the dead lifter and lower compression ratios.

[King Mufasa]

I find it hard to believe a 2.8l would make that kind of power at the wheels on a Mustang Dyno. Calculated for drivetrain loss (20%) that would mean you claim your m52 makes 252 crank hp which is more than a stock S52 3.2l.

More power could be made in replacing the lifters but something to remember is that compression ratio is closer to 10:1~10.5:1 not 11+ like stock M5x/S5x motors have.

I will post the print out later today.

Is there any way to check if the vanos is working/runing?

[King Mufasa]

interesting. There's definitely more in that motor.

+1

[RobertK]

somethings up the m52 in my car did 210hp / 190tq, at 2.8L, s52 cams, headers, m50 intake and Trm Chip for above mods.

I find it hard to believe a 2.8l would make that kind of power at the wheels on a Mustang Dyno. Calculated for drivetrain loss (20%) that would mean you claim your m52 makes 252 crank hp which is more than a stock S52 3.2l.

More power could be made in replacing the lifters but something to remember is that compression ratio is closer to 10:1~10.5:1 not 11+ like stock M5x/S5x motors have.

I will post the print out later today.

[emmanuel.dlc]

my m50b28 made 210whp/195wtq on a dynojet with s50 cams, 21#, headers, stock maf.

maybe bad tune?

[ChefSkinny]

somethings up the m52 in my car did 210hp / 190tq, at 2.8L, s52 cams, headers, m50 intake and Trm Chip for above mods.

[JdmEuroNorth]

Definitely a lot of potential power with that set up.

[BenM]

Decent numbers, but definitely more to be had. Greg is probably right about the power curve though, nice and flat.

[Bullet Ride]

Interesting. There's definitely more in that motor.

[M-technik-3]

Not really, no boring of block needed and no timing belt is a big plus to me. Not that replacing a belt is that big of a deal.

[nando]

dang. coulda done better with an 3.0l M20 ;)

[M-technik-3]

Was hoping for a little better than that... :/

Just a 413 ecu with a technica chip, I would not expected much more than that either. Maybe if it had some more tuning done to the chip it might make more. Much like any other 3.0L M/S50

Do you have dyno plot. How does it look? Flat or all over the place.