Getting torque from M52

[Wanganstyle]

Nobody will post these kinda results if they are building torquemonsters for cheating in racing series.

S52 bottom end with low lift cams is an ideal setup for gts2 and other similar dyno mandated racing series


When the only regulation is horsepower to weight; and torque is not accounted for

spec e30 cars got hp ban this year......because to many stroker engines. Over 168 rwhp = DQ Can't race.

Nasa gts3 loves de-tuned s54's to s52 power.....just for the sheer torque and rpm range.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

[slammin.e28]

m54 has more torque and will bolt right in.

Dual vanos waffleswaffleswaffles.

M54B30, is rated at 221tq. In my 330i (when it had about 60k miles on it) dynoed 200hp/200tq at the wheels.

I think I can get more with a 3.2 block. Same stroke, but the bore is 86.4mm vs 84mm.

[slammin.e28]

why not? it would be a fuel efficient low RPM range target lump. about 200 hp and 225 torque should happen @ the engine

How do you know no one has built this before for this specific reason?

I really can't find anything. I search M52B32 and get mostly people using different crank/pistons, etc in an M52 with S52 cams and what not, again, trying to get high rpm HP.

I wish I could get an M60 to bolt up, but converting it to rear sump, then dealing with a custom bell housing, etc....meh, I'd rather rebuild a bottom end and make a 3.2l M52. No custom parts, all just nuts and bolts, and, well, money.

[ForcedFirebird]

m54 has more torque and will bolt right in.

[Wanganstyle]

why not? it would be a fuel efficient low RPM range target lump. about 200 hp and 225 torque should happen @ the engine

How do you know no one has built this before for this specific reason?

[slammin.e28]

S52 bottom end.

So, a friend of mine has a bottom he'll sell me. We discussed it last night and it seems to be the best bet to give a try. He wants my bottom end, so we'll swap + $$.

Now, looking around, I can't really find anyone who has done an "M52B32", of course, why would someone when they could just get an S52?

Mainly interested in power #s. Wish I knew a place with an engine dyno so I could run it if I do build it.

[Andy.B]

~2000 Range Rover Sports got the M62B44. That's too new. The trans in mine is a beefed up 4hp22, used up until around 2000 in every Disco/RR. Simple bellhousing swap and BAM, can fit an M52, or M30, or M70. M60 won't fit because they never mated M60s to 4hp22s. Could use a trans from a 740, but then the tail shaft will be different and making the transfer case work will be a pain.

They did use M52s in 1997-2000 South African Defenders.

Took this thing offroading and it just lacked more than I thought it would.

The 03 to 05 range rovers had the BMW powerplant. I hated those things. The plastic everything always cooked itself to death, got brittle, and fell apart, and the cats rattled apart, leaked, and threw codes. The sports only ever came with the same Ford based v8 as the lr3/4 v8 and the 06+ full size.

I always rather liked the old pushrod engines they used until the end of the lp38 Range Rover and the d2. Head gaskets where the weak point, but were fairly predictable.

More torque? You can do like one of my former co workers when I worked for a lr dealership, and stuff in a Cummins 4.6 with a twin turbo fab'd up. The thing (d1) had an insane amount of lift, just to get the oil pan to clear the axle.

[Wh33lhop]

S52 bottom end.

[bmwman91]

Supercharger. No lag, no BS. Mounds of low-end torque. My dad's old Thunderbird Super Coupe with a SC 3.6L V6 made 315 ft-lbs of torque at like 2200RPM on 9PSI or something.

[slammin.e28]

M50 cams? Keep that OBDII intake manifold and don't do S52 cams, they will make less low end power. Pretty much do the opposite of what everyone does to these engines, they looking for the max power at 7000+ RPM.

M50 cams won't fit will they? Don't M52 cams have more or less journals? Or are the cam boxes interchangeable?

[10Toes]

M50 cams? Keep that OBDII intake manifold and don't do S52 cams, they will make less low end power. Pretty much do the opposite of what everyone does to these engines, they looking for the max power at 7000+ RPM.

[unevolved]

Yeah, but the theory behind underdrive pulleys is they slow down your accessories, because *theoretically* you're spending so much time at high RPM. I'm not sure they're good for this application.

[Roysneon]

Well under drive pulleys are generally regarded as something that allows less power loss and doesn't sacrifice HP or Tq.

[slammin.e28]

What is this engine in? Sorry, don't know all the details but sounds interesting.

1993 Range Rover LWB.

[wazzu70]

What is this engine in? Sorry, don't know all the details but sounds interesting.