Originally posted by PiercedE30
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Greetings, working on my 2.9 stroker M50 swap.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by alexbaby88 View PostMy point exactly. I reckon the 2.8L stroker is a more cost effective option. Otherwise just go straight to 3.0L using the S52 crank. Not sure what one would do for software though in this case?My 2.9L Build!
Originally posted by Ernest HemingwayThere are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
Comment
-
Originally posted by PiercedE30 View PostOk, checked the deck. Turns out if you use the 2.8 crank, then you end up with (using M50TU pistons and 135mm rods) the piston sitting inside the block by 0.025", or 0.635mm, which ADDS 3.52 cc's per cylinder. That is not something you want in order to achieve a high compression motor. Now, I am going to check the deck clearance on a junked M52 at work in the morning to see what the deck clearance is on that. I am not sure if the deck height is any different but I am going to check to find out.
Comment
-
Originally posted by PiercedE30 View PostOk, checked the deck. Turns out if you use the 2.8 crank, then you end up with (using M50TU pistons and 135mm rods) the piston sitting inside the block by 0.025", or 0.635mm, which ADDS 3.52 cc's per cylinder. That is not something you want in order to achieve a high compression motor. Now, I am going to check the deck clearance on a junked M52 at work in the morning to see what the deck clearance is on that. I am not sure if the deck height is any different but I am going to check to find out.
I had thought about 2.8l. but when using mix matched stock internals. why bother. the reason being that the bore is the same as the 2.5. so i thought best results would to just use the 2.8 block and crank and rods w/ m50 head. that is with stock internals. know obviously if you went and got better piston and etc. yeah makes sense.
Comment
-
Originally posted by PiercedE30 View Posttriggerhaapi: any update on your build? I am in the middle of mine and am looking to see what people are doing with theirs....1987 BMW 325is | Frankenmotor S50 | Supersprint Replica Headers | K&N Intake | Gutted Stock Midpipe | Zimmermann Rotors | Stainless Brake Lines | Porterfield Racing Pads
Comment
-
OK, sorry it took so long but Womack's was being slow with my head. For a multi-angle valve grind, lapping the valves, cc'ing the combustion chambers, and doing a CNC'ed resurfacing, it only ran me $170 since the shop I work at is good friends with the owner of Womack's.
And for future reference, the combustion chamber measures 32 cc's.
e30 gangsta: just use the rods that go with the m52 crank and should be good.My 2.9L Build!
Originally posted by Ernest HemingwayThere are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
Comment
-
well......m52 pistons are made to go with the rods, but it doesn't really matter.My 2.9L Build!
Originally posted by Ernest HemingwayThere are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
Comment
-
not sure, but the TU rods are 5 mm longer than the M52 rods. But the TU crank is 10mm shorter than the M52 crank, which is where the 5mm difference in rod length would come in.My 2.9L Build!
Originally posted by Ernest HemingwayThere are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
Comment
-
Yes, just go a head and throw your M50TU head onto an M52 bottom end. Much easier.My 2.9L Build!
Originally posted by Ernest HemingwayThere are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
Comment
-
Originally posted by PiercedE30 View PostYes, just go a head and throw your M50TU head onto an M52 bottom end. Much easier.
Comment
Comment