Greetings, working on my 2.9 stroker M50 swap.

[matt]

If you actually want a custom tune, I think we're the only game in town under $1000.

TMS or AA may have an off the shelf chip for that engine setup. The TMS chip will probably be $350 and the AA one will be $400. Buy the TMS one. Active chips generally suck.

[e30 gangsta]

Yes, just go a head and throw your M50TU head onto an M52 bottom end. Much easier.

Sounds like a plan. So ill throw this head onto a m52 bottom end with some s50 cams. Contact matt @ trm and get this engine rolling :) Do you guys suggest anybody else for the tuning?

[PiercedE30]

Yes, just go a head and throw your M50TU head onto an M52 bottom end. Much easier.

[e30 gangsta]

Sorry to bring up a old thread but can you use a m52 bottom end ( crank rods and pistons ) in a m50tu and make a stroker that just needs custom software?

[PiercedE30]

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.

[FredK]

Wait, aren't the pin heights / combustion heights different on the M50TU and M52 pistons?

[PiercedE30]

well......m52 pistons are made to go with the rods, but it doesn't really matter.

[e30 gangsta]

ok so m52 crank and m52 rods. Do the pistons matter or can i run m50tu pistons?

[PiercedE30]

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.

[e30 gangsta]

Wow after all this reading i think im just gonna do a m52 bottom end on my m50 stroker. im thinking

m52 crank
rods
and m50tu pistons

Does that sound correct?

[triggrhaapi]

triggerhaapi: any update on your build? I am in the middle of mine and am looking to see what people are doing with theirs....

It's a 3.0 M50 into S50 build now. The block was tapered and needed boring. I have a bunch of pics of the build I'll start up a new thread. I'm waiting on piston rings from my failure of a parts guy.

[adrock1]

Ok, 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.

[alexbaby88]

Ok, 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.

To begin with, were you using a M50 vanos or a non-vanos block? Or shouldn't it matter?

http://www.rmeuropean.com/index.asp?...on=Custom&ID=8

[PiercedE30]

My 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?

Ok, 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.

[alexbaby88]

Actually, if you run the math on everything, using a S50 crank only gains you 10 cc's per cylinder as opposed to using the M52 crank. If you go that route, which I am leaning towards, then it helps to bump down the compression enough to be able to use a stock thickness head gasket (hopefully, I still need to go out to my motor and check the deck clearance).

My 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?