Yea, I DEFINITELY want their 290/290 cams....... :drool
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
s52 obd1 HP info.
Collapse
X
-
My 2.9L Build!
Originally posted by Ernest HemingwayThere are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-
Originally posted by madjurgen View PostWait till evosport finalizes their cams, should be quite a bit better than sunbelts. With unfinished tuning they were at 284rwhp on a IP legal motor.
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...2&postcount=20
either way, fi is up my alley.91 m3
Comment
-
Originally posted by 325Projectz View Postif i read correctly, that was on 104 octane... i'm waiting to see what they'll do on 91.
Thats true, forgot about that. For a DD, FI makes sense but for a trackcar these are perfect.
Makes me wish I wouldve just put a built 24v in a 2200lb e30 and had fun in DM for not much $.
As time went on, the factory developed the car each year, making it faster, more comfortable, and capable of handling at higher speeds.
You don’t want this. You want the trickiest, most dangerous, oldest model you can find. Only then can you prove to the world that you’re a man.
Comment
-
yeah, later in the thread it is clarified how it is still IP legal even though the springs and retainers are custom. The exact words on the retainers were "same weight and material and stock." But they must be different somehow--otherwise, how would you rev to 8500? Maybe same material but different heat treatment?
Originally posted by whysimonWTF is hello Kitty (I'm 28 with no kids and I don't have cable)
Comment
-
Originally posted by FredK View Postyeah, later in the thread it is clarified how it is still IP legal even though the springs and retainers are custom. The exact words on the retainers were "same weight and material and stock." But they must be different somehow--otherwise, how would you rev to 8500? Maybe same material but different heat treatment?
I stay out of the cam threads, lately... techno gets off on that stuff though. He can't stand people posting wrong shit.
Comment
-
Here's a thread with my results - there is a mod list there as well:
It's probably a little on the low side of what the motor is actually making now. I had the wrong injectors for the tune, which was more than likely throwing things off.
Around ~230-240 to the wheels is realistic for that setup. As you can see from the dyno graphs - it's really "useable" power with a wide curve, hardly "peaky" at all. (You may loose some of that low-end with your aggressive cams, with the advantage of higher peak numbers.)
Check out this dyno thread on BF - very good for comparisions:
Bimmerforums is the preferred online BMW Forum and community for BMW owners. At Bimmerforums, you will find technical how-to information maintenance specifics audio advice wheel and tire combinations and model specific details not found anywhere else. Our professionals are here to help make sure you find the answers you need to your questions and our community is here to help other brainstorm ideas for the future.
1987 325i Cabrio - SOLD
2014 Chevy Volt
2007 FJ Cruiser
Comment
-
Originally posted by grib View PostHere's a thread with my results - there is a mod list there as well:
It's probably a little on the low side of what the motor is actually making now. I had the wrong injectors for the tune, which was more than likely throwing things off.
Around ~230-240 to the wheels is realistic for that setup. As you can see from the dyno graphs - it's really "useable" power with a wide curve, hardly "peaky" at all. (You may loose some of that low-end with your aggressive cams, with the advantage of higher peak numbers.)
Check out this dyno thread on BF - very good for comparisions:
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...d.php?t=454142
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ali//325i View Postwell, I was hoping to shoot for 240 rwhp without cams, I am not too sure if that's attainable now.. guess we'll have to sit and wait!
If you check our the BimmerForums thread - I think 240 is attainable from an S52 without cams. It's just at the high end of the spectrum, so if you only actually put down 230-235 don't sweat it.
As I think anyone on this forum will tell you - numbers aside it's a damn ballsy setup in this car. :up:
1987 325i Cabrio - SOLD
2014 Chevy Volt
2007 FJ Cruiser
Comment
-
While on crank pulleys, can there be any negative vibrational effects from changing to the M20 (or lighter) flywheels? It is, in essence, just another balancer, no?
I've heard some say there is some thought put into matching crank pulley/flywheel weights for this reason. I dont know enough about vibration to understand this, can anyone answer?
Comment
-
Originally posted by btec116 View PostWhile on crank pulleys, can there be any negative vibrational effects from changing to the M20 (or lighter) flywheels? It is, in essence, just another balancer, no?
I've heard some say there is some thought put into matching crank pulley/flywheel weights for this reason. I dont know enough about vibration to understand this, can anyone answer?
Bottom line: Lightweight flywheel = :) and replacing crank pulley = :(
Comment
Comment