s52 obd1 HP info.

[aaron.j]

290 n/a rwhp would be nice...

[btec116]

In addition to Matt's comments - here is a pretty good article from UUC if you want to learn more about flywheels.

http://www.uucmotorwerks.com/flywhee...heel_works.htm

Matt, grib, beautiful. Thanks!

[DEV0 E30]

I should stop reading this thread if I intend to have any money.

[grib]

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?

In addition to Matt's comments - here is a pretty good article from UUC if you want to learn more about flywheels.

http://www.uucmotorwerks.com/flywheel/how_a_lightweight_flywheel_works.htm

[matt]

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?

The flywheel, even dual mass ones, serves no harmonic damping effect. It's not a balancer, either, as our motors are zero balanced and require a flywheel that's zero balanced also.

Bottom line: Lightweight flywheel = :) and replacing crank pulley = :(

[btec116]

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?

[grib]

well, 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!

I hear ya, that's what I was hoping for as well. (And who knows, that might be what the engine is actually putting out now with the correct setup. I have not taken the time to have it dyno'd again since fixing that problem...)

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:

[Ali//325i]

Here's a thread with my results - there is a mod list there as well:

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=100386

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

well, 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!

[grib]

Here's a thread with my results - there is a mod list there as well:

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=100386

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/showthread.php?t=454142

[matt]

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?

Hmm... that's different material in my book.

I stay out of the cam threads, lately... techno gets off on that stuff though. He can't stand people posting wrong shit.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Oh shit!!??!! How the s2k guys would whimper. Two more cylinders with aprox. 60% more displacment, w/ only a -500rpm tradeoff. Thats insanity.

[FredK]

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?

[matt]

If they're selling them as IP cams, they work with stock springs etc. Only cams are free in Prepared classes.

[Stu Mc]

$2000 tentatively, not sure if that will include the retainers and springs also necessary. Call them up, there phone number is on the website

[Ali//325i]

Anybody have an Idea how much the evosport cams will cost?