Recently I've been thinking about picking up a 666 Fab intake manifold for my M20. They're currently on sale for only 1200 bucks. Regular price is almost two thousand dollars. The car has been running great but lately I've been looking for a little more power. I'd gone as far as attempting to buy one from thier website, but they're currently out of stock and I was unable to place an order. Then I remembered the motor I almost bought last year when I thought my ring lands were toast, an M52B28 from a wrecked e36 328i. I could buy a 666 Fab intake for $1200 or a whole M52B28 for $700. The four valve motor was calling my name, and it was conveniently still available.
The short list of bolt ons will include an M50 manifold, low-comp MLS and probably some head studs. The GT3582R I've got on the M20 will fit the M52 just right. All I need to do is find an 328i/M3 transmission, some kind of driveshaft and the rest of the 24v swap parts like an oil pan and engine mounts.
I may get some pics up later today. Looks like an M52 from a car that fell off the side of a mountain. Nothing exciting yet.
Picked up an M52 this weekend
-
cvillebimmer
- Posts: 2043
- Joined: May 29, 2008
- Location: Charlottesville, VA
-
e30-m30_kid89
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Oct 20, 2008
- Location: Toronto, ON
Nice, I wouldn't look back on it since you can already utilize a lot of your turbo parts on the new build.
If you really wanted you could even re-use your G260 but you would have to fab up a trans mount to support the transmisson being 10degrees off and cutting/welding the linkage to all line up.
Outta curiousity, what manifold are you planning to use and will it be a top or bottom mount?
its kinda funny because i was thinking the other day that $$$$ wise 24v motors are become not too bad to boost. A guy locally with a ebay e36 turbo kit and a e-manage pulled off 343rwhp @ 14psi quite easily.
But m30s are more cheaper/fun
If you really wanted you could even re-use your G260 but you would have to fab up a trans mount to support the transmisson being 10degrees off and cutting/welding the linkage to all line up.
Outta curiousity, what manifold are you planning to use and will it be a top or bottom mount?
its kinda funny because i was thinking the other day that $$$$ wise 24v motors are become not too bad to boost. A guy locally with a ebay e36 turbo kit and a e-manage pulled off 343rwhp @ 14psi quite easily.
But m30s are more cheaper/fun
I've really got mixed opinions with going to the Mx/Sx platform for turbo reasons.
The number of part and tuning options is almost unlimited. These motors have had a very healthy aftermarket support for well over a decade now and companies still continue to pour money into R&D.
The problem with these is that they take revs to make power. If you compare dyno graphs of and M30 vs and M50 at similar boost levels with properly sized turbos, the M50 will simply take off past 5K rpm. The advantage becomes even more pronounced with a good cam swap.
Having put a some decent miles on my turbo set-up now, the most appealing aspect (I've found) with an M30 turbo is the low end grunt. I can stomp on the gas 2500 rpm in a tall gear and it will take off like a nice big 'ole V8 will do.
The M50 just won't do that. I suppose it comes down to how you drive and where you like your power to be. For me the low end torque is more important than my peak numbers. I simply don't wind the motor out that often.
Either way, I'm sure this build will be ridiculous. You always seem to push the envelope and I love it. I look forward to the results and if I can help with design/machining, I will do what I can.
The number of part and tuning options is almost unlimited. These motors have had a very healthy aftermarket support for well over a decade now and companies still continue to pour money into R&D.
The problem with these is that they take revs to make power. If you compare dyno graphs of and M30 vs and M50 at similar boost levels with properly sized turbos, the M50 will simply take off past 5K rpm. The advantage becomes even more pronounced with a good cam swap.
Having put a some decent miles on my turbo set-up now, the most appealing aspect (I've found) with an M30 turbo is the low end grunt. I can stomp on the gas 2500 rpm in a tall gear and it will take off like a nice big 'ole V8 will do.
The M50 just won't do that. I suppose it comes down to how you drive and where you like your power to be. For me the low end torque is more important than my peak numbers. I simply don't wind the motor out that often.
Either way, I'm sure this build will be ridiculous. You always seem to push the envelope and I love it. I look forward to the results and if I can help with design/machining, I will do what I can.
-
paul burke
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Sep 08, 2008
- Contact:
George, been noticing the big rpm numbers have you!
The M30 short block tune is a low rpm tune up by design. The stock short block was never meant to turn high RPM. However with some adjustments they can easily hit 8000 plus. If you study the HP and torque numbers posted on the Bimmerforums you will notice that the high HP S50/52 and S54s never make more than 550 ft pounds and the 800 hp numbers are at 8500 plus. Now you must remember that rpm is a factor in calculating HP. From the sheets I have seen posted most of them show the peak torque to be around 6000 rpm and rarely do they eclipse 300ft pounds below 4000 rpm. Not much of a street tune up!
By the way Dan, the most powerful internal combustion forced induction automotive engines on the planet are TWO valves per hole.
Paul
The M30 short block tune is a low rpm tune up by design. The stock short block was never meant to turn high RPM. However with some adjustments they can easily hit 8000 plus. If you study the HP and torque numbers posted on the Bimmerforums you will notice that the high HP S50/52 and S54s never make more than 550 ft pounds and the 800 hp numbers are at 8500 plus. Now you must remember that rpm is a factor in calculating HP. From the sheets I have seen posted most of them show the peak torque to be around 6000 rpm and rarely do they eclipse 300ft pounds below 4000 rpm. Not much of a street tune up!
By the way Dan, the most powerful internal combustion forced induction automotive engines on the planet are TWO valves per hole.
Paul
Paul, I really started looking into the comparisons of set-ups when looking at HPF's dyno figures for their S54 turbos. The peak numbers are downright amazing for 3.3L but if you compare it to a good ole M30 set-up, the M30 makes better numbers in the more common rpm ranges (below 5k rpm).paul burke wrote:George, been noticing the big rpm numbers have you!
Especially when you consider the weight factor (more so with my e24) the abundance of torque is just downright appealing.
-
paul burke
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Sep 08, 2008
- Contact:
I dont think I need to debate the advantantages of BMW's four valve head VS the older two valve design. When it comes to making power on pump gas, combustion chamber design is critical. I'm sure there are lots of huge displacement V8's that make lots of power with forced induction that use lots of race gas. If we had 500 cubic inch Supra motors that would be different.paul burke wrote:By the way Dan, the most powerful internal combustion forced induction automotive engines on the planet are TWO valves per hole.
Paul
-
Canuck YYC
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Oct 06, 2008
- Location: Calgary, Alberta
Yeahbut!paul burke wrote:By the way Dan, the most powerful internal combustion forced induction automotive engines on the planet are TWO valves per hole.
Paul
i) they run liquid rocket fuel (literally, not figuratively - granted, rocket fuel technology has moved on, but that's it's origin)
ii) class rules restrict them to 2 valves (if I'm not mistaken).
iii) bore size may impact combustion chamber shape and compression ratio in such a negative fashion as to see no benefit with an engine that runs (basically) at one speed.
There are some arguments about the flow properties at various engine speeds that show 2-valve engines will outperform 4-valve versions. Seems to me David Vizard is a proponent of 2-valve configurations in some racing classes.
-
paul burke
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Sep 08, 2008
- Contact:
Andrew, an old friend of mine named Mark Lingua holds a land speed record at Bonneville running a streamliner powered by a 29cu in, (yes I said 29 cubic inches) 2 valve, supercharged and injected (hilborn) 4 cylinder engine. It went 223.071 MPH at around 15,000 rpm. He tried to make a 4 valve head work for years to no avail.
There were some guys running Top fuel cars with Mcgee 4 valve double overhead cam heads. They ran them for a few years and as I recall didn't qualify for very many shows.
www.mcgeeracing.com
Since then NHRA has gone to a one camshaft, 2 valves per hole rule, but it wasn't due to the 4 valves performance.
Paul
There were some guys running Top fuel cars with Mcgee 4 valve double overhead cam heads. They ran them for a few years and as I recall didn't qualify for very many shows.
www.mcgeeracing.com
Since then NHRA has gone to a one camshaft, 2 valves per hole rule, but it wasn't due to the 4 valves performance.
Paul
-
Patrick McHugh
- Posts: 4163
- Joined: Feb 12, 2006
- Location: Richmond, VA
Tell Me more!paul burke wrote:Andrew, an old friend of mine named Mark Lingua holds a land speed record at Bonneville running a streamliner powered by a 29cu in, (yes I said 29 cubic inches) 2 valve, supercharged and injected (hilborn) 4 cylinder engine. It went 223.071 MPH at around 15,000 rpm. He tried to make a 4 valve head work for years to no avail.
There were some guys running Top fuel cars with Mcgee 4 valve double overhead cam heads. They ran them for a few years and as I recall didn't qualify for very many shows.
www.mcgeeracing.com
Since then NHRA has gone to a one camshaft, 2 valves per hole rule, but it wasn't due to the 4 valves performance.
Paul
-
paul burke
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Sep 08, 2008
- Contact:
I have posted this picture a couple of times before, it is the latest attempt at Blown 4 valve stuff, It belongs to one of our customers and it sits on the shop floor while the two valve stuff is in the boat.
I believe X Fuel funny car driver Tim Gross (Spirit II Corvette) has one of these 4 valves in an NMCA ? (can't remember sanctioning body) Mustang. Haven't heard anything about how it runs.
Paul
-
Patrick McHugh
- Posts: 4163
- Joined: Feb 12, 2006
- Location: Richmond, VA
I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that it is only 29 cu in. That is amazing.paul burke wrote:
I have posted this picture a couple of times before, it is the latest attempt at Blown 4 valve stuff, It belongs to one of our customers and it sits on the shop floor while the two valve stuff is in the boat.
I believe X Fuel funny car driver Tim Gross (Spirit II Corvette) has one of these 4 valves in an NMCA ? (can't remember sanctioning body) Mustang. Haven't heard anything about how it runs.
Paul
-
Kyle in NO
- Posts: 17638
- Joined: Feb 12, 2006
- Location: Nasty Orleans------> Batten-Rooehjch------>More Souther LA
-
paul burke
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Sep 08, 2008
- Contact:
-
Canuck YYC
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Oct 06, 2008
- Location: Calgary, Alberta