Considering going back to twins...

[ShocknAwe]

Must be nice


But you can in a truck. I have an electric 4 door hatch and a big turbo convertible, I did not mix tasks as you can see.

Why bother. Also, only good thing a truck ever did was for theives, allowing your shit to get knicked the second you leave it in the lot for a minute.

Generally not arguing though. The truth of it is i cant find another lineup of cars as versatile and as the N54 powered BMWs.

 

[langsbr]

There is probably more than a few of us that would take a full refund, get a P car and drive it with a basic tune.

I totally get that, but I like to tinker and mod things. Who wants a stock car unless your only goal is to just have a fast car. Anyone can buy a fast car. I also come from the stance of never buying new, and I try to buy at the bottom of the depreciation curve, which has worked fairly well for me, but remains to be seen with this car. I almost bought a 335 5 or 6 years ago, but couldn't justify it. 4 years later the cars were another 50% off which makes it much easier to justify dumping cash into it.

I don't look at cars as any type of investment - quite the opposite it's money down the drain. These kids buying 335s and putting a single turbo on them and trying to get 25K are out of their minds. Buy cheap, mod happy, and part out if you want to switch platforms. It pays to DIY or you lose your ass in labor on both ends.

I've already told my wife I'll keep the 335 until I get a 997TT. I figured I could be happy with a stock 997 or tuned one, but after having my 11K (mods included) 335 stay next to one on the highway, I know I'll want to mod it like crazy. I just hope I don't miss the depreciation bottom on those, or I'll have to wait until the fried egg 996s drop into the 20K range, lol. I see no bottom for them, but I still think they look good!

 

[Torgus]

These kids buying 335s and putting a single turbo on them and trying to get 25K are out of their minds.

Wait my car isn't worth 25k?!?! Time to part this bish out.

 

[langsbr]

Wait my car isn't worth 25k?!?! Time to part this bish out.

LOL is yours an 07 140K mile salvage title car with an On3 kit and stock clutch? ;-)

 

[Torgus]

LOL is yours an 07 140K mile salvage title car with an On3 kit and stock clutch? ;-)

Basically, minus the bbk ;(

 

[berns]

I don't see why a single turbo has to equal unreliability. As long as your gaskets are in check, cooling is taken care of and you're not running some crazy fueling setup, super aggressive tuning, etc... there's no reason you can't have more of a set it and forget it setup. My stock twins are on their way out, I think, but my car is more of a focused time attack / track build. I plan to do a simple log manifold single turbo on the smaller side (GT3076) and keep it capped at 500whp. I haven't had any real issues with my car in the last 10,000 miles of track time.

 

[Terry@BMS]

My stock baseline results, just wait until I turn on the JB4 and start some real fun!

Nice try, those were at boost +2psi over stock on 91 octane... Wait until we get it up to 6psi over stock lol.

 

[ShocknAwe]

I don't see why a single turbo has to equal unreliability. As long as your gaskets are in check, cooling is taken care of and you're not running some crazy fueling setup, super aggressive tuning, etc... there's no reason you can't have more of a set it and forget it setup. My stock twins are on their way out, I think, but my car is more of a focused time attack / track build. I plan to do a simple log manifold single turbo on the smaller side (GT3076) and keep it capped at 500whp. I haven't had any real issues with my car in the last 10,000 miles of track time.

I was going to do the same, but cost for cost... Decided to stick with twins. Going to tune out the torque lump to save the rods and keep the car drivable. There's more involved in a single conversion than just slapping a manifold and turbo on, not that you haven't already read up on it I'm sure.

 

[Payam@BMS]

Nice try, those were at boost +2psi over stock on 91 octane... Wait until we get it up to 6psi over stock lol.

Boo, I know I swear I left it on map 0 when I was logging the night before. Still not too far off though.

 

[Hydra Performance]

I don't see why a single turbo has to equal unreliability. As long as your gaskets are in check, cooling is taken care of and you're not running some crazy fueling setup, super aggressive tuning, etc... there's no reason you can't have more of a set it and forget it setup. My stock twins are on their way out, I think, but my car is more of a focused time attack / track build. I plan to do a simple log manifold single turbo on the smaller side (GT3076) and keep it capped at 500whp. I haven't had any real issues with my car in the last 10,000 miles of track time.

I realize that I am far from an unbiased third party here, but if you top mount the turbo, you introduce a ton of extra heat into the engine bay, next to the valve cover, etc - hardly ideal for track use IMHO. And if you bottom mount the turbo, your coolant inlet pipe (from the water pump into the block) ends up being very near to the turbine hotside, also far from ideal for track duty where thermal loads are already the limiting factor. And that's before we mention fragile/fussy O2 sensors, increased rotor inertia, piggybacks needed to control boost etc... There is nothing wrong with ST setups in general, the N55 for instance, runs its coolant inlet in a different spot, far from any localized heat sources, whereas the N54 (and its DME) are simply not designed for ST setups. Absolutely not what you would want on a high-duty/track application where components are pushed to their limits.

 

[Torgus]

I realize that I am far from an unbiased third party here, but if you top mount the turbo, you introduce a ton of extra heat into the engine bay, next to the valve cover, etc - hardly ideal for track use IMHO. And if you bottom mount the turbo, your coolant inlet pipe (from the water pump into the block) ends up being very near to the turbine hotside, also far from ideal for track duty where thermal loads are already the limiting factor. And that's before we mention fragile/fussy O2 sensors, increased rotor inertia, piggybacks needed to control boost etc... There is nothing wrong with ST setups in general, the N55 for instance, runs its coolant inlet in a different spot, far from any localized heat sources, whereas the N54 (and its DME) are simply not designed for ST setups. Absolutely not what you would want on a high-duty/track application where components are pushed to their limits.

To be fair, if you really were serious about tracking an E9X etc. you would have or start with an M3 S65 and not the N54 imo. I like the N54 as much as the next guy but for pure track abuse the S65 M3 is superior.

 

[Hydra Performance]

@Torgus
Just because the S65 is "superior" for track abuse (semi-dry sump, better factory oil cooler, lower thermal flux) doesn't make the N54 completely worthless on track you know. I've driven a bone stock DCT E92 M3 on a short/tight track @ 3000ft elevation, and it was a dog. Fantastic chassis, but the engine felt like it couldn't pull the skin off a grape. Would you believe me if I told you that it consistently trapped 12mph less than my ~400PS Evo IX on the back straight? Same day, same driver, tested back to back. Just for the sake of comparison, my 1er trapped ~15mph more than the Evo back when it was running stock turbos. HUGE difference in real world performance there...

 

[Torgus]

@Torgus
Just because the S65 is "superior" for track abuse (semi-dry sump, better factory oil cooler, lower thermal flux) doesn't make the N54 completely worthless on track you know. I've driven a bone stock DCT E92 M3 on a short/tight track @ 3000ft elevation, and it was a dog. Fantastic chassis, but the engine felt like it couldn't pull the skin off a grape. Would you believe me if I told you that it consistently trapped 12mph less than my ~400PS Evo IX on the back straight? Same day, same driver, tested back to back. Just for the sake of comparison, my 1er trapped ~15mph more than the Evo back when it was running stock turbos. HUGE difference in real world performance there...

I believe you 100% I'm honestly arm chair quarterbacking here as I don't track or race anything. I am sure the n54 can be good but dollar for dollar I have to imagine the s65 is the superior. that is all I meant. I would be happy to see an n54 dominate at a track given the cost etc. I mean, it's not an n52

 

[The Convert]

To be fair, if you really were serious about tracking an E9X etc. you would have or start with an M3 S65 and not the N54 imo. I like the N54 as much as the next guy but for pure track abuse the S65 M3 is superior.

I would go LS or LT in the e9x for e9x track abuse...

 

[martymil]

If I had a chance to do it all over again I would have never built the n54 but went with the s65 or even the s85 in my M

its not about power but it would have been perfectly mated to the chasis and supercharge it at a later stage.

Flat line linear torque, 9000rpm redline and all controlled with a syvecs, wet dream come true.

 

[Hydra Performance]

With all due respect, this is all a bunch of schoolboy fantasy with little basis in reality.
Your typical naturally aspirated LS or LT E9x swap is a large undertaking in cost and effort, with mediocre results - typically <500whp unless you spend a LOT of money and/or boost it. I've never driven an FBO NA LS/LT I liked, C6Z excepted. A junkyard turbo LS-swap probably isn't going to be a paragon of reliability either. Remember the old paradigm: cheap, fast, reliable - pick two... An LS-swapped FD3S RX-7 is a much better choice for this kind of thing IMHO, much more PnP with a much better chassis to begin with - and probably better resale value too.

An S85 adds another 45kg onto the nose of the car - no thank you, and that's before mentioning the significant $$ outlay required. An S65 isn't much lighter (or cheaper), especially once you've added the supercharger and all its ancillaries. After having driven one, I think one of the main reasons the E92 M3 is such a "sweet" handling car is because the chassis only has 400Nm of torque to deal with, and that having much more than that (easy when turbocharged) corrupts the chassis. I'm going to be paying a lot more attention to boost/load per gear this time around, with preliminary calculations indicating the need to run ~8psi in 2nd, 15 in 3rd, and 21 in 4th with the 3.91FD so I don't end up doing a poor imitation of Gilles Villeneuve wrestling an evil-handling 126CK around all the time

 

[martymil]

Talking about adding weight to the front of the car, how about all the after market bar and plate ic weights, adding 12 to 16kg to the very front of the car is like adding 20 to 25kg to the motor

The v8 and v10 sit a lot lower in the engine bay so the center of gravity is a lot lower and better handling even with added weight.

Change the bonnet to carbon fibre and the weight difference is minimal.

A supercharged s65 would be the best balance of handling, weight and reliability with a phat torque curve and just the right amount of power and far cheaper than building a n54 motor

I can get a wrecked m3 here for 15k here in Aus where a basic rebuild starts at 12k as long as nothing went wrong and all the bolt on and we are getting into 30 to 40k plus when talking about a totally stock car

So putting a v8 in a 1 or 3 series is a lot cheaper

Even cheaper if you sell of all your bits and engine

 

[Hydra Performance]

A Phoenix RACE FMIC like mine weighs ~8.5kg more than stock, hardly equivalent to adding 45kg on the front subframe. Just so you know, I am already running a CF hood, approx 13kg lighter than stock, and a BMW cowl delete (another -4kg) yet I still have a 55/45 weight distribution. The N54 is canted at 35-degrees, whereas the S-motors have their banks canted at 45-degrees, so hardly a huge difference there. Keep in mind that the S-motors have motorized ITBs high up, + 2x alloy valve covers not plastic, and that the placement of the turbos and the water pump on the N54 helps lower C.G. further. What I'm saying is that any difference in CG height between the two is likely to be minimal, and that is before you mount a 15-20kg supercharger assembly on top of the V8

I'm not claiming the N54 (as a base) is "superior" to a supercharged S65, but then again I'm not necessarily saying its a whole lot worse either. They each have their place, and both can be set up to get (whatever) the job done nicely. I absolutely, knowing what I know now, would not swap out an N54 for an S65 - supercharged or otherwise. If I really found myself hankering after an S65, I'd just buy an M3 and be done with it already; your logic above indicates to me that you have a strong case of confirmation bias, but to each their own mate...

 

[martymil]

As you said 8.5kg more than stock so around 13 kg on the very front.

the v8 sits a lot lower and the weight difference in the rocker covers is pointless as the n54 head sits way higher the s65 rocker covers, the motor is far better balanced

Once you take the ic weight away the difference is minimal or less except the s85.

I've driven an s65 power 1 series, the sound, the revs and the handling is far better than any n54 and at a fraction of the cost of building a half decent one.

I'm not saying the n54 is a bad motor as I love mine but would have done things a lot differently if I was given the chance to do it all again.

 

[Hydra Performance]

Remember, you're comparing a supercharged S65 with a "built" (although I prefer to use the term "stout", and maintain the stock bottom end) N54. You are basically adding a ~20kg supercharger on top (or at the very front, also high up) of the motor, in addition to a ~6kg (wet) heat exchanger + pump at the very front of the car, so any theoretical C.G. benefit goes right out the window. The reason, sound and revs aside, the S65'd 1er was such a pleasure to drive is probably due to the fact that it had just enough power and torque so as not to overwhelm the 1-series chassis, plus of course having razor-sharp throttle response doesn't hurt either. I wonder if the experience would have been equally sweet with the added heft and torque of a supercharger present... Also keep in mind that the motoring press preferred the 1M to the E9x M3, almost without exception, back when both were in production, and that the 1M appears to be slightly faster around most racetracks when tested, M3 Competition Package included, according to the data on fastestlaps.com , despite an inferior power/weight ratio. Food for thought eh?