Technical Hydra Performance 135 Leichtbau State of the Art Thread
- Thread starter Hydra Performance
- Start date
@GreyNBlueE92
2", can machine down the inlets on the HP650 (only) to 1.81" if need be, but they are set up for 2" otherwise.
2", can machine down the inlets on the HP650 (only) to 1.81" if need be, but they are set up for 2" otherwise.
@barry@3DM is building stainless steel outlet for the road race application. I will be running one of the 3DM prototype sets.
On another note, I happen to see a photo from Barry of the turbos hanging off the motor on the engine stand. As heavy has his development workload is, I was surprised to see that. Then again ... candy in a box is tough to ignore.
Filippo
On another note, I happen to see a photo from Barry of the turbos hanging off the motor on the engine stand. As heavy has his development workload is, I was surprised to see that. Then again ... candy in a box is tough to ignore.
Filippo
Last edited:
In the context of a streetable HPDE/Time Trial car being used on a race track... the engine/transmission assembly moves around a lot in relation to the FMIC that is mounted to the chassis. This pulls and tugs on the outlets. If they are aluminum then it is not a matter of if they will crack, its a matter of when. In cases like this I trade the extra weight for the longevity. Its a 3000+ lb car and a few extra pounds for this application is negligible. You also get the added bonus that stainless has lower thermal conductivity than aluminum.
As for the factory one being aluminum, you can get away with it because, in general, you aren't driving around turns at over 1G and accelerating and braking at full tilt like on a track so the engine doesn't move around a lot. Also the factory connection from the outlet to the intercooler is a VERY flexible rubber accordion wire reinforced hose. It doesn't pull and tug on the outlet like an aftermarket silicone coupler would.
Speaking of coupler, whether stainless or aluminum outlets, you should always make the connections with hump hoses to help aid in the strain relief. This also helps prevent the hose from pulling off the pipe as well.
Understood, and although I disagree about the charge pipes cracking, it won't be but a few extra pounds. The idea is that the outlets, not being a stressed component, shouldn't ever have stress that isn't taken up by the silicone/rubber to the FMIC. But on stock engine mounts, even aftermarket ones, the motor does move around quite a bit.
You are on point about the hump hoses however. The N54 cars are notorious for breaking charge pipes, and the results can be catastrophic, even moreso since we have twins. I have always struggled with breaking charge pipes on this car (Silicone), and that's one thing I'm going to incorporate when I put mine back together is hump hoses. Especially since my outlets don't have any flexibility until the FMIC (They are V-band mounted to the compressors). But I also don't road race this car, because track + N54 = Blowed up N54 hahaha.
You are on point about the hump hoses however. The N54 cars are notorious for breaking charge pipes, and the results can be catastrophic, even moreso since we have twins. I have always struggled with breaking charge pipes on this car (Silicone), and that's one thing I'm going to incorporate when I put mine back together is hump hoses. Especially since my outlets don't have any flexibility until the FMIC (They are V-band mounted to the compressors). But I also don't road race this car, because track + N54 = Blowed up N54 hahaha.
Hydra is sending me an adapter. However if their is a 2 inch outlet I can purchase i think in would rather so I may wait for his as he only had 3 when I made my order so I didn't want to be a pain.
Do you know what the primary size will be cause the turbos fit 2 inch od but hydra told me anything bigger then 1.75 is of no benefit. I would think optimal primary would be no transition at all for internal diameter.
You def seem to have more knowledge and intuition then most so at risk of you flaming me here goes. Do you think hump hose has any effect on flow ? Prob so miniscule if yes that no measurable diff correct ?
Thanks for the compliment, and no risk of flaming, the point of these forums is to share knowledge and learn.
It absolutely does cause turbulence, and thus a negative impact on flow. However the effect would be negligible, you'd never notice or be able to accurately measure it. Like you said, miniscule. And normally I'm a huge proponent of "You can't cut pounds without cutting grams," but I've had so many problems with N54 charge pipes that I'll take the hit in the name of it being more dependable.
It absolutely does cause turbulence, and thus a negative impact on flow. However the effect would be negligible, you'd never notice or be able to accurately measure it. Like you said, miniscule. And normally I'm a huge proponent of "You can't cut pounds without cutting grams," but I've had so many problems with N54 charge pipes that I'll take the hit in the name of it being more dependable.
I realize this thread has been dormant for longer than I would like, so I figured I would provide a quick update and maybe stir the pot a little while I'm at it.
Things have been pretty crazy at the shop over the holidays, as we decided to give the place a long overdue overhaul - far from an easy task when you've got ~6000 square feet of floor space and 10 years of accumulated stuff!
As for the 1er, the motor is back in the car, with all fluids filled and AC refrigerant recharged. Turns out the front diff mounts on the 3.91 diff carrier are 35mm too far forward, meaning they won't fit my subframe. In my excitement I did not spot this earlier D'OH!
Which means I had to order a 215K shim kit and some seals, and will be installing the 3.91 R&P into another housing I have lying around here. Pretty frustrating considering the car is basically otherwise done. I would have reinstalled my old 3.46, but the trouble is I already cut my rear driveshaft to fit a CV joint @ the diff end. That's another D'OH!
On a brighter note, look what Santa dropped off the other day. Bonus points to anybody who guesses what I have planned here
HINT: Has nothing to do with the HPFP pictured below.
Things have been pretty crazy at the shop over the holidays, as we decided to give the place a long overdue overhaul - far from an easy task when you've got ~6000 square feet of floor space and 10 years of accumulated stuff!
As for the 1er, the motor is back in the car, with all fluids filled and AC refrigerant recharged. Turns out the front diff mounts on the 3.91 diff carrier are 35mm too far forward, meaning they won't fit my subframe. In my excitement I did not spot this earlier D'OH!
Which means I had to order a 215K shim kit and some seals, and will be installing the 3.91 R&P into another housing I have lying around here. Pretty frustrating considering the car is basically otherwise done. I would have reinstalled my old 3.46, but the trouble is I already cut my rear driveshaft to fit a CV joint @ the diff end. That's another D'OH!
On a brighter note, look what Santa dropped off the other day. Bonus points to anybody who guesses what I have planned here
HINT: Has nothing to do with the HPFP pictured below.
Last edited:
Gonna start fiddling around with a ß55 bottom end?
Shop floor looks great Omar.
Shop floor looks great Omar.
S55 block + N53 head = S53
Time will tell whether this will actually be possible, in conjunction with an MSD81 DME, but I will do everything in my power to make this a reality. My #1 priority is to get my car up and running ASAP, the S55 block swap is not an immediate concern -seeing results from my hodgepodge of parts is...
Time will tell whether this will actually be possible, in conjunction with an MSD81 DME, but I will do everything in my power to make this a reality. My #1 priority is to get my car up and running ASAP, the S55 block swap is not an immediate concern -seeing results from my hodgepodge of parts is...
Im doing the same thing, the only torque spec I could find was 42-43 ft lbs. I'm using these with King bearings, are these specs ok, or did you do something else?
The torque raring you're supposed to use is actually a stretch spec. So as you torque you measure bolt stretch, and once it's stretched to the right spec you stop.
It can be a tedious procedure, and you need expensive tools to do correctly.
The alternative is 42 lb IIRC, but that's not the "right way". And, on mine, we got significantly more than 42 by the time we hit the desired stretch.
It can be a tedious procedure, and you need expensive tools to do correctly.
The alternative is 42 lb IIRC, but that's not the "right way". And, on mine, we got significantly more than 42 by the time we hit the desired stretch.
The hump hose itself shouldn’t cause any turbulence as the bead rolls on the tubing fit inside the hump and the straight ends of the tubing should butt together, or nearly touch. If the coupler isn’t fitted this way, then the band clamps won’t be on the correct side of the bead roll to hold the tubing inside the coupler.
Any turbulence inside the tubing will be from the small gap between tube ends.
I figured that because this kit isn't n54 specific,,that there'd be more to just a torque spec for these bolts being used with these rods. Thanks for the info!
