135i/335i engine specific information?

[Numb3rs]

Originally Posted by boosted

The max flow for the stock turbos and fuel is unknown as of now, to my knowledge. Thats why I stated that my post was an opinion. Here is an example of a 380whp (465bhp) 335i:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126918

here's the setup:

2007 335 6MT
~30k miles
PROcede v2.1 beta (with built-in o2 simulators)
Riss catless dp
Vishnu cat-back
Dual cone filter intake
Stock bypass valves, stock intercooler, etc,.

its not a question of you believing my math, its a question of you believing the facts.

-Chris

More... is not necessarily better! Some people take aftermarket modifying too far in one direction and don't balance their upgrades. Getting 400hp out of the N54 isn't the question (it's easy), the question is how you choose to get those 400 ponies. Something like aftermarket downpipes only aids the N54 higher in the rev-band by freeing up the turbos when the flow would normally start to be restricted from the primary cats. But a FMIC is always effecting the N54 from idle to redline.

Although, most people won't buy an aftermarket FMIC because it doesn't show huge gains and isn't as easily marketable or "in your face" added horsepower. While DPs are a cheap 20hp gain, technically those gains come at 6,000rpms and are highly illegal.

So, again, it is not a question of can the N54 be modded to achieve 420hp at the crank (375whp), but what path are you going to follow to achieve those results.

Personally, I feel those mods you listed in the above post, is a poor set up. I feel the first obstacle you need to tackle in a twin turbocharged car is heat. The best way to combat this, is to start with the air going into the engine. The cooler the better. Then tackle each system and upgrades those until you achieve your goal. That way if you ever set your goal higher, all the prerequisites are covered.

Additionally, 380whp is not 465bhp, it would be more like 425bhp (crank).

[boostin]

Originally Posted by clived

Chirs, I guess I'm just on the sceptical / disbelieving end of a journey - maybe I don't want to beleive such power figures are so easily attainable so I don't find myself dissapointed in the near future!

I see you're using 20% as the transmission loss figure in most of your calcs. Browsing round the forum you posted a link to I've seen figures from 13% to 17% used in their calcs. Does the 135i have higher losses than the 335i? In your example above you say 380whp translates into 465bhp at the crank - would that not be nearly 23% transmission loss?

I think what my uncertainty boils down to is lack of clarity regarding the losses - I see lots of estimation, not absolute hard facts, but given no-one is ever going to bench test their engine in the real world, I accept it's the best we have Be great to see an agreed loss figure being used though, as there is a big gap betwwen 17% and 23%, especially as power figures rise...

Cheers, Clive

465 (bhp) * .83 (83% - meaning a 17% loss from 100%) = 385.95whp

that is my calculation, pretty basic. other people use 13%, 15%, 20% but i believe that this is the most accurate way of measuring drivetrain loss from 465bhp (or any bhp number):

FWD - 15% loss (465 * .85 = 395.25 whp)
RWD - 17% loss (465 * .83 = 385.95 whp)
AWD - 20% loss (465 * .80 = 372 whp)

the facts are the dyno(s) that i posted in my previous post. this kind of horsepower is def. attainable with the N54. :smile:

-Chris

[Numb3rs]

Originally Posted by boosted

465 (bhp) * .83 (83% - meaning a 17% loss from 100%) = 385.95whp

that is my calculation, pretty basic. other people use 13%, 15%, 20% but i believe that this is the most accurate way of measuring drivetrain loss from 465bhp (or any bhp number):

FWD - 15% loss (465 * .85 = 395.25 whp)
RWD - 17% loss (465 * .83 = 385.95 whp)
AWD - 20% loss (465 * .80 = 372 whp)

the facts are the dyno(s) that i posted in my previous post. this kind of horsepower is def. attainable with the N54. :smile:

-Chris

:iono:
Have you not read any of my posts..?

Additionally, that is not how drivertrain loss is calculated.

[clived]

Ok, I'm with you Part of me thinks it's amazing - I guess that's the part that thought that about 400bhp was what the tuning boxes were producing. I guess the part of me that got 450bhp from a 2.7 twin turbo (my RS4) really should be less surprised!

Thanks for sticking with me there and bringing me through the wilderness

[boostin]

Originally Posted by clived

Ok, I'm with you Part of me thinks it's amazing - I guess that's the part that thought that about 400bhp was what the tuning boxes were producing. I guess the part of me that got 450bhp from a 2.7 twin turbo (my RS4) really should be less surprised!

Thanks for sticking with me there and bringing me through the wilderness

No problem:smile:

I've noticed that there is a lot of confusion when it comes to dyno numbers and such. They're really just used as tuning devices. I tell people to go to the track if they want to know how fast their car is, don't rely on a dyno.

-Chris

[bimmernet]

Originally Posted by Tuned1

And here I always wanted a S2000 or an older MZ3 vert for summer driving.

I had a '98 MZ3 and it wasn't good. I sold it and got another E36 M3 as soon as possible because the handling was atrocious. I have driven a few S2000's and they are spectacular as a "balls to the wall" sports car for canyon running or what have you. The high rpm engine takes a bit of getting accustomed to winding out without squinting (like it's going to explode) but the handling and braking are just great. The "old" E30 semi-trailing arm rear suspension was obsolete when the MZ3 came out but they couldn't figure out how to fit the new E36 style Multi-link set-up in the small space allotted. And to make matters worse the chassis flex was outrageous. Heck, the S2000 didn't compromise that part at all. When you sit in it, it's hard not to notice the huge "hat channel" boxed chassis reinforcement running across the floor. Get the Honda.

Bimmernet