[Mark]

Originally Posted by HorsepowerFreak

Would you be willing to run them if a suitable pillar pod was constructed? I can work with several of our pillar pod manufacturers to create these. It will add some $$'s to the overall cost of the kits but would provide a LOT of safety and allow for tunability with a boost controller and optional fuel computer.

everything you're saying sounds perfect, and most of us would agree that a turbo option would be superior to a supercharger from a power standpoint, but to date, noone has put one out yet for the newer gen BMW engines.

And yea, we would definatly want the meters to watch it all, I know from my E46 experience most people that install the SCs are getting boost gauge in also, so theres a demand for it actually. My only suggestion is have a custom plate made so you can fit it in the cabin inside a storage tray space instead of on the pillar. No offense but pillar guages just conjure up too much of a boosted honda civic image, which most e46/e90 people would like to stay away from i'm sure.

but all the power to you, if you can pull this off you will make so many of us happy, and pick yourself up a thriving new bussiness i guarantee you that.. look at how successful AA, ESS, and RENNSport have gotten from boosting BMWs.

[romeo26]

yes i would think the pillar mounts would be a bit ricey (dont worry iam asian that drives Bmw but helps friends fix up there hondas and acuras, my spelling is bad) but the reason why he said to go pillar mounts is its probally cheaper!!

[wannabe]

No...I call my current car my "stupid clown car" because I feel like an idiot being 6'1" coming out of the little civic. Man...I want a Bimmer.

No offense taken, just thought it was interesting when I saw that magazine...because I never thought the 3-series was the same size as a Civic or that the Prius was bigger.

I guess a lot of us...including myself equate $$$ with size.

[wannabe]

It would be cool if Horsepowerfreak could have someone reprogram the iDrive software to display boost on the DVD screen. Not realistic though. But still would be cool.

[romeo26]

well i am not going to get the idrive so traditional guages for me!!

[HPF Chris]

Originally Posted by MarkE90M3

everything you're saying sounds perfect, and most of us would agree that a turbo option would be superior to a supercharger from a power standpoint, but to date, noone has put one out yet for the newer gen BMW engines.

And yea, we would definatly want the meters to watch it all, I know from my E46 experience most people that install the SCs are getting boost gauge in also, so theres a demand for it actually. My only suggestion is have a custom plate made so you can fit it in the cabin inside a storage tray space instead of on the pillar. No offense but pillar guages just conjure up too much of a boosted honda civic image, which most e46/e90 people would like to stay away from i'm sure.

but all the power to you, if you can pull this off you will make so many of us happy, and pick yourself up a thriving new bussiness i guarantee you that.. look at how successful AA, ESS, and RENNSport have gotten from boosting BMWs.

Mark... the pillar pod gauges would look a bit ricey. The benefit to them is that they're in plain site to the driver so if anything malfuctions you'll know. Of course, once you set the car up you'll never need to look at those again. I may leave the boost controller out of the equation and just use different wastegate springs for preset boost levels. If people want to turn the boost up later they can get an electronic or manual boost controller and turn it up themselves.

I made a poll on bimmerforums.com, and the majority of people said they would turbo their BMW's. On this forum, the majority said they wouldn't. Even if 10% said they would, that would be enough for me to develop these kits.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Chris.

[spikes111]

Chris, I lurk on bimmerforums and I can tell you that there are very few people there who actually already own the car or have placed an order. There are much much more real owners on here, so keep that in mind when reviewing your poll results. It's easy to say you want to turbo a car when you don't even own it or plan on buying it... it's like playing fantasy. Anyways, more than 10% have said yes to your poll here so that already meets your minimum level.

[wannabe]

Originally Posted by HorsepowerFreak

Even if 10% said they would, that would be enough for me to develop these kits.

Sweet. VROOOM...PSSSST....VROOOM...PSSSST....VROOOM...PSS SST

Make it sound cool man.

[shipo]

Originally Posted by HorsepowerFreak

You are correct in thinking too much boost can cause lead to pre-ignition and possibly detonation. Also, too lean a mixture can cause even more damage than too much boost.

Hmmm, that sort of goes against what many folks who fly turbocharged airplanes have been doing for decades. Going all of the way back to the piston engine airliners of the post WWII era, airlines figured out that there were two areas where the engines could be safely run relative to A/F ratios. Namely well rich of peak torque or a little lean of peak torque. The fact is that if you run an engine too lean, not only will you not damage it, it simply won't run at all.

Could it have been that you really meant to say, "Also, too lean a mixture, but not lean enough, can cause even more damage than too much boost." Yes, no?

Best Regards,
Shipo

[HPF Chris]

Originally Posted by shipo

Hmmm, that sort of goes against what many folks who fly turbocharged airplanes have been doing for decades. Going all of the way back to the piston engine airliners of the post WWII era, airlines figured out that there were two areas where the engines could be safely run relative to A/F ratios. Namely well rich of peak torque or a little lean of peak torque. The fact is that if you run an engine too lean, not only will you not damage it, it simply won't run at all.

Could it have been that you really meant to say, "Also, too lean a mixture, but not lean enough, can cause even more damage than too much boost." Yes, no?

Best Regards,
Shipo

Too much boost causes bent rods and broken pistons or cylinder walls which is not nearly as bad on the motor as a lean mixture under boost. As the mixture gets leaner and leaner the cylinder temps get hotter and hotter. There is a point at which WAY too lean means no fuel is going in which typically happens under decel (e.g. coasting down a hill, etc) which is fine. Lean conditions under boost cause more and more damage as the A:F ratio is increased. This piston was out of my 3.0L Supra race motor when less than 1/4 tank of race fuel was in the car and the g-forces starved the pumps. The datalogs showed a horrifying 17.5:1 A:F at 32psi of boost for 3 full seconds. As you can see the ceramic coated piston simply melted as if it was molten lava. Now I have warning lights in my car that light the entire dash up red if I go too lean under boost. You'll notice this piston was a little more destroyed than a simple boost spike would have caused.

This is not even close to being possible with the kits that we're talking about here. We're talking about very very low boost and very minor fuel enrichment requirements. I think 400 horsepower is sufficient for a street car and will work well with the rest of the drive train capabilities.

Chris.

3.0L Race Motor Piston from my HorsepowerFreaks Supra. (32psi of boost @ 17.5:1 A:F ratio for 3 seconds)

[HPF Chris]

Here's a video of our HPF Turbo / FMIC / Exhaust system on the 2JZ-GTE Supra.. The kits we will be making for the BMW will also be using full stainless but will be ceramic coated to keep underhood temps down. They will also be using a much smaller turbo. Excuse my fumbling on the video. We were really busy that day and it was done with one take.

http://69.56.180.194/HPF/videos/HPFturbokit.wmv

Chris.

[jubol]

Recip Airliners, fighters and Bomber Acft of WW ll till now all used superchargers or turbo chargers at high altitudes.
But you must remember at 18,000 feet of altitude the pressure is 1/2 of sea level.
That means with almost 8 lbs of boost, it only brought intake pressures back to normal sea level pressures !!!

[shipo]

Originally Posted by HorsepowerFreak

As the mixture gets leaner and leaner the cylinder temps get hotter and hotter.

I've gotta disagree with you there, I've just seen way too many power/fuel mixture charts that show quite the opposite. The fact is that there are literally millions of hours of empirical data supporting these charts. The older charts, most of which are dated back in the 1950s, and the newer charts, none of which are older than six or seven years differ only in what they call "Peak". The old charts used "Peak torque", while the newer ones use "Peak EGT". That difference aside, if you start with a rich mixture and lean to peak power/peak EGT (they don't differ by enough to make much of a difference, both are bad), the peak combustion pressure and temperature both rise, and if left unchecked, pre-ignition occurs. That said, if you continue leaning, both pressures and temperatures start to decline to very safe levels.

I regularly communicate with two individuals who fly Beechcraft Bonanzas, both planes have aftermarket blowers on them, and both pilot/owners routinely fly their planes at 90% of max rated power (15% higher than continous rated power), well Lean of Peak, and are achieving literally thousands of trouble free hours on their engines.

The only real trick to this is that on the Rich side of the equation, the power curve is fairly flat, and as such is easy to manage, on the Lean side, the power curve drops of fairly precipitously, so the ECU needs to be very sensitive to power transients if you are running lean.

Best Regards,
Shipo

[shipo]

Originally Posted by jubol

Recip Airliners, fighters and Bomber Acft of WW ll till now all used superchargers or turbo chargers at high altitudes.
But you must remember at 18,000 feet of altitude the pressure is 1/2 of sea level.
That means with almost 8 lbs of boost, it only brought intake pressures back to normal sea level pressures !!!

True enough. However, regardless of whether an engine is normally aspirated, Turbo-normalized, or fully blown beyond normally aspirated power ratings, the mixture is the mixture is the mixture. If you run any engine too lean (but not lean enough) at a high enough power setting, pre-ignition WILL occur. Period, full stop, the end. Typically, when pre-ignition starts and is left unchecked for even a few moments, the engine stops, for good.

Best Regards,
Shipo

[jubol]

When I was flying USAF C124's, we controlled cylinder head temps depending on the situation, 2 ways. 1, reduce the throttle, 2 increase richness.
For take off, it was Max Power, Full Rich, ADI (water injection) on.
I still had to watch my temps on hot days and high altitude runways.
Denver comes to mind in the summer!!!

[Tierfreund]

Well then, if requested, here´s my input:

No thanks

If I want a 300hp turbo in 2006 I´ll get an 330ti or 335i or whatever the model designation will be. Actually, make that a twin-turbo.

Are you certain there´s going to be a market for a turbo kit in 2006 with competition from BMW?. Espacially since those in search of even more power would then probably be easier off modding the factory twin-turbo E90?

[shipo]

Originally Posted by jubol

When I was flying USAF C124's, we controlled cylinder head temps depending on the situation, 2 ways. 1, reduce the throttle, 2 increase richness.
For take off, it was Max Power, Full Rich, ADI (water injection) on.
I still had to watch my temps on hot days and high altitude runways.
Denver comes to mind in the summer!!!

Well, pardon my saying this, but the military never really cared about the longevity of their R-2800s, R-3350s, and R-4360s, however, the airlines did. To illustrate that point, the military rarely (if ever) got even 2,000 hours out of any of those three fine engines, the airlines on the other hand were able to routinely get more than twice that time from the exact same engines. I have several "Pilot's Manuals" from that era covering all three engines, and in every case, CHTs were controlled through mixture. For take-off, full rich was the order of the day (way too many variables for a flight engineer to keep under control), however, for all other operations, leaning beyond Peak Torque was the ONLY acceptable means of operations. In fact, at one airline (I believe it was American Airlines), not operating on the lean side was a good way to get yourself fired.

One of the airline publications, I'm thinking it is for the R-3350 Turbo-Compound Constellations, even went so far as to describe how the airlines figured out the superiority of lean operations. Apparently the R-3350 operates as two separate 9-Cylinder radials, complete with separate ignition and induction systems. Every so often, those separate systems were not properly setup, and in short order, half of the engine was toast. In every case, it was the RICH side that failed first.

If you so firmly believe that rich operations are the only acceptable means of controlling CHTs and combustion pressures and temperatures, please, educate me. I’d desperately love to see some science to support that position.

Best Regards,
Shipo

[batmanwagon]

Shipo, sounds like you're a John Deakin/GAMIjector convert :-)

[jubol]

The Bomber boys in the KB or B 50 were the guys that ruined the 4360 usefull life averages, as they were always at 20 to 25 thousand with boost on!
We in MAC got about 4800 to 5000 hours before a top overhaul, then another 3000 + to major rebuild!!
They on the other hand lasted about 1500 hours.
But you must remember we were allways super heavy at lift off in MAC while SAC was conducting War time ops!! So engines were pushed, as your life sometimes depended on either getting more altitude or speed!!
If you pushed your BMW engine to max performance all the time, every day, how long would it last???
Also in those days all we had was mixture ,throttle and cowl flaps to control engine and cylinder head temps.

[HPF Chris]

You guys are over my head with the aircraft combustion engine discussion. As far as our typical tuning for full boost on vehicles, we like to achieve around 11.5:1. I believe one of the major reasons some engines are run lean is for fuel economy. We do a similar thing on our stand-alone tuning under "cruise" where we try to achieve around 16:1 or even 17:1. We also often lean out the mixture and advance the timing in the turbo spool area to spool the turbo faster. But once we're in boost, 11.5:1 is a safe spot and leaning beyond that at full throttle in a car at sea level often doesn't increase power any. Since we're concerned about engine longevity, adding extra fuel helps cool combustion temperatures and greatly reduces the risk of pre-ignition.

Chris.

[shipo]

Originally Posted by batmanwagon

Shipo, sounds like you're a John Deakin/GAMIjector convert :-)

I think my slip is showing. Having said that, before I ever discovered the likes of John and George, I wrote a novel (as yet unpublished) that was focused upon a number of the experimental engineers from P&W in the late 1930s. The research that I did had already brought me to the conclusion that LOP (althought I didn't call it then) was just as safe as ROP, just a whole lot more efficient.

Best Regards,
Shipo

[shipo]

Originally Posted by HorsepowerFreak

Since we're concerned about engine longevity, adding extra fuel helps cool combustion temperatures and greatly reduces the risk of pre-ignition.

Bingo! You've hit the crux of the matter. The thing is, the extra fuel doesn't cool combustion temperatures per se, it helps slow the flame front, which delays the Peak Pressure Point to further after TDC, that in turn reduces the absolute Peak Pressure and also places the greatest pressure right at the point where it can be the most mechanically useful. Too much pressure too soon, and temperatures skyrocket, and pre-ignition is sure to follow. Now here is the key point, leaning an engine beyond peak torque slows the flame front in the exact same manner (just quicker) as does enriching from peak torque.

A perfect Air to Fuel ratio, called the stoichiometric ratio is 14.7 pounds of air to 1 pound of fuel. As you move away from stoichiometric in either direction, the resultant flame front slows down, and it is that slowing that results in cooler combustion temperatures. As I said before, the trick is to properly manage the combustion enviornment, and that is much easier to accomplish on the rich side because the power curve is much flatter.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that there in no such a thing as "Too Lean" with regard to pre-ignition. I think a better way of saying it is, "For proper engine operation, there is 'Rich Enough' and 'Lean Enough', anything in between and you can kiss your engine goodbye."

Best Regards,
Shipo