![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
11-24-2011, 04:59 AM | #89 |
First Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 12
Rep 317
Posts |
Higher engine operating temps are better for fuel efficiency - suspect this is why the OE stuff targets a high oil (and no doubt water) temp.
Lower engine temps produce more power but are less fuel efficient.
__________________
BMW - 135i DCT
Audi - Q5 3.0TDI |
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2011, 05:08 AM | #90 |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 398
Rep 9,156
Posts |
Justin - can you give any details on why the end tanks of the new radiator are slightly smaller in diameter and if this was intentional part of the design?
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2011, 05:24 AM | #91 | |
JDTuning
216
Rep 907
Posts |
Quote:
with all due respect I would not consider a sustained oil temp of 120+ degrees Celsius to be fine, for anything but a stock vehicle making stock power. I suspect the N55 may place less load on the oil cooling system than that of the N54. You only have 1 heat exchanger on your vehicle, where as the N54 has two turbos that are spinning like crazy and in turn generating a lot of heat. That is potentially more thermal load on the oil cooling system, which would result in higher running temps than that of the twin-scroll turbo N55. By the way are the BMW engineers you so fondly refer to, the one and the same engineers that managed very quickly to resolve the HPFP and or ignition system issues that would have otherwise plagued the platform, oh wait, they didn't. ![]() Lastly if you do the math Ian, practically ANY 135i/335i with just a PROcede or JB3/JB4 will be making way more power than 20% over stock. ![]() Last edited by JD75; 11-24-2011 at 05:55 AM.. Reason: Typo |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2011, 03:36 PM | #92 |
Colonel
![]() ![]() 122
Rep 2,695
Posts |
It depends on what you want to use your car for. You can look at it as a one off expense that solves that particular engineering problem long term. Then you forget it.
__________________
.-=[ Kenny ]=-. 1999 BMW M Coupe 10.775 @ 134.35 mph w/1.600 60' (Best 136.07 mph) 25th August 2004. +2010 X5 35D+
Check out the 1Addicts Drag Racing Standings and Drag Racing 101. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2011, 04:02 PM | #93 |
Colonel
![]() ![]() 122
Rep 2,695
Posts |
No I am running stock cooling, street car has not needed anything better. If I was to upgrade I would go ER race setup and consider the Advan offering that's in development.
__________________
.-=[ Kenny ]=-. 1999 BMW M Coupe 10.775 @ 134.35 mph w/1.600 60' (Best 136.07 mph) 25th August 2004. +2010 X5 35D+
Check out the 1Addicts Drag Racing Standings and Drag Racing 101. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2011, 05:04 PM | #94 | |
Banned
43
Rep 1,719
Posts |
Quote:
![]() I have had a look at the space in front of the OEM radiator and like everywhere else in the front there's bugger all space and I didn't realise there would need to be substantial cutting required. So I have reconsidered the placement and I tend to agree the best place would be where the OEM unit is. Just not sure If I need the Radiator as well??? I will see what the temps get to at wakefield |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2011, 04:29 AM | #95 | ||
First Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 12
Rep 317
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
The fuel system issues were actually a result of the Siemens fuel injection technology that BMW adopted. The whole issue has caused Siemens much grief and no doubt lost them a heck of a lot of cash - but it's BMW that get the bad rap. BMW should have gone through with the Aussie DI technology developed by Orbital Engine Co. - but that's another story.
__________________
BMW - 135i DCT
Audi - Q5 3.0TDI |
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-26-2011, 08:58 PM | #96 | |
JDTuning
216
Rep 907
Posts |
Quote:
as has already been mentioned an engine running at higher operating temps will be more efficient. This increased efficiency will lend itself to both improved fuel economy and reduced emissions. Obviously the above is a win win for the BMW owner. However if that same owner is intending on tracking the car, I would suspect at a minimum they are running a "tune". FYI, on an otherwise stock vehicle (save a Dinan CAI), my car via a Vishnu PROcede "tune" on Map 1 produced 230 rwKw and on Map 2, a not so disappointing 250 rwKw. ![]() It dynoed up at a 190 rwKw baseline just prior, so here we have a 60 rwKw gain via just the PROcede, cheers Adrian. ![]() If you throw on some catless downpipes, which according to Pete at Advan appears to be the "flavour of the month", you would be looking at 260+ without breaking a sweat. Just to be clear I am talking about the N54 here, I do not have that much experience with the N55 powerplant, but my limited research suggests that the N54 generally responds better to the same mods. So with a "tune" and "catless" pipes you have bumped up engine output by approximately 37% + or -, depending on how happy the specific N54 is. Just out of curiosity does anyone know what a 1M dynoes up at? I suspect it is somewhat South of 260 rwKw and I guess BMW did NOT see fit, to up the cooling capacity of their formidable "track ready" M car. ![]() I would be a little concerned to say the very least, if I saw my oil temp guage licking 130 degrees Celsius. ![]() In the short term I suspect you will get away with running operating temps under extreme engine duress intended for a stock vehicle. However depending on how much power the engine is NOW developing and to what degree you push the car, it could end up being a VERY expensive exercise. In summary guys, if you "want to play you have to pay". ![]() Last edited by JD75; 11-26-2011 at 09:19 PM.. Reason: Typo |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-26-2011, 09:46 PM | #97 | |
JDTuning
216
Rep 907
Posts |
Quote:
if you are hitting anything close to 150 degrees Celsius whilst tracking the car, I suspect in the long term you will be changing more than just your oil. ![]() |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-26-2011, 09:48 PM | #98 |
Colonel
![]() ![]() 122
Rep 2,695
Posts |
Absolutely correct. Heat kills engines.
__________________
.-=[ Kenny ]=-. 1999 BMW M Coupe 10.775 @ 134.35 mph w/1.600 60' (Best 136.07 mph) 25th August 2004. +2010 X5 35D+
Check out the 1Addicts Drag Racing Standings and Drag Racing 101. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-26-2011, 09:59 PM | #99 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() ![]() 51
Rep 1,792
Posts |
Quote:
Firstly, the numbers your car puts down is just insane and hats off to you and Advan gents for some amazing work and development. Definitely agree with your summary and I do believe any 'tune' or power upgrades should always be met with corresponding upgrades to cooling, breaks and suspension. Ultimately I think it's down to what people want from their cars. For me personally, the 1M is mostly a DD. It does the task remarkably well with just over 10K kms! I'm not really interested in modding it and the occasions I do take it on the track - the cars capabilities exceed my own greatly. My concern with the temperature was that 130C seemed extremely high but the car seemed very happy doing this. I pulled in after 2 laps at this temp but guys in the US seemed to have run all day with no issues. My car is completely stock except for track wheels. I think Sparoz's dyno came in and just north of 200rwkw - so a long way off what you are doing. I think it supposedly has an extra cooler, but it's effect is hard to say. I know this particular thing will next be 'track monster' but it's great fun. So, I now have a GT3 to try and be a hero in! Thanks again. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-26-2011, 10:36 PM | #100 | |
JDTuning
216
Rep 907
Posts |
Quote:
I would imagine the cylinder head, engine block and turbochargers would contain both oil and water galleries. If more heat can be removed from the water that circulates through these components, in stands to reason that oil temperatures would inturn drop by a percentage too. By how much I am not sure, but IIRC a few guys have reported that their oil temps have been reduced a little following the addition of Redline "Waterwetter" to their radiators. Now if you add into the equation, a radiator that holds a greater volume of water as a result of increased core depth, that can only be a good thing for the cooling system on a whole. ![]() Last edited by JD75; 11-26-2011 at 10:41 PM.. Reason: Typo |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-27-2011, 12:47 AM | #102 |
Lieutenant Colonel
![]() ![]() 51
Rep 1,792
Posts |
Thank TimMc. Haven't heard this before. I don't really understand the increased efficiency argument - wouldn't a cooler engine run more efficiently?
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-27-2011, 05:06 AM | #103 |
First Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 12
Rep 317
Posts |
Nope!
Hotter engine temp = lower power, less fuel use, better emissions Cooler engine temp = higher power, more fuel use, worse emissions Think of it this way, the cooler the cylinder walls the more heat is lost to the cooling system (through the cylinder walls). Lost heat = lost energy = wasted fuel. A colder engine is able to produce more power than a hot one due to all the same reasons an intercooler enables you to produce more power (ignition timing and charge density) - at the cost of fuel efficiency.
__________________
BMW - 135i DCT
Audi - Q5 3.0TDI |
Appreciate
0
|
11-27-2011, 05:13 AM | #104 | |
![]() 162
Rep 1,460
Posts |
Quote:
Orbital i think that about ten years ago cost mums and dads a shit load with there bullshit air engine that was a flop and there two stroke that was not much better, Thank god that BMW did not go there |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-27-2011, 05:36 AM | #105 | |
![]() 162
Rep 1,460
Posts |
Quote:
Yes all good and correct, there is nothing wrong with the stock BMW cooling setup you can drive around on the street with 250+kw with no issue untill the cows come home. Its only when you make that sort of power and combine that with a track day that you will have issues, an over heated N54/55 with an open deck block = big bucks to fix you may even end up biffing away the block ![]() |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-27-2011, 05:39 AM | #106 | |
First Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 12
Rep 317
Posts |
Quote:
The day's of Orbital selling snake oil went out many more than 10 years ago - along with Ralph Sarich and his dog of an engine. It's not the fault of Orbital that the market went nuts and radically over valued the company. Orbital have almost single handedly rescued the two stroke engine from obscurity giving it a new lease on life in outboard motors, snow mobiles and quads, and I for one will be one of the first to put my money down when KTM finally release their Direct Injected two stroke dirt bikes (using Orbital technology).
__________________
BMW - 135i DCT
Audi - Q5 3.0TDI |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-03-2011, 09:30 PM | #107 | |
JDTuning
216
Rep 907
Posts |
Quote:
contrary to what you would think, vehicles running Meth' will most probably see higher oil temps. These guys are more than likely running higher boost levels to take full advantage of the decreased IAT's and knock supression, that methanol injection gives rise to. More boost equates to higher cylinder pressures, which inturn means more heat is being generated within the cylinder head, the engine block and by the turbochargers themselves. So where is this additional heat going to be dissipated? ![]() You guessed it, by the oil and water that circulates within the above components. ![]() So essentially whilst methanol injection is great for developing more power and torque, it "ain't" the magical cure for engine oil temperatures that are already high and rising. Last edited by JD75; 12-03-2011 at 11:26 PM.. Reason: Typo |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-03-2011, 10:17 PM | #108 | |
JDTuning
216
Rep 907
Posts |
Quote:
as I have said before I believe the best setup would comprise a quality single core of increased volume. A thermostat with a lower operating point and a radiator that has better heat exchange properties, due to both increased coolant capacity and core efficiency. I see the above as a "Complete Cooling Solution", as it fixes ALL the deficiencies in the OE cooling system. The kit Peter and myself are working on will most certainly do the job, whether you are running stock snails or "upped" turbos from Rob Beck or ASR, as I have done for some time now. ![]() Last edited by JD75; 12-04-2011 at 12:41 AM.. Reason: typo |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-03-2011, 10:26 PM | #109 | |
JDTuning
216
Rep 907
Posts |
Quote:
yep the OE oil cooler location is the optimum spot for an upgraded core. As I mentioned in a prior post, you do not want to be imposing further airflow restriction to the core of the OE radiator. "I would not wish to place a further flow restriction in front of the radiator. ![]() It is worth noting that most guys who will buy this kit, are FBO. As such they will already have a significantly larger intercooler installed in front of the radiator. Installing a second component that further inhibits air flow through the rad' core is obviously not a good idea." Cheers, JD. Last edited by JD75; 12-03-2011 at 10:35 PM.. Reason: Typo |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-03-2011, 10:46 PM | #110 | |
Damenslip-Tropfer
23
Rep 543
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|