Air Box, what's that all about?

[shimmy]

Why does the CSL air box make such a difference to noise and more importantly bhp?

All else being equal I have witnessed that if you flap is stuck shut the CSL looses 0-30 bhp between 5200-8000rpm levels compared to a normal working flap with sport on.

This proves surely that with sport button OFF you are loosing say 0-15/20 bhp between 3500-5200rpm when the flap is shut but that all kick back in when the flap opens.

BUT the question I am asking is why does the air box work and how does the ram effect work?

[glendog74]

Why does the CSL air box make such a difference to noise and more importantly bhp?

All else being equal I have witnessed that if you flap is stuck shut the CSL looses 0-30 bhp between 5200-8000rpm levels compared to a normal working flap with sport on.

This proves surely that with sport button OFF you are loosing say 0-15/20 bhp between 3500-5200rpm when the flap is shut but that all kick back in when the flap opens.

BUT the question I am asking is why does the air box work and how does the ram effect work?

Why not just PM The Gorilla? Save us the pain lol :hahaha:

[shimmy]

Why not just PM The Gorilla? Save us the pain lol :hahaha:

At a certain age you stop learning Rob. try to fight it or just curl up and slowly go bonkers:whistle:

[glendog74]

At a certain age you stop learning Rob. try to fight it or just curl up and slowly go bonkers:whistle:

Bless you - how is the whole bonkers thing going? :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

[DuncanR]

Not having read the manual yet, if you dont have a flap, is pressing the sport button pointless ? :smt102

[mattCSLnut]

At a certain age you stop learning Rob. try to fight it or just curl up and slowly go bonkers:whistle:

Ahhh... that explains everything Shim ;) :hahaha:

[alexk]

Hey shimmy, I love your threads :thumbs:

My contribution here :
1. Why does it make noise ?
Because it's made of carbon (the acoustics of carbon are different from plastic. There is less filtering of the induction noise (the velocity stacks) and more amplification of it) and because it's significantly bigger than the standard S54 intake. I am sure Gorilla will have the volumetric numbers in litres.

2. Why does it produce more hp.
The combination of alpha-n (pseudo as Gorilla says) with the extra air-supply makes the engine produce more hp... plus the ram air which is point 3.

3. How does the ram air works.
As the car picks up speed, air with higher velocity enters the ram air intake in the front bumper which is sent to the intake.
The air is colder and with speed (instead of the typical NA engine behavior having to suck air, you send air with pressure).
More air, colder air + Alpha-N = more HP.
I have some interesting measurements of the intake air temperature with same rpms with different speeds (from 60 up to 260 km/h).
You will be surprised. I will find my notes and post them.

4. Stuck flap = loss of ponnies
This is the opposite of point number 3.
Less air, not so cold air, no ram-air ... so less output.

And I have a question which is also the usual headache of bikes with ram-air.
How do you simulate in a dyno the air pressure in the ram air of the CSL at 250km/h ?
You don't... so the dyno shows 20-30 hp less ;)
(bikes gain 8-15hp from the ram-air in speeds more than 180km/h in the 180hp scale).

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

As Alexk has posted, Ram Air is important.

The CSL Airbox [Plenum] has an
achilles heal though, in that the Air Filtre
is located to close to the Intake runners.

This acts almost like a second flap
that can not be opened.

The Ram Air [ velocity] is reduced when
passing through the filtre.

Filtre further away from the TB's mouth with
a good Intake path would give a better velocity
into the TB's.

The Intake Runner length and its form is also critcal to the engine.

Leave those shiny Chinese Carbon Airboxes well alone !!

On the E30 M3 DTM cars [S14 ENGINE] they had several Intake
runner lengths to their Carbon Airboxes pending
if they required more Power or Torque from the
Engine.

15cms intake runner was used on the more shorter
Sprint races for Torque and then they would fit the
longer 17cms + for the more endurance type
Races where they needed to improve power Gains.

This was on either 48mm TB's or 49.5mm Slides.

I have a set of E30 M3 BTCC Zytek slides here which
were fitted to an S14 in an E36 Compact.

The Intake runner lengths were increased by about 30/40mm
something you can do with the S14 in the E36 Shell,
and the engine Power increased by around 18/20 BHP..

So proper Carbon Airbox tuning is a real science not
just noisey bling.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[mattCSLnut]

Hi,

As Alexk has posted, Ram Air is important.

The CSL Airbox [Plenum] has an
achilles heal though, in that the Air Filtre
is located to close to the Intake runners.

This acts almost like a second flap
that can not be opened.

The Ram Air [ velocity] is reduced when
passing through the filtre.

Filtre further away from the TB's mouth with
a good Intake path would give a better velocity
into the TB's.

The Intake Runner length and its form is also critcal to the engine.

Leave those shiny Chinese Carbon Airboxes well alone !!

On the E30 M3 DTM cars [S14 ENGINE] they had several Intake
runner lengths to their Carbon Airboxes pending
if they required more Power or Torque from the
Engine.

15cms intake runner was used on the more shorter
Sprint races for Torque and then they would fit the
longer 17cms + for the more endurance type
Races where they needed to improve power Gains.

This was on either 48mm TB's or 49.5mm Slides.

I have a set of E30 M3 BTCC Zytek slides here which
were fitted to an S14 in an E36 Compact.

The Intake runner lengths were increased by about 30/40mm
something you can do with the S14 in the E36 Shell,
and the engine Power increased by around 18/20 BHP..

So proper Carbon Airbox tuning is a real science not
just noisey bling.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

Reading the Primates posts with interest :thumbs: and learning something new every day :smokin:

[alexk]

Gorilla you are spot on as usual.

The difference of the S14 carbon airbox is that the air funnels (aka velocity stacks) are embedded on the carbon intake (as on most racing intakes) while the CSL has them seperate inside.
You could play with the funnels in the CSL and as Gorilla said move the powerband (shorter for higher HP in high rpms and longer for more torque in the low-mid range).
I haven't seen anywhere funnel options for the CSL airbox... I guess Gorilla can confirm this.


PS1 : I have played with different funnel sizes in my previous bike... my current has a very cool system with servos on the funnels. So in the low rpms a 'second' funnel is making the length longer and on the high rpms the servos move higher the 'second' funnel and make the length shorter.
http://www.af1racing.com/store/ProdImages/st3/table_23_rsv4_files/image004.gif

PS2 : I have driven R1 with the ram air tubes removed... the performance difference is shocking. What the manufacturers claim is true... so amplify this in a 3.2 high revving CSL engine.

[_Nathan_]

You've got me wondering about messing about with trumpet lengths on the dyno now just to see how it messes with the curve.

[alexk]

You've got me wondering about messing about with trumpet lengths on the dyno now just to see how it messes with the curve.

You will love it :thumbs:
Make sure you observe the acceleration time (i.e. from 2k rpm to 8k rpm) before and after.
I have seen once that the HP/torque was the same but there was a difference of 1 sec (bikes again).

Tomorrow I will get my paper from the CSL with the measurements of intake air temperature.

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

AlexK- No, I have not come across
aftermarket longer Intake Trumpets for
the S50 engines.

Its the curve and shape of the std ones that is
the clever bit, and how they cycle
the air velocity from the plenum.

Extending the std ones would be quite
simple so that a 'sliding' extension could
be moved up or down at the TB end, to monitor the
changes.

Not sure at what stage the air volume in
plenum would then need to be addressed.

I did at one stage look at going with a set
of Slides for the S54.

Scheel make them and they also make them for
the BMW S38 Engine [M5 L6] so port spacings
for the 6 pot is not a problem.

Bit misleading of Peter Meyer to say that its a
20 BHP + plus gain on the slides over TB's.

49.5mm V 48mm, like to see with 50mm TB's !!

www.scheel.ch

Slides are only really for use on Race engines
as the mid rev Band tends to create a mid
band gap, due to the design of a circle passing
over a circle.

Its not a progressive take up like a TB Butterfly.

Surprised that nobody Racing, fitted Slides to the
S54 though, more so with very high lift Cams.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[alexk]

Hi Gorilla,

Interesting information as always :thumbs:
Scheel is relatively close to me, I might go to the meet them at some point.

So back to the subject of the intake.
Some information I gathered in autumn of 2010, when doing a drive to Stuttgart in Germany.

The atmospheric temperature was 10 degrees.
I don't remember what is the metric for the mass of air (possibly litres per second, but I can be wrong).
Sport is on and the flap was open in all cases.

Speed | Intake temperature (C) | Mass
--------------------------------------------
60km/h 23 C n/a
150km/h 14 C 27
260km/h 6 C 44

The massive difference of the intake temperature is clear, as well as the mass (150 and 260 were with same rpm as I recall with 4th and 6th gear).

I could repeat the tests soon (I am pending a trip to Munich and Salzburg :whistle:) and get more sophisticated measurements with my updated telemetry.
I will update you in 2-3 weeks time with new values.

[karbonkid]

Hi Gorilla,

Interesting information as always :thumbs:
Scheel is relatively close to me, I might go to the meet them at some point.

So back to the subject of the intake.
Some information I gathered in autumn of 2010, when doing a drive to Stuttgart in Germany.

The atmospheric temperature was 10 degrees.
I don't remember what is the metric for the mass of air (possibly litres per second, but I can be wrong).
Sport is on and the flap was open in all cases.

Speed | Intake temperature (C) | Mass
--------------------------------------------
60km/h 23 C n/a
150km/h 14 C 27
260km/h 6 C 44

The massive difference of the intake temperature is clear, as well as the mass (150 and 260 were with same rpm as I recall with 4th and 6th gear).

I could repeat the tests soon (I am pending a trip to Munich and Salzburg :whistle:) and get more sophisticated measurements with my updated telemetry.
I will update you in 2-3 weeks time with new values.

Any update on this?

[alexk]

Any update on this?

Sorry Alex, I forgot about it.
I will revisit it and let you know.

[sfh3l]

Alex,
Your figures are indeed interesting. My Cecil is long gone now but I still maintain a keen interest :drool:
What interests me here is the drop in air temp. Are we saying that the intake is designed not only to get the 'ram' effect, but also that once the air is in, there is some sort of pressure drop into the plenum as the car goes faster - thus lowering the charge temp? Now that really would be clever.

[Mike R]

True ram-air systems pressurise the plenum, which actually gives a supercharging effect. However, it is such a small amount (even the best systems only manage a few psi), that the only way to check this is by either interrogating the MAP sensor (if it has one) live on the road (no rolling road outside of F1 could replicate the ram air effect) or by fitting an accurate pressure sensor in the plenum that has peak memory recall (something like a digital SPA gauge). Just measuring the air flow and intake temperature won't reveal if there is any "ram air" actually taking place and unless there is some form of heat exchange process going on inside the plenum, you'll never achieve better than ambient either any way :blalalala:.

[alexk]

Do you by now know what the CSL has (MAF or MAP) ?

:blalalala:

[Mike R]

Do you by now know what the CSL has (MAF or MAP) ?

:blalalala:

I was speaking in general about checking out the effects of ram air on any vehicle that claims to operate such a system :blalalala:. I know the CSL runs a MAP sensor, that was clearly listed in the info you provided early in the week :thumbs:. Some systems (like the Ford EECIV) on the 1994 onwards Escort Cosworth run a system that uses both a MAF and a MAP sensor and some systems just use throttle positional based mapping.

[Trawler]

Very interesting & goes to show that rolling roads are a waste of time.

Looks like there is an error below regarding atmos temp & intake temp.


Hi Gorilla,

Interesting information as always :thumbs:
Scheel is relatively close to me, I might go to the meet them at some point.

So back to the subject of the intake.
Some information I gathered in autumn of 2010, when doing a drive to Stuttgart in Germany.

The atmospheric temperature was 10 degrees.
I don't remember what is the metric for the mass of air (possibly litres per second, but I can be wrong).
Sport is on and the flap was open in all cases.

Speed | Intake temperature (C) | Mass
--------------------------------------------
60km/h 23 C n/a
150km/h 14 C 27
260km/h 6 C 44

The massive difference of the intake temperature is clear, as well as the mass (150 and 260 were with same rpm as I recall with 4th and 6th gear).

I could repeat the tests soon (I am pending a trip to Munich and Salzburg :whistle:) and get more sophisticated measurements with my updated telemetry.
I will update you in 2-3 weeks time with new values.

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Quote- ''True ram-air systems pressurise the plenum, which actually gives a supercharging effect. However, it is such a small amount (even the best systems only manage a few psi)


But that few PSi gain is important if altering the
Intake runner length when trying to
alter where a bit more Torque is required.

If you extended the runner and the air velocity
drops a few PSi then it would be a waste of
time.
The Race S54's would never be able to make
the sort of power numbers with a std CSL
Air Box Intake.

Its also part of how some Race Series Restrict
engine power, Air Restrictors [Max size diam] on the Intake.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[Mike R]

Because I don't do guess work, I can only advocate actually measuring things scientifically to actually physically quantify the effect of any changes. A very wise man told me to always "test, not guess". I have stuck with that and found it yields the best results :).

[alexk]

Because I don't do guess work, I can only advocate actually measuring things scientifically to actually physically quantify the effect of any changes. A very wise man told me to always "test, not guess". I have stuck with that and found it yields the best results :).

Is that how the 400bhp plan came up ? Testing ? :blalalala:

[Mike R]

Is that how the 400bhp plan came up ? Testing ? :blalalala:

Alex,
Mock all you like, but when I do something I do it properly :p. IF I built one, it would be done with Arrow rods, Arrow crank and CP pistons and mapped properly on an engine dyno until it was perfect.

[AlexGTT]

Mike, I think Alex was being light hearted. However, I will say with my Moderators hat on that maybe we should keep technical threads like this exactly that - technical. We can leave the personal stuff out.

I for one am very interested to see these points aired and all ideas welcome. Just because (mostly) others have not seen results expected doesn't mean Mike won't succeed.

Please continue without the personal stuff. Light hearted or not, it's not necessary.

Moderator mode off.:wink: Please continue. Peace and love.:smt055

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Quote- ''I for one am very interested to see these points aired and all ideas welcome. Just because (mostly) others have not seen results expected doesn't mean Mike won't succeed.''


Not sure I understand this ?


Mike posted this-

Quote-''Mock all you like, but when I do something I do it properly :p. IF I built one, it would be done with Arrow rods, Arrow crank and CP pistons and mapped properly on an engine dyno until it was perfect.''


But in other thread Mike had posted this-

Quote- ''The more I'm reading, the more I'm being inclined to leave the engine well alone other than for basic optimisation mods.''


Please somebody inform this confused
Primate as to what exactly Mike is going to succeed at ?

Doing what has already been done before ?

I was reading all the excitment and ''Hype'' of seeing this
alleged Hyper Super quick S54 making Power numbers that
would leave BMW green with envy and Torque to die for,
with all the special super parts it was going be
the ''daddy of all CSL B30 S54 engines and then
total numbness at being left for now, with a ''Vorsteiney''
front end and some Pre Preg Carbon ?

Christ what part did I miss ?

Not so sure who is ''Mocking'' who here.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[Mike R]

Mike, I think Alex was being light hearted. However, I will say with my Moderators hat on that maybe we should keep technical threads like this exactly that - technical. We can leave the personal stuff out.

I for one am very interested to see these points aired and all ideas welcome. Just because (mostly) others have not seen results expected doesn't mean Mike won't succeed.

Please continue without the personal stuff. Light hearted or not, it's not necessary.

Moderator mode off.:wink: Please continue. Peace and love.:smt055

I know I shouldn't bite, but it annoys me when people make assumptions :gayfight:. The engine in my Escort has been COMPLETELY re-engineered. There is nothing standard left on it bar the head casing (which has been heavily re-worked). Obviously this is required when increasing the power by 245% over standard ;).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0703/MikeR/Escort%20Photos/Rebuild09.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0703/MikeR/Escort%20Photos/Rebuild10.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0703/MikeR/Escort%20Photos/Rebuild02.jpg

IF I did a CSL engine, I'd apply the same engineering principals - it wouldn't be a case of bolting things to the outside and crossing my fingers :blalalala:. I'd strip an engine and see where the weaknesses were and replace those parts....

[Mike R]

Hi,

Quote- ''I for one am very interested to see these points aired and all ideas welcome. Just because (mostly) others have not seen results expected doesn't mean Mike won't succeed.''


Not sure I understand this ?


Mike posted this-

Quote-''Mock all you like, but when I do something I do it properly :p. IF I built one, it would be done with Arrow rods, Arrow crank and CP pistons and mapped properly on an engine dyno until it was perfect.''


But in other thread Mike had posted this-

Quote- ''The more I'm reading, the more I'm being inclined to leave the engine well alone other than for basic optimisation mods.''


Please somebody inform this confused
Primate as to what exactly Mike is going to succeed at ?

Doing what has already been done before ?

I was reading all the excitment and ''Hype'' of seeing this
alleged Hyper Super quick S54 making Power numbers that
would leave BMW green with envy and Torque to die for,
with all the special super parts it was going be
the ''daddy of all CSL B30 S54 engines and then
total numbness at being left for now, with a ''Vorsteiney''
front end and some Pre Preg Carbon ?

Christ what part did I miss ?

Not so sure who is ''Mocking'' who here.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

It would be very easy to achieve a reliable 420bhp, but looking at the costs involved to do it reliably is another matter. I've costed it out that to build a proper engine to make good power and torque that would give factory reliability would be the best part of £20k (this on top of having an existing engine to do this to). I don't know about you, but that doesn't figure on my bang for buck ratio to gain such a small power increase.....

Hence, at this stage, I'll leave well alone, apart from the optimisation of everything to ensure it is all working as well as it should / could. I do hope that clarifies to your satisfaction ;)?

[shane@mbtech]

It would be very easy to achieve a reliable 420bhp, but looking at the costs involved to do it reliably is another matter. I've costed it out that to build a proper engine to make good power and torque that would give factory reliability would be the best part of £20k (this on top of having an existing engine to do this to). I don't know about you, but that doesn't figure on my bang for buck ratio to gain such a small power increase.....

Hence, at this stage, I'll ;eave well alone, apart from the optimisation of everything to ensure it is all working as well as it should / could. I do hope that clarifies to you satisfaction ;).

I agree, but my next port of call on my car was to do the headgasket, purely from a maintenance point. Whilst head was off I was going to get the head flow tested, to see if it was possible to "optimise" it rather than big gains.

Alas this did not happen, but we have a Cylinder head here, might see if there is any room for improvement, as it would be rude not to.

It did frustrate me on trackdays, to blitz cars through the corners, only for them to pull 20 car lengths on a big straight. I was sat there thinking at the time, "imagine how much quicker my car would be if it was as quick as that GTR on the straight". But that in the end was all part of the fun.:beer:

[digi]

you could always buy this. Cheaper than getting a CSL.

http://store.vacmotorsports.com/vac---s54-csl-killer-engine-p2237.aspx

Plus you could project the shell and chassis how you like. With the CSL it would be a big waste IMO.

For me atleast, the car out of the box is pretty much what I need on street, so no need to mod (keep the wife nagging :-D).

If you mod a regular E46 ///M3 it would be quite a satisfying project, but with the CSL you would be spoiling it because BMW Motorsport pretty much included the key engineering bits to make it go fast! (composite materials where it mattered, DTM style induction system etc) Obviously the brakes were a shambles, but you cant win them all. :-D But in all fairness, they are ok. My R35 with the big calipers and street pads are probably not much better. (found that out the other night dragging a Ferrari) :finga:

[Mike R]

I don't need two dedicated track cars ;).

I agree that the CSL is just about perfect out of the box and is the reason why I have hankered after one for so long. However, IMO there are not many cars on the planet that couldn't be improved in some way. With the CSL, perhaps it is just the brakes. We'll just have to wait and see :). I've got to get one first LOL.

[AlexGTT]

Hi,

Quote- ''I for one am very interested to see these points aired and all ideas welcome. Just because (mostly) others have not seen results expected doesn't mean Mike won't succeed.''


Not sure I understand this ?


Mike posted this-

Quote-''Mock all you like, but when I do something I do it properly :p. IF I built one, it would be done with Arrow rods, Arrow crank and CP pistons and mapped properly on an engine dyno until it was perfect.''


But in other thread Mike had posted this-

Quote- ''The more I'm reading, the more I'm being inclined to leave the engine well alone other than for basic optimisation mods.''


Please somebody inform this confused
Primate as to what exactly Mike is going to succeed at ?



Gorilla, just trying to keep harmony on our friendly site. Nothing more, nothing less.

I find the technical discussion very interesting. I strongly believe he should leave well alone but that's up to Mike.

[alexk]

Mike, this thread is about the airbox of the CSL.

Please don't get me wrong, but why everywhere you keep popping pics and tech stuff about your Cosworth ?
I don't see any relevance of the Cosworth engine to the CSL engine.
You see, there is no relevance of the ... S38B38 engine to the S54B32HP engine that the CSL has.
So what suits other cars doesn't necessarily suit the CSL engine.

The problem is the very high average piston speed.
If you rev it higher as it is, something will get broken very soon.
Usual S54 race engine practice (Gorilla mentioned it with the B30 S54) is to reduce the stroke(thus 3.0lt instead of 3.2lt) and rev it higher.
Of course every engine component has to be replaced with appropriate ones, which will have to be balanced etc.
This exercise is very expensive and not very reliable.
Racing pistons, conrods, cranks etc have the life expectancy of racing components.

If you are planning to indeed improve your engine and have 400bhp that cost very little, please do it and then post the information.
This debate and speculation for something no one has achieved is a bit strange.

I am also planning to prove that delimited CSLs are 370+bhp instead of 360bhp, but until I have the proof/data in my hands I prefer not to speculate about it everyday.

[shane@mbtech]

Can you tell me your thought on the last part alex?


Mike, this thread is about the airbox of the CSL.

Please don't get me wrong, but why everywhere you keep popping pics and tech stuff about your Cosworth ?
I don't see any relevance of the Cosworth engine to the CSL engine.
You see, there is no relevance of the ... S38B38 engine to the S54B32HP engine that the CSL has.
So what suits other cars doesn't necessarily suit the CSL engine.

The problem is the very high average piston speed.
If you rev it higher as it is, something will get broken very soon.
Usual S54 race engine practice (Gorilla mentioned it with the B30 S54) is to reduce the stroke(thus 3.0lt instead of 3.2lt) and rev it higher.
Of course every engine component has to be replaced with appropriate ones, which will have to be balanced etc.
This exercise is very expensive and not very reliable.
Racing pistons, conrods, cranks etc have the life expectancy of racing components.

If you are planning to indeed improve your engine and have 400bhp that cost very little, please do it and then post the information.
This debate and speculation for something no one has achieved is a bit strange.

I am also planning to prove that delimited CSLs are 370+bhp instead of 360bhp, but until I have the proof/data in my hands I prefer not to speculate about it everyday.

[shimmy]

Can you tell me your thought on the last part alex?

:119:

[_Nathan_]

I assume he's gonna buy an engine dyno and work out how to fudge the figures ;)

[CraigMillwardCroft]

I assume he's gonna buy an engine dyno and work out how to fudge the figures ;)
:hahaha::hahaha::hahaha:

[Mike R]

Mike, this thread is about the airbox of the CSL.

Please don't get me wrong, but why everywhere you keep popping pics and tech stuff about your Cosworth ?
I don't see any relevance of the Cosworth engine to the CSL engine.
You see, there is no relevance of the ... S38B38 engine to the S54B32HP engine that the CSL has.
So what suits other cars doesn't necessarily suit the CSL engine.

The problem is the very high average piston speed.
If you rev it higher as it is, something will get broken very soon.
Usual S54 race engine practice (Gorilla mentioned it with the B30 S54) is to reduce the stroke(thus 3.0lt instead of 3.2lt) and rev it higher.
Of course every engine component has to be replaced with appropriate ones, which will have to be balanced etc.
This exercise is very expensive and not very reliable.
Racing pistons, conrods, cranks etc have the life expectancy of racing components.

If you are planning to indeed improve your engine and have 400bhp that cost very little, please do it and then post the information.
This debate and speculation for something no one has achieved is a bit strange.

I am also planning to prove that delimited CSLs are 370+bhp instead of 360bhp, but until I have the proof/data in my hands I prefer not to speculate about it everyday.

Hi Alex,
The reason for posting these pictures is that at every turn you seem to be debunking everything I am saying, so I am providing evidence of previous projects, which is just to give you with some insight into the fact that I do know what to do to build an engine capable of doing what is required. You don't get a power increase of 254% by using standard internals, and if you're intending to push the S54 beyond 400bhp, only an idiot would do so using the standard parts.

I know exactly what is involved in building an engine capable of sustained high piston speeds - my own engine which has been stroked from 1997cc to 2225cc had to have the entire engine upgraded and completely reworked. This was done by machining the cylinder wall away to accept nikasil steel wet liners. The engine was then fitted with an even higher quality stroker crank. However, this reduces the rod angle ratio, which puts stress on the bore. The solution was 8mm longer (and stronger H-section) rods (which brought the rod angle back to standard). The problem with this was then the standard pistons would have protruded out the top of the block. The solution was to have some custom forged (stronger) pistons made with the pin moved higher up in the pistons.

All you have to do go through each specific part of the engine, assess the weakness and formulate a cure. The S54 is just an engine, BUT by all accounts it's on the limit of the standard internals, so the cure would be to bin them off and replace them with ones that were able to take the increased stresses. You seem to be under the misapprehension that race parts will reduce the life of the engine, where if specced properly and you're not silly with the increase, you'll get the same longevity as the OE parts due to their extra strength....

The thing is, with a forced induction engine (providing the internals are up to it), you can just bolt ever bigger turbos on to increase the power, so the reward to cost ratio of doing so is worth doing for the potential 254-350% increase in power (turbo dependent). The S54 lump (with very similar costs to modify, just the blower is basically the only thing you wouldn't be buying) would net you just a 20% increase in power.

Now at these stage, I'm not prepared to spunk £20k on an engine, just to prove a point ;), and I don't want to turbo or supercharge it, as that will detract from what the CSL is all about IMO. If you think you can get 400+bhp out of an S54 engine cheaply AND reliably, then you are sorely mistaken..... If you do it on the former, then you won't get the latter ;).

I forgot to say, I have access to an engine dyno and one of the best mappers in the country ;).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0703/MikeR/Escort%20Photos/Rebuild35.jpg

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Quote- ''Gorilla, just trying to keep harmony on our friendly site. Nothing more, nothing less.''

Alex, I could not agree more, but a bit more
S54 and a little less ''Focus'' would be nice
on a CSL forum.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[alexk]

Hi Alex,
The reason for posting these pictures is that at every turn you seem to be debunking everything I am saying

If you think you can get 400+bhp out of an S54 engine cheaply AND reliably, then you are sorely mistaken..... If you do it on the former, then you won't get the latter ;).


Mike,

Please allow me to remind you that your very first posts in this forum (~3 weeks ago) were saying that with cams, compression, head work, exhaust and map the CSL would make 400+bhp.
At that time, you haven't done any research about the engine.
A few people, including myself said it's impossible to achieve this without serious components that cost a lot of money.
Therefore yes I was insisting that it's impossible what you were saying.

Here we are 3 weeks later and you are saying like a true expert that it's impossible to do it without expensive components.

What is there to say now ? That BMW MS didn't have the expertise or skills ?
Because their components have a very small life expectancy with 415bhp on the race cousin of the S54, the P54B32.

Last but not least, can we stay on the subject which is about a BMW engine ?
Otherwise I will start posting pics and info of Superbike engines :119:

[LeinsCSL]

I'm getting very confused trying to keep up with this thread. Think I, for one, will just have to leave my car alone now :whistle:


Hi,

Quote- ''Gorilla, just trying to keep harmony on our friendly site. Nothing more, nothing less.''

Alex, I could not agree more, but a bit more
S54 and a little less ''Focus'' would be nice
on a CSL forum.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

Anything E30-related is always welcome too Mr. Gorilla, or maybe that's just me :beer: Don't want baby and bathwater syndrome ;)

[shane@mbtech]

I like this forum because its light hearted and very rarely any handbags, so can we please stop waving our willys, put them back in the y fronts. And keep this forum a pleasant one. Not letting it descend into an argumentative place like all other forums seem to be.

:beer:

[_Nathan_]

I like this forum because its light hearted and very rarely any handbags, so can we please stop waving our willys, put them back in the y fronts. And keep this forum a pleasant one. Not letting it descend into an argumentative place like all other forums seem to be.

:beer:

F*ck off :smt055

[CraigMillwardCroft]

F*ck off :smt055
:hahaha::hahaha::hahaha:

[Mike R]

Mike,

Please allow me to remind you that your very first posts in this forum (~3 weeks ago) were saying that with cams, compression, head work, exhaust and map the CSL would make 400+bhp.
At that time, you haven't done any research about the engine.
A few people, including myself said it's impossible to achieve this without serious components that cost a lot of money.
Therefore yes I was insisting that it's impossible what you were saying.

Here we are 3 weeks later and you are saying like a true expert that it's impossible to do it without expensive components.

What is there to say now ? That BMW MS didn't have the expertise or skills ?
Because their components have a very small life expectancy with 415bhp on the race cousin of the S54, the P54B32.

Last but not least, can we stay on the subject which is about a BMW engine ?
Otherwise I will start posting pics and info of Superbike engines :119:

Alex,
Actually, if you look back I was actually trying to ascertain if people had actually achieved the claimed figures with the bolt on mods ;).

When Shimmy commented that there was a reason why a user who claimed to have 384bhp couldn't notice the difference compared to a standard one, I didn't beat about the bush, and suggested that a lot of the figures are pure BS. Unfortunately Shimmy would not confirm or deny this fact ;). IF the figure of 384bhp isn't pure BS, then it is not unreasonable to assume that an extra 16bhp could be found with head work, port matching and careful optimisation on the dyno (where you can experiment with the effects of swinging the cams to see what gives what improvements). However, if it is BS, then as previously accepted by me, the 400bhp for a standard spec CSL engine is pie in the sky :p.

The guy who maps my engines has already achieved 400bhp on an E46 race engine, BUT he has said that it lost a big portion of it's bottom end and wasn't suitable for a road car. However, the customer built the engine, so who knows what parts were in it.

There are many reasons why manufacturers have their hands tied regarding achieving figures (air restrictors / restrictions on modifications allowed). Ford only achieved 540bhp out of the Cosworth engine due to these reasons, yet aftermarket tuning companies have far exceeded this. So as to the reason for posting images of my own engine, I was using it as an examples of what not being constrained by rules and regulations can give, I don't deal in BS :partyman:.

In the same way, if I was to build an S54 engine, I would not have my hands tied like BMW have and I've already been daydreaming about an ultimate spec engine, but until I come up with the £20k to build it, it will remain pure fantasy ;).

Rest assured if things do change, then I will be posting my findings here. I suspect that the first real eye-opener would be the true engine dyno figure that a standard CSL engine makes - I'd lay money it was quite a bit below the 355bhp claimed ;).

At the end of the day, I just want to have fun :finga:.

[LeinsCSL]

I am also planning to prove that delimited CSLs are 370+bhp instead of 360bhp, but until I have the proof/data in my hands I prefer not to speculate about it everyday.

I too am really interested in this Alex, as mine was delimited from the factory. Nice work if you can find that out :thumbs:

[_Nathan_]

Mine was also delimited from the factory, it made 349 on Simpsons dyno dynamics dyno and never felt slow in a straight line compared to others, remapped or not.

I'll ask Simpsons if they ever had a standard CSL engine on the engine dyno, I know they had a de-vanos'd one but still on standard DME.

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Funny how the old 'search' facility never gets
a look in.

It been mentioned here several times that,

Std CSL Engine numbers are Optimistic, but
like all std Engines you get a few that exceed
but many that do not come up to the number.

Head- you will never gain 18 BHP out of a S54
head no matter what you do to it.
You will be extremly lucky if you see
anywhere near a double digit HP gain,
on head alone, no matter who is doing the
porting polishing and flow testing etc.

Cams, no real gains unless you up the
Std C/R and replace all the top end
valve train etc, gives the impression of
making a much more peaky engine, but
a large part of that is down to the engine
Rev Band being moved higher up and if
anything being made narrower.

Crank, about as good as it gets for a
out the box Crank, for sure all the
'Tuning Experts'' will tell you to knife
edge the Crank, but the L6 engine suffers
from substantial internal harmonics and
resonatates badly once the balance of the
engine is altered, hence why the Stroked
S54 Arrow Cranks that Vac sell are only
really good to around 7900/ 8000 rpm.
Several cases of stroked S54 revved to
8400 rpm that are no longer rotating.

Rods- the 'ice' cracked rods are very good
for 8300/8400 rpm, so changing them for
Forged Steel only gains a lighter wallet
and in most cases a 'Heavier' Rod than
the std ones.
Not much point paying 1k plus for a
nice set of Forged Steel rods that increase the
reciprocating mass, or 4k plus for a Ti
set that sounds great on the spec sheet.

Pistons, again very good, and not much
to be gained unless altering the CR of
the engine up to 12 or 12.5 CR which
brings with it, its own set of issues.

Block, std block at 4.5mm between bores is
about as low as you want to go for
reliability and longtevity as the heat soak
between bores, given the fast piston
speed, even with the Piston Oil squirters, can
cause the the block to distort.
Some go another 0.25 or even 0.5mm on
the overbore, but its reliability really
does start to suffer.
Its in part why the stroked S54 came about
as not much meat, to go sideways.

I think most of this infomation compilied
by many Members over the years
is availble by using the ''search'' facility.

S54 is what it is, a very good engine out the
box, but over the years the 'Tuning Bragging''
rights have pushed the alleged performance
numbers higher and higher, where you now
have some claiming to have more powerful
S54' s than the MS P54 M3 engine, which is
a complete different animal to what you
get in your S54, CSL included.

20k would not buy the head alone.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[Mike R]

I did suggest that the additional 16bhp would require head work AND a compression hike not just one or the other ;). I wouldn't want to go above 12:1 on a road engine.

Given the block thickness, I was thinking Nikasil steel liners and a spacer plate to raise the deck height to allow longer rods (as per the Skyline stroker kits ;)). This would at the very least retain the standard rod angle ratio (as the pistons already look like they're on the limit of pin height) as well as giving a capacity increase, which would then mean it wouldn't need to rev beyond 8k and you'd make gains everywhere :).

I recon you could do a nice reliable 420-430bhp engine for £20k that way (that had the same rev limit as the OE item).

The standard length Arrow rods are actually 64g lighter than the stock items :).

The £20k quoted is PLUS having the original engine, and you'd naturally have everything dynamically balanced to check the harmonics were okay (along with a damper if it was deemed necessary). I have a company that does this work for me :).

The only issue that is that it would probably mean junking the stock ECU and running an aftermarket one, which then leads to non-genuine clocks etc. I was hoping that with my contacts, I could bring someone over from Germany to live map the standard ECU, but I haven't got that in depth yet :blalalala:.

Give me a chance, I haven't even got a car yet ;).

[NZ_M3]

The ALMS PTG P54 in one spec claims to have 450hp ... Not sure how many running hours before a rebuild however - and they had a budget of millions. That motor is for sale if you ever wanted to find out how they did it.

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

I should have added that once you start
using the Higher lift cams then the
Vanos is no longer able to work correctly
so you will have to delete the Vanos,
unless you fit the MS Vanos at approx
circa 10k, and its a time /hour rated part.

Its always a good indicator that if a N/A S54
still has std Vanos fitted then its almost
impossible for a 4 0r 9 to figure in the
alleged BHP number.

You can run the MS S54 CSL DME with the
Vanos Deleted.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[_Nathan_]

KMS in holland would disagree with that, they do a nice big valve head engine with an alledged 4 in the number which still runs vanos.

[shimmy]

KMS in holland would disagree with that, they do a nice big valve head engine with an alledged 4 in the number which still runs vanos.


394? :smokin:

[shane@mbtech]

Hi,

I should have added that once you start
using the Higher lift cams then the
Vanos is no longer able to work correctly
so you will have to delete the Vanos,
unless you fit the MS Vanos at approx
circa 10k, and its a time /hour rated part.

Its always a good indicator that if a N/A S54
still has std Vanos fitted then its almost
impossible for a 4 0r 9 to figure in the
alleged BHP number.

You can run the MS S54 CSL DME with the
Vanos Deleted.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

Taking the wild-ish shrick cams 288 280 with 14mm lift, and re-profiling the cam, can give good results, so I am led to believe. Giving decent valve overlap. Granted not ideal for below 4500 rpm, but who buys a csl to potter about.

[Bounce]

Hi,

I should have added that once you start
using the Higher lift cams then the
Vanos is no longer able to work correctly
so you will have to delete the Vanos,
unless you fit the MS Vanos at approx
circa 10k, and its a time /hour rated part.

Its always a good indicator that if a N/A S54
still has std Vanos fitted then its almost
impossible for a 4 0r 9 to figure in the
alleged BHP number.

You can run the MS S54 CSL DME with the
Vanos Deleted.

Regards,

The Gorilla.I was thinking the same.:-D

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Quote-'KMS in holland would disagree with that, they do a nice big valve head engine with an alledged 4 in the number which still runs vanos.

Nathan-Do you mean KMS VanKronenburg,
or KMS Race Engines [sic] ?

Vankroneburg does not run Vanos and there
new DME is still in development which
will do Variable Cam.

KMS Race Engines use Pectel SQ6. so
variable Cam not a problem but even
with the std Vanos fully Optmised [std CSL is not] can not
see how it would/can function correctly
with High lift cams.

Lawsy- SMG Gearbox and engine unwilling
to pull/rev much below 4500 rpm, not sure
how well that would work in a CSL ?
Bet you would have more than clutch
slur in a very short time!
Fine with a proper sequential or Manual
out on Track but would not be
for me with SMG II ala CSL.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[shane@mbtech]

Hi,

Quote-'KMS in holland would disagree with that, they do a nice big valve head engine with an alledged 4 in the number which still runs vanos.

Nathan-Do you mean KMS VanKronenburg,
or KMS Race Engines [sic] ?

Vankroneburg does not run Vanos and there
new DME is still in development which
will do Variable Cam.

KMS Race Engines use Pectel SQ6. so
variable Cam not a problem but even
with the std Vanos fully Optmised [std CSL is not] can not
see how it would/can function correctly
with High lift cams.

Lawsy- SMG Gearbox and engine unwilling
to pull/rev much below 4500 rpm, not sure
how well that would work in a CSL ?
Bet you would have more than clutch
slur in a very short time!
Fine with a proper sequential or Manual
out on Track but would not be
for me with SMG II ala CSL.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

Probably correct, but I was just talking engine G man.

PS where is this pump going to, I keep tripping over it in the workshop.

[_Nathan_]

KMS race engines, got one on MoTeC M600.

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Lawsy- I missunderstood as you said,
''Granted not ideal for below 4500 rpm, but who buys a csl to potter about.

But taking it a bit further the S54 Vanos spread
ie] variable, at 5000 rpm to say 8200 is very, very small
so if you spend say a lot of the time on Track
at 5000 rpm and above, which ''this'' engine
requires, and which most do,
[different point same subject]
the Vanos does nothing for you except be
extra weight, and somerthing else to go
wrong.

I think people also forget that the Vanos takes
its drive from the Oil Pressure so your also
reducing potential top end oiling issues.
ie] one less outlet.

Will PM address for part as Guy still
not back. Thanks.

Nathan- Kempower also offer Higher Lift Cams
with std S54 Vanos, I can put you in touch with
a couple of Guys who went down that route and
are rebuilding there motors due to Vanos.
Do not know the full S/P but in both cases related to
coming off the throttle at full lift and then
back on again very quickly, at full
oil temp.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[Mike R]

Very informative posts :thumbs:.

[_Nathan_]

Danny - not sure on the exact details of the engine build but the map I have in front of me is swinging both cams a fair bit on the RPM axis between 5500 and 8500 and again on the y axis (TP) in that same RPM range.

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Nathan- for sure, but the actual
gains in Power and to a lesser
extent in Torque from 5500
to say 8400 as compared to the
same engine without Vanos
is very, very slight, as if to make
any difference in the real world.

Even though the S54 Vanos is
variable across the whole rev band,
the gains are to an extent are more significant
at the lower end of the rev band,
on a same engine comparission.

Vanos is primarily for emissions.

If you were at somewhere like Mondello then
I could see that on ''std'' Cams the S54 would
benefit from Vanos, but not on longer
duration/lift cams, as the 4500 threshold
would come into play, and then above that
your back to the top.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[_Nathan_]

I'll find out what cams are in it next time I'm with the car, some big variations in cam angle though.

When I get mine running (standard CSL cams) I'll try and dyno both swinging cams and with the cam position set static through the rev range, be interesting to see the difference in torque curve on the same engine. I'll post up here :)

I'd love to know the exact differences between p54 and s54 vanos.

Did the p65b40/44 retain vanos?

[The Gorilla]

Hi Nathan,

No Vanos on the P65 40 and no
Vanos on the Judd HK LMP2 V8 engine
based on the S65 either.

http://www.engdev.com/products/hk-2011-lmp2-v8/

I believe rightly or wrongly that
BMW retained the Vanos on their
S54/P54 M3 engines as its removal
could have breached certain Regs
and not considered in the spirit
of it, and given the ALMS issues
BMW would not want to stamp on that
ground again to quickly.

It would explain development of an
expensive MS time/hour rated part that
very few would purchase.

Another moot point would have been
a potential backlash regarding
Warranty etc in that the manufacture runs
their ''Race'' engine with No Vanos.

Std CSL cams give very good results when
locked in on the S54 engine, not so much
top end rev happy, but very progressive in
the mid band, from around 3500-7000 ish..

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[_Nathan_]

OK, I'll get the cams to make max power at 8k rpm, set the target angles at those values and run it again to see the difference and get some graphs, we can ignore the exact numbers as it'll only be a chassis dyno but the shapes should tell the story :)

Only interested in 5.5k to 8k really, with a drenth and paddles there is no excuse for not being in that region.