All finished!

[cantfind1]

Pretty pleased with this result...

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=420502134643326&set=a.204370786256463.62016.158770394149836&type=1&theater

[_Nathan_]

Need to log in?

[shimmy]

Pretty pleased with this result...

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=420502134643326&set=a.204370786256463.62016.158770394149836&type=1&theater

I know nothing about dunks but headline figures look great.

You coming to Silverstone :thumbs:

[cantfind1]

Need to log in?


Mmmmm I think so??

[cantfind1]

I know nothing about dunks but headline figures look great.

You coming to Silverstone :thumbs:

Where and when is this Silverstone thing??

[CraigMillwardCroft]

9th April :thumbs:

[Porter]

That is one smooth power curve!

[shimmy]

Where and when is this Silverstone thing??

Silverstone trackdays direct.

Openpitlane, 9.30 to 5.00 no lunch, free food, free garage. £299

[_Nathan_]

Mmmmm I think so??

Not on Facebook, post it up here :D

[shimmy]

Not on Facebook, post it up here :D

http://i401.photobucket.com/albums/pp97/shimmylasco/CSL/43904171.jpg

[_Nathan_]

Lovely curve!

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

I am a little confused and might
be reading this incorrectly.

Dyno shows 268 lb Torque with
380 BHP ?

Std S54 according to BMW which
is more than likely Bench Dyno figures,
nothing attached so very little parasitic loss,
is quoted at 343 bhp with 269 lb Torque [365 Nm].

CSL is 360 Bhp and Torque goes up to 370Nm]

However many S54'S /CSL's do make the quoted figures.

How did you gain near on 40 BHP, over a 10%
engine power gain, but nothing in real terms
on the engine Torque ?

Just very curious.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[_Nathan_]

There is no mathematical requirement for the peak torque figure to increase to gain higher peak bhp figure though, just need to increase torque in the higher reaches of the rev range?

[DuncanR]

Popcorn time !

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Quote-

''There is no mathematical requirement for the
peak torque figure to increase to gain higher peak bhp figure though,
just need to increase torque in the higher reaches of the rev range?''





Nathan- Agreed there is no 'Mathematical Calculation'' but the
figures are showing less Torque for more power.

The Dyno Print out as I am reading it and I could
be wrong, is that the engine in question makes
Less Torque yet More Power than a CSL's ''std figures'',
and I am very curious how you do that on a S54,
given the Torque figures in question and the fact
that the S54 is an Under Square engine ?

Got it this is an April 1st Engine thats how `!!!!!!!

Duncan- Got to try and get the ''Share'' price
up somehow !!

Regards,

The Gorilla.


Ha! Ha! Ha! Very Good ,CantFind1

[_Nathan_]

Is it showing less torque at 8100 rpm though? Peak torque figure is meaningless, if you can make more torque higher up the rev range with cams for example you'll get more power without having to increase the peak torque figure in the lower rev range?

We know that:

power = (torque * rpm) / 5252

Therefore

(power * 5252) / torque = rpm

Looking at that graph at max power torque looks to be around 245 therefore

(380 * 5252) / 245 = rpm = 8145 which seems a sensible RPM - enough to suggest that the power figure is accurate for the measured torque and that the power figures on screen shot haven't been doctored (not saying that the torque has been accurately measured though, but the rolling road debate is one for another time :banghead: )

Having met CantFind1 I don't think he is the type to claim silly figures for a simple remap for example but I know this engine has had more work than that...

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Quote-

'' if you can make more torque higher up the rev range....''



Nathan- that was my original point its making the 'same'
Torque as a std S54, so where does the
Power come from ?

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[_Nathan_]

My CSL doesn't make 245 lb/ft at 8150 rpm, if it did then it'd have 380 bhp :thumbs:

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Quote-

''My CSL doesn't make 245 lb/ft at 8150 rpm, if it did then it'd have 380 bhp''

Exactly.

The Dyno is showing an Under square engine making
circa 250 lb Torque from 1800 rpm to 8150 rpm,
How ?

Attached is the S65 Torque Curve.

Short Stroke Oversquare V8 making 414 BHP @ 8400 RPM,
so how does the S54 engine almost match it ?

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[_Nathan_]

Maybe I'm missing something but the RPM scale isn't shown, it is missing off the bottom of the photo?

250lb ft at 1800 RPM would be 85 hp and that isn't shown on the graph below...

The point on the graph where there is 150bhp and 245lbft must be 3215 rpm, on the graph you posted the S65 is making 290lb at the same point.

[monkeycsl]

:119:

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Nathan- I was trying to illustrate that at
6250 rpm the S65 Short Stroke motor,
running 12.0 CR with 4 Cams etc
has its Torque curve already in decline.

Another point is that the Duty
cycle of the std S54 Fuel Injectors is maxxed
out at circa 375/380 BHP.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[mattCSLnut]

Popcorn time !
You're not wrong there dUnk :smt014 ;)

[_Nathan_]

Hi,

Nathan- I was trying to illustrate that at
6250 rpm the S65 Short Stroke motor,
running 12.0 CR with 4 Cams etc
has its Torque curve already in decline.

Another point is that the Duty
cycle of the std S54 Fuel Injectors is maxxed
out at circa 375/380 BHP.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

Number of cams is just a function of the number of heads surely?

Rest of if no idea, maybe the op can chime in with his engine spec...

Any more info on the injector duty cycle as I have customers running far more than that on oem injectors (maxed out admittedly, Motec giving 100% duty cycle warnings but still well above your figures).

[plug]

I wonder could he have fitted a lightened flywheel? Would that have an effect on reducing torque?

[cslsuperfan]

any spare popcorn dunc!!:119:

[alexk]

Seems a bit optimistic to me, if the engine only has airbox, cams and exhaust.

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Quote-

''Any more info on the injector duty cycle as I have customers running far more than that on oem injectors (maxed out admittedly, Motec giving 100% duty cycle warnings but still well above your figures).


Nathan - I had an article here somewhere on it.
Will try and dig it out and send it on as it explained
why not to run fuel injectors at anything higher
than 80 % duty cycle at over 5 bar fuel pressure.
it was to do with the way spray patterns are optimised
at something like 75 psi.

Anything over and the fuel droplets can go to fine
which can cause hot spots etc.

There were a couple of exceptions, F430 springs to
mind with its 5 spray injector etc.

I think the std S54 is approx 0.52 BSFC [Brake Specific Fuel Consumption]

So if you do the figures on 380 BHP-

380 x 0.52 / 6 x 80
= 197.6 / 4.8
= 41.16 Lb [Req]

Stock Injectors, how ?

If you increase the Duty cycle to
99% then of course you fall back to 33lb
still not sure how this would work 100% on
stock injectors.

Of course you can Crank the Fuel Pressure
up to say 6 Bar, but it will be saturated
at idle, and the engine will be hunting like
a 'U' Boat Captain.

Not much use in a road Car but prehaps passable for
a Track Car.

I know of a certain CSL that idles just like that !!!!

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[Mark CSL]

;)

[AlexGTT]

Hands looking slimmer Mark.;)

http://www.cslregister.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5522&stc=1&d=1333536432

[cantfind1]

9th April :thumbs:

Unfortunately,will be away just got to Sydney......

As for the rest, engine spec is not exactly as was posted by Charlie who owns Surrey rolling rd on his FB.


I am reluctant to give exact spec, but what I can tell you is that I am not running CSL cams and the engine has a few more modifications other that just the airbox....
Torque figure could probably be explained by these different cams.... and the extractors....
Injector duty cycle has actually been reduced due to a much higher flow in fuel from pump, pressure is standard.....

Taken me a long time to break the 380BHP figure and a lot of trial and error on what works and what doesn't.

Car is also running standard M3 exhaust valves as opposed to CSL ones which are very different.

[cantfind1]

Will definitely be out on track shortly though, will let you know which one, if anyone's interested to come along.....take you out for a spin...so to speak.

Also taken me many years to work out who can and can't map the MSS54HP ecu.......

[shimmy]

Will definitely be out on track shortly though, will let you know which one, if anyone's interested to come along.....take you out for a spin...so to speak.

Also taken me many years to work out who can and can't map the MSS54HP ecu.......


I'll be there, your trial and errors seem to have taken a while but come up trumps!

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Quote-

''Injector duty cycle has actually been reduced due to a much higher flow in fuel from pump, pressure is standard.''


Christ its a long time since I even looked
at Fluid Mechaincs but I am not sure I
follow the above.

Fluid flow increases after a 'restriction; and
then re-balances back to its flow rate.

The ''Restriction' in line on a S54 would be the
S/S fuel feed pipe from bottom of block up to
the fuel rail feeding the ITB's.

I have always belived that the E46 runs a 8.5mm
for fuel supply and hence the reason why BMW
reduced the id of the S/S rail feed fuel pipe so
as to accelerate fuel into the fuel rail which is
then held at 5 Bar via the dead head fuel rail
and fuel pressure regulator.

Even if you fit say a 10mm fuel feed pipe,
then the acceleration of fuel flow at the 'Restriction'
would not be any greater.

Thus to reduce the std Bosch Injector Duty Cycle
on a Engine which given the specs you have
mentioned will be in the 0.50-0.52 BSFC,
does not follow, unless your running say 42 lb
Injectors with the Duty Cycle down to 75%
maybe even 70%.

You can not run below 5 Bar fuel pressure though,
so I would also guess that your higher still
to compensate for the Duty Cycle reduction.

While I respect your efforts and no doubt
substantial investment, I have always been
very cynical of S54's that claim significant
gains over stock, using MS S54 Ecu, as stock
figures were well massaged to start with.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[_Nathan_]

Will have to get more info for you my old primate, and it may be that spray patterns aren't great but they are at pretty much 100% at 5 bar according to the motec logs.

[cantfind1]

Hi,

Quote-

''Injector duty cycle has actually been reduced due to a much higher flow in fuel from pump, pressure is standard.''


Christ its a long time since I even looked
at Fluid Mechaincs but I am not sure I
follow the above.

Fluid flow increases after a 'restriction; and
then re-balances back to its flow rate.

The ''Restriction' in line on a S54 would be the
S/S fuel feed pipe from bottom of block up to
the fuel rail feeding the ITB's.

I have always belived that the E46 runs a 8.5mm
for fuel supply and hence the reason why BMW
reduced the id of the S/S rail feed fuel pipe so
as to accelerate fuel into the fuel rail which is
then held at 5 Bar via the dead head fuel rail
and fuel pressure regulator.

Even if you fit say a 10mm fuel feed pipe,
then the acceleration of fuel flow at the 'Restriction'
would not be any greater.

Thus to reduce the std Bosch Injector Duty Cycle
on a Engine which given the specs you have
mentioned will be in the 0.50-0.52 BSFC,
does not follow, unless your running say 42 lb
Injectors with the Duty Cycle down to 75%
maybe even 70%.

You can not run below 5 Bar fuel pressure though,
so I would also guess that your higher still
to compensate for the Duty Cycle reduction.

While I respect your efforts and no doubt
substantial investment, I have always been
very cynical of S54's that claim significant
gains over stock, using MS S54 Ecu, as stock
figures were well massaged to start with.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

Seriously.....You have way too much time on your hands.....

[shimmy]

Seriously.....You have way too much time on your hands.....

I think i have just wasted too much of mine watching Total Wipeout :bigcry:

[The Gorilla]

Hi,

Quote-

'' Seriously.....You have way too much time on your hands.....''

Well you have to do something when your at the
Vets' 3 times a week.




Nathan- Poor Spray Pattern is not good even if
the fuel is pooring in.

Ferrari went hrough all the pain when
developing their '5 nozzel Injectors which
went from the Enzo to 430 and so on.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[ac427]

Is your car SMG or manual Cantfind1 ?

[cantfind1]

smg