-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Turbos (was aw geez.) - from Dorffer, Rich
Top
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:03:01 -0400 From: "Dorffer, Rich" <RDORFFER@CleIndians.com> Subject: Turbos (was aw geez.) I must be in the minority here but I am not sure why there is always so much fascination with turbo charging E36 M3s. It seems to me that it has widely been proven that many BMW motors are not good candidates for boosting to traditional turbo levels. The cost of a decent system is pretty high and there are always so many issues with proper tuning and reliability. Don't get me wrong, turbos can be great and really have their positive attributes on certain motors, especially those motors that were designed for them from the start. BMW motors, particularly the M motors, just weren't designed with turbos in mind and since the motors are such efficient, normally aspirated design (i.e., power output versus gas usage and emissions), aftermarket turbos generally don't work as well as most would like. I think if someone is interested in adding a turbo(s) to their car, an M3 is a pretty poor platform to begin with. Anyway, I wish Suzy and her Turbo M5 all the best. Suzy is certainly familiar with BMWs and turbos so she knows what she is in for. Glad to here her first impressions met or exceeded her expectations. Best regards, Rich
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: [E36M3] Re:Dr.Gas thoughts... "Euro" - from Chester Wong
Top
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:06:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re:Dr.Gas thoughts... "Euro" AFAIK, you would want the crossover before the cats so as to get the maximum exhaust pulse. The cat would muffle it. Also, I think the euro headers are better than the supersprint ones. Well, at least the Supersprint US headers look useless...non equal length...just eye candy. I think the Supersprint euro headers are okay, but the OE euro ones are good too. Chester --- Rob <motor@cadvision.com> wrote: > Another thought. I have always wondered why guys with the 300+HP US cars > don't run the 60mm Euro exhausts. BMW saw fit to equip both the 286hp and > 321hp M3's with the big systems from the factory. I know if I had a powerful > US motor I'd have the big Supersprint system, assuming of course smog > testing wasn't an issue in the area. > > I'm not sure how this setup would behave on an OBDII car. I assume > > you would have to install the crossover on the center cat section. ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: [E36M3] Re:Dr.Gas thoughts... "Euro" - from John Van Houten
Top
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:23:20 -0500 From: "John Van Houten" <jvh_lists@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re:Dr.Gas thoughts... "Euro" > AFAIK, you would want the crossover before the cats so as to get the maximum > exhaust pulse. The cat would muffle it. The crossover needs to be before the cats to have any scavenging effect at all, which is why you have them. The cross over is also placed a certain distance from the exhaust port based upon you cam/torque profile. The crossover must be placed so the exhaust pulse from one bank hits the crossover and the right time to scavange the other bank. > Also, I think the euro headers are > better than the supersprint ones. Well, at least the Supersprint US headers > look useless...non equal length...just eye candy. I think the Supersprint euro > headers are okay, but the OE euro ones are good too. The Supersprint Euro headers are pretty decent, but yes, the US ones are just eye candy. The OE euro headers are pretty good as well and would be a good addition to a use motor (assuming all other parts of the equation, ie intake, rest of exhaust system, are taken car of). John still looking for euro motorsport headers for < small fortune
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: [E36M3] Turbos (was aw geez.) - from Matt Henson
Top
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:52:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Henson <hensonator@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Turbos (was aw geez.) --- "Dorffer, Rich" <RDORFFER@CleIndians.com> wrote: > Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:03:01 -0400 > From: "Dorffer, Rich" <RDORFFER@CleIndians.com> > Subject: Turbos (was aw geez.) > > I must be in the minority here but I am not sure why > there is always so much fascination with turbo > charging E36 M3s. It seems to me that it has widely > been proven that many BMW motors are not good > candidates for boosting to traditional turbo levels. > The cost of a decent system is pretty high and > there are always so many issues with proper tuning > and reliability. > Best regards, > > Rich As an owner of a turbocharged M3, I'm not sure that I completly agree. While it is true that turbo kits for M3's have, as a whole, been very expensive and not very well designed, it is my opinion that the problems are with the manufacturers and not the M3 itself. Yes, the compression ratio is a bit high but you can still get 6-7psi with an intercooler. This is enough to get 350HP or so if everything is properly matched and tuned. The M3 driveline is fairly bullet proof. You do see some failures from the guys who drag race with 450+HP engines but that's pretty extreme. The engine block isn't perfect for forced induction; it would be nice to have thicker cylinder walls and an extra bolt per cylinder. But if detonation is kept under control, the engine works just fine with a turbo, thank you. Now, with all of that said, there really aren't any decent turbo kits available (at least not for a reasonable price) so all of my arguments are really just academic. -Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. RE: [E36M3] Re:Dr.Gas thoughts... Beyond GB (long pseudo-engineering babble) - from Mel Silva
Top
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:01:41 -0500 From: "Mel Silva" <melsilva@mindspring.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Re:Dr.Gas thoughts... Beyond GB (long pseudo-engineering babble) Just a thought, it was how I built my first Dr. Gas system before Butler and Co. started producing bolt-up solutions. Without any "real" data, I assume that the stock M3 exhaust is somewhere between 50mm and 58mm (2-2.25 inches). One could use the tandem crossover unit http://www.drgas.com/photos/gfx/tandems.jpg in the appropriate size and have it welded into the stock system without the requirement of swapping manifolds or removing the cats. This is best accomplished by marking the exhaust system with heat sensitive paint or other goo and finding the point at which the exhaust generates the most heat (not including the cats). According to theory this is where you should put the crossover to "relieve" the system. The Mustang had an "H" pipe configuration where the horizontal in the "H" was a "balance tube". This is a very old racer's trick for doing almost the same thing. The Dr. Gas crossover works much smoother though by bringing the 3 junctions of the "H" together in smooth bends. Also, since this was a mass-produced car the balance tube was placed where it made assembly easy, not where the optimum relief point is. Here are some things to think about: On a V8 the exhaust pulses are 90 degrees of rotation apart on the same cylinder bank (say cylinders 1-4). This is due to the balancing of the engine, but I don't have the data in front of me so I can't provide all the information. This is what give the V8 it's distinct popping sound. You have two exhaust pulses fighting for space while the other bank (cylinders 5-8) are doing no work. The crossover system allows the non-working bank side of the exhaust to share some of the load. If you've ever seen the "mass of snakes" exhaust designed for the GT-40 LeMans winner, you can see how they tried to compensate for this by feeding the left side header with a single cylinder from the right side. ANYWAY, (get to the point, moron!) due to the firing order and exhaust layout, an inline 6 like the BMW would not see as much benefit (I did not say "no benefit") since the exhaust pulses from the same bank (assuming 1-3 is bank 1 and 4-6 is bank 2) are 120 degrees apart from each other with an exhaust pulse from the other bank in between. This is what gives the inline 6 its smooth mellow sound. I had a very long explanation here of how to see this, but I decided that pictures were easier to communicate. See my poor attempt at using Windows paint here: http://www.geocities.com/melsilva/rotation.htm I should get some work done now. Mel
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: [E36M3] Turbos (was aw geez.) - from Robert Liu
Top
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:06:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Liu <bob_a_liu@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Turbos (was aw geez.) Has anyone tried Corky Bell's turbo for the M3? http://www.cartech.net/BMWM3Turbo.html The only issue I have with his kit is the fueling using the FPR. But, combine this kit with a good standalone ECU... I have his turbo kit for my miata (w/ a TEC2), and it has been VERY trouble free. My car recently put out 290 rwhp / 288 ft-lbs torque on a relatively small T28 turbo. The key to turbo's is tuning. I don't like the aftermarket companies who are selling pre-programmed chips. It's much more effective to get a programmable system. I know the average consumer doesn't want to program their ECU, but if you want a turbo M3, you probably aren't the average consumer. Bob --- Matt Henson <hensonator@yahoo.com> wrote: > Now, with all of that said, there > really aren't any decent turbo kits available (at > least not for a reasonable price) so all of my > arguments are really just academic. > -Matt ===== ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Liu bob_a_liu@yahoo.com ICQ# 22765210 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. RE: [E36M3] Turbos (was aw geez.) - from Mel Silva
Top
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:07:35 -0500 From: "Mel Silva" <melsilva@mindspring.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Turbos (was aw geez.) Does anyone know why Corky Bell abandoned the Turbo M3 project? Again, more academia since I won't be buying a turbo anytime soon. Mel : Now, with all of that said, there really aren't any decent turbo kits available (at least not for a reasonable price) so all of my arguments are really just academic. -Matt __________________________________________________
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: Turbos (was aw geez.) - from Jason Jensen
Top
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:10:25 -0400 From: "Jason Jensen" <jasonjensen75@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Turbos (was aw geez.) Yes they are expensive, yes they are difficult to tune, but I was responding to the cost effective turbo comment. If someone could come out w/ a Turbo kit that was as cheap, well engineered, reliable, and, and, and, and well pigs just might fly out of my arse. So anyway, just a dream I have..:) J >From: "Dorffer, Rich" <RDORFFER@CleIndians.com> >To: "E36M3" <e36m3@bmw-m.net> >CC: "Jason Jensen" <jasonjensen75@hotmail.com>, <scott@ditherdog.com> >Subject: Turbos (was aw geez.) >Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:03:01 -0400 > >I must be in the minority here but I am not sure why there is always so >much fascination with turbo charging E36 M3s. It seems to me that it has >widely been proven that many BMW motors are not good candidates for >boosting to traditional turbo levels. The cost of a decent system is >pretty high and there are always so many issues with proper tuning and >reliability. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: [E36M3] Turbos (was aw geez.) - from Sue Kraft
Top
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:20:16 -0500 From: Sue Kraft <suekraft@new.rr.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Turbos (was aw geez.) I have to add that the motor on the M5 has been highly modified, partly to accommodate the turbo. Not sure what the stock compression is on an '88 M5, but according to Dinan, the compression is now 7.6:1, which allows for 15 lbs of boost with no problems. The compression on my '97 M3 was 10.5:1, which made it a challenge to even get 5 lbs of boost without some misfiring or early detonation problems. There is a world of difference between the MechTech turbo I had on my M3 and the Dinan turbo setup on the M5. At the point where the turbocharged M3 was running out of power, the M5 is just starting to cook. I think there is a lot of truth to what Rich is saying. After the experience of trying to turbocharge my own M3, and now driving the M5, I'm not sure I would recommend forced induction on the M3 unless you are prepared to do some extensive modifications. I've been in a few Dinan supercharged M3s, and if set up right, those aren't too bad, but still nothing like the M5. If I still owned my M3 and had it to do over again, I would go with the cam/intake kits that are now offered for the M3 instead of forced induction. Anyway, this is just my opinion based on my own experience. As always, YMMV. Suzy "Dorffer, Rich" wrote: > Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:03:01 -0400 > From: "Dorffer, Rich" <RDORFFER@CleIndians.com> > Subject: Turbos (was aw geez.) > > I must be in the minority here but I am not sure why there is always so much fascination with turbo charging E36 M3s. It seems to me that it has widely been proven that many BMW motors are not good candidates for boosting to traditional turbo levels. The cost of a decent system is pretty high and there are always so many issues with proper tuning and reliability. > > Don't get me wrong, turbos can be great and really have their positive attributes on certain motors, especially those motors that were designed for them from the start. BMW motors, particularly the M motors, just weren't designed with turbos in mind and since the motors are such efficient, normally aspirated design (i.e., power output versus gas usage and emissions), aftermarket turbos generally don't work as well as most would like. I think if someone is interested in adding a turbo(s) to their car, an M3 is a pretty poor platform to begin with. > > Anyway, I wish Suzy and her Turbo M5 all the best. Suzy is certainly familiar with BMWs and turbos so she knows what she is in for. Glad to here her first impressions met or exceeded her expectations. > > Best regards, > > Rich
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: [E36M3] M5 - from Neil Maller
Top
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:43:38 -0500 From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M5 on 7/10/02 5:58 PM, Sue Kraft <suekraft@new.rr.com> wrote: > Very nice, super clean and scary fast. Almost too fast, if that's possible. Hah! Wait until you drive it in winter. Which would be, what, 9 months of the year where you live? Neil 96 M3
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Dr. Gas Exhaust - from RFKoby@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:48:09 -0400 From: RFKoby@aol.com Subject: Dr. Gas Exhaust Hello everyone, some of you know already, and some don't.... I have been working on this type of exhaust for several years. The Dr. Gas crossover is not the only source. Visit the following websites: www.drgas.com www.burnsstainless.com www.dynatechheaders.com The orginal project was to develop a 6-into-1 F1 style header. Because of the complexity, time, money, and space constraints, I changed this into using other 3-into-1 collectors, with this style crossover. After 3 years of research, and seeing the setup on the BMW LMR V12, the easier route is the 3-into-1 (2 sets) with a crossover. The main point here is picking the correct primary runner lengths, and also the location of the crossover. The idea is to get cross scavenging to help the engine breath!!! Also, the correct runner lengths will make the system "resonant" over a given rpm range. With these factors helping to the engine to breath during valve overlap, more exhaust is pulled out, back pressure is reduce (it is actually negative at overlap) and more intake charge is pulled in. The trick is picking the correct runner length / location and rpm band to get the most out of the torque curve.Most people are way off when it comes to calculating the length and location. I tested my system at Putnam this spring. It was a 2-into-1 collector, with the correct length, placement, and "funnel" to maintain the proper exhaust gas velocity. The collector merged and expanded to a 3" exhaust thru a race muffler with an oval tail section. Not that many people actually saw the exhaust, or paid any attention to it because of the crappy weather during the spring Putnam school... You will see and hear it again, soon!!! The exhaust works so well, that I actually lost power because the motor was leaning out. The DME could not compensate enough. Once I get the fuel curve adjusted for the additional flow, there will substantail gains....... more results to follow.... bob