S54 Stroker build

[jbfrancis3]

Hasan is making 382 whp with 280/272's on pump gas. E85 would bump those numbers up a smidge. So it's very possible with the right tuning and conditions.

You're thinking too hard at this lol. It's already been done. There's another car in Florida making 394 whp on E85 with the same cam setup albeit with a built head, I believe Lang did his head.

I recently learned about Hassan's instagram. hte_performance-tuning. Of course, now it comes up frequently since I looked once. Such is social media.

Anyway, the most recent post of his discusses light modifications and quotes 355whp. Anyone may look at the details if they choose. I know he is member here and a good contributor.

I would just be careful quoting these one-sie / two-sie cases as if other owners can reliably achieve the same results.

[digger]

Hi,

Man could you please explain to me how on earth you can achieved 400RWHP
out of as you call it "Mild" build with 280/272 cams and E85 ?

If we talk say Dyno-Jet I do consider 13.5-14% drive train loss absolute no more
than that but that is my personal tests I have done. So based on this drive train loss
you are saying that your suggestion will make 468hp at the crank.

Fuck, I wander were BMW Motorsport GmbH went all wrong back in 2001 with their
race engine which target is to survive the given race and that is it, and they never ever
made more than 435-450hp. at the crank..and that is all out P54 engine which means its
race engine and the European measuring tape for HP is DIN not SAE. 141hp per liter DIN.

468hp SAE crank is 146hp per liter...So if convert to DIN this will be legit a tad under 150hp
per liter.

So if you were to build all out S54 engine what would be estimate power 500-550hp crank ?
which is 156hp per liter ?

BMEP on S54 for the given displacement and RPM's will never allow to produce this
level of power ever put on E85. If we put M5+Nitro sure it can make 600hp no problem.

To produce power out of small displacement we need RPM's. Back in 92's those V6
engines were producing nearly 420hp crank out of 2.5 per regs. but ~12000rpm.


This is exactly how people are screwed and fooled. One needs to approach this more
logical rather than "Bro my stock S54 tune by XXX makes 350 wheel dude" let me give
you a ride...

Serious Race engine builds are rated at the Engine Dyno never on chassis dyno...and
with (BMEP) in mind !!!

Regards,
Anri

Everyone is not using the same ruler to measure by, even on the chassis dyno there is a fairly big disparity between dynojet, dyno dynamics and dynocom in terms of the power and torque numbers.

It is probably not a coincidence that most of the big numbers come from the dynocom dyno....there are many instances of comparisons where it produces significantly higher numbers. Personally i rate dynojet as a fairly consistent benchmark and put more weight in numbers from those over some others from a relative standpoint.

It is a can of worms trying to back calc flywheel numbers. One thing for sure is you cant use a fixed %. A stock vehicle might lose 15% but with power mods the absolute hp losses will be fairly unchanged so the % could drop to 10% at peak hp and lower at the peak torque rpm. Its best not to worry about it. Often the factory race engines have a rule set and endurance level with which they need to abide by so its not open slather so these should not be taken as hard limits.

the way to evaluate BS claims is in torque per liter. 460bhp at 8500rpm is still within plausible levels for a NA 4V engine, maybe not the engine spec in question but there are some factory engines that actually produce numbers in the ballpark from Ferrari and the like

[Anri]

Everyone is not using the same ruler to measure

Hi Digger,

The way I approach all of this is more constructive rather than unclear
represented numbers.

Based on your comment there are various rulers and you are spot on,
one of the many rulers is bellow.

20years ago when Dinan was upgrading the E34M5 and S38 engines
his advert was his eprom chip will make your S38-B36 351hp crank.

20 years later still people are believing that their E34M5 3.5 makes
351crank hp.

I was also into this special representation trap up until I took so many S38
engines to a Dyno-Jet and non made 351crank-14%=302rwhp.
No E34M5 3.5 ever was able to make 302rwhp dyno-jet measured, period.
You never ever ever see E34M5 3.5 which makes anything over 270rwhp
on a Dyno-Jet with comes to about 311hp

On my S38 3.5 with large cams intake and hi flow exhaust system I reached
305.5rwhp on a stock engine just cams upgrade.

So were are those promised 351hp as advertised from only Eprom Chip for
200 bucks ?

Here is how he calculates the power. Thru the rev range the power is gained
5hp here 2hp there and at pass 6000rpm the graph is showing no gain of
single hp at were the 110/110 cam timing is set on 3.5 the pick power
never changed at 6900rpm and 7250rpm is the rev limiter, again were is the
351crank hp power from ?

Ahaa, so he takes the micro gain here and there and he combines that number
as sum of 41hp. Then he takes this 41hp gain and adds them on top of the Factory
power of 310-311 SAE Crank HP as a gain and this is how he calculates the
gains for 200 bucks.

This is how the numbers are presented to public as 351 SAE crank HP.

BMW MS when they made the final version of S38-B38 they made so many revisions
on the head, valves, 50mm itb, 0.5CR is raised, list goes all the way down to installing Metallic
Cats in order to reduce back pressure and with all of that they achieved only 340hp DIN ?
Were did they go all wrong ?

When I build S38 for a customer I never represent the HP gain numbers in this way
because I will be embarrassed.

Anyway, as we can all see out there are a lot of people with hi level of requirements
and expectations.

Regards,
Anri

[jbfrancis3]

Ahaa, so he takes the micro gain here and there and he combines that number
as sum of 41hp. Then he takes this 41hp gain and adds them on top of the Factory
power of 310-311 SAE Crank HP as a gain and this is how he calculates the
gains for 200 bucks.

This is how the numbers are presented to public as 351 SAE crank HP.

That's simply fraudulent, except that's much too strong a word in a world where there is little enforcement and the consequences are far from life-threatening. But if that marketing creativity were applied in another more critical industry, it would be fraudulent. That aside, we have seen in the last 20 yrs that better communication has allowed more transparency and push-back to these tactics in our world, decreasing their frequency considerably. I like to hear to the stories, though!

Back on topic somewhat, I recommend that the OP and whomever else inclined watch a recent Engineering Explained video. Set aside any preconceptions you may have about the host, qualifications, or whatever may be a first reaction to dismiss it. The video touches on how to box in the goals and expectations for the OP. It covers many themes which have been debated in this thread.

First 1/3 of video: shows the long math, its skippable it needed
Second 1/3 of video: shows how expectations can be boxed in for OP
Final 1/3 of video: covers notion of raising RPM to achieve horsepower

Take a look

https://youtu.be/bE_1JYrlYYU

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE_1JYrlYYU&feature=share

[ethan]

CSL BMEP = 4π(370.1383Nm) / (3.246L * 100) = 14.33. Pretty impressive given that it's an I6 so it has to have small pistons and long stroke. HP/liter is a better number for the S54 of course...

[M/Anthony]

I just got in contact with Chris Fletcher, I will end up giving him a call this weekend.

[jbfrancis3]

CSL BMEP = 4π(370.1383Nm) / (3.246L * 100) = 14.33. Pretty impressive given that it's an I6 so it has to have small pistons and long stroke. HP/liter is a better number for the S54 of course...

Are 355Nm and 365Nm correct torques figures for the US/CAN M3 and Rest of World M3, respectively? If so, that's 13.47 and 14.13.

[jbfrancis3]

I just got in contact with Chris Fletcher, I will end up giving him a call this weekend.

Does this increase risk of project becoming unattainable?

On the other hand, there may a temporary dynamic shift in your favor caused by the pandemic.

[M/Anthony]

Does this increase risk of project becoming unattainable?

On the other hand, there may a temporary dynamic shift in your favor caused by the pandemic.

well see what he says and what his opinions are, if he is good for the price and the build then I will go with him, I am already leaning towards him

[M/Anthony]

I still want to throw out ideas and get ballaprk figures , if I were to go higher compression with some E85, 13:1, built head, inconel and stainless valves nad pair that with high lift big duration camshafts and a 87.5mm bore, whats the torque loooking like, Itl would be paired to a 3.91/3.84 diff

[M/Anthony]

Anopther build idea: 14mm 288/280 inconel valves, stainless steel intake valves, port and polish, 12:5:1 compression, 87.5mm bore, E85, ported Throttle bodies, 3.4L, 8300rpm max, 3.84 diff

[M/Anthony]

Also high vs regular lift camshafts (12.5mm)

[mrgizmo04]

In one of previous 40 build ideas you wanted to go with aggressive cams but retain vanos. Any reason why keep vanos? If you are basically building a racecar motor for highest NA power (after you find the right balance between 12k rpm, 100mm stroke and 14 compression).

[Tbonem3]

Y'all ninjas postin in a troll thread

[mrgizmo04]

Was that Jared again, this time calling himself Anthony?