S54 Diaphragm Springs and Exhaust Hub

[sapote]

I milled the holes for a slight interference fit so you have to lightly pry the disc off the hub tabs..

Interesting about the extra smaller holes. This can cause assembly problem with the vanos housing mounted on the head with the two dowel pins (sleeves) as machining tolerance built up from many component, leading to the disk holes slightly off from the hub tabs. This is why the OE hub tabs have chamfer at the leading edges. Bolting down the vanos could crack the hub tabs. I drilled the new holes with about 0.002" larger than the tabs.

[maupineda]

I'm confused:
He said:

1. a thicker wall and tabs
2. The Beisan hub tabs are the same width as the BMW hub tabs.
3.increased width of the Beisan hub tabs

In (2) he said the tabs have the same width, but in (3) he said the tab width was increased. Can someone verify that the tabs have thicker wall, or wider width?

https://nam3forum.com/forums/forum/main-forum/e46-2001-2006/604-beisan-s54-exhaust-sprocket-hub-solution/page4#post273994

You are getting hung up on the semantics. The tabs are thicker, but not wider, wide in this context means the diameter of the base circle of the tabs, or better said, posts, that drive the disc. The thickness comes from the draft angle. VAC milled the hub with straight walls as shown in my photos which result in thicker posts, further still the base circle of the posts or tabs are larger resulting on the same as if you redrilled the disc with smaller holes. So either solution is effective.

the thought that you can use the Beisan hub with OE disc is supported by the added thickness, despite the unwanted slack remains, the Beisan hub would be less prone to fracture due to the thicker posts.

can be confusing but is pretty straightforward. Just look at the photos.

[maupineda]

Put the car back together. I had no issues setting the timing. I also changed the tensioner and adjusted about 4 valves on the intake side that needed reset.

I need to drive the car and will run the VANOS test.

the fit of the VAC hub is on point, same as OE really. And it solves the clearance issue just as well as redrillig.

[maupineda]

As they say, the proof is in the puddin. the S62 do slow down adjsutment time.

Results are as follows

Camshaft Positioning
Advance Exhaust 128DEG
Retard Exhaust 80DEG
Advance Intake 70DEG
Retard Intake 130 DEG

Exhust Adjustment
Early adjustment: 195
Late adjustment: 293

Intake Adjustment
Early adjustment: 196
Late adjustment: 195

Leak test came at 2DEG for both camshafts.

As you can see, timings are much better with the S54 diaphragm springs, with the S62, i would always have 290ms as indicated in my original post.

S54 Diaphgram Springs




S62 Diaphgram Springs

[maupineda]

In all honesty, the extra 100ms is probably imperceptible during normal driving, I mean, 100ms is not much, but at least we know it can be significant in relative terms (50% slower).

[George Hill]

Can you give us a quick synopsis of all the what was changed and any additional work done?

• Springs
• VAC Hub
• Replaced anything else?

Thanks for detailing all of this!

[maupineda]

Springs and Hub.

[Slideways]

IIRC, new VANOS unit as well?

[George Hill]

Another data point. Its not a complete apples to apples comparison but I was thinking about this and did some extra testing on a car I just addressed the Vanos on. The car had 108k on it and looks like the Vanos has not been touched other than a solenoid pack years ago.

On this car the highlights are:
Beisan seal kit
Beisan oil pump disk
S62 diaphragm springs
No rattle kit, splines are original

I checked the oil pressure before and it was roughly 105bar, after all the work the oil pressure was still roughly 105bar.

Note, I always perform the vanos test after and this car is lower than I usually see, the only notable difference is that I did not do the rattle kit. I wonder if I (and others) are running the splines a little tight and that shows up with in the Vanos operating times as well? BUT I have checked my personal car that had all of the Vanos stuff done years ago and its adjustment times are much lower now than original once everything "broke in." I'll see this car again and when I do I'll retest the Vanos and see what happens over time.

Here's the before:








Here's the after with 0 miles:

[maupineda]

IIRC, new VANOS unit as well?

I totally missed to reply. Yes I replaced the unit, but I am sure that is not a factor as both units I had tested before had 100+ bar pressure, leak test was within 1-2 timing deviation.

Interestingly enough, even when I had low pressure issues (45bar) I would still see 300ms adjust times. I initially thought this was due to pressure, but I would get the same values even with 100+ bar which was confusing to me. I do not have the data points as I did not save those runs in ISTA. so you will need to take my word for it. also to note is that my car is a Z4M with a different engine management system.

But per my previous posts here, we know those S62 have almost double the preload torque, which I am not convinced is good.

[sapote]

On this car the highlights are:
Beisan seal kit
Beisan oil pump disk
S62 diaphragm springs
No rattle kit, splines are original

I checked the oil pressure before and it was roughly 105bar, after all the work the oil pressure was still roughly 105bar.

Note, I always perform the vanos test after and this car is lower than I usually see, the only notable difference is that I did not do the rattle kit. I wonder if I (and others) are running the splines a little tight and that shows up with in the Vanos operating times as well?

New pump disk but old stock 4 pistons? Just wonder how well they're matched.
I don't think the traveling times will be affected by rattle kid or not as the roller bearings have no effect on the splined shafts fore/aft motion.
On running the splines a little tight, I don't think we can control or adjust this tightness. How do you change the tightness?

On the running times:
Before: it's interesting that the retard time is longer than advance time as I expect retard time should be faster as it takes less force to retard with engine engine.
After: retard time is faster than advance and this makes more sense.

[bigjae46]

Interesting. Not sure why I installed the S62 springs since it they are just to reduce a rattle noise. I might have to put the S54 springs back in whenever I'm in there next. Should be never since I "bulletproofed" it...unless I put in cams.

[0-60motorsports]

Interesting. Not sure why I installed the S62 springs since it they are just to reduce a rattle noise. I might have to put the S54 springs back in whenever I'm in there next. Should be never since I "bulletproofed" it...unless I put in cams.

Same here, dont care about the springs to be honest the cars been working fine for years.

[George Hill]

Here's another one:
The car had 55k on it and looks like the Vanos has not been touched.

On this car the highlights are:
Beisan seal kit
Beisan oil pump disk
S62 diaphragm springs
No rattle kit, splines are original

I checked the oil pressure before and it was between 95-100bar, after all the work the oil pressure was still roughly the same (maybe a bar lower)

Here's the before:





And after:

[sapote]

Here's another one:
The car had 55k on it and looks like the Vanos has not been touched.

On this car the highlights are:
Beisan seal kit
Beisan oil pump disk
S62 diaphragm springs
No rattle kit, splines are original

[/URL]

It's clearly the vanos moving time before is less than after.
Before average = 240 IN, 211 EX
AFter average 260 IN and 245 EX

Also I wonder why the EX total travel is about 48 deg instead of 45 as spec?