I'm sorry if this topic has been made before. I'm not very good with the search and the only things that came up were turbo flares and such. If there was a threwad on this, mods feel free to delete.

I have a 2002 with an m10 with only 90k miles. I was wondering if it was possible to turbo it, and what supporting modifications would be required. Also, an estimated price and links to reccomend products would be fantastic.

Once again, if this thread is a repeat, please delete. Thank you.

Is it carbed or fuel injection?

Should have mentioned that, my fault.

It has the original Solex carb.

No Problem. Im not sure that carb would even work. Regardless, turboing with carbs is usually not worth it. You could probably do an engine swap and get reliabale horsepower for the same cost as getting a real running turbo setup. I know with dual sidedrafts, turboing involves boxing in the carbs to keep them pressurized(I think?), and is far less reliable and effective then a fuel injection setup. Buy the turboing book buy Corky Bell(there is one on supercharging as well), its full of a lot of good info, and if I remember correctly has a section on turboing with carbs. As far as supercharging goes(even though u didn't ask about it), the 2002 prepped for the Grassroots Magazine Challenge from maybe 2 year ago used a completely borrowed setup from another car. It bolted up to the m10 you have now, and still successfully utilized a carb, albeit a holley truck carb. Ill see if I can dig up some more info.

Here are some threads

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=356452&highlight=m10+turbo
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=312394&highlight=m10+turbo

try searching advanced in 2002 forum for m10 turbo and you'll get a bunch

Thanks alot. Superchargin sounds alot easier. Also, what are the main differences between supercharging and turboing besides their actualy means of increasing compression. I mean like how the effect powerbands and such. THanks.

If I'm correct, Turbo chargers have a delay before spooling up to usable power usually (lag time) whereas superchargers don't. Also though turbo chargers make more in the end.

turobs use the exhaust velocity to power the turbo that forced induction. So you have to have a certain RPM for the turbo to kick in (the lag). Super charging uses other means to force induction.

Of course I say that having never seen either in an m10 but thats how I understand it ;)

Well you can do what I did and get a complete cyl head and efi system from a 1985 318i, then decide to build your own highflow multi throttlebody intake mainfold and use a motech programmable ecu which renders everything i bought from the 318i useless... :mad

all you need is a decent efi system, a modest turbo, a good turbo manifold, and a piggyback fuel/air control sysem from like..apexi

plus, if anyone wants to buy the complete 1985 318i efi system(minus ecu) and rebuildable head and/or a brand new unmounted Holset HX25 turbo, pm me :)

EDIT: this LINK (http://home.att.net/~jroal/jay/bmw.htm) will probably give you all the info you want on how to fab a home-made turbo...its basically the same motor you have(slightly higher compression than your car, but that means you can run slightly higher boost) with the 318i efi system. :buttrock

I have designed and fabricated both a supercharger system and turbocharging setup for my 2002. The biggest difference in these two forced induction methods is that a supercharger (centrifugal or whipple) is driven by the crankshaft pulley and turbocharging utilizes exhaust energy. Neither system gives you anything for free, however turbocharging is definitely more efficient from a purely thermodynamic perspective when considering conservation of energy principles.

Don't believe all the negative hooplah regarding turbo lag. If you do your research and size the turbo properly lag can be kept to a minimum. One thing everyone fails to consider is that without a turbo (normally aspirated) you have nothing but lag!

I am a turbocharging proponent after experiencing both alternatives first hand. Driving a supercharger off the crankshaft consumes a good percentage of the energy that you are trying to create. Supercharging also has total boost limitations due to belt slippage.

Turbochargers require proper lubrication and in my opinion should be water cooled as well for optimum reliability for street use. By implementing both a wastegate and bypass valve boost can be very accurately regulated with a turbo.

Finally, I feel strongly that a charge cooler is a must for either forced induction alternative. Due to space limitations I opted for air/liquid intercooling which is slightly more complex but offers some adiabatic benefits.

In general I would state that you could fabricate and install a supercharging system at lower cost because the supercharger will not require any specialized exhaust system mods. Although an S/C engine would benefit from a perfromance exhaust it is not an absolute requirement. Turbos do not like back pressure after the turbine and the better flowing exhaust path the better.

I hope some of my babble helps you with your quest for information. I have included photos of both setups installed in my 2002. BTW, with the identical short block (i.e.displacement motor/head/cam combo) the SC made 190 rwhp while the current turbo generates over 260 rwhp. The supercharged engine could not sustain more than 11.5 psi due to belt slippage while the turbo is currently restricted to 15 psi and has potential to make significantly higher boost and power.

I have designed and fabricated both a supercharger system and turbocharging setup for my 2002. The biggest difference in these two forced induction methods is that a supercharger (centrifugal or whipple) is driven by the crankshaft pulley and turbocharging utilizes exhaust energy. Neither system gives you anything for free, however turbocharging is definitely more efficient from a purely thermodynamic perspective when considering conservation of energy principles.

Don't believe all the negative hooplah regarding turbo lag. If you do your research and size the turbo properly lag can be kept to a minimum. One thing everyone fails to consider is that without a turbo (normally aspirated) you have nothing but lag!

I am a turbocharging proponent after experiencing both alternatives first hand. Driving a supercharger off the crankshaft consumes a good percentage of the energy that you are trying to create. Supercharging also has total boost limitations due to belt slippage.

Turbochargers require proper lubrication and in my opinion should be water cooled as well for optimum reliability for street use. By implementing both a wastegate and bypass valve boost can be very accurately regulated with a turbo.

Finally, I feel strongly that a charge cooler is a must for either forced induction alternative. Due to space limitations I opted for air/liquid intercooling which is slightly more complex but offers some adiabatic benefits.

In general I would state that you could fabricate and install a supercharging system at lower cost because the supercharger will not require any specialized exhaust system mods. Although an S/C engine would benefit from a perfromance exhaust it is not an absolute requirement. Turbos do not like back pressure after the turbine and the better flowing exhaust path the better.

I hope some of my babble helps you with your quest for information. I have included photos of both setups installed in my 2002. BTW, with the identical short block (i.e.displacement motor/head/cam combo) the SC made 190 rwhp while the current turbo generates over 260 rwhp. The supercharged engine could not sustain more than 11.5 psi due to belt slippage while the turbo is currently restricted to 15 psi and has potential to make significantly higher boost and power.

WOW!

That engine bay, and everything in it, is a work of art. I'd sure love to see pics of the whole car sometime (did a search on your username, didn't find any, but if I overlooked them just let me know).

I'd really love to read the story of the build-up on that turbo. Really, really nice work.

all you need is a decent efi system, a modest turbo, a good turbo manifold, and a piggyback fuel/air control sysem from like..apexi


I would just get a programmable ECU and skip the piggy backs since you would also be able to adjust ignition timing as well.

BTW, does anyone know if someone has already utilized the Eaton blower found on late 80's T-Birds? I was looking into this. Either that or the Eaton blower found on the C230 Compressors which would seem like a good size match for our engines.

BTW kpolito99, how was the daily driveability characteristics between both setups? What did you use for engine management?

I have a video somewhere of a racing group running like ~20psi os something on a 2002. It's CRAZY fast.

I have a video somewhere of a racing group running like ~20psi os something on a 2002. It's CRAZY fast.

I should hope so with 20psi of boost. :buttrock

And 2072 stock body weight. :redspot Post it!

:redspot :buttrock :redspot :buttrock :alright :lol

Lupin3 & Alpine003,

Sorry to be responding so late. I have been absolutely swamped with traveling for work and this forum stuff kind of takes a back seat to paying the bills.

Driveability was/is excellent with both setups. I really feel bad about having diassembled the supercharger because I think everyone is incredulous and I am having a hard time finding a good home for the parts. I have recently offered to build a motor and install the supercharger on a some guys engine and hopefully that make my development effort seem worthwhile.

Everyone who drove the SC powered car was shocked how early boost came on and how linear the power delivery felt. Personally, I like the smack in the ass presented by the turbo. Although driving on wet roads requires much more caution. The turbo car is soooo much fun to drift once you get used to it.

I am using a Haltech fuel delivery system with Jacobs ignition. I had several MSD6 BTM ignitions fail on me and being an engineer, it made sense to try out an ignition system developed by an electronics engineer with a PHD moonlighting as a motorhead.

If my schedule permits I will be getting on the chassis dyno soon and dialing up a little more boost. The turbo is surprisingly responsive and I encourage everyone to do your own math and forget the bullshit complaints about turbo lag. Sure if you go crazy and really mismatch a large turbo with an anemic engine you are going to experience poor performance.

Finally, my car was painted Alpine white with motorsport stripes for about 15 years and recently I recolored her Estoril blue. Attached are two images one in each paint scheme. Once agina sorry for being out of touch, pm me if you have any additonal questions, pm are forwarded to my work email.

Kurt

Nice ride. :buttrock Although I'm partial to white. ;) I really like the blacked out effect on the car which is how mine is set up. Not one ounce of chrome on mine and has been blacked out instead. I think it makes it look more aggressive and less classy.

Please keep us updated on any new info. I was actually surprised that you went with Jacobs, considering their ads seem more like hype than engineering. I find some of their claims on those ads a bit on the optimistic side.

Nice ride. :buttrock Although I'm partial to white. ;) I really like the blacked out effect on the car which is how mine is set up. Not one ounce of chrome on mine and has been blacked out instead.

Your taillight trim is chrome.

Your taillight trim is chrome.

Haha, not anymore. ;)

Alpine-

Thanks for the kudos, I concur that blacked out definitely looks much better. I powdercoated all the trim after having the chrome deplated. The only parts that I had to paint were the front turn signal frames as the lenses cannot be R&R.

Well, after two MSD's blew up on me in about 6 months time I was pretty fed up. I read a book written by Jacobs and since installing his 65,000 V Ultra team ignition with boost timing control I have had no further ignition issues. Everyone hypes there shit, I just had a bad experience with MSD.

later