Thought many would want to see this:

Here is a motor we have just put together for a race customer. This motor was not built for MAX HP, but for longevity and reliability. It is still a big power motor though!

http://www.evosport.com/public/dynos/evo_s54_race2.jpg (www.evosport.com)

This is on a dynojet 248c

Stage 3 adds a complete head with race cams and a larger header.

Thanks
Brad

Mmmm, sounds like the motor that will be going in my car :) Awesome.

I will take one. :buttrock

dyno curve looks good...does it have VANOS?

What kinda power do u think a 3.4L could do?

Why use Unleaded 104? are u using an 02 sensor? why not go with 110?

dyno curve looks good...does it have VANOS?

What kinda power do u think a 3.4L could do?

Why use Unleaded 104? are u using an 02 sensor? why not go with 110?

Vanos removed.

More than 3.2L with similar specs and proper tuning.

Yes, two o2 sensors I believe (each header bank).

110 vs 104...if its tuned for 104 it'll make more power than if it was running 110 and not tuned for it. Higher octane rating does not mean more trq. And if 104 is the most accessible, makes things a lot easier. These are NA motors remember, does not need that crazy knocking protection a turbo motor might need from going higher octane.

Also notice the smoothing factor is at Zero, thats what you want to see on a dyno sheet. if you see 5 its trying to fudge/.cover up some poor tunig spots ;)

A/F looks pretty good, if it was being tuned more aggressively, it could probably go a tad leaner for some more peak power, but it'll cut down engine life and reliability. Thats more than enough power to win CM if you have the handling to boot. Watts was running very close laptimes to Chuck this weekend, and he has a lot less power (prob 60whp+ less). PLus the Dm 2.9L guys were showing very fast times, asher particularly. And Munro's cars were probably the fastest cars there all weekend, but the fastest drivers were not in it unfortunately, however Munro did pretty well.

dyno curve looks good...does it have VANOS?

What kinda power do u think a 3.4L could do?

Why use Unleaded 104? are u using an 02 sensor? why not go with 110?

Steve did a pretty good job answering.

Yes, Vanos is off, cams are locked. You see even with them locked, plenty of rev range to work with.

We are building a 3.4 for another customer currently. Dyno charts will be shown. The 3.4L is only 2K more then the 3.2L, so it is a no-brainer IMHO.

We have ALL the cars running the same fuel. JS, IP, HP, CM, etc. all run Sunoco GT104. Makes life easier!

The AEM used both o2's with real time feedback to keep the car tunned to this map (these a/f's) regardless of air temp, pressure, elevation, etc.

Thanks
Brad

Once the car is running, i'd like to get a hold of a 5gas analyzer and do some controlled load dyno tuning for a day, cover a couple throttle positions and see how it does. Driveability is most important for me. I want to be able to know exactly how the motor is going to respond at each position my foot is at, this way you can get on the power a lot smoother and quicker.

The graph above looks extremely close to this type of tuning I want to do, I can't wait (although i'll have to wait, too long....).

With all those cars, nice to standardize on one fuel.

The reason why I asked on the fuel, is 110 leaded seems easier to find at the track....and the 100 octane unleaded can have ethanol these days. I'm sure the 104 does not have ethanol.

Do you know if it has MTBE as octane enhancer? MTBE does add octane but has lower BTU count. I've read that wide band 02sensors have 50hr life with leaded fuel.

Hot Rod magazine did an octane test a few years ago and found that 110 made better power than 100 on a Mopar V8 and needed less timing. http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/fuel_octane_rating_comparison/index.html

When u say 2K more for a 3.4L. Does that mean a longer crank (I think it's a 95mm crank instead of 91mm) costs $2K?.





Steve did a pretty good job answering.

Yes, Vanos is off, cams are locked. You see even with them locked, plenty of rev range to work with.

We are building a 3.4 for another customer currently. Dyno charts will be shown. The 3.4L is only 2K more then the 3.2L, so it is a no-brainer IMHO.

We have ALL the cars running the same fuel. JS, IP, HP, CM, etc. all run Sunoco GT104. Makes life easier!

The AEM used both o2's with real time feedback to keep the car tunned to this map (these a/f's) regardless of air temp, pressure, elevation, etc.

Thanks
Brad

Yes, the crank adds 2K to the parts bill.

Thanks,
Brad

that's a pretty good price for a crank!!!

no, it ADDS 2K to the crank mods in the 3.2L. The crank is not 2K alone.

Thanks
brad

no, it ADDS 2K to the crank mods in the 3.2L. The crank is not 2K alone.

Thanks
brad


so does that mean you are doing an offset grind of the stock crank to get the extra stroke? PTG told me they did this, but 4mm is a lot of stroke to make up without going to a custom rod bearing or welding on new material to the crank.

With all those cars, nice to standardize on one fuel.

The reason why I asked on the fuel, is 110 leaded seems easier to find at the track....and the 100 octane unleaded can have ethanol these days. I'm sure the 104 does not have ethanol.



This is direct from the Sunoco GT Produc Info Sheet, "Sunoco GT PLUS contains ethanol as the oxygen carrier."

There was a dispute at FSAE this year from Cornell as they had an engine failure and blamed it on Sunoco for having too much ethonal content.
And some more data, some of which I don't understand, but someone here probably can specify (MechE not ChemE lol)

Definitely have to be careful these days.

SUNOCO GT PLUS TYPICAL INSPECTION TESTS
Property Units Method Typical Figure
Density at 15C kg/litre ASTM 0.746
Reid Vapour Pressure (RVP) psi 6.3
Research Octane RON 109
Motor Octane MON 99
Lead g/l 0.001
Oxygen % m/m Elemental 3.5
Nitrogen % m/m Conforms
Peroxides and Nitrooxides ppm Conforms
Benzene % volume <1
Sulphur mg/kg ISO 8754 <5
Initial Boiling Point ºC 45
10% evaporation ºC 66
50% evaporation ºC 104
90% evaporation ºC 109
Final Boiling Point (FBP) °C 123
Colour Light Blue

I remember a coupla years ago a bunch of teams had issues with their fuel cells because of the ethanol.


This is direct from the Sunoco GT Produc Info Sheet, "Sunoco GT PLUS contains ethanol as the oxygen carrier."

There was a dispute at FSAE this year from Cornell as they had an engine failure and blamed it on Sunoco for having too much ethonal content.
And some more data, some of which I don't understand, but someone here probably can specify (MechE not ChemE lol)

Definitely have to be careful these days.

SUNOCO GT PLUS TYPICAL INSPECTION TESTS
Property Units Method Typical Figure
Density at 15C kg/litre ASTM 0.746
Reid Vapour Pressure (RVP) psi 6.3
Research Octane RON 109
Motor Octane MON 99
Lead g/l 0.001
Oxygen % m/m Elemental 3.5
Nitrogen % m/m Conforms
Peroxides and Nitrooxides ppm Conforms
Benzene % volume <1
Sulphur mg/kg ISO 8754 <5
Initial Boiling Point ºC 45
10% evaporation ºC 66
50% evaporation ºC 104
90% evaporation ºC 109
Final Boiling Point (FBP) °C 123
Colour Light Blue

Yea, they did a swap at alms race, the vette caught on fire, i think they blamed it on faulty install. Definitely can screw you up big time using the wrong fuels.

Yea, they did a swap at alms race, the vette caught on fire, i think they blamed it on faulty install. Definitely can screw you up big time using the wrong fuels.


yeah that was Dale Jr's BBQ, I think what happened was it was overfilled and there was gas in the filler neck when he impacted. it gushed out and hit the exhaust.

Thanks for posting the graph Brad, looks like very believable numbers to me! Tell me, why do you lock the Vanos off, when it is still running standard head and cams?

Thanks for posting the graph Brad, looks like very believable numbers to me! Tell me, why do you lock the Vanos off, when it is still running standard head and cams?

Well the stock head/cams is not the reason why it would not be blocked off.

Some SEM's can control Vanos, however for the rpm band we're dealing with in Clubracing on the S54, having Vanos enabled really does not benefit you much, its actually a potential risk of failure. Vanos units are a lot of electrical and misc components to rely on, and for really not having much performance benefit, it's a big risk to take inmho. Blocking off the vanos not only makes tuning easier, but once you get the cams locked in correctly, you have a super simple mechanism, and you also have quite a bit of weight loss up high in the engine bay. Pretty much a win-win in my book. There's a reason the pro GT level teams race with out. I believe in GAC GS some teams do use it, but thats different rules than a Mod class BMW racer, technically a Mod class car should be a lot faster than a gac GS car, and in GAC GS they have to get every 1/10th hp/trq to help move thier heavy ass cars around haha

Damn, that's a lot of juice.

Just curious, is the stock brain incapable of being tuned for those engine modifications, making the standalone necessary?

Damn, that's a lot of juice.

Just curious, is the stock brain incapable of being tuned for those engine modifications, making the standalone necessary?

Nothing is incapable, but as easily feasible/affordable/convenient as aem/motec/tec, No.

Again, as we have discussed hundreds of times before, these setups are simplistic reasons, as the stock computer is just not as convenient to tune what needs to be tuned. It takes a lot more time and is not as easily performed as with a system designed and built with this exact purpose.

Purpose built race components, makes things a lot easier. More of the stuff you need, less of the stuff you don't need, and less shit to worry about in the big picture.

That's big NA powa!
How big is the check one needs to write to get it?

If you have to ask. . .

j/k garrett

That's big NA powa!
How big is the check one needs to write to get it?

I probably should just keep my typing to myself on this one:D ...but when I had the S54 in my possession and considered my options for the build...

$20k-$25k is probably a good number to be thinking about spending.

I'm sure Brad or someone else can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong. It's possible that the costs have declined since I last attempted to price a package for the S54.

Ken

If you have to ask. . .

j/k garrett

Funny . . . but reality I suppose. :(

:D

I was told one CCA racer/builder had about $50k in his S54 . . .

Amazing stuff.

I probably should just keep my typing to myself on this one:D ...but when I had the S54 in my possession and considered my options for the build...

$20k-$25k is probably a good number to be thinking about spending.

I'm sure Brad or someone else can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong. It's possible that the costs have declined since I last attempted to price a package for the S54.

Ken

I dont know where you got 20-25k from for a motor like Brads, but that is absurd. The S54 that was built for my CMod car is basically identical w/ the addition of motorsport cams, KK headers, motorsport bearings, new bolts, re-ringed, fresh gaskets, Pauter rods etc.. Basically a GA build on steroids. Stickley did the build and its a little less than half what you were quoted. I can see it being 20-25 and even 50k if you go absolutely crazy with the motor like Chuck has but I dont see anybody doing that unless they can tear it down themselves and just pay for parts.

I was told one CCA racer/builder had about $50k in his S54 . . .

Amazing stuff.

Amazing, I think thats the wrong word lol :rolleyes

I dont know where you got 20-25k from for a motor like Brads, but that is absurd. The S54 that was built for my CMod car is basically identical w/ the addition of motorsport cams, KK headers, motorsport bearings, new bolts, re-ringed, fresh gaskets, Pauter rods etc.. Basically a GA build on steroids. Stickley did the build and its a little less than half what you were quoted. I can see it being 20-25 and even 50k if you go absolutely crazy with the motor like Chuck has but I dont see anybody doing that unless they can tear it down themselves and just pay for parts.

Well, it depends on what you are including in the price, and who is doing your work.

Drysump adds $5k, and I would not run an S54 without Drysump (and either would any other professional team apparently lol).

You then have all your misc stuff for the fuel supply, engine management, oiling system, cooling, etc. You can get to $25k pretty quick.

But the motor itself, just the piston, rods, assembly, blueprint/balance, thats not much.

But add in a $2k clutch flywheel, all your fluids, $20k is about the min if you build an S54 race motor including all the essentials and bolt ons. Also have the Intake, and exhuast, any labor you encounter along the way, misc filters and breathers, braided lines/connectors add up quick...if done RIGHT it will be expensive. Don't forget tuning, thats another $500-1k. Racing is expensive, no way around it :(

If done cheap, well, we all know what happens when you go cheap on an S54...it goes kaboom :) Then you end up spending a LOT more than you would have if you did it right the first time.

I'm sure the time Chuck has put into his motor in labor is way up there, but thats his own time, so you can't really factor that in, if that were the case my e46 m3 would be worth $100k+ when i am done ;)

DIZZZAAMMMM!!! I want one! How much?

I dont know where you got 20-25k from for a motor like Brads, but that is absurd. The S54 that was built for my CMod car is basically identical w/ the addition of motorsport cams, KK headers, motorsport bearings, new bolts, re-ringed, fresh gaskets, Pauter rods etc.. Basically a GA build on steroids. Stickley did the build and its a little less than half what you were quoted. I can see it being 20-25 and even 50k if you go absolutely crazy with the motor like Chuck has but I dont see anybody doing that unless they can tear it down themselves and just pay for parts.

It's really NOT absurd. Did you figure acquisition costs? How about dry sumping? What about engine management? Heck, just acquistion, dry sumping and SEM puts you at $17000. LOL

I was talking about a stock S54 with the prerequisite internals being done for the 20k-25k range. Now, if you want a BUILT S54...I think your wallet needs to be a bit deeper.
JMHO

If you can get it done cheaper...cool.

Ken

Well, it depends on what you are including in the price, and who is doing your work.

Drysump adds $5k, and I would not run an S54 without Drysump (and either would any other professional team apparently lol).

You then have all your misc stuff for the fuel supply, engine management, oiling system, cooling, etc. You can get to $25k pretty quick.

But the motor itself, just the piston, rods, assembly, blueprint/balance, thats not much.

But add in a $2k clutch flywheel, all your fluids, $20k is about the min if you build an S54 race motor including all the essentials and bolt ons. Also have the Intake, and exhuast, any labor you encounter along the way, misc filters and breathers, braided lines/connectors add up quick...if done RIGHT it will be expensive. Don't forget tuning, thats another $500-1k. Racing is expensive, no way around it :(

If done cheap, well, we all know what happens when you go cheap on an S54...it goes kaboom :) Then you end up spending a LOT more than you would have if you did it right the first time.

I'm sure the time Chuck has put into his motor in labor is way up there, but thats his own time, so you can't really factor that in, if that were the case my e46 m3 would be worth $100k+ when i am done ;)


Steve,

You're spot on! Why do you think I ended up with a euro 3.2??? LOL

Ha, $7k spent on a drop in engine that should get me 275 rwhp and longevity. Sheesh, how much do we get paid to race in club racing???...I keep forgetting the numbers :D

I'm really naive about dyno stuff, was that chart an engine dyno chart or a chassis dyno? Flywheel bhp's or rwhp?

Ken

Damn, thats a nice chart! I wonder whose motor that is? :D

Damn, thats a nice chart! I wonder whose motor that is? :D


Well, that answers that! Definitely rwhp and definitely more than $20-$25k for the build! :D

Jon, is that the engine you purchased from me?

Ken

so does that mean you are doing an offset grind of the stock crank to get the extra stroke? PTG told me they did this, but 4mm is a lot of stroke to make up without going to a custom rod bearing or welding on new material to the crank.

No, that is not what we are doing. Jeff, I am not going to give away all of our R&D on a pubic forum now! :D

No, that is not what we are doing. Jeff, I am not going to give away all of our R&D on a pubic forum now! :D

Hey Brad,

I've got a great idea. You know that show where people that are down and out get a new home built (for FREE) by Ty Pennington and everyone crys in the end...you could build me a car and I'll have a camera crew here ready to capture the moment so we can all cry. Once America sees what I have and what you could build...it would be very sentimental. I know your phone would ring off the hook to build more cars (for profit). Whaddaya think? :D

Maybe we could even arrange Ty Pennington to build me a dream garage for the new race car!

Seriously, congrats on the engine.

Ken

Thanks for posting the graph Brad, looks like very believable numbers to me! Tell me, why do you lock the Vanos off, when it is still running standard head and cams?

No problem. Yes, it is real and there is more power to be had, but some things need to be done to get it (larger header, head work, cams, etc).

We eliminate the VANOS for three main reason (not in order):

1. Weight. You save 13lbs
2. Reliability. There have been a lot of failures of the vanos and lines associated
3. Tuning. In order to run the AEM with Dual Vanos on the S54 we have to invest about 50-60 hours on engineering time at a minimum. That is not worth it to us with the HP/TQ and rev-range we are seeing. We do have another option that is about 2K more for full vanos and TBW, but see #1 and #2 above.

Hope that helps.

Damn, that's a lot of juice.

Just curious, is the stock brain incapable of being tuned for those engine modifications, making the standalone necessary?

I think that the later brains would be, but I have yet to see anyone who can. In fact one notable tuner from just outside the US who is supposed to be the best, we have re-tuned with the standard Race Powerchip, and picked up tons of power. So, I have been told that I may have a DME editor in my hands soon that will allow us to try to tune it like a stand alone, so we will see.

The AEM (or Motec or EFI) solutions are really nice though and do let you do things that you can never do with the stock ECU (like turn on or off accessories at speed or rpm, data log, etc).

That's big NA powa!
How big is the check one needs to write to get it?
DIZZZAAMMMM!!! I want one! How much?

This is a 16-18K motor. If you think you can do it with another good motor builder for less - go for it.

It is roughly $7K for parts and the rest in labor. It is 70-80 hours to properly balance, blueprint and build a race motor. This is pretty standard among the engine houses out there.

We invested in the engineers, techs and tools to do it in house as we have bought engines from the "known" people in the BMW world, and to say we were disappointed is an understatement.

Thanks
Brad

Hey Brad,

I've got a great idea. You know that show where people that are down and out get a new home built (for FREE) by Ty Pennington and everyone crys in the end...you could build me a car and I'll have a camera crew here ready to capture the moment so we can all cry. Once America sees what I have and what you could build...it would be very sentimental. I know your phone would ring off the hook to build more cars (for profit). Whaddaya think? :D

Maybe we could even arrange Ty Pennington to build me a dream garage for the new race car!

Seriously, congrats on the engine.

You get Home Depot to sponsor it and pay for it all - and you got it! :D

Well, that answers that! Definitely rwhp and definitely more than $20-$25k for the build! :D

Jon, is that the engine you purchased from me?

No, that one is being converted to a 3.4L!

Thanks
Brad

Its not "mandatory" to go dry sump. There are plenty of S54s out there running without drysump. I'd only go drysump if the motor was built to the max like Stickleys. Tec3 plug n play for the S54 from Vic Sias is 2600. No need to go crazy with Motec or anything. I just dont see throwing 25k into a motor when you dont need much to make it reliable and make good power. We went with the S54 as parts are cheaper than the euro 3.2 and its easier to get bigger numbers.

This is a 16-18K motor. If you think you can do it with another good motor builder for less - go for it.

It is roughly $7K for parts and the rest in labor. It is 70-80 hours to properly balance, blueprint and build a race motor. This is pretty standard among the engine houses out there.

We invested in the engineers, techs and tools to do it in house as we have bought engines from the "known" people in the BMW world, and to say we were disappointed is an understatement.

Thanks
Brad


So, including acquistion costs...you've kept the package within $25k :buttrock

Ken

Its not "mandatory" to go dry sump. There are plenty of S54s out there running without drysump. I'd only go drysump if the motor was built to the max like Stickleys. Tec3 plug n play for the S54 from Vic Sias is 2600. No need to go crazy with Motec or anything. I just dont see throwing 25k into a motor when you dont need much to make it reliable and make good power. We went with the S54 as parts are cheaper than the euro 3.2 and its easier to get bigger numbers.


I'd say you're right if you keep your revs to 7500-7600.

After speaking with PTG, yeah the s54 can be run stock but I think the owner of the engine needs to be prepared to check/replace bearings after EVERY race/event. I just didn't have the resources for that kind of maintenance.

K

Its not "mandatory" to go dry sump. There are plenty of S54s out there running without drysump. I'd only go drysump if the motor was built to the max like Stickleys. Tec3 plug n play for the S54 from Vic Sias is 2600. No need to go crazy with Motec or anything. I just dont see throwing 25k into a motor when you dont need much to make it reliable and make good power. We went with the S54 as parts are cheaper than the euro 3.2 and its easier to get bigger numbers.

There are also lots of S54's blowing up without dry sump. Remember, when you blow up a motor, you are lucky if the motor is your only cost. If you slide on the oil and hit something, you risk anything up to a total loss. :eek: I have personally seen an S54 blow up and cause a wreck and the owner spent 36K to fix the car. Sad.

You are very right, we see 340whp from STOCK motors. However, they are NOT reliable. Even with the motorsport bearings, you have a bottom end that IS a timebomb. How do I know? Well, we have been racing S54 motors since 2002. 3 years longer then most others. That is a lifetime in development. There are so many issues that others have not had, just becuse they don't have the time on the motors yet. I could list them, but that would be giving away my hard earned and expensive IP!

I like Vic Sias a lot and thing he is a great engineer and has done a lot for CR motors with the Tec3. However, I have driven the Tec3 in Hans Kopecki's car (tuned by Vic himself) and it is not in the same league as the AEM, Motec, EFI. Also, FYI, the AEM EMS is less then 2600 for the race box that will run the S54. Like any other stand alone, the total cost is not the price of the ECU as you need many other items. Remember, the AEM is the leader in world-wide sales, and for a good reason.

Thanks
Brad

Its not "mandatory" to go dry sump. There are plenty of S54s out there running without drysump. I'd only go drysump if the motor was built to the max like Stickleys. Tec3 plug n play for the S54 from Vic Sias is 2600. No need to go crazy with Motec or anything. I just dont see throwing 25k into a motor when you dont need much to make it reliable and make good power. We went with the S54 as parts are cheaper than the euro 3.2 and its easier to get bigger numbers.

I will be tracking your progress!! As we are both on the cutting edge I think. I decided, after popping my first motor to go dry sump. I decided after popping my second motor to go with a built bottom end.

I just have far too much experience with the S54 to do it any other way. By the way, the first "pop" cost me over $35k in damage to get the car back running again. You are lucky if you pop the motor in a slow turn or in the paddock. You are unlucky (like me) if you pop the motor at the turn in to a 150mph corner like Willow Springs Turn 8. I went so far off track and out into the desert, jumping 2 ravines and barely keeping the car on all fours that they didn't even delay the next run group session. They said they had never seen a car soooo far off track that they didn't feel it was necessary to red flag the course. It was a crazy ride!

Good luck with stock bottom ends and no dry sump (I mean that sincerely) and be very careful please!!

I will be tracking your progress!! As we are both on the cutting edge I think. I decided, after popping my first motor to go dry sump. I decided after popping my second motor to go with a built bottom end.

I just have far too much experience with the S54 to do it any other way. By the way, the first "pop" cost me over $35k in damage to get the car back running again. You are lucky if you pop the motor in a slow turn or in the paddock. You are unlucky (like me) if you pop the motor at the turn in to a 150mph corner like Willow Springs Turn 8. I went so far off track and out into the desert, jumping 2 ravines and barely keeping the car on all fours that they didn't even delay the next run group session. They said they had never seen a car soooo far off track that they didn't feel it was necessary to red flag the course. It was a crazy ride!

Good luck with stock bottom ends and no dry sump (I mean that sincerely) and be very carful please!!

The bottom end is not completely stock. I went with Pauter rods, new rings, bearings, bolts etc.. Only thing stock in the bottom end are the pistons and crank which has been balanced since they tend to be out of whack according to chuck. Like Ken said, this will not be an 8000+rpm motor. I dont see the need to ring it out that high when most of the power is 7-7500. I'll keep everyone posted on how it goes.

Ok, that makes more sense.

That is the equiv. of our Evo1 race S54. I hope that you went with the proper bearing like PTG does (this is what we do also). The S54 bearings will NOT last, especially without the dry sump.

At least put an accusump on it - it is worth the minimal investment.

Thanks,
Brad

The bottom end is not completely stock. I went with Pauter rods, new rings, bearings, bolts etc.. Only thing stock in the bottom end are the pistons and crank which has been balanced since they tend to be out of whack according to chuck. Like Ken said, this will not be an 8000+rpm motor. I dont see the need to ring it out that high when most of the power is 7-7500. I'll keep everyone posted on how it goes.

Cool, I feel better now - I don't want any of my club race bretheren to go for the ride like I had!!

Keep us informed!!

Ok, that makes more sense.

That is the equiv. of our Evo1 race S54. I hope that you went with the proper bearing like PTG does (this is what we do also). The S54 bearings will NOT last, especially without the dry sump.

At least put an accusump on it - it is worth the minimal investment.

Thanks,
Brad

Chuck put in the motorsport bearings direct from PTG. I assume those are the same ones you are talking about Brad. I will certainly discuss an accusump with chuck and more than likely do it. Thanks

Chuck put in the motorsport bearings direct from PTG. I assume those are the same ones you are talking about Brad. I will certainly discuss an accusump with chuck and more than likely do it. Thanks


You've done EXACTLY what I was going to do if I'd kept my S54. I bet with lower revs and a close eye on the bearings...it just might be fine. I was just too afraid to be the first one to try it:eek:

I think there was something about the oil pan as well that I was going to spend money on. Has Chuck mentioned doing anything to the pan?

Dry sumping definitely sounds like the BEST idea. It's expensive...but not when you consider what Jon is saying.

K

Life always has the simple equations: HP=$$.
I was going to see if people wanted to join me in BM. $20-25K gets me another 100hp/100ftlbs over the S54 dyno sheet. Not cutting edge engine work, but it sure pulls like a bad biatch...

We are realy close to building a Turbo S54 for BM next year for my #79 - So I will if you will! See you there?

Thanks
brad

3. Tuning. In order to run the AEM with Dual Vanos on the S54 we have to invest about 50-60 hours on engineering time at a minimum. That is not worth it to us with the HP/TQ and rev-range we are seeing. We do have another option that is about 2K more for full vanos and TBW, but see #1 and #2 above.


Brad, doesn't this "engineering time" also mean dyno time, that basically leaves you with a worn out motor right about the time you have it tuned the way you want it? Seems like another reason it wouldn't be worth it.

See you this weekend.

The Turner boys have joked with me about going turbo with the Motec. Electronic wastegate, drive-by wire throttle gives a lot of driving flexibility with traction control and adjustable power. I guess you guys will get to experiment with that. I'm running the older Vortech set-up, so a complete change to turbo is out. Another one of those " If I knew then, what I know now life experiences"...

Brad, doesn't this "engineering time" also mean dyno time, that basically leaves you with a worn out motor right about the time you have it tuned the way you want it? Seems like another reason it wouldn't be worth it.

See you this weekend.

Good point. In this case though, dyno time would only be a small portion, it is really bench testing the electronics.

Can't wait to see you in that HP monster this weekend! :stickoutt

Thanks
Brad

The Turner boys have joked with me about going turbo with the Motec. Electronic wastegate, drive-by wire throttle gives a lot of driving flexibility with traction control and adjustable power. I guess you guys will get to experiment with that. I'm running the older Vortech set-up, so a complete change to turbo is out. Another one of those " If I knew then, what I know now life experiences"...

Yea, stand alone with a Turbo is sick! So easy to dial it in.

With the AEM and the wastegate, we can control HP based on g-load, speed, etc. So picture this, we dial in the tracktion control and wastegate to give us certain boost levels in low grip turns and different levels in fast sections! SO COOL! I love having a proper race engineer on the team - he just keeps my head filled with ideas! You should see what he does to Holder, I am not sure what he enjoys more Porn or talking to Gary! :stickoutt

Thanks
Brad

I know u guys speak from experience on the S54. Per Jon's experience, and the one that blew at Club Race at Fontana Grand-Am 2004.

As regards to Kopecky's car. Sias came up to Infineon earlier this year to improve the driveability. Scott Rubin of McGee Motorsports did the test driving with Vic Sias making changes in the pit. They did around 70 laps, and greatly improved the driveability with the new tuning. It no longer has as many flat spots and bogs as before.


There are also lots of S54's blowing up without dry sump. Remember, when you blow up a motor, you are lucky if the motor is your only cost. If you slide on the oil and hit something, you risk anything up to a total loss. :eek: I have personally seen an S54 blow up and cause a wreck and the owner spent 36K to fix the car. Sad.

You are very right, we see 340whp from STOCK motors. However, they are NOT reliable. Even with the motorsport bearings, you have a bottom end that IS a timebomb. How do I know? Well, we have been racing S54 motors since 2002. 3 years longer then most others. That is a lifetime in development. There are so many issues that others have not had, just becuse they don't have the time on the motors yet. I could list them, but that would be giving away my hard earned and expensive IP!

I like Vic Sias a lot and thing he is a great engineer and has done a lot for CR motors with the Tec3. However, I have driven the Tec3 in Hans Kopecki's car (tuned by Vic himself) and it is not in the same league as the AEM, Motec, EFI. Also, FYI, the AEM EMS is less then 2600 for the race box that will run the S54. Like any other stand alone, the total cost is not the price of the ECU as you need many other items. Remember, the AEM is the leader in world-wide sales, and for a good reason.

Thanks
Brad

I dont know how many of you have driven cars/engines that have gone under extensive driveability tuning, but its pretty amazing what quality dyno time and a good tuner can do. With todays electronics and dyno's, its getting easier to fine tune the power band and get the driveability spot on without having to have much experience tuning, however the experience plays into the time frame.

Driveability is what makes the car ultimately quicker, and quicker i mean lower lap times. Having 60000hp is not going to get your laptimes x% faster.

While not many of the drivers at our level can even get 95% out of these chassis when setup well, but couple that with having to worry about controlling power, its definitely not optimal.

Power management is key. Including Diff design, gearing, and if applicable, traction control algorythms.

The main reason I loved having the 2.5L motor in my old e36 was that I could concentrate 95% of the time on steering/braking and not have to worry too much about throttle modulation to allow for grip, it just gripped and the pedal was to the floor a lot. I've been on the track in very high hp cars, with better aero then these bmw's, and it can be a handful.

Its kind of like stepping into an unlimited class shifter kart at your first ever day of karting...just overhwelming.

When you see the speeds people like Scott Smitt and Watts are doing out there, with considerably less power than there opposition, its clear what makes the cars fast in the big picture. A lot of power can cover up a lot of errors, and i'd rather learn to race the car as fast as I can without relying on the motor to take up the slack...this is for a non professional application of course :)

If this was any professional series where it was my career basically to win, i would not care how the wins came, as long as I am on the podium, and the sponsors get thier time on the camera ;) lol

Steve: that was the BEST post EVER from you!! And don't forget Asher Hyman in addition to Watts and Smith....and I'm sure there are a few other great drivers in our group. I'm certainly not one of them.


I dont know how many of you have driven cars/engines that have gone under extensive driveability tuning, but its pretty amazing what quality dyno time and a good tuner can do. With todays electronics and dyno's, its getting easier to fine tune the power band and get the driveability spot on without having to have much experience tuning, however the experience plays into the time frame.

Driveability is what makes the car ultimately quicker, and quicker i mean lower lap times. Having 60000hp is not going to get your laptimes x% faster.

While not many of the drivers at our level can even get 95% out of these chassis when setup well, but couple that with having to worry about controlling power, its definitely not optimal.

Power management is key. Including Diff design, gearing, and if applicable, traction control algorythms.

The main reason I loved having the 2.5L motor in my old e36 was that I could concentrate 95% of the time on steering/braking and not have to worry too much about throttle modulation to allow for grip, it just gripped and the pedal was to the floor a lot. I've been on the track in very high hp cars, with better aero then these bmw's, and it can be a handful.

Its kind of like stepping into a mod level shifter kart at your first ever day of karting...just overhwelming.

When you see the speeds people like Scott Smitt and Watts are doing out there, with considerably less power than there opposition, its clear what makes the cars fast in the big picture. A lot of power can cover up a lot of errors, and i'd rather learn to race the car as fast as I can without relying on the motor to take up the slack...this is for a non professional application of course :)

If this was any professional series where it was my career basically to win, i would not care how the wins came, as long as I am on the podium, and the sponsors get thier time on the camera ;) lol

Aww shucks, thanks ;) lol

Yep, the "Etc" definitely includes Asher, and Segal, Milner, etc. :)

Steve: that was the BEST post EVER from you!! And don't forget Asher Hyman in addition to Watts and Smith....and I'm sure there are a few other great drivers in our group. I'm certainly not one of them.


:lol +1

Steve, are you feeling OK? J/K...great post.

Hey Jeff, I'm a legend in my own mind.:D

Ken