Close

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    93
    Rep Points
    88.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    That is F'ing awesome. You are doing a VR6 with a turbo in your golf? FWD?
    4WD conversion and DSG upgrade is also included in the build, parts will arrive in 8 weeksClick here to enlarge

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,682
    Rep Points
    31,529.0
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mm28 Click here to enlarge
    4WD conversion and DSG upgrade is also included in the build, parts will arrive in 8 weeksClick here to enlarge
    Who's doing the work? What generation golf?

    Can we get a build thread going for this?

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    93
    Rep Points
    88.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Who's doing the work? What generation golf?

    Can we get a build thread going for this?
    i am located in Beijing, so is not a shop anyone in this forum would know.
    is a MK6, i can get a build thread started once the parts are here.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,682
    Rep Points
    31,529.0
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mm28 Click here to enlarge
    i am located in Beijing, so is not a shop anyone in this forum would know.
    is a MK6, i can get a build thread started once the parts are here.
    Please do, sounds badass.

    I always wonder about the difficult of retrofitting all wheel drive but seems a lot of people are doing it now.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    93
    Rep Points
    88.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Please do, sounds badass.

    I always wonder about the difficult of retrofitting all wheel drive but seems a lot of people are doing it now.
    its been done before, but i am just a guy who provides the $$ so not sure about the details.
    I know i would no longer have the spare tire compartment...but not much else

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,682
    Rep Points
    31,529.0
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mm28 Click here to enlarge
    its been done before, but i am just a guy who provides the $$ so not sure about the details.
    I know i would no longer have the spare tire compartment...but not much else
    Well I'm pretty excited about this. When the parts come please try to detail as much as you can.

    You are located in China?

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    93
    Rep Points
    88.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Well I'm pretty excited about this. When the parts come please try to detail as much as you can.

    You are located in China?
    yes, i am in China.
    you got it, i am very excited alsoClick here to enlarge

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,682
    Rep Points
    31,529.0
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mm28 Click here to enlarge
    yes, i am in China.
    you got it, i am very excited alsoClick here to enlarge
    Well your English is good.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    93
    Rep Points
    88.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Well your English is good.
    used to live in California 8 years ago, was one of the first supercharged E46 M3 back then, thats why i am interested in boosted BMW and joined this forum.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,682
    Rep Points
    31,529.0
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mm28 Click here to enlarge
    used to live in California 8 years ago, was one of the first supercharged E46 M3 back then, thats why i am interested in boosted BMW and joined this forum.
    Nice. Well now we can cater to your boosted VW as well.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    le Paris
    Posts
    6,653
    Rep Points
    -231.0
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    That tq is ridiculous. Try to top that 2JZ lol

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    306
    Rep Points
    268.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Someone on another forum quoted 1300rwhp was achieved, but never posted back about it, so not sure about that. But, I think if the block holds up we will see that from ics. I dont think they have any block modification, but I have to think that much over the 1100 figure in this thread would require a girdle at least.

    ICS's combo of turbos/tune/engine build has resulted in these amazing torque figures, and in part due to characteristics unique to the m50/m52/s50/s52 engines. I dont think we will ever see near this hp/tq ratio from an S54 or 2jz.
    | 1997 Estoril M3 - TURBO - |
    Click here to enlarge
    | GT3582R | 8.5:1 forged internals | ARP stuffs | SS oring block & Elring HG | Fully balanced & blueprinted 3.3L S52 |
    | Nick G custom tune | 46mm Precision gate | 62# injectors | Dual 255's |

    Goal to be the first GT35r E36 to: 30 psi, 140+ mph, < 6 second 60-130

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,682
    Rep Points
    31,529.0
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rt turbo Click here to enlarge
    Someone on another forum quoted 1300rwhp was achieved, but never posted back about it, so not sure about that. But, I think if the block holds up we will see that from ics. I dont think they have any block modification, but I have to think that much over the 1100 figure in this thread would require a girdle at least.

    ICS's combo of turbos/tune/engine build has resulted in these amazing torque figures, and in part due to characteristics unique to the m50/m52/s50/s52 engines. I dont think we will ever see near this hp/tq ratio from an S54 or 2jz.
    It's a strong iron block but 1300 wheel has to be reaching the limit of it I would think especially with no other modifications to it?

    Why not from an S54?

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    306
    Rep Points
    268.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    It's a strong iron block but 1300 wheel has to be reaching the limit of it I would think especially with no other modifications to it?

    Why not from an S54?
    I have heard experts say they they see signs of these blocks twisting or getting out of shape at under 1k hp levels. They can hold up but I'm not so sure at least some of the failures are caused by the block getting out of shape at the higher levels. The girdle supposedly fixes that to a certain point.

    With the s54, I was refering to ratio of hp to tq. They are making hp by reving higher, which will have lower tq figures when compared to a motor making the same hp with lower revs. We have seen time and time again that the s54 is just not going to produce the hp/tq ratios we see from the m50/m52/s50/s52. When HPF produces an 1150whp dyno, I would put money on it that it is accompanied by a torque curve nowhere in comparison to this ICS graph.
    | 1997 Estoril M3 - TURBO - |
    Click here to enlarge
    | GT3582R | 8.5:1 forged internals | ARP stuffs | SS oring block & Elring HG | Fully balanced & blueprinted 3.3L S52 |
    | Nick G custom tune | 46mm Precision gate | 62# injectors | Dual 255's |

    Goal to be the first GT35r E36 to: 30 psi, 140+ mph, < 6 second 60-130

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,682
    Rep Points
    31,529.0
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rt turbo Click here to enlarge
    I have heard experts say they they see signs of these blocks twisting or getting out of shape at under 1k hp levels. They can hold up but I'm not so sure at least some of the failures are caused by the block getting out of shape at the higher levels. The girdle supposedly fixes that to a certain point.

    With the s54, I was refering to ratio of hp to tq. They are making hp by reving higher, which will have lower tq figures when compared to a motor making the same hp with lower revs. We have seen time and time again that the s54 is just not going to produce the hp/tq ratios we see from the m50/m52/s50/s52. When HPF produces an 1150whp dyno, I would put money on it that it is accompanied by a torque curve nowhere in comparison to this ICS graph.
    Why would revving higher make for lower torque figures? It should just make for more torque multiplication.

    What can be done to the block to make it handle this level of power? Sleeves?

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rt turbo Click here to enlarge
    I have heard experts say they they see signs of these blocks twisting or getting out of shape at under 1k hp levels. They can hold up but I'm not so sure at least some of the failures are caused by the block getting out of shape at the higher levels. The girdle supposedly fixes that to a certain point.

    With the s54, I was refering to ratio of hp to tq. They are making hp by reving higher, which will have lower tq figures when compared to a motor making the same hp with lower revs. We have seen time and time again that the s54 is just not going to produce the hp/tq ratios we see from the m50/m52/s50/s52. When HPF produces an 1150whp dyno, I would put money on it that it is accompanied by a torque curve nowhere in comparison to this ICS graph.
    I have two points here - the torque curve is astounding in that it creates an AMAZING amount of torque for a long time, but it's very unnatural. In other words, the idea is that a torque curve is flat - no one is shooting for this type of power curve unless it's for a glory pull in my opinion.

    The second would be - compare the area under either curve with the highest of HPFs. It's not about peak torque, it's about total area under the curve. The S54 revs about 1k higher than this dyno shows, for every single RPM the S54 revs over the other engine matters a LOT. HP = ((TQ x RPM )/ 5252) - meaning that 1000 RPM difference makes a HUGE amount of difference (torque and RPM are equal in their contribution to HP) - and as @Sticky said, this extra RPM can be used for further TQ multiplication.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Looking at both power curves, I would love to see a roll race... I think ICS would win - for sure, but am now very curious after looking: http://www.horsepowerfreaks.com/imag...HPF/Stage4.gif

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    306
    Rep Points
    268.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    I have two points here - the torque curve is astounding in that it creates an AMAZING amount of torque for a long time, but it's very unnatural. In other words, the idea is that a torque curve is flat - no one is shooting for this type of power curve unless it's for a glory pull in my opinion.

    The second would be - compare the area under either curve with the highest of HPFs. It's not about peak torque, it's about total area under the curve. The S54 revs about 1k higher than this dyno shows, for every single RPM the S54 revs over the other engine matters a LOT. HP = ((TQ x RPM )/ 5252) - meaning that 1000 RPM difference makes a HUGE amount of difference (torque and RPM are equal in their contribution to HP) - and as @Sticky said, this extra RPM can be used for further TQ multiplication.
    I see your point, but there is still more area under the ics curve, even low reving lower. Also, 1000+ rwtq vs. 680? Not even a race. THough, that figure is for 916 whp on the hpf car. I think when over 1k its nearing 720 wtq. Extrapolating, if the hpf car nets 1150 rwhp, the tq will be upper 700-low 800's. my money's on the ics car.
    | 1997 Estoril M3 - TURBO - |
    Click here to enlarge
    | GT3582R | 8.5:1 forged internals | ARP stuffs | SS oring block & Elring HG | Fully balanced & blueprinted 3.3L S52 |
    | Nick G custom tune | 46mm Precision gate | 62# injectors | Dual 255's |

    Goal to be the first GT35r E36 to: 30 psi, 140+ mph, < 6 second 60-130

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    306
    Rep Points
    268.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Why would revving higher make for lower torque figures? It should just make for more torque multiplication.

    What can be done to the block to make it handle this level of power? Sleeves?
    I know this has been discussed on this forum before, there was a big forum fight between m50 guys and s54 guys years ago. But basically, hp is nothing more than a multiplication of torque and RPM. You rev higher and hp figures increase. My point is that the s54's make big hp numbers but lower torque numbers than m50 based motors because the m50s run out of revs quicker and s54s can rev higher. an m50 must make x amount of torque more than the s54 to make the same peak hp figure because it revs lower. its math. If the m50s rev to 8400 rpm, the higher torque figure that it made would allow it to produce a much higher hp figure than the s54 (if it stays the same). But the m50s tend to produce more torque, while s54s sing up top. I prefer the wider torqier band of the s52 over s54.
    So, the math is point 1, the second point is that the m50 based engines tend to have greater torque to hp ratio than the s54, or other inline 6s such as the 2jz. just me, but given what ICS has done, I just dont think the s54 is capable of producing that much torque to hp ratio.


    On the block, sleves can strengthen the walls, but not necessarily the integrity of the block itself. a girdle locking the mains to the block really would stop alot of the block movement under extreme loads. This is nothing new and is partly why we see those crazy bimmers in Sweeden.
    | 1997 Estoril M3 - TURBO - |
    Click here to enlarge
    | GT3582R | 8.5:1 forged internals | ARP stuffs | SS oring block & Elring HG | Fully balanced & blueprinted 3.3L S52 |
    | Nick G custom tune | 46mm Precision gate | 62# injectors | Dual 255's |

    Goal to be the first GT35r E36 to: 30 psi, 140+ mph, < 6 second 60-130

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rt turbo Click here to enlarge
    I know this has been discussed on this forum before, there was a big forum fight between m50 guys and s54 guys years ago. But basically, hp is nothing more than a multiplication of torque and RPM. You rev higher and hp figures increase. My point is that the s54's make big hp numbers but lower torque numbers than m50 based motors because the m50s run out of revs quicker and s54s can rev higher. an m50 must make x amount of torque more than the s54 to make the same peak hp figure because it revs lower. its math. If the m50s rev to 8400 rpm, the higher torque figure that it made would allow it to produce a much higher hp figure than the s54 (if it stays the same). But the m50s tend to produce more torque, while s54s sing up top. I prefer the wider torqier band of the s52 over s54.
    So, the math is point 1, the second point is that the m50 based engines tend to have greater torque to hp ratio than the s54, or other inline 6s such as the 2jz. just me, but given what ICS has done, I just dont think the s54 is capable of producing that much torque to hp ratio.


    On the block, sleves can strengthen the walls, but not necessarily the integrity of the block itself. a girdle locking the mains to the block really would stop alot of the block movement under extreme loads. This is nothing new and is partly why we see those crazy bimmers in Sweeden.

    I hear your point - loud and clear. Repped for it.

    However, I think that power under the curve is all that maters. You can "create torque" through gearing - yes the M50 has a fatter but shorter torque curve, yes - it would be more tractable than the S54 assuming both are geared equivalently. However, because of the extra revs, the S54 can take the mechanical advantage by multiplying torque for a longer period of time. Just going another ratio up in the rear end for example, would get the levels of torque (across the curve) at the ground very close to where the M50 would be - the M50 COULD do the same thing, but given it's lower RPM limit - it would be very short.

    It's like the diesel argument - just because a CAT tractor creates a few thousand ft-lbs of torque doesn't make it fast. It can rev to 2500 RPM - keeping it's power relatively low.

    However, in this case - both dynos are so "crazy" - I still think it would be a great race. I wouldn't bet money on either unless I knew one driver could drive, and the other couldn't. Click here to enlarge

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    4
    Rep Points
    6.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    I hear your point - loud and clear. Repped for it.

    However, I think that power under the curve is all that maters. You can "create torque" through gearing - yes the M50 has a fatter but shorter torque curve, yes - it would be more tractable than the S54 assuming both are geared equivalently. However, because of the extra revs, the S54 can take the mechanical advantage by multiplying torque for a longer period of time. Just going another ratio up in the rear end for example, would get the levels of torque (across the curve) at the ground very close to where the M50 would be - the M50 COULD do the same thing, but given it's lower RPM limit - it would be very short.

    It's like the diesel argument - just because a CAT tractor creates a few thousand ft-lbs of torque doesn't make it fast. It can rev to 2500 RPM - keeping it's power relatively low.

    However, in this case - both dynos are so "crazy" - I still think it would be a great race. I wouldn't bet money on either unless I knew one driver could drive, and the other couldn't. Click here to enlarge
    This car pulls incredible, the turbo's have been swapped out from GTX3076's .63 Hot Housings to GTX3576 .82 Hot Housings.

    This car made 820 RWHP on 21-22 PSI - With the upgraded Turbo's and a plenum box fabricated to the original manifold with the tune UN-touched in put down 941 RWHP on 21-22 PSI and did not loose the spool up and carried the power band 500-600 RPM's to the right before flattening out.

    1250 - 1300 RWHP is the plan once dialed in and boost is cranked up.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,682
    Rep Points
    31,529.0
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Twin Turbo BMW Click here to enlarge
    This car pulls incredible, the turbo's have been swapped out from GTX3076's .63 Hot Housings to GTX3576 .82 Hot Housings.

    This car made 820 RWHP on 21-22 PSI - With the upgraded Turbo's and a plenum box fabricated to the original manifold with the tune UN-touched in put down 941 RWHP on 21-22 PSI and did not loose the spool up and carried the power band 500-600 RPM's to the right before flattening out.

    1250 - 1300 RWHP is the plan once dialed in and boost is cranked up.
    This is George from ICS, isn't it?

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,682
    Rep Points
    31,529.0
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rt turbo Click here to enlarge
    My point is that the s54's make big hp numbers but lower torque numbers than m50 based motors because the m50s run out of revs quicker and s54s can rev higher. an m50 must make x amount of torque more than the s54 to make the same peak hp figure because it revs lower. its math.
    Of course, the M50 has to make more torque to match the S54. But that doesn't stop the S54 from being able to make an equal amount of torque and therefore much more HP.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rt turbo Click here to enlarge
    On the block, sleves can strengthen the walls, but not necessarily the integrity of the block itself. a girdle locking the mains to the block really would stop alot of the block movement under extreme loads. This is nothing new and is partly why we see those crazy bimmers in Sweeden.
    We may be getting to the point of custom blocks. Darton could certainly accommodate.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    4
    Rep Points
    6.4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    This is George from ICS, isn't it?
    Yes Click here to enlarge

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,682
    Rep Points
    31,529.0
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Twin Turbo BMW Click here to enlarge
    Yes Click here to enlarge
    Why are you using a new name?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •