Close

Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    847
    Rep Points
    176.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No

    Turbo S54 compression ratios

    The S54 will make the same power as a 2JZE running 30% less boost from what i know. When a motor flows very well it can max out a turbo much quicker. Ive maxed out a turbo at 31psi whereas the 2JZE max's it out at 42+psi.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    847
    Rep Points
    176.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Oh I see, that project seemed to take forever with no results, I gave up on following it. He eventually showed some dyno numbers which looked good. Why take it out of the E46?

    Ok, so if you are generating less heat, and it is more efficient, the cooling system in that case should be able to take more boost and it should be able to do more boost without detonating, but then the strength of the internals becomes the issue, right?

    Lots of things can become issues, headgasket being one of them as well. The BMW motors seem to want to let go of the headgasket with more boost, the E36 guys are finally getting into O rings over here. I plan on doing the same one day, if the L19 studs dont hold.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,093
    Rep Points
    31,291.0
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TaZaM3 Click here to enlarge
    The S54 will make the same power as a 2JZE running 30% less boost from what i know. When a motor flows very well it can max out a turbo much quicker. Ive maxed out a turbo at 31psi whereas the 2JZE max's it out at 42+psi.
    At what compression ratio?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    847
    Rep Points
    176.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    At what compression ratio?
    8:5:1

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,093
    Rep Points
    31,291.0
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TaZaM3 Click here to enlarge
    8:5:1
    What does HPF run?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    847
    Rep Points
    176.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    What does HPF run?
    Im not positive, either 8:5:1 or 9:5:1. I thought i had read they were the 2nd of the two but thats a good question. Mike?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,093
    Rep Points
    31,291.0
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TaZaM3 Click here to enlarge
    Im not positive, either 8:5:1 or 9:5:1. I thought i had read they were the 2nd of the two but thats a good question. Mike?
    I'm not sure either, which is why I asked. I don't think HPF has announced it either.

    Why did you choose 8.5 over 9.5? More boost? How is the off boost driving? Doesn't it come on rather violently in that case?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Encino, CA
    Posts
    1,161
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TaZaM3 Click here to enlarge
    Im not positive, either 8:5:1 or 9:5:1. I thought i had read they were the 2nd of the two but thats a good question. Mike?
    I'm not 100% certain, but I know for a fact it's not as low as 8.5:1

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    293
    Rep Points
    226.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    One of the magazines said 9:1, but Chris has never confirmed that figure publicly.


    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by TaZaM3 Click here to enlarge
    The S54 will make the same power as a 2JZE running 30% less boost from what i know. When a motor flows very well it can max out a turbo much quicker. Ive maxed out a turbo at 31psi whereas the 2JZE max's it out at 42+psi.
    Two main reasons:

    1) the S54 head is much better than the 2jz-gte head.
    2) the S54 has another 0.2L displacement


    If someone could keep the S54 together at 10,000rpm, I think you'd see more people start to use it in drag & mile cars instead of the 2jz...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,093
    Rep Points
    31,291.0
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by spdu4ea Click here to enlarge
    Two main reasons:

    1) the S54 head is much better than the 2jz-gte head.
    2) the S54 has another 0.2L displacement


    If someone could keep the S54 together at 10,000rpm, I think you'd see more people start to use it in drag & mile cars instead of the 2jz...
    Wouldn't the camshaft vibration make 10,000 rpm basically impossible?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    293
    Rep Points
    226.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Wouldn't the camshaft vibration make 10,000 rpm basically impossible?
    It's the bottom end that lets go when over-revved. Going to a dry sump apparently helps, but the only ones really doing it are road race guys looking for small rev limit increases...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,093
    Rep Points
    31,291.0
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by spdu4ea Click here to enlarge
    It's the bottom end that lets go when over-revved. Going to a dry sump apparently helps, but the only ones really doing it are road race guys looking for small rev limit increases...
    Interesting, I haven't heard that. By bottom end, do you mean the rods, pistons, or the block? I remember heat in the pan being a problem, so if it was dry sump that would alleviate that.

    I thought the cams were already pretty long being an I6 so trying to rev it to 10k would create issues in that department.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,053
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I've seen 2JZs that are up to 3.4L run to 10,000RPM without an issue. That plus 30psi makes one hell of a motor. I think the Boost Logic Supra still holds the Texas mile record at 234mph I believe. I was there and the competition was insane, twin turbo Viper drag cars on race fuel, Turbo Busas, Evos with turbos bigger than my face. Its funny how a 90s "Rice Burner" dominated everyone, well besides the bikes.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Miami, FL.
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Points
    771.0
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    I've seen 2JZs that are up to 3.4L run to 10,000RPM without an issue. That plus 30psi makes one hell of a motor. I think the Boost Logic Supra still holds the Texas mile record at 234mph I believe. I was there and the competition was insane, twin turbo Viper drag cars on race fuel, Turbo Busas, Evos with turbos bigger than my face. Its funny how a 90s "Rice Burner" dominated everyone, well besides the bikes.
    isnt it now a TT ford GT, at 253?

    http://www.topgunrun.com/
    Click here to enlarge
    2007 335i Coupe
    Mods: Check the Garage

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,322
    Rep Points
    1,955.5
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Interesting, I haven't heard that. By bottom end, do you mean the rods, pistons, or the block? I remember heat in the pan being a problem, so if it was dry sump that would alleviate that.

    I thought the cams were already pretty long being an I6 so trying to rev it to 10k would create issues in that department.
    The shorter the stroke of a car the higher the capability of it to rev. See a F1 car and how short its stroke is.
    In BMW and in general it is considered that a square motor is perfect. In the 3.0 S50 the bore and stroke are identical at 86mm. This gives perfect engine harmonics and allows the bottom end to be able to rev quite a bit higher than a 3.2. The reason behind this is that with a longer stroke you have a much higher piston speed and for balancing purposes the crank need much higher counter balance which makes the crank heavier too. I managed to rev my 3.0 to 8600 comfortably with only a addition of stiffer valve springs. This extra amount of rpm's allows you to change gears and land into maximum power on every shift.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,093
    Rep Points
    31,291.0
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by oddjob2021 Click here to enlarge
    isnt it now a TT ford GT, at 253?

    http://www.topgunrun.com/
    I think he specifically meant texas mile, but yet, it does not hold the mile record.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,093
    Rep Points
    31,291.0
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by George Smooth Click here to enlarge
    The shorter the stroke of a car the higher the capability of it to rev. See a F1 car and how short its stroke is.
    In BMW and in general it is considered that a square motor is perfect. In the 3.0 S50 the bore and stroke are identical at 86mm. This gives perfect engine harmonics and allows the bottom end to be able to rev quite a bit higher than a 3.2. The reason behind this is that with a longer stroke you have a much higher piston speed and for balancing purposes the crank need much higher counter balance which makes the crank heavier too. I managed to rev my 3.0 to 8600 comfortably with only a addition of stiffer valve springs. This extra amount of rpm's allows you to change gears and land into maximum power on every shift.
    Yes, short stroke is generally used to rev, except for the fact that in the S54's case it is an undersquare motor with super long stroke.

    The S65 in comparison is oversquare, with short stroke.

    This is why the S54 has such great torque and such high piston speeds already. The S65 technically can rev much migher than the S54, especially when applying the general rule of shorter stroke having the capability to rev higher.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    207
    Rep Points
    91.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Vic you were the one to originally push the limit of the s54.



    Generally, doesn't one run a lower static compression to run more boost on pump gas?
    This is my signature... Click here to enlarge

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,093
    Rep Points
    31,291.0
    Mentioned
    2054 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BadBoostedBmwM3 Click here to enlarge
    Vic you were the one to originally push the limit of the s54.



    Generally, doesn't one run a lower static compression to run more boost on pump gas?
    Generally, yes.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    254
    Rep Points
    129.8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by spdu4ea Click here to enlarge
    Two main reasons:

    1) the S54 head is much better than the 2jz-gte head.
    2) the S54 has another 0.2L displacement


    If someone could keep the S54 together at 10,000rpm, I think you'd see more people start to use it in drag & mile cars instead of the 2jz...
    Spot on, couldn't have said it better myself.
    Click here to enlarge
    Boost Is Better
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlargeClick here to enlargeClick here to enlarge

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
  •