Forced admission for all Z4 e85/e86 (all engines)
- Thread starter Gazzzz
- Start date
Liam22 said:
Hello, there is many way I think.
Not for the same money but new tires have always been the best modification ever. And if you are a beginner (it does not seem to be your case), a half day on the circuit will make you faster.
Just a bit of French Humour
More seriously I don't know, it's difficult on our NA engines. But if you whant more gain, you can add an K&N air filter to my part.
barnyg said:
No problem, I search for a better price but I really don't whant to print it in a poor quality materials. And don't forget that this part makes the car little noisier, it can be a problem for a daily.
Liam22 said:
I suppose it depends where and how you want to "go faster", the OP is probably going to see improvements in max power at max rev's at max speed by virtue of the ram-air effect (with some mapping) but will it just move the power curve up the rev range and impact drivability? Ideal for running the Mulsanne straight, not so sure about it's usefulness on the road or even an average track? (I've never raced so confess that I don't know).
But a nice project, it will be interesting to see whether full speed real time data will tell us the results rather than trying to find a 180mph wind tunnel with a dyno.
This is not what we feel during the driving experience. The gain isn't only at high speed or rpm, it's just everywhere, but you're right it increase with speed.
Just do a simple experiment (we all did it as a child):
Put your hand out of the car window while you are driving at 50kmh. Put it flat, opposite to the wind... Do you feel that force at low speed? Now, hide it behind the mirror, do you feel the difference! The original part is hidden behind the bumper...
This is not a fundamental discovery, just the use of an admission technique that has been around for years in competition.
You don't need any mapping if you have the original air box with the sensor.
Just do a simple experiment (we all did it as a child):
Put your hand out of the car window while you are driving at 50kmh. Put it flat, opposite to the wind... Do you feel that force at low speed? Now, hide it behind the mirror, do you feel the difference! The original part is hidden behind the bumper...
This is not a fundamental discovery, just the use of an admission technique that has been around for years in competition.
You don't need any mapping if you have the original air box with the sensor.
Very interesting read but dont get carried away expecting great gains in performance. As an old boy I have played around with induction arrangements on a host of old carb cars (yes in the days before injection). Mostly it just increased induction noise and made me think car was running faster but certainly getting colder air into your engine is better than hot air. Injection cars are a different matter and manufacturers go to great lengths in designing engines (with emission constraints of course) so a tweak here and there can lead to problems further down the line. This mod may work but my betting is that increased noise will be the primary outcome and of course if insurance companies spot this after an accident they are likely to refuse any claim.
Mike6 said:
I would 100% agree with the above. Also expecting to make any noticeable gains in power without changing the map as claimed, isn't technically possible. The map parameters only allow a very limited increase in fuelling before sensors start throwing codes and retarding to protect the engine. The variations in the map are there to allow for different fuel, ambient air temperature/pressure fluctuations and wear in service parts. Technically you can exploit most of the available power increase in any stock map with a good service, some decent fuel and a cold day.
But it will look good :wink:
Liam22 said:
Thank you Liam, I have add you. We wait for 3 other people now. Were are 5.
Shawn_Trn said:
Thank you
it is hundreds of hours of work to obtain this result (cardboard prototyping, first piece in fiberglass, 3d scanning and retouching, research ...). Your remark makes me very happy.At the moment, the best price I got from printers is 240€. But for that we still need 3 people more. It is possible to print it in a less efficient material for 200 € but I think it would be stupid, tell me what you think.
I planed to develop custom box for the engine bay but only for the Karbonius. I'm going to buy one of this airbox, it is necessary for me to have the part to develop a part that fits perfectly. That is why I can't do this job for each diffents configuration.
"yannguigui" have one of this part on his 3.0i with compressor, you can read his feeling here
:http://www.bmwz3club.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=33540&start=120
Mike6 said:
Hey Mike, I respect your point of view. I'm from the old school carburetor area too... not on car but on bike. And yes changing carburetor, air box and the air filter make a big big difference.
You speak about emission constraints... in 2002? My car for exemple, 437gr/Co2/km..
The original part has been designed to allow the car to run in all conditions, rain, mud, dust. That's all.
For the insurance company no problem since no gain in power? It's not that?
I'm kidding of course, it's a serious point.
I don't know how it works with you but in France, 5% more power is allowed (they estimate that this is a possible deviation linked to the manufacture of the car). So for example a 2.5si can legally do 229hp, a 3.0i can legally do 242hp, a 3.0si can legally do 278hp etc...
That's enough, we all know that our engines never output the powers announced by the manufacturer
I think that before being so categorical you should read these few lines posted on this same thread:
Gazzzz said:If you have some doupt ask you this simple questions:
- Why making a hole on the front bumper on a M3 CSL?
-On an M5 e60, using air ram and an exhaust you optain nearly +30hp...
-You can find many video showing that a sports air filter increases performance.. why?
- If you obstruct half of your air filter, will your car be slower?
- Why when Formula 1 car were Naturally aspirated engine, the rules limited the size of the air intake?
- Why so big??
A funny video here, see the size of this air intake for this merecedes. It produce more than 500bhp from a 2.9 liters v6:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc5ze0B0BWc
Ewazix said:
Thank you Ewazik, yes of course it is better with remap. But your OEM sensor will adjust. Your car is more capable than a "very limited increase in fuelling"...
Actually is suppose that your car works at level 0 (next to the sea for example), it also works at the top of mont blanc (4696m)?
It starts at -20 °?
Will it stop if it's + 55 °?
It make a verry big difference in your engine management, and your car do this itself.
Just for information, NA engine loses around 1% every 100m... I'll let you do your research, at pikes peak for example. some cars lose 40% between the start line and the finish line.
Gazzzz,
Neither of us actually know how much latitude there is to exploit in the stock map but if your references to Pikes Peak engines losing 40% of power at altitude is supposed to imply that a stock map could cope with that (so has a huge reserve to tap in to) is obviously wrong. References to F1 cars are not relevant since they are not constrained by a stock map. I would at least consider mapping to get the best from this beautifully engineered project.
The proof of the pudding will be real world high speed runs and we all look forward to the results, good work
Neither of us actually know how much latitude there is to exploit in the stock map but if your references to Pikes Peak engines losing 40% of power at altitude is supposed to imply that a stock map could cope with that (so has a huge reserve to tap in to) is obviously wrong. References to F1 cars are not relevant since they are not constrained by a stock map. I would at least consider mapping to get the best from this beautifully engineered project.
The proof of the pudding will be real world high speed runs and we all look forward to the results, good work
In my view running a two dyno (without and with new force intake) would be a must. Numbers don't lie
In my case it's more complex - I would need to make a direct blow into the K&N filter (along with constructing a heat cover), otherwise don't think much gain is achieved (like AFE filters being separated completely due to heat shield).
Question regarding ECU being able to adapt more fuel to increased air delivery is appropriate (either can adapt or remap is needed). Like using 98 octane comparing to 95 , if you don't have a map ready for this there should not be any gain ,right ?
In my case it's more complex - I would need to make a direct blow into the K&N filter (along with constructing a heat cover), otherwise don't think much gain is achieved (like AFE filters being separated completely due to heat shield).
Question regarding ECU being able to adapt more fuel to increased air delivery is appropriate (either can adapt or remap is needed). Like using 98 octane comparing to 95 , if you don't have a map ready for this there should not be any gain ,right ?
Take a look at how many sensors the N52 engine has
https://www.e90post.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1584168&d=1488747614
Modern engines are hugely adaptive, although mostly optimised for degraded conditions, not enhanced conditions. Mass air flow sensors directly control fuelling - how many reports of engines running better on cold days?
So the question is, can an optimised air intake help the engine suck more air? Standing still on a dyno - no chance. At >100mph - perhaps. So a dyno test will prove nothing. Whether it works or not will be down to high speed acceleration tests, or by comparing top speeds achieved on a track.
https://www.e90post.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1584168&d=1488747614
Modern engines are hugely adaptive, although mostly optimised for degraded conditions, not enhanced conditions. Mass air flow sensors directly control fuelling - how many reports of engines running better on cold days?
So the question is, can an optimised air intake help the engine suck more air? Standing still on a dyno - no chance. At >100mph - perhaps. So a dyno test will prove nothing. Whether it works or not will be down to high speed acceleration tests, or by comparing top speeds achieved on a track.
Liam22 said:
Quite right. Also, in terms of the sensors - the one that concerns me most is the MAP sensor (manifold absolute pressure, or Differential Pressure Sensor as BMW call it). The E86/E86 ECU oem mapping has zero ability to manage any positive pressure in the inlet manifold that is above atmospheric. If there is genuine 'boost' in the inlet manifold due to air ram effect then I would expect you would get an engine management light on due to MAP sensor values being out of range.
Quote from the e90post link in above post...
"Differential Pressure Sensor
The differential pressure sensor is located
at the rear of the intake manifold.
The sensor is piezo-electric and provides
the ECM with information about the pressure in the intake manifold.
The piezo element converts pressure
pulses into electrical signals. The ECM
supplies the sensor with the power and
ground supply"
I do love the engineering that has gone into this- maybe it will have other benefits such as a great induction note. Water being pulled into the intake is a very real concern though.
Hello, many reaction here, that's cool!
Many thank for this documentation, I really agree with you. A dyno run isn't dynamic. So you are not going to benefit from the "ram effect".
As I said before, the "ram" effect is present well before 100mph. I had my wife drive (our renault clio with 90cv of pure power
), during this time (I was in the passenger seat) I passed the part through the window. An incredible volume of air engulfs from 50km/h (30mph).
OK, it's not the most scientific experiment in the world, but it's real life.
First, thank you for your argumentation. It's always a good thing to discuss technique.
We have two different situation:
You can read that in the documentation:
"Due to the elimination of the grill, it is more compact
than its predecessor and therefore decreases pressure loss in the intake tract."
Therefore the engineers at bmw also want to limit pressure loss.
"It supplies the ECM with an analog signal proportional to air mass"
The signal will increase in proportion to the amount of air, not to mention the temperatures (also detected by the HFM) which will also be more favorable.
If my memory is ok (I did these studies a long time ago), this concerns models "SI".
The calculation of the AFR (ari fuel ratio) is made like that:
This calculation makes use of the following signals:
• Valve lift of intake valve from VVT (load acquisition)
• VANOS setting (load acquisition)
• Throttle setting (throttling)
• Intake air temperature (air density correction)
• Engine temperature (air density correction)
• Engine speed (cylinder charge)
• Intake manifold pressure (throttling correction)
• Ambient pressure (air density, altitude correction)
If I understand correctly what worries you, it is this line (sorry I'm french, it's sometimes difficult for me to understand you perfectly):
"Intake manifold pressure (throttling correction)"
That's it?
While waiting for your answer and to reassure you here is the 3.0si from a friend, he "will never go back".
one defect however, he noted a slight increase in consumption. He has only been using it for 1 month, let's wait and see if it's not the noise that makes him want to drive faster ...
thank you all, this subject is of a very good level and fascinating
Liam22 said:
Many thank for this documentation, I really agree with you. A dyno run isn't dynamic. So you are not going to benefit from the "ram effect".
As I said before, the "ram" effect is present well before 100mph. I had my wife drive (our renault clio with 90cv of pure power
), during this time (I was in the passenger seat) I passed the part through the window. An incredible volume of air engulfs from 50km/h (30mph).OK, it's not the most scientific experiment in the world, but it's real life.
ph001 said:
First, thank you for your argumentation. It's always a good thing to discuss technique.
We have two different situation:
- The first: Z4 using HFM (and MS45.1):
You can read that in the documentation:
"Due to the elimination of the grill, it is more compact
than its predecessor and therefore decreases pressure loss in the intake tract."
Therefore the engineers at bmw also want to limit pressure loss.
"It supplies the ECM with an analog signal proportional to air mass"
The signal will increase in proportion to the amount of air, not to mention the temperatures (also detected by the HFM) which will also be more favorable.
- The seconde situation is for Z4 using HFM only for temperature, and with MSV70
If my memory is ok (I did these studies a long time ago), this concerns models "SI".
The calculation of the AFR (ari fuel ratio) is made like that:
This calculation makes use of the following signals:
• Valve lift of intake valve from VVT (load acquisition)
• VANOS setting (load acquisition)
• Throttle setting (throttling)
• Intake air temperature (air density correction)
• Engine temperature (air density correction)
• Engine speed (cylinder charge)
• Intake manifold pressure (throttling correction)
• Ambient pressure (air density, altitude correction)
If I understand correctly what worries you, it is this line (sorry I'm french, it's sometimes difficult for me to understand you perfectly):
"Intake manifold pressure (throttling correction)"
That's it?
While waiting for your answer and to reassure you here is the 3.0si from a friend, he "will never go back".
one defect however, he noted a slight increase in consumption. He has only been using it for 1 month, let's wait and see if it's not the noise that makes him want to drive faster ...
thank you all, this subject is of a very good level and fascinating