S54B32 - the best engine this side of supercar lunacy!
- Thread starter Beats
- Start date
Hi
Just a forum .. I like both cars for different reasons
for me the Z4M has the hydraulic steering, and at least it has a emergency release mechanism for the soft top where the E89 does not which is worrying. I was forced down the DCT route from a motor bike accident when I was younger .. so after a while all the Z4M cars I had caused issues with my ankle that bore most of the bike impact, but that's no fault of the car.
regards
Just a forum .. I like both cars for different reasons
for me the Z4M has the hydraulic steering, and at least it has a emergency release mechanism for the soft top where the E89 does not which is worrying. I was forced down the DCT route from a motor bike accident when I was younger .. so after a while all the Z4M cars I had caused issues with my ankle that bore most of the bike impact, but that's no fault of the car.
regards
Comes down to personal preference. I've always preferred NA and high revs in a performance car. Especially one that is a weekend toy. I find Turbo engines boring by comparison because you just don't get that same sense of revs and power increasing in unison in a linear fashion. I might have to change gears a little more than the equivalent turbo owner but that's no hardship is it?
id love someone you guys to experience the s54 with my huge centrifugal blower, its has a whopping CFM rating of 1150, you feel NO sort of Turbo rushes, everything your stock s54 does just moved well up the graph, it feels mega, The very nature of a centrifugal blower means it still needs revv'd out to perform so its like an s54 on hulk mode. I swear if alot of you experienced it i think some more would dive into supercharging, the "relatively" low Tq and the way the power is unloaded is also very friendly to the components, the s54 is perfect for boost with its iron block and forged internals. In the usa theirs loads of us but in the UK i still believe I'm the only one on the z4m platform which really surprises me. bmwz4mc i think you need to come out this year and see me you only need alittle push. lol
If any body would like a ride out in spring/ summer be sure to PM me and ill take you out, whoever even better the car behaves totally docile when not on it. its so suited to the car its unbelievable.
even better if you able to code my M-track mode at the same time for a favour back :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
If any body would like a ride out in spring/ summer be sure to PM me and ill take you out, whoever even better the car behaves totally docile when not on it. its so suited to the car its unbelievable.
even better if you able to code my M-track mode at the same time for a favour back :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
Jamesbond,
Just analysing the torque and HP figures to assess performance is meaningless. What matters is how this translates into real world performance: i.e. acceleration.
Below is a graph from datalogging my Z4MC some time ago. The red plot in the graph is the increase in rpm from a rolling start giving it WOT from 1900rpm and you can see that from around 2200rpm and above the rate of increase in rpms is perfectly linear, despite the torque figures at different rpms being different (as seen in the typical curved graph for torque).
Just analysing the torque and HP figures to assess performance is meaningless. What matters is how this translates into real world performance: i.e. acceleration.
Below is a graph from datalogging my Z4MC some time ago. The red plot in the graph is the increase in rpm from a rolling start giving it WOT from 1900rpm and you can see that from around 2200rpm and above the rate of increase in rpms is perfectly linear, despite the torque figures at different rpms being different (as seen in the typical curved graph for torque).
heres a typical z4m curve. when run de-catted that make some crazy wheel hp figures for just 8.5-9 lbs of boost. Im going to really try and nail some really nice detail video clips of the general setup and drivability etc. I will be back at the dyno this year putting down some figures with my new Catless setup.
here is a car with cats in place. (this is at the wheels BTW :evil: )
here is a car with cats in place. (this is at the wheels BTW :evil: )
Hi Beedub
agree .. a forced induction Z4M is at a totally different level
I also concur for a long term ownership the Z4M is a better bet, My E89 is a complicated car .. and just wonder if it will all hold together long term. Take the folding roof for example it has 6 hydraulic pistons and a ECU to control it all.
I would own another Z4M .. but I have to be realistic with my Bike injury
There is a site that I found that is making 1000 BHP S54 engines that can be driven every day ! anyway ... Johnny Essex will be along in a mo
regards
agree .. a forced induction Z4M is at a totally different level
I also concur for a long term ownership the Z4M is a better bet, My E89 is a complicated car .. and just wonder if it will all hold together long term. Take the folding roof for example it has 6 hydraulic pistons and a ECU to control it all.
I would own another Z4M .. but I have to be realistic with my Bike injury
There is a site that I found that is making 1000 BHP S54 engines that can be driven every day ! anyway ... Johnny Essex will be along in a mo
regards
CornishRob
Senior member
I like these semi technical debates.
Excellent posts so far, however I would state that OP was talking about the engine not the car, the S54 was indeed a good engine for it's time but let's be honest it has a cast iron block after all and things have moved on a long way since then.
also let's think how many awards and accolades the N54 has compared to the S54
also let's think how many awards and accolades the N54 has compared to the S54
CornishRob
Senior member
sars said:
Did the N54 win a lot of awards then? I have never researched that engine to be honest.
The S54 did
http://www.bmwblog.com/2010/08/26/jalopnik-dear-bmw-why-did-you-retire-the-s54b32-engine/
abar121
Active member
Beedub said:
That may have been true back when BMW were having Nikasil issues, but I can't say I really believe that has been relevant for a long time. The M70 and S70 engines also derived from the M20 went straight to an alloy block. Unless someone knows otherwise, I don't believe it was designed to be force induction. Hence, cylinder pressures are pretty low, piston speed on the other hand very high. In fact much higher than the S65 and S85 engines and near V8 F1 levels. Again, probably a legacy to the iron block being stroked to get it's capacity.
I do wonder what a marvellous engine BMW could produce, if they had continued to develop and redesign a completely high revving normally aspirated six, like Porsche have done with the GT3. 475bhp from a 3.8 reving to 9k must be just heaven.
Bing said:Cast iron - I remember sars remarking 'how very agricultural' when she discovered that a few years back. Still makes me smile
LOL, and it really is apt too
Beedub said:
lets not confuse very strong with cast iron, more likely slightly tougher than aluminum alloy but a lot cheaper to produce. In my field SG Iron is used, but only for Steam these days and for low pressure service <40 bar, really cast iron is not used for it's pressure retaining properties.
CornishRob said:
as I said it was a good engine in it's day, but seriously things have moved on.
and another thing, engines that rev higher have less torque than those that rev lower. Just think of the old F1 V8's, they couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding until they hit 16,000 rpm, which make them impossible to drive slowly.
Mad Professor
Active member
I have to say that on country B roads driving safely the M has prefectly adequate performance .In fact even my old mk 1 Euonos which was putting out 133 bhp felt quid enough on country lanes and I reckon it would leave my M for dead on the twisty stuff until you hit the staights . Anything more than that and you're getting into braggng rights territory ,but it's not useable unless you're on a track .
If you really want something quicker then the cheapest way is to lose all that weight and then you need much less power and torque to get genuinely exhilarating performance . Eg My last Caterham HPC evo was dynod at 210 power 170 torque and weighed only 600kg with me in it -do the math .Mind you it was terribly noisy as it had a quaiffe straight box and was on twin 48s and the ride was uber firm on Bilsteins . Sitting in the M is like driving a limo in comparison and that's quite a firm set up . To be honest I used to run out of bravery and I was always glad when I got home in one piece . I've lost my bottle as I've got older or maybe I've just got more sensible and cautious .
If you really want something quicker then the cheapest way is to lose all that weight and then you need much less power and torque to get genuinely exhilarating performance . Eg My last Caterham HPC evo was dynod at 210 power 170 torque and weighed only 600kg with me in it -do the math .Mind you it was terribly noisy as it had a quaiffe straight box and was on twin 48s and the ride was uber firm on Bilsteins . Sitting in the M is like driving a limo in comparison and that's quite a firm set up . To be honest I used to run out of bravery and I was always glad when I got home in one piece . I've lost my bottle as I've got older or maybe I've just got more sensible and cautious .
abar121 said:
I think otherwise :wink:
It's historical.
The s54 is off course a development from the s50 (it's virtually the same block/crank) which is based on the M50. An engine introduced in 1990.
In that time, aluminium engines were rather exotic.
When the m50 went out of production (1996) the all aluminium m52 was introduced (1994), but the s50 stayed for the m3. (the s50b32 was back then even much more ahead from the competition as the s54 was in its days; think of it: 320hp in 1996!)
The m52 went on becoming m52TU and finally m54. The m52/m54 block was probably designed for 3L max. The m54 is iron sleeved, and bmw probably doesn't dare to bore it 3mm extra to get to 3,2Liters. It has to cope with 'factory reliability', in contrast to tuners. So the cast iron block has more 'meat' to bore to a bigger displacement.
High revs is not something that really stresses the block, it's torque. Looking at the n54, with turbo, being open deck (m54 is closed deck, so even stronger) means that aluminium in itself is strong enough.
The s65 and s85 (bmw's best engine
) are also full aluminium, and reliable under boost. (a cast iron V10 might get a bit heavy also...)So I think that's how it went.
I agree with GuidoK, the pinnacle of N/A BMW road engines is surely the S85 and S65 derivations. Individual throttle bodies, all aluminium construction, double Vanos (obviously), alternator that only charges in coasting or in braking, dry sumped (well, quasi dry sumped in the V10 but not in the V8), higher compression ratio than the S54 and higher redline than the S54 for max aural pleasure 
They should've stuck an S65B44 in a coupe E89... Missed opportunity to create what could possibly be the best track BMW this side of the CSL...
They should've stuck an S65B44 in a coupe E89... Missed opportunity to create what could possibly be the best track BMW this side of the CSL...
I don't know whether the S54 is/was the best but it was damn near untouchable in its prime. Only the Metzger six surely rivalled it at the time?
Actually the V12 in the McLaren F1 was really rather special too!!