Technical Hydra Performance 135 Leichtbau State of the Art Thread

[Panzerfaust]

Super interested in your build, this'll be one of the few I watch start-to-finish.

I'm also particularly interested in the N53 head idea - most of my "racecar experience" revolves around the 1/4 (and often domestic V8s) where ported or higher flowing heads are just as common as an aftermarket intake. I don't know how much the mm of difference required for the exhaust side can make on a manifold, but purely from an aesthetic outside appearance yours looks an awful lot like the MMP proprietary manifolds - and if you somehow found a way to make the N53 head mate up with manifolds like theirs I think you'd have a pretty large moneymaker. It seems to be getting more common now for people to stick with twins while still wanting high HP builds and the combination of a high flow head with TD04s is mouthwatering to me personally.

I also find your oil cooler setup super interesting. I have the PSP front mount and its cooling capabilities are phenomenal, but having to use an external thermostat is sometimes a PITA and I wouldn't mind seeing the combo of water cooling with their style of oil cooler somehow. This post is mostly just me fantasizing about possibilities so my apologies, but you're doing some awesome stuff!

 

[frontside0815]

There you go

 

[aus335iguy]

Subd - this looks different to what other people have tried. Hence I like it!

 

[Hydra Performance]

First off, Omar, this is a great thread. I'll be watching and my hat's off to you.


High boost aside, I don't know what the car's application is. We've found that can have a significant impact on decision making and problems to solve. For example I think you show a hillclimb photo are your avatar. We are looking at road course where cooling is a problem. Cooling and air management is a HUGE problem. In particular the 1 series (at one of the 1M's we are working with) has some serious deficits in that area. I digress.

One reason to consider a bottom end could be to have more low end torque on tap for exiting turns on a road course, IF the car can provide the traction to launch the cars out of the turn. This is less a high boost scenario and more of a rate of torque change. I also suspect this topic is a sister to the crank hub spinning - thinking of it as breakaway torque versus constant torque.

Just thinking out loud. Look forward to seeing this thread progress!

Filippo

Thank you for the kind words Filippo. My car is supposed to be an all-rounder believe it or not, fun high-performance road-car. Like I said earlier, my car's ability to put down its power on corner exit or even in a straight line at speeds below 100kph is appalling, and not for lack of trying either. So the last thing I need is even more low-end torque to exacerbate my traction woes...

So what turbos do you plan on and how hard would it be to setup manifold for ots twins

I just edited/updated some of my initial posts to include all the juicy details you seek

Super interested in your build, this'll be one of the few I watch start-to-finish.

I'm also particularly interested in the N53 head idea - most of my "racecar experience" revolves around the 1/4 (and often domestic V8s) where ported or higher flowing heads are just as common as an aftermarket intake. I don't know how much the mm of difference required for the exhaust side can make on a manifold, but purely from an aesthetic outside appearance yours looks an awful lot like the MMP proprietary manifolds - and if you somehow found a way to make the N53 head mate up with manifolds like theirs I think you'd have a pretty large moneymaker. It seems to be getting more common now for people to stick with twins while still wanting high HP builds and the combination of a high flow head with TD04s is mouthwatering to me personally.

I also find your oil cooler setup super interesting. I have the PSP front mount and its cooling capabilities are phenomenal, but having to use an external thermostat is sometimes a PITA and I wouldn't mind seeing the combo of water cooling with their style of oil cooler somehow. This post is mostly just me fantasizing about possibilities so my apologies, but you're doing some awesome stuff!

There are only so many ways to set up a shorty 3 into 1 manifold whilst maintaining stock location you know, but the devil is in the details... The MMP manifold starts off @ 32mm ID, tapers up to 36-39mm ID or thereabouts shortly afterwards, and then necks back down to to the equivalent of sub 29mm as it goes into the hotside, hardly ideal IMHO. i do agree however, that a high-performance TT setup is absolutely the way to go on our cars, which is why I went that route to begin with

 

[fmorelli]

Thank you for the kind words Filippo. My car is supposed to be an all-rounder believe it or not, fun high-performance road-car. Like I said earlier, my car's ability to put down its power on corner exit or even in a straight line at speeds below 100kph is appalling, and not for lack of trying either. So the last thing I need is even more low-end torque to exacerbate my traction woes..

Omar, it would be interesting to hear more about this particular issue, what you've done, what you believe you found out, and what you think is competing getting more traction. Maybe if not in this thread, in another one.

Filippo

 

[Fishayyy]

Love the build man!

That N53 head is a must for me. Does it utilize the same valvecover as the n54? Because I have a beautiful billtet valvecover that would look great on it

Though, in regards to the ST vs Twins argument I'm not fully convinced.

ST setups are a vastly inferior choice on the N54 due to several reasons; packaging constraints, incompatibility with the MSD8x DME without additional control boxes, and greater rotational inertia for a given flow capacity being the first to come to mind.

The first two points for a race car are somewhat moot (depending on the build) since you can build a tube frame front end and relocate all the tanks and various ends and odds else where, which leaves plenty of space for almost any feasable big turbo setup. The second point can be fixed with an aftermarket ECU (which isn't for everyone, but were not aiming for a stock car). The third statement is somewhat blanketed, but I think it depends on power goals and the turbo used. I think for this matter I prefer the simplicity of a single turbo, but its difficult to compare volumetric efficiency without compressor maps for each given turbo.

 

[Rob09msport]

Two things
You want sell a set of those turbos and yes you did literally reinvent the wheel don't be so modest

 

[Torgus]

Sub'd cool stuff in this thread.

 

[fmorelli]

The third statement is somewhat blanketed, but I think it depends on power goals and the turbo used. I think for this matter I prefer the simplicity of a single turbo, but its difficult to compare volumetric efficiency without compressor maps for each given turbo.

Some single turbo guys don't get the response time issue with most single turbo builds, likely given the way they use their cars. They feel it is quick (responsive), but pulling out of 10-12 turns ever couple minutes for a half-hour or an hour, one can find out otherwise. There are some benefits to twins, and some downsides. I think application matters.

Omar made the comment about his car being targeted at for "all-around" use. I like that. But I am also reminded of the old saying about the all-in-one stereo systems of the 1970's and 1980's - "not a good radio, not a good record player, not a good cassette deck, but it does it all." Sorry I just showed my age. Anyway, I'm most sure Omar's car is well past tongue-and-cheek statement, but simply any all-around build is going to fall short of a purpose-built solution at one specialty - be it 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, daily drive, time attack, rally, road racing, et cetera. That said I'm very impressed with many of the ST builds I see. But my personal preference is twins.

Now I have to go back and read through the posts Omar backfilled on this thread!

Filippo

 

[JBacon335]

so for a modified head, what kind of pricing are we looking at here? I really want one in the worst way for a future engine build

 

[Fishayyy]

Some single turbo guys don't get the response time issue with most single turbo builds, likely given the way they use their cars. They feel it is quick (responsive), but pulling out of 10-12 turns ever couple minutes for a half-hour or an hour, one can find out otherwise. There are some benefits to twins, and some downsides. I think application matters.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned being able to compare compressor maps. Because at the end of the day single turbo and twin turbo both accomplish the same things it just depends where you want your power band to be and when you want it to start ramping up. So for me I suppose it matters if there's a sweet spot for volumetric efficiency at a given RPM that can't be achieved with any given single turbo but could be achieved in a twin setup. I would like to design my car for timeattack events so for my case I will most likely be above 3 or 4k RPM throughout the entirety of the lap. For me I believe a single turbo setup with long equal length runners should achieve what I'm looking for as well as being the more simplistic solution. However, I've also considered twincharging or sequential bi-turbo setups, but for the time being that is over my budget and maybe more trouble than it's worth.

I'm still holding out for more test data on an OTS twin turbo setup, but alas nobody is willing to pay the +$8k needed for that kind of a setup.

Omar made the comment about his car being targeted at for "all-around" use. I like that. But I am also reminded of the old saying about the all-in-one stereo systems of the 1970's and 1980's - "not a good radio, not a good record player, not a good cassette deck, but it does it all." Sorry I just showed my age. Anyway, I'm most sure Omar's car is well past tongue-and-cheek statement, but simply any all-around build is going to fall short of a purpose-built solution at one specialty - be it 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, daily drive, time attack, rally, road racing, et cetera. That said I'm very impressed with many of the ST builds I see. But my personal preference is twins.

This is mostly what I assumed he meant. Probably the widest powerband or at least the most available powerband for a street driven car.

 

[Fishayyy]

Not to take away from this thread too much, but here's my belief on why this motor is perfect for single turbo setups even though nobody asked for it

Lag/spool is basically the time from going WOT to achieving your target boost level whereas power band is an entirely different subject. This to me is the RPM range that provides sufficient turbine power to achieve your target boost.

The reason I make this distinction is a single turbo rocks in one aspect and twins in the other. All things being equal (which obviously is never the case, but stay with me) a single turbo will always be more efficient than two. Now, that isn't to say that every larger turbo is better than every smaller turbo, but if you had two that were designed and manufactured using the same practice the larger turbo would show superior efficiency.

That being said, the more efficient a turbo is the larger it's powerband will be. So, a single turbo capable of flowing 800hp will have a larger powerband than two turbos capable of flowing 400hp each. The more efficient single turbo will also require a lower expansion ratio which results in a better engine ΔP and greater engine volumetric efficiency.

Now, when we talk about spool it's the opposite. The larger single turbo has significantly more rotational inertia and will take more time to reach the target boost. How much more I can't say without two examples to compare, but it's simple physics and in most cases the combined inertia needed to spool two smaller blades (capable of 400hp each) will be less than that of a single larger blade (capable of 800hp). If we take this a step further and look at just an inline 6 engine it all becomes clear. Fundamentally, a turbine is most efficient under steady state (no engine pulses). The best we can do is to have as many pulses as possible to limit that time gap between them. Further, it is beneficial to have a twin scroll as this eliminates the possibility of cylinder to cylinder scavenging and helps to get as much of the exhaust energy from the head to the turbo. An inline 6 is the perfect platform for just this. With a standard 4-stroke engine the most number of cylinders you can have feeding a single collector (with no chance of cylinder to cylinder scavenging) is 3. If you have 4 there can be times when two exhaust valves will be open at the same time. A divided 6 cylinder is perfect for this. Though I suppose this lends to the twin turbo setup as well since it is divided into one turbo per bank by nature.

TL;DR if you want the most power go single. If you want the largest power band, go single. If you want the best response at corner exit on a road course or for the streets, go twin.

 

[Hydra Performance]

Omar, it would be interesting to hear more about this particular issue, what you've done, what you believe you found out, and what you think is competing getting more traction. Maybe if not in this thread, in another one.

Filippo

First and foremost, you need to know that my car weighs sub-3000lbs with a 55/45 weight distribution, and I'm running a 3.46 diff on a 6MT. I tried a 3.08 briefly, but it didn't really help much believe it or not, so I went back to the 3.46 now that I'll be revving to 8k. As for my setup I'm running whiteline subframe bushings (not inserts), soon to be swapped out for solids, M3 arms throughout, with Bimmerworld adjustable toe arms, RLCA camber eccentric lockouts with just -0.6 degrees of R camber, Bilstein M3 B8 rear shocks on Dinan mounts & 650lb/in rear Hyperco springs with adjustable perches. Last but not least there's an Mfactory clutch-type LSD set up as a 1-way with 45-degree ramps on accel, 100% disc engagement, and minimal preload. I recently added a DEFIV diff lock-down bracket as well, and I'm running 245/45/17 RE71R R-comps on a narrowbody E82. I can fit 275/40/17s with the right offset rims (and have done so in the past), but the difference in contact patch isn't that profound..

Now, if I wanted to pull out all the stops to try and make this thing hook, I would have to soften the rear springs to ~300lb/in , add 2-way adjustable rear shocks with very little compression damping, disconnect the rear 20mm H&R sway bar, and swap out the rear brakes for something smaller to be able to run 15s, and maybe even ballast the rear bumper who knows... Clearly not an acceptable course of action for me to take given what I want from this car.

Love the build man!

That N53 head is a must for me. Does it utilize the same valvecover as the n54? Because I have a beautiful billtet valvecover that would look great on it

Yes it does, I am running an N54 VC on mine, although the N53 head comes "plugged" from the factory so you will have to figure out alternate provisions for the low-side PCV circuit if you have not already done so...

FWIW I now have 4x N53 heads here, not including my own, that I am porting and setting up for N54 use. PM for details

 

[Fishayyy]

Yes it does I am running an N54 VC on mine, although the N53 head comes "plugged" from the factory so you will have to figure out alternate provisions for the low-side PCV circuit if you have not already done so...

FWIW I now have 4x N53 heads here, not including my own, that I am setting up for N54 use. PM for details

The VC I have plugs all the factory cyclonic BS and runs the low side to one -10AN fitting and the high side to another -10AN. I think it should workout I would just need to look into it more

 

[Rob09msport]

Being pre plugged sounds like a benefit lol
As far as twins I personally feel that no BMW should be single i hate the rubber band feel. I think ttq is very important unless car is strictly a drag car. I would be the asshole running compound boost if it were easy on this platform. Not to be a purist but it really is the appeal of na response and I think twins keeps us closest.

 

[Rob09msport]

Question is this turbo closer to 16t or a 19t I'm just trying to get an idea on response

 

[Hydra Performance]

Question is this turbo closer to 16t or a 19t I'm just trying to get an idea on response

Closer to the latter, I will however have a smaller TD04L-based option available very shortly, designed to be run at lower PRs and aimed for those seeking a more responsive setup.

 

[Alex@abrhouston]

This is neat. Did you flow the head before putting it on to compare apples to oranges?

 

[Hydra Performance]

This is neat. Did you flow the head before putting it on to compare apples to oranges?

No I did not, the N53 330 E92 dyno sheet I posted was all the validation I needed, since real world numbers > flowbench numbers. In any case, you will be seeing one of these heads on a Superflow SF-600 flowbench in the none-too distant future...

 

[Omar@VaderSolutions]

very exciting, gets me motivated to get started on installing my n53 head as well