[maxwell600]

Originally Posted by Bluesun

This doesn't get talked about enough in the context of tunes. Now that I'm running an E85 mix, the rear suspension just sorta gives up under heavy accel. I'm seriously considering my next mod being suspension upgrades.

On that note, does anyone have a recommendation on where to start with suspension upgrades?

Start a thread in the suspension forum.

[chumley]

Originally Posted by Lunatic Fringe

That and there's only so much a standard 3-series chassis can handle. Tune only 335i's overwhelm the factory suspension big time. If i could do it again, I would have started with mods to improve handing and then added power. Did it the wrong way round, but you live and learn

Originally Posted by Bluesun

This doesn't get talked about enough in the context of tunes. Now that I'm running an E85 mix, the rear suspension just sorta gives up under heavy accel. I'm seriously considering my next mod being suspension upgrades.

On that note, does anyone have a recommendation on where to start with suspension upgrades?

Exactly! Thank you. The cost to upgrade the drive train to handle more would have prob come at the cost of daily drive-ability. It's not like the car is uncompetitive at 300hp either.

This car with tune and meth is the strongest, hardest pulling, least fun to drive car I've ever owned.

And good luck fixing it without spending huge $$. I have koni's w/swift springs, rogue toe arms, powerflex subframe bushings, and 265 pilot ss tires and the car still feels like crap on hard accel.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Originally Posted by chumley

Exactly! Thank you. The cost to upgrade the drive train to handle more would have prob come at the cost of daily drive-ability. It's not like the car is uncompetitive at 300hp either.

This car with tune and meth is the strongest, hardest pulling, least fun to drive car I've ever owned.

And good luck fixing it without spending huge $$. I have koni's w/swift springs, rogue toe arms, powerflex subframe bushings, and 265 pilot ss tires and the car still feels like crap on hard accel.

If you're willing to make a bit of an investment, talk to Shiv about upgrading to their custom valved JRZ setup. That, M3 sub-frame bushings, LSD, and a good set of tires turned my sloppy handing ST car into a ravenous fun-to-drive beast.

[GeorgiaTech335coupe]

Not to mention that it actually makes more than 300/300 at the crank completely stock. That is just what the brochure says. Put one on the dyno and you'll find out it's making closer to 320-330hp/350 ft-lbs at the crank.

[BQTuning]

Originally Posted by Continue5

Not sure if troll or heavy drug usage ..

LMAO !

[Datsik]

Originally Posted by maxwell600

Start a thread in the suspension forum.

DO NOT DO THAT! When you want to find something don't start another thread unless you have searched. There are way to many threads started with questions that have been answered a 1000+ times. You'll find there are plenty of threads that already exist about this.

[ksalih]

Good point OP. I'm glad you made this thread, I've wondered the same. Aside from the nonsense on this forum, there are some that have an idea of how the n54 works and is designed beyond what the brochure will tell you. I wouldn't conclude that the V6 3.7L mustang is less reliable than our I6 3.0L (maybe I better not go there..), but I'd agree that it has something to do with the e46 m3 at the time production of the 335i came about. Unfortunately marketing and business methods come in the way of engineering sometimes

[techwhiz]

Originally Posted by Continue5

For one the cylinder head flows poorly in contrast to say a s54 from the e46 m. It also doesn't have Valvetronic because of the turbo which would make a difference in a NA environment. I'm sure there are other reasons and such but not it would not be worth it at all.

Don't confuse Valvetronic with Vanos.
Valvetronic is how the valves are actuated and the N55 has that. It's an electro-mechanical system to vary lift and negates the need for a throttle body.

Both the n54 and n55 have variable valve timing for intake and exhaust. For the N54 it's Vanos.

The e46 M3 used individual throttle bodies with port fuel injection.
The n54 is a direct injection engine was an evolution of the m54. The S54 which is the M3 engine is similar in design but was 3.3 litres.

Anyway BMW sold/sell the n54 is various tunes. It was in the 2009 740i as a ~325hp-330ft/lb variant. You have the 1M varian of the engine along with the 335is variant. All are the same engine with a different tune.

Get a Cobb, JB4, etc and unleash the monster within the 335i.....

[ppatel223]

If you take E46 3.2L it produced 338hp, basically 100hp per liter. If you add another .8L, you can net 400hp easily. N54 block is not race spec in NA form. I am sure you can modify to produce 300hp in NA form. There could be some advantage or disadvantage. It is not that BMW can't squeeze 300hp out from 3L engine.

[jeffb335]

Originally Posted by maxwell600

Shall I explain?
Look at the V6 from lets say.... the new Mustang. 305hp. So technically speaking, it has more power at the flywheel than the 335i's N54 which is 335i (not mentioning power curves and such.) Now I know the power on the N54 can simply be raised by raising the boost, but lets pretend for the moment that the engine was without turbos, essentially an N52. My point being, why does the engine not produce more power? I understand again the difference in size, one being a 3.0, the other being a 3.7 (mustang), but does that really make that much of a difference?

Although all the above answers are correct, BUT OP, the premise of your question is wrong. You are saying that it seems like the BMW engine should be able to put out more power when comparing to the mustang...but these types of things should not based on intuition when they can be easily calculated.

Horsepower per liter.....thats a far more meaningful measuring stick if you are asking questions about power potential, both being six cylinders is fairly irrelevant.

BMW 330i 3.0(N52): 258 hp/3.0 liters = 86.0 hp per liter

Ford Mustang 3.7: 305 hp/3.7 liters = 82.5 hp per liter

BMW 335i 3.0(N54): 300 hp/3.0 liters = 100.0 hp per liter.


See what I mean, the N52 puts out MORE power than the ford V6 for its size, and the 335 puts out a lot more thanks to its turbos. .....apples to apples....

[BMWM.D.]

Originally Posted by jeffb335

Horsepower per liter.....thats a far more meaningful measuring stick if you are asking questions about power potential, both being six cylinders is fairly irrelevant.

BMW 330i 3.0(N52): 258 hp/3.0 liters = 86.0 hp per liter

Ford Mustang 3.7: 305 hp/3.7 liters = 82.5 hp per liter

BMW 335i 3.0(N54): 300 hp/3.0 liters = 100.0 hp per liter.


See what I mean, the N52 puts out MORE power than the ford V6 for its size, and the 335 puts out a lot more thanks to its turbos. .....apples to apples....

Thank you.... I was going to post this, but you beat me to it.

The Mustang V6 makes more power than an N52 (or an N54 -- in theory) because it has more displacement. In reality, the N54 makes more HP stock (~320), and way more torque/ power under the curve.

BMW chose to tune the N54 the way they did to meet their power & performance goals, which -- at the time -- was world class performance. You can't compare an upper-output N52 to an N54 without turbos. The N52 has Valvetronic, more aggressive cam profiles, a 3-stage intake manifold design, and a higher compression ratio.

With minimal modifications and good fuel, my 6AT 335i made 425 rwhp and 480 rwtq. Obviously, the potential is there.

[jeffb335]

This⬆⬆⬆, I didn't want to complicate things but "area under the curve" is yet even more important than hp/liter....but yeah, the reason everyone loves the n54 is the huge torque curve. When it comes to actually driving a car, the shape of the torque curve is where it's at....

[PA66400]

Originally Posted by techwhiz

Complicated question.
Yes you could get 300HP from a N/A N54 if you had a different cam profile, etc.
The engine is tuned for long term reliability with the turbos.

You trade reliability for HP.

Reliability......are you serious?!?

My 335i has been (hands-down) the most unreliable high performance car that I have ever owned.

I still love the driving experience, but I guess that I wish I had your car. My waterpump, injectors, OFH gasket, oil pan gasket, turbo vacuum lines have all cost thousands in repairs. Many others on the forum like me could only wish for durability/relaibility, but are stuck beta testing thier cars for BMW.

[Mturbo]

Originally Posted by BMWM.D.

Thank you.... I was going to post this, but you beat me to it.

The Mustang V6 makes more power than an N52 (or an N54 -- in theory) because it has more displacement. In reality, the N54 makes more HP stock (~320), and way more torque/ power under the curve.

BMW chose to tune the N54 the way they did to meet their power & performance goals, which -- at the time -- was world class performance. You can't compare an upper-output N52 to an N54 without turbos. The N52 has Valvetronic, more aggressive cam profiles, a 3-stage intake manifold design, and a higher compression ratio.

With minimal modifications and good fuel, my 6AT 335i made 425 rwhp and 480 rwtq. Obviously, the potential is there.

What minimal mods gave you 425 rwhp?!

[maxwell600]

Originally Posted by Mturbo

What minimal mods gave you 425 rwhp?!

I think when he says "minimal", he is essentially speaking about the mods that "everyone does" - tune, DPs, FMIC, charge pipe with forge DVs or BOV, e85, meth - hell drop half of those and you've still made it to 380-400rwhp

[maxwell600]

Originally Posted by PA66400

Reliability......are you serious?!?

My 335i has been (hands-down) the most unreliable high performance car that I have ever owned.

I still love the driving experience, but I guess that I wish I had your car. My waterpump, injectors, OFH gasket, oil pan gasket, turbo vacuum lines have all cost thousands in repairs. Many others on the forum like me could only wish for durability/relaibility, but are stuck beta testing thier cars for BMW.

Holy mother of shit, such an accurate statement. By the time we work out the kinks, it's time to part out and trade in!

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by jeffb335

Although all the above answers are correct, BUT OP, the premise of your question is wrong. You are saying that it seems like the BMW engine should be able to put out more power when comparing to the mustang...but these types of things should not based on intuition when they can be easily calculated.

Horsepower per liter.....thats a far more meaningful measuring stick if you are asking questions about power potential, both being six cylinders is fairly irrelevant.

BMW 330i 3.0(N52): 258 hp/3.0 liters = 86.0 hp per liter

Ford Mustang 3.7: 305 hp/3.7 liters = 82.5 hp per liter

BMW 335i 3.0(N54): 300 hp/3.0 liters = 100.0 hp per liter.


See what I mean, the N52 puts out MORE power than the ford V6 for its size, and the 335 puts out a lot more thanks to its turbos. .....apples to apples....

Acura RSX Type S 200HP/ 2.0 Liter = 100HP per Liter (N/A) Winnar!

[Rotorocious]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

Acura RSX Type S 200HP/ 2.0 Liter = 100HP per Liter (N/A) Winnar!

My rotary sense is tingling.....


FD RX-7 Stock (TT) = 276 hp /1.3 Liter =212hp / L

FC RX-7 Stock (N/A) 160 hp / 1.3 Liter =123 hp / L

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by Rotorocious

My rotary sense is tingling.....


FD RX-7 Stock (TT) = 276 hp /1.3 Liter =212hp / L

FC RX-7 Stock (N/A) 160 hp / 1.3 Liter =123 hp / L

They are really 2.6 Liters in comparison.

A good explanation of why for those that don't know:

"To understand why the rotary displacement is equal to twice the piston engine displacement, it helps to think of the piston engine as having half the displacement of the rotary.

Think of what happens in the rotary as the eccentric (output) shaft rotates. For each rotation, the rotor rotates 1/3 of a turn. So, one complete rotation of the rotor results in three rotations of the eccentric shaft. Since the rotor has three faces, and each one sees one power stroke for each rotation of the rotor, we have three power strokes for each rotation of the rotors, which results in three rotations of the output shaft. Three power strokes per three output shaft rotations is the same thing as one power stroke for one eccentric shaft rotation. The displacement of each side of the rotor is 654cc, so you get 654cc worth of power, for every rotation, for every rotor. With two rotors, you get 1.3L of worth of power per eccentric shaft rotation.

In a piston engine, the piston moves once through its range of motion (bottom to top and back again) for each rotation of the crankshaft. However, only once every two rotations does this involve a combustion event. So really, whatever the displacement of the piston is, you only get that displacement worth of power stroke every two rotations. Which means you can also think of it as half the displacement worth of power per crankshaft revolution, on average. Then you multiply by the number of pistons to end up with the total "working" displacement per revolution. In other words, if you have 2.6L of engine displacement, you only get 1.3L of that working for you per crankshaft rotation. The other 1.3L is doing the exhaust/intake stroke rather than delivering power."

[Rotorocious]

I know, I'm just a rotard

[mrbillytalent]

Holy bawls, I totally forgot my umbrella.



Cus its raining knowledge up in dis bish!

[dave1078]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

Acura RSX Type S 200HP/ 2.0 Liter = 100HP per Liter (N/A) Winnar!

Then how much torque and how high in the RPM range? That was my biggest issue with that motor.