Can someone let me build their M3 like this please?

Finished and driving without a single problem since 09



Build:
http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthr...ghlight=pt6262

Originally Posted by Reid@SP

That's one hell of a bug catcher. Beautiful work not only in power but functional creativity.

Originally Posted by Reid@SP

Well that's interesting..

^

Excuse me, I need to go change my underwear......

I have to admit, i like the idea of a 2JZ. It just has more room around it for better intake tubes and bigger exhaust manis. That right there gives the motor a big edge over the S52.
The ONLY way for the S52 to begin to get even close to matching the output of the 2JZ (same turbo, same boost) is for the S52 to breath better.
This means a modified intake tube with with a huge AFE filter. This part has been done by a few with great results.
Then you need to match things up with a much better exhaust mani...either a ported Steed (soon to be proven I hope) or a really well designed and built tubular manifold...either top or bottom mount. This part of the equation is being worked on by a number of different Enterprises.

I predict a big break through soon in S54 results when some of these tubular manis are combined with a modified intake tube and AFE filter.
It will be much easier to compare the two motors when the S54 is given better breathing capabilities via mani and intake tube.

I like the 2JZ for NOT having a VANOS. That is a huge plus IMO. Or maybe not.
I have never driven a 2JZ turbo. It may be that the power delivery is such that the motor is ONLY good at being a roll on or a drag monster. It may be totally unsuitable for any HPDE work.
As intriguing as the 2JZ is, I think the future of the S54 looks much brighter that it is at present. Bring on those tubulars and lets see how things look.'
I am convinced that the right combination of breathing is going to make the S54 MUCH more efficient and finally GET the max RWHP out of the PT turbos fitted in them.

Right now, the S54 is running typically at about 80% of what the turbos are capable of delivering. The simple reason for this is breathing bottlenecks, not tuning. I know Larry and Jason both have taken this line for some time now.
I am sure there are others who agree. This is the reason for all of a sudden seeing an explosion of tubular manis coming on the market. The question is, whose tubular is up to the task? I guess we should find out in the future.

Originally Posted by E462j

Finished and driving without a single problem since 09

Build:
http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthr...ghlight=pt6262

I know you have a 62mm turbo in this. I could not find a dyno sheet anywhere. What kind of power? Very interesting build. Was it cost effective..more or less?

Larry what car is that awesome motor in?

Originally Posted by E462j

Larry what car is that awesome motor in?

The 240sx in the dyno videos.

The car put down around 550ish with the 6262 in 09, and the whole build cost me 12.5K out the door, pretty cost effective in my opinion. Since then I've bought a pro-efi kit, wavetrac lsd, MT drag radials, got the transmission built and a multi disc torque converter installed. (And yes its an automatic lol) Now im waiting on GSC 272 cams and a PTE6766 and hoping for 800rwhp with c16! My friends auto supra ran a 10.6 with only 550whp(stock twins, shift kit and spray). So im def excited to see what happens with my lighter chassis.

There's one-way to pump the power out! Looking good SP!

Originally Posted by E462j

The car put down around 550ish with the 6262 in 09, and the whole build cost me 12.5K out the door, pretty cost effective in my opinion. Since then I've bought a pro-efi kit, wavetrac lsd, MT drag radials, got the transmission built and a multi disc torque converter installed. (And yes its an automatic lol) Now im waiting on GSC 272 cams and a PTE6766 and hoping for 800rwhp with c16! My friends auto supra ran a 10.6 with only 550whp(stock twins, shift kit and spray). So im def excited to see what happens with my lighter chassis.

I think Larry (and you) have got owners thinking of the options of a 2JZ swap. I had not personally ever heard of this before.

The Supra Guys love the auto with the SJZ, well some of them. They say it is best for drags.
What you have done and are planning is SO cool! PM me. I gotta see this beast. And maybe talk you in to E85! Jjking or maybe not...
But do PM me.
6766 FTW!

2jz is far better !!

Originally Posted by forcefedvw

2jz is far better !!

Aside from not bottlenecking at 1000rwhp, how else is the 2JZ better?

This better argument is pointless, thing is the s54 will NEVER have the aftermarket the 2jz has, period. Not only that but the wealth of knowledge for the 2jz is light years ahead. If you are judging the engines based on cost effectiveness then you can certainly say the 2jz is "better".

Originally Posted by 7to3_enthusiast

Aside from not bottlenecking at 1000rwhp, how else is the 2JZ better?

This is still a valid question. From looking at what is been done, it certainly seems that getting big HP numbers is far easier with the 2JZ rather than the S54. Does that make the 2JZ "better"? I dont know.

I ask the question from guys that have owned and driven both: What do you think? Is the absence of a VANOS a plus or a minus on the 2JZ as far as drivability goes? Lets avoid the reliability factor of the VANOS for a second.

How does a turbo 2JZ in an E46 M3 do on an HPDE course as far as driva bility goes...throttle response, ease of exiting corners, over all power delivery characteristics? Is the 2JZ mostly only good for drags and highway roll ons?

Or does the absence of a VANOS make no difference and the 2JZ shines as an all around capable FI motor?

unlimited aftermarket support, it almost all been done and tried
tons of shops that have years and years of experience on that motor
iron block, no need to add sleeves
simplistic engine setup, no complicated electronics to tune/fail

for HDPE, why not just read here http://www.supraforums.com/forum/for...cing-Autocross

Originally Posted by 7to3_enthusiast

Aside from not bottlenecking at 1000rwhp, how else is the 2JZ better?

Good question. I'd say that the 2J has a superior botton end, it can handle 1000 hp / 800 tq in stock form. Once built the sky is the limit.... over 2000HP has been made numerous times!

The BMW has a better head for sure, it simply flows a ton more than the 2J! The BMW will make a lot more HP at less boost than a 2J due to the head. As a side not, the 2J is available with a variable cam setup but it was only in Japan. Some of those heads have made their way over here but not many. Expect a big increase in torque with those!

The BMW motor was designed as a naturally aspirated motor, 2J as a forced induction motor. Head flow is very important in a NA application while strength is important in a forced induction application. Boost can overcome a poor flowing head somewhat!

So what does all of this mean.... I would suspect that with a similar style header on the BMW that it would make more HP than a 2J. Power is ALWAYS in the head while strength is in the bottom end. Can the BMW bottom end handle 1500-2000 HP?? No one knows yet.

As far as the drivetrain and chassis goes the 2J in stock form is about the strongest in a mass produced car that I have ever seen. The rear end, half shafts, transmission and chassis can take the abuse of 1000-1500 hp without a problem while the BMW ...... well..... it certainly needs a ton of help. To hear of so many BMW guys even in NA form tearing up the subframes is a bit disappointing.

FYI, I know a few engineers at Toyota and in Japan when they want to test out a new motor design now , they throw it in a supra chassis and beat the hell out of it on their testing track. They state that it is simply the strongest chassis that they have ever built! All of this in a car that was first on the drawing boards in the late 80s!

Originally Posted by 7to3_enthusiast

Aside from not bottlenecking at 1000rwhp, how else is the 2JZ better?

Because it was forged in the fires of Mordor?

Rob1796 Quote:
Because it was forged in the fires of Mordor?

Haha, pretty much!

Sound Performance
Good question. I'd say that the 2J has a superior botton end, it can handle 1000 hp / 800 tq in stock form. Once built the sky is the limit.... over 2000HP has been made numerous times!

The BMW has a better head for sure, it simply flows a ton more than the 2J! The BMW will make a lot more HP at less boost than a 2J due to the head. As a side not, the 2J is available with a variable cam setup but it was only in Japan. Some of those heads have made their way over here but not many. Expect a big increase in torque with those!

The BMW motor was designed as a naturally aspirated motor, 2J as a forced induction motor. Head flow is very important in a NA application while strength is important in a forced induction application. Boost can overcome a poor flowing head somewhat!

So what does all of this mean.... I would suspect that with a similar style header on the BMW that it would make more HP than a 2J. Power is ALWAYS in the head while strength is in the bottom end. Can the BMW bottom end handle 1500-2000 HP?? No one knows yet.

As far as the drivetrain and chassis goes the 2J in stock form is about the strongest in a mass produced car that I have ever seen. The rear end, half shafts, transmission and chassis can take the abuse of 1000-1500 hp without a problem while the BMW ...... well..... it certainly needs a ton of help. To hear of so many BMW guys even in NA form tearing up the subframes is a bit disappointing.

FYI, I know a few engineers at Toyota and in Japan when they want to test out a new motor design now , they throw it in a supra chassis and beat the hell out of it on their testing track. They state that it is simply the strongest chassis that they have ever built! All of this in a car that was first on the drawing boards in the late 80s!

Great input as usual SP . I like to try and refrain from using the term 'better' but since someone else started it, I figured lets go there. I feel as though we haven't even come close to seeing the full potential of the S54, it's not particularly fair to match it mone e mono with the 2jz considering how much longer that motor has been out and has been under R&D. I find it amazing that a stock S54 can make nearly 700 rwhp at 15 psi on a 67mm turbo at just 3.2 liters (HPF)...coming from making ~280rwhp in stock form...that shows you just how well the motor flows. I've seen LS motors do better on less boost but they're considerable larger in displacement and that's a little expected. 2JZ is definitely near the top as a powerplant for drag or highway pulls, but as of now, anywhere from 400-800 rwhp I'd say the S54 is just as capable and might even have a larger (more useable) power band thanks to vanos and the head design.

Originally Posted by Sound Performance

Good question. I'd say that the 2J has a superior botton end, it can handle 1000 hp / 800 tq in stock form. Once built the sky is the limit.... over 2000HP has been made numerous times!

... snip ...

FYI, I know a few engineers at Toyota and in Japan when they want to test out a new motor design now , they throw it in a supra chassis and beat the hell out of it on their testing track. They state that it is simply the strongest chassis that they have ever built! All of this in a car that was first on the drawing boards in the late 80s!

Do you have any technical or scientific reason for believing the 2J has a superior bottom end? Do you care to say anything about the how one motor maybe better than the other in terms of reliability (presuming the vanos issue is a maintenance consideration only)?

One considerations that came to mind in high performance applications is cooling. Do you have information to suggest that either of the engines' cooling system may be less uniform or somehow suboptimal resulting in issues that stem from a design oversight?

I think testing a new motor design makes more sense if done on an engine dyno, as long as you have a proper facility for engine R&D that is, but I could be wrong... I certainly am not making a comment about the robustness of the supra chassis.