You make a good point here with dynos potentially reading higher. BPC is known to not have the highest reading dyno in town. Also, this is just on 93 octane, no e blend, which I assume some of the higher cars are running. I'll touch base after the tune is finished with final results and see how they stack up to n55 cam cars. Also will be getting dragy times for a true test that we can compare.
100WHP by installing an N52 exhaust cam in an N55.
- Thread starter 9krpmrx8
- Start date
Spoolstreet has taken a sad turn if asking for data that apparently exists is demonized because of the way it is asked for. How big of a snowflake are we? I simply poked fun at the irony of the situation and how butt hurt our boy got for not providing a clear picture in the first place. Plenty of hints in my comments showing that he should just post all this data if he has it. And what's the response? More butt hurt. No data. I think that says plenty but he keeps digging the hole. "Ask on youtube comments!" Yeah okay pal.
Keep it about results people. Results are what matter. Mr. big talker has videos of 500+hp, 52 logs, etc. but somehow all that didn't make it into his 35 hour reel that is supposed to prove what he is pushing? Yawn.
Sorry to say you can't just cherry pick data and say things like "insane power gains from N52 cam" without a good deal of supporting evidence. To think that we won't believe you when you provide data just tells us you don't have shit to support your claims...
You'll learn pretty quick that this community is just impatient with people who don't cut to the chase.
We're 6 pages in and nothing has been proven lol. Don't you think this is something that should have been easy to answer a few pages back?
Sad.
Last edited:
I thought your dynos were with meth? Is that not the case? If this was pure 93 octane only dyno, then I would say that the cams may have changed the VE enough to allow for higher timing without corrections. The after dyno was indeed running quite a bit of timing for 93 only. Heck, it was running a good bit of timing for an E85 setup. (If N55 and N54 timing values are similar).
The only issue I have with this statement is that it's so broad and unqualified (unqualified statement, not the person). Obviously more timing gives the large gains, but what it doesn't address is if the cam is what is ALLOWING the added timing. Perhaps if that person doesn't want to be involved, either tell them to refrain, or play intermediary and get them to be more specific about it.
I installed a cam in my LT1 Camaro years ago. It was tuned prior to the cam and made 300whp. Post cam on the same tune it made 320whp. After re-tuning for the cam, guess what - it took more timing - it made 360whp and had a max gain of 100whp since it peaked at a much higher rpm. I had the rev limit changed too.
Based on that, everyone here would be saying that the re-tune is what made the power, but that's not the case and anyone that understands tuning would laugh. Ya'll put too much faith in JUST the tune, without realizing that the tune is the optimization of the parts assembled.
Finally - everyone is saying his numbers are about right for an N55 PS2 car - 520WHP is the norm for 93 octane on an N55 with PS2s? Those look like E40 or E50 type numbers. Now, if he's running E40 or E50 timing values without corrections, then maybe, just maybe the cam is changing the VE enough to allow that, and thus it is what made the difference.
If 520 whp is 93 octane PS2 N55 numbers, I'd think 575 - 580 is the norm for E50/E85 then? I didn't realize they were that high.
You're making a lot of assumptions, and defending this thread, based off a bunch of anecdotal experience. Look at the logs yourself...
He is spraying meth which has an effective octane rating of 119aki. Compare OP's logs to these: https://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1405434 A simple E30 mix (approx 97-98aki) at 18-20psi makes 500whp. OP is pushing 22psi and more timing and you're baffled how he made 530whp? People have pushed PS2 turbos to 560whp+ now I think... Keep in mind that this in in the mid-range and produces a shitty power curve. PS2 is more realistically a 450-500whp turbo.
Before I go any further, we don't even know if the logs provided are from the before/after dyno. OP removed the date and timestamps from most of the file names. Weather was clearly different in the logs he posted and STD correction factor used on the dyno doesn't account for ambient pressure changes. He also provided multiple logs, so, which one actually correlate to the dyno pull comparison? Anyway, i'll keep going based off the logs that have been posted...
The "after" tune added about 4-5* of timing. If OP is OK with depending on the even distribution and consistency of his meth delivery system for supplemental fueling/octane than more power to him. Most people just use meth for it's IAT suppression and tune for their base fuel octane. Meth stops spraying, or doesn't get distributed evenly, car won't go boom...
Also consider that the dyno plot converges at 6200rpm+ despite the 4-5* increase in timing. Nothing was really gained anywhere expect in the mid-range where the throttle closure is seen in the "before" log. One of the "before" logs even shows the car hitting and torque limiter and going into limp mode at 5400rpm+. Look for yourself:
N52 Cam on N55
Graph 1: 2019-10-09 11_36_17 000021571DAA01 PS2-XDI_WBA3A9G52FNT09915_v9-N52Cam_v2b.mhd.csv - Tune N52 Cam - Unfinished Graph 2: 1571191517604_2019-10-03 16_01_28 000021571DAA01 PS2-XDI_WBA3A9G52FNT09915_v9.mhd.csv N55 Cam Graph 3...
datalogs.spoolstreet.com
There is no point debating this further unless someone can actually show the cam profiles are indeed different enough to have a meaningful impact on a dyno. Otherwise, there is so much that can be nitpicked at with what's presented here that I don't see how anyone could read this and think that this is a useful mod. People have provided counter-points that explain away every bit of what is presented. Different weather, different tune, issues with original tune, cams are reported to be similar profiles, OP claims to have made over 500whp himself without the cam change, etc. We all get excited about the cool shit we do to our cars. Not knocking OP at all for that! Hopefully OP can prove us wrong. BPC should easily be able to provide cam data to him since they supposedly mastermind this whole concept. Lets put more scrutiny on BPC instead of OP. Did they swap this cam in on good faith, or, did they just straight up rip OP off? That's what I really want to know.
Last edited:
470 is about the right number for pump gas, no meth on this setup. Maybe a little high honestly. Who knows with this guy, he has this video log of himself adding meth, XDI HPFP, etc. and he's saying this is all on 93? It's pretty disingenuous if that's what he means by "just on 93", but I'm certain there's methanol involved at that timing.
To compare, here's pure's post with a ton of f30 ps2 dynos:
F-Series N55 PURE Stage 2 Turbo Upgrade - Results Thread!
F-Series N55 PURE Stage 2 Turbo Upgrade - Results Thread!
f30.bimmerpost.com
Here's what I know, I've measured N52, N53 and N54 cams (intake and exhaust) on a lath and have duration/lift data at various degree rotations, basically similar like a cam doctor setup.
The N52, N53 and N54 exhaust cams have the same base circle at around 35.5mm. All these 3 exhaust cams have the same lift which is about 5.85mm, however the duration at low lifts and mid/high lifts are different. Don't confuse cam lift and valve lift, this is different, the valve lift is multiplied by the rocker ratio (1.64). Therefore the exhaust valve lift is about 9.65mm.
The N55 exhaust cam has a base circle of 36.5mm (based on the picture expressed) and I'm certain that the lift is the same as the other N series platforms. I'm 99% certain the the N55 and N54 exhaust cam share the same profile.
The N52 and N53 exhaust cams have the same or almost the same profile. Duration on a cam is not the full picture on how it will perform on the street. Cam profiles are assymetrical which means that the open end (ramps) of the cam is different than the closing end of the cam profile. The N52 and N53 exhaust cam opens about 12-14 degrees sooner than a N54/N55 exhaust cam, if I decide the N52/53 and N54/55 are to close at the same time. This statement needs a little thinking and it's the proper statement to make when dealing with VANOS adjustability.
The best part of all of this is stock n54 turbos can hit higher peak numbers.
475 is too high of 93 only from every pure stage 2 93 octane dyno I have seen.
470 is about the right number for pump gas, no meth on this setup. Maybe a little high honestly. Who knows with this guy, he has this video log of himself adding meth, XDI HPFP, etc. and he's saying this is all on 93? It's pretty disingenuous if that's what he means by "just on 93", but I'm certain there's methanol involved at that timing.
To compare, here's pure's post with a ton of f30 ps2 dynos:
F-Series N55 PURE Stage 2 Turbo Upgrade - Results Thread!
F-Series N55 PURE Stage 2 Turbo Upgrade - Results Thread!f30.bimmerpost.com
475 is too high of 93 only from every pure stage 2 93 octane dyno I have seen.
N54 stock turbos taper way harder up top and blow up every 10k miles. No one cares that a stock n54 can make power power with its twins. Ther are literally like two or three n54s in the 10s with stock turbos. Probably more ps2 n55s in the 10s at this point actually.
Are you saying that both the pre and post can dynos were running the most timing they could without excessive timing corrections? I would think you could realistically run more than 10* if using meth, so that would mean the stock cam dyno wasn't as optimized or as aggressive of a tune compared to the n52 cam tune.
Just curious, if it was addressed I missed it. What was the driving factor to have you change out the cam in the first place?
The N55 cam tune was revision 14 or so. It was not 100% completed. The immediate comparison of N52 cam results that showed 10whp gained was the exact same tune. The big gain comparison was 4 revisions in then I ran out of Dyno time and was excited to share the results. I will provide the numbers it gets once it's done, but just don't have time to share each and every detail currently. I'm not an active member here and don't plan to be. Have too much going on to address everyone's doubts and concerns, but will share more data when I can and after the tune is finished. Thanks for everyone's interest and questions. I'll keep them in mind when doing a more detailed video.
I know that! I just find it interesting, the peak numbers that is. Also, I think the N55 stinks in general with the factory manifold. BMW really neutered it from the factory performance wise unless you go aftermarket single like the BigBoost kits.
I would bet the transmission has more to do with getting N55s into the 10s as they seem to be doing it will less power.
Excellent question. Last thing I would think of is using a stock cam from another BMW engine to increase performance.
Who came up with the idea and how/why? It is a lot of work to swap a cam on a hunch I guess is my point, especially if you want big HP on a N55 a stock frame wheel upgrade is not where you spend your time and money.
Very few. Best is 11.0 for 'full weight' afaik no NOS. To get below people need weight reduction, a very strong tail wind, perfect launch, etc. 11.0 on stock twins is still ridiculous. The people who made that did it before inlets and full E85 500whp/530tq dyno queens existed. So in theory a 'full weight' stock turbo sub 11 pass should be possible. Maybe it has already happened?
It is really unfortunate that the best N55 dyno results on tune revision 14 resulted in a 40% throttle closure at peak power. Timing and IAT aside, I think everyone would be a lot more understanding of any claimed gains if it was actually a clean pull. Unless you swap back to the N55 cam with a proper tune we will never have an actual apples to apple comparison.
Similar threads
