MAG58

Torque is not RPM dependant. I charge you to find even F1 motors that come close to or break 100ft/lb per L. FWIW, at 18k, an F1 motor has to produce just shy of 230ftlbs to get to 750hp.

NA? I'd like to see this motor, especially if it produces 142.5ft/lb/L of displacement.

Ok so now I'm confused... You said the 'best' motors are square but your two examples for great track motors are not square? Not flaming just trying to figure out what's going on here...

Just to be pedantic... Doesn't the E46 M3 have a bore and stroke of 87mm x 91mm... not square by your definition and a rather pathetic rod/stroke ratio of 1.53 (139mm rod)? The 3.4L Cayman motor has a bore x stroke of 97mm x 77.5mm REALLY not square... (though I expected that, I rarely see a square boxer motor)

Oh... So you wanted square engines? Annotated...roughly. I'm going to consider them square enough. You can nitpick all you want. And is it of any note that for the past...couple of decades, F1 engines have had bore to stroke ratios coming close to 2:1 and rod/stroke ratios often over 2:1. I feel that boxing yourself into a certain rod/stroke ratio and or bore/stroke ratio as believing those are just better motors for track cars seems a bit constrictive.By your assertion, then the best L series for a track car would be an L24 with a diesel crank?

Bob can play this game... Mercedes-Benz (At least I'm predictable) M104.941 (C36 AMG Motor) 91mm x 92.4mm Rod = 144mm, B/S = 0.984, R/S = 1.56 Zonda/SL73 M120.98 91mm x 92.4mm Rod = 144mm, B/S = 0.984, R/S =1.56

Woo Hoo... another year alive and semi-sane with teens in the house is an achievement. Go air-rifle some barbies for us, paul. Happy Birthday.

Yep. 2.5 605 and 606 are the exact same motor sans a cylinder. The 606 is the motor in that 'driftwagon' from Finland that's been all over the internets. There's also a vido of a 240Z motivated by just such an animal on here somewhere...

MMhmm... I love me some OM60x. Same motor as the 606 sans a cylinder. Home grown in the Dodge and freightliner sprinters, fwiw.

I wasn't worried about this crank, I'm going to run it. But if you noticed, I said all three of my cranks, mic'd, have this same pattern with the #1 & #7 mains having considerably more wear than the middle journal. I've got a crank that shows more wear, and it appears that it becomes amplified with wear. FWIW, the thrust bearing on this motor is located on the #5 journal. And John, I'm a college student, I don't have a 'sock drawer'. I do have a drawer where clothing exists to be dug through when I decide that going to class in my birthday suit is a poor decision though.Â

I knew plati-gague was a ball-park kind of thing, and promptly after I got the numbers I drug out my trusty starret mic and mic'd them, getting the same numbers. I plan on running the crank, I'd just like figure out why it does this, since it is not just one engine, but three separate cranks, of three separate strokes, out of three engines. You're probably right though mongo, it's probably nothing.

I know most of you haven't played with MB motors, but the bottom end isn't anything special. So, to the jist of the argument, I was bolting the bottom end of the M104 together, since RTz has been ridiculing me for some time to finish it, and noticed some abnormalities when plasti-gauging it. I gauged the seven mains and came out with these clearances front to back: Main 1: .002 2: .0015 3: .0015 4: .001 5: .0015 6: .0015 7: .002 If you'll notice, it has the most clearance at the nose and tail with the center still being almost factory clearances. I checked them for roundness, and all of them were well within tolerances for roundness and trueness along the bearing face. I was interested in this phenomenon so I drug out my other two cranks, mic'd them and came up with very similar numbers. This crank in question has 202k and the max allowable clearance on the crank is .003 on the mains. It is also well within tolerances on runout, i.e. it's not bent. My questions to you guys are what would cause this to happen? And how can I rectify it? I'd like to nip this in the bud and I'm not sure whether to address this as oil starvation to the front and rear mains or a harmonic issue. MB used three different types of balancer designs over the years and even with the different designs on each of the cranks, they still exhibit this. There was no scoring or gouging of any of the journals or bearings that came off of this motor either... It also may be nothing, but the L28 cranks didn't display this (IIRC) when I built it, hence my intrigue.

Ron: Motor's done. Car got hit by a sorority **** and is in the hands of the insurance. It's out of my hands, and I'm a little scared. It's going to be stock for now, but at under 380 lift and barely 224 duration on the cams, is it too much to ask for something so... docile? The motor is completely out of wheeze even at 231hp and 6k. Pzary: My motor was made by the swabians, not the gents from munich, hence my envy of BMW's support. *Prepares for slow/old geezer/taxi Jokes*

I mean, that doesn't sound too bad to me at the moment. I've completely removed the CIS and am starting work on a standalone before I even get the chance to start the motor! And parts may be pricey but 1500 for a pair of cams doesn't seem too horrible to me at the moment. The only two games for me in town are dbilas and MKB, both of which want more for a single bump stick than crower wants to weld, hardface, and re-grind to any specs for both cams. I dunno, I'm envious of the aftermarket following that BMW has.

So, why wont this work? You may need the ford T-5 to T56 part # but couldn't you just use the ZXT Bellhouse and go from there? I also know D&D performance makes a similar setup... Summit Racing Part 8-207

I double post because I can... Completely unrelated to personal incompetence.

Was there a question somewhere? I is confused. Which shifter do you have? The stock shifter on the T-5 can allow to much movement of the shift fork, allowing the detent fingers on the synchro to start to work their way out. The thing will be a mother**** to get into gear, and will promptly want to pop out after. They're pretty easy to get to, since it's the synchro between the mainshaft and input. It can also happen if the tranny's been dogged to death and the clearances have opened up between the two...

At least an aftermarket exists for BMW! Ahahahahah...hahaha...hahah...ha...ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh And now I'm depressed.

Where in IL? You're more than welcome to jump ship to come over to the 'neck state to your east. If you're close to bloomington, come for a drive! I need friends who don't have big, expensive audi's and bmw's that are hella...whatever they hella are... My closest car friends are in Our-kansas. My working 40hrs/week on top of a more than full course load doesn't make that easy.

Microbial genetics Medical Microbiology Med micro lab two useless gen. eds. Only 16 credits. Pretty easy semester!

I call them a pain in the ass. But seriously, when I got them I believe Advance had it labeled as a "rear seal kit" and it had the one big round seal for the crank and the two little seals that go on either side of the main seal. I tried to buy them separately but they always seem to come in some form of a kit.Â

Fixed it for you.

No Mattel's for me, M14's please. In the same vein, G3 or FAL?

Oh the glories of the BRM motor. Apparently for the day they spun the piss out of these things and surprisingly it wasn't the mechanical nightmare that lurked underneath that was the issue. From what I read, any day the ignition would let the motor run on all 16 (as opposed to 8 or 12) was a pretty rare occurrence and was what plagued this motor during it's existence. IMO My favorite reciprocating noise, but it still cant touch the sound of burner cans lighting off on a big turbine.Â