VID - Supercharged E46 M3
05-14-2004, 05:46 PM
#1
Race Director
Thread Starter
VID - Supercharged E46 M3
To do this you'll first actually need an E46 M3 of course. 
The E46 M3's S54 motor was inspired by design along the lines of the typical BMW Motorsport engines that pre seeded it. With multiple throttles to increase volumetric efficiency and high RPM thresholds to facilitate breathing, the traditional "raspy" exhaust is inherent in the nature of the beast. It is truly a wonderful work of engineering at it's best, and is also one of the few motors in the world that can produce more than 100 HP per liter of displacement.
AA Tuning has spent many hours researching how we could improve on this by way of forced induction and at the same time meet the following criteria:
1. Maintain the stock engine configuration without opening the engine.
2. Make it a true bolt on system that is available in "kit" form, whereby most all parts are "plug and play".
3. Add 100 more HP at the flywheel without any "excessive damaging" stress on the engine.
4. Do all this at an even lower engine speed to further increase reliability of the engine and the supercharger, which will decrease heat and friction on all moving parts as well.
5. Be able to run pump fuel with as low a fuel as 91 octane.
6. Do all this with the lowest boost level as possible.
7. Be gentle on the driveline.
8. Maintain the same "M Style" powerband, and at the same time enhance it.
9. Keep it affordably priced.
10. Be able to fit all versions around the world. (except CSL at this time)
We achieved these goals by using the Rotrex C38 supercharger, which gives the motor a gentle 5.5psi air-to-air intercooled push. The result is an astonishing 32-35% increase in power at a lower RPM limit of 7600 RPM vs 8000 RPM from the stock configuration. This just goes to show how well a heavy breathing motor like the M3's responds so wonderfully to a gentle bit of forced induction.
The system can be installed in approximately 10-14 hours and is easily reversible back to stock in less than one day.
And this is only at the base 5.5psi level of boost. Just imagine the possibilities.
VIDEO
The E46 M3's S54 motor was inspired by design along the lines of the typical BMW Motorsport engines that pre seeded it. With multiple throttles to increase volumetric efficiency and high RPM thresholds to facilitate breathing, the traditional "raspy" exhaust is inherent in the nature of the beast. It is truly a wonderful work of engineering at it's best, and is also one of the few motors in the world that can produce more than 100 HP per liter of displacement.
AA Tuning has spent many hours researching how we could improve on this by way of forced induction and at the same time meet the following criteria:
1. Maintain the stock engine configuration without opening the engine.
2. Make it a true bolt on system that is available in "kit" form, whereby most all parts are "plug and play".
3. Add 100 more HP at the flywheel without any "excessive damaging" stress on the engine.
4. Do all this at an even lower engine speed to further increase reliability of the engine and the supercharger, which will decrease heat and friction on all moving parts as well.
5. Be able to run pump fuel with as low a fuel as 91 octane.
6. Do all this with the lowest boost level as possible.
7. Be gentle on the driveline.
8. Maintain the same "M Style" powerband, and at the same time enhance it.
9. Keep it affordably priced.
10. Be able to fit all versions around the world. (except CSL at this time)
We achieved these goals by using the Rotrex C38 supercharger, which gives the motor a gentle 5.5psi air-to-air intercooled push. The result is an astonishing 32-35% increase in power at a lower RPM limit of 7600 RPM vs 8000 RPM from the stock configuration. This just goes to show how well a heavy breathing motor like the M3's responds so wonderfully to a gentle bit of forced induction.
The system can be installed in approximately 10-14 hours and is easily reversible back to stock in less than one day.
And this is only at the base 5.5psi level of boost. Just imagine the possibilities.
VIDEO
would've increased the trq a bit more as well. NOt a fan of the centerfugial blowers on anything but v8s.
05-14-2004, 07:48 PM
#5
Senior Moderator
365hp at the wheels = 427hp at the flywheel, figuring a 17% drivetrain loss.. that is just about 100 more hp than stock
05-14-2004, 07:56 PM
#6
THE SILVER BULLET
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: socal
Age: 36
Posts: 3,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that is a dream car, but i never seen a T/C on the e46, that would be even better.
Ive seen the video b4 on bimmerforums, the owner got it a few months back
Ive seen the video b4 on bimmerforums, the owner got it a few months back
05-14-2004, 08:01 PM
#7
Senior Moderator
some pics i took last year. 
Trending Topics
05-14-2004, 08:09 PM
#10
Senior Moderator
import drags last year at woodburn, oregon.
05-14-2004, 08:21 PM
#11
goldmemberererer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: West Hills, CA
Posts: 1,736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holy moly
That's some crazy shit, I didn't think an engine that has such high output for its displacement already could have a "cheap & reliable" F/I application.
The M3 tranny causes about an 18% loss from the crank to rear wheels, (stock dyno) The HP number is real nice, about 110 hp over stock, but the torque, much like the stock M3, leaves a lot to be desired. There's only a 40 lb/ft or 15% increase in torque with the S/C, so if a (reliable) turbo could be made, that would rock ass.
Of course, I didn't expect the torque to improve by much, 3.2 liters can only develop so much.
The M3 tranny causes about an 18% loss from the crank to rear wheels, (stock dyno) The HP number is real nice, about 110 hp over stock, but the torque, much like the stock M3, leaves a lot to be desired. There's only a 40 lb/ft or 15% increase in torque with the S/C, so if a (reliable) turbo could be made, that would rock ass.
Of course, I didn't expect the torque to improve by much, 3.2 liters can only develop so much.
05-14-2004, 09:09 PM
#12
Cost Drivers!!!!
Re: Holy moly
yea but see that's the problem with centerfugal blowers. A turbo would be perfect.
Originally posted by goldmemberer
That's some crazy shit, I didn't think an engine that has such high output for its displacement already could have a "cheap & reliable" F/I application.
The M3 tranny causes about an 18% loss from the crank to rear wheels, (stock dyno) The HP number is real nice, about 110 hp over stock, but the torque, much like the stock M3, leaves a lot to be desired. There's only a 40 lb/ft or 15% increase in torque with the S/C, so if a (reliable) turbo could be made, that would rock ass.
Of course, I didn't expect the torque to improve by much, 3.2 liters can only develop so much.
That's some crazy shit, I didn't think an engine that has such high output for its displacement already could have a "cheap & reliable" F/I application.
The M3 tranny causes about an 18% loss from the crank to rear wheels, (stock dyno) The HP number is real nice, about 110 hp over stock, but the torque, much like the stock M3, leaves a lot to be desired. There's only a 40 lb/ft or 15% increase in torque with the S/C, so if a (reliable) turbo could be made, that would rock ass.
Of course, I didn't expect the torque to improve by much, 3.2 liters can only develop so much.
05-14-2004, 09:43 PM
#14
goldmemberererer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: West Hills, CA
Posts: 1,736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: Holy moly
Originally posted by Zapata
yea but see that's the problem with centerfugal blowers. A turbo would be perfect.
yea but see that's the problem with centerfugal blowers. A turbo would be perfect.
05-14-2004, 09:54 PM
#15
Cost Drivers!!!!
Re: Re: Re: Holy moly
Originally posted by goldmemberer
Not that I know much about turbos, but isn't it the same case with the CL? A turbo could be made to yield more power, but in the end be less reliable?
Not that I know much about turbos, but isn't it the same case with the CL? A turbo could be made to yield more power, but in the end be less reliable?
nah absolutely not. Turbo's can get peaky if boost pressure isn't watched carefully but the same can happen with a SC.
05-14-2004, 11:04 PM
#16
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 53
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Holy moly
Originally posted by goldmemberer
Of course, I didn't expect the torque to improve by much, 3.2 liters can only develop so much.
Of course, I didn't expect the torque to improve by much, 3.2 liters can only develop so much.
First thing though, I would trade my CL-S6SC for that M3 any day. I sometimes wish I had taken my wife's E46 328i and worked it over. The E46 M3 is just so much grander...
This is not meant to take away from that car as it is extremely impressive. I just want to harp on how well the J32A2 is and if mated to a worthy chassis would probably be more acknowledged.
That M3 was making 5.5 PSI of intercooled boost and made that power. A blown J32A2 at the same boost will make nearly the same, if not more, torque but cannot rev as high to produce the same power numbers. It will come up about 40 WHP short.
I have no questions that with the IC the J32A2 would make nearly the same power, at lower revs, while making noticeably more torque. I suspect that 300 lb/ft and 350 WHP would be realized once intercooled. And you can easily run a little more boost to get even more power. This will be seen in the next coming weeks once the new pulley is in.
The problem is that the chassis paired to the J32A2 is not up to par to put down that power making the production worthless. The M3, on the other hand, can utilize the power much greater making it a better power platform irrelevant of the significantly greater handling capability.
05-15-2004, 12:17 AM
#18
goldmemberererer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: West Hills, CA
Posts: 1,736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: Holy moly
Originally posted by scalbert
3.2L can develop more torque than that. I made more with less added to the engine. The presented vehicle did not just have the SC installed. That plenum is not stock nor do I expect the outlet flow to be stock.
First thing though, I would trade my CL-S6SC for that M3 any day. I sometimes wish I had taken my wife's E46 328i and worked it over. The E46 M3 is just so much grander...
This is not meant to take away from that car as it is extremely impressive. I just want to harp on how well the J32A2 is and if mated to a worthy chassis would probably be more acknowledged.
That M3 was making 5.5 PSI of intercooled boost and made that power. A blown J32A2 at the same boost will make nearly the same, if not more, torque but cannot rev as high to produce the same power numbers. It will come up about 40 WHP short.
I have no questions that with the IC the J32A2 would make nearly the same power, at lower revs, while making noticeably more torque. I suspect that 300 lb/ft and 350 WHP would be realized once intercooled. And you can easily run a little more boost to get even more power. This will be seen in the next coming weeks once the new pulley is in.
The problem is that the chassis paired to the J32A2 is not up to par to put down that power making the production worthless. The M3, on the other hand, can utilize the power much greater making it a better power platform irrelevant of the significantly greater handling capability.
3.2L can develop more torque than that. I made more with less added to the engine. The presented vehicle did not just have the SC installed. That plenum is not stock nor do I expect the outlet flow to be stock.
First thing though, I would trade my CL-S6SC for that M3 any day. I sometimes wish I had taken my wife's E46 328i and worked it over. The E46 M3 is just so much grander...
This is not meant to take away from that car as it is extremely impressive. I just want to harp on how well the J32A2 is and if mated to a worthy chassis would probably be more acknowledged.
That M3 was making 5.5 PSI of intercooled boost and made that power. A blown J32A2 at the same boost will make nearly the same, if not more, torque but cannot rev as high to produce the same power numbers. It will come up about 40 WHP short.
I have no questions that with the IC the J32A2 would make nearly the same power, at lower revs, while making noticeably more torque. I suspect that 300 lb/ft and 350 WHP would be realized once intercooled. And you can easily run a little more boost to get even more power. This will be seen in the next coming weeks once the new pulley is in.
The problem is that the chassis paired to the J32A2 is not up to par to put down that power making the production worthless. The M3, on the other hand, can utilize the power much greater making it a better power platform irrelevant of the significantly greater handling capability.
The upcoming AWD TL sounds good, though.
Back to the M3:
05-15-2004, 07:27 PM
#22
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally posted by Chaptorial
No arguments here but that's the only one they got. :P
No arguments here but that's the only one they got. :P
no worries
M3 exhaust sounds like a fart passing through a tin can and how much can you put up with the dude saying WOOOOOHOOOOO, OMG, WHOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO....Life is good......douche
the rims on the red m3 are hot
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
IBankMouse
1G TSX (2004-2008)
8
06-13-2020 12:53 PM
Joe Avesyan
3G TL Performance Parts & Modifications
9
09-29-2015 03:57 PM
