Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: [E34] M60B30 3.0 Optimal air intake.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    114

    Default [E34] M60B30 3.0 Optimal air intake.

    Hi guys,

    I am in the process of rebuilding a 3.0 V8. Don't tell me "USELESS BUY A 4.0" I simply want a rebuilt 3.0 behind which I will fit a strengthened 5HP30 and SOMEWHERE in the future I will go 4.0.

    Now I have a 4.0 air intake, 4.0 throttle body, 4.0 MAF and 4.0 filterbox.

    I had an air leak on my throttle body of my current 3.0 (470.000km) engine. Engine runs great, almost ZERO oil consumption so untill I have the rebuilt engine ready I keep doing small maintenance on it.

    The air leak was on the gasket behind the throttle body so I got a new gasket and decided to go immediately to 4.0 size. I have done the following:
    - fitted the 4.0 throttle body on a 3.0 manifold (plenum modifying piece still in the 3.0 manifold);
    - fitted a 4.0 MAF that is still ok;
    - fitted a 4.0 upper air filter box piece;

    The car runs fine and better since I no longer have my air leak. I will still have to modify my throttle cable a bit but my general idea is the following:
    - the pickup from idle / standstill is a bit slower;
    - I think I have more power in the higher RPMs;

    Intervening variables are:
    - still need to adjust my throttle cable a bit;
    - I am using a different MAF sensor (identical number of sensor but a different piece);

    I have fit my own MAF sensor (bought it new 2 years ago Bosch) in the 4.0 MAF house (Bosch too) but the car won't run well on that combination. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY WEIRD BECAUSE BOTH MAF SENSORS ARE IDENTICAL IN PART NUMBER, SIZE, AND LOOKS. IT IS JUST THE MAF TUBE THAT IS BIGGER ON THE 4.0.

    I will adjust my throttle cable and I will buy a brand new MAF sensor to place in the 4.0 tube.




    My question is, regarding a 3.0 M60:

    Being able to combine any Manifold piece + Plenum piece + throttle body + MAF + upper airbox piece of 3.0 and 4.0, what combination would give me what kind of performance?

    What will theoretically give me the best low RPM pickup?

    What will theoretically give me the best high rpm power?

    If I fit the 4.0 intake on my rebuilt engine, would I want to use the 3.0 plenum piece?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Eastern Tennessee USi
    Posts
    14,723

    Default

    Frank, I have been trying to follow several people trying the 4.0 intake parts on the 3.0 with ZERO followup. Only reason I can think of is due to negative results. I am not dogging the idea at all because I have access to all 4.0 parts 3 feet from my tools. I am definitely a believer in the bigger is better theory even though real life has beat me up on that idea many many times.

    My 3.0 picked up a bit of low end by timing the cams although I advanced it about 4-6 degrees, technically I retarded one of the cams so it is still wrong but a bit better. Got my 60-80 times to 5 seconds avg. so I am back in the ballpark.

    ============

    Theory behind bigger vs smaller in acceleration.

    The 3.0 has high duration high overlap camshafts which are made for higher RPM's. My experience with these 3.0s is they don't like much less than 3500 RPM's.
    The 4.0 has the same size and duration cams but the valves are larger to make up for the difference in engine size. (No personal experience with the 4.0 RPM's)

    The cam duration lowers compression pressures allowing it to run 10.5 without serious detonation at lower RPM's. (10:1 with the 4.0)

    -----------------

    My experience with higher output engines in general. Based on 2 valve engines for street or race, basically as much HP as I could get out of them.

    Cams - Bigger cams are good but limiting factor is RPM. When it starts turning power and max rpm the engine will run.
    The 3.0 is great above 3500 RPM's which is a high RPM for the conventional 2 valve engines I worked with. So lets consider these already have huge cams which they do in reality.

    Let's throw on a bigger carburetor, stock intake manifold. (IE bigger throttle body / intake system same manifold). Low end may be the same but most likely worse until after that 3500 RPM area where the engine (cams) start working. Possible a stronger higher upper RPM.

    Using the above lets pop that huge runner intake manifold on it. Going to lose volumetric efficiency big time. Perhaps it wont be turning on until 4K RPM. Might have more power above 5-6K RPM.

    Big Manifold with small intake throttle body and tube most likely a loss in low RPM's through high rpms. The way an intake manifold tube works is the speed which the air travels through there. Smaller tube will have a higher speed which will build up under the intake valve prior to it opening. Kinda like a charge of pressure. Think super charger or turbo. Neither will give any power below the turn on point of the engine/cam combination. With a bigger manifold tube you will never get the air speed as a smaller intake tube. So in theory of bigger intake it shouldn't help unless it is a bottleneck such as above 7500 RPM and up.

    The idea of more power is limited to where you want the power. Do you want low, mid or high RPM increases. I wish I has personal experience with the 4.0. I don't know what RPM's they turn on. I only have that with the 3.0.

    ---------------------

    My experience would say smaller plenum intake would help lower RPM's and larger would help with higher. But again this all depends on RPM's and VE (volumetric efficiency).

    Just my opinion here.

    3.0 would not benefit with any larger anything, possible high rpm benefit with larger throttle body and intake tube. We (3.0) are already over carb'd (Big throttle body and cams) and intake runners until 3500 rpm's. Increasing any intake sizes should make zero benefit either way or rpm.

    +++++++++++

    Edit in case my PC crashes.

    +++++++++++

    Ideas with the 4.0

    If torque is lagging below 3500 RPM's replace the intake with the 3.0 intake
    but keep the throttle body and intake tubes 4.0 for higher rpm's.
    The runner efficiency should benefit it all until about 5000-6000 rpms and then be a possible bottle neck.
    Would not negatively effect the lower rpms at all as much as it will the 3.0 but possible high rpm will be lower Possibly not, small thing to compare at this point though..

    Should cause a lower rpm torque monster. But not a highway monster.

    It's all a give and take as I wrote. I hope this helps because I am very interested.
    Last edited by 632 Regal; 11-19-2020 at 06:52 PM.
    95 E34 530I V2.37
    ===========
    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

    John F. Kennedy

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Eastern Tennessee USi
    Posts
    14,723

    Default

    How / where you get things to make the 5HP30 stronger?
    95 E34 530I V2.37
    ===========
    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

    John F. Kennedy

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 632 Regal View Post
    How / where you get things to make the 5HP30 stronger?
    The 4.0 uses a downgraded 5HP30. If you compare the part list you see that they have less clutches in a certain drum but MORE clutches in a certain other drum. They also use a different type of clutch plate compared to the V12 version. Dimensions are all the same but the plate is different. This is possibly because of different material or friction coefficient.

    Gearbox theory that I have had verified:
    - if the same frictions and steels are used, a pack with 5 plates has 125% holding capacity of the same pack with 4 plates;
    - if the same number of frictions and steels are used, a pack with frictions that have higher friction have proportionally more holding capacity;
    - if the same number and type of frictions and steels are used, a piston that receives 10% more pressure actuates a pack that can then hold 10% more torque;

    Keeping the above in mind I plan the following:
    - combine drum parts from a 540/740 box and a later 750i box meaning I can go for maximum clutch size in all drums;
    - order a 4.0 and 5.4 friction disc and find out which has the best friction then rebuild the entire transmission with that type of friction;
    - letting a specialist measure my valvebody. if pressures are all well within spec., I ask for a 5% pressure increase;
    - calculating total clutch pack size when using the THINNEST snap ring, then calculating how much material I have to remove from the steels to add an EXTRA steel and friction under the condition the total quantity of steel does not go too far down;

    Regarding that last *trick*, it is important to note that if youd use a lathe and shave off the steels to be able to add 1 extra steel and friction plate, this only works if the total weight of steel stays the same or increases. The steels are used to absorb and store heat which is then transported away by the oil. Shaving off the steels and ending up with LESS steel material means the clutch will run hotter than normal. This is possible if you have a thoroughly upgraded lubrication system to enable rapid cooling but this is not feasible for a car. The 5HP18 does not have enough room in any drum to add more (but thinner) steels. The 5HP30 may have. You can also not change the final thick steel plate that you place against the snap ring because it will make the pack bulge through the snap ring. Chances are I can not modify the clutch pack size beyond the standard maximum but when I have 2 boxes open I still want to measure this.


    Example:

    Start out:
    - 4 steels + frictions used. Steel thickness 3mm, friction plate 2mm. Total steel thickness 12mm, total friction thickness 8mm, total pack height 20mm;
    - snap ring about medium. In the middle of the ZF parts list. Usually there are like 6 or more rings to choose from, check the list;

    1055 370 092 Snap Ring A=2.40 <- that one I will put in the pack
    1055 370 007 Snap Ring A=2.60
    1055 370 023 Snap Ring A=2.80
    1055 370 010 Snap Ring A=3.00 <- lets say I have this one in the stock pack
    1055 370 024 Snap Ring A=3.20
    1055 370 011 Snap Ring A=3.40
    1055 370 025 Snap Ring A=3.60
    1055 370 014 Snap Ring A=3.80

    Machining:
    - 1mm removed from 3 steels means we end up with a total steel thickness of 9mm and a pack height of 17;
    - 1 extra 2mm machined steel added and 1 friction plate added meaning we end up with a pack height of 17+2+2 = 21 compared to 20;
    - total height of steel: 2+2+2+3+2 = 11. Total height of old steel: 12;
    - thinnest snap ring placed giving me a 0,6mm gain on clearance;
    RESULT: The 1mm thicker pack with the 0,6 thinner snap ring creates an increase towards clearance of 0,4mm. This 0,4mm has to be "absorbed".

    As I can measure all of these variables up front, I can decide to machine 3 steels and leave 2 steels at original thickness if the drum can handle this pack. In this situation I put the 2 thicker steels in the middle and I will not worry about those thinner steels.

    Effect:
    - lineair increase in torque capacity. If this gearbox can handle 400Nm on 4, it can now handle 500Nm assuming the HARD PARTS can also handle the twist of 500Nm;
    - an increase in torque capacity from a 5% pressure boost meaning the 500Nm based on friction turns into 525Nm;
    - 4 of 5 steels that heat up faster compared to the stock situation;

    Additional measures needed:
    - overfilling the pan or 3d printing a deep pan (this is done alot for american automatics) to allow more oil;
    - adding extra cooler capacity and running a cooler gearbox to compensate the reduced heat absorption of certain steels;

    Since the 5HP30 has either 3 - 4 or 5 - 6 frictions per pack, the safest way to calculate possible gain is to use 6->7 increase as 560Nm spread over 6 gets us the smallest number per plate. This means 560/6x7= 653Nm

    This all sounds complex but is actually fairly simple. Why this is never done by anyone is that the stock 5HP30 is already a VERY RELIABLE unit aside from the check ball issue and valve body fracture.

    The only condition for this to work properly is that the cooling capacity is MAXED OUT to ensure you can handle a few clutch packs with a few thinner steels.

    The biggest engine I would want in my E34 would be a M60 with 4.4 internals IF I EVER GO THAT WAY and I think the 440Nm this engine produces +/- would not be enough to heat up this beefed 5HP30 to such a degree that the thinner steels would warp and go bad.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    114

    Default

    I just calculated this for real to make sure I dont ******** anyone here.

    Clutch A on the 5HP30 has 5 steels+frictions in all models.
    Steel diameter: 3
    Clutch diameter: 1,6

    Total clutch pack height: 23mm

    Shaving off 4 steels to 2 and using 2 steels of 3 I get: 14mm
    Using 6 clutch plates instead of 5 I get: 9,6

    Total clutch pack height: 23,6mm

    Assuming my snap ring absorbs some of this increase and going for the absolute lowest clearance on the pack I may even be able to use a third steel plate on original thickness.

    This is a 100% solid upgrade under the condition you put the 3mm steels in the middle of the clutch pack where most heat is being generated. Your total steel thickness goes from 15mm to 14mm. Since this box can already easily handle the engines BMW put in front of it, I think this relatively cheap modification on every clutch pack makes it a very long lasting box. The steels are just used to absorb heat and to allow multiple clutch discs to be used. The clutch plate friction coefficient and piston pressure decide the holding power of the clutch.
    Last edited by Frank87; 11-20-2020 at 01:49 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Eastern Tennessee USi
    Posts
    14,723

    Default

    I miss spoke, meant the 5HP18 in the 530. I know the 5hp530 can handle more but want to keep the light weight 5hp18 if i Can.
    95 E34 530I V2.37
    ===========
    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

    John F. Kennedy

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 632 Regal View Post
    I miss spoke, meant the 5HP18 in the 530. I know the 5hp530 can handle more but want to keep the light weight 5hp18 if i Can.
    I have also checked this out for the 5HP18 but upgrading this box in a similar way is not feasible. The drums are too small and a V8 version is already stacked close to clearance. In addition, 2 drums are made of aluminium and always show wear on the teeth from the clutch plates. This means these drums can actually not handle the 310Nm torque max.. Even if you increase clutch strength, the limiting factor here is those 2 soft drums.

    A 5HP24 would be a great upgrade for any M60B30 also because it shifts better due to not having a brakeband. However the 5HP24 is a real OBD transmission and probably won't work in an E34.

    I do not yet have the knowledge HOW a gearbox program works and if you can in someway reverse engineer and map it like you can with engine computers.

    5HP30 on a 4.0 harness is the way to go. That extra weight is no factor to me. Less cargo and lose some weight yourself.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Eastern Tennessee USi
    Posts
    14,723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank87 View Post
    I have also checked this out for the 5HP18 but upgrading this box in a similar way is not feasible. The drums are too small and a V8 version is already stacked close to clearance. In addition, 2 drums are made of aluminium and always show wear on the teeth from the clutch plates. This means these drums can actually not handle the 310Nm torque max.. Even if you increase clutch strength, the limiting factor here is those 2 soft drums.

    A 5HP24 would be a great upgrade for any M60B30 also because it shifts better due to not having a brakeband. However the 5HP24 is a real OBD transmission and probably won't work in an E34.

    I do not yet have the knowledge HOW a gearbox program works and if you can in someway reverse engineer and map it like you can with engine computers.

    5HP30 on a 4.0 harness is the way to go. That extra weight is no factor to me. Less cargo and lose some weight yourself.
    But the hp30 requires the 210 driveshaft, differential, output shafts, brake hardware. A spare 540 is crucial (which I have).
    95 E34 530I V2.37
    ===========
    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

    John F. Kennedy

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 632 Regal View Post
    But the hp30 requires the 210 driveshaft, differential, output shafts, brake hardware. A spare 540 is crucial (which I have).
    Just a modified shaft will do. You will increase your highway RPM because the 5HP18 has a longer 5th but this is not a major problem. Diff / brakes / shafts can stay the same provided you do not increase engine power too much.

    Just out of interest I have calculated how I would attempt to improve a 5HP18.

    I know this box was used on the E36 M3 delivering 350Nm. This means the 5HP18 hard parts can handle 350Nm. The E36 may run on higher pressure, this I do not know.

    See this picture:
    https://i.imgur.com/kHNPQr9.png

    You see in the top left the clutches, thickness of ONE STEEL PLATE, the total steel stack of the original clutch and the total steel stack of the pack how I would make it. It also explains how many steels i'd modify and in what way. You see the steel volume is higher in the tuned (upper right table) situation meaning you have more heat absorption capacity on the pack BUT you need to put the NON SHAVED STEEL PLATES in the MIDDLE of the pack where the most heat is generated.

    The table on the bottom left shows you the total pack size old to modified new. Keep in mind that you add 1 steel and 1 friction per pack. The snap profit is the possible gain from using thinner snap rings. This is based on assuming your box is somewhere in the middle of the snap ring table per clutch. Taking the thinnest snap ring nets you the mm shown in the snap profit. The total pack thickness of the new pack with shaved steels has the snap profit subtracted. This is your total size. The snap profit is "invisible" and not actually there but this is a way to compare the total size to the end play of the ZF repair manual.

    The bottom right table shows you the final comparison. The old stack is the total of steels + friction OEM situation. The new stack is the increased clutch pack with shaved steals and corrected with snap ring gain. The "increase" column shows the final net. increase of the pack that will carry towards end play.

    Shaving off more steel is possible as long as you do not go under the original values and you keep at least 2 or 3 steels of the original diameter to put in the middle of the clutch pack. The ideal situation gives you an increase of the pack that is within the end play. In this case you can use the original end play numbers.

    I do not know how far you can go on that endplay. I do not know the effect of a tighter clutch pack.

    In this situation the problem is clutch C having a 1,6mm total increase on a window of only 0,3 clearance.

    This case still needs some thinking but if you keep the pressure identical you may even get away with shaving 0,2 off the end plate. Those end plates are REALLY thick.

    I would want to know what would happen if you put all the endplay on 1mm and clutch D on 1,5mm.

    Clutch B is not important at all as this is reverse only. You can even keep this one original.
    Attached Images Attached Images   

Similar Threads

  1. M60B30 Mileage after cam timing
    By 632 Regal in forum 5 Series BMW
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-06-2019, 07:51 PM
  2. M60B30 stroking
    By Frank87 in forum 5 Series BMW
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-24-2016, 08:28 PM
  3. 530iT M60b30 rattles when hot
    By 31Hertz in forum 5 Series BMW
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-18-2010, 04:57 AM
  4. crank sensor resistance M60b30
    By Ross in forum 5 Series BMW
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-27-2008, 06:27 PM
  5. Looking for M60b30 to buy
    By MagicMike in forum 5 Series BMW
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 10:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •