Harrop twin screw sc for s65

[Longwong]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

Harrop has an RS4 Kit that spins to 8,500 RPM which is sold by APR. They also supply superchargers to OEM's such as Lotus.

They have been in business for 55 years, I doubt it's their first rodeo.

You're entitled to your opinion but I think they deserve a bit more credit than that. Hardware wise the kit is very promising.

This kit when complete will also "simply provide an enhancement of the S65's existing powerband". In fact, since boost is not rising linearly with RPM like with a centri, it will probably mimic the stock M3 curves even more so.

But the stock m3 power curve keeps increasing in power up until 8400 so I would think not having boost increase on superchargered would feel a lot less like stock as it would be a non-linear increase in power so you NEED boost to increase in a linear fashion to have it feel like stock..

[HPP-M3]

Hi Guys

While it’s nice to see we have created a lively debate on the merits or otherwise of TVS technology for the S65, sorry we won’t be drawn into a debate regarding our Engineering competency or credibility regarding supercharger system development.

We feel passionately that there is a place for a TVS option in the S65 market, not as a replacement to the various centrifugal systems but a viable alternative with absolute point of difference.

As with most established and leading Engineering companies we are using a combination of internal and external assets to bring the package to market. As indicated in a previous post we will be providing further updates leading into production release, so stay tuned.

Regards
Heath Moore
General Manager | Harrop Engineering

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by Longwong

This is one thing I really do not get other than if I were a company or a enthusiast who simply wanted to do it just to see if it could be done. For the buyer however I ask why? I would argue one of the best or most characteristic parts of the m3 has been the high revving linear power curve peaking near redline with instant throttle response. It is so perfect to modulate the throttle and keep it above 7k on the track. I understand a supercharger such as ESS and the like as they accentuate the power curve that is already there but do not at all change the character of the high-revving power model.

But if this now turns the s65 engine into a "big V8" so to speak, with a lot of low end torque and than the power actually will probably be more like the 335 or a turbo car and there will be no need to rev it up past 7500. This to me is exactly what a c63 is. The newest version handles as well as the m3 and it has a big v8.

Or a tuned 335 would be perfect.

I don't know, I Just don't know why a m3 owner would throw away the perfect linear powercurve that is a lower torque/high redline delivery of power. As is often argues, engine torque is one way to lay down thrust at the wheels but so is High-rpms with gearing and the wheels don't care which one it is as they go just as well with either method. We have a unique method of making the power in the m3 and this changes it. Not for me.

Better yet I would just get the new f80 as this will be exactly what this is trying to be but then keep the e92 for what it is.

Agreed. If you want max power, an M3 has never been the platform to get. Yeah, people just bolt on a kit and go. The engine will survive but, at least with the S54 and S65, you're taking a highly precise engine and engine management system, introducing a new FI system that it was not designed for from the beginning, and then increasing the power by 33% or more. Rarely do I see testing with useful information gleened from consistent data. The usual output that we get is, "I beat it down, it still runs". Who knows what else goes on behind the scenes.

But I digress. People bitch and complain about how BMW will FI the M cars and how blasphemous that is. Yet, we take perfectly good N/A cars and bolt on aftermarket FI kits. Weird.

I'll probably take a shit kicking for typing this...but anyone who supercharges an E9X M3 is really missing the point of the car. Its a car, in stock form, that rewards skill, not a heavy right foot. And with those rewards...comes fun, fun, fun . I know some things can be improved on this car by modding but all too often I see people solving the car's "issues" with mods that really aren't issues. One of which is low end torque. I for the life of me don't get this. I'm buying a high revving sports sedan with a detuned race motor...I need more torque so I can park harder, have a better looking dyno chart and beat people down the block to the next red light? Yeah, I'm sure the M3 can be a good street racer that will give you some street cred but street racing in an M3? You wasted your money on the M badge.

If you ask me, BMW definitely got this car RIGHT!

But whatever my feelings are...I am curious to see how this turns out.

[Longwong]

I think the difference is you need to look at why people buy an m3. Not all of them share our perspective. Many buy it for the fact it is the top car in the 3 series, for the M badge exclusivity or buy it not knowing the character of the car they are getting into.

Some smaller percent buy it because it is near track ready and than feel that they need low end torque for daily use for some reason

I honestly think few people buy this car and appreciate what they are buying. More on this forum certainly but I agree that everyone complains about FI m3 of the future and yet slaps the FI on the perfect s65.

I guess I go to a nice Italian restaurant and eat pasta not a burger. I feel the same way with most things in life. I like to use something for the purpose it was designed. The entire point was to make a race-car experience just like f1 where they clearly are not using big grunty nascar type power but rather a high-revving, light, linear power delivery.

The ONLY reason bmw M is going to FI is for emissions AND in large part due to the demand of the majority of people who want the low end torque lazy driving. We drove them to change this along with emissions.

If they simply setout to build the best M car than I assure you it would be a NA high-revving engine. No doubt about it.

Anyway I enjoy something for what it is. I like to make it perform at its absolute best within the confines of its design. Catless and a tune really to me maximize every ounce out of this engine and is the perfect experience coupled with a 3600 pound race-car. A seemless DCT tranny just like F1 and its the experience of a lifetime in my view.

[MPowerZ32]

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

But I digress. People bitch and complain about how BMW will FI the M cars and how blasphemous that is. Yet, we take perfectly good N/A cars and bolt on aftermarket FI kits. Weird.

Originally Posted by Longwong

I honestly think few people buy this car and appreciate what they are buying. More on this forum certainly but I agree that everyone complains about FI m3 of the future and yet slaps the FI on the perfect s65.

I respectfully disagree. The centrifugal superchargers people install on S65s do not make them torque monsters. The power comes in the high RPM range. The beauty in this type of setup is that the power is still linear. BUT there is just more of it. I'd argue these kits actually complement/amplify the characters of the high revving S65.

To be more street fun turbo is the answer where low end torque is available from the get go. I guess BMW is making the next gen more street fun, and less of a track machine.

[redux]

While a "race breed", low torque, high revving, small displacement V-8 pulls at the heart strings, it really has no place in a 3700 pound sports sedan. I don't understand were the illusion of this car being a E30-esque homologation special is coming from. The e9x M3 is not a track car, it's not a race car, it's a just a people mover with a churched up engine and a performance suspension with a ride that's well within the range of what BMW figures people will tolerate on a daily driver. It's nothing special; if someone wants to go FI, so be it. It's their car and the chassis is more than capable of handling the extra power.

Harrop is great company with a great product and the M3 world is fortunate to have the opportunity purchase something from. I installed the APR kit on my RS4 and found it far more effective than the blower system that was on the e90 M3 that I got rid of. Yeah, that was on a different platform, but I still believe the tvs is going to get along beautifully with the S65 engine. This "M" pedigree crap is retarded

[Longwong]

Well that is one opinion but numbers, tests and laptimes would say differently. If the m3 is not a track car than what is a 1M? The m3 puts down the same or better track numbers, straight line numbers and any other number as the 1M give or take on a few tracks they are tied or really close. So not sure what basis a 1M owner would make this statement?

If it is faster than the 1M on the street when driven in the right gear and with a DCT which I agree is the only tranny that makes a high-revving motor work, than how is a 1M anymore of a sensible car? (I feel the 1M is a very sensible awesome car and I am just making an argument and asking you-but I love the 1M as well)

I am just saying the the high revving motor in a 3600 pound car is not ideal I agree. A s65 in a 1M would be a much better car! However you have to be fair and look at the data over 5 years and see that on a track, street or a dragstrip, the m3 with its S65 has performed sub 4s 0-60, 12.5s in the quarter and great lap times.

While not "ideal", I certainly would not say it "has no place" given its pretty impressive performance.

Anyway, what I am saying its nice for them to offer something high-revving and also something higher torque, and less revving. Choices are good and let the consumer enjoy what they want even if the choice seems nonsense to another

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by MPowerZ32

I respectfully disagree. The centrifugal superchargers people install on S65s do not make them torque monsters. The power comes in the high RPM range. The beauty in this type of setup is that the power is still linear. BUT there is just more of it. I'd argue these kits actually complement/amplify the characters of the high revving S65.

You have a point and I agree. I personally don't trust the centri kits or the companies that are out there right now. When we get full disclosure...the good and bad...then we can start talking about trust. I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by redux

While a "race breed", low torque, high revving, small displacement V-8 pulls at the heart strings, it really has no place in a 3700 pound sports sedan. I don't understand were the illusion of this car being a E30-esque homologation special is coming from. The e9x M3 is not a track car, it's not a race car, it's a just a people mover with a churched up engine and a performance suspension with a ride that's well within the range of what BMW figures people will tolerate on a daily driver. It's nothing special; if someone wants to go FI, so be it. It's their car and the chassis is more than capable of handling the extra power.

Harrop is great company with a great product and the M3 world is fortunate to have the opportunity purchase something from. I installed the APR kit on my RS4 and found it far more effective than the blower system that was on the e90 M3 that I got rid of. Yeah, that was on a different platform, but I still believe the tvs is going to get along beautifully with the S65 engine. This "M" pedigree crap is retarded

Ok, who said E30 here? Wasn't me. While there are some significant compromises I disagree with the E9X M3 not being a track car out of the back except for the brakes and tires because you can certainly go very fast around the track in stock form. Brakes and tires are the compromise.

You say a blower is far more effective...for what? Drag racing? Blasting down the straights? I've driven circuit of the americas which has 2 pretty long straights. Frankly, the long straights are boring and kind of sucks the fun out of that track. As I've said earlier, there are better cars for those who just want to stomp on one pedal. There is no better car that comfortably seats 4 with 4 doors for the street and track.

If you want to FI the E9X M3 with whatever...I still find it interesting although my own personal desires are against it. I just wouldn't do it but we're not talking about my car are we?

[Longwong]

Agreed about mentioned the e30 as I certainly did not mention it. I also don't want to start a comparison of the 1M so let's all concede that it is a fantastic track car as well.

But for the average guy who just wants to enjoy 5-10 track events per year, what is wrong with the e9x m3 as a track car? I certainly have enjoyed it on the track and am just someone who does it for fun like 99 percent of people. I just don't understand why it is not a great track car? The car has limits that 99.9 percent of people on a track will never even be able to reach. It is much more car than almost all drivers can truly handle at the max. If you can push an e9x m3 around a track and you feel that the hinderence from doing better is the car than you are quite advanced and in that case you are right that you may need a more dedicated track car but that to me takes away nothing from the m3 as a daily plus weekend warrior which is its purpose.

Going back to enjoyment which most of us who track do it for enjoyment, there is the experience of a F1-inspired engine and tranny combo, including the sound, the high rev experience and honestly I do not believe anyone who has driven an m3 on a track would say it is not really clear why 8400 rpm v8 really is sweet on the track, especially with DCT. Being able to stay in 2nd and 3rd at 7k rpms and above, you essentially are staying in the meat of the power and can modulate perfectly with a stab of the throttle. Sure out of a corner at certain times maybe more torque would be nice but all in all I think its a fantastic experience. So is the 1M but just different.

By no means however would I say the engine has no business in this car. The e60 M5 was awesome as well and although 4000 pounds is not ideal, it certainly was a blast to drive.

I am not saying the s65 is an F1 engine either but for the average joe, its an aural experience that resembles what most perceive as something reserved for true race-cars.

I also have not heard Mr Benvo comment on the erroneous statement that the harrop would be closer to stock in terms of linear power delivery than centrifugal that increases boost as RPMS climb. You would need to increase boost as rpms climb to maintain a linear power curve so I am interested why this statement was made? Just curious as I know you tune these engines.

[Soorena]

Originally Posted by Longwong

But the stock m3 power curve keeps increasing in power up until 8400 so I would think not having boost increase on superchargered would feel a lot less like stock as it would be a non-linear increase in power so you NEED boost to increase in a linear fashion to have it feel like stock..

I don't think anyone here mentioned that the boost will be limited during the whole powerband. It wouldn't be logical not to push more up top than down low, specially in a high comp engine like this. Engines take boost easier up top than they in low or mid range because boost means heat and heat kills engines. Up top, because the engine runs faster, it basically sends out heat faster. In lower RPMs, heat gets trapped in much longer and as a result can do more harm. No one would strap a TVS to an engine and limits boost in higher RPMs.
Even if we say they limit boost, still engine will make more power up top because it's getting more air and air means power not pressure.
This dyno shot i found is APR's stage III 4.2 which has this very same Eaton TVS 1740 and i think it's say to say that we will get a very similar powerband with this TVS blower due to the similarities between 4.2 FSIs and S65s.

Look how beautifully it mimics the OEM torque curve. Torque rises, peaks at midrange and then drops. Just like how our engines act. But with centrifugal, it just pushes up the torque all the way through the redline. Certainly our engines in NA form don't make more torque up top than they do in mid range, so saying centrifugal keeps the OEM character is not right.
Now only if Harrop guys would give us a compressor map of this TVS 1740 we could see how this TVS would do with S65 and how does against Vortech and Rotrex units.

BTW, Why the thread title still is "Harrop Twin Screw"? TVS and TS are very different types of PD's. One is a air mover, the other is a air pusher.

[PandaM3]

Originally Posted by Soorena

I don't think anyone here mentioned that the boost will be limited during the whole powerband. It wouldn't be logical not to push more up top than down low, specially in a high comp engine like this. Engines take boost easier up top than they in low or mid range because boost means heat and heat kills engines. Up top, because the engine runs faster, it basically sends out heat faster. In lower RPMs, heat gets trapped in much longer and as a result can do more harm. No one would strap a TVS to an engine and limits boost in higher RPMs.
Even if we say they limit boost, still engine will make more power up top because it's getting more air and air means power not pressure.
This dyno shot i found is APR's stage III 4.2 which has this very same Eaton TVS 1740 and i think it's say to say that we will get a very similar powerband with this TVS blower due to the similarities between 4.2 FSIs and S65s.

Look how beautifully it mimics the OEM torque curve. Torque rises, peaks at midrange and then drops. Just like how our engines act. But with centrifugal, it just pushes up the torque all the way through the redline. Certainly our engines in NA form don't make more torque up top than they do in mid range, so saying centrifugal keeps the OEM character is not right.
Now only if Harrop guys would give us a compressor map of this TVS 1740 we could see how this TVS would do with S65 and how does against Vortech and Rotrex units.

BTW, Why the thread title still is "Harrop Twin Screw"? TVS and TS are very different types of PD's. One is a air mover, the other is a air pusher.

Too bad we can't get APR to tune the Harrop SC for the S65... Where is Arin from APR to comment? (people that came from the whole VW/ Scene know what I mean... lol)

APR is a very big and well respected company taking Harrops Hardware and combining their software and R & D to get the kit to work in the Audi RS4... Wonder what equivalent software company is doing it for the S65?

[Top_Gear]

Originally Posted by PandaM3

Too bad we can't get APR to tune the Harrop SC for the S65... Where is Arin from APR to comment? (people that came from the whole VW/ Scene know what I mean... lol)

APR is a very big and well respected company taking Harrops Hardware and combining their software and R & D to get the kit to work in the Audi RS4... Wonder what equivalent software company is doing it for the S65?

I don't think there is a company as big as Arin's APR for BMW as there is for Audi. You could say we have Dinan or ESS but that's not a very good comparison.

Who knows, maybe Harrop might blow our minds in a couple of years with this SC ... maybe the SW part of it will come together (don't mean to be a doubting Thomas)

[Longwong]

By the time this comes out who would not just buy a new F80 turbo m3 if they want the low end grunt. Still not convinced there is a market for this frankly

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by Top_Gear

I don't think there is a company as big as Arin's APR for BMW as there is for Audi. You could say we have Dinan or ESS but that's not a very good comparison.

Who knows, maybe Harrop might blow our minds in a couple of years with this SC ... maybe the SW part of it will come together (don't mean to be a doubting Thomas)

VW has a much larger FI community than BMW does. Remember, Audi tuners spread the costs over more cars since Audis are essentially rebadged VWs except for some sheet metal and the interior.

That's the problem the BMW and M3 tuning community will always have. High costs because of a limited population of cars. Because BMW engines and chassis are only in BMWs and some select small market high end cars.

[MilehighM3]

No VW uses the engine that the RS cars are equipped with.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by Longwong

By the time this comes out who would not just buy a new F80 turbo m3 if they want the low end grunt. Still not convinced there is a market for this frankly

[bigjae1976]

Originally Posted by Longwong

By the time this comes out who would not just buy a new F80 turbo m3 if they want the low end grunt. Still not convinced there is a market for this frankly

I just rode in an F10 M5. That thing is absolutely insane at low RPM and makes it feel like a REALLY hopped up ActiveHybrid5.

Its awesome, just a different kind of exciting. Still like the S65 better.

[Someone?]

Originally Posted by Longwong

By the time this comes out who would not just buy a new F80 turbo m3 if they want the low end grunt. Still not convinced there is a market for this frankly

Yah your Right, these M's came out in late 2007, and 6 years later there just now trying to bring this and the twin turbos to the market, doesn't make much sense, most of the time these hop up parts come out within a year tops, Not 6 or 7 years later when they don't even make the car anymore, not to mention 13k to 15k! by the time we sell our current M's and put the sale money plus the 13k kit money toward the New M4 will will have a real low payment.

[redux]

Originally Posted by Longwong

Well that is one opinion but numbers, tests and laptimes would say differently. If the m3 is not a track car than what is a 1M? The m3 puts down the same or better track numbers, straight line numbers and any other number as the 1M give or take on a few tracks they are tied or really close. So not sure what basis a 1M owner would make this statement?

If it is faster than the 1M on the street when driven in the right gear and with a DCT which I agree is the only tranny that makes a high-revving motor work, than how is a 1M anymore of a sensible car? (I feel the 1M is a very sensible awesome car and I am just making an argument and asking you-but I love the 1M as well)

I am just saying the the high revving motor in a 3600 pound car is not ideal I agree. A s65 in a 1M would be a much better car! However you have to be fair and look at the data over 5 years and see that on a track, street or a dragstrip, the m3 with its S65 has performed sub 4s 0-60, 12.5s in the quarter and great lap times.

While not "ideal", I certainly would not say it "has no place" given its pretty impressive performance.

Anyway, what I am saying its nice for them to offer something high-revving and also something higher torque, and less revving. Choices are good and let the consumer enjoy what they want even if the choice seems nonsense to another

The 1M isn't a track car either. Like the M3, it's just a fun street car that doesn't mind spending few weekends a year on the track. As far as the 1M vs M3 thing goes. I got rid of the M3 because it was too big to be a toy and my Audi is a far better street car; so the 1M had little to do with the decision.
The s65 is great engine (hell, I'm building one to throw in the my 1M). I just became annoyed with it on the street in such a heavy car.

** I don't care about track time/numbers. I buy cars based fun factor, not because they're the faster than a competitor.

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

Ok, who said E30 here? Wasn't me. While there are some significant compromises I disagree with the E9X M3 not being a track car out of the back except for the brakes and tires because you can certainly go very fast around the track in stock form. Brakes and tires are the compromise.

You say a blower is far more effective...for what? Drag racing? Blasting down the straights? I've driven circuit of the americas which has 2 pretty long straights. Frankly, the long straights are boring and kind of sucks the fun out of that track. As I've said earlier, there are better cars for those who just want to stomp on one pedal. There is no better car that comfortably seats 4 with 4 doors for the street and track.

If you want to FI the E9X M3 with whatever...I still find it interesting although my own personal desires are against it. I just wouldn't do it but we're not talking about my car are we?

The e30 comment was referencing M3post in general. People here seem to get all hot and bothered over "M" motorsport heritage and the sacrilege of it's recent adoption of FI engines, yet they don't realize the division's first success in a top flight motorsport catagory involved a turbo.

As for the "blower effective" thing. I said the TVS installed on my RS4 was far better than the supercharger that I installed on my M3. I've done a few tracks days at the ring, it has a few long straights, where am I going with this...... . Anyways, The reason I supercharged the car was so I could just leave it in one gear while I'm slogging through LA traffic. Truthfully, if I want to comfortably seat 4 on the street, I take my golf tdi.

Originally Posted by Longwong

Agreed about mentioned the e30 as I certainly did not mention it. I also don't want to start a comparison of the 1M so let's all concede that it is a fantastic track car as well.

But for the average guy who just wants to enjoy 5-10 track events per year, what is wrong with the e9x m3 as a track car? I certainly have enjoyed it on the track and am just someone who does it for fun like 99 percent of people. I just don't understand why it is not a great track car? The car has limits that 99.9 percent of people on a track will never even be able to reach. It is much more car than almost all drivers can truly handle at the max. If you can push an e9x m3 around a track and you feel that the hinderence from doing better is the car than you are quite advanced and in that case you are right that you may need a more dedicated track car but that to me takes away nothing from the m3 as a daily plus weekend warrior which is its purpose.

Going back to enjoyment which most of us who track do it for enjoyment, there is the experience of a F1-inspired engine and tranny combo, including the sound, the high rev experience and honestly I do not believe anyone who has driven an m3 on a track would say it is not really clear why 8400 rpm v8 really is sweet on the track, especially with DCT. Being able to stay in 2nd and 3rd at 7k rpms and above, you essentially are staying in the meat of the power and can modulate perfectly with a stab of the throttle. Sure out of a corner at certain times maybe more torque would be nice but all in all I think its a fantastic experience. So is the 1M but just different.

By no means however would I say the engine has no business in this car. The e60 M5 was awesome as well and although 4000 pounds is not ideal, it certainly was a blast to drive.

I am not saying the s65 is an F1 engine either but for the average joe, its an aural experience that resembles what most perceive as something reserved for true race-cars.

The guys doing 10-15 days a year are better off with a miata. That was me 12 years ago and I would have saved thousands by just getting a lightweight track car.

Reasons why the m3 is not a good track car:

1. Weight
2. Cost of consumables and rate you go through them
3. The fear of writing off a $70,000 car usually means the DSC stays on and you keep doing whatever bad habits the computer is saving you from
4. ?????
5. Profit

[Sales@Evolve]

Originally Posted by MPowerZ32

I respectfully disagree. The centrifugal superchargers people install on S65s do not make them torque monsters. The power comes in the high RPM range.

The Rotrex with the correct tuning gives ample torque low rpm. Even as low as 1500rpm there is considerably more than a stock car.
More importantly it's not just available at full throttle low rpm but also partial load.
On the flip side, we can also make it all top end only by simply allowing the boost to bleed across the combustion chamber with excessive valve overlap.

This kit looks very good and the concept is very different. Look forward to see what it will produce.

[W///]

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

I just rode in an F10 M5. That thing is absolutely insane at low RPM and makes it feel like a REALLY hopped up ActiveHybrid5.

Its awesome, just a different kind of exciting. Still like the S65 better.

+1. Had a chance to drive an M6 at the Performance Center (at $10 for 5 laps charity, win ). It has that kick in the groin that the S65 simply does not have.

However, I was more than happy to hop back in my M3 afterwards though.

[dmk08]

Originally Posted by W///

+1. Had a chance to drive an M6 at the Performance Center (at $10 for 5 laps charity, win ). It has that kick in the groin that the S65 simply does not have.

However, I was more than happy to hop back in my M3 afterwards though.

That kick in the groin is the 100k+ price tag. I'm wondering if the new M3s will be in the 80s... if so that's too much IMO.