Velos Designwerks | Stage 1 Performance Tune for X5 5.0 (4.4L) | Introductory Offer

[kokovovoru]

Originally Posted by Maxx2

If a nice reliable 10HP bump is all you are looking for in a "tune" then by all means... I prefer those that push the limits and discover things which were not supposed to be possible. Yes, you have to pay to play!

In my youth, I did try to push the limits with my G35, which I recently sold, and discovered the pay-to-play principal. Neither a couple of hundred or thousand bucks to get a nice 40 hp increase nor a over-the-top tune will get the 50i engine to perform and behave like an M engine - you get what you pay for. With forced-induction engines, there are too many variables to play around with and no one engine reacts the same to the same tune. I reckon that's why most tuners take the most conservative and cost-effective route. So far, I have yet seen anyone done anything over the top with their X5s, as many early G and Z owners had experimented and done with their cars. If you have the dough, Sam of GTM always says to his clients, "only sky's the limit."

[atc5]

Originally Posted by Maxx2

With the N63 (4.4L TwinTurbo V8) I find it hard to believe that there is only 40whp left on the table before maxing out the turbos. Something doesn't sound right here...

Tune is one thing...breathing is another...the cats right off the turbo on the X5 M are a significant restriction...open that flow up and you'll see much bigger gains with a tune.

The tunes these guys are showing are reasonable given everything else as stock.

[Omar@VelosDesignwerks]

Originally Posted by kokovovoru

Spending 70k for my truck, paying a tuner to explore the so-called hidden potential of my truck, and knowingly understand that I will take full responsibility for adversely affecting or even damaging the reliability of the car would never be my intention It would be irresponsible of me, as well as any reputable aftermarket tuners, to do such a thing. I think the posting tuner is presetting the fellow enthusiasts with an alternative choice of boosting the power of our cars with a reasonable cost, while maintaining that daily drivability and reliability. I can never understand the hearsay about how N54 power can be boosted with a few thousand bucks to be as fast, reliable, and drivable as an M3 or other M cars. See how many cases of premature fuel pump failure are there - whether it's related or not related to the aftermarket performance boost. Same hearsay also goes for Supra's 2JZ engine, STi's boxer engine, and EVo's 4J63 engine - people always say you chip these engines you get 400, 500, 600, or even 1000 power without spending an arm and a leg. It's true FI'ed cars are easier to modify in terms of performance, but the old adage of "you gotta pay to play" still applies on the FI'd cars - bigger intercooler, down pipes, water injection, valve body upgrade, oil cooler, transmission cooler, and other internal upgrades. Otherwise, why X5 M is 15k more than a regular 50i. There are many other things than just the turbo chargers that set the M apart from the rest of the crowd. When it comes to major forced induction, you gotta pay to play. Or pay the hazmat fee when the debris of your pistons leave a trail on the public road.

Well said.

[TahoeM3]

The 50i makes 91 hp/liter in stock form. That is about average for a naturally aspirated engine, but quite low for a turbocharged one. Even the base, stock 335i makes 100 hp/L, and that goes up to 111 hp/L for the 335is and other cars with that engine.

Tuning this car to make 111 hp/L would put it at 488hp. And that's not even looking at tuned 335s, which have higher hp/L ratios. My GTR made 127 hp/L in stock form and currently is around 157 hp/L. And that's not even pushing the envelope. So to say that a direct injection twin turbo 4.4L V8 is pushing the limits of what is safe when it makes 91 hp/L from 10psi is really a silly statement.

There's no way to get a flat hp curve like that without some serious planning. Looking at the intake on my 50i, it's clear that BMW intentionally restricted the air flow pathway. Why else would the air have to take a 180 degree turn to get into the intake manifold? It's essentially a baffle. You don't see that same setup on the M, where the air goes straight into the engine. Turbos need air to work.

The tuning of the AA and Velos setups (which are apparently the same) may not really be any different than the Dinan one. The different dyno results may all be due to better air delivery on the dyno. Either way, there's much more safe potential for this engine with bolt ons.

[Maxx2]

Originally Posted by TahoeM3

The 50i makes 91 hp/liter in stock form. That is about average for a naturally aspirated engine, but quite low for a turbocharged one. Even the base, stock 335i makes 100 hp/L, and that goes up to 111 hp/L for the 335is and other cars with that engine.

Tuning this car to make 111 hp/L would put it at 488hp. And that's not even looking at tuned 335s. My GTR made 127 hp/L in stock form and currently is around 157 hp/L. And that's not even pushing the envelope. So to say that a direct injection twin turbo 4.4L V8 with is pushing the limits of what is safe when it makes 91 hp/L from 10psi is really a silly statement.

There's no way to get a flat hp curve like that without some serious planning. Looking at the intake on my 50i, it's clear that BMW intentionally restricted the air flow pathway. Why else would the air have to take a 180 degree turn to get into the intake manifold? You don't see that same setup on the M, where the air goes straight into the engine. Turbos need air to work.

The tuning of the AA and Velos setups (which are apparently the same) may not really e any different than the Dinan one. The different dyne results may all be due to better air delivery on the dyno. Either way, there's much more safe potential for this engine with boo ons.

Well said.

[Ryan@VelosDesignwerks]

Originally Posted by TahoeM3

The 50i makes 91 hp/liter in stock form. That is about average for a naturally aspirated engine, but quite low for a turbocharged one. Even the base, stock 335i makes 100 hp/L, and that goes up to 111 hp/L for the 335is and other cars with that engine.

Tuning this car to make 111 hp/L would put it at 488hp. And that's not even looking at tuned 335s, which have higher hp/L ratios. My GTR made 127 hp/L in stock form and currently is around 157 hp/L. And that's not even pushing the envelope. So to say that a direct injection twin turbo 4.4L V8 is pushing the limits of what is safe when it makes 91 hp/L from 10psi is really a silly statement.

There's no way to get a flat hp curve like that without some serious planning. Looking at the intake on my 50i, it's clear that BMW intentionally restricted the air flow pathway. Why else would the air have to take a 180 degree turn to get into the intake manifold? It's essentially a baffle. You don't see that same setup on the M, where the air goes straight into the engine. Turbos need air to work.

The tuning of the AA and Velos setups (which are apparently the same) may not really be any different than the Dinan one. The different dyno results may all be due to better air delivery on the dyno. Either way, there's much more safe potential for this engine with bolt ons.

TahoeM3,

We have to compare apples to apples, a GTR was manufactured with a different goal in mind.

I do not pretend to represent BMW but why would the 50i model be comparable to the M model.
*I am not directly comparing the x models to a 3 series but humor me*: the 35i is your 328, the 50i is your 335 and the M is well your M. They were designed to remain in their respective classes assuming all hardware is stock.

If the 50i were just a detuned S63 we wouldn't be having this conversation as we would tune it to tuned S63 levels and all would be happy. Sadly; it is not. It is an N63 which is considerably different. It's not an M(S63)

It also seems the engine (overal engine and system) was designed to provide quick response based on the turbo's used. The turbo's are small. No software can change this.

I think the disconnect here is that it seems you are looking for more than what is being achieved safely and reliably on an otherwise 100% stock platform with software.

After re reading your posts is seems you want more but are asking where to start and if more can be found in the intake? correct?

If so, time will tell but this thread is about a stock car with software and the gains. We are all enthusiasts and want more power but sometimes more comes at a cost that many are not prepared for.

It seems you are in South Florida. Feel free to come by and we'll allow you to test our software, not promising more than what we can provide but at least test it out, see if you like it. If you have to have more, sadly at this point it is not available and we understand.

[smyles]

Wasn't there a specific 'X5 Vendors Classifieds' forum created recently, for this kind of promos?

[TahoeM3]

Understood. To explain, my intention is for discussion. This is not meant to be confrontational, rather to discuss tuning potential.

And in fairness, my intention wasn't to suggest that the 50i could be easily tuned to the same levels as the GTR, but rather to respond to the suggestion that the current tune is pushing the limits of what is safe for the engine. Clearly, the engine was designed with different goals in mind than say the GTR. But still I would bet there is a lot more potential there.

Whatever the case I didn't intend to thread jack...I'm sure your tune is as good as the others. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it makes more power than you advertise. I think the static dyno tests may not be showing the full results of the tuning. Real world results may be better than what would be expected by "only" a 40 hp gain.

Whatever the case, I'm interested in seeing what can be done with this engine to narrow the gap with the M.

[Ryan@VelosDesignwerks]

Originally Posted by TahoeM3

Understood. To explain, my intention is for discussion. This is not meant to be confrontational, rather to discuss tuning potential.

And in fairness, my intention wasn't to suggest that the 50i could be easily tuned to the same levels as the GTR, but rather to respond to the suggestion that the current tune is pushing the limits of what is safe for the engine. Clearly, the engine was designed with different goals in mind than say the GTR. But still I would bet there is a lot more potential there.

Whatever the case I didn't intend to thread jack...I'm sure your tune is as good as the others. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it makes more power than you advertise. I think the static dyno tests may not be showing the full results of the tuning. Real world results may be better than what would be expected by "only" a 40 hp gain.

Whatever the case, I'm interested in seeing what can be done with this engine to narrow the gap with the M.

No worries, it was not taken as such (confrontational).

Good point in regards to real world results, the 50i feels really nice with the tune as the peak gains happen between 3-5K RPM. This is the area of the power band where most of us drive on the street anyway.

I will send you a PM so we can schedule sometime to get together.

[TahoeM3]

PM replied, thanks.

Just for grins, I took pics of the engine on the 50i with the shroud off...



You can see the convoluted pathway the air has to take to get into the engine...heading straight back and then diving down underneath the airbox, back up and then forward to the turbos. The airbox is bolted shut. BMW does not want us looking in there. I've never seen an airbox sealed up like this before.

In comparison, here's the intake setup on the M5 engine (no good pics of the X5M engine with the shroud off):



You can see two big airboxes right up front where they are supposed to be, feeding air straight into the engine.

Turbo size aside (the Ms have one turbo that is larger than the other whereas the 50i has two of the same size), BMW clearly went out of their way to limit air flow on this engine. I still maintain that if you slap an M intake on the 50i you would get a lot of HP...maybe as much as 50 up top. Yes there are a lot of other changes between the two engines, but those are more for faster throttle response than they are for max hp, other than the one larger turbo. The biggest differences between these engines are boost level, which you guys are improving on, and airflow.

[philooo]

so what about simple removing the whole airbox during dyno testing, that way you would get as much as you can possibly get and we would see if the air box is really a restricting factor, no ?

I am open to run a subaru air scoop on the hood and blow fresh air right in the engine joking of course.

[Phatcat]

N63TU with valvetronic now puts out 445PS, compare to the old 408PS. Personally I don't think valvetronic is the main reason for the gain in horsepower, probably just a tune.

[Omar@VelosDesignwerks]

all pm's replied!

[kenny@velosdesignwerks]

PM sent!