N54 head work
- Thread starter fmorelli
- Start date
How much more heat will that produce and will it be usable pressure or just added stress?
That's always the question.
Interestingly my turbos let go yesterday. Assuming that's what's happened from the symptoms.
Had just installed a bigger intercooler and was running at less PSI than normal to test the hoses would stay on.
At 6500 boost went to 0 and it sounded like the charge pipe had blown off. Couldn't build boost and now lots of exhaust (oil) smoke but engine appears to run ok off boost.
I supopose that even though it was less boost and the IATs were lower than normal, the effort required to fill a bigger void meant more volumetric flow was required and the turbos may have been spinning faster to do it. They were 3 years old and 50,000 miles so they were due soon anyway.
As long as that's the only problem, I'll be happy.
Well I'm running 21psi atm, easily run 23 to 24psi without adding to much stress.
Just going to fine tune it and see where we can go from here.
Recovering the thread 
My head is going for porting and i did some research about bigger valves on the N54 Head.
i checked for the data of the Valves and found that:
The N55 head has a 32mm valve just as the n53 but only the length is different.
So i would say 32/28 valve will fit the n54 head with modification of the intake valve seat.
But will also 32/29 valves fit on the N54 head? ( VAC sells 32/28.5 valves for the N54 - https://store.vacmotorsports.com/ferrea-high-performance-valve-kit-bmw-n54-p5112.aspx)
As one can see the N53 valves share the same spec as the N54 ones expect the diameter. (i didn´t add the rest of the specs as they are the same)
So as the N54 intake manifold fits i guess porting on the intake side with the 32mm valves will lead to an comparable performance as with the N53 Head.
The N53 ex side seems to be at least different as another turbo manifold is needed to fit turbos. But why is that? Are the ex ports so much bigger?
Update:
I measured the exhaust ports. They are about 33mm in diameter compared to 36? on the N53 Head.
But the seat for the gasket starts at the diameter of about 40mm. There is a big step that can be ported away.
Lastly the n54 turbo manifold has also some bottle neck. The part of the manifold that reaches into the cylinder head has a inner diameter of 33mm. But the inner diameter expands.
The outer diameter goes from around 36mm to 38mm. You can cut away the part that reduces the diameter.
So with head porting and a stock exhaust manifold, the exhaust manifold will also need a little bit of work. I think there is some potential.
My head is going for porting and i did some research about bigger valves on the N54 Head.
i checked for the data of the Valves and found that:
| Valves | Dia | Thick | Length | P/N | |
| N53 | IN | 32 | 5 | 106,7 | 11347552952 |
| EX | 29 | 6 | 114,6 | 11347552953 | |
| N54 | IN | 31,4 | 5 | 106,6 | 11347553775 |
| EX | 28 | 6 | 114,6 | 11347573840 | |
| N55 | IN | 32 | 5 | 104,9 | 11347583777 |
| EX | 28 | 6 | 112,8 | 11347598273 |
The N55 head has a 32mm valve just as the n53 but only the length is different.
So i would say 32/28 valve will fit the n54 head with modification of the intake valve seat.
But will also 32/29 valves fit on the N54 head? ( VAC sells 32/28.5 valves for the N54 - https://store.vacmotorsports.com/ferrea-high-performance-valve-kit-bmw-n54-p5112.aspx)
As one can see the N53 valves share the same spec as the N54 ones expect the diameter. (i didn´t add the rest of the specs as they are the same)
So as the N54 intake manifold fits i guess porting on the intake side with the 32mm valves will lead to an comparable performance as with the N53 Head.
The N53 ex side seems to be at least different as another turbo manifold is needed to fit turbos. But why is that? Are the ex ports so much bigger?
Update:
I measured the exhaust ports. They are about 33mm in diameter compared to 36? on the N53 Head.
But the seat for the gasket starts at the diameter of about 40mm. There is a big step that can be ported away.
Lastly the n54 turbo manifold has also some bottle neck. The part of the manifold that reaches into the cylinder head has a inner diameter of 33mm. But the inner diameter expands.
The outer diameter goes from around 36mm to 38mm. You can cut away the part that reduces the diameter.
So with head porting and a stock exhaust manifold, the exhaust manifold will also need a little bit of work. I think there is some potential.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks for the info. Very interesting.Recovering the thread
One thing I would observe - I think once has to decide what they are trying to achieve and where the cost benefit goes. My big thing was reducing PSI requirements, so I wanted things running cooler. I chose the ported head (because it is so constrictive) and Schrick cams that support a stock valve train. For street car application I felt that was the sweet spot of $$$$ to return. The head can get to be an expensive endeavor.
TBH, waste of time to fiddle with head stuff. Cost/return, a few more PSI is going to win this fight.
Mass is what I would look at and not diameters. After that look at valve seat angles and contact area. Then look more into VVT than has been looked at.
Mass is what I would look at and not diameters. After that look at valve seat angles and contact area. Then look more into VVT than has been looked at.
I personally dont think the head is worth the expense as the engine makes more power than the chassis can take and traction is non existent
But if you want to have the biggest shlong in the room why not.
But if you want to have the biggest shlong in the room why not.
I don´t think that this is such a waste of time if i look at cars with the N53 Head. Going 20 psi with 16 degrees of timing while running DI only and 93 ron pump fuel and making close to 600whp. (I don´t even care if it is 600whp or 500whp. It is the log that counts for me)
I mean. A complete ported head without bigger valves costs me 1000 Euro here. And yes. Proper job. Just not at your typical pharmacy priced shop.
So while i am in there. 1000 Euro (~1200 USD) is not a cost effective step?
Why should i go closed deck, rods, pistons and then not do that little thing to improve things significantly?
Same here as stated above. Plus. Not everybody looks at others shlongs.
Yep. What i see with N53 head cars and HP800 turbos... spool is so much faster.
To get these turbos spooled on pump fuel it takes quite a while on warm days.
On 102 Ron me and others here in germany are at 21 psi at 3700rpm.
On E85 though ppl with 650s and 800s are way quicker there.
And then you look at @ShocknAwe and he spools with the HP800s on 93 pump as quick or even quicker as those guys with E85.
What this even means for time to torque. That´ll be fun :-D
I'm working on getting my fuel system put together right now, but inbetween a number of other projects so not going quickly. Head/turbo/etc will happen once fuel system is in and doing what it should do.
I was expecting all of this to come together much faster - it's been 2+ years on this leg. Just too many things going on, for both Barry and I.
I agree with Marty's assessment of the car's ability to manage the power. This is part of the reason we invested so much time in suspension.
I am hoping to be under 20 psi at about 600whp with eMix - mostly because reliability is a key factor in what I wanted to achieve. Though this car will never see it under my watch, (it's got 33k miles at this point), my intention was to build it to run to 100k. Most people don't think that way (or prioritize that way), but I find that kind of approach balances performance orientation with reliability factors.
I was expecting all of this to come together much faster - it's been 2+ years on this leg. Just too many things going on, for both Barry and I.
I agree with Marty's assessment of the car's ability to manage the power. This is part of the reason we invested so much time in suspension.
I am hoping to be under 20 psi at about 600whp with eMix - mostly because reliability is a key factor in what I wanted to achieve. Though this car will never see it under my watch, (it's got 33k miles at this point), my intention was to build it to run to 100k. Most people don't think that way (or prioritize that way), but I find that kind of approach balances performance orientation with reliability factors.
E93 just begs for more and more boost. Probably the best chassis for putting power
What cars are you having so much traction issues with? My e93 just begs for more and more boost. I used to have more traction issues when I had the 6266 on there, occasionally it will break loose in 3rd on the 6875 with boost unrestricted in 3rd
^Fuckin roll racers.
LOL
Put on your big boy pants and do digs. You'll find how bad the cars are. It's not suspension. It's not power. It's not transmission. It's not tire. It's the chassis and the actual way the 5 arms act. There is bind and deflection when you don't want it.
Most good drag chassis's can put power down easily at our power on a good tire. I mean if we could find a way to consistent 1.5/1.6 60' times these cars would become competitive. Won't happen though. Unless some oil baron dumps a fortune in doing so.
And you E93 works because it's frame is fuckin busted to shit. LMAO
LOL
Put on your big boy pants and do digs. You'll find how bad the cars are. It's not suspension. It's not power. It's not transmission. It's not tire. It's the chassis and the actual way the 5 arms act. There is bind and deflection when you don't want it.
Most good drag chassis's can put power down easily at our power on a good tire. I mean if we could find a way to consistent 1.5/1.6 60' times these cars would become competitive. Won't happen though. Unless some oil baron dumps a fortune in doing so.
And you E93 works because it's frame is fuckin busted to shit. LMAO
Lol ok boss didn't know you built my car ? What a bum sound like someone who's car doesn't work and never will. Just cuz my car can do digs rolls whatever I want and not have traction issues doesn't mean you gotta be jealous babe
And to be fair,
This is the state my car is in and has been in for just over 2 years now. After it's 400+++'th drag pass and 12th track day the auto trans finally shit the bed. I'm not rich by any means and I'm undecided on if I want to try to get the auto to work or if I want to go DCT (and which DCT).
DCT because when the N54 suicides' a LS is going in. DCT and LS are a phenomenal matchup.
I already have a MFactory rear diff. If I'd go E DCT then I'd need the lower 2.56 diff and buy the MFactory stuff again. Not a cost I want. But If I can figure out how to use the Fxx DCT then I might be able to keep my rear, and frankly I like the Fxx gearing better. More 1/2 mile friendly.
I'm in no hurry and have nothing to prove. It's for me and my enjoyment ... but still has to be able to ice race!
This is the state my car is in and has been in for just over 2 years now. After it's 400+++'th drag pass and 12th track day the auto trans finally shit the bed. I'm not rich by any means and I'm undecided on if I want to try to get the auto to work or if I want to go DCT (and which DCT).
DCT because when the N54 suicides' a LS is going in. DCT and LS are a phenomenal matchup.
I already have a MFactory rear diff. If I'd go E DCT then I'd need the lower 2.56 diff and buy the MFactory stuff again. Not a cost I want. But If I can figure out how to use the Fxx DCT then I might be able to keep my rear, and frankly I like the Fxx gearing better. More 1/2 mile friendly.
I'm in no hurry and have nothing to prove. It's for me and my enjoyment ... but still has to be able to ice race!
Similar threads
