BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've been wondering for a while now. How come the supercharger on the S85 is fitted on the left bank (looking from front of car) but on the right bank on the S65? Is it for packaging / room issues?

If the charger was on the right bank then to me it looks like you could use an air to air intercooler, rather than an air to water heat exchanger as you would be able to run the charge piping in front of the radiator with a decent sized intercooler.

Any one know why it is the way it is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks. Can you explain why? Genuine question as I have always felt air to air was better, especially as when I was driving turbo cars there were hardly any air to water systems.

My thoughts on it are that the water is always going to be at the same temp that the engine is running off as it's a split system iirc (like the system found in the supercharged mercs), which means it's always going to be quite hot to start with. Air to air should be lower due to not needing to work as hard to get the temps down as they should in theory be lower to start with.

Also, do you know why the kit for the S85 only produces 175bhp whereas the kit for the S65 produces 200bhp?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
It has sep cooling system

You can also have a chiller setup as well

There is a reason why bmw and other companies use water to air coolers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
I'm not a supercharger expert, but here's what I've observed. There's debate going both ways, and although the water is much more efficient at removing heat than air is, the water needs to be cooled by air, so logic indicates that the benefits would cancel out... Then again, the same applies to water cooled engines versus air cooled engines, and I think we know which formula wins in most cases. Heat exchangers in industrial applications also seem much more effective using liquid cooling, and especially for a greater temp drop, although generally more expensive for initial cost of the system.



So we could also say that packaging design is a factor, CFM and temp differentials are a factor, weight is a factor, flow path is a factor, engine behavior is a factor, heat soak time is a factor, cost and reliability are a factor, forced induction system design is a factor...there are offseting factors for both arguments even further.



No easy answers, but people these days have figured out better ways to get more temp drop in the air charge... I asked about the ESS Gen 1 to Gen 2 Air-to-water intercooler changes (higher flow pump and larger heat exchanger in front) and the answer was about 15 degrees cooler air temps in the plenum. That's perhaps a big difference in reducing heat soak with extended high power operation which is one of the weaknesses of the water system. What sort of Air to Air would do the same I wonder? And if that supercharger has a specific output limitation that's not too far away from the designed engine demand, would it have the overhead to push that air charge through ducting in a 200+ degree engine bay and through a significantly larger charge cooler (tiny one currently). I don't know, they all need airflow and preferably denser air to cool off, positioning the heat exchanger in the best place in front of radiators and power steering coolers and condensers and oil coolers there's only so much room to get the limited cooling resources to cool either type of intercooler. If they say that the air to water system provides a much better air charge cooling than they can manage another way, I can accept that. Air to water is more expensive so it's not corner cutting. Packaging, probably a factor for sure.


On a humorous but somewhat related note to think about with regard to packaging... I've heard it said that water cooled engines on an airplane make as much sense as air cooled engines on a submarine. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 Posts
I'm not a supercharger expert, but here's what I've observed. There's debate going both ways, and although the water is much more efficient at removing heat than air is, the water needs to be cooled by air, so logic indicates that the benefits would cancel out... Then again, the same applies to water cooled engines versus air cooled engines, and I think we know which formula wins in most cases. Heat exchangers in industrial applications also seem much more effective using liquid cooling, and especially for a greater temp drop, although generally more expensive for initial cost of the system.



So we could also say that packaging design is a factor, CFM and temp differentials are a factor, weight is a factor, flow path is a factor, engine behavior is a factor, heat soak time is a factor, cost and reliability are a factor, forced induction system design is a factor...there are offseting factors for both arguments even further.



No easy answers, but people these days have figured out better ways to get more temp drop in the air charge... I asked about the ESS Gen 1 to Gen 2 Air-to-water intercooler changes (higher flow pump and larger heat exchanger in front) and the answer was about 15 degrees cooler air temps in the plenum. That's perhaps a big difference in reducing heat soak with extended high power operation which is one of the weaknesses of the water system. What sort of Air to Air would do the same I wonder? And if that supercharger has a specific output limitation that's not too far away from the designed engine demand, would it have the overhead to push that air charge through ducting in a 200+ degree engine bay and through a significantly larger charge cooler (tiny one currently). I don't know, they all need airflow and preferably denser air to cool off, positioning the heat exchanger in the best place in front of radiators and power steering coolers and condensers and oil coolers there's only so much room to get the limited cooling resources to cool either type of intercooler. If they say that the air to water system provides a much better air charge cooling than they can manage another way, I can accept that. Air to water is more expensive so it's not corner cutting. Packaging, probably a factor for sure.


On a humorous but somewhat related note to think about with regard to packaging... I've heard it said that water cooled engines on an airplane make as much sense as air cooled engines on a submarine. :)
I really don't think that much engineering thought is put into aftermarket blowers - those are sold pretty much exclusively on dyno chart photos.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
About this Discussion
6 Replies
4 Participants
pmalik
BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums
M5Board is the best forum community for information on the BMW M5 E60 (V-10), E39 (V-8), E34 (straight 6), E28, F90 and F10. Discuss performance, specs, reviews and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top