I spent 2 decades in race engine business and appreciate insightful videos such as yours. I've owned two BMW 2002 with one having similar spec to this engine. One tidbit of advice I could share. Lash the INLET valves ONLY! to a much tighter spec than recommended. Factory spec calls for 0.006"-0.008" of valve clearance. For a very good reason, I was gapping the inlet side at 0.002". The valvetrain clatter is much reduced and inlet valves have gentler lift profile. The essence of this comes from differences in thermal expansion rate of metals. When an engine w/ alu head reaches operating temperature, the actual valve clearance INCREASES due to higher thermal expansion rates of aluminum of head and INLET steel valves. Research papers have been written about this. I ran this for 10 years on a modified M10 engine w/ 45DCOE webers with 304 Shrick cam and drove the car year round in Canada and Michigan. Tighter clearance on INLET valves became a no brainer. On the EXHAUST side I always followed factory settings and set clearance to 0.007".
@@PenguinMotors agree, the benefit isn't primarily power, but quietness for the daily use and slight longevity on inlet valvetrain. I used the thinnest/lankiest feeler gauge in my feeler gauge set, which was 0.0015"and when it slid loosely, that was the clearance I set; I know all about valvetrain design, spent thousands of hrs measuring cams on cam doctor and adcole. When you throw heavy 46mm inlet valves in place of 44mm that came in stock, an extended opening ramp is never bad in preventing inducement of any harmonics, which will start appearing at peak rpm as loss of power; the principle I described applies to ALL aluminum head/steel inlet valve engines, the longer the total valve length, the greater running lash becomes when engine is warmed up. In my experiments early on, I set the inlet lash at ZERO and took the car for a spin and drove like that for several days. I then decided to put in minimum of lash that I could measure, such is the 0.0015"
Hi Great to see an older BMW 2002 being used on your channel. I would like your advice please.Its a two part question .(1) How would the day to day drive-ability of a matched pair of Dellorto B 48 DRLA Turbo units behave in a non turbo bog standard 2.0 litre 2002 Saloon with absolutely no modifications? Would that one addition make the car horrible to drive on a daily basis? (2)Following on from this but keeping the Dellorto carburator in mind ,what would you advise? Re-further small performance up grades without breaking the bank? It would be a road car, my daily driver . Regards Richard.
Great job. TNR figures are always on the money from what I've seen compared to the very same engines run on an engine dyno I use regularly, and that works back to my rollers close too. In fact based on the wheel figures at TNR they're a pinch under on their flywheel estimates...which makes a pleasant change for non bull claims, so yours and thier findings are on the money...and if there was 4hp in it that's absolutely nothing between 2 different but accurate set ups a few years apart. Fuel has changed too in that time. I've seen dyno claims of almost 230hp from 2ltr M10's, yet 190-210hp VW's & Pintos can run with them, so circa 200 is realistic.
Be good to see an S14 engine on the dyno Graham, that is a superb engine in my humble opinion even by todays standards it produces very good power and torque 👌
I'd love to have another S14 engine, having raced them in both naturally aspriated and turbo formats, n/a was great teh way it screamed round to 8K sounding like nothing else, turbo was awesome 512bhp on just 1 bar boost! trouble is these days yu would have to sell your house to afford one
Same No's as a very good 2Ltr pinto. Difference between chassis and engine dyno makes it very very difficult to get the same No's consistently, chassis dyno being the hardest to keep on spec. I've wasted thousands on lab spec load cells and electonic filters for every conceivable rpm measurement. The more accurate they are, the quicker small errors creap in. Besides development and testing is done on the test bench and the chassis dyno used to check the installation in the car, fuel pump capacity and all the rest. Can't we go back to more simple mechanical systems🤤🙂
I’ve been watching your Ford videos and with this one have just realised who you are. Didn’t you have a 2002 with enormous intake trumpets coming through the bonnet which was featured in PPC magazine?
I have a new to me 1973 SVRA vintage M10 racecar with the milder cam and a downdraft 2bbl. Building a new motor with the 316 cam, wouldn't you choose the 45DCOE Webers? It seems like any marginal gain at the top RPMs with the 48s would be more than offset by big losses midrange to the top.
48's were already on the engine, but with a circuit race car which is always going to be above 4,000 rpm then there probabl;y no downside to teh bigger carbs
I remember going around the car lots in Germany back in 1970's looking at 2002s with quoted power of 145, 160 and 190PS all in a streetable car. Given that the PS is a smaller pony than a HP there is still little difference between the streetable motor and the full race. Interesting that the engine made 152lbft of torque as I would have expected more - what was the BMEP and at what revs? Dyno numbers should not be taken as an absolute value and as you say bhp is a combination of revs and torque, which means that although the torque may be consistent on that dyno/rolling road the revs are slightly variable. When looking at developing/improving the engine it is important that that is done on the same machine so that a true comparison can be made as it is not unusual for different dynos/rolling roads be give figures that are easily 10% different. This is important when chatting to the lad down the pub, who's motor just made 1200bhp on the 'torque 'em up' rolling road.
i think the compresion ratio was a bit low for the cam, but my instructions were just to make it work again after it had a failure not try to extract more power
Power seems to be still climbing at 7600rpm. Did you stop exploring higher rpm in fear of losing rockers? I have bunch of M30 engines and I'd love to build one for similar spec to this.
7600 was actually the peak, it made less power @ 7700, when i have someone elses engine on the dyno im always a bit circumspect about how hard a rev them, i will usually only just go far enough just in case it gives out. the owner only used to go to 7000
Hi Graham, I have a question, maybe you can answer. I have an m10 engine 292 cam, 10:1 compression ratio, ie headers, pertronix, and now is running a 32/36 weber. I live at 2800 metes above sea level. And I what to upgrade my carbs to 45 dcoe webers or maybe efi s14 40mm itbs. What do you think is better way to go? Thanks for your answer.
Either would work well, there will be little if any power difference but EFI set up correctly should be more flexible and presumably get you mapped ignition too
@@PenguinMotorsthank you Graham, here in the height is always a problem to tune correctly the carburetors it changes every time, maybe with the itbs the tune is more stable? And 40 mm or 45 mm you think can breath better because we have less atmospheric pressure?
i can only see altitude being a problem if you tune it at one altitude but actaully drive it at a difference one, efi can help in that respect if you run a map sensor to measure air pressure. 40mm itb wil be big enough, but most people wil go for 45 just in case..........
@@mariobonnicitkd not a chance of it having anything like 190 bhp on 9.5 cr it will be more like 150bhp on your 40mm carbs. to get 190bhp your need 45's somewhere around 11.1 cr and probably a 304 cam
i used to have one that i reved tyo 8800 on standard rods, and another that bent valves aside held together when i wrong slotted it and reved it to almost 10k again on standard rods
@@PenguinMotors i has one 1976 block with 1986 1.8i head... what im going to do with it, naturally aspirated 15:1 comp ratio e85 engine.... steel rockers, hbeam rods etc... etc... going to dump that engine to my old vaz 2101
When compare a 2 liter pinto with a 2 liter M10. How much money do you have to spend to get 200 hp out of the engines? And witch one is the more reliable then?
The bmw isn’t quite as straightforward in a lot of respects, but you can do it using a lot more of the original bmw parts, for instance standard valves are big enough and standard rods and bolts will go way past 8k, no need to dowel flywheel either
@@PenguinMotors Thanks for your reply. So the BMW is cheaper to build because you didn't need to change that lot of parts to get power and reliability. But is reliability on the same level in the end? If there is something like a reliable 200hp 2 liter 8v NA engine.
@@RallyeRacin9 these m10 engines are incredably strong, the stock bottom end will handle almost anything you can throw at it, valve to piston clearance is an issue with any sort of real cam, but the standard pistons have plenty of material and will take some pretty deep valve cut outs being machined in them, unlike a pinto piston they will happily cope with 12.1 cr and over 8,000 rpm. i once had an engine that dyno'd at 192bhp, i had modified a lot of bits in the engine but the only non bmw parts in it were a set of uprated valve springs from a pinto even the cam was still bmw all be it reprofiled. rocker arms are the weakest aspect of the engine, but even then driving style has a big effect on that. Pintos are easier to build, but id say the m10 is stronger and more reliable and ultimately has the edge in the ultimate power stakes
@@PenguinMotors I've got an 80s 5 series with the 2.8 litre L jetronic m30 and I'm thinking about modifications to get it to the 200hp mark. I have thought about taking it to 3.0 litres or would a camshaft be more suitable?
BMW used the M10 block in early days of turbo F1 from memory, extracting close to 1000 bhp @ 60 psi boost latest BMW 1 liter is just on 200 bhp so where is the HP ? cyl head and rpm, delve back into the archives and find out what the 1000cc DD pushrod 105 /107 e engines were producing
if i read your comments right you are saying a modern engine doesnt make much power given the all the years of development, the answer is exhaust emissions, economy and the ability to last a decent mileage
@@PenguinMotors intake gas flow and RPM you are not reading my comments at all correctly. I am jabbering on about performance engines, your M10 is not a modern engine ! in fact 200bhp for 2 liters at close to 8000 rpm is nothing to write home about. forget your fancy camshaft, all the real power is in the cyl head and RPM , hence if you compare a down drafted Ford serious
Ok i sort of get what your on about, im well aware that cylinder head flow is key to to an engine spower potiential. i know an m10 is not a modern engine, it wasnt when i first tuned one 30 years ago! i didnt build/design this engine i merely refreshed it, but i can tell you that 200bhp is good for a m10 very good for one using a 316 cam
@@carstennobody7047 I struggle to understand your post, Tq does not rule ! It only happens to be a function of mathematical equations along with other inputs. Tq is merely a product of BMEP and RPM, BMEP is virtually all a product of cylinder filling and dynamic compression ratio. So to achieve a higher BMEP, you either increase gas flow of cylinder head ( boost or port/valve chamber shape) or RPM ! ........ HP is a mathematical function of Tq and RPM, so in all essence, higher RPM is the one factor that you strive for in a performance orientated engine
@@carstennobody7047 I just gave you the theory and practical values of why tq does NOT rule when it comes to high performance engines, although tq is a factor of performance, it is dictated in no uncertain terms by RPM. If you are so set on tq, then I suggest you stick a Lister diesel in your car and you can have it from near zero to 600 RPM
I spent 2 decades in race engine business and appreciate insightful videos such as yours. I've owned two BMW 2002 with one having similar spec to this engine. One tidbit of advice I could share. Lash the INLET valves ONLY! to a much tighter spec than recommended. Factory spec calls for 0.006"-0.008" of valve clearance. For a very good reason, I was gapping the inlet side at 0.002". The valvetrain clatter is much reduced and inlet valves have gentler lift profile. The essence of this comes from differences in thermal expansion rate of metals. When an engine w/ alu head reaches operating temperature, the actual valve clearance INCREASES due to higher thermal expansion rates of aluminum of head and INLET steel valves. Research papers have been written about this. I ran this for 10 years on a modified M10 engine w/ 45DCOE webers with 304 Shrick cam and drove the car year round in Canada and Michigan. Tighter clearance on INLET valves became a no brainer. On the EXHAUST side I always followed factory settings and set clearance to 0.007".
interesting, years ago i played with valve clearances on the dyno on a 316 cam it had little to no effect
@@PenguinMotors agree, the benefit isn't primarily power, but quietness for the daily use and slight longevity on inlet valvetrain. I used the thinnest/lankiest feeler gauge in my feeler gauge set, which was 0.0015"and when it slid loosely, that was the clearance I set; I know all about valvetrain design, spent thousands of hrs measuring cams on cam doctor and adcole. When you throw heavy 46mm inlet valves in place of 44mm that came in stock, an extended opening ramp is never bad in preventing inducement of any harmonics, which will start appearing at peak rpm as loss of power; the principle I described applies to ALL aluminum head/steel inlet valve engines, the longer the total valve length, the greater running lash becomes when engine is warmed up. In my experiments early on, I set the inlet lash at ZERO and took the car for a spin and drove like that for several days. I then decided to put in minimum of lash that I could measure, such is the 0.0015"
@@utube321piotr If I have an M10 who is not a race engine with stock cam/spring. Can I still go with that lash on intake?
@@Theartofprogramming YES
Hi
Great to see an older BMW 2002 being used on your channel.
I would like your advice please.Its a two part question
.(1) How would the day to day drive-ability of a matched pair of Dellorto B 48 DRLA Turbo units behave in a non turbo bog standard 2.0 litre 2002 Saloon with absolutely no modifications?
Would that one addition make the car horrible to drive on a daily basis?
(2)Following on from this but keeping the Dellorto carburator in mind ,what would you advise?
Re-further small performance up grades without breaking the bank?
It would be a road car, my daily driver .
Regards
Richard.
I also use a 316 cam, 91mm bore, 80mm crank, I guessed with the 45 DCOEs it was around 200 hp, thank you for sharing.
Great job. TNR figures are always on the money from what I've seen compared to the very same engines run on an engine dyno I use regularly, and that works back to my rollers close too. In fact based on the wheel figures at TNR they're a pinch under on their flywheel estimates...which makes a pleasant change for non bull claims, so yours and thier findings are on the money...and if there was 4hp in it that's absolutely nothing between 2 different but accurate set ups a few years apart. Fuel has changed too in that time.
I've seen dyno claims of almost 230hp from 2ltr M10's, yet 190-210hp VW's & Pintos can run with them, so circa 200 is realistic.
No matter what engine you test, always Weber 😄
Be good to see an S14 engine on the dyno Graham, that is a superb engine in my humble opinion even by todays standards it produces very good power and torque 👌
I'd love to have another S14 engine, having raced them in both naturally aspriated and turbo formats, n/a was great teh way it screamed round to 8K sounding like nothing else, turbo was awesome 512bhp on just 1 bar boost! trouble is these days yu would have to sell your house to afford one
Great result from the good old M10. Often wondered what it would as a 2.3?
i once but a 2.5, it made 240 bhp
Same No's as a very good 2Ltr pinto.
Difference between chassis and engine dyno makes it very very difficult to get the same No's consistently, chassis dyno being the hardest to keep on spec. I've wasted thousands on lab spec load cells and electonic filters for every conceivable rpm measurement.
The more accurate they are, the quicker small errors creap in.
Besides development and testing is done on the test bench and the chassis dyno used to check the installation in the car, fuel pump capacity and all the rest.
Can't we go back to more simple mechanical systems🤤🙂
Pinto power....
I’ve been watching your Ford videos and with this one have just realised who you are. Didn’t you have a 2002 with enormous intake trumpets coming through the bonnet which was featured in PPC magazine?
Yes that’s me
Great post! Can you tell us the choke size you landed on? 42-44?
because the spec was unchanged from when it was rolling roaded i didnt have to do any jetting but im pretty certain it has 42mm chokes
That's pretty healthy for M10.
Does it have oversized valves and heavily ported?
ported, alpina style domed pistons high cr
I have a new to me 1973 SVRA vintage M10 racecar with the milder cam and a downdraft 2bbl. Building a new motor with the 316 cam, wouldn't you choose the 45DCOE Webers? It seems like any marginal gain at the top RPMs with the 48s would be more than offset by big losses midrange to the top.
48's were already on the engine, but with a circuit race car which is always going to be above 4,000 rpm then there probabl;y no downside to teh bigger carbs
I remember going around the car lots in Germany back in 1970's looking at 2002s with quoted power of 145, 160 and 190PS all in a streetable car. Given that the PS is a smaller pony than a HP there is still little difference between the streetable motor and the full race. Interesting that the engine made 152lbft of torque as I would have expected more - what was the BMEP and at what revs?
Dyno numbers should not be taken as an absolute value and as you say bhp is a combination of revs and torque, which means that although the torque may be consistent on that dyno/rolling road the revs are slightly variable. When looking at developing/improving the engine it is important that that is done on the same machine so that a true comparison can be made as it is not unusual for different dynos/rolling roads be give figures that are easily 10% different. This is important when chatting to the lad down the pub, who's motor just made 1200bhp on the 'torque 'em up' rolling road.
i think the compresion ratio was a bit low for the cam, but my instructions were just to make it work again after it had a failure not try to extract more power
@@PenguinMotors Thank you for that observation.
Power seems to be still climbing at 7600rpm. Did you stop exploring higher rpm in fear of losing rockers?
I have bunch of M30 engines and I'd love to build one for similar spec to this.
7600 was actually the peak, it made less power @ 7700, when i have someone elses engine on the dyno im always a bit circumspect about how hard a rev them, i will usually only just go far enough just in case it gives out. the owner only used to go to 7000
Hi great video what compression ratio is it?
Don’t know exactly but it’s about 11.1
try a 1.8 m10 head i remember one m10 1.5i from e21 with schrick 316 and 1.8 head with 2 twin delordos working at 10500 rpm back in 1992
which brand of rocker arms did you use and how do you like them?
the client supplied them so i dont know what brand they were.
Is this the same basic engine block the turbo F1 cars used all those years ago?
yes bmw m10 block
@Penguin Motors what was the carburettor setup on this engine?
twin 48 dco
Hi Graham, I have a question, maybe you can answer. I have an m10 engine 292 cam, 10:1 compression ratio, ie headers, pertronix, and now is running a 32/36 weber. I live at 2800 metes above sea level. And I what to upgrade my carbs to 45 dcoe webers or maybe efi s14 40mm itbs. What do you think is better way to go? Thanks for your answer.
Either would work well, there will be little if any power difference but EFI set up correctly should be more flexible and presumably get you mapped ignition too
@@PenguinMotorsthank you Graham, here in the height is always a problem to tune correctly the carburetors it changes every time, maybe with the itbs the tune is more stable? And 40 mm or 45 mm you think can breath better because we have less atmospheric pressure?
i can only see altitude being a problem if you tune it at one altitude but actaully drive it at a difference one, efi can help in that respect if you run a map sensor to measure air pressure. 40mm itb wil be big enough, but most people wil go for 45 just in case..........
@@PenguinMotorsthank you Graham I will go with itbs.
Mine is with 292 Schrick cam 89.5 bore and 40s Dcoe Dellorto plus ported and skimmed head.. And balanced Engine should i see close to 190Bhp ?
what compression ratio? but my gut feeling is you would be lucky to see 160bhp on 40mm carbs
@@PenguinMotors it Has 9.5: 1 compression ratio
@@mariobonnicitkd not a chance of it having anything like 190 bhp on 9.5 cr it will be more like 150bhp on your 40mm carbs. to get 190bhp your need 45's somewhere around 11.1 cr and probably a 304 cam
@@PenguinMotors Aa ok .. but still should be a decent runner in the streets i guess since soon gonna put him on the streets again
we forget how much work it took to get 200bhp quite a few yrs ago
Yes it took me years to get to 200bhp
These engines can do even much more, we did go near 10.000rpm...
i used to have one that i reved tyo 8800 on standard rods, and another that bent valves aside held together when i wrong slotted it and reved it to almost 10k again on standard rods
@@PenguinMotors i has one 1976 block with 1986 1.8i head... what im going to do with it, naturally aspirated 15:1 comp ratio e85 engine.... steel rockers, hbeam rods etc... etc... going to dump that engine to my old vaz 2101
When compare a 2 liter pinto with a 2 liter M10.
How much money do you have to spend to get 200 hp out of the engines?
And witch one is the more reliable then?
The bmw isn’t quite as straightforward in a lot of respects, but you can do it using a lot more of the original bmw parts, for instance standard valves are big enough and standard rods and bolts will go way past 8k, no need to dowel flywheel either
@@PenguinMotors Thanks for your reply.
So the BMW is cheaper to build because you didn't need to change that lot of parts to get power and reliability.
But is reliability on the same level in the end? If there is something like a reliable 200hp 2 liter 8v NA engine.
@@RallyeRacin9 these m10 engines are incredably strong, the stock bottom end will handle almost anything you can throw at it, valve to piston clearance is an issue with any sort of real cam, but the standard pistons have plenty of material and will take some pretty deep valve cut outs being machined in them, unlike a pinto piston they will happily cope with 12.1 cr and over 8,000 rpm. i once had an engine that dyno'd at 192bhp, i had modified a lot of bits in the engine but the only non bmw parts in it were a set of uprated valve springs from a pinto even the cam was still bmw all be it reprofiled. rocker arms are the weakest aspect of the engine, but even then driving style has a big effect on that. Pintos are easier to build, but id say the m10 is stronger and more reliable and ultimately has the edge in the ultimate power stakes
@@RallyeRacin9 there certainly is a reliable 200hp n/a 8v...its a VW single cam.
What fuel was the engine run on?
tesco 99 octane
Any idea the cam timing?
as per book full lift 100 dgrees ATDC, i have previously swung the cam on a 316 equipped m10, but no gain found, so i just checked it was as per book
What are you using for knock?
im old school, my ears!
@@PenguinMotors what's ignition angle at idle?
@@420018254 dunno didnt check, it was a refresh on an existing engine so wasnt bothered, what i can tell you it is 32 degrees @5000
@@PenguinMotors more than @5000 the angle on this distributor does not change. It's clear
Have you ever built any m30 engines ?
Yes but I’ve not modified any
@@PenguinMotors I've got an 80s 5 series with the 2.8 litre L jetronic m30 and I'm thinking about modifications to get it to the 200hp mark. I have thought about taking it to 3.0 litres or would a camshaft be more suitable?
i would suggest finding a 3.5 engine 220bhp stock and loads more torque
@@PenguinMotors will do 👌 thanks for getting back enjoy these videos very much 👍
BMW used the M10 block in early days of turbo F1 from memory, extracting close to 1000 bhp @ 60 psi boost latest BMW 1 liter is just on 200 bhp so where is the HP ?
cyl head and rpm, delve back into the archives and find out what the 1000cc DD pushrod 105 /107 e engines were producing
if i read your comments right you are saying a modern engine doesnt make much power given the all the years of development, the answer is exhaust emissions, economy and the ability to last a decent mileage
@@PenguinMotors intake gas flow and RPM you are not reading my comments at all correctly. I am jabbering on about performance engines, your M10 is not a modern engine ! in fact 200bhp for 2 liters at close to 8000 rpm is nothing to write home about. forget your fancy camshaft, all the real power is in the cyl head and RPM , hence if you compare a down drafted Ford serious
Ok i sort of get what your on about, im well aware that cylinder head flow is key to to an engine spower potiential. i know an m10 is not a modern engine, it wasnt when i first tuned one 30 years ago! i didnt build/design this engine i merely refreshed it, but i can tell you that 200bhp is good for a m10 very good for one using a 316 cam
@@carstennobody7047 I struggle to understand your post, Tq does not rule ! It only happens to be a function of mathematical equations along with other inputs. Tq is merely a product of BMEP and RPM, BMEP is virtually all a product of cylinder filling and dynamic compression ratio. So to achieve a higher BMEP, you either increase gas flow of cylinder head ( boost or port/valve chamber shape) or RPM ! ........ HP is a mathematical function of Tq and RPM, so in all essence, higher RPM is the one factor that
you strive for in a performance orientated engine
@@carstennobody7047 I just gave you the theory and practical values of why tq does NOT rule when it comes to high performance engines, although tq is a factor of performance, it is dictated in no uncertain terms by RPM. If you are so set on tq, then I suggest you stick a Lister diesel in your car and you can have it from near zero to 600 RPM