Thread: S65 vs. S62
View Single Post
      01-21-2013, 12:19 PM   #29
Yugo
Private First Class
1
Rep
110
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKE_M3 View Post
Two reasons...
First, the car would be 333lbs heavier if the engine wasn't lighter (using your numbers). Lighter is better.
Second, Acceleration is a function of power (to the wheels), weight and traction. Although the engine has little effect on traction (smooth power delivery helps, but both engines have that in spades), but all else equal, more power and lighter is better.

If you can add power and save weight, that is good, so why wouldn't people be excited about BMW's new (six years ago) engine being significantly more powerful 414 vs 333, and also lighter?
Doesn't make sense, car is still 300lbs heavier...sounds to me nothing other than a marketing gimmick. Most people that don't know cars too well will focus on the mere fact that the engine is lighter and overlook the car's weight.

Yes, of course S65 is obviously more powerful and better from most aspects than the S54, I was just getting annoyed by the constant comparisons on the weights on those two engines when it doesn't hold any value when the car itself is 10x heavier the weight savings on the engine.

If one were to bench press an S65 vs an S54 then I can see how the weight difference would matter, otherwise I don't given the facts above.