Thread: S65 vs. S62
View Single Post
      01-21-2013, 03:25 PM   #35
Major General
mPlasticDesign's Avatar

Drives: 2011 E90 M3 Comp Pkg Only
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Astral Projecting: ∞ 23.516 -122 02.625 0242.101 ĕv'rē-hwr'

iTrader: (16)

Garage List
Originally Posted by Yugo View Post
Excuse my ignorance, but I never really understood the engine weight comparison between the S54 and the S65. The S65 is 33lbs lighter (iron vs aluminum), but on the other hand the E90/92 as the whole car is 300lbs heavier than the what's the big deal that the engine is lighter?
Originally Posted by Yugo View Post
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.
Gimmick? If you can increase displacement while making the engine lighter that is a gimmick too you? Nobody is ignoring the 300lb increase, most people would prefer lighter obviously but are willing to make the trade off otherwise they would stick with the E46. Besides, even with the increased vehicle weight the E9x M3 is 8.4 seconds faster than the E46 M3 to 150mph, you can not argue the performance advantage.
Originally Posted by Yugo View Post
....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.
You are missing the point of my original post. I wasn't arguing the vehicle weight comparison but rather the engine weight(since this thread is an engine comparison S65 vs S62).

Now, If I had my choice, I'd probably say stroke the S65.

Last edited by mPlasticDesign; 01-21-2013 at 04:43 PM.