View Single Post
      03-24-2007, 12:37 AM   #25
e36jakeo
Captain
United_States
12
Rep
624
Posts

Drives: 2008 M3 6 Speed MT!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northern CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdiver68 View Post
some more engines:

AMG 6.3L 438lbs 507HP/465 TQ
GM LS7 (Z06) 458lbs 505HP/475 TQ

IMHO, mass and dimensions versus performance is a much better yardstick than hp/l.
This whole engine comparison winds up confusing me. If the above figures are correct for MUCH larger and torquier engines that are also just as fuel efficient (or more so) as the M3's V8, what is the TRUE point of a high-revving design? Less torque does allow for a lighter weight drivetrain, but then the M3 will still weigh a lot more than a GT3, Z06, etc.

I'd love to see a breakdown of how much lighter the engine, transmission, axles, gears, clutch, etc. etc of BMW's high-revving M3 vs. the Z06's "old school" pushrod 7 liter V8. The immediate 470 lbs ft of torque in a Z06 makes it really fun to drive with friends -- just to whip their head back!

If you compare an F430's 483 HP V8 to a Z06's 505 HP V8, the Z06's V8 makes more torque, more HP, weighs almost the same (based on above numbers), yet gets dramatically better fuel economy (16/26 vs 11/16 for the Ferrari).

If revs cost in gas and in torque and (it seems) don't benefit much in weight., what is the point?
__________________
Driving sideways: It's not faster, but damn it's more fun!