Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
Skepticism is so unpopular, unfortunately. Again my point is that things are likely not apples to apples. No I've never written a research paper smart guy, my lowly three degrees never involved any writing nor research. Take it easy with the assumption, insults and insinuations. You OPINION is obviously contentious and up for some good healthy debate. Deal with it. Posting some links to worldcarfans does not make you unconditionally correct. Part of good research is healthy skepticism and common sense as well.
|
I'm sorry for the tone in which you interpreted my response. It's a common problem with written dialogue. I do not have an opinion about the weight of these engines. What I have is facts. Worldcarfans did not make up those press releases. They are from BMW and Mercedes and you can find the exact same articles on other websites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
TAXES IN MANY COUNTRIES ARE BASED ON DISPLACEMENT. Look it up. I never said an M3 with a 5.0 l engine would cost the same as the M5. However, it would cost more than it does now in many countries. Try reading instead of assuming. Now and in the future many countries will adopt a taxation strategy based on CO2 emmissions, not displacement, but obviosuly correlated.
|
All I have are assumptions to go on because you were not clear enough in your post. How was I supposed to know that you were talking about taxes? You said "the displacement thing is absolutely a factor for the M3. If it was 4.0 liters or greater it would make the price significantly higher resulting in making it significantly less attractive and affordable." You never mentioned taxes. You need to be more specific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
If you say displacement means nothing for any race series based on production engines I'll take that at face value. Doesn't sound entirely plausible but definitely not an area where I have great knowledge. Perhaps some others can chime in and verify this?
|
They do cap classes at certain engine sizes but BMW didn't build the M3 to go racing, they built it to sell to consumers. Don't confuse the E92 M3 with the E30 M3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
You already answerd some of this question yourself. Loads scale with rpm^2, high rpms = very high loads. To design something light and stiff and strong is a challenge. I've done lots of that myself. As well the challenges of wear, tribology, electronic controls, lubrication and balance all come into the to picture of the technology. Also, I firmly agree with footie as his post just above. Lower torque = lighter drivetrain and all of the benefits you get from that. Less stored energy in the drivetrain, better throttle response, lighter vehicle, etc. As well the incredibly broad and flat torque curve of the M3 is a result of it outstanding engineering.
|
Where did I say that the M3's V8 was poorly designed? Do you think the s65 is the only engine to use fancy materials?
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
I have never discounted the C63 AMG nor Z06 engines. They both are obviously filled with good technology in their own rights and clearly get the job done quite well. It is simply a preference as well for the thrill and emotional involvement of a high revving engine. Driving an M5 you obviously know something about this. It is more race like, period. You can talk all day (and I do...) about price to performance and absolute performance and which car is faster, but a huge factor in ALL of our own decisions about which cars we most admire and which we choose to buy is EMOTION.
|
I completely agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
Seriously, it is time to check the assumptions, attitude and insults at the door.
|
Same to you