Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
Where to begin with this disaster you think is an intelligent post.
|
........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
I'm quite familliar with the GT2, GT3, and turbo. Does the GT2 have turbos? Does the turbo have turbos (even you should figure that one out.) Yes the GT3 is RWD like the GT2, I was making a point of the way it would deliver power, flew way over your head. Get it now? Ok good.
|
You're correct. I read your comment about the GT3 becoming the Turbo and assumed you meant it was stepping away from the performance oriented GT2 & GT3 models. Please be more specific next time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
Yep, the inline 6 was iron. Never, never once, have I heard BMW not mention this fact. Did the thought ever cross your mind as to how strong that block is? Oh wait, no it didn't. How about over 600 wheel horsepower potential? That motor is ridiculously strong, actually handles more power on stock internals than the z06 or the 63 series AMG's. And with half the displacement? Seems to me BMW knows what a solid motor is. Their engineers definitely know better than you.
|
An iron block is stronger than an aluminum block. I'm not doubting that. I fail to see what aftermarket tuning has to do with our discussion so I'm not getting into it. We can have a separate discussion about that later if you want. And I just reread the press release BMW put out for its V8 and they never mentions the fact that the inline 6 was cast iron. Please show me where they mention this fact.
Quote from press release:
"this is why BMW's new V8, weighing a mere 202 kg or 445 lb, is a genuine lightweight, saving some 15 kg or 33 lb versus the six-cylinder power unit in the previous model. In other words, the new engine easily sets off the weight of two extra cylinders."
my source:
http://www.worldcarfans.com/2070322....gine-in-detail
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
Yep, my opinion is the M3 is special and so is its motor. The fact that the worlds automotive press agrees just shows they have good taste.
|
I'm not debating the engine's accolades. It's a good engine but it's underpowered for its weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
The M5 beating the 6.3 by hp per liter? No, it beats it in performance as well. You must not know your cars that well.
|
Performance in what regard? Are you talking about an M5 vs a E63 in a straight line? From a stop or a rolling starting? These things are dependent on the car as a whole, not just the engine. We are talking strictly about the engine. Stay on topic or be more specific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
The ferrari F40 came out when? When is the last time Ferrari did a turbo motor? What, the only other remotely recent car would be the 288 GTO, which was before the F40. What did Ferrari decide was best for the F40 successor? Oh, that's right, NA. What about for the successor to that? Hmm, seems we have developed a pattern here. But hey, you tell the Ferrari engineers what is best for their car. What do they know?
|
Article talking about next Enzo using turbos.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/next-fer...orsepower.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
A high hp per liter naturally aspirated car is going to need a high redline in correlation. Couldn't figure this out?
|
Nope. I'm an idiot. Engines just rev straight up with no powerbands or torque curves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
You sure you want an owned smiley? Because you would be seeng it used frequently in responses to your posts.
|
I'm pretty confident that if you were to take this discussion outside of a strictly BMW forum, most people would agree with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
Steam engines and internal combustion... I see your point. So wait, are forced induction motors not internal combustion? Are NA motors not internal combustion? Seems to me they have a bit more in common with each other than steam motors. One technology is not exactly more advanced than the other. Uh, you lost me, that was not a solid analogy.
|
Sorry, I realize that was a poor analogy, especially if you don't know the history of the automobile. The analogy I was trying to make was that there are always people who hold onto old tech because it's comforting and familiar, not because it's better. Steam had its day just as high revving NA engines have had theirs. Turbo engines are simply better from a performance standpoint. BMW is a company that sells cars and is market driven. When the price of oil shoots through the roof, they look to build cars which use less gasoline.
This discussion has lost its core message. Forced induction allows for more performance, less fuel consumption and lighter/smaller engines compared with a NA engine of the same HP. There is no debating these facts. Sticky, you are entitled to your opinion about which is better but they are opinions and nothing more.