Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff
Art,
Good to talk to you. My point is your rationalization for BMW in your statement that BMW could make faster cars if they wanted to is simply a poor excuse at best for a lack of out right performance from the M division in comparison to the GT-R. If BMW could of extracted GT-R performance from the M3 for 70 k they surely would of done it and it would of sold like hot cakes for years and years to come. And you and I along with every auto journalist would have deemed it heads and tails above it's competition, no excuses needed. However, the fact is they didn't build such a performing car because they weren't able to.
Your rationale for BMW not using DFI because they really didn't want to is also an excuse for BMW that doesn't live up to the test of a good argument. BMW wanted to use DFI, they are already using it with the 3.0 litre. You know as well as I that that the real reason you don't see it in the 4.0 litre is they were not willing to invest the R&D necessary to get it done in a engine boasting a 8400 red line. With the price of crude skyrocketing, lack of DFI is now going to really cost them in long term sales, much more than the investment costs for DFI would of been.
|
if you think they couldn't, you're mistaken...
think M5 V10 in an e9x...this would drive the cost up a maximum of 5k...
they do not want to build the fastest car, but the BEST car...
they do not market to folk who predicate everything on speed...
honestly, the overlap of those who think that way, and have the money to buy these cars, is very small...
the M3's were NEVER the fastest straight line cars...they were always STREET PASSENGER cars, with comfort, ride, value and performance all equally balanced...did you read the comments about the gtr's ride?
horrible...unbearable...on 29 psi to boot...like a wooden wheeled wagon
these cars are a novelty...speed? a turbo'ed civic will waste them...so what?
btw, did I mention it's a STREET car, used 99% of normal things, groceries, work, etc.
and they would not 'race' in the same class...a 4 liter vs a 6.5 (effective) liter car, w/awd?
why do you think they did not use DFI...because they couldn't?
they did on the 335i...
you don't think it was a engineering and business driven decision?
it was technical inablity to execute? riiiight
DFI does not decrease mpg much, if any, only in lean burn cruise mode...
I say let others play...it could be a liability, after the first 1700 PSI underhood fire...can you say flash explosion...
it does not yeild power, it may allow you raise Cr, which will...but 12:1 is pretty high, and limited by octane...
R&D...they have the largest budget of all manufacturers, iirc, it's one reason there profit margin has been low, reinvestment...
but they choose to put it into VIABLE and SELLABLE reasearch:
deisels
H2
smaller cars, 1 series
etc.
not some low return (if any) marketing driven tripe...just so they can stick another badge on saying DI
the gtr is trash...
it's a loss leader
new platform
new drivetrain
new tranny
new engine
a new whizbang video game electronics
small production numbers
2 scenarios:
1 they are doing it to raise profile, PR, which would leave one to believe they will put out 'spin' and 'hype' to achieve their goal...they will lose money on each...smart business, perhaps that's why they are the Japanese = of dodge
2 they are making a profit on it...doubt it, but if so the car must be junk, and time will tell it's true 'value', the C&D car had <4k miles and was purportedly malfuntioning...this a car vetted by the factory, just for the purpose of generating positive reviews...