BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
Steve Thomas BMW
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-23-2007, 01:09 AM   #23
Stahlgrau
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: Backwards
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Greenland

Posts: 225
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
You will need new camshafts to get any power up top. Also tuner companies will need to play around with the intake runner lengths and obviously play around with the computer.
Indeed. I'm mostly curious to find out how much, if any, this engine is underrated and what can be had from a proper ECU tune.
Stahlgrau is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 01:59 PM   #24
sajakh
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: e92 335i
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South

Posts: 342
iTrader: (0)

Given its the 4.0 liter size, I don't see any more than 450hp/340tq with additional tuning, bigger throttle bodies, free flow exhaust, CAI, etc.
sajakh is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 02:10 PM   #25
Voltigeur
MacroRisk
 
Voltigeur's Avatar
 
Drives: M3 E92 ED'09 / 335d Sport DD
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: TX

Posts: 2,519
iTrader: (0)

European Commission curbs power race

Quote:
Originally Posted by sajakh View Post
Given its the 4.0 liter size, I don't see any more than 450hp/340tq with additional tuning, bigger throttle bodies, free flow exhaust, CAI, etc.
You just know there's a TT version coming if the HP race continues among the prestige German marques - though the European Commission are making a concerted effort to kill the party (yeah, I know we have to moderate emissions - but I stilll want to see some hi-po cars in the development queue):

http://www.economist.com/business/Pr...ry_id=10342303
__________________

Just thinking of something not so witty
///M3 E92 '09 Jerez Black | 6MT | Ext Fox Red | Tech | Prem | 19s |Heated Seats | iPod |Smartphone | Euro Deliv June 09
Sold: 540iT / 530i / 323i
Voltigeur is offline   Australia
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 02:42 PM   #26
sajakh
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: e92 335i
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South

Posts: 342
iTrader: (0)

They are already making a 4.4 L TT for the X6 (for now) making 400hp/450tq but its probably much heavier and directly against the efficient dynamics philosophy not to mention the M division philisophy of "less is more". So I just don't see them using the turbo setup anytime soon for the M division. If F1 racing starts accepting turbo, than all bets are off.
sajakh is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 09:58 PM   #27
BMW MotorSport
Banned
 
Drives: 95 Avus M3 and 07 E90 Fam Car!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: So Cal, Simi Valley

Posts: 2,533
iTrader: (4)

Send a message via Yahoo to BMW MotorSport
yup just like everyone has stated, a nice ECU tune, intake, racing cats, and straight through pipes with an eissenmann exhaust at the end would yield some nice numbers.
BMW MotorSport is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 10:29 PM   #28
BMWPower06
A^M=G is nothing w/o the Power of ///M
 
BMWPower06's Avatar
 
Drives: ///M5 & ///M3
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington D.C.

Posts: 1,764
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via AIM to BMWPower06
i wanna make love to that tq curve
__________________
Indianapolis Red BMW ///M5
BMWPower06 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-23-2007, 11:07 PM   #29
Robert
Major General
 
Drives: 135i, current is350
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Socal

Posts: 6,898
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltigeur View Post
You just know there's a TT version coming if the HP race continues among the prestige German marques - though the European Commission are making a concerted effort to kill the party (yeah, I know we have to moderate emissions - but I stilll want to see some hi-po cars in the development queue):

http://www.economist.com/business/Pr...ry_id=10342303
If there is a will there is way. A couple years without new high performance car is a small price to pay for survival of humanity.
Robert is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-25-2007, 10:29 PM   #30
e36jakeo
Captain
 
Drives: 2008 M3 6 Speed MT!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northern CA

Posts: 624
iTrader: (0)

Most of you are complaining about the torque curve dropping after 7K RPM. FYI, the Honda S2000 (considered THE most high strung production by most) has peak torque at 7500, peak HP at 8300 and redlines at 9K. In other words, its torque starts dropping 1500 rpm before redline.

The M5 engine sacrifices low and mid-range torque for the high RPM torque (= HP) so you have to drive it to redline to make it feel fast. The M3 should feel a lot punchier in normal or even spirited driving due to its flat torque curve. Plus I'd guess they were trying to make the M3 get a bit better fuel economy than the M5's miserable 11/17 rating.

As SWAMP said (and I've agreed all the way along) they are saving that torque curve for the CSL. If the 3.6L flat six in a GT3 Porsche can make 415 HP (386 WHP, 115 HP/liter
), I am sure the M engineers can pull 450 HP or more out of the 4 liter for the CSL.
__________________
Driving sideways: It's not faster, but damn it's more fun!
e36jakeo is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-25-2007, 10:55 PM   #31
T Bone
Brigadier General
 
T Bone's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

Posts: 4,021
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by e36jakeo View Post
Most of you are complaining about the torque curve dropping after 7K RPM. FYI, the Honda S2000 (considered THE most high strung production by most) has peak torque at 7500, peak HP at 8300 and redlines at 9K. In other words, its torque starts dropping 1500 rpm before redline.

The M5 engine sacrifices low and mid-range torque for the high RPM torque (= HP) so you have to drive it to redline to make it feel fast. The M3 should feel a lot punchier in normal or even spirited driving due to its flat torque curve. Plus I'd guess they were trying to make the M3 get a bit better fuel economy than the M5's miserable 11/17 rating.

As SWAMP said (and I've agreed all the way along) they are saving that torque curve for the CSL. If the 3.6L flat six in a GT3 Porsche can make 415 HP (386 WHP, 115 HP/liter
), I am sure the M engineers can pull 450 HP or more out of the 4 liter for the CSL.

It can hit 450 hp getting more torque in the last 2000-3000 rpm. This is where the engine spends its time during WOT acceleration.

Driveability and flat torque curves are great for getting lattes at Starbucks. I want an uncompromised torque curve in the last 3000 rpm of the rev range.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-26-2007, 09:38 AM   #32
ibd12nv
Chief Warrant Officer 4
 
ibd12nv's Avatar
 
Drives: 335I, X5 4.8i
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Back in the US

Posts: 659
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2007 E90 335i  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMW MotorSport View Post
yup just like everyone has stated, a nice ECU tune, intake, racing cats, and straight through pipes with an eissenmann exhaust at the end would yield some nice numbers.
OK where is all this TT info coming from guys. I'm all for this car as is and ready to buy as soon as I get back to Germany, but if there is solid info on an turbo charged V8 I'll be more than happy to wait for it.

Also, Eisenmann exhaust is absolutely a must have. Got it on the 335i now and love it. I saw they were working on a sytem for the M3 and plan to add this as my first mod.
__________________
http://rapidshare.com/files/36182957/335i_sig2.jpg
ibd12nv is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-26-2007, 10:07 AM   #33
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ibd12nv View Post
OK where is all this TT info coming from guys. I'm all for this car as is and ready to buy as soon as I get back to Germany, but if there is solid info on an turbo charged V8 I'll be more than happy to wait for it.
The TT stuff is all baseless speculation, and wishful thinking for some. It's simply not going to happen for the E92. High level BMW exec said FI is not favored by the M division and will not be happening for this product cycle (that interview was posted somewhere on this forum, so search for it if you don't believe me). He said he can't rule it out for other generations, but those are 6+ years away. Historically, M engines have not been messed with too much in a given product cycle, except for small displacement bumps. I can see retuning and replacement of things like intakes, exhaust, and cams for the CSL, but that's an entirely different car. If BMW was really pressed for it, maybe they'd bump the displacement to 4.2 or 4.3 liters for the M3, but I doubt it given the car is kicking some serious ass on the track the way it is.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-26-2007, 10:13 AM   #34
ibd12nv
Chief Warrant Officer 4
 
ibd12nv's Avatar
 
Drives: 335I, X5 4.8i
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Back in the US

Posts: 659
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2007 E90 335i  [5.00]
Thanks. It was nice to ponder on that for a few minutes. In 6= years I'll be looking for the next M3 while holding on to this one.
__________________
http://rapidshare.com/files/36182957/335i_sig2.jpg
ibd12nv is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-01-2008, 07:05 AM   #35
dawgdog
Colonel
 
dawgdog's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Porsche GT3RS
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Seattle, Wa.

Posts: 2,146
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullmrkt View Post
Beautiful torque curve, as flat as Kansas. The only problem is that its too low!

I was a die hard NA guy for a while but once I got a taste of turbo torque and tunability there was just no going back. Apparently the same thing happened to the BMW M folks with rumors of M5 TT's and now even the M3 may get a couple small snails.

My $0.02
My feelings exactly. Linear may be better, but more torque down low is more fun.
__________________
AW on Fox Red Extended, Alum trim, ZPP, ZTP, DCT, 19" wheels, Heated front seats, HD radio, Sat radio, I-pod & usb, Premium sound, AP racing BBK, 18 Volk Racing TE 37s, Akrapovic Evolution exhaust, AST suspension
dawgdog is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-01-2008, 11:41 AM   #36
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

the torque of this engine is pretty well maxed out...but it doesn't matter...it's all about gearing...

for those who care:
peak T = (V x mep)/(4 x Pi) that simple

where:
V = displacement
mep = mean effective pressure basically a function of the comp ratio and volumetric efficiency

also:
T = HP x (5252/rpm)

for this engine HP ~ 52 x rpm/1000 is a close approximation for >3000 rpm:
.rpm.....HP
4000...208
6000...312
8000...416
check the curve, it's close... http://car-news.roadfly.com/wp-conte...dyno-specs.jpg
it appears from the curve max HP will be 450-460 at 9000...taking eff into consideration...with different cams/etc.

substituting:
T = (52 x rpm/1000) x (5252/rpm)

simplifying, rpm cancels:
T = 52/1000 x 5252 ~ 273 lb ft...

this tells me that you will be hard pressed to get more torque than it's rated 295...

also note from T = HP x (5252/rpm) as rpm increases the ratio 5252/rpm goes down, ie, torque decreases

by extending rpm's, they can extend the HP line, but it will still droop, so although they can extend the torque, it will not increase...

want more torque, get a bigger engine engine...or lower gears
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-01-2008, 12:27 PM   #37
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

after looking at the curve...the torque is ~flat to 8300 (HP peak)
doesn't get any better than that

rpm......T % of peak
1000........65
2000........85
3000........95
4000.......100
5000.......100
6000.......100
7000........98
8000........92
8300........90

so at HP peak it still has 90% of it's max torque...only a drop of 10%!
in other words the rpm increase from 6000 to 8300 is ~38%, you would expect the T to drop close to that, yet it only drops 10%...
doesn't get any better...

100% ~3500 to 6500
>95% from 3000 to 7500
>90% from 2500 to 8300 (peak HP)

that's electric motor stuff...
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-01-2008, 12:45 PM   #38
T Bone
Brigadier General
 
T Bone's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

Posts: 4,021
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
after looking at the curve...the torque is ~flat to 8300 (HP peak)
doesn't get any better than that

rpm......T % of peak
1000........65
2000........85
3000........95
4000.......100
5000.......100
6000.......100
7000........98
8000........92
8300........90

so at HP peak it still has 90% of it's max torque...only a drop of 10%!
in other words the rpm increase from 6000 to 8300 is ~38%, you would expect the T to drop close to that, yet it only drops 10%...
doesn't get any better...

100% ~3500 to 6500
>95% from 3000 to 7500
>90% from 2500 to 8300 (peak HP)

that's electric motor stuff...

This is nice accurate analysis.....but how much faster would the car be if 100% of the torque was available in the last 2500 rpm?

Screw flat torque curves, let Lexus have that crown.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-01-2008, 01:21 PM   #39
VictorH
Captain
 
Drives: '09 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SC

Posts: 602
iTrader: (1)

Have any of you driven the car? You can argue all you want about the torque curve, keep in mind gearing, which no one has discussed, also affects drivability.

I've driven the car in town, stop and go traffic and on the autobahn. With every seat in the car occupied the M3 pulls very nicely, even from low rpm. Does it have big block Chevy torque? No, but no one is expecting that.
I found that even from 2,000 rpm the motor is very tractable and responsive.

Why don't you wait and drive it and then decide if all the debate about the level of torque, where it drops off, etc matters. The engineers have to make compromises and I think the BMW M philosophy of 500 cc per cylinder is the perfect displacement is suspect, but that's what they've chosen to do, and within those contraints the motor is a pretty spectacular performer.
VictorH is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-01-2008, 04:32 PM   #40
T Bone
Brigadier General
 
T Bone's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

Posts: 4,021
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorH View Post
Have any of you driven the car? You can argue all you want about the torque curve, keep in mind gearing, which no one has discussed, also affects drivability.

I've driven the car in town, stop and go traffic and on the autobahn. With every seat in the car occupied the M3 pulls very nicely, even from low rpm. Does it have big block Chevy torque? No, but no one is expecting that.
I found that even from 2,000 rpm the motor is very tractable and responsive.

Why don't you wait and drive it and then decide if all the debate about the level of torque, where it drops off, etc matters. The engineers have to make compromises and I think the BMW M philosophy of 500 cc per cylinder is the perfect displacement is suspect, but that's what they've chosen to do, and within those contraints the motor is a pretty spectacular performer.


I really do look forward to driving it as soon as possible....but as I wrote above somewhere, I would have preferred more performance in favor of a flat torque curve anyday of the week.

Why build an enthsiast car with a compromised torque curve?? Driveability? Fuel Economy?
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-01-2008, 07:39 PM   #41
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,200
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
the torque of this engine is pretty well maxed out...but it doesn't matter...it's all about gearing...



this tells me that you will be hard pressed to get more torque than it's rated 295...



by extending rpm's, they can extend the HP line, but it will still droop, so although they can extend the torque, it will not increase...

want more torque, get a bigger engine engine...or lower gears
This is not entirely true. Sure torque is intricately linked to displacement but there is significant variation in specific torque (tq/l). Consider the E46 M3 vs E46 M3 CSL:.

…….hp/tq/redline/hp peak@/tq@peak hp
M3: 343/269/7900/7900/228
CSL:360/273/8000/7900/239

Although the S54 was fairly maxed out (highly stressed) at 106 hp/l and 83 ft lb/l the M boys still found room for improvement. Although the CSLs peak tq only increased by 1.5% its tq increase at peak hp went up by almost 5%. Note that the rpm at which the peak hp is obtained did not change! This was accomplished almost entirely through improvements to “breathing” (intake/exhaust). Which is more important during very spirited driving when the car will typically be above 5000 rpm? Since the S65 is “only” producing 105 hp/l and 74 ft lb/l, I suspect there is substantial room for more. I’d expect the CSL to have AT LEAST: 450 hp, 8500 rpm redline, 300 ft lb AND 270 ft lb at hp peak (vs. approx 258 ft lb at peak hp in the base S65).

A bit more on redline: The S65 is really quite oversquare compared to the undersquare S54. The bore to stroke ratios are 1.2 vs. 0.94. A B/S of about 2.0 allows F1 engines to get very close to 20,000 rpm. We have heard rumors of BMW S65 durability testing at 9-10k rpm. The piston accelerations of the S65 do not even match those of the S54 until 8700 rpm. Furthermore, the S65 has smaller and lighter pistons. Putting all of this together if BMW was happy with the stress and safety factors in the S54 connnecting rods/pistons/crankshaft/etc. at 7900 rpm they should be equally happy going to at least 8700 rpm in the S65.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-01-2008, 07:47 PM   #42
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,200
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorH View Post
Have any of you driven the car? You can argue all you want about the torque curve, keep in mind gearing, which no one has discussed, also affects drivability.
Clearly there have only been a miniscule handful of US, non automotive journo's/professionals who have driven the car. If we had pricing to discuss there would likely be less discussion of these kinds of details. That being said gearing, the M-DCT box, torque multiplication and it's effects on power and torque to the ground have been extensively discussed here on the forum.

As you might know from many of my post, I am a big advocate of science applied to cars. Science and engineering are just as important to a deep understanding of a vehicle as seat time. Note I said understanding not achieving the best lap time.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-01-2008, 07:55 PM   #43
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
This is not entirely true. Sure torque is intricately linked to displacement but there is significant variation in specific torque (tq/l). Consider the E46 M3 vs E46 M3 CSL:.

…….hp/tq/redline/hp peak@/tq@peak hp
M3: 343/269/7900/7900/228
CSL:360/273/8000/7900/239

Although the S54 was fairly maxed out (highly stressed) at 106 hp/l and 83 ft lb/l the M boys still found room for improvement. Although the CSLs peak tq only increased by 1.5% its tq increase at peak hp went up by almost 5%. Note that the rpm at which the peak hp is obtained did not change! This was accomplished almost entirely through improvements to “breathing” (intake/exhaust). Which is more important during very spirited driving when the car will typically be above 5000 rpm? Since the S65 is “only” producing 105 hp/l and 74 ft lb/l, I suspect there is substantial room for more. I’d expect the CSL to have AT LEAST: 450 hp, 8500 rpm redline, 300 ft lb AND 270 ft lb at hp peak (vs. approx 258 ft lb at peak hp in the base S65).

A bit more on redline: The S65 is really quite oversquare compared to the undersquare S54. The bore to stroke ratios are 1.2 vs. 0.94. A B/S of about 2.0 allows F1 engines to get very close to 20,000 rpm. We have heard rumors of BMW S65 durability testing at 9-10k rpm. The piston accelerations of the S65 do not even match those of the S54 until 8700 rpm. Furthermore, the S65 has smaller and lighter pistons. Putting all of this together if BMW was happy with the stress and safety factors in the S54 connnecting rods/pistons/crankshaft/etc. at 7900 rpm they should be equally happy going to at least 8700 rpm in the S65.
I'm not sure...

360/343 x 228 = 239 so the T increased proportionally to the HP...not greater

the new V8 is 25% larger, yet has only 13% more T...this tells me they must have limited T in the mid-range (cams, timing, etc.), to make it flatter...which implies the hi/lo extremes are not 'fiddled' with...

especially since the mep of the engine should be higher (due to a higher compression ratio...

I think with some cams and flow improvements this engine will reveal pretty good HP/mid-range torque gains...
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-01-2008, 07:55 PM   #44
VictorH
Captain
 
Drives: '09 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SC

Posts: 602
iTrader: (1)

I agree, the one thing that would have added more power and performance would have been direct injection FI. No one at BMW has told me why it was not considered since lower model i.e. 335 (in US) have it, but not the new M3. Probably a cost issue, but how much would this have added to the car? Maybe for year 3 or beyond upgrade?
VictorH is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:37 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST