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)
 
Lux Angel Eyes
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-03-2008, 06:03 PM   #221
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA


Posts: 1,907
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The CSL View Post
If they do, I want big cheesy TURBO stickers to be standard!
If they disappoint you (which I'm quite sure they will), rest assured you can use electrical tape down the sides of your new M to get T-U-R-B-O letters just as big as you like.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      12-04-2008, 08:44 PM   #222
luckyDPT
New Member
0

 
Drives: '08 m3 cp. blk/rd
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA


Posts: 21
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
'98 VW TDI Beetle  [3.50]
2007 BMW 328xi  [3.00]
2008 BMW M3  [5.00]
My 2 cent's worth....

Hello all,
New to this forum.
Just had my 1200 mile service on my 6mt blk on red. this car rocks!!!!!!!!!
This is my 2nd m3. I had an e46 previously.
HOWEVER, I just sold my '05 Suby STI a few months ago. The whole turbo lag thing did not exist in my car. I did have a few dealer friendly mods which had my car in the low 12 second range in the 1/4 mile. I am a big fan of turbo motors and what can be done with them.
I understand the "purity" of the NA engines and the "M" devision of BMW have a long history. I guess we will have to trust them to bring us something better than the current m3. (that is going to be a tall order). If the next m3 hapens to have a hair-dryer on it we will just have to line them up and see.
Let the consumers decide.
Appreciate 0
      12-04-2008, 08:48 PM   #223
Sticky
Banned
United_States
30

 
Drives: E92 Jerez DCT M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Anaheim Hills / Malibu


Posts: 2,244
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyDPT View Post
Hello all,
New to this forum.
Just had my 1200 mile service on my 6mt blk on red. this car rocks!!!!!!!!!
This is my 2nd m3. I had an e46 previously.
HOWEVER, I just sold my '05 Suby STI a few months ago. The whole turbo lag thing did not exist in my car. I did have a few dealer friendly mods which had my car in the low 12 second range in the 1/4 mile. I am a big fan of turbo motors and what can be done with them.
I understand the "purity" of the NA engines and the "M" devision of BMW have a long history. I guess we will have to trust them to bring us something better than the current m3. (that is going to be a tall order). If the next m3 hapens to have a hair-dryer on it we will just have to line them up and see.
Let the consumers decide.
What? Turbo lag did not exist in your car? It was some special, magical STI? Are you sure it was an STI? Because, that car has LAG.
Appreciate 0
      12-04-2008, 09:10 PM   #224
luckyDPT
New Member
0

 
Drives: '08 m3 cp. blk/rd
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA


Posts: 21
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
'98 VW TDI Beetle  [3.50]
2007 BMW 328xi  [3.00]
2008 BMW M3  [5.00]
.....

I agree... a stock STI has a little lag . But with a larger up pipe + down pipe, and exhaust system + running cobb stage 2 engine management = very responsive and virtually no turbo lag plus all was kosher with the factory warranty.
IT was a great car. I just keep going back to the m3. I grew tired of the kid racer look.
Appreciate 0
      12-04-2008, 09:18 PM   #225
haen
Enlisted Member
0

 
haen's Avatar
 
Drives: e60 M5
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles


Posts: 38
iTrader: (0)

Turbos are going to open a whole new level of performance relative to engine size/weight and fuel consumption. The V8 in the current M3 weighs as much as MB's 6.2L V8 and Z06's 7.0L V8. Frankly, I consider that unacceptable given its power output, down ~20% in hp and ~30% in torque to both engines. No, I don't care about HP/liter and neither should you. It's not like there are engine displacement restrictions for production cars. Why confine yourself to unnecessary boundaries? I don't see the benefit of sticking to a certain philosophy if it doesn't produce competitive results. I like BMW's decision to switch to forced induction. It shows that they are willing to change with the industry. I would be concerned if they decided to stick with their current formula of high revving engines because it's not appropriate for the current market. The next generation of M cars are going to be lighter, more powerful and consume less fuel than the current generation. How can you complain about that?
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti

Appreciate 0
      12-04-2008, 10:37 PM   #226
Sticky
Banned
United_States
30

 
Drives: E92 Jerez DCT M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Anaheim Hills / Malibu


Posts: 2,244
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
Turbos are going to open a whole new level of performance relative to engine size/weight and fuel consumption. The V8 in the current M3 weighs as much as MB's 6.2L V8 and Z06's 7.0L V8. Frankly, I consider that unacceptable given its power output, down ~20% in hp and ~30% in torque to both engines. No, I don't care about HP/liter and neither should you. It's not like there are engine displacement restrictions for production cars. Why confine yourself to unnecessary boundaries? I don't see the benefit of sticking to a certain philosophy if it doesn't produce competitive results. I like BMW's decision to switch to forced induction. It shows that they are willing to change with the industry. I would be concerned if they decided to stick with their current formula of high revving engines because it's not appropriate for the current market. The next generation of M cars are going to be lighter, more powerful and consume less fuel than the current generation. How can you complain about that?
You realize the V8 is lighter than the 6 cylinder it replaced don't you? You realize neither of those v8's you mentioned has individual throttle bodies, right?

You don't care about hp per liter? Ok, so BMW should just stick in a 427 cubic inch V8 and call it a day? The hp per liter is what gives the motor its characterists, by design it has to rev higher.

I don't think you get it, competitive results? BMW is competitive, actually best in class, with smaller engines. The M5 does not need 6.2 liters to beat the benz V8. It does need its redline though. This is also what makes it special. The only other motors that are anywhere near as special as the S65 or S85 would be the F430 V8 and the GT3's flat six. That is it, and BMW offers the best motors for the money of these manufactuers. Sounds to me like they are doing fine, some people just don't get it and never will.

Say what you will about forced induction, I don't think the M3 would give me as big of a smile if it wasn't screaming toward redline.

A 911 GT3 would just turn into... a turbo.

An F430 would no longer have that special ferrari high rpm wail that makes your spine tingle and is an intrinsic part of the driving experience. Yes, the motors are less fuel efficient, yes, they don't make as much torque, yes, they are freaking special and unlike anything else and therefore worth their premium.
Appreciate 0
      12-04-2008, 10:45 PM   #227
elmariachi
Major
48

 
elmariachi's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW ///M Division
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Singapore


Posts: 1,323
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
You realize the V8 is lighter than the 6 cylinder it replaced don't you? You realize neither of those v8's you mentioned has individual throttle bodies, right?

You don't care about hp per liter? Ok, so BMW should just stick in a 427 cubic inch V8 and call it a day? The hp per liter is what gives the motor its characterists, by design it has to rev higher.

I don't think you get it, competitive results? BMW is competitive, actually best in class, with smaller engines. The M5 does not need 6.2 liters to beat the benz V8. It does need its redline though. This is also what makes it special. The only other motors that are anywhere near as special as the S65 or S85 would be the F430 V8 and the GT3's flat six. That is it, and BMW offers the best motors for the money of these manufactuers. Sounds to me like they are doing fine, some people just don't get it and never will.

Say what you will about forced induction, I don't think the M3 would give me as big of a smile if it wasn't screaming toward redline.

A 911 GT3 would just turn into... a turbo.

An F430 would no longer have that special ferrari high rpm wail that makes your spine tingle and is an intrinsic part of the driving experience. Yes, the motors are less fuel efficient, yes, they don't make as much torque, yes, they are freaking special and unlike anything else and therefore worth their premium.
+1. I felt so much more sensation after my 335 in the M3. Its truly a magical experience and the throttle play is just so sharp. Its hard to feel this way in a FI car unless BMW is able to somehow do it.
__________________

2008 E92 ///M3 Alpine White M-DCT| Novillo-Black Interior| Carbon Fibre Roof| Premium Sound System| EDC| 19's Advan RS w/ Michelin PS2 Cups| iPod| GruppeM Air Intake| GruppeM Steel Braided Lines|Ferodo DS2500 Pads| Akrapovic Full Header-Back Titanium Exhaust| 6000K Philips D1S| 3M Tints|
Appreciate 0
      12-04-2008, 10:49 PM   #228
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA


Posts: 1,907
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
Turbos are going to open a whole new level of performance relative to engine size/weight and fuel consumption. The V8 in the current M3 weighs as much as MB's 6.2L V8 and Z06's 7.0L V8. Frankly, I consider that unacceptable given its power output, down ~20% in hp and ~30% in torque to both engines. No, I don't care about HP/liter and neither should you. It's not like there are engine displacement restrictions for production cars. Why confine yourself to unnecessary boundaries? I don't see the benefit of sticking to a certain philosophy if it doesn't produce competitive results. I like BMW's decision to switch to forced induction. It shows that they are willing to change with the industry. I would be concerned if they decided to stick with their current formula of high revving engines because it's not appropriate for the current market. The next generation of M cars are going to be lighter, more powerful and consume less fuel than the current generation. How can you complain about that?
Wow, a new resident Dr. Evil on board. I thought that was my job, but pleased to have company.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      12-04-2008, 11:06 PM   #229
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA


Posts: 1,907
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
You realize the V8 is lighter than the 6 cylinder it replaced don't you? You realize neither of those v8's you mentioned has individual throttle bodies, right?
Wow. Lighter than the previous lump, and, and...EIGHT throttle bodies?

All while making less power and with more weight than the other two engines mentioned. Huh. Impressive!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
You don't care about hp per liter? Ok, so BMW should just stick in a 427 cubic inch V8 and call it a day? The hp per liter is what gives the motor its characterists, by design it has to rev higher.
Yes, you like it. That's why you bought it, and of course that's fine.

But also of course, as I've said before, it'd be an altogether better car with either of those two engines installed, or even an LS3, as I've also mentioned before. More power, much more torque, and same weight.

Faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
I don't think you get it, competitive results? BMW is competitive, actually best in class, with smaller engines. The M5 does not need 6.2 liters to beat the benz V8. It does need its redline though. This is also what makes it special. The only other motors that are anywhere near as special as the S65 or S85 would be the F430 V8 and the GT3's flat six. That is it, and BMW offers the best motors for the money of these manufactuers. Sounds to me like they are doing fine, some people just don't get it and never will.
Yup, over here, with hand raised. I'll install any of the three engines mentioned, and kick your ass around a race track while you enjoy spine-tingling sounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Say what you will about forced induction, I don't think the M3 would give me as big of a smile if it wasn't screaming toward redline...
So keep what you've got when the time comes, or buy something else.

Sorry stick, I know we've gone around on this before, but just couldn't help myself.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      12-04-2008, 11:31 PM   #230
haen
Enlisted Member
0

 
haen's Avatar
 
Drives: e60 M5
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles


Posts: 38
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
You realize the V8 is lighter than the 6 cylinder it replaced don't you? You realize neither of those v8's you mentioned has individual throttle bodies, right?
That's because the inline 6 was cast iron. BMW never mentions that fact when they brag about how light the new V8 is. Do you even know what individual throttle bodies are/do? They do not account for a substation portion of the engine's weight. Yes, it's great that the V8 has ITBs, but the fact remains that BMW's engine pound for pound is seriously underpowered compared with competing engines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
You don't care about hp per liter? Ok, so BMW should just stick in a 427 cubic inch V8 and call it a day? The hp per liter is what gives the motor its characterists, by design it has to rev higher.
HP/liter does not define an engine's characteristics. It's a unit of measure!!!! Please, understand that concept before you go any further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
I don't think you get it, competitive results? BMW is competitive, actually best in class, with smaller engines. The M5 does not need 6.2 liters to beat the benz V8. It does need its redline though. This is also what makes it special. The only other motors that are anywhere near as special as the S65 or S85 would be the F430 V8 and the GT3's flat six. That is it, and BMW offers the best motors for the money of these manufactuers. Sounds to me like they are doing fine, some people just don't get it and never will.
I own an e60 M5 and I wouldn't even go so far as to say that only the F430's V8 or GT3's flat 6 beat it. You like those engines because of their high hp/liter output. No offense, but being a stat geek doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Other engines are built with different philosophies in mind. That shouldn't automatically make them less valuable. You just sound really bias. You said "the M5 does not need 6.2 liters to beat the benz V8". Beat it at what? I bet your answer is along the lines of HP/liter. Get over it. Like I said before, it's a unit of measure and does not dictate an engine's characteristics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Say what you will about forced induction, I don't think the M3 would give me as big of a smile if it wasn't screaming toward redline.
That's your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
A 911 GT3 would just turn into... a turbo.
I think it's more along the lines of a GT3 turning into a GT2. Remember that car? GT3 with twin turbos. Where do I find the "owned" smilie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
An F430 would no longer have that special ferrari high rpm wail that makes your spine tingle and is an intrinsic part of the driving experience. Yes, the motors are less fuel efficient, yes, they don't make as much torque, yes, they are freaking special and unlike anything else and therefore worth their premium.
Why can't turbo engines be special? The Ferrari F40 uses a turbo and I don't think anyone is disappointed in that car.

Sticky, while I had a lot of fun picking apart your comments, you missed the point of my original post. I was not trying to discredit BMW's current philosophy towards performance engines, rather I was stating that this design has passed its prime. Time to move onto the next evolution. Don't tell me you wish automakers had stuck with steam engines because they were so special.
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti

Appreciate 0
      12-04-2008, 11:49 PM   #231
Sticky
Banned
United_States
30

 
Drives: E92 Jerez DCT M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Anaheim Hills / Malibu


Posts: 2,244
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
That's because the inline 6 was cast iron. BMW never mentions that fact when they brag about how light the new V8 is. Do you even know what individual throttle bodies are/do? They do not account for a substation portion of the engine's weight. Yes, it's great that the V8 has ITBs, but the fact remains that BMW's engine pound for pound is seriously underpowered compared with competing engines.



HP/liter does not define an engine's characteristics. It's a unit of measure!!!! Please, understand that concept before you go any further.



I own an e60 M5 and I wouldn't even go so far as to say that only the F430's V8 or GT3's flat 6 beat it. You like those engines because of their high hp/liter output. No offense, but being a stat geek doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Other engines are built with different philosophies in mind. That shouldn't automatically make them less valuable. You just sound really bias. You said "the M5 does not need 6.2 liters to beat the benz V8". Beat it at what? I bet your answer is along the lines of HP/liter. Get over it. Like I said before, it's a unit of measure and does not dictate an engine's characteristics.



That's your opinion.



I think it's more along the lines of a GT3 turning into a GT2. Remember that car? GT3 with twin turbos. Where do I find the "owned" smilie?



Why can't turbo engines be special? The Ferrari F40 uses a turbo and I don't think anyone is disappointed in that car.

Sticky, while I had a lot of fun picking apart your comments, you missed the point of my original post. I was not trying to discredit BMW's current philosophy towards performance engines, rather I was stating that this design has passed its prime. Time to move onto the next evolution. Don't tell me you wish automakers had stuck with steam engines because they were so special.

Where to begin with this disaster you think is an intelligent post.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

A high hp per liter naturally aspirated car is going to need a high redline in correlation. Couldn't figure this out?

You sure you want an owned smiley? Because you would be seeng it used frequently in responses to your posts.

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.
Appreciate 0
      12-05-2008, 12:45 AM   #232
haen
Enlisted Member
0

 
haen's Avatar
 
Drives: e60 M5
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles


Posts: 38
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Where to begin with this disaster you think is an intelligent post.
........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti

Appreciate 0
      12-05-2008, 03:57 AM   #233
Strax
Enlisted Member
0

 
Strax's Avatar
 
Drives: E46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Athens, Greece


Posts: 40
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
........
I'm not debating the engine's accolades. It's a good engine but it's underpowered for its weight.
This the first time I have read about power/engine weight ratio. A few kilos are completely irrelevant in cars that are SOOO HEAVY (Actually the M3 is probably the lightest car compared to all its competitors).
__________________
Appreciate 0
      12-05-2008, 05:22 AM   #234
Sticky
Banned
United_States
30

 
Drives: E92 Jerez DCT M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Anaheim Hills / Malibu


Posts: 2,244
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
........



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.



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



I'm not debating the engine's accolades. It's a good engine but it's underpowered for its weight.



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.



Article talking about next Enzo using turbos.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/next-fer...orsepower.html



Nope. I'm an idiot. Engines just rev straight up with no powerbands or torque curves.



I'm pretty confident that if you were to take this discussion outside of a strictly BMW forum, most people would agree with me.



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.
It is way too late for me to go way in depth but I'll highlight some key points.

I want to you post for me lighter V8's equal to or less than the M3's displacement that have the same if not more power or torque naturally aspirated. They don't exist.

The aftermarket tuning example was to show you the strength of the block. You agree it is strong, right? So tell me, do you get more bang for your buck with the BMW 6 cylinder? Is it a motor that gives far more in return than it should? Did the Supra not makes it reputation on the strength of its motor in aftermarket tuning? Did people not say that it was unheard of for a motor of that size to make 600+ wheel on stock internals? How about BMW doing the same, if not better, at 8k rpm with 11.5:1 compression? That is over-engineering if I have ever seen it.

The Enzo successor, really is the FXX. No turbos, pure NA power. That car also does not exist on paper.

Performance of the M5 vs. the 63 AMG's. It does not matter if from a stop or from a roll, the AMG is losing. The 55's made a stronger showing vs. the M5 from a stop, fatter curve. From a roll, the M5 beats either. Whatever way you want to look at it, the M5 rules the autobahn.

Why is NA tech old tech? Direct injection, vanos, sodium filled valves, silicon-aluminum blocks, magnesium-steel rods, etc. Forced induction motors march on as well, VTG or whatever.

You don't seem to understand that people buy high revving motors not because they are efficient, light, or smaller. It is how the motor makes the driver feel. This is why a Ferrari always has that special aura vs. a 911 turbo.

I did not get an M3 because it is the fastest or most efficient. I got it because of the way it makes me feel behind the wheel. That is something others can't match. If the motor did not do something special matched up to the chassis, why wouldn't I be in something easier to modify, lighter, and more fuel efficient?

Frankly, making smaller motors that are naturally aspirated that can compete with the worlds best using forced induction and or lighter motors is incredible. Talk about the weight or whatever else all you want, BMW gets it done. That makes them special. They can do what others can't. I think BMW is losing something very special by going to forced induction. Does that mean they won't do well? No, of course not, BMW will continue to astound. However, there was something awe inspiring by doing it in a way few others could.

You are definitely right if you take this discussion outside of a BMW forum most will agree with you. Most people take the easy way out these days. Most people don't have appreciation for the level of talent it takes to produce cars on the M3 or M5's level. Most people are not connoisseur's.
Appreciate 0
      12-05-2008, 06:06 AM   #235
footie
Major General
No_Country
150

 
footie's Avatar
 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT


Posts: 7,507
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
You think only the F430 and GT3 engines are as good as the S65 and S85. Come on sticky, there are an infinite number of brilliant engines out there which are as good if not better than these two BMW engines.

Both Lamborghini engines, every Ferrari engine, the Veyron engine is a work of art, the RS4/R8 and RS6 engines, the Honda s2000 engine, the list could go on. Each have their own merits and shortfalls, just like both M engines.

The only thing you can conclude is that the S65 and S85 are among this long list of brilliant engines and the next ones which ever they are, will be just as special in their own right. I think you assume N/A and high revs as the only two factors that make an engine truly special, the allure of breaking the magical 100hp/ltr is the sign of greatness. What makes an engine truly special is the combine drivability with power on demand everywhere in the rev range and yet prove to be both economic and good to the environment at the same time.

FI is the future...............the end.
Appreciate 0
      12-05-2008, 06:06 AM   #236
enigma
Captain
6

 
Drives: E92 M3 and Elise
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Land of the Microchip


Posts: 689
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
I want to you post for me lighter V8's equal to or less than the M3's displacement that have the same if not more power or torque naturally aspirated. They don't exist.
Because only a few zelots care. The end result is about how the overall drivetrain performs. The V8 is very good, but its not perfect.

I don't care if the engine is in an I, V, W, or flat. 4,6,8,10, 12 cyl, doesn't matter.

What does matter is the power output, power band, smoothness, and responsiveness. Simply put the engine in the new Z06 is, well, better.
__________________
Manual gearboxes, the rotary dial of cars.
Appreciate 0
      12-05-2008, 06:09 AM   #237
enigma
Captain
6

 
Drives: E92 M3 and Elise
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Land of the Microchip


Posts: 689
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
I think you assume N/A and high revs as the only two factors that make an engine truly special, the allure of breaking the magical 100hp/ltr is the sign of greatness. What makes an engine truly special is the combine drivability with power on demand everywhere in the rev range and yet prove to be both economic and good to the environment at the same time.
I can vouch for this, my other car revs to 8500, makes well over 100hp/l and the engine sucks. The powerband is so narrow as to be usefull only on a track and even there is really difficult to impossible to work with at times.
__________________
Manual gearboxes, the rotary dial of cars.
Appreciate 0
      12-05-2008, 06:41 AM   #238
haen
Enlisted Member
0

 
haen's Avatar
 
Drives: e60 M5
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles


Posts: 38
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
It is way too late for me to go way in depth but I'll highlight some key points.
Why don't you start by showing me where BMW mentions that the reason the inline 6 in the e46 M3 was heavier than the e92 M3's V8 was because it was cast iron. I'm not going to reply to another one of your posts until you provide this info. I'm getting tired of your baseless claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
I want to you post for me lighter V8's equal to or less than the M3's displacement that have the same if not more power or torque naturally aspirated. They don't exist.
You're not going to find any. No manufacturers make 4.0 V8 but we can compare its weight with larger displacement V8s which will highlight the fact that the M3's V8 is heavy for its displacement. I don't know of a single manufacturer that makes 4.0 liter V8s. Do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
The aftermarket tuning example was to show you the strength of the block. You agree it is strong, right? So tell me, do you get more bang for your buck with the BMW 6 cylinder? Is it a motor that gives far more in return than it should? Did the Supra not makes it reputation on the strength of its motor in aftermarket tuning? Did people not say that it was unheard of for a motor of that size to make 600+ wheel on stock internals? How about BMW doing the same, if not better, at 8k rpm with 11.5:1 compression? That is over-engineering if I have ever seen it.
All those BMW inline 6's that are getting 600hp are turbo charged, so I don't see what you're getting at. What is the point of this aftermarket reference? Bang for your buck? What the hell are you talking about? You need to drop this because you're not making any sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
The Enzo successor, really is the FXX. No turbos, pure NA power. That car also does not exist on paper.
The FXX is not the Enzo successor. It's a platform Ferrari uses to test new parts. Regardless, the next car Ferrari produces will use turbos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Performance of the M5 vs. the 63 AMG's. It does not matter if from a stop or from a roll, the AMG is losing. The 55's made a stronger showing vs. the M5 from a stop, fatter curve. From a roll, the M5 beats either. Whatever way you want to look at it, the M5 rules the autobahn.
I'm starting to think that you're not comprehending anything I say. We are talking about just the engines, not the entire car. Which engine makes more HP? Which engine makes more torque? End of discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Why is NA tech old tech? Direct injection, vanos, sodium filled valves, silicon-aluminum blocks, magnesium-steel rods, etc. Forced induction motors march on as well, VTG or whatever.
NA is old tech because it isn't as efficient as FI. The automotive industry is moving toward more efficient cars. BMW's favorite new term is Efficient Dynamics. Direct Injection makes a far larger impact in a FI engine vs an NA engine and the rest of the tech you listed for NA also works for FI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
You don't seem to understand that people buy high revving motors not because they are efficient, light, or smaller. It is how the motor makes the driver feel. This is why a Ferrari always has that special aura vs. a 911 turbo.
I understand. Will you please listen to what I write? FI will replace NA because it is more efficient in terms of power, fuel consumption and size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
I did not get an M3 because it is the fastest or most efficient. I got it because of the way it makes me feel behind the wheel. That is something others can't match. If the motor did not do something special matched up to the chassis, why wouldn't I be in something easier to modify, lighter, and more fuel efficient?
You can spend your money however you want. Like I said, it's your opinion. It doesn't change the facts though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Frankly, making smaller motors that are naturally aspirated that can compete with the worlds best using forced induction and or lighter motors is incredible. Talk about the weight or whatever else all you want, BMW gets it done. That makes them special. They can do what others can't. I think BMW is losing something very special by going to forced induction. Does that mean they won't do well? No, of course not, BMW will continue to astound. However, there was something awe inspiring by doing it in a way few others could.
Maybe other manufacturers just choose not to go the high revving NA path. Audi's RS4 seemed to get 100hp/liter without a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
You are definitely right if you take this discussion outside of a BMW forum most will agree with you. Most people take the easy way out these days. Most people don't have appreciation for the level of talent it takes to produce cars on the M3 or M5's level. Most people are not connoisseur's.
Most people take the easy way out? No, most people are rational and understand that their viewpoint is not always the right one. I understand that it takes a lot of engineering brainpower to make an M3 or M5, but do you think that AMG/Quattro just whip up their cars in a single afternoon? Stop being so BMW bias.
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti

Appreciate 0
      12-05-2008, 07:32 AM   #239
addy85
Got beef?
United_States
54

 
addy85's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 335i
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Arlington Texas


Posts: 3,646
iTrader: (4)

Garage List
2007 335i  [0.00]
Hmmm who would of guessed it, Sticky in another argument
__________________

Special Thanks to AU335
Appreciate 0
      12-05-2008, 11:13 AM   #240
Advskier
Second Lieutenant
3

 
Drives: 2008 E92
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Salt Lake City


Posts: 267
iTrader: (0)

Where to begin?

We are talking about a high performance sedan/coupe/convertible, aren't we? How much does the entire M3 weigh compared to the other "similar" cars with "better" engines, i.e. C63?
So the naysayers pick one item (on a relatively light car) they feel is heavy, ignore the positive characteristics it might have, and go off on it.

And how do you guys drive on the street, on a daily basis that, that you need to ring an M3 out to make it enjoyable to drive?
My M3 can get me in plenty of trouble from a standstill, let alone ringing it out.

No doubt, the next generation M3 will be better than the present one. And just like now, people will still complain that it is not "raw" enough compared to the last one.

The current M3 is arguably one of the best cars of any manufacturer ever produced. When BMW builds it's replacement, they've got their work cut out for them, and it had better be a superior car in every respect.
Appreciate 0
      12-05-2008, 05:43 PM   #241
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA


Posts: 1,907
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Advskier View Post
Where to begin?

We are talking about a high performance sedan/coupe/convertible, aren't we? How much does the entire M3 weigh compared to the other "similar" cars with "better" engines, i.e. C63?
So the naysayers pick one item (on a relatively light car) they feel is heavy, ignore the positive characteristics it might have, and go off on it.

And how do you guys drive on the street, on a daily basis that, that you need to ring an M3 out to make it enjoyable to drive?
My M3 can get me in plenty of trouble from a standstill, let alone ringing it out.

No doubt, the next generation M3 will be better than the present one. And just like now, people will still complain that it is not "raw" enough compared to the last one.

The current M3 is arguably one of the best cars of any manufacturer ever produced. When BMW builds it's replacement, they've got their work cut out for them, and it had better be a superior car in every respect.
How about we all take (another) deep breath, relax a bit, and look at the basics. This discussion is really about engines.

First, the M3 V8 is a hell of an engine. It makes very good power, very good power for its displacement, and has an exceptionally wide power band. It also makes scintillating noises, and revs to hell and gone - eagerly, I might add.

There's more, though.

It just doesn't suffice to say that this engine has an exceptionally wide power band and revs eagerly. It may in fact be more accurate to say, for instance, that the powerband width could be unprecedented. I might be corrected on this, but I personally have never heard of an automobile engine that loses only about 11% of its peak torque over a band of 4400 rpm. That's right. At the power peak, you're seeing 262 pound feet of torque against a 295 max, 4400 rpm earlier. That's almost unbelieveable for an emissions-compliant modern engine in a more or less affordable car.

As far as revability (yes, that's a word - now), this engine reminds me of those fuelie small-block Chevies from the sixties*, or perhaps the Yamaha/SHO engines in those nondescript Taurus bodies. In other words, its zingy as all hell, and I don't wonder that BMW cautions against aggressive revving in neutral.

One of the difficulties you find as an engineer is that if you've designed an engine that delivers at very high rpm, you've got to gear it in such a way that the power is available in everyday driving. In other words, aggressively. You pay a penalty for this however, in that rotational inertia raises its ugly head, and you lose a fair bit of that power just to speed up the rotating components so quickly.

What BMW has done, however, is to lighten or work those components aggressively so as to reduce their rotational inertia - and I'm not just talking crank, rods, pistons and valvegear. I'm also talking engine-driven accessories, flywheel, clutch and pressure plate, and probably transmission components, as well. The damned thing feels almost like a race engine in its ability to gain rpm, so the M guys didn't miss anything in their quest to "add lightness", as Colin Chapman used to say.

Trust me on this. Eight throttle bodies may help the cause, but our E46 never zinged up the way the E9X does.

OK, that's it for throwing roses. Now for some brickbats.

First, the damned thing is down on torque, and by that I mean not only doesn't it produce as much as some of its rivals, but that it is also down on torque per liter - compared to our E46, for instance. The upshot is that the car feels a little soft when you're just pedalling around - compared to its rivals, but also compared to the X35 cars. I don't know anybody who thinks the M3 feels as quick or willing as a 135 or 335 when you're just goofing around. You can feel this at cruise on the highway. It ain't a slug, but you feel the need to drop a gear or three if you want to go right now.

It's easy to drive through this softness to get to the good part of the powerband, but you're aware you're doing it - again, compared to some other cars. Whether it's a downshift or just holding gears longer, that's what you do.

That gets us to the second brickbat, which is fuel consumption. Reving it to get into the fun part is easy, as mentioned, but it costs you. For its size and weight, this car is really a fuel drunkard. Not that everybody cares, but there isn't anyone outside of Arabia who thinks that fewer mpg or more liters per 100km is actually a good thing, no matter the cost of fuel.

The third thing is that BMW went ahead and bragged about how the new V8 weighed 30 pounds less than the six it replaced, coming in at 445 pounds.

Oops. Mistake.

That let guys like me (who don't actually give a damn about any particular manufacturer) do the math, and come up with the idea that the M3 V8 just wasn't special at all in regard to its weight. Mercedes at 439 pounds, Chevy at 436 for the LS3 and 453 for the Z06. Hmm. Pop one of those puppies in the car, solve the torque issue, gain power, hmm. Sure, you lose the last 1200 to 1900 rpm, but the rev freak is safely behind you listening to and feeling those cubic inches blow exhaust in his or her face.

Of course, the M faithful are full of fury at the concept, but that doesn't mean it's a bad one. Just that it's lacking in M religion.

Bruce

PS - In regard to the car, it's better in almost every way compared to its forebear, but it's gotten even heavier and less wieldy, which bothers some of us. Here's hoping the next one will not only be a better car, but might lose a little weight in deference to fuel regs.

*Those small block fuelie Chevies ran rich all the time, so throttle response was exceptional.

Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 12-06-2008 at 03:40 PM. Reason: Changed "fuelly" to fuelie - must have slang correct
Appreciate 0
      12-05-2008, 06:01 PM   #242
enigma
Captain
6

 
Drives: E92 M3 and Elise
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Land of the Microchip


Posts: 689
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
It just doesn't suffice to say that this engine has an exceptionally wide power band and revs eagerly. It may in fact be more accurate to say, for instance, that the powerband width could be unprecedented. I might be corrected on this, but I personally have never heard of an automobile engine that loses only about 11% of its peak torque over a band of 4400 rpm. That's right. At the power peak, you're seeing 262 pound feet of torque against a 295 max, 4400 rpm earlier. That's almost unbelieveable for an emissions-compliant modern engine in a more or less affordable car.
I honestly believe this is the reason that despite the higher redline and much, much better bore/stroke ration the new engine simply doesn't make much more hp/L than the outgoing car. It strikes me as a race engine that was de-tuned to me a more drivable street car. If it was making the 115 to 120 hp/L that the core specs might lead you to expect then the weight would no longer look out of line. Someone needs to do a cam swap and re-tune and see if my guess is right.
__________________
Manual gearboxes, the rotary dial of cars.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
m cars drop v8 and v10, m-i6, m-v6

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 03:47 AM.




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