I just read Roundel's write up on the E92 M3 V-8 power plant.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

S54 has 91mm bore x 87mm stroke, so oversquare by a factor of 1.05:1. The S65 is 92 x 75.2, or a ratio of 1.22:1, so much more oversquare.

Also going with a more oversquare design, they were able to really drop the rotating mass.

Have you guys seen the bedplate crank design? Beautiful....this allows much higher revs in addition to oversquaring the engine.

The short of it is BMW has made a conscience decision to pursue lightweight drivetrain designs and high revs...... We are going to see the next M cars become superlight weight with about the same power.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Also going with a more oversquare design, they were able to really drop the rotating mass.

Have you guys seen the bedplate crank design? Beautiful....this allows much higher revs in addition to oversquaring the engine.

The short of it is BMW has made a conscience decision to pursue lightweight drivetrain designs and high revs...... We are going to see the next M cars become superlight weight with about the same power.

And thank God, no mechanical valve adjustments necessary! That's an expensive routine for the S54.

[2m3]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

S54 has 91mm bore x 87mm stroke, so oversquare by a factor of 1.05:1. The S65 is 92 x 75.2, or a ratio of 1.22:1, so much more oversquare.

You get it the other way around on the bore/stroke spec

ON the S54:
The bore: 87 mm
Stroke: 91 mm

So it is a over bore design or undersquare

[2m3]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Also going with a more oversquare design, they were able to really drop the rotating mass.

Have you guys seen the bedplate crank design? Beautiful....this allows much higher revs in addition to oversquaring the engine.

The short of it is BMW has made a conscience decision to pursue lightweight drivetrain designs and high revs...... We are going to see the next M cars become superlight weight with about the same power.

The conrod bearing and crank bearing are the important parts in concert with the lighweight rotating mass

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by 2m3

You get it the other way around on the bore/stroke spec

ON the S54:
The bore: 87 mm
Stroke: 91 mm

So it is a over bore design or undersquare

You are correct; I was temporarily dyslexic. So the corrected figures are:

M54 - 86.4 bore x 89.6 stroke; B/S = 0.96
S54 - 87 bore x 91 stroke; B/S = 0.96
S65 - 92 bore x 75.2 stroke; B/S = 1.22

[2m3]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

You are correct; I was temporarily dyslexic. So the corrected figures are:

M54 - 86.4 bore x 89.6 stroke; B/S = 0.96
S54 - 87 bore x 91 stroke; B/S = 0.96
S65 - 92 bore x 75.2 stroke; B/S = 1.22

Yes , the other engine that has over bore design is the USM3 3.2liter OBD2 (model year 1996-1999). Not to find mistake on your post, but was it M52 not M54?

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by 2m3

Yes , the other engine that has over bore design is the USM3 3.2liter OBD2 (model year 1996-1999). Not to find mistake on your post, but was it M52 not M54?

Well, I was comparing to the M54, but the S50 in the euro E36 M3 had the same bore/stroke specs, I believe. The later S52 went from 3.0 to 3.2 liters.

[2m3]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

Well, I was comparing to the M54, but the S50 in the euro E36 M3 had the same bore/stroke specs, I believe. The later S52 went from 3.0 to 3.2 liters.

I do not remember the engine code designation, but you are right

The 1995 US M3 3 liter OBD1 engine has 86mm (bore) x 85.8mm (stroke)
1996-1999 US M3 3.2 liter OBD2 86.4 x 89.6

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by T Bone

I have driven one understeering pig with snap oversteer on throttle tip in.

Your credibility on this topic was shot when you said the CTS-V had an auto transmission, and you switched subjects from the topic of engine to handling.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Your credibility on this topic was shot when you said the CTS-V had an auto transmission, and you switched subjects from the topic of engine to handling.

Yep, I messed up. I did drive it and I thought it had a slushbox. I just remember a handful.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by Corey

A Ferrari and a Civic are also both road going cars, driven on pedestrian roadways, and sold as production cars. Sadly the majority of Ferraris also never see a track. Yet for some reason I highly doubt the Civic and Ferrari's engineers had the same thing in mind as they built their respective cars. I'm not "Mr. Motor Know It All", but I do have common sense.. something you seem to be lacking.

If you read the article as you claim you know the new M3's V8 has already proven itself in the M3 GTR raced in the 2001 ALMS series. While it lacks the dry sump and flat plane crank of the GTR's engine, it does have close to the same power output at 8300 rpm, individual throttle bodies, etc. It even weighs 33 pounds less than the straight six found in the previous M3. This isn't an attempt to sound smart, this is straight from Roundel.

If you think the the 335i's engine is the better one for you that's great but that certainly doesn't make it a better engine. The fact is one was born and bred for circuit racing and one has had overheating issues leading to limp mode on the track. That says something to me whether or not the majority of both cars will suffer the fate of a grocery getter. At the end of the day those two engines were engineered with very different purposes in mind whether they're sitting in Michael Schumacher's garage or your grandma's.

Pretty convincing.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

The facts are you are wrong, but please keep drinking the M kool-aid. What makes the new M3 engine any better than the now going on 3 yo production Audi 4.2L engine producing almost identical specs?

Without the dry sump what makes the M3 engine special? NOTHING! And lets not confuse the fact that this is basically a cost saving 2 cylinder lopped version on the M5-6 engine.

And the 335i engine does not have overheating issues except when paired with the Step and the jury is still out on whether the oil cooler retrofit solves that issue.

In another year, the 09 CTS-V will be running around with 600 HP. The GTR will be making 550+ HP (with chip) and kick the M3 around any track you care to run. Now those are special engines.

Pretty convincing.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by ward

don't scan anything for these cheapskates


40 bucks a year is all it costs, and you get $500 the next time you buy a car

Maybe Oprah could help defer the cost.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by ruff

Pretty convincing.

Yawn!

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by westwest888

First question - have you driven an e46 M3? Was is not the most amazing car you'd ever driven / ridden in? Did you acknowledge that it *only* has 261 lb-ft of torque?

Excuse me, you've just short-torqued the S54 by 1 ft. lb.; 262 is spec. Not that I'm obsessing over statistics, mind you!

[MrHarris]

lol

[ruff]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

Excuse me, yo've just short-torqued the S54 by 1 ft. lb. 262 is spec. Not that I'm obsessing over statistics, mind you!

Correct, excellent rebuttal, you are definately not obsessing. BMW, please release something and save us from ourselves.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by m3 bavaria

Well, let me clarify by saying that I opted for a 24 month lease on my 335i, because I plan on purchasing the new M3.

I personally enjoy high red lines, when I'm driving on pedestrian road ways, because frankly, it's fun.

However, again, NO ONE that is a serious track devotee is going to purchase an M3 for the track. I'm sure there will be owners that use their cars for dual purpose, but not that often. The point is that the car is not suited for the track, it's too heavy.

So, while the engine is a gem, it's in the wrong shell and there's no point in discussing it's track orientation.

+1,000

I also read the article. btw..e39m5 V8 made ~345 lb TQ

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by Socom

+1,000

I also read the article. btw..e39m5 V8 made ~345 lb TQ

Well, that engine was 4.94 liters. Extra displacement usually produces a lot more torque, as does a longer stroke.

These are the figures I got from one source:

400 bhp / 298 KW @ 6600 rpm
Torque 500 Nm / 369 ft lbs @ 3800 rpm

[devo]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

Well, that engine was 4.94 liters. Extra displacement usually produces a lot more torque, as does a longer stroke.

These are the figures I got from one source:

400 bhp / 298 KW @ 6600 rpm
Torque 500 Nm / 369 ft lbs @ 3800 rpm

Did I miss something, or are people still trying to compare grandpa's 335 to the new M3?

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by devo

Did I miss something, or are people still trying to compare grandpa's 335 to the new M3?

Well, everything is up for comaprison, I guess. Less torque or not, the new M3 will kick serious butt on both the 335 and E39 M5. All great cars; whatever rings your bell.

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by devo

Did I miss something, or are people still trying to compare grandpa's 335 to the new M3?

No, but don't blink or you'll miss GT-R's and CTS-V's dancing on your 997's head