E92 M3 coupe Test Mule in Silver

JK42 · 10-31-2006, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by big fra

Too be totally honest if it look's like that i'll keep my csl and order a 997 gt3

Im really hating the look of it:mad:

Fra

Get a RUF instead. They're the way Porsche's should be.

Best regards,

Jussi

junaid786 · 10-31-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK42

Get a RUF instead. They're the way Porsche's should be.

Best regards,

Jussi

yep, i agree...

enigma · 11-01-2006, 02:01 AM

I was both impressed and disappointed with the s54. I was impressed how much they were able to get from a seriously bore limited block. What I mean by this was the engine cylinder spacing was too close to allow a larger bore. So the design ended up being a long stroke design. This creates tremendous internal loads on the engine. The V10 fixed this issue and has a vastly superior bore/stroke ration. Based on this it should be able to make better hp/L than the older S54. The fact that it doesn't indicates they intentionally didn't push the engine design.

I was disappointed that they stuck with the old block and cylinder spacing as long as they did.

If the V8 is a new design or derived from the V10 then it shouldn't have the old I6 basic design issue. If the 9000rpm rumors are true then it has to be a short stroke design (which is good). That also implies the basic design should be far less stressed despite make the same or better hp/l of the old I6.

Should be Working · 11-01-2006, 05:31 AM

I can't help but think there may be a couple of turbos lurking under the bonnet of this car. Anyone else think the holes in the camo could be to let a couple of blowers breathe?!?!

NoelSmart · 11-01-2006, 07:01 AM

I noticed those holes too, but it isn't likely. The M heratige is that of high reving naturally aspirated engines, I really doubt BMW would stray from this formula. I'm still suprised, but happy, with the 335i. The 335i was not a very 'BMW' move, yet they still managed to do it better than everyone else :rocks:

big fra · 11-01-2006, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK42

Get a RUF instead. They're the way Porsche's should be.

Best regards,

Jussi

Dude!If i could afford a Ruf i wouldn't be discussing some shity m3 thingy

JK42 · 11-01-2006, 08:32 AM

I always thought it was very cool that a PRODUCTION ENGINE like the S54B32 was and is able to handle internal loads equivalent of Formula 1 engines (piston movement of around 24 meters per second.) And still function perfectly when the initial third party crap ball bearing problem was solved.

But the M department should definitely develop a new I6 on today's technology, if for the Z4 M's, and the upcoming 2-series, if nothing else.

Best regards,

Jussi

ILC32 · 11-01-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK42

Exactly.

And when was the last time M GmbH was so lazy as to design a new engine by taking a 4 year old design and just taking off 2 cylinders and throwing it out there? They simply DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. They strive for perfection and always put in the latest and the greatest. If you knew just what went into the E46 M3's S54B32 engine design... compared to the earlier M straight sixes, the improvements were incredible, so many new innovations just to the engine alone that it was like from a different century. I can dig up you an article about it if you are interested.

Best regards,

Jussi

Actually, Jussi you do seem to have a lot of knowledge and inside information

, but I think you are wrong here. M has cut down motors for use in the M3 in the past. If I recall correctly, the E30 M3 motor was a four cylinder cut down version of the 6 in the M5 of the time, which itself was a massaged version of the motor that powered the M1.

That being said, I do hope M does NOT simply cut down the current V10, because I am concerned about lack of torque. The current V10 is a masterpiece, no doubt, but in a V8 configuration, I think the motor would have about the same torque as the 335i motor, and much less than the current Audi FSI motor in the RS4.

I suspect that the block in fact will be cut down from the V10, but M will apply its latest tech to the fuel injection system and valve train which will result in a V8 that produces more than 80% of the power and torque that the V10 does.

junaid786 · 11-01-2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by big fra

Dude!If i could afford a Ruf i wouldn't be discussing some shity m3 thingy

lol true, btw have u seen the new Gemballa Turbo GT 550?

enigma · 11-01-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILC32

That being said, I do hope M does NOT simply cut down the current V10, because I am concerned about lack of torque.

Why do you care about torque? I totally don't get this. A wide power band expressed as a % of max RPM is a good metric for how flexible an engine is. Simply having a huge amount of torque is meaningless if the cas has a 1500 rpm redline.

Personally I think the fascination with TQ is all about the drivers that think every engine should be driven at 1500 rpm like an old american V8. If its a high RPM design you have to accept that you need to keep the revs up a bit. For instance in the S54 you have to stay above 2100 or so.

Torque, most overrated car stat ever.

ILC32 · 11-01-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma

Why do you care about torque? I totally don't get this. A wide power band expressed as a % of max RPM is a good metric for how flexible an engine is. Simply having a huge amount of torque is meaningless if the cas has a 1500 rpm redline.

Personally I think the fascination with TQ is all about the drivers that think every engine should be driven at 1500 rpm like an old american V8. If its a high RPM design you have to accept that you need to keep the revs up a bit. For instance in the S54 you have to stay above 2100 or so.

Torque, most overrated car stat ever.

That's right, enigma. All I care about is torque. I also think every engine should be driven at 1500 prm.

replicat · 11-01-2006, 01:33 PM

Bwahaha, keep it happy gentlemen. I think that the best point brought up here is that, there is no damn need to have such high torque figures, if your going to be revving up to 8K+RPMS, its obvious that the intent of the cars is for the track, hence the high redline. No need for HP and Torque to be so equal.

Next. I agree with ILC32, I'm starting to think that the new M3's engine will have the M5 V10's block, but just a different, perhaps better flowing head, or more agressive cam profiles, fuel injection, or whatever it may be.

ase2dais · 11-01-2006, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSL-Fanatik

Here a little awesome treat for you guys:

its the best treat yet@!

JK42 · 11-08-2006, 07:36 AM

Isn't anyone going to answer me on how cool the S54B32 is in reality... To actually withstand the pressures it does.

Best regards,

Jussi

vladinecko · 11-08-2006, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by big fra

Yeah it look's ok!Ijust can't get excited about it:mad:

i know, i feel the same exact way!! i don't know why?!?

i was really excited when E90 was about to come out, when Z4 Coupe and Z4 M Coupe was about to come out, but i just can't get into the new M3 vibe. kind of like i can't get excited about new X3 & 5.

JK42 · 11-08-2006, 11:51 AM

You got exited for the new 3-series Sedan E90? - but not for the new M3?

Must be something wrong with you.

For most people, the E90 3 sedan was a major downer. It still is ugly as hell (IMHO). The Coupé (E92) is much more palatable with it's non-ugly tail and wonderful front section, which goes to show that Bangle's design team does Coupés much better than Sedans (same thing with the 5- and 6-series, 5er - ugly as butt, 6er - very cool.)

But that's all in my humble opinion, of course, but many people seem to agree that I've talked to, or read their postings about on the subject.

Best regards,

Jussi

enigma · 11-08-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK42

Isn't anyone going to answer me on how cool the S54B32 is in reality... To actually withstand the pressures it does.

Having gone through 2 recalls and seing one blow up, no.

If it had worked out of the box, yes.

JK42 · 11-08-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma

Having gone through 2 recalls and seing one blow up, no.

If it had worked out of the box, yes.

You know why it did blow up before the 2003/06 fix, right? Third party ball bearings that were out of spec.

No M3 CSL engines have ever been reported to blow up, and no post 06/2003 engines either.

Best regards,

Jussi

Last E92 M3 · 11-08-2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK42

You got exited for the new 3-series Sedan E90? - but not for the new M3?

Must be something wrong with you.

For most people, the E90 3 sedan was a major downer. It still is ugly as hell (IMHO). The Coupé (E92) is much more palatable with it's non-ugly tail and wonderful front section, which goes to show that Bangle's design team does Coupés much better than Sedans (same thing with the 5- and 6-series, 5er - ugly as butt, 6er - very cool.)

But that's all in my humble opinion, of course, but many people seem to agree that I've talked to, or read their postings about on the subject.

Best regards,

Jussi

what i am thinking...
i hate the look of e90 even though, close friend of mine has one...
i cant say that to his face hahaha
anyways here you go!

power = (torque x rpm)/5252

enigma · 11-08-2006, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK42

You know why it did blow up before the 2003/06 fix, right? Third party ball bearings that were out of spec.

And why should that make me feel better? I don't care where or how the parts in the BMW were made. I simply care that they work. The fact remains it was an extremly highly stressed engine that any little flaw would push over the edge. They had a little flaw and they started exploding left and right. The reaction of blaming the drivers for 8100rpm overrevs didn't help anything and just made for a lot of angry owners.

replicat · 11-08-2006, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK42

You know why it did blow up before the 2003/06 fix, right? Third party ball bearings that were out of spec.

No M3 CSL engines have ever been reported to blow up, and no post 06/2003 engines either.

Best regards,

Jussi

That does make me feel better. It shows that the problem wasn't with the engines design, it was a flaw in a part. And the problem was fixed, the award winning engine is simply amazing.

-Pete.

swamp2 · 11-08-2006, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK42

the initial third party crap ball bearing problem was solved.

I love and stand by BMW as much as any enthusiast, owner and future owner. However, it has been acknowledged by BMW that the E46 M3 engine failures were from a combination of effects (or perhaps multiple effects). I remember following this story closely at the time, well before buying my E46 M3. The issues included:
1. Crank bearings (could have been improper machining/fit by BMW and or fault of bearing supplier, always easy to blame your supplier...)
2. “Unfavorable” tolerances in the oil pump design (obvious BMW fault!)
3. Contamination of the engine lubrication system during assembly (again obviously BMW fault).

Good reference here: http://members.roadfly.com/jason/m3engines.htm

11-01-2006, 02:01 AM	#25
enigma Captain 13 Rep 689 Posts Drives: E92 M3 and Elise Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Land of the Microchip iTrader: (0)	I was both impressed and disappointed with the s54. I was impressed how much they were able to get from a seriously bore limited block. What I mean by this was the engine cylinder spacing was too close to allow a larger bore. So the design ended up being a long stroke design. This creates tremendous internal loads on the engine. The V10 fixed this issue and has a vastly superior bore/stroke ration. Based on this it should be able to make better hp/L than the older S54. The fact that it doesn't indicates they intentionally didn't push the engine design. I was disappointed that they stuck with the old block and cylinder spacing as long as they did. If the V8 is a new design or derived from the V10 then it shouldn't have the old I6 basic design issue. If the 9000rpm rumors are true then it has to be a short stroke design (which is good). That also implies the basic design should be far less stressed despite make the same or better hp/l of the old I6.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-01-2006, 05:31 AM	#26
Should be Working Enlisted Member 4 Rep 44 Posts Drives: E46 M3 Convertible Silver Grey Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: UK iTrader: (0)	I can't help but think there may be a couple of turbos lurking under the bonnet of this car. Anyone else think the holes in the camo could be to let a couple of blowers breathe?!?!
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-01-2006, 07:01 AM	#27
NoelSmart Enlisted Member 6 Rep 40 Posts Drives: 1997 328iS Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh PA iTrader: (0)	I noticed those holes too, but it isn't likely. The M heratige is that of high reving naturally aspirated engines, I really doubt BMW would stray from this formula. I'm still suprised, but happy, with the 335i. The 335i was not a very 'BMW' move, yet they still managed to do it better than everyone else :rocks:
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-01-2006, 08:32 AM	#29
JK42 First Lieutenant 19 Rep 374 Posts Drives: E70 BMW X5 4.8i Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northern Europe iTrader: (0)	I always thought it was very cool that a PRODUCTION ENGINE like the S54B32 was and is able to handle internal loads equivalent of Formula 1 engines (piston movement of around 24 meters per second.) And still function perfectly when the initial third party crap ball bearing problem was solved. But the M department should definitely develop a new I6 on today's technology, if for the Z4 M's, and the upcoming 2-series, if nothing else. Best regards, Jussi
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-01-2006, 01:33 PM	#34
replicat Lieutenant 23 Rep 515 Posts Drives: 40MPG Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Southern California iTrader: (0)	Bwahaha, keep it happy gentlemen. I think that the best point brought up here is that, there is no damn need to have such high torque figures, if your going to be revving up to 8K+RPMS, its obvious that the intent of the cars is for the track, hence the high redline. No need for HP and Torque to be so equal. Next. I agree with ILC32, I'm starting to think that the new M3's engine will have the M5 V10's block, but just a different, perhaps better flowing head, or more agressive cam profiles, fuel injection, or whatever it may be.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-08-2006, 07:36 AM	#36
JK42 First Lieutenant 19 Rep 374 Posts Drives: E70 BMW X5 4.8i Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northern Europe iTrader: (0)	Isn't anyone going to answer me on how cool the S54B32 is in reality... To actually withstand the pressures it does. Best regards, Jussi
	Appreciate 0 Quote

11-08-2006, 11:51 AM	#38
JK42 First Lieutenant 19 Rep 374 Posts Drives: E70 BMW X5 4.8i Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northern Europe iTrader: (0)	You got exited for the new 3-series Sedan E90? - but not for the new M3? Must be something wrong with you. For most people, the E90 3 sedan was a major downer. It still is ugly as hell (IMHO). The Coupé (E92) is much more palatable with it's non-ugly tail and wonderful front section, which goes to show that Bangle's design team does Coupés much better than Sedans (same thing with the 5- and 6-series, 5er - ugly as butt, 6er - very cool.) But that's all in my humble opinion, of course, but many people seem to agree that I've talked to, or read their postings about on the subject. Best regards, Jussi
	Appreciate 0 Quote