G Power M3 Vs Others

[MikeG_C63_AMG]

Originally Posted by godora

+1, if M3 had a 6.2L V8 your MB would be NOTHING, NADA, SHIT compared to the M3. MB can barely produce 100 HP/liter and BMW achieves that + a little more.

on C63 AMG MB produces around 72 HP per liter = 451 WITH 6.2 LITERS
BMW M3 produces around 103 HP per liter = 414 WITH 4.0 LITERS
so if BMW had 6.2 Liter engine it would produce = mhhh 638.6 HP !!! now i wanna see MB achieve that. (not saying that bmw will come up with that engine but i am just stating what the approximate numbers would be if it had 6.2 engine displacement).

Wow! This has to be one the worst posts I seen on here in awhile. Congrats Both arguments are purely sad.

[MikeG_C63_AMG]

Originally Posted by godora

yes, i do know that its a detuned engine since Mercedes offers many vehicles with such displacement that are produces many times more hp then what the C63 achieves. but wouldn't you agree that if BMW started using such a high displacment engines it would produce more hp/L than mercedes and have a higher output ?

Yes if I was a fanboy sure I would agree.

[MikeG_C63_AMG]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

Evosport posted on another board the Engine mods alone add up to $14,000 on that C63. That's more then the S/C lol.. That's not including the other mods like brake upgrades, wheels. Widebody mod, suspension and whatever else it has.

I know the cost of all those bolt on mods probably are pushing the other side of $10K. However in terms of reliability, I be betting over time the G-Power M3 will encounter a lot more issues then the highly modded but still NA C63.

[MikeG_C63_AMG]

Originally Posted by M3 Montreal

I thought ECU tune alone would get you to about 545 hp and 575 Tq for about 3k ?

Kleemann ECU is $1500 and offers slightly less numbers then what you quoted on HP and less on torque.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

+1



Hypothetical BS.



What BMW can do with 4.0L has little to do with what they would do with 6.2

Really??? Hypothetical BS or your BS ignorance on your part? It is a well known fact that BMW would trounce AMG given the displacement.

BMW has the technology and engineering to squeeze out a lot more than 100 HP/Liter so why is there any doubt?? You seem very biased if you say that or just simply ignorant of what BMW has historically accomplished.

1 - Ever heard of the 5 Liter V10??? Guess how much HP does it put out?? 509 HP from a 5.0 Liter V10. Is there still any doubts they could produce 640 HP from a 6.2 Liter engine??

2 - As early as 1990 - 1991 BMW produced a 6.1 Liter V12 that made a whopping 627 HP@7400 rpm and a whopping 490 ft-lbs of torque (a lot more torque than a C6 Z06 got 15 years later from an almost 1 liter bigger 7.0 Liter engine). Guess which car it was produced for?? The MacLaren F1. Now remember this engine is primitive and ancient by the engine technology standards used today by BMW. With the engineering today, BMW will have no issues producing 640 HP and 510 - 515 ft-lbs of torque from a 6.2 Liter

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by godora

+1, if M3 had a 6.2L V8 your MB would be NOTHING, NADA, SHIT compared to the M3. MB can barely produce 100 HP/liter and BMW achieves that + a little more.

on C63 AMG MB produces around 72 HP per liter = 451 WITH 6.2 LITERS
BMW M3 produces around 103 HP per liter = 414 WITH 4.0 LITERS
so if BMW had 6.2 Liter engine it would produce = mhhh 638.6 HP !!! now i wanna see MB achieve that. (not saying that bmw will come up with that engine but i am just stating what the approximate numbers would be if it had 6.2 engine displacement).

This is the kind of logic that typically comes from a freshman dorm room.

First of all, it's wrong.

There are two reasons why it's wrong. One is physics and the other has to do with the marketplace. The physics reason has to do with cylinder filling. Larger cylinders are harder to fill (and empty) than smaller cylinders, primarily because the speed of sound governs airflow in and out. You can design larger ports and valves to assist with the process, but that comes with a price.

Large ports and valves detract from the process at low rpm because the speed of the airflow drops, so you can't "pack" the cylinder as well by taking advantage of the inertia of higher airflow speeds. Therefore, low-rpm responsiveness and driveability suffers - along with torque production, of course.

Race engines with huge ports and valves don't care about low-rpm driveability, but it's important in street engines, and the marketplace dictates good street manners.

Second of all (and perhaps more importantly), power per liter only matters when it matters. The M3 and C63 both have extremely impressive engines - the M3 for its stratospheric rpm capability and willingness to rev, and the C63 for its torque-right-from-idle and sound track worthy of the Gods. The C63 is quicker than the M3 in a straight line, although the M3 is no slouch in that department, while the M3 is quicker than the C63 around a road course, although the C63 is no slouch in that department.

Lastly, BMW doesn't build a 6.2 liter version of the M3, so who knows what their overall design goals would be if they did? Would it be a "better" engine than the Merc? Who knows? Who cares?

Y'know, if I only had the proper plumbing, I could get pregnant, but I don't - and discussing that is just as silly as theorizing about what a 6.2 liter M3 would be like - except one thing is for sure:

It would be a completely different car than the current offering. Not just the engine, but everything else as well - further muddying your logic.

Go back to your studies, please.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Really??? Hypothetical BS or your BS ignorance on your part? It is a well known fact that BMW would trounce AMG given the displacement.

BMW has the technology and engineering to squeeze out a lot more than 100 HP/Liter so why is there any doubt?? You seem very biased if you say that or just simply ignorant of what BMW has historically accomplished.

1 - Ever heard of the 5 Liter V10??? Guess how much HP does it put out?? 509 HP from a 5.0 Liter V10. Is there still any doubts they could produce 640 HP from a 6.2 Liter engine??

2 - As early as 1990 - 1991 BMW produced a 6.1 Liter V12 that made a whopping 627 HP@7400 rpm and a whopping 490 ft-lbs of torque (a lot more torque than a C6 Z06 got 15 years later from an almost 1 liter bigger 7.0 Liter engine). Guess which car it was produced for?? The MacLaren F1. Now remember this engine is primitive and ancient by the engine technology standards used today by BMW. With the engineering today, BMW will have no issues producing 640 HP and 510 - 515 ft-lbs of torque from a 6.2 Liter

See my post #102 (just above) for cylinder-filling issues.

Bruce

[Adonislike]

[1cleanm6]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Really??? Hypothetical BS or your BS ignorance on your part? It is a well known fact that BMW would trounce AMG given the displacement.

BMW has the technology and engineering to squeeze out a lot more than 100 HP/Liter so why is there any doubt?? You seem very biased if you say that or just simply ignorant of what BMW has historically accomplished.

1 - Ever heard of the 5 Liter V10??? Guess how much HP does it put out?? 509 HP from a 5.0 Liter V10. Is there still any doubts they could produce 640 HP from a 6.2 Liter engine??

2 - As early as 1990 - 1991 BMW produced a 6.1 Liter V12 that made a whopping 627 HP@7400 rpm and a whopping 490 ft-lbs of torque (a lot more torque than a C6 Z06 got 15 years later from an almost 1 liter bigger 7.0 Liter engine). Guess which car it was produced for?? The MacLaren F1. Now remember this engine is primitive and ancient by the engine technology standards used today by BMW. With the engineering today, BMW will have no issues producing 640 HP and 510 - 515 ft-lbs of torque from a 6.2 Liter

nice write up bro, for once i agree with you lol

But anyways sticking HUGE displacement engines has really never been a part of bmws game.

If someone values engines and knows sup, then there is no question the same v8 in the m3 with 4000cc with its 8400 rpm is one amazing engine.......way more amazing then the c63's.

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by MikeG_C63_AMG

I know the cost of all those bolt on mods probably are pushing the other side of $10K. However in terms of reliability, I be betting over time the G-Power M3 will encounter a lot more issues then the highly modded but still NA C63.

Ya but there is no basis for that assumption at all considering the low boost being used.

[MikeG_C63_AMG]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

This is the kind of logic that typically comes from a freshman dorm room.

First of all, it's wrong.

There are two reasons why it's wrong. One is physics and the other has to do with the marketplace. The physics reason has to do with cylinder filling. Larger cylinders are harder to fill (and empty) than smaller cylinders, primarily because the speed of sound governs airflow in and out. You can design larger ports and valves to assist with the process, but that comes with a price.

Large ports and valves detract from the process at low rpm because the speed of the airflow drops, so you can't "pack" the cylinder as well by taking advantage of the inertia of higher airflow speeds. Therefore, low-rpm responsiveness and driveability suffers - along with torque production, of course.

Race engines with huge ports and valves don't care about low-rpm driveability, but it's important in street engines, and the marketplace dictates good street manners.

Second of all (and perhaps more importantly), power per liter only matters when it matters. The M3 and C63 both have extremely impressive engines - the M3 for its stratospheric rpm capability and willingness to rev, and the C63 for its torque-right-from-idle and sound track worthy of the Gods. The C63 is quicker than the M3 in a straight line, although the M3 is no slouch in that department, while the M3 is quicker than the C63 around a road course, although the C63 is no slouch in that department.

Lastly, BMW doesn't build a 6.2 liter version of the M3, so who knows what their overall design goals would be if they did? Would it be a "better" engine than the Merc? Who knows? Who cares?

Y'know, if I only had the proper plumbing, I could get pregnant, but I don't - and discussing that is just as silly as theorizing about what a 6.2 liter M3 would be like - except one thing is for sure:

It would be a completely different car than the current offering. Not just the engine, but everything else as well - further muddying your logic.

Go back to your studies, please.

Bruce

Excellent post. This is why I value this forum cause you can actually learn something!

[MikeG_C63_AMG]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

Ya but there is no basis for that assumption at all considering the low boost being used.

Trust me I'm not hoping something goes wrong with your car at all. Frankly I think its awesome your car is S/C as it takes the M3 to a new level.

[MikeG_C63_AMG]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Really??? Hypothetical BS or your BS ignorance on your part? It is a well known fact that BMW would trounce AMG given the displacement.

BMW has the technology and engineering to squeeze out a lot more than 100 HP/Liter so why is there any doubt?? You seem very biased if you say that or just simply ignorant of what BMW has historically accomplished.

1 - Ever heard of the 5 Liter V10??? Guess how much HP does it put out?? 509 HP from a 5.0 Liter V10. Is there still any doubts they could produce 640 HP from a 6.2 Liter engine??

2 - As early as 1990 - 1991 BMW produced a 6.1 Liter V12 that made a whopping 627 HP@7400 rpm and a whopping 490 ft-lbs of torque (a lot more torque than a C6 Z06 got 15 years later from an almost 1 liter bigger 7.0 Liter engine). Guess which car it was produced for?? The MacLaren F1. Now remember this engine is primitive and ancient by the engine technology standards used today by BMW. With the engineering today, BMW will have no issues producing 640 HP and 510 - 515 ft-lbs of torque from a 6.2 Liter

FAIL

Calling someone ignorant because they make a valid point and not an assumption. The rest of the points are meaningless. Bringing up an engine for a $2.4 M supercar when we are talking about cars in the $70K range is simply ridiculous.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by MikeG_C63_AMG

Excellent post. This is why I value this forum cause you can actually learn something!

Note that he no longer drives a BMW! /joke

The truth is, this is a BMW forum, so, of course, the overall/generalized response will be skewed when it comes to car comparisons.

While it is true that reliably extracting lots of power per unit of displacement is a technically challenging issue (and pretty much neccessitates a high redline by definition), I do not see the point of trying to declare either of these engines superior. They are two different pieces of technology designed with different goals in mind.

Last I checked, a Honda Civic is also making 100hp/lt and a S2000 more like 110hp/lt, so the M3 is not special in that regard. Any of the major players should be able to do that if they set that as a target for a production car.

That said, I sure love my engine! What I like most about it is its responsiveness on the track. Gives you so much throttle control. And, that's why I wouldn't want FI on it. To each his own...

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

Dont be an idiot.


Until they do it, they haven't done it. And if they haven't done it, then you cant hold it against AMG.

Likewise, you should not be a dumbass either.

To break it down for you, BMW has taken a 6.1 Liter engine and extracted 627 HP and 490 ft-lbs of torque when they really needed to in the early 90s. That was 15 years ago and they extracted a lot more torque out of a high-revving engine in early 90s than even a Corvette 7.0 Liter Z06 with 1 more liter displacement after 15 years.

Case in point, there is no reason why BMW will need a 6.2 Liter engine when they have the engineering and expertise to get the required horsepower, torque curve and speed from a 5.0 Liter. If BMW made an exotic car like Porsche Carrera GT, they would easily do it without breaking a sweat.

Again, BMW unlike Mercedes does not need huge displacements to make power and a car fast when they have the engineering, technology and expertise to use small displacement, lightweight engines to get the required output and speed.

[lucid]

We need to tone down the name calling in this thread...

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

Maybe they could. Maybe they couldnt.


And as far as AMG, I (like everyone else who has driven their cars) understand why their engines are bigger. The torque is more valuable than the bragging rights. Do you think the driver of a C63 AMG cares that he has a 6.2 making the same as a 4.0 when he is plastered against his seat watching the M3 sink into the rearview?

Actually, no because a stock M-DCT M3 easily runs neck and neck with a C63 without a doubt. Horspower, torque curve and gearing are everything. Torque to the crank means nothing without these.

Give the M3 equal power (450 - 460 HP, let's say with a tune) to get a power-to-weight advantage and it will royally destroy a C63 with those additional HP. That low end torque on the C63 would be useless.

Also for the real thing, the M3 owner is smiling blasting through race tracks in the turns and on the straights while the C63 is sliding around like a maniac burning tires and tail kicking out at every corner as it fades away in the back looking so sad. That is what it is all about.


p.s. If you have not noticed, Mercedes seems to be embracing high-revving concept a lot more lately especially with the multi-clutch transmission since automatics cannot stand high-revs well while BMW is moving towards FI ditching high-revving philosophy. The SLS AMG Gullwing will produce ~570 HP and 480 ft-lbs of torque from the same 6.2 Liter V8. That is 92 HP/liter.

[330CIZHP]

I can tell you've never driven a C63 AMG

Completely wrong. I have driven an SLK55 AMG convertible several times with the same 7 speed automatic and been in a 45 min test drive in a C63 AMG once. Again, laws of physics and engineering dictate gearing (final drive, axle ratio, gear ratios etc. since these are torque multipliers), horsepower to weight ratio and overall torque curve across the rev range mean everything. Peak torque to the crank means nothing.

Your going to get 40 whp from a tune? If you want to compare mods/power you'll loose royally. The amg has you beat there again... maybe another benefit of having a large engine?

Not a mod for mod comparison. Those were crank figures since I am comparing crank figure of the stock C63 with a mildly tuned M3. Point was regardless of torque, the C63 will get destroyed should there be the power-to-weight advantage to the M3. That is around 385 - 390 wheel HP and around 320 - 330 ft-lbs of torque at the crank for the M3 assuming consistent drivetrain loss with mods.

I guess AMG decided that the 95% of driving people normally do is more important than the 5% that only some people do. Go figure. Crazy right?

Key is the most perfect balance and harmony among everything. Hence the benchmark M3 and why C63 never comes close to the M3 in terms of sheer appreciation. If I truly wanted a great heavy drag race car with four seats (minus the automatic transmission), I would get a Mustang Shelby GT500 and smoke the C63 all day long regardless of mods on C63 with modded supercharger. But, still would be killed by an M3 around a race track.

[1cleanm6]

honestly this thread is becoming retarded, lets chill out....

No matter what anyone says they are both great great cars!! in my opinion two cars for two totally different intentions....

to the c63

to the m3

[luckistryke]

[QUOTE=lucid;5483355]

Last I checked, a Honda Civic is also making 100hp/lt and a S2000 more like 110hp/lt, so the M3 is not special in that regard. Any of the major players should be able to do that if they set that as a target for a production car.

QUOTE]


S2000 AP1 2.0L makes 120pL and the AP2 2.2L makes a 110pL. I think the S2k still has the record for hp/L in production? i could be wrong

[lucid]

Originally Posted by luckistryke

S2000 AP1 2.0L makes 120pL and the AP2 2.2L makes a 110pL. I think the S2k still has the record for hp/L in production? i could be wrong

That's right. I forgot about the insane output of the production 2.0l. What is the factory redline on that?

[Bimmer Nerd]

Originally Posted by Boosted335

nice write up bro, for once i agree with you lol

But anyways sticking HUGE displacement engines has really never been a part of bmws game.

If someone values engines and knows sup, then there is no question the same v8 in the m3 with 4000cc with its 8400 rpm is one amazing engine.......way more amazing then the c63's.

+1, your right it has never been BMW's game to have high displacement engines, but many people just don't want to accept the FACT that " BMW's engine.........is one amazing engine.......way more amazing then the c63's"

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

+1



Hypothetical BS.



What BMW can do with 4.0L has little to do with what they would do with 6.2

Tell me why its hypothetical BS, give me an EXAMPLE based on todays (and the past) engineering both by MB and BMW.

btw in the last line what your basically saying is that BMW isn't able to handle the large displacement engines and will not be as successful with the 6.2 liter engine as they are with the 4.0 ?? you can't deny the facts.

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

Dont be an idiot.


Until they do it, they haven't done it. And if they haven't done it, then you cant hold it against AMG.

we are not holding ANYTHING against AMG, we were just hypothetically speaking given by the today's facts, if they can squeeze out 507 bhp from 5.0 liter what would stop them to do the same for the 6.2, anyways whatever this thread went from G-power m3 vs others, to BMW VS MB.

i think before mods close this thread either everybody should get back on topic or some people are gonna get banned for name calling and so on.