|
|
12-05-2008, 05:12 PM | #243 | |
Moderator
7506
Rep 19,370
Posts |
Quote:
Maybe the days of "race car engines" in street cars are over. It's certainly possible given that fuel economy concerns are becoming very political now, and of course there are more efficient ways to get from A to B. Nevertheless, I'll miss the high-revving M if it is really to be a thing of the past. I've grown to love these cars and letting go is very hard to do. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 05:13 PM | #244 |
Major General
1072
Rep 8,006
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
Bruce,
The only engine I 'think' has a power and torque band as wide as that of the S65 is the one in the RS4, but don't quote me on that. I know their respective power and torque curves are very similar, but you also have to factor in that the Audi is almost 200cc bigger. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 05:23 PM | #245 |
Major
51
Rep 1,027
Posts |
i love my M the way it is
I also loved my 335 and in 35k miles didn't have one single problem. whatever they feel is best, probably is and has been up to this point right? bring on the turbos!
__________________
08 - M3 Sparkling Graphite/blk leather/tech/6 speed
08 - 335i Sport/Prem/Auto White/Terra - AA Exhaust 07 Acura MDX Tech, 07 G35S /Nav |
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 07:23 PM | #247 |
Banned
78
Rep 2,244
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 07:35 PM | #248 | |
Banned
78
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
Lexus had a 4.0 liter V8 and Land Rover. Jaguar went from a 4.0 to a 4.2 and their motor is heavier, and makes less power AND torque from larger displacement. In the super v8 for the new XJ they get 310 pound feet from 4.2 liters NA. Same torque per liter, actually more for the M3 if you go by torque to the wheels... seems BMW is right where they should be for their displacement and weight. What do you mean you don't see what I am getting at? The BMW iron block is strong as hell. You can make more power and torque with it with forced induction than these big v8's you are talking about. People talk about forced induction and aftermarket gains. Well, BMW's naturally aspirated motors when combined with forced induction give out of this world performance. I like a car with headroom for tuning. The FXX is the platform they tested the Enzo "successor" parts on. The FXX was supposed to turn into a road going vehicle but instead they made it a racer. It is the spiritual successor as they pushed the Enzo envelope to the limit and beyond. There is no announced successor yet so this is the closest thing, period. I'm starting to think you are not comprehending anything I say. NA can't make as much power per liter as forced induction. I thought you said hp per liter doesn't matter? Well, BMW's NA motors as efficient as physically possibly. That does not mean they are old tech, ridiculous. If anything they have to push the envelope further technologically to stay competitive. I will not listen to what you write. I will read it though. What facts is my opinion seeking to change? My opinion is the M3 is better with a gem of an NA motor than it would be with a tuned N54. You want that, get a 335. It will NEVER be or feel like an M3. Audi tried to go the high revving NA path, and they couldn't match BMW. Audi's RS4 makes 100 hp per liter on paper, that power does not get to the ground. Blame it on Quattro or whatever you want, BMW's setup is more efficient with their "old tech" NA. Most people are rational? Buddy, the rational thing is to buy a Prius and use a car as transportation. However, I enjoy driving and a BMW M car with its high revving motor gives me the greatest driving pleasure of its competition. That is not BMW bias, it is the truth. The C63 was not whipped up in one afternoon. It probably took them the whole weekend to decide to stuff the 63 AMG V8 into the C class, give it the same transmission they use in everything, and call it a day. Last edited by Sticky; 12-05-2008 at 07:52 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 08:03 PM | #249 |
Got beef?
137
Rep 3,646
Posts |
dream about an m3 right...... Lol no wonder no one likes you
__________________
Special Thanks to AU335 |
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 08:06 PM | #250 |
Banned
78
Rep 2,244
Posts |
So you are saying we aren't friends? My e-schedule was so busy with all my new e-friends
Anyway, I would love to continue but I have a '66 Latour decanting and my real life friends and family are waiting to go out to dinner to celebrate my Birthday. You take care though, I'll miss you. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 08:25 PM | #251 | |
Got beef?
137
Rep 3,646
Posts |
Quote:
Hey didn't you get banned for being, well you? That would be a pleasant gift for my e birthday
__________________
Special Thanks to AU335 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 08:31 PM | #252 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Basically incorrect here. There are very heavy taxes in many EU countries based on displacement alone. Hence why many cars are infinitesimally lower in displacement than a rounded number in liters (specifically M3 = 3.999 l, taxes for 4.0 l and above). The reason you should care about hp/l is not for the performance it gives you in your car but because it is a challenge of extremely difficult engineering. It is simply doing more with less which is univerally valued in just about any endevour. In competitive auto racing where you have a displacement limit this is obviously the key to a great engine at a given displacement.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 08:35 PM | #253 |
Enlisted Member
1
Rep 38
Posts |
Sticky, I'm tired of this conversation and repeating myself. Enjoy your 14th birthday.
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 08:36 PM | #254 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
And we have your continued insistence, more or less that 1>2. Apples to apples there is simply no way the 6.2l AMG V8 weighs less than the 4l BMW V8. Same basic layout, same basic OHV/OHC layout, same number of valves, same basic materials used and viola the physically larger engine weighs less.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 08:36 PM | #255 | |
Captain
13
Rep 689
Posts |
Quote:
I could talk about the challenge of typing this email with only my big toe, but why? If making the displacement one L larger gives better results in terms of hp/lbs, powerband, or specific fuel consumption, then not doing that is a mistake.
__________________
Manual gearboxes, the rotary dial of cars.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 08:50 PM | #256 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Definitely agree a fine post; content, fact, emotion, balance, etc. You'll keep us anxiously reading with ones like this Bruce. Sure it doesn't hurt that you complement a car I really like, but either way you slice it a very good post. And as you have said to me in the past coming from me this compliment means a lot. Cheers.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 08:52 PM | #257 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 09:15 PM | #258 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 09:29 PM | #259 |
Second Lieutenant
8
Rep 267
Posts |
All the talk about lack of torque is pretty silly considering that the M3 will light up it's tires in the first 2 gears, and by the time it hits 3rd it's so far up the revs there is more than enough power to leave just about any car in it's price/style range in it's smoke.
Next time I get pulled over I'll try telling the cop the car doesn't have enough torque, and see how that goes. I'm used to sports bikes, and to ride any of the 600's or japanese liter bikes really fast you keep them revved. That said, not too many people would say a GSXR1K is slow on the street if it's not rung out. It's just fastest when revved high. And although I ride Ducati's, there's a reason they keep upping their displacement. The M3 is pretty much the same. It's damn fast all the time, and faster higher up the rev range. To put it more simply. I doubt you lug your older M3's, or other sports cars, and complain about lack of power. So why knock the current one if you are going to lug it? For that matter, the current M3 is in it's power pretty early, and stays there for a long time. If all you want is torque down low, buy a diesel. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 09:33 PM | #260 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
We've been through this. As soon as as you have something that proves anything different, get back to me. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 09:43 PM | #261 |
First Lieutenant
9
Rep 327
Posts |
It would be interesting to compare TQ at the wheels when comparing cars, rather then just TQ at the crank. Because of the high rev line, the M3 is able to use short gearing which multiples TQ to the wheels, so that compensates for the engine's relative lack of TQ at low rpms.
__________________
07 E92 335i Saph/Black 6MT
06 E46 M3 CB/Cinn ZCP 6MT - Sold 04 E46 330i Saph/NatBrn ZSP 6MT - Sold |
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 10:26 PM | #262 | |
Captain
13
Rep 689
Posts |
Quote:
If I were buying a race car, point 2 would apply. The M3 isn't a race car, not even close. You know race cars have stripped interriors, cages, fire supression, ... BMW might make a race car version of the street car and then that would have its own seperate issues. It it a good engine, yes. Is it the best, nope. Just because BMW builds something doesn't make it without fault.
__________________
Manual gearboxes, the rotary dial of cars.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 10:27 PM | #263 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Your reading lacked that effort. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2008, 02:01 AM | #264 | |
Enlisted Member
1
Rep 38
Posts |
Quote:
M156 6.2 liter V8 - 199kg Source: http://www.worldcarfans.com/2050713....ne---in-detail S65 4.0 liter V8 - 202kg Source: http://www.worldcarfans.com/2070322....gine-in-detail
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Tags |
m cars drop v8 and v10, m-i6, m-v6 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|