E9x vs F8x race yet?

[991brothers]

Originally Posted by Ezio

you think your to young to rock a 911?

i am 22 and i would love to drive a 911. my friends which is a age group of 18-23 year old people loves 911s. they are aggressive looking and flashy. better than corvettes and BMWs thats for dam sure.

If I could drive a 991 911 as a daily, hell I would! But I am just turning 24 and purchased a house last December. All the cars I by are by me. I could for sure as hell go to my dad and say I want a 911(which he suggests before I ever bought a BMW) and would gladly help me, because he knows its a better car. But I dont and I like the satisfaction of knowing it was on my own. So BMW's are more reasonable for me

For now....

[V8FunNaturally]

Originally Posted by Petros

and then the dealers will be begging you to take it off their hands.

turbo reliability (based on bmw's previous turbo engines issues). Once it gets in the hands of people who drives their m3's hard any turbo fail could easily kill this car's reputation. And that turbo better work perfectly 100% of times. Don't forget any turbo dyno curves assume static run at an almost constant RPM. In contrast an NA engine will always give you the same power even in dynamic transitions not only static controlled ones . Next, Heat is the enemy of a turbo engine. If the boost is not properly cooled down, power performance will drop, not too mention an overheating turbo engine has exponentially growing pressure which is fast self destructing. A turbo engine is basically a plant that constantly wants to self destruct and various secondary systems are built around it to avoid that from happening ( WG, BOV, intercooler). If any of those secondary systems fail, the engine can get toasted fast. For example a BOV actuator malfunction could lead to a turbo surge.

Probably with all the temp sensors and electronics BMW put in the car it will go into limp mode instead of self destructing and they won't have to give replacement engines under warranty.

A 3.0 liter turbo engine for $70k does not make much sense.

[Alex_bm]

Originally Posted by sunsweet

turbo reliability (based on bmw's previous turbo engines issues). Once it gets in the hands of people who drives their m3's hard any turbo fail could easily kill this car's reputation. And that turbo better work perfectly 100% of times. 3.0 liter turbo engine for $70k does not make much sense.

And 3.8 for a 100k does?
Gtr???

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by NavidM3E92

If I could drive a 991 911 as a daily, hell I would! But I am just turning 24 and purchased a house last December. All the cars I by are by me. I could for sure as hell go to my dad and say I want a 911(which he suggests before I ever bought a BMW) and would gladly help me, because he knows its a better car. But I dont and I like the satisfaction of knowing it was on my own. So BMW's are more reasonable for me

For now....

ahhh makes sense. all i know is that a 991 is a pretty cool car at any age.

[V8FunNaturally]

Originally Posted by Alex_bm

And 3.8 for a 100k does?
Gtr???

it doesn't to me. The GT-R made sense to me for $80k. But 100k, for a nissan turbo, hell no.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Petros

The S55 will be more robust than the S65 and will be capable of more power reliably than the S65.

Pure speculation. Without intimate (i.e. impossible) access to the engineers who made both this can not be concluded. But either way, mod either for significantly more power and their lifespans will be shortened.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Petros

The S55 is already realistically putting out close to 450 hp stock.

I disagree. I think it is pretty well established that the car is in the neighborhood of 450 hp. The following are the evidence:

1. BMW most often under rates their turbo cars, in part to allow stated power production at widely (wider) varying environmental conditions, i.e. altitude/pressure, temperature.
2. The current M5 is under rated. It is under rated based on dynos, real world performance and physics based performance simulation.
3. BMW claims and identical (or within 0.1 sec) 0-1000m times for the new M5 and new M4. The M4 just couldn't do that given the power and weight of both vehicles.
4. Physics based performance simulations best match this 0-1000m time with 440 hp.

There really won't be more proof than this even after the car is released to mags or to the public. Dynos aren't inhernently accurate for absolute power predictions and BMW will never admit what the power is at sea level at standard temperature.

[MrPrena]

I already accepted that F8x has much higher torque and power band (even higher area under the graph for both power and torque) than E9x. F8x M3/4 would be a great car for people who like forced induction type of performance car.

Yes, I know that at a high altitude (where I am at ~5400ft) FI has much less of power loss. However, having a 2 turbo cars in the past (late 90s), I would not want to go to that route again (at least for now).
Cooling the turbo (w/ turbo timers), warm the engine oils, waste gauge, blow off valve, etc... no thanks. I will stick with NA E9x

[///Msports180]

Originally Posted by sunsweet

turbo reliability (based on bmw's previous turbo engines issues). Once it gets in the hands of people who drives their m3's hard any turbo fail could easily kill this car's reputation. And that turbo better work perfectly 100% of times. Don't forget any turbo dyno curves assume static run at an almost constant RPM. In contrast an NA engine will always give you the same power even in dynamic transitions not only static controlled ones . Next, Heat is the enemy of a turbo engine. If the boost is not properly cooled down, power performance will drop, not too mention an overheating turbo engine has exponentially growing pressure which is fast self destructing. A turbo engine is basically a plant that constantly wants to self destruct and various secondary systems are built around it to avoid that from happening ( WG, BOV, intercooler). If any of those secondary systems fail, the engine can get toasted fast. For example a BOV actuator malfunction could lead to a turbo surge.

Probably with all the temp sensors and electronics BMW put in the car it will go into limp mode instead of self destructing and they won't have to give replacement engines under warranty.

A 3.0 liter turbo engine for $70k does not make much sense.

This may have been right for a lot of early turbo car's, but no way accurate nowadays.

All temps are engineered and accounted for, they are not a bomb waiting to self destruct. If modified then they can be, as they are exceeding there designed limits, just as ANY modded car does.

I dont think BMW would sell a car such as the M3/4 as a turbo platform if it could not perform consistent laps in a hot environment without losing bulk horsepower.

Just anti technology you seem.

[991brothers]

Originally Posted by Ezio

ahhh makes sense. all i know is that a 991 is a pretty cool car at any age.

On top of that I would want the GT3 to keep me entertained.

[V8FunNaturally]

Originally Posted by Msports180

This may have been right for a lot of early turbo car's, but no way accurate nowadays.

All temps are engineered and accounted for, they are not a bomb waiting to self destruct. If modified then they can be, as they are exceeding there designed limits, just as ANY modded car does.

I dont think BMW would sell a car such as the M3/4 as a turbo platform if it could not perform consistent laps in a hot environment without losing bulk horsepower.

Just anti technology you seem.

You sound quite fresh in general and about bmw especially. Of course having a multitude of sensors connected to a powerful processing logic unit is the trend these days and it can prevent expensive repairs by detecting early malfunctions and shutting down the plant but it does not replace good engineering and experience with raced turbo engines. It is one thing to make road turbo engines for supple daily driving in traffic or sporty turboed SUV's with an M option sticker on it, it is a different game when the car will be heavily raced, pushed to the limits for hours and expected to do that every weekend. The M3 owners expect this. And yes computer simulations have so much processing power they can simulate anything. But nothing replaces raw experience, a computer only does what you ask it to, it does not tell you what you should have simulated instead. The more complex these engine gets the more unopened doors and scenarios there are and you cannot turn every stone, not even a multi billion car manufacturer can cover it all. Human brains is the bottleneck. At the end it's engineering knowhow and years of developpment and previous experience that defines success or failure. I think that this turbo m3/m4 is a much bigger risk than the NA V8 was. With turbos not only the engine without the turbo has to work flawlessly but on top of that the feedback loop through the turbo compressor spinning at very high RPM, BOV, WG, intercooler, cooling system and complex tuning of all this /with valvetronic, double VANOS is a complex multi variable system that has to operate in harmony. It is one complex gas plant. I can guarrantee you that the GT-R turbo was developped over many more years than this F8x. I would never want to own that unless it's been proven for at least 5 years . No doubt that the NA V8 is the pinnacle of a technology that has matured and that is well understood at BMW. One of their most reliable car in fact. A solid buy that felt secure (yes all that rod bearing blah is overblown by the nature of the efficient internet ).

PS: one way BMW is lowering THEIR risk is by exploding the number of sensors for detecting abnormal data so the car will be put into limp mode instead of blowing the engine. Thanks, but i'll prefer the car that I can keep on the road, not at the repair bay at the dealer. You can bet mitigating under warranty repair risk was a huge part of this m3/m4 turbo design for bmw. In fact lowering HP performance can increase safety margin. At least on an NA engine, the HP is not depending on the density of boosted air.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by sunsweet

You sound quite fresh in general and about bmw especially. Of course having a multitude of sensors connected to a powerful processing logic unit is the trend these days and it can prevent expensive repairs by detecting early malfunctions and shutting down the plant but it does not replace good engineering and experience with raced turbo engines. It is one thing to make road turbo engines for supple daily driving in traffic or sporty turboed SUV's with an M option sticker on it, it is a different game when the car will be heavily raced, pushed to the limits for hours and expected to do that every weekend. The M3 owners expect this. And yes computer simulations have so much processing power they can simulate anything. But nothing replaces raw experience, a computer only does what you ask it to, it does not tell you what you should have simulated instead. The more complex these engine gets the more unopened doors and scenarios there are and you cannot turn every stone, not even a multi billion car manufacturer can cover it all. Human brains is the bottleneck. At the end it's engineering knowhow and years of developpment and previous experience that defines success or failure. I think that this turbo m3/m4 is a much bigger risk than the NA V8 was. With turbos not only the engine without the turbo has to work flawlessly but on top of that the feedback loop through the turbo compressor spinning at very high RPM, BOV, WG, intercooler, cooling system and complex tuning of all this /with valvetronic, double VANOS is a complex multi variable system that has to operate in harmony. It is one complex gas plant. I can guarrantee you that the GT-R turbo was developped over many more years than this F8x. I would never want to own that unless it's been proven for at least 5 years . No doubt that the NA V8 is the pinnacle of a technology that has matured and that is well understood at BMW. One of their most reliable car in fact. A solid buy that felt secure (yes all that rod bearing blah is overblown by the nature of the efficient internet ).

PS: one way BMW is lowering THEIR risk is by exploding the number of sensors for detecting abnormal data so the car will be put into limp mode instead of blowing the engine. Thanks, but i'll prefer the car that I can keep on the road, not at the repair bay at the dealer. You can bet mitigating under warranty repair risk was a huge part of this m3/m4 turbo design for bmw. In fact lowering HP performance can increase safety margin. At least on an NA engine, the HP is not depending on the density of boosted air.

the simple fact is this.

If BMW could they would still be making these high powered N/A engines. a N/A performance engine has the right amount of tec in it. that guy saying you are anti technology is a true dumb comment.

its so funny that people actually think all these companies are downsizing/adding turbos because is more technological advance or something. when really all they are trying to do is decrease size of engine for taxing reasons, and getting better MPG. PERIOD

[MrPrena]

Originally Posted by sunsweet

You sound quite fresh in general and about bmw especially. Of course having a multitude of sensors connected to a powerful processing logic unit is the trend these days and it can prevent expensive repairs by detecting early malfunctions and shutting down the plant but it does not replace good engineering and experience with raced turbo engines. It is one thing to make road turbo engines for supple daily driving in traffic or sporty turboed SUV's with an M option sticker on it, it is a different game when the car will be heavily raced, pushed to the limits for hours and expected to do that every weekend. The M3 owners expect this. And yes computer simulations have so much processing power they can simulate anything. But nothing replaces raw experience, a computer only does what you ask it to, it does not tell you what you should have simulated instead. The more complex these engine gets the more unopened doors and scenarios there are and you cannot turn every stone, not even a multi billion car manufacturer can cover it all. Human brains is the bottleneck. At the end it's engineering knowhow and years of developpment and previous experience that defines success or failure. I think that this turbo m3/m4 is a much bigger risk than the NA V8 was. With turbos not only the engine without the turbo has to work flawlessly but on top of that the feedback loop through the turbo compressor spinning at very high RPM, BOV, WG, intercooler, cooling system and complex tuning of all this /with valvetronic, double VANOS is a complex multi variable system that has to operate in harmony. It is one complex gas plant. I can guarrantee you that the GT-R turbo was developped over many more years than this F8x. I would never want to own that unless it's been proven for at least 5 years . No doubt that the NA V8 is the pinnacle of a technology that has matured and that is well understood at BMW. One of their most reliable car in fact. A solid buy that felt secure (yes all that rod bearing blah is overblown by the nature of the efficient internet ).

PS: one way BMW is lowering THEIR risk is by exploding the number of sensors for detecting abnormal data so the car will be put into limp mode instead of blowing the engine. Thanks, but i'll prefer the car that I can keep on the road, not at the repair bay at the dealer. You can bet mitigating under warranty repair risk was a huge part of this m3/m4 turbo design for bmw. In fact lowering HP performance can increase safety margin. At least on an NA engine, the HP is not depending on the density of boosted air.

Well said.

I am pretty sure the 10s' turbos are far better than 90s' turbo. I remember when 300zx TT, Supra TT, RX7 TT, 3000GT VR4 TT era. When I had an RX7, it was constant headache to cool the oil (didnt have turbo timer). Warm up the oil far longer than NA cars. Not performing at optimum level after 1hr of stop&go traffic due to small intercooler.

[pbonsalb]

I like turbos so I am looking forward to seeing some road tests in the magazines soon. With both naturally aspirated and turbo, performance can vary within a considerable range. Magazine road tests of the E60M5 ranged from about 114 to about 118 in the quarter, while tests of the F10M5 range from about 117 to about 123. Some of those tests may be transmission dependent -- I just took a quick look. Anyway, on the street, a good running E60M5 might beat a poor running F10M5.

The same may be true of the new M3 versus the old M3. Again, transmissions could be a factor.

I am curious how the turbo cars do in the upper speed ranges compared to their naturally aspirated predecessors. I did not study this for the M5s during my quick look at specs. Sometimes turbo cars suffer a drop in performance the longer they are in boost, if the intercooler and turbo(s) are on the small side and oriented towards daily driving.

We will know soon enough. Since I can't buy one of the new M3s, I hope my mods (x-pipe, meth tune, intake, and pulley) help suspect they will not be enough and that a supercharger will be required.

[TurboBimmer]

Originally Posted by NavidM3E92

There is no doubt in my mind I will pick up another E92 M3 with 6MT(both previous cars were DCT) just because it was the last V8

You E9x M3 guys crack me up with that last V8 thing. You do realize it was not only the last but actually also the first V8 in an M3, just like the S55 is the first turbo engine in an M3.

[991brothers]

Originally Posted by Autobahn335i

You E9x M3 guys crack me up with that last V8 thing. You do realize it was not only the last but actually also the first V8 in an M3, just like the S55 is the first turbo engine in an M3.

The E9x M3 will always hold a special place in my heart in general.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by Autobahn335i

You E9x M3 guys crack me up with that last V8 thing. You do realize it was not only the last but actually also the first V8 in an M3, just like the S55 is the first turbo engine in an M3.

its something you just wont understand. its more so the last all out performance engine.

the new engine makes more effort to get better MPG and decrease engine size. while the V8 revs to the sky, has crazy gearing etc.. there was no effort to really get good MPG. once everything is a little eco engine, cars like the V8 m3 will be sought out.

[Petros]

Originally Posted by Ezio

its something you just wont understand. its more so the last all out performance engine.

the new engine makes more effort to get better MPG and decrease engine size. while the V8 revs to the sky, has crazy gearing etc.. there was no effort to really get good MPG. once everything is a little eco engine, cars like the V8 m3 will be sought out.

A twin turbo 3 litre V6 is hardly a "little eco engine". It will rev to 7500 rpm, which is only 900 rpm less than the S65 that "revs to the sky". Not only that but it will produce more power and torque throughout the entire rev range than any non supercharged S65, even with full bolt on mods and tune. And on top of that it will even return better fuel economy. It's a win on all fronts, except the sound department. That's really the only area where the S65 will easily trump the S55.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by Petros

A twin turbo 3 litre V6 is hardly a "little eco engine". It will rev to 7500 rpm, which is only 900 rpm less than the S65 that "revs to the sky". Not only that but it will produce more power and torque throughout the entire rev range than any non supercharged S65, even with full bolt on mods and tune. And on top of that it will even return better fuel economy. It's a win on all fronts, except the sound department. That's really the only area where the S65 will easily trump the S55.

more power doesn't mean the engine is less eco. if you really think the S55 is not a little eco engine. they we are seeing things completely different and no point to even try to debate more than this.

[Petros]

Originally Posted by Ezio

more power doesn't mean the engine is less eco. if you really think the S55 is not a little eco engine. they we are seeing things completely different and no point to even try to debate more than this.

Its definitely made with the purpose of better fuel economy. But that doesn't make it a "little eco engine" like you get in some diesel hatchback for example.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by Petros

Its definitely made with the purpose of better fuel economy. But that doesn't make it a "little eco engine" like you get in some diesel hatchback for example.

it still is a compromise!

[Petros]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

it still is a compromise!

So? An m3 has always been a compromised car.