M5 V10 vs. M3 V8 vs. others

[swamp2]

Overall I am very pleased with the engine specs and performance. Perhaps it will be slightly under rated as well but I would not count on much here. Even though the car is sure to be a screamer and to trounce the competion given these four key points: power to weight, awesome redline, gearing and (eventually 7sp SMG or ZSG). For those of you whining about not getting 430-450 hp look at the F360 specs below (hp and torque)!! And PLEASE try to consider the whole package not just one number!

I think the most impressive things BMW achieved are the redline (second only to Ferrari (and maybe a single year of the S2000)) and the really broad, flat torque curve. The latter is especially impressive given the quite peaky torque curve of the engine it is based on, the M5. My largest disappointment has nothing to do with specs but it is the lack of direct injection. This would have surely helped hp, torque and mpg. Where did that nice smooth, flat, broad torque curve come from then? Perhaps more differences in the two designs will surface later but now we don't really have much.

-Improved header design(?): From pictures the headers look smoother (less crimping) and routed differently with some very long headers in what appears to be an attempt to have all equal lengths before the 4 into 1.
-VANOS: BMW claims V8 uses dual chain drives wherea M5 uses a single chain (pictures seem to contradict this - I clearly see two chains on both).
-VANOS: V8 gets a step motor vs. helical gears on V10 - this gives faster and more precise VANOS control.
-VANOS: V8 uses low pressure oil, M5 a high pressure system to get the fast precise control (I think I recall a service issue with the M5 VANOS lines...).

That is all I could find. Seems like a lot of work was done on the breathing systems and the benefits to the torque curve really paid off.

So in the end if you examine the RS4, E60 M5 V10 and E92 M3 V8 engines the real innovators were the RS4 and M5, the M3 V8 is just a very "productive refinement".

Some specs of my choosing, with a rough "ranking":

335i: 419 lb, 3.0 l, 300 hp, 300 ft lb, 100 hp/l, 7000 rpm
F360: 406 lb, 3.6 l, 400 hp, 275 ft lb, 112 hp/l, 8500 rpm
RS4: 457 lb, 4.2 l, 420 hp, 317 ft lb, 100 hp/l, 8250 rpm
M3 V8: 445 lb, 4.0 l, 420 hp, 295 ft lb, 105 hp/l, 8400 rpm
F430: 414 lb, 4.3 l, 483 hp, 343 ft lb, 112 hp/l, 8500 rpm

Ferrari is still the king! BMW should have given us 8600 rpm just for one-upmanship.

[mkoesel]

Nice post. Nice comparo at the end.

If you are a engine tech-geek like me (sounds like you are), google "TVR Speed Six" and check out the specs, especially the higher displacement versions. Another fantastic motor. 380ft-lb from a naturally aspirated six cylinder is madnesss. The old M senior sixes were great in their day as well.

[sdiver68]

some more engines:

AMG 6.3L 438lbs 507HP/465 TQ
GM LS7 (Z06) 458lbs 505HP/475 TQ

IMHO, mass and dimensions versus performance is a much better yardstick than hp/l.

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by swamp2

For those of you whining about not getting 430-450 hp look at the F360 specs below (hp and torque)!! And PLEASE try to consider the whole package not just one number!

When did wanting ultimate engine performance become whining?

Let's look at the whole package for the 360. Weight of the 360: 1390 kg (3064 lb)

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by ILC32

When did wanting ultimate engine performance become whining?

Let's look at the whole package for the 360. Weight of the 360: 1390 kg (3064 lb)

Plus dealership visits and legendary maintenance costs and nightmares. IMHO, Ferrari should not even be considered in this "argument" they are such fragile toys.

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

some more engines:

AMG 6.3L 438lbs 507HP/465 TQ
GM LS7 (Z06) 458lbs 505HP/475 TQ

IMHO, mass and dimensions versus performance is a much better yardstick than hp/l.

The AMG 6.3 and LS7 motors are startlingly low.

There is no way to know whether any of the weight figures can really be compared. Some manufacturers may include accessory drive items (alternator, water pump, etc.) in their published weight figures, but others may not.

[ImOntheWater]

How about the 997 GT3

3.6L, 415bhp @ 7600rpm, 298lb/ft @ 5500rpm, 8400rpm redline, 115.3bhp/litre.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

some more engines:

AMG 6.3L 438lbs 507HP/465 TQ
GM LS7 (Z06) 458lbs 505HP/475 TQ

IMHO, mass and dimensions versus performance is a much better yardstick than hp/l.

unless you live in a country where they impose taxes on bigger displacements.


Also, I don't buy the low pressure VANOs thing. I think they removed it for weight more than anything else.

[E36325is]

Yeah at this point I am most concerned abt the new M3's weight, hope with all the measures like alu bonnet, all alu engine, CFRP top, fiberglass front fenders hope it won't weigh more than 1,500kg.......

[swamp2]

Sure guys F360 and GT3 are wonderful cars, with amazing lb/hp, however they do not offer anything even in the same ball park of $ / (lb/hp). M3 gets you similar hp, similar redline, a bit of a hit on lb/hp and an ungodly hit on $ (and maintenance dollars as was mentioned). Not good comparisons at all back at ya!

I was trying to focus just on engines as well which was the point of my post.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ILC32

When did wanting ultimate engine performance become whining?

Come on, tell me folks are not totally whining here and on many other boards? Whining about this stellar engine only really means one or more of these things:

-You have/had totally unrealistic expections
-You believed the nonsense about 440-450 hp
-You don't understand what this engine achieves

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Come on, tell me folks are not totally whining here and on many other boards? Whining about this stellar engine only really means one or more of these things:

-You have/had totally unrealistic expections
-You believed the nonsense about 440-450 hp
-You don't understand what this engine achieves

In your poll, you predicted the motor would make 430-439, I said 410-419.

Who had unrealistic expectations?

I get it now. If someone disagrees with you, they are whining.

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Not good comparisons at all

That was my point. Your post is the one that set out the comparison.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by swamp2

-You have/had totally unrealistic expections
-You believed the nonsense about 440-450 hp
-You don't understand what this engine achieves

Also

- You do not feel the motor will sufficiently compensate for your undersized manhood

[southlight]

Originally Posted by E36325is

Yeah at this point I am most concerned abt the new M3's weight, hope with all the measures like alu bonnet, all alu engine, CFRP top, fiberglass front fenders hope it won't weigh more than 1,500kg.......

It won't weigh less than the E46 M3!

Best regards, south

[T Bone]

Just like the M5 / M6....through high revs and gearing.... Don;t you love it when a chase car smokes the racing cars?? (Maranello has 434 foot pounds of torque and 530 hp)

M6 vs. tuned 550 (I love LED taillights)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0xm6RvxjqU

M5 vs 550 MARANELLO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvQ9TLOpDLU

M5 vs 550 Tuned vs 575 RED ONE vs 996TT

And after you have the same 550 Tuned vs the M5

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Also

- You do not feel the motor will sufficiently compensate for your undersized manhood

Apologists.

Face it, this engine as spec'd is not a technological marvel.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Apologists.

Face it, this engine as spec'd is not a technological marvel.

Have you not seen the torque curve? Show us any other atmospheric engine with that torque curve.

When you mate it to a close ratio gear box, it is going to blow the doors off the other cars in its class.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Apologists.

Face it, this engine as spec'd is not a technological marvel.

So? Its hardly a poor effort - its world class. Just like the S85 and S54 before it were not "technological marvels", but still win/won award after award and keep the competition at bay.

[maq]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Have you not seen the torque curve? Show us any other atmospheric engine with that torque curve.

When you mate it to a close ratio gear box, it is going to blow the doors off the other cars in its class.

I don't get it. Why would it need a close ratio box? The point of a flat torque curve is that you have a wide powerband and don't need to change gears as often. A close ratio box is used for motors with a short powerband. The S65 delivers 85% of its torque in a range of 6500rpm. A typical CR box makes you shift within a 3000rpm or less rev range, how can that improve the new M3's performance? You are narrowing/wasting your own powerband and losing time in shifting.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by maq

I don't get it. Why would it need a close ratio box? The point of a flat torque curve is that you have a wide powerband and don't need to change gears as often. A close ratio box is used for motors with a short powerband. The S65 delivers 85% of its torque in a range of 6500rpm. A typical CR box makes you shift within a 3000rpm or less rev range, how can that improve the new M3's performance? You are narrowing/wasting your own powerband and losing time in shifting.

Horsepower is a measure of work. More work the drivetrain can do, the faster you accelerate.

Revs are as important as torque in determining the amount of work a drivetrain can do.

So while you main get 85% of the engines torque low in the power band, you actually want to be pounding through the gears at the higher rpms (while trying to maintain torque).

The flat torque curve is really good for flexibility but when you are tracking / performance driving, revs are critical to extract max performance and a close ratio gear box gives you high revs with relatively constant torque.

This goes to Lance Armstrong / Jan Ullich examples....

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by southlight

It won't weigh less than the E46 M3!

Best regards, south

Interesting. What is causing it to be so heavy when they are taking all these steps to reduce weight?
Also, is that base weight you speak of without any options?