Engine of the year nominees

[ruff]

I hope the S65 wins this award. Much easier to get big torque and horsepower numbers by slapping on turbos. IMO, the LS9 should be it's toughest competitor, considering it's torque/hp/mileage ratio. However, it will likely be the GT-R's 3.8 litre that garners the most attention.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/17/2...ced/3#comments

[!Xoible]

no it doesnt. the GTR does hands down. S65 is just a smaller version of M5's engine

if anything N54 or whatever 335's engine is

[ruff]

Originally Posted by ///Mantis

no it doesnt. the GTR does hands down. S65 is just a smaller version of M5's engine

if anything N54 or whatever 335's engine is

Car Magazine tested the R8, M3, GT-R, and Porsche Turbo. Their opinion was the M3 had the best engine of the lot and at the cheapest price to boot.

[!Xoible]

okay

[ruff]

Originally Posted by ///Mantis

okay

Oh come on Mantis, don't roll over that easy.

[RandyB]

Originally Posted by ruff

Car Magazine tested the R8, M3, GT-R, and Porsche Turbo. Their opinion was the M3 had the best engine of the lot and at the cheapest price to boot.

That was a great compliment indeed, considering the fast company. The M3 engine is a gem. It gets my vote!

[!Xoible]

Originally Posted by ruff

Oh come on Mantis, don't roll over that easy.

well im sure they know better about engines. i just think the GTR is an impressive car overall, but maybe the M's engine is a better engine. if they said M3 > GTR i would have kept on arguing. im convinced

[ruff]

Originally Posted by RandyB

That was a great compliment indeed, considering the fast company. The M3 engine is a gem. It gets my vote!

Indeed,

You know the engine in the GT3 is truly remarkable. Two less cylinders than the S65 and .4 litre's smaller as well; yet has the same red line, similar horsepower and torque numbers but better mileage. The mileage improvement is likely attributed to less vehicle weight. I do slightly prefer the torque curve of the S65

[umwolverine]

I'd vote for the M. I might be a little bias though.

[Davinhci]

the M of course

[RandyB]

Originally Posted by ruff

Indeed,

You know the engine in the GT3 is truly remarkable. Two less cylinders than the S65 and .4 litre's smaller as well; yet has the same red line, similar horsepower and torque numbers but better mileage. The mileage improvement is likely attributed to less vehicle weight. I do slightly prefer the torque curve of the S65

I love the GT3 3.6 - it's so impressive for an engine that size. I'm very happy with what BMW was able to do with the M3 engine and for the price of the car. The torque curve is amazingly broad - I don't see how they pulled that off.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by RandyB

I love the GT3 3.6 - it's so impressive for an engine that size. I'm very happy with what BMW was able to do with the M3 engine and for the price of the car. The torque curve is amazingly broad - I don't see how they pulled that off.

I am with you on all points. If you you think about it, it is quite remarkable how close the mileage is to the 3.6 with it's 15/22, given it's weight disadvantage and two plus cylinder count. It also shows how great of an engine the 4.2 litre Audi builds, pushing AWD.

With DFI, the S65 engine would of been a grand slam, especially given it's price point. Richter said he believes we are about as advanced as we can get in regards to performance to efficiency. I doubt that. It will be very interesting to see if Porsche will be able to pull off second generation DFI with the GT3's high revving 3.6. It is rumored that Ferrari is in the process of implementing DFI into their stratospheric revving powerplants.

[Epacy]

A good post ruff.

[Krueger///M3]

I was wondering, why do Ferrari, Lamborghini, or Mercedes never get nominated for Engine of the Year awards hardly ever? BMW takes a majority of the awards. Are BMW engines that much better?

(P.S I know that they are awesome)

[RandyB]

Originally Posted by Krueger///M3

I was wondering, why do Ferrari, Lamborghini, or Mercedes never get nominated for Engine of the Year awards hardly ever? BMW takes a majority of the awards. Are BMW engines that much better?

(P.S I know that they are awesome)

In the case of Ferrari and Lamborghini, they may not produce their engines in high enough volumes to meet the minimum requirements for consideration. I'm not entirely sure though.

[ChrisFastM3]

^^^^^^^^^^

I know I'm about to get flamed for this but, the LP 640 produces 633hp out of a 6.5l v12 making 97hp per liter NA & the e46 m3 (with it's engine of the year back to back) produced 333hp out of a 3.2l inline 6 making 104hp per liter NA. That could have something to do with it.............

Can't say anything about Ferrari though. Their engines are pure sex

[mkoesel]

Regard Ferrari and Lamborghini, I'm pretty sure they only include engines in cars under $100k (or something close to that).

[SnowsM3]

Don't forget about weight and packaging. How do the GT3 & GTR engines compare to the S65 engine in that department? If both engines are significantly larger and/or heavier they should take that into consideration. That is one of the most important attributes in my opinion. Anyone know?

[ersin]

If it is just engines we're talking about, and it is, the S65 could compete very well with those other engines. Put it in a lighter car like the Z4 M and I'm sure you would keep up with, maybe even outrun a GT3/GT-R. The S54 engine in the E46 M3 won best engine and the S65 has nearly the same hp/displacement with two more cylinders, .6 liter more displacement, yet weighs 30+ pounds lighter. I can easily see this engine beating out the others. If BMW can be lauded for anything, it is their engines. After all, MOTOR is BMWs middle name.

[footie]

I notice no-one has considered the RS6 engine in this discussion, or the 2.0twin-turbo diesel from the 123d. Both these engines are equally as brilliant as the N65 from the M3.

For a start lets consider the BMW 2.0tt diesel, this is the first production all-alloy diesel unit to achieve more than 100hp per litre, it's ultra economical, very fast for a diesel and has incredibly low Co2 levels for the performance.

Next the RS6, to me from purely a engineering achievement it's engine is the most special of the bunch (this is not my Audi head on here guys). For a start this engine has an incredibly wide torque range, even for a turbo unit (1500~6250rpm) and then you factor in that the power peaks at 6250rpm and continues this peak until 6750rpm, just shy of maximum revs. This figures alone would deserve it's inclusion in the nominees but then you consider that compared to it's rivals which I might add have even less power and torque, they can't even compete with it's economy, it's Co2 levels.

This is one seriously impressive engine, as all of the nominees are.

I still think that with the present economical issues hanging heavy in every one's minds I can't see any engine other than the 123d winning this prize.