End of an Era -- next gen M3 will be turbo'd

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

How about we all take (another) deep breath, relax a bit, and look at the basics. This discussion is really about engines.

...

Nice post Bruce. One of your better ones, in fact.

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.

[footie]

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.

[Heat00]

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!

[RandyB]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I've grown to love these cars and letting go is very hard to do.

So don't!

I don't plan to. Ever.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by addy85

Hmmm who would of guessed it, Sticky in another argument

Why are you here? You can dream about M3's from e90post.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by haen

Why don't you start by showing me where BMW mentions that the reason the inline 6 in the e46 M3 was heavier than the e92 M3's V8 was because it was cast iron. I'm not going to reply to another one of your posts until you provide this info. I'm getting tired of your baseless claims.


You're not going to find any. No manufacturers make 4.0 V8 but we can compare its weight with larger displacement V8s which will highlight the fact that the M3's V8 is heavy for its displacement. I don't know of a single manufacturer that makes 4.0 liter V8s. Do you?



All those BMW inline 6's that are getting 600hp are turbo charged, so I don't see what you're getting at. What is the point of this aftermarket reference? Bang for your buck? What the hell are you talking about? You need to drop this because you're not making any sense.



The FXX is not the Enzo successor. It's a platform Ferrari uses to test new parts. Regardless, the next car Ferrari produces will use turbos.



I'm starting to think that you're not comprehending anything I say. We are talking about just the engines, not the entire car. Which engine makes more HP? Which engine makes more torque? End of discussion.



NA is old tech because it isn't as efficient as FI. The automotive industry is moving toward more efficient cars. BMW's favorite new term is Efficient Dynamics. Direct Injection makes a far larger impact in a FI engine vs an NA engine and the rest of the tech you listed for NA also works for FI.



I understand. Will you please listen to what I write? FI will replace NA because it is more efficient in terms of power, fuel consumption and size.



You can spend your money however you want. Like I said, it's your opinion. It doesn't change the facts though.



Maybe other manufacturers just choose not to go the high revving NA path. Audi's RS4 seemed to get 100hp/liter without a problem.



Most people take the easy way out? No, most people are rational and understand that their viewpoint is not always the right one. I understand that it takes a lot of engineering brainpower to make an M3 or M5, but do you think that AMG/Quattro just whip up their cars in a single afternoon? Stop being so BMW bias.

Huh? BMW assumes people have common sense and can figure out iron is heavier than aluminum. You need BMW to hold your hand before you figure this out?

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.

[addy85]

Originally Posted by Sticky

Why are you here? You can dream about M3's from e90post.

dream about an m3 right...... Lol no wonder no one likes you

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by addy85

dream about an m3 right...... Lol no wonder no one likes you

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.

[addy85]

Originally Posted by Sticky

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.

me and you friends? That's not possible I don't drive an m3 remember.

Hey didn't you get banned for being, well you? That would be a pleasant gift for my e birthday

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by haen

No, I don't care about HP/liter and neither should you. It's not like there are engine displacement restrictions for production cars.

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.

[haen]

Sticky, I'm tired of this conversation and repeating myself. Enjoy your 14th birthday.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

All while making less power and with more weight than the other two engines mentioned. Huh. Impressive!

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.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by swamp2

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.

I've never been a big fan of making a problem artificially difficult by placing made up restrictions on how I was going to solve it.

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.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Nice post Bruce. One of your better ones, in fact.

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.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by enigma

I've never been a big fan of making a problem artificially difficult by placing made up restrictions on how I was going to solve it.

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.

Limits on displacement come about in two main areas; taxation in the EU based on displacement and in racing. You know better and I just posted that above as well.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

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.

OK, tax regs are important in some countries, but in regard to engineering, I have this feeling that if you were in your Z06-powered M3 against my stock M3, blowing exhaust in my face as you ran away from me, your top thought wouldn't be: "Yeah, I'm killing him, but his car was more difficult to engineer. Damn!"

Bruce

[Advskier]

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.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

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.

Yes.

We've been through this. As soon as as you have something that proves anything different, get back to me.

Bruce

[Moderato]

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.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Limits on displacement come about in two main areas; taxation in the EU based on displacement and in racing. You know better and I just posted that above as well.

Neither of those apply to the M3. BMW clearly can sell larger disp cars if they want, well, because they already do.

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.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Advskier

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.

My writing was done with a certain amount of careful thought, especially toward clarity.

Your reading lacked that effort.

Bruce

[haen]

Originally Posted by swamp2

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.

Maybe his "continued insistence" was based on facts. All information comes from manufacturer's own press releases.

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