|
|
03-23-2007, 07:51 AM | #1 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
M5 V10 vs. M3 V8 vs. others
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. |
03-23-2007, 08:19 AM | #2 |
Moderator
7509
Rep 19,370
Posts |
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 08:51 AM | #3 |
Expert Road Racer
59
Rep 1,329
Posts |
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 09:02 AM | #4 | |
Lieutenant
26
Rep 580
Posts |
Quote:
Let's look at the whole package for the 360. Weight of the 360: 1390 kg (3064 lb) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 09:05 AM | #5 |
Expert Road Racer
59
Rep 1,329
Posts |
Plus dealership visits and legendary maintenance costs and nightmares. IMHO, Ferrari should not even be considered in this "argument" they are such fragile toys.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 09:11 AM | #6 | |
Lieutenant
26
Rep 580
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 09:27 AM | #8 | |
Brigadier General
530
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
Also, I don't buy the low pressure VANOs thing. I think they removed it for weight more than anything else.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 09:37 AM | #9 |
Second Lieutenant
18
Rep 220
Posts |
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.......
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 10:54 AM | #10 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Weight, price
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 10:59 AM | #11 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Tell me folks are not
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 |
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 11:20 AM | #12 | |
Lieutenant
26
Rep 580
Posts |
Quote:
Who had unrealistic expectations? I get it now. If someone disagrees with you, they are whining. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 11:24 AM | #14 |
Moderator
7509
Rep 19,370
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 11:39 AM | #15 |
Moderator / European Editor
1492
Rep 6,755
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 11:39 AM | #16 |
Brigadier General
530
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
How BMW will beat higher HP / Torque Cars
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
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 11:40 AM | #17 |
Expert Road Racer
59
Rep 1,329
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 11:49 AM | #18 | |
Brigadier General
530
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
When you mate it to a close ratio gear box, it is going to blow the doors off the other cars in its class.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 12:10 PM | #19 |
Moderator
7509
Rep 19,370
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 12:54 PM | #20 |
Lieutenant
12
Rep 469
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 01:32 PM | #21 | |
Brigadier General
530
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
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....
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-23-2007, 02:32 PM | #22 |
Reincarnated
245
Rep 4,227
Posts |
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?
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|