|
|
01-03-2013, 08:47 PM | #23 |
First Lieutenant
22
Rep 351
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-03-2013, 08:50 PM | #24 | |
Chemofski
54
Rep 1,295
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
'13 Individual Frozen Brilliant White ///M3 Coupe
Ordered 2/15/12 | Euro Delivery on 9/21/12 | U.S. Redelivery on 12/6/12 | Motor Dead on 7/15/13 '13 Space Gray/Mugello Red X5///M Pavement Punisher | Snow Muncher | Family and Board Hauler | Roadtripper |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-03-2013, 10:23 PM | #25 | ||
Major
140
Rep 1,242
Posts
Drives: 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida's Emerald Coast
|
Quote:
Of course successive generations of M3/4 will follow in the footsteps of their generational predecessors by delivering more performance, but if more performance had been the overriding goal, Nissan had/has just the car for me. The S engines are special not only for what they do, but how they do it. Quote:
__________________
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-03-2013, 11:29 PM | #26 |
Major
18
Rep 1,112
Posts |
I'm sure the next gen will be a beast, wouldnt expect anything less from the ///M Division. For those of us who grew up with muscle cars back in the 70s, the S65 brings all that NA small block V8 fun around again.
__________________
...just enjoying life.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2013, 12:17 AM | #27 | |
Captain
72
Rep 959
Posts |
Quote:
Whether you like it or not, the powercurve and displacement of the S65 is very similar to B18C5. Dating back to the Honda days, I've seen 9,500rpm with a heavily built NA motor that included everything. 10K is like Warp 10 ... Its something hard to get on a Valve Spring motor, especially 4.0L If someone would like to try, I would like to see this. Getting back on topic, the S65 will hold a very special place in my heart for the sole reason of the sound alone. This motor is by far the best sounding I have ever heard. I can only imagine what power and noise those SCed guys are feeling. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2013, 02:39 PM | #28 | ||||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
The ZR1 makes 604(!) pound feet of torque, or a little more than double the M3 figure. That means the ZR1 clutch needs to be a bunch beefier than the M3 unit, and it also means the transmission input shaft needs to be very beefy, and/or made out of unobtanium, and/or heat treated to within an inch of its life. However, consider that the first gear ratio of the ZR1 is at 2.29, vs the M3 ratio of 4.06. First, the torque capacity of a given transmission varies depending upon its first gear ratio - meaning that multiplication of torque is trying to tear the rest of the transmission apart. One of the ways you increase the torque capacity of a transmission is to numerically lower the gear ratios, and the Vette is a prime example of this. The Grand Sport's transmission is rated at around 480 pound feet of torque with its 2.95 first gear, but the ZR1 box (same case, gear sizes, etc.) is rated to take 600 foot pounds, in large measure because of its 2.29 first gear ratio. Yes, there are other changes, but the ratio change is the biggest enabler. The Vette trans weighs around 220 pounds, while if memory serves, the M3 box comes in a a hair over 200, largely because it needs to be beefy to enable that aggressive first gear ratio. Now, let's compare torque at the transmission output. In the Vette, it's a massive 1383 pound feet, but wait!, the M3 shows a not inconsequential 1198 pound feet (295 X 4.06), meaning the Vette is only showing about 15% more thrust at that junction. 15% means that the differential and half-shasts need to be beefed up, but not by a ton. My overall point on this is that big torque requires less aggressive gearing, so driveline weights don't change very much. Consider the ZR1, with more than double the M's torque, only needs 15% beefier components, except for the transmission input. Quote:
Quote:
I do admit that the lower revving car would likely have an advantage at that point since it would likely have less rotational inertia, only needing half the rev increase for any given gain in speed, but I hope you get my point about horsepower and weight, regardless of gearing (i.e. - mechanical advantage). Quote:
Bruce |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2013, 08:57 PM | #29 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
65
Rep 1,705
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2013, 09:05 PM | #30 | |
Private First Class
3
Rep 133
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2013, 09:18 PM | #31 | |
that's what SHE said!
75
Rep 1,163
Posts |
Quote:
S65 is a gem of an engine. Ask anyone that really knows engines what they want a torque curve to look like and it would turn out like the one the S65 produces. While it doesn't make the most power, there's something to be said about it's eight individual throttle butterflies that produce a near instantaneous response. If you really want to understand why the e9x M3 keeps winning comparison after comparison, almost to the point where it doesn't seem fair, it's because of this responsiveness. BMW gives drivers the right options of a traditional 6-speed and excellent DCT to accompany this powerplant. I'm sure the future turbo engines will be great, but for certain, the NA S65 and S85 engines will both be missed.
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2013, 11:31 PM | #32 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
On the street, do you know of any exoticars that use small engines? Look, if you have a strong preference for limited displacement and high revs, that's OK with me, but you haven't made a general case that those engines are inherently "better". In fact, as I've mentioned in the past, the M3 would be a better performer while getting better mileage if it just had a stock Corvette Grand Sport engine under the hood. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-05-2013, 07:40 AM | #33 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
65
Rep 1,705
Posts |
Quote:
Porsche's and Ferrari's come to mind, and I wouldn't call Honda S2000's exotic, but all three of those manufacturers build high specific output NA engines when they very easily could build torque monsters. The most exciting porsche to most people on this forum seems to always be the GT3, even over the GT2. The most exciting Ferrari to most is the Italia, which has a smaller motor than a $30k Mustang GT. Other street "exotics" I can think of are sport bikes. How many sport bikes use torquey V-twins, and how do they compare to the high revving BMW and Japanese four-bangers in performance?
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-05-2013, 08:08 AM | #34 |
Croatian
884
Rep 3,613
Posts
Drives: PORSCHE
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: NYC
|
I pulled the trigger on my '13 M3 for the same reason as when I purchased my '08 GT3. The engine. The razor sharp response, the noise, the ticking at idol, just answers what the engineers intent was. Racing experience. These cars are like Olympic athletes, focused to the goal of winning and nothing more. Gives me goose bumps.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-05-2013, 08:42 AM | #35 | |
Banned
98
Rep 1,265
Posts
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China
|
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-05-2013, 06:58 PM | #36 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Instead of either agreement or a fully reasoned rebuttal, you give me "I think my points are validated by the choice of low displacement, bore > stroke, high revving engines in all true performance applications, i.e. Formula 1, sport bikes, etc." Then you state only those performance applications that bolster your opinion, and ignore other examples. Give me a break, here. Listen, I brought up the ZR1 example to demonstrate how insanely high torque outputs don't typically result in driveline weight gains in any linear way - and precisely why that is so. Now you say "NASCAR and NHRA have max engine sizes, and I'm sure they target high power bands vs. low end torque". Well duh. Max power per unit of displacement is only reachable at higher rpm, whether force fed or NA. Torque monsters are valueless in a race environment, as long as speeds are high. Horsepower is the only arbiter when speed is part of the equation, so high specific output is mandatory. It's that simple. Yes, I guess you could classify the ZR1 as a torque monster - but fortunately it's also a power monster. I remind you that you are the only one talking about "torque monsters" here. Sheer power is what rules, whether it's developed at 8300 rpm or 4150. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-05-2013, 07:45 PM | #37 |
Banned
42
Rep 1,463
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-05-2013, 08:58 PM | #38 |
Long-term Enthusiast
4
Rep 95
Posts
Drives: '14 Porsche Cayman S
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
|
For me: Linear torque curve, throttle response, revs, intake sound, intake sound and intake sound!
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-06-2013, 02:58 AM | #39 |
First Lieutenant
89
Rep 325
Posts |
For me, the S65 represents BMW's last pure effort to linking its racing technology to everyday car engines. A time where "performance" was the only consideration. Where the "means" was just as important as the "ends".
A force induction M will be fast I'm sure, but will somehow miss in delivering the frenetic F-1 feel of a NA motor. It will truly be missed. OR maybe I'll keep her and get the M4 as my "beater" car. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-06-2013, 12:51 PM | #40 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
65
Rep 1,705
Posts |
Quote:
I'm curious what your theory is on why Ferrari doesn't use huge engines to develop max power. My guess is that they are trying to be efficient with the power to weight ratio. Sure, Bugatti has their quad turbo W16 monster, but that is not a track focused platform. It is the ultimate GT, which has different priorities over sports cars.
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-06-2013, 01:15 PM | #41 | |
Captain
141
Rep 979
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
Mods: too many the list wont fit in the sig page. PM me
Tesla Referral code: http://ts.la/juliana77782 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-07-2013, 01:15 AM | #42 | |||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
...and by the way, have you noticed that Ferrari is building some larger engines nowadays? Quote:
They also dominated GT1 for many years. How is that possible? Look, I'm not saying very high revs are in any way undesireable, just not always necessary. In fact, the M3 engine is a world class powerplant - but so is the Merc 6.2 liter, and so is the Z06 7 liter. Look, this all started with me pointing out my disagreements with most of the basic points in your initial post - which by the way you have not yet refuted in any meaningfull way. Why don't you? Bruce PS - Just remembered those 7 liter Ford GTs back in the sixties that beat the crap out of the Ferraris. My point in mentioning that is to show that few things are absolute. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
01-07-2013, 01:31 AM | #43 | |
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor
3387
Rep 7,541
Posts |
Quote:
If you are ever down in the socal area, please let me know. I want to read that for myself. Will only take 2 minutes If 12K rpm only gets you a broken valve spring then these things might as well be bulletproof!!
__________________
-----| Like us on Facebook | Instagram || Tuning Information | Remote Coding |----- ----Visit us at www.BPMSport.com - Emotion. Driven. | Toll Free: (888) 557-5133---- |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-07-2013, 01:55 AM | #44 |
Banned
7779
Rep 2,602
Posts
Drives: MW Vespa w/pink racing stripes
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Peeing in your garden
|
not a day goes by that i don't miss my M... i've had the luxury of driving cars most kids have posters of on their walls, or i've destroyed those same cars with my motorcycles, but there was just something about my M that always put a smile on my face...
currently, in the garage there is a '13 535 MSport and a '13 335 MSport (6MT) and neither of them give me the feeling i used to have with my M... just about the only thing i prefer more is i am not going to the gas station every 48 hours now, in fact, i made it from LA to SF in the 535 on about 3/4's tank of gas, and i tend to drive like a ride a motorcycle... as for the GTR, i've logged now at least 2500 - 3000 miles on a black edition... this car is WICKED fast, grips like the tires are coated in gorilla glue to the pavement, you just cannot make a mistake in this car... what i mean is, the car just won't let you make a mistake... literally... well, except this one time... anyways, back to the subject at hand... IN A STRAIGHT LINE this car is so much fun, it's insanity... closest feeling you will get to what its like full throttle on a motorcycle... however, the rest of the driving is SO detached from the driver, it just seems sureal at times... it's difficult to pinpoint without you having the opportunity to log some serious miles in the car... when you compare it to one of his other cars, namely the CL65, that thing has this ridiculous amount of torque, but when you actually DRIVE it, you get that sensation of "the car is trying to murder me" anytime you give it gas in a turn or a curve... you miss that sensation in the GTR... |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|