BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
GT Haus
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      03-23-2007, 07:51 AM   #1
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,586
iTrader: (1)

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.
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 08:19 AM   #2
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: IB/PS M-DCT E93 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 12,999
iTrader: (1)

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.
__________________
2008 Interlagos Blue E93 M3 - M-DCT
2011 Salsa Red Jetta TDI Sportwagen - DSG
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 08:51 AM   #3
sdiver68
Expert Road Racer
 
Drives: 07 335i e90, 09 335i e93
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO

Posts: 1,330
iTrader: (3)

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.
sdiver68 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 09:02 AM   #4
ILC32
Lieutenant
 
ILC32's Avatar
 
Drives: 1993 Porsche RSA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere

Posts: 580
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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)
ILC32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 09:05 AM   #5
sdiver68
Expert Road Racer
 
Drives: 07 335i e90, 09 335i e93
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO

Posts: 1,330
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILC32 View Post
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.
sdiver68 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 09:11 AM   #6
ILC32
Lieutenant
 
ILC32's Avatar
 
Drives: 1993 Porsche RSA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere

Posts: 580
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdiver68 View Post
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.
ILC32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 09:24 AM   #7
ImOntheWater
New Member
 
Drives: Seat Leon Cupra R, Scirocco
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cheshire, UK

Posts: 24
iTrader: (0)

How about the 997 GT3

3.6L, 415bhp @ 7600rpm, 298lb/ft @ 5500rpm, 8400rpm redline, 115.3bhp/litre.
ImOntheWater is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 09:27 AM   #8
T Bone
Brigadier General
 
T Bone's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

Posts: 4,021
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdiver68 View Post
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.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 09:37 AM   #9
E36325is
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 1M coupe
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hong Kong

Posts: 220
iTrader: (0)

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.......
E36325is is offline   Hong Kong
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 10:54 AM   #10
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,586
iTrader: (1)

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.
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 10:59 AM   #11
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,586
iTrader: (1)

Tell me folks are not

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILC32 View Post
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
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 11:20 AM   #12
ILC32
Lieutenant
 
ILC32's Avatar
 
Drives: 1993 Porsche RSA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere

Posts: 580
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 11:21 AM   #13
ILC32
Lieutenant
 
ILC32's Avatar
 
Drives: 1993 Porsche RSA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere

Posts: 580
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Not good comparisons at all
That was my point. Your post is the one that set out the comparison.
ILC32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 11:24 AM   #14
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: IB/PS M-DCT E93 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 12,999
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
-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
__________________
2008 Interlagos Blue E93 M3 - M-DCT
2011 Salsa Red Jetta TDI Sportwagen - DSG
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 11:39 AM   #15
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,727
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by E36325is View Post
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
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 11:39 AM   #16
T Bone
Brigadier General
 
T Bone's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

Posts: 4,021
iTrader: (0)

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
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 11:40 AM   #17
sdiver68
Expert Road Racer
 
Drives: 07 335i e90, 09 335i e93
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO

Posts: 1,330
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
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.
sdiver68 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 11:49 AM   #18
T Bone
Brigadier General
 
T Bone's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

Posts: 4,021
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdiver68 View Post
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.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 12:10 PM   #19
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: IB/PS M-DCT E93 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 12,999
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdiver68 View Post
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.
__________________
2008 Interlagos Blue E93 M3 - M-DCT
2011 Salsa Red Jetta TDI Sportwagen - DSG
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 12:54 PM   #20
maq
Lieutenant
 
Drives: MTA Monthly Pass
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC

Posts: 470
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
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.
maq is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 01:32 PM   #21
T Bone
Brigadier General
 
T Bone's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

Posts: 4,021
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by maq View Post
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....
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-23-2007, 02:32 PM   #22
Epacy
Reincarnated
 
Epacy's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Maxima SE
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: IL

Posts: 4,227
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
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?
__________________
Epacy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST