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)
 
ESS Tuning
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-21-2007, 03:51 PM   #67
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 GregW / Oregon View Post
S54 has 91mm bore x 87mm stroke, so oversquare by a factor of 1.05:1. The S65 is 92 x 75.2, or a ratio of 1.22:1, so much more oversquare.
Also going with a more oversquare design, they were able to really drop the rotating mass.

Have you guys seen the bedplate crank design? Beautiful....this allows much higher revs in addition to oversquaring the engine.

The short of it is BMW has made a conscience decision to pursue lightweight drivetrain designs and high revs...... We are going to see the next M cars become superlight weight with about the same power.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 04:14 PM   #68
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,487
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Drivetrain

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
Also going with a more oversquare design, they were able to really drop the rotating mass.

Have you guys seen the bedplate crank design? Beautiful....this allows much higher revs in addition to oversquaring the engine.

The short of it is BMW has made a conscience decision to pursue lightweight drivetrain designs and high revs...... We are going to see the next M cars become superlight weight with about the same power.
And thank God, no mechanical valve adjustments necessary! That's an expensive routine for the S54.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 04:28 PM   #69
2m3
Private First Class
 
Drives: 1995 M3, 1988 M3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: HIllside VIllage, ca 90032

Posts: 135
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon View Post
S54 has 91mm bore x 87mm stroke, so oversquare by a factor of 1.05:1. The S65 is 92 x 75.2, or a ratio of 1.22:1, so much more oversquare.
You get it the other way around on the bore/stroke spec

ON the S54:
The bore: 87 mm
Stroke: 91 mm

So it is a over bore design or undersquare
2m3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 04:33 PM   #70
2m3
Private First Class
 
Drives: 1995 M3, 1988 M3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: HIllside VIllage, ca 90032

Posts: 135
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
Also going with a more oversquare design, they were able to really drop the rotating mass.

Have you guys seen the bedplate crank design? Beautiful....this allows much higher revs in addition to oversquaring the engine.

The short of it is BMW has made a conscience decision to pursue lightweight drivetrain designs and high revs...... We are going to see the next M cars become superlight weight with about the same power.
The conrod bearing and crank bearing are the important parts in concert with the lighweight rotating mass
2m3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 04:46 PM   #71
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,487
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Over/under square

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2m3 View Post
You get it the other way around on the bore/stroke spec

ON the S54:
The bore: 87 mm
Stroke: 91 mm

So it is a over bore design or undersquare
You are correct; I was temporarily dyslexic. So the corrected figures are:

M54 - 86.4 bore x 89.6 stroke; B/S = 0.96
S54 - 87 bore x 91 stroke; B/S = 0.96
S65 - 92 bore x 75.2 stroke; B/S = 1.22
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 04:52 PM   #72
2m3
Private First Class
 
Drives: 1995 M3, 1988 M3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: HIllside VIllage, ca 90032

Posts: 135
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon View Post
You are correct; I was temporarily dyslexic. So the corrected figures are:

M54 - 86.4 bore x 89.6 stroke; B/S = 0.96
S54 - 87 bore x 91 stroke; B/S = 0.96
S65 - 92 bore x 75.2 stroke; B/S = 1.22
Yes , the other engine that has over bore design is the USM3 3.2liter OBD2 (model year 1996-1999). Not to find mistake on your post, but was it M52 not M54?
2m3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 05:25 PM   #73
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,487
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2m3 View Post
Yes , the other engine that has over bore design is the USM3 3.2liter OBD2 (model year 1996-1999). Not to find mistake on your post, but was it M52 not M54?
Well, I was comparing to the M54, but the S50 in the euro E36 M3 had the same bore/stroke specs, I believe. The later S52 went from 3.0 to 3.2 liters.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350

Last edited by GregW / Oregon; 06-21-2007 at 05:40 PM.
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 05:43 PM   #74
2m3
Private First Class
 
Drives: 1995 M3, 1988 M3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: HIllside VIllage, ca 90032

Posts: 135
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon View Post
Well, I was comparing to the M54, but the S50 in the euro E36 M3 had the same bore/stroke specs, I believe. The later S52 went from 3.0 to 3.2 liters.
I do not remember the engine code designation, but you are right

The 1995 US M3 3 liter OBD1 engine has 86mm (bore) x 85.8mm (stroke)
1996-1999 US M3 3.2 liter OBD2 86.4 x 89.6
2m3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 06:57 PM   #75
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 T Bone View Post
I have driven one understeering pig with snap oversteer on throttle tip in.
Your credibility on this topic was shot when you said the CTS-V had an auto transmission, and you switched subjects from the topic of engine to handling.
sdiver68 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 10:02 PM   #76
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
Your credibility on this topic was shot when you said the CTS-V had an auto transmission, and you switched subjects from the topic of engine to handling.
Yep, I messed up. I did drive it and I thought it had a slushbox. I just remember a handful.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 10:14 PM   #77
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corey View Post
A Ferrari and a Civic are also both road going cars, driven on pedestrian roadways, and sold as production cars. Sadly the majority of Ferraris also never see a track. Yet for some reason I highly doubt the Civic and Ferrari's engineers had the same thing in mind as they built their respective cars. I'm not "Mr. Motor Know It All", but I do have common sense.. something you seem to be lacking.

If you read the article as you claim you know the new M3's V8 has already proven itself in the M3 GTR raced in the 2001 ALMS series. While it lacks the dry sump and flat plane crank of the GTR's engine, it does have close to the same power output at 8300 rpm, individual throttle bodies, etc. It even weighs 33 pounds less than the straight six found in the previous M3. This isn't an attempt to sound smart, this is straight from Roundel.

If you think the the 335i's engine is the better one for you that's great but that certainly doesn't make it a better engine. The fact is one was born and bred for circuit racing and one has had overheating issues leading to limp mode on the track. That says something to me whether or not the majority of both cars will suffer the fate of a grocery getter. At the end of the day those two engines were engineered with very different purposes in mind whether they're sitting in Michael Schumacher's garage or your grandma's.
Pretty convincing.
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 10:17 PM   #78
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdiver68 View Post
The facts are you are wrong, but please keep drinking the M kool-aid. What makes the new M3 engine any better than the now going on 3 yo production Audi 4.2L engine producing almost identical specs?

Without the dry sump what makes the M3 engine special? NOTHING! And lets not confuse the fact that this is basically a cost saving 2 cylinder lopped version on the M5-6 engine.

And the 335i engine does not have overheating issues except when paired with the Step and the jury is still out on whether the oil cooler retrofit solves that issue.

In another year, the 09 CTS-V will be running around with 600 HP. The GTR will be making 550+ HP (with chip) and kick the M3 around any track you care to run. Now those are special engines.
Pretty convincing.
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 10:20 PM   #79
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ward View Post
don't scan anything for these cheapskates


40 bucks a year is all it costs, and you get $500 the next time you buy a car
Maybe Oprah could help defer the cost.
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 11:51 PM   #80
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,487
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Pretty convincing.
Yawn!
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 11:55 PM   #81
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,487
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Torque

Quote:
Originally Posted by westwest888 View Post
First question - have you driven an e46 M3? Was is not the most amazing car you'd ever driven / ridden in? Did you acknowledge that it *only* has 261 lb-ft of torque?
Excuse me, you've just short-torqued the S54 by 1 ft. lb.; 262 is spec. Not that I'm obsessing over statistics, mind you!
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350

Last edited by GregW / Oregon; 06-23-2007 at 04:00 PM.
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-22-2007, 04:43 AM   #82
MrHarris
yodog
 
MrHarris's Avatar
 
Drives: '86 Corolla
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca

Posts: 5,037
iTrader: (5)

Garage List
2009 BMW  [5.00]
Send a message via AIM to MrHarris
lol
MrHarris is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-22-2007, 10:02 AM   #83
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon View Post
Excuse me, yo've just short-torqued the S54 by 1 ft. lb. 262 is spec. Not that I'm obsessing over statistics, mind you!
Correct, excellent rebuttal, you are definately not obsessing. BMW, please release something and save us from ourselves.
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-22-2007, 08:43 PM   #84
Socom
Major General
 
Drives: 2010 335D
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atl.

Posts: 5,190
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by m3 bavaria View Post
Well, let me clarify by saying that I opted for a 24 month lease on my 335i, because I plan on purchasing the new M3.

I personally enjoy high red lines, when I'm driving on pedestrian road ways, because frankly, it's fun.

However, again, NO ONE that is a serious track devotee is going to purchase an M3 for the track. I'm sure there will be owners that use their cars for dual purpose, but not that often. The point is that the car is not suited for the track, it's too heavy.

So, while the engine is a gem, it's in the wrong shell and there's no point in discussing it's track orientation.

+1,000

I also read the article. btw..e39m5 V8 made ~345 lb TQ
Socom is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-22-2007, 10:34 PM   #85
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,487
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
E39 M5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socom View Post
+1,000

I also read the article. btw..e39m5 V8 made ~345 lb TQ

Well, that engine was 4.94 liters. Extra displacement usually produces a lot more torque, as does a longer stroke.

These are the figures I got from one source:

400 bhp / 298 KW @ 6600 rpm
Torque 500 Nm / 369 ft lbs @ 3800 rpm
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350

Last edited by GregW / Oregon; 06-23-2007 at 04:01 PM.
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-23-2007, 09:55 PM   #86
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

Posts: 1,942
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon View Post
Well, that engine was 4.94 liters. Extra displacement usually produces a lot more torque, as does a longer stroke.

These are the figures I got from one source:

400 bhp / 298 KW @ 6600 rpm
Torque 500 Nm / 369 ft lbs @ 3800 rpm

Did I miss something, or are people still trying to compare grandpa's 335 to the new M3?
devo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-23-2007, 10:13 PM   #87
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,487
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
M3 comparisons

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
Did I miss something, or are people still trying to compare grandpa's 335 to the new M3?
Well, everything is up for comaprison, I guess. Less torque or not, the new M3 will kick serious butt on both the 335 and E39 M5. All great cars; whatever rings your bell.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-24-2007, 08:47 PM   #88
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 devo View Post
Did I miss something, or are people still trying to compare grandpa's 335 to the new M3?
No, but don't blink or you'll miss GT-R's and CTS-V's dancing on your 997's head
sdiver68 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 06:48 AM.




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