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) > M3 vs....
 
BPM Sport
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-02-2013, 02:55 AM   #45
Mookster
Lieutenant
 
Mookster's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Z06
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle

Posts: 570
iTrader: (0)

Must sell my LS7 motor now

I will just replace it with much superior S65
__________________
Mookster is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 07:19 AM   #46
adc
Brigadier General
 
Drives: 2009 E90 M3 ED
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: MD/DC

Posts: 4,083
iTrader: (6)

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabman View Post
No, it will get substantially better mileage because the torque of the LS7 enables gearing that is more efficient..
Actually I've checked for the Camaro, and no it doesn't. It's very similar to the M3.

Quote:
All engines and everything manufactured by every automaker is made to a price point.
Not exotics. McLaren or Ferrari don't really care how much their engines cost to manufacture. The amount of power and torque they produce are limited more by practicality reasons, such as the need to last a certain number of miles without a rebuild, or the need to comply with emission laws. But price is irrelevant.

Quote:
Save the fanboy stuff for someone else because I don't subscribe.
Well, all I did was respond to a specific comment made about the LS engines. By insisting here without any substantiated evidence it is you who are playing the fanboy, for the other side. I'm just the reality check.

Quote:
Don't believe it, try and find an engine from another automaker that is equally sized and of equal weight that can deliver the same economy while producing the same power as installed in another car. Any car, any price, any engine. You will fail.
Who cares about the size of the engine in this conversation? it was repeatedly brought up as an argument that the 4L capacity on the S65 is some sort of artificial limit due to regulations or tax laws or whatever, and that the only thing that should matter are the performance metrics: power, weight etc. and now fuel economy was brought up as the most important element.

I could point out that a Porsche 911 or Cayman has the same or better performance, from a much small capacity engine, and equally good fuel economy. I imagine a number of modern turbocharged engines from various manufacturers also qualify.

It's not really as unique as you make it out to be.

Quote:
I personally would not buy any Chevy except the Corvette and think that GM has done some of the worst cars made in recent history but I still have to recognize that their V8 development is now producing some truly great engines even if they don't have an important badge on them that makes them palatable to some folks here.
I don't really care about the badge, it never ever enters into my buying decision. I admit that Chevy makes some good engines, even a couple of great ones. But they simply aren't cutting edged as claimed.

So you can relax, and enjoy a Vette without having to make up some phantasy about it.
__________________

2009 E90 M3 ED
2014 X1 28i
2000 Boxster

Last edited by adc; 04-02-2013 at 07:24 AM.
adc is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 08:03 AM   #47
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,866
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by adc View Post
Disagree on the mileage comment. The Corvette gets better mileage because it's much lighter and more aerodynamic probably. The Camaro, not so much...
Disagree. The Camaro SS is rated at 16/24/19 vs the M3 at 14/20/16, so it's nearly twenty percent more fuel efficient while weighing more than the M3.

For me, technology isn't nearly as important as overall performance, and those GM V8s just plain deliver.

As I've mentioned previously (and pissed people off to no end), if the M3 had the middling LS3 V8 in it (paired with its standard 2.95 first gear six speed), it would outperform the stock M3 while getting better mileage, with overall weight about the same.

I am personally a fan of the S65, but if I could get slightly improved max performance, while getting vastly improved around-town performance, all while getting substantially better mileage, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 09:16 AM   #48
Brosef
Colonel
 
Brosef's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 M
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago

Posts: 2,067
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Disagree. The Camaro SS is rated at 16/24/19 vs the M3 at 14/20/16, so it's nearly twenty percent more fuel efficient while weighing more than the M3.

For me, technology isn't nearly as important as overall performance, and those GM V8s just plain deliver.

As I've mentioned previously (and pissed people off to no end), if the M3 had the middling LS3 V8 in it (paired with its standard 2.95 first gear six speed), it would outperform the stock M3 while getting better mileage, with overall weight about the same.

I am personally a fan of the S65, but if I could get slightly improved max performance, while getting vastly improved around-town performance, all while getting substantially better mileage, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Bruce
that's true, but that's not to say nobody would prefer the S65. you're looking at #'s on a sheet of paper, and pure power, efficiency / gas mileage, etc. is too one-dimensional. it's the throttle response, flat torque curve, and high revving sound / experience that comes together to make the S65 and the M3 a unique experience to drive. nobody said that's for everybody, and everyone on this board knows its not for you.
Brosef is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 10:15 AM   #49
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,866
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brosef View Post
that's true, but that's not to say nobody would prefer the S65. you're looking at #'s on a sheet of paper, and pure power, efficiency / gas mileage, etc. is too one-dimensional. it's the throttle response, flat torque curve, and high revving sound / experience that comes together to make the S65 and the M3 a unique experience to drive. nobody said that's for everybody, and everyone on this board knows its not for you.
All true. If someone were to give me one, I'd almost certainly sell it in favor of my current favorite bimmer - a 128i coupe. To me, that car is BMW personified. Light weight, great steering and turn-in, and that sonorous snarl from the exhaust that over my lifetime has come to personify BMW for me.

OK, I admit that if I took my gifted M3 to redline a couple of times, I might waiver in my position. That exhaust sound from 7K and up is addicting - and power corrupts.

Solution: Don't drive it. Just sell it.

This is reminiscent of when my son wanted to part with his 600 HP supercharged 2005 GTO, documented here.

"You sell it, dad. I can't."

Hell, after driving that thing from Texas to Pennsylvania, averaging 70 mph for the trip (according to the onboard computer) while also averaging 25 MPG doing the miles/gallons math, I was thinking I couldn't bear to sell it myself.

This included the utter destruction of a C6 Vette out on an otherwise deserted route 81 in Virginia, all while starting in the wrong gear (4th) instead of third.

Bruce

PS - Yeah, yeah, I've said it myself. I'm a promiscuous badge whore.
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 10:26 AM   #50
krnnerdboy
Colonel
 
krnnerdboy's Avatar
 
Drives: v10 m6
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: so cal

Posts: 2,039
iTrader: (10)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brosef
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Disagree. The Camaro SS is rated at 16/24/19 vs the M3 at 14/20/16, so it's nearly twenty percent more fuel efficient while weighing more than the M3.

For me, technology isn't nearly as important as overall performance, and those GM V8s just plain deliver.

As I've mentioned previously (and pissed people off to no end), if the M3 had the middling LS3 V8 in it (paired with its standard 2.95 first gear six speed), it would outperform the stock M3 while getting better mileage, with overall weight about the same.

I am personally a fan of the S65, but if I could get slightly improved max performance, while getting vastly improved around-town performance, all while getting substantially better mileage, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Bruce
that's true, but that's not to say nobody would prefer the S65. you're looking at #'s on a sheet of paper, and pure power, efficiency / gas mileage, etc. is too one-dimensional. it's the throttle response, flat torque curve, and high revving sound / experience that comes together to make the S65 and the M3 a unique experience to drive. nobody said that's for everybody, and everyone on this board knows its not for you.[/quote]
Of these cars I've owned(boss 302, m6, and z06) I prefer the boss 302 road runner motor. Revs out to 9000 rpm, has a flat torque curve, 1k whp internal limits, and only costs $10k from any ford dealer... Nothing special about an overly complicated, f1 derived and overly priced motor, that's not competitive in any type of Motorsport in its stock form... With all due respect
__________________

W463, f30, 640i gc , gt3
Recent past: z4m, x5 lci, boss 302, c6 z06, m6
krnnerdboy is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 12:09 PM   #51
Mookster
Lieutenant
 
Mookster's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Z06
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle

Posts: 570
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brosef View Post
that's true, but that's not to say nobody would prefer the S65. you're looking at #'s on a sheet of paper, and pure power, efficiency / gas mileage, etc. is too one-dimensional. it's the throttle response, flat torque curve, and high revving sound / experience that comes together to make the S65 and the M3 a unique experience to drive. nobody said that's for everybody, and everyone on this board knows its not for you.
Yawn, what torque LOL
__________________
Mookster is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 12:34 PM   #52
crabman
Captain
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: WA

Posts: 669
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by adc View Post
Actually I've checked for the Camaro, and no it doesn't. It's very similar to the M3.



Not exotics. McLaren or Ferrari don't really care how much their engines cost to manufacture. The amount of power and torque they produce are limited more by practicality reasons, such as the need to last a certain number of miles without a rebuild, or the need to comply with emission laws. But price is irrelevant.



Well, all I did was respond to a specific comment made about the LS engines. By insisting here without any substantiated evidence it is you who are playing the fanboy, for the other side. I'm just the reality check.



Who cares about the size of the engine in this conversation? it was repeatedly brought up as an argument that the 4L capacity on the S65 is some sort of artificial limit due to regulations or tax laws or whatever, and that the only thing that should matter are the performance metrics: power, weight etc. and now fuel economy was brought up as the most important element.

I could point out that a Porsche 911 or Cayman has the same or better performance, from a much small capacity engine, and equally good fuel economy. I imagine a number of modern turbocharged engines from various manufacturers also qualify.

It's not really as unique as you make it out to be.



I don't really care about the badge, it never ever enters into my buying decision. I admit that Chevy makes some good engines, even a couple of great ones. But they simply aren't cutting edged as claimed.

So you can relax, and enjoy a Vette without having to make up some phantasy about it.
Nope, real world the M3 cant even come close to its numbers but the Camaro can actually beat them in owners hands and those numbers are better in a heavier car with worse aero which was the excuse you made with the M3 compared to the Corvette.

No, exotics are not built to any cost, they must return a profit and every item in the car is built to a price.

None of those engines you mentioned matches the LS7 for size and weight while producing its power at its efficiency. None. You can keep guessing but you will keep failing, there are none. I'm curious which metrics I should be looking at BTW. An engines horsepower and torque is important, an engines weight is important, its packaging matters and smaller is better, its economy matters.

Reading comprehension helps. I never said technological tour de force I said technologically developed, please use a dictionary and then look at just the research and development in the heads alone on the various Chevy small blocks and get back to me. Also I was responding to Otto's post about the LS7 being underpowered for a 7 liter. It is not but he doesn't know what he is looking at. The Chevy V8s were not developed in a taxed displacement world which is the only place power per liter matters because power per liter has no functional meaning in the real world with a road going car.

And lastly, I have already enjoyed owning a Z06 so I'm quite familiar with the LS7 and have no fantasy or pretense about what it is, you on the other hand seem to be making arguments to support a fantasy. When you figure out what engine can match an LS7 you get back to me. So far you have failed miserably with the Porsche engines but maybe you haven't had enough fail yet? Just find one that can match its packaging and produce its power at its efficiency as installed in any car at any price. I would say get back to me when you do but there isn't one so you wont. lol You can argue it all you want but there is no getting around it.
crabman is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 12:52 PM   #53
Mookster
Lieutenant
 
Mookster's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Z06
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle

Posts: 570
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabman View Post
And lastly, I have already enjoyed owning a Z06 so I'm quite familiar with the LS7 and have no fantasy or pretense about what it is, you on the other hand seem to be making arguments to support a fantasy. When you figure out what engine can match an LS7 you get back to me. So far you have failed miserably with the Porsche engines but maybe you haven't had enough fail yet? Just find one that can match its packaging and produce its power at its efficiency as installed in any car at any price. I would say get back to me when you do but there isn't one so you wont. lol You can argue it all you want but there is no getting around it.


U went hard on him
__________________
Mookster is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 01:13 PM   #54
ottoblotto
///M-Flight Bavaria
 
ottoblotto's Avatar
 
Drives: E90M3
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Im around

Posts: 1,188
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2010 BMW X5  [0.00]
2011.75 BMW M3 E90  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by crabman View Post
Also I was responding to Otto's post about the LS7 being underpowered for a 7 liter. It is not but he doesn't know what he is looking at...
Cmon, you know its underpowered for its ginormous size... 71hp/l its right inline with a Nissan Altima: 250hp/3.5L = 71hp/l. And even the Honda Accord 3.0l beats it with 80hp/l. So ya, I stand by my statement that it is underpowered. I know that a good tune is probably already available and 620hp is just a matter of ecu manipulation, but even that still only nets 88hp/l.
*Quick research showed that SC required to net 600+. Tunes only getting about 40-50whp... interesting...
**Even more interesting is this quote I found (mind you this is on a Vette forum):Given what we know about this engine, and what we've heard implied from GM execs, it appears that this engine is at about 95% from the factory and I wouldn't tune this engine at all. I also would not put a CAI on it (for a couple of reasons, messing up tuning being only one). Therefore IMHO there is no such thing as a safe tune for a stock engine, other than the one that came with it.If I had work done on it (porting, cam, whatever) I have someone like Katech conservatively tune it -- given their track and dyno experience.
-Corvette forum link Here

Either way, my beef isnt with the Camaro. Its a fine car and it will do all the tire smoking and track ass kicking and drag race destruction that GM says it will. It will dominate all over the place and thats a great possibility. My cousin is sure to get one and he will talk shit to me all day. Got it. Dont care.

My problem is with GM.
-They still will use inferior materials that costs less to produce so interior will reak of plastic junk.
-I am not surprised they are using a pre-existing motor so 1)No R&D Costs. 2)Already have parts manufactures contracted out. 3)Costs less when you can make one item for multiple cars.

Its all standard money making bs being fed to the GM die hards and it will be gobbled up by the truckloads keeping the shitty non-consumer oriented megalomaniacal cogs turning. Im sure this car will cost less to manufacture than the standard Coupe does now. They will high five themselves to the bank. And then the recalls will start...

For the price, get a good euro car and be much happier.
__________________
"With great power comes great responsibility." -El-Superbeasto
ottoblotto is offline   Germany
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 01:31 PM   #55
Mookster
Lieutenant
 
Mookster's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Z06
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle

Posts: 570
iTrader: (0)

Its not all about power(HP). My car made 449lbs of torque at 1800rpm. In 2006, 505HP was a lot, you couldnt buy anything else for $70k with that kinda power.

the 95% thing made me laugh, Ppl have picked up 25whp and 30lbs tq wiht Pfadt headers alone.
__________________

Last edited by Mookster; 04-02-2013 at 01:40 PM.
Mookster is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 01:56 PM   #56
ottoblotto
///M-Flight Bavaria
 
ottoblotto's Avatar
 
Drives: E90M3
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Im around

Posts: 1,188
iTrader: (3)

Garage List
2010 BMW X5  [0.00]
2011.75 BMW M3 E90  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mookster View Post
Its not all about power(HP). My car made 449lbs of torque at 1800rpm. In 2006, 505HP was a lot, you couldnt buy anything else for $70k with that kinda power.

the 95% thing made me laugh, Ppl have picked up 25whp and 30lbs tq wiht Pfadt headers alone.
2005-2006, that was about when the LS7 motor was introduced, right? Well, GM has had 7+years to improve it and guess what you get from the LS7 in 2013? 500hp. GM!
__________________
"With great power comes great responsibility." -El-Superbeasto
ottoblotto is offline   Germany
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 02:42 PM   #57
Mookster
Lieutenant
 
Mookster's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Z06
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle

Posts: 570
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottoblotto View Post
2005-2006, that was about when the LS7 motor was introduced, right? Well, GM has had 7+years to improve it and guess what you get from the LS7 in 2013? 500hp. GM!
Did BMW do that with S54 or S65, both in production for 6 years?
__________________
Mookster is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 02:43 PM   #58
crabman
Captain
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: WA

Posts: 669
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottoblotto View Post
Cmon, you know its underpowered for its ginormous size... For the price, get a good euro car and be much happier.
No Otto it is not. Show me another engine at its packaging size and weight that produces the same power with the same efficiency. Like the other fellow you will fail because there is not one. No other manufacturer can beat it with any engine they possess. None. Power per liter means nothing on a road car. What matters is power, the size and weight of the package it comes in, the overall efficiency of that package. Power per liter for a road car is meaningless. Power per liter only matters if you're being taxed for displacement.

I have owned all the Germans Otto, I have one now. When I bought the M3 I looked at and road tested most of its typical competition and I would say that the CTS-V held up to the lot of them subjectively sitting in the car. I of course know that objectively the Germans actual reliability numbers are below GMs and have been for some time. But I buy cars each for its own merits and have yet to own one that I didn't feel was flawed in some way. That Z06 included and I would agree with you that its interior bits were not up to snuff. At the 65k that could buy a Z06 when it came out though there was not another car that matched its performance. Nothing came even close.

What I wonder is why they are using it in the Z28? The engine despite still being unmatched by any other manufacturer as an overall package is older than our S65 and behind the curve of GMs V8 current engine development. You would think that the new LT1 will go to Camaro and on down the line because thats where the most money gets saved. Some folks think they are simply taking advantage of parts stock, others that they will put the LS7 in the C7Z as well making for cost efficiencies and that 427 number holds magic for some buyers. Some that they don't want to put the LT1 into too many cars until its beta testers (early C7 buyers) have put it through its paces. I don't know but its an interesting question.

As to adding power to it that can be done easily enough and the ancient text you quoted was from before that problems with tuning had been completely solved and one GM wouldn't encounter anyways since the have complete control of the tuning and the facilities, money, and expertise to further develop the engine without any concerns in that regard anyways. Nor can you compare stock to modified engines regardless or else you are just talking about an escalating arms race that has no end.

I hated American cars as much as the next guy not too long ago but they have upped their game Otto. I'm too old to care about badges or what people think or run with the herd. Both my C6s combined with just over 6 years of ownership had less issues than I have already had with my M3 in one year and its actually doing quite a bit better than my last BMW which died on the way home from new car delivery and accrued more than 10% of its total mileage going to the dealership to fix what broke. A number that would have been quite a bit higher if it weren't for the fact that it often had to be flat bedded.

The Germans are and have been living on a perception of quality that is no longer what it was and I drive my cars in the real world. I own an M3 but it most certainly wasn't purchased for BMW build quality which in my recent experience is below both Chevy and Ford which agrees with real numbers.

I do agree with you in one way. The old GM was broken and now it appears like they may go down the same road again. I am curious though why you think that GM is any different in terms of seeing the public as a mark than any other automaker? We are nothing but fodder to feed them money in their eyes. All of them and the more the better.
__________________
2012 E92 Space Grey with fox red/black/black, comp, premium, DCT, premium sound, sirius, heated seats.
crabman is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 02:45 PM   #59
BlackJetE90
Colonel
 
Drives: E90
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: e90

Posts: 2,219
iTrader: (0)

305 front and rear from factory.

Epic!!!!
BlackJetE90 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 03:01 PM   #60
Garissimo
Captain
 
Garissimo's Avatar
 
Drives: 4 doors, 6 gears, 8 cylinders
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hippie Town, USA

Posts: 645
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabman View Post
No Otto it is not. Show me another engine at its packaging size and weight that produces the same power with the same efficiency. .
Oh, I'll play along. I would bet this powerplant from Audi comes close. Bear in mind that's it's underrated at 420hp and returns 17/26mpg in a 4350lb car.

http://www.audiworld.com/news/11/40-tfsi/
__________________
2013 Audi S6, Ibis White
2008 E90 M3, Jerez Black, Black Nappa, Brushed Aluminium, 6-speed, Premium, Tech, Cold Weather *sold*
Garissimo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 03:55 PM   #61
swanson
Convicted Felon
 
swanson's Avatar
 
Drives: chariot
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NY

Posts: 1,379
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabman View Post
No Otto it is not. Show me another engine at its packaging size and weight that produces the same power with the same efficiency. Like the other fellow you will fail because there is not one. No other manufacturer can beat it with any engine they possess. None. Power per liter means nothing on a road car. What matters is power, the size and weight of the package it comes in, the overall efficiency of that package. Power per liter for a road car is meaningless. Power per liter only matters if you're being taxed for displacement.

I have owned all the Germans Otto, I have one now. When I bought the M3 I looked at and road tested most of its typical competition and I would say that the CTS-V held up to the lot of them subjectively sitting in the car. I of course know that objectively the Germans actual reliability numbers are below GMs and have been for some time. But I buy cars each for its own merits and have yet to own one that I didn't feel was flawed in some way. That Z06 included and I would agree with you that its interior bits were not up to snuff. At the 65k that could buy a Z06 when it came out though there was not another car that matched its performance. Nothing came even close.

What I wonder is why they are using it in the Z28? The engine despite still being unmatched by any other manufacturer as an overall package is older than our S65 and behind the curve of GMs V8 current engine development. You would think that the new LT1 will go to Camaro and on down the line because thats where the most money gets saved. Some folks think they are simply taking advantage of parts stock, others that they will put the LS7 in the C7Z as well making for cost efficiencies and that 427 number holds magic for some buyers. Some that they don't want to put the LT1 into too many cars until its beta testers (early C7 buyers) have put it through its paces. I don't know but its an interesting question.

As to adding power to it that can be done easily enough and the ancient text you quoted was from before that problems with tuning had been completely solved and one GM wouldn't encounter anyways since the have complete control of the tuning and the facilities, money, and expertise to further develop the engine without any concerns in that regard anyways. Nor can you compare stock to modified engines regardless or else you are just talking about an escalating arms race that has no end.

I hated American cars as much as the next guy not too long ago but they have upped their game Otto. I'm too old to care about badges or what people think or run with the herd. Both my C6s combined with just over 6 years of ownership had less issues than I have already had with my M3 in one year and its actually doing quite a bit better than my last BMW which died on the way home from new car delivery and accrued more than 10% of its total mileage going to the dealership to fix what broke. A number that would have been quite a bit higher if it weren't for the fact that it often had to be flat bedded.

The Germans are and have been living on a perception of quality that is no longer what it was and I drive my cars in the real world. I own an M3 but it most certainly wasn't purchased for BMW build quality which in my recent experience is below both Chevy and Ford which agrees with real numbers.

I do agree with you in one way. The old GM was broken and now it appears like they may go down the same road again. I am curious though why you think that GM is any different in terms of seeing the public as a mark than any other automaker? We are nothing but fodder to feed them money in their eyes. All of them and the more the better.



No doubt about it. Look whats happening with BMW.
swanson is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 04:17 PM   #62
crabman
Captain
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: WA

Posts: 669
iTrader: (0)

Nope, in some of its configurations it matches the power but its both larger and heavier all in. Then if GM adds turbocharging to the LS7 the horsepower would be what? If you said a lot more you would be right. lol

I'm sorry guys but this has been done for years over on Corvette forum by the haters and they for the most part have given up. Just every once in a while you get someone who doesn't know better and they trot out a few engines only to fail. There is not one, I'm sorry. If you turn around and look at where the LS7 would be if it were turbocharged which are normally the engines people mention the numbers just get worse for its competition and this with an engine that is now a generation old.

You know the funny part to me? I was over there defending the S65/M3 and their attributes (which are many) but the people over there only want to hear what they want to hear much as it is on this forum. Sigh...
__________________
2012 E92 Space Grey with fox red/black/black, comp, premium, DCT, premium sound, sirius, heated seats.
crabman is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 05:10 PM   #63
Garissimo
Captain
 
Garissimo's Avatar
 
Drives: 4 doors, 6 gears, 8 cylinders
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hippie Town, USA

Posts: 645
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabman View Post
Nope, in some of its configurations it matches the power but its both larger and heavier all in.
How much heavier and bigger is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabman View Post
Then if GM adds turbocharging to the LS7
Sure, power goes up but economy and emissions get even worse. Compare the CTS-V's MPG and C02 emissions to the 2013 Audi S6. Heck, compare MPG and C02 emissions from the unblown 2013 Camaro SS to the S6.
__________________
2013 Audi S6, Ibis White
2008 E90 M3, Jerez Black, Black Nappa, Brushed Aluminium, 6-speed, Premium, Tech, Cold Weather *sold*
Garissimo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 06:48 PM   #64
adc
Brigadier General
 
Drives: 2009 E90 M3 ED
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: MD/DC

Posts: 4,083
iTrader: (6)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Disagree. The Camaro SS is rated at 16/24/19 vs the M3 at 14/20/16, so it's nearly twenty percent more fuel efficient while weighing more than the M3.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/32392.shtml

?
__________________

2009 E90 M3 ED
2014 X1 28i
2000 Boxster
adc is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 06:56 PM   #65
krnnerdboy
Colonel
 
krnnerdboy's Avatar
 
Drives: v10 m6
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: so cal

Posts: 2,039
iTrader: (10)

Quote:
Originally Posted by adc
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Disagree. The Camaro SS is rated at 16/24/19 vs the M3 at 14/20/16, so it's nearly twenty percent more fuel efficient while weighing more than the M3.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/32392.shtml

?[/quote]
http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/camaro/2013/road-test-specs.html
__________________

W463, f30, 640i gc , gt3
Recent past: z4m, x5 lci, boss 302, c6 z06, m6
krnnerdboy is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2013, 07:00 PM   #66
Chriskm3
Colonel
 
Chriskm3's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Toronto

Posts: 2,218
iTrader: (4)

7 l engine. 500 hp. That engine must sound amazing.
__________________
Vf supercharger + tune/H&R coils/ Akra evolution exhaust/Volk te37/ Rs-3 tires/ Brembos /TIal BOV/ OSS blacked out headlights/LUX v3/Led taillights/ Challenge Front lip/ P3 vent gauge/ F10 m5 shift mob/Matte black front grills/ And a funky air fresher
Chriskm3 is offline   Canada
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 07:43 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