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
      01-23-2008, 09:56 PM   #1
T Bone
Brigadier General
T Bone's Avatar
143
Rep
4,021
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

iTrader: (0)

Question How to measure an Engine's ability to Rev Quickly?

In looking at the performance of the E92 M3, there are things that can easily be measured.... HP, Torque, Area-under-the curve.....

But my question is that one of the beautiful design elements of the S65 V8 is how freely it revs and how quickly it revs.

As you know Revs determine the output of an engine. The higher the revs, the more power an engine produces. If want to understand the basics of the how horsepower is calculated, please do a search.....

So my questions are....
  1. Is there a way to measure how quickly an engine revs? I.e. the ability to generate more power quicker
  2. Does a fast revving engine with the same power / torque ratings as a slower revving engine accelerate the same car faster?
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
Appreciate 0
      01-23-2008, 10:25 PM   #2
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
United_States
136
Rep
7,640
Posts

 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

iTrader: (2)

Garage List
Quyci revving vs. acceleration

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
In looking at the performance of the E92 M3, there are things that can easily be measured.... HP, Torque, Area-under-the curve.....

But my question is that one of the beautiful design elements of the S65 V8 is how freely it revs and how quickly it revs.

As you know Revs determine the output of an engine. The higher the revs, the more power an engine produces. If want to understand the basics of the how horsepower is calculated, please do a search.....

So my questions are....
  1. Is there a way to measure how quickly an engine revs? I.e. the ability to generate more power quicker
  2. Does a fast revving engine with the same power / torque ratings as a slower revving engine accelerate the same car faster?
By "fast revving" I assume you are referring to free-revving under no load? Once you apply full load of brisk acceleration, the rate of change for revs is governed more by power to weight and gearing than any unique characteristic of the engine. An engine that revs quickly in immediate response to the throttle is more "responsive" to driver inputs, but I don't think that ultimately makes it significantly faster. So my answer to #2 would be no, accept for the fractional quicker response to throttle inputs.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350
Appreciate 0
      01-23-2008, 11:05 PM   #3
sayemthree
Brigadier General
sayemthree's Avatar
127
Rep
4,845
Posts

 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

what greg said, but add torque.

on the other hand there is also throttle response. the M3 should have great throttle responce with the 8 individual throttles.
Appreciate 0
      01-23-2008, 11:32 PM   #4
T Bone
Brigadier General
T Bone's Avatar
143
Rep
4,021
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon View Post
By "fast revving" I assume you are referring to free-revving under no load? Once you apply full load of brisk acceleration, the rate of change for revs is governed more by power to weight and gearing than any unique characteristic of the engine. An engine that revs quickly in immediate response to the throttle is more "responsive" to driver inputs, but I don't think that ultimately makes it significantly faster. So my answer to #2 would be no, accept for the fractional quicker response to throttle inputs.

This is what is troubling me..... An engine with a heavy crankshaft can have the same power output as an engine with a lighter crankshaft at steady RPM but the engine with a lighter crankshaft will change revs faster over a period of time since there is less inertia to fight....this would mean it will get in the power band quicker, which means faster acceleration.

Anyone else want to chime in? I am truly confused.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
Appreciate 0
      01-23-2008, 11:38 PM   #5
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
116
Rep
8,034
Posts

 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Rotational inertia is just another type of load the engine experiences. It is not any different than hauling a trailer, climbing a hill, or pushing through air in the sense that they are all loads the engine needs to oppose. The only difference is that rotational inertia only becomes a load during acceleration. It is a non-issue if the engine is running at a steady rpm. An engine accelerates/revs faster when it experiences less "total" load.
Appreciate 0
      01-23-2008, 11:42 PM   #6
sayemthree
Brigadier General
sayemthree's Avatar
127
Rep
4,845
Posts

 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

yes - the less weight of the rotational mass of the engine parts will result in faster acceleration and that will also show up as higher HP and TQ.

you are not confused. you are on the right track. but the actual measurement is still HP and TQ.
Appreciate 0
      01-23-2008, 11:47 PM   #7
T Bone
Brigadier General
T Bone's Avatar
143
Rep
4,021
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
Rotational inertia is just another type of load the engine experiences. It is not any different than hauling a trailer, climbing a hill, or opposing drag in the sense that they are all loads the engine needs to balance, and overcome if it is to accelerate. An engine experiencing less "total" load will accelerate/rev faster.

Understood.....using the heavy vs. light crankshaft example below....we are talking about the rate of change in revs. At a steady RPM, the only thing the engine is fighting is internal engine friction (plus the load on the drivetrain). At a steady RPM, it is not dealing with the inertia of say heavier components.

When constantly changing RPMs, the air-fuel charge would be better used to accelerate rather than overcome inertia caused by heavier internal parts.

Not trying to argue, I would like to get a better understanding....
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
Appreciate 0
      01-23-2008, 11:55 PM   #8
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
116
Rep
8,034
Posts

 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
Understood.....using the heavy vs. light crankshaft example below....we are talking about the rate of change in revs. At a steady RPM, the only thing the engine is fighting is internal engine friction (plus the load on the drivetrain). At a steady RPM, it is not dealing with the inertia of say heavier components.

When constantly changing RPMs, the air-fuel charge would be better used to accelerate rather than overcome inertia caused by heavier internal parts.

Not trying to argue, I would like to get a better understanding....
Yes, rotational inertia only becomes a load during angular acceleration. Otherwise, it is not experienced as a load. (I was editing my post to make that clearer when you responded). If you discount tire friction, the same thinking applies to the mass of the car; the engine experiences the mass of the car as a load only when you accelerate.
Appreciate 0
      01-24-2008, 12:33 PM   #9
chonko
First Lieutenant
5
Rep
369
Posts

 
Drives: X6 50i/2008 X5 4.8i
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Undercover

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
In looking at the performance of the E92 M3, there are things that can easily be measured.... HP, Torque, Area-under-the curve.....


  1. Is there a way to measure how quickly an engine revs? I.e. the ability to generate more power quicker
  2. Does a fast revving engine with the same power / torque ratings as a slower revving engine accelerate the same car faster?
Very simple: the horsepower- the horsepower nicely summarizes the efficiency of the engine in a duty cycle.
Appreciate 0
      01-24-2008, 02:15 PM   #10
Gearhead999s
Major General
Gearhead999s's Avatar
93
Rep
6,814
Posts

 
Drives: F25 2.8d(wifes)F82 M4
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chonko View Post
Very simple: the horsepower- the horsepower nicely summarizes the efficiency of the engine in a duty cycle.
An engine with less internal inertia will be a quicker engine if all other factors are equal(HP& Torque) as it will have less resitance to change speed.I know this from 1st hand experiance with a E30 race car many years ago.We went from a 30 lb flywheel to a 12 lb one in combination with a 3 puck lightweight clutch setup.The car was a joy to drive with the lightweight setup and the speed of the shifts and braking was improved greatly.In quanitive terms we picked about a second in lap times on a 1.30 lap and over 7kph at the end of a 1 km straight.But on a dyno (not a dynojet) it showed no difference in RWHP or torque.A reduction of rotational weight is almost is a free lunch!
Appreciate 0
      01-24-2008, 03:51 PM   #11
T Bone
Brigadier General
T Bone's Avatar
143
Rep
4,021
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chonko View Post
Very simple: the horsepower- the horsepower nicely summarizes the efficiency of the engine in a duty cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead999s View Post
An engine with less internal inertia will be a quicker engine if all other factors are equal(HP& Torque) as it will have less resitance to change speed.I know this from 1st hand experiance with a E30 race car many years ago.We went from a 30 lb flywheel to a 12 lb one in combination with a 3 puck lightweight clutch setup.The car was a joy to drive with the lightweight setup and the speed of the shifts and braking was improved greatly.In quanitive terms we picked about a second in lap times on a 1.30 lap and over 7kph at the end of a 1 km straight.But on a dyno (not a dynojet) it showed no difference in RWHP or torque.A reduction of rotational weight is almost is a free lunch!

Chonko, any comments on Gearhead999s response?

Are all 400 hp engines equal?
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
Appreciate 0
      01-24-2008, 04:07 PM   #12
Gearhead999s
Major General
Gearhead999s's Avatar
93
Rep
6,814
Posts

 
Drives: F25 2.8d(wifes)F82 M4
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

I could only hope this is what my M3 sounds like This a good example of an engine of low internal inertia.

Appreciate 0
      01-24-2008, 04:17 PM   #13
JEllis
Brigadier General
JEllis's Avatar
84
Rep
4,781
Posts

 
Drives: E36 M3, E92 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SD CA/Yuma

iTrader: (4)

Interesting discussion....just cant wait to hear this thing in the flesh
__________________
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic14547_7.gif
Appreciate 0
      01-24-2008, 07:26 PM   #14
chonko
First Lieutenant
5
Rep
369
Posts

 
Drives: X6 50i/2008 X5 4.8i
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Undercover

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead999s View Post
An engine with less internal inertia will be a quicker engine if all other factors are equal(HP& Torque) as it will have less resitance to change speed.I know this from 1st hand experiance with a E30 race car many years ago.We went from a 30 lb flywheel to a 12 lb one in combination with a 3 puck lightweight clutch setup.The car was a joy to drive with the lightweight setup and the speed of the shifts and braking was improved greatly.In quanitive terms we picked about a second in lap times on a 1.30 lap and over 7kph at the end of a 1 km straight.But on a dyno (not a dynojet) it showed no difference in RWHP or torque.A reduction of rotational weight is almost is a free lunch!

I understand what you are saying and is absolutely correct but these are second degree variables.
Fundamentally, engines do not generate HP, they are actually generate Torque. The torque generated at any rpm is what drives the shaft. Power is how fast that Torque can be applied within a time frame, ie torque applied per unit time. So HP relates to efficiency of the engine, how fast the engine takes in fuel, and how it quickly expels the burnt fuel. If an engine can perform this cycle faster than another with the same amount of fuel intake, then that engine will naturally have more Power.

Like you rightly pointed out, at the engine the mass of the components(piston+cylinder heads etc) in the combustion chamber does affect the amount of energy(torque) that is required to initiate motion.
Appreciate 0
      01-24-2008, 07:42 PM   #15
chonko
First Lieutenant
5
Rep
369
Posts

 
Drives: X6 50i/2008 X5 4.8i
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Undercover

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
Chonko, any comments on Gearhead999s response?

Are all 400 hp engines equal?
Given two engines that have the same displacement and both use petrol as fuel.
1. 3.0 litre V6 with 200 ft.lbs with 300 HP
2. 3.0 litre V6 with 200 ft.lbs with 250 HP

Engine (1) will be the faster revving engine.

All 400 HP engines are not equal as you will have normalize for the displacement- the engine with the higher HP/litre will be the faster revving engine. I will say the engine with the higher HP/litre is the most optimized engine.
Appreciate 0
      01-24-2008, 07:47 PM   #16
T Bone
Brigadier General
T Bone's Avatar
143
Rep
4,021
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chonko View Post
All 400 HP engines are not equal as you will have normalize for the displacement- the engine with the higher HP/litre will be the faster revving engine. I will say the engine with the higher HP/litre is the most optimized engine.

Very interesting discussion....can you please explain your statement above?
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
Appreciate 0
      01-24-2008, 08:18 PM   #17
chonko
First Lieutenant
5
Rep
369
Posts

 
Drives: X6 50i/2008 X5 4.8i
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Undercover

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
Very interesting discussion....can you please explain your statement above?

A good example to my statement is the RS4 engine and the M3 engine.

1. 4.2 litre V8 with 414 HP
2. 40 litre V8 with 414 HP.

Just looking at the HP numbers will tell you nothing about the engines, however when you normalize for the displacement:

1. 414/4.2 = 98.57 HP/litre
2. 414/4.0 = 103.5 HP/litre

After normalizing for the displacement you can see the difference in the engines- this is purely from the engine perspective decoupling gearing and transmission. The second (m3) engine is a more optimized than the first (RS4) engine.
Appreciate 0
      01-24-2008, 08:46 PM   #18
Gearhead999s
Major General
Gearhead999s's Avatar
93
Rep
6,814
Posts

 
Drives: F25 2.8d(wifes)F82 M4
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chonko View Post
I understand what you are saying and is absolutely correct but these are second degree variables.
Fundamentally, engines do not generate HP, they are actually generate Torque. The torque generated at any rpm is what drives the shaft. Power is how fast that Torque can be applied within a time frame, ie torque applied per unit time. So HP relates to efficiency of the engine, how fast the engine takes in fuel, and how it quickly expels the burnt fuel. If an engine can perform this cycle faster than another with the same amount of fuel intake, then that engine will naturally have more Power.

Like you rightly pointed out, at the engine the mass of the components(piston+cylinder heads etc) in the combustion chamber does affect the amount of energy(torque) that is required to initiate motion.
Everybody loves to overcomplicate how to make engines produce morepower,but to put it simple terms(1)an engine is a big airpump.Put more air through it with the proper amount of fuel being ignited at the right moment it produces power!More air& fuel= more power.(2)Reducing weight in recripocating parts will equal more power because of less weight being flung around(pistons & rods and to some degree the crank)(3) Reducing weight in a rotating piece(flywheel,clutch) will not have any effect on horsepower,but only the ease that it will change speed at(faster revving).

I have been around hottrodded V8's most of my adult life and I can not wait to get my hands on M3 engine as it is an engine that I have allways tried to get emulate with modding.Geez over 100bhp litre normally aspirated and with warranty!
Appreciate 0
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 01:58 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