|
|
12-06-2008, 08:43 PM | #287 | ||||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have never discounted the C63 AMG nor Z06 engines. They both are obviously filled with good technology in their own rights and clearly get the job done quite well. It is simply a preference as well for the thrill and emotional involvement of a high revving engine. Driving an M5 you obviously know something about this. It is more race like, period. You can talk all day (and I do...) about price to performance and absolute performance and which car is faster, but a huge factor in ALL of our own decisions about which cars we most admire and which we choose to buy is EMOTION. Seriously, it is time to check the assumptions, attitude and insults at the door. |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2008, 08:52 PM | #288 | ||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
So you figure the M3 engine weighs more than 202 kg when weighed against the Euro standard? Less? The same? Quote:
Yes, but... Bruce |
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2008, 09:18 PM | #289 | ||
Enlisted Member
1
Rep 38
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
You said "If the parts are stronger, what makes you think they are more stressed?". You have the concept backwards. The parts have to be stronger because of the increased stress placed on them from spinning at a higher RPM. Let's work with an example to make this clearer. Imagine one of the pistons in your M3. It is changing directions 6,000 times a minute when your engine is spinning at 3,000 RPM. When you raise the engine speed to 6,000 RPM, the piston is changing direction 12,000 times a minute. Does it not make sense to you that there is more stress on a piston changing directions 16,000 times a minute at 8,000 RPM than another piston changing direction only 12,000 times a minute at 6,000 RPM. If this concept doesn't make sense to you, you need to take high school physics again, pay extra attention to the chapter on reciprocating mass.
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2008, 09:32 PM | #290 | |
Banned
79
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
You have the concept backwards. I prefer a car built with the best materials available to set the highest standard. I'm not interested in a car that can get by with cheap cast internals just because it has the displacement and revs of a tractor. I'm exaggerating to get my point across, just in case that escapes you. Let me make this example clear. The M3 with its 8k+ redline is formidable NA even with its smaller displacement. With a bit of boost, it is ridiculously powerful thanks to its forged internals and wide powerband. Essentially, you can get the best of both worlds. If you want more power or torque, you can get it. You don't need it to compete with what is already out there. BMW shows that they one of the best at building a motor, again and again. Does it not make sense to you to have the highest quality parts in your motor? Not just what will get by because your motor is a large low tech piece of junk that barely spins and makes its power largely as a function of torque instead of high tech engineering (comparatively speaking)? You may notice that companies like RUF tend to make their forced induction motors strong not by increasing boost but by making them more efficient, usually in the heads, sometimes going to something higher flowing designed for an NA car like the GT3 heads. BMW could get rid of a lot of things and simplify the car, make it more fuel efficient, and more practical for people like yourself. Those of use that want the highest quality materials, most advanced transmissions, and engines built to the highest standard, are fine with paying for it and paying for the associated costs. Why didn't Ferrari stick an LS1 in the 360 modena? Wouldn't the F430 be cheaper, easier, etc. with an LS7? Formula 1 would be far more entertaining if the cars stuffed in carburated large cubic inch v8's right? I mean, the cars would be cheaper to run. They wouldn't need the same quality of internals, right? You will never understand, some things are just beyond the simple folk. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2008, 09:40 PM | #291 | |||||
Enlisted Member
1
Rep 38
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Same to you
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti
|
|||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-06-2008, 10:03 PM | #292 | ||||||||
Enlisted Member
1
Rep 38
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're an incredibly arrogant prick. Did you know that?
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti
|
||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-07-2008, 03:08 AM | #294 | ||||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Lastly I am open to hearing about my attitude and insults. I haven't gone there. Perhaps you are confusing me and Sticky your new best friend? Last edited by swamp2; 12-07-2008 at 06:54 PM.. Reason: typos |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-07-2008, 03:54 AM | #295 | |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
Look at the S5 vs RS4 engine weights, here you see a difference of 20Kgs, so it's perfectly possible for two seemly identical engines to weigh differently. Only a suggestion. edit: What does any of this back and forth debate got to do with the next M3 engine???????????????????? Serious guys, all the engines in this endless debate are brilliant, BMW have chose small capacity N/A, Mercedes have large capacity, some chose turbos, others chose superchargers, etc, etc, etc. It's not what under the hood but the results that count, always remember that. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-07-2008, 04:09 AM | #296 |
Banned
79
Rep 2,244
Posts |
I did not read the rest of your post, as it was probably the same nonsense as usual (I may give it some time later). However, this is the best and most accurate statement you have made so far. It is a shame you can't reach the same level of deduction regarding the motors discussed.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-07-2008, 05:26 AM | #297 | ||
Moderator / European Editor
1583
Rep 6,754
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Best regards, south
__________________
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-07-2008, 10:00 AM | #298 | |
Moderator
7537
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Quote:
E92 = MY2008 to MY20013 (in US). Figure MY2015 for the F3x M3, plus or minus a year. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-07-2008, 10:06 PM | #299 |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Y'know, now that I've had some time to consider this in a calm and rational manner, here what I've come up with:
WHAT THE HELL??? Is there anything else that BMW measures in their own unique way? Horsepower? Vehicle length? Air quality? Dress sizes? Y'think BMW includes the block and heads in their measurement, or just the effing throttle bodies!!! Are the water passages empty? Filled with champagne? Lead? Helium? I apologize to all for my part in what turns out to be a ridiculous conversation/discussion/argument. Oh, and I hereby withdraw my third M3 brickbat (stated earlier) in regard to engine weights, and throw it at the collective heads of BMW marketing. Anyway, Swamp, I have no idea what the parts weigh on these two engines, but a typical dual mass flywheel weighs in the vicinity of 40 pounds, while a flexplate for an auto will be nearer 10 pounds. Bruce |
Appreciate
0
|
12-07-2008, 10:31 PM | #300 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Let me contrast the BMW with the latest ZR1 Vette to show how limited the point can be. At the transmission output in first gear, the 604 pound foot Vette is twisting the drive shaft to the tune of 1383 pound feet, which is of course a considerable amount. By contrast, the paltry 295 foot pound M3 is making 1197 foot pounds at that point - or nearly 87% of the Vette's number. What? At the rear half shafts, it's even closer, with the M3 at 4611 foot pounds, and the Vette at 4730. Hell, you could probably use the same half shafts with half a heat treat difference. One would need to do a direct car to car comparison between the M3 and each of its competitors to see how much of a difference M philosophy might actually make. Still good, mind you, but not necessarily huge. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-08-2008, 12:39 AM | #301 | |
Lieutenant General
1204
Rep 12,446
Posts |
you can skip them.
Quote:
__________________
Past: '08 E92 335i|ZPP|ZSP|6AT
Past: '15 Mustang GT|401A|PP|6MT Current: '20 Shelby GT350|6MT |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-08-2008, 12:40 PM | #302 | |
Captain
13
Rep 689
Posts |
Quote:
I'm very happy with my M3. I just recognize there are always trade offs. If BMW goes to turbos my next car likely won't be another BMW and I will finally buy that Aston Martin.
__________________
Manual gearboxes, the rotary dial of cars.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-08-2008, 06:16 PM | #303 |
Registered
0
Rep 4
Posts |
I love my NA V8, I for sure will keep it and already called the guys at BMW to be the first on the list for a possible V8TT M3 which I'd love to have. Why not have a great road going car that will kill it on the highway like a Twin Turbo car can; but then again I'm a big turbo fan
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-08-2008, 06:51 PM | #304 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
What was the original topic of this darn thread?.... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-08-2008, 06:53 PM | #305 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Tell you what, though. When the faithful first get their eyeballs shortened up by a diopter or two as that old wall of torque hits in the new one, they'll be joining the dark side soon enough. Insert evil laugh here. Bruce Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 12-09-2008 at 08:33 AM.. Reason: readability |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-10-2008, 08:58 AM | #306 | |
Racying Dynamics
118
Rep 4,391
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
==================================================
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-10-2008, 01:37 PM | #307 |
First Lieutenant
51
Rep 327
Posts |
I personally love turbo cars as they are much easier to tune and gain hp. I think this will def make the M cars at the same or better in power to the AMG cars.
__________________
2016 M4 GTS Sapphire Black
2017 M2 Mineral Gray |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Tags |
m cars drop v8 and v10, m-i6, m-v6 |
|
|