|
|
12-03-2008, 05:03 PM | #221 |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-04-2008, 07:44 PM | #222 |
New Member
1
Rep 28
Posts
Drives: 2017 340i x drive manual
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA
|
My 2 cent's worth....
Hello all,
New to this forum. Just had my 1200 mile service on my 6mt blk on red. this car rocks!!!!!!!!! This is my 2nd m3. I had an e46 previously. HOWEVER, I just sold my '05 Suby STI a few months ago. The whole turbo lag thing did not exist in my car. I did have a few dealer friendly mods which had my car in the low 12 second range in the 1/4 mile. I am a big fan of turbo motors and what can be done with them. I understand the "purity" of the NA engines and the "M" devision of BMW have a long history. I guess we will have to trust them to bring us something better than the current m3. (that is going to be a tall order). If the next m3 hapens to have a hair-dryer on it we will just have to line them up and see. Let the consumers decide. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-04-2008, 07:48 PM | #223 | |
Banned
78
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-04-2008, 08:10 PM | #224 |
New Member
1
Rep 28
Posts
Drives: 2017 340i x drive manual
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA
|
.....
I agree... a stock STI has a little lag . But with a larger up pipe + down pipe, and exhaust system + running cobb stage 2 engine management = very responsive and virtually no turbo lag plus all was kosher with the factory warranty.
IT was a great car. I just keep going back to the m3. I grew tired of the kid racer look. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-04-2008, 08:18 PM | #225 |
Enlisted Member
1
Rep 38
Posts |
Turbos are going to open a whole new level of performance relative to engine size/weight and fuel consumption. The V8 in the current M3 weighs as much as MB's 6.2L V8 and Z06's 7.0L V8. Frankly, I consider that unacceptable given its power output, down ~20% in hp and ~30% in torque to both engines. No, I don't care about HP/liter and neither should you. It's not like there are engine displacement restrictions for production cars. Why confine yourself to unnecessary boundaries? I don't see the benefit of sticking to a certain philosophy if it doesn't produce competitive results. I like BMW's decision to switch to forced induction. It shows that they are willing to change with the industry. I would be concerned if they decided to stick with their current formula of high revving engines because it's not appropriate for the current market. The next generation of M cars are going to be lighter, more powerful and consume less fuel than the current generation. How can you complain about that?
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-04-2008, 09:37 PM | #226 | |
Banned
78
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
You don't care about hp per liter? Ok, so BMW should just stick in a 427 cubic inch V8 and call it a day? The hp per liter is what gives the motor its characterists, by design it has to rev higher. I don't think you get it, competitive results? BMW is competitive, actually best in class, with smaller engines. The M5 does not need 6.2 liters to beat the benz V8. It does need its redline though. This is also what makes it special. The only other motors that are anywhere near as special as the S65 or S85 would be the F430 V8 and the GT3's flat six. That is it, and BMW offers the best motors for the money of these manufactuers. Sounds to me like they are doing fine, some people just don't get it and never will. Say what you will about forced induction, I don't think the M3 would give me as big of a smile if it wasn't screaming toward redline. A 911 GT3 would just turn into... a turbo. An F430 would no longer have that special ferrari high rpm wail that makes your spine tingle and is an intrinsic part of the driving experience. Yes, the motors are less fuel efficient, yes, they don't make as much torque, yes, they are freaking special and unlike anything else and therefore worth their premium. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-04-2008, 09:45 PM | #227 | |
Major
178
Rep 1,432
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2018 F80 LCI II ZCP ///M3 Mineral White M-DCT| Sakhir Orange Interior| |M Performance Exhaust| |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-04-2008, 09:49 PM | #228 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-04-2008, 10:06 PM | #229 | ||||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
All while making less power and with more weight than the other two engines mentioned. Huh. Impressive! Quote:
But also of course, as I've said before, it'd be an altogether better car with either of those two engines installed, or even an LS3, as I've also mentioned before. More power, much more torque, and same weight. Faster. Quote:
Quote:
Sorry stick, I know we've gone around on this before, but just couldn't help myself. Bruce |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-04-2008, 10:31 PM | #230 | |||||
Enlisted Member
1
Rep 38
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think it's more along the lines of a GT3 turning into a GT2. Remember that car? GT3 with twin turbos. Where do I find the "owned" smilie? Quote:
Sticky, while I had a lot of fun picking apart your comments, you missed the point of my original post. I was not trying to discredit BMW's current philosophy towards performance engines, rather I was stating that this design has passed its prime. Time to move onto the next evolution. Don't tell me you wish automakers had stuck with steam engines because they were so special.
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti
|
|||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-04-2008, 10:49 PM | #231 | |
Banned
78
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
Where to begin with this disaster you think is an intelligent post. I'm quite familliar with the GT2, GT3, and turbo. Does the GT2 have turbos? Does the turbo have turbos (even you should figure that one out.) Yes the GT3 is RWD like the GT2, I was making a point of the way it would deliver power, flew way over your head. Get it now? Ok good. Yep, the inline 6 was iron. Never, never once, have I heard BMW not mention this fact. Did the thought ever cross your mind as to how strong that block is? Oh wait, no it didn't. How about over 600 wheel horsepower potential? That motor is ridiculously strong, actually handles more power on stock internals than the z06 or the 63 series AMG's. And with half the displacement? Seems to me BMW knows what a solid motor is. Their engineers definitely know better than you. Yep, my opinion is the M3 is special and so is its motor. The fact that the worlds automotive press agrees just shows they have good taste. The M5 beating the 6.3 by hp per liter? No, it beats it in performance as well. You must not know your cars that well. The ferrari F40 came out when? When is the last time Ferrari did a turbo motor? What, the only other remotely recent car would be the 288 GTO, which was before the F40. What did Ferrari decide was best for the F40 successor? Oh, that's right, NA. What about for the successor to that? Hmm, seems we have developed a pattern here. But hey, you tell the Ferrari engineers what is best for their car. What do they know? A high hp per liter naturally aspirated car is going to need a high redline in correlation. Couldn't figure this out? You sure you want an owned smiley? Because you would be seeng it used frequently in responses to your posts. Steam engines and internal combustion... I see your point. So wait, are forced induction motors not internal combustion? Are NA motors not internal combustion? Seems to me they have a bit more in common with each other than steam motors. One technology is not exactly more advanced than the other. Uh, you lost me, that was not a solid analogy. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-04-2008, 11:45 PM | #232 | |||||||||
Enlisted Member
1
Rep 38
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote from press release: "this is why BMW's new V8, weighing a mere 202 kg or 445 lb, is a genuine lightweight, saving some 15 kg or 33 lb versus the six-cylinder power unit in the previous model. In other words, the new engine easily sets off the weight of two extra cylinders." my source: http://www.worldcarfans.com/2070322....gine-in-detail Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.leftlanenews.com/next-fer...orsepower.html Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This discussion has lost its core message. Forced induction allows for more performance, less fuel consumption and lighter/smaller engines compared with a NA engine of the same HP. There is no debating these facts. Sticky, you are entitled to your opinion about which is better but they are opinions and nothing more.
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti
|
|||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 02:57 AM | #233 |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 40
Posts |
This the first time I have read about power/engine weight ratio. A few kilos are completely irrelevant in cars that are SOOO HEAVY (Actually the M3 is probably the lightest car compared to all its competitors).
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 04:22 AM | #234 | |
Banned
78
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
I want to you post for me lighter V8's equal to or less than the M3's displacement that have the same if not more power or torque naturally aspirated. They don't exist. The aftermarket tuning example was to show you the strength of the block. You agree it is strong, right? So tell me, do you get more bang for your buck with the BMW 6 cylinder? Is it a motor that gives far more in return than it should? Did the Supra not makes it reputation on the strength of its motor in aftermarket tuning? Did people not say that it was unheard of for a motor of that size to make 600+ wheel on stock internals? How about BMW doing the same, if not better, at 8k rpm with 11.5:1 compression? That is over-engineering if I have ever seen it. The Enzo successor, really is the FXX. No turbos, pure NA power. That car also does not exist on paper. Performance of the M5 vs. the 63 AMG's. It does not matter if from a stop or from a roll, the AMG is losing. The 55's made a stronger showing vs. the M5 from a stop, fatter curve. From a roll, the M5 beats either. Whatever way you want to look at it, the M5 rules the autobahn. Why is NA tech old tech? Direct injection, vanos, sodium filled valves, silicon-aluminum blocks, magnesium-steel rods, etc. Forced induction motors march on as well, VTG or whatever. You don't seem to understand that people buy high revving motors not because they are efficient, light, or smaller. It is how the motor makes the driver feel. This is why a Ferrari always has that special aura vs. a 911 turbo. I did not get an M3 because it is the fastest or most efficient. I got it because of the way it makes me feel behind the wheel. That is something others can't match. If the motor did not do something special matched up to the chassis, why wouldn't I be in something easier to modify, lighter, and more fuel efficient? Frankly, making smaller motors that are naturally aspirated that can compete with the worlds best using forced induction and or lighter motors is incredible. Talk about the weight or whatever else all you want, BMW gets it done. That makes them special. They can do what others can't. I think BMW is losing something very special by going to forced induction. Does that mean they won't do well? No, of course not, BMW will continue to astound. However, there was something awe inspiring by doing it in a way few others could. You are definitely right if you take this discussion outside of a BMW forum most will agree with you. Most people take the easy way out these days. Most people don't have appreciation for the level of talent it takes to produce cars on the M3 or M5's level. Most people are not connoisseur's. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 05:06 AM | #235 |
Major General
1109
Rep 8,013
Posts |
You think only the F430 and GT3 engines are as good as the S65 and S85. Come on sticky, there are an infinite number of brilliant engines out there which are as good if not better than these two BMW engines.
Both Lamborghini engines, every Ferrari engine, the Veyron engine is a work of art, the RS4/R8 and RS6 engines, the Honda s2000 engine, the list could go on. Each have their own merits and shortfalls, just like both M engines. The only thing you can conclude is that the S65 and S85 are among this long list of brilliant engines and the next ones which ever they are, will be just as special in their own right. I think you assume N/A and high revs as the only two factors that make an engine truly special, the allure of breaking the magical 100hp/ltr is the sign of greatness. What makes an engine truly special is the combine drivability with power on demand everywhere in the rev range and yet prove to be both economic and good to the environment at the same time. FI is the future...............the end. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 05:06 AM | #236 | |
Captain
13
Rep 689
Posts |
Quote:
I don't care if the engine is in an I, V, W, or flat. 4,6,8,10, 12 cyl, doesn't matter. What does matter is the power output, power band, smoothness, and responsiveness. Simply put the engine in the new Z06 is, well, better.
__________________
Manual gearboxes, the rotary dial of cars.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 05:09 AM | #237 | |
Captain
13
Rep 689
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
Manual gearboxes, the rotary dial of cars.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 05:41 AM | #238 | ||||||||||
Enlisted Member
1
Rep 38
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti
|
||||||||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 10:13 AM | #240 |
Second Lieutenant
8
Rep 267
Posts |
Where to begin?
We are talking about a high performance sedan/coupe/convertible, aren't we? How much does the entire M3 weigh compared to the other "similar" cars with "better" engines, i.e. C63? So the naysayers pick one item (on a relatively light car) they feel is heavy, ignore the positive characteristics it might have, and go off on it. And how do you guys drive on the street, on a daily basis that, that you need to ring an M3 out to make it enjoyable to drive? My M3 can get me in plenty of trouble from a standstill, let alone ringing it out. No doubt, the next generation M3 will be better than the present one. And just like now, people will still complain that it is not "raw" enough compared to the last one. The current M3 is arguably one of the best cars of any manufacturer ever produced. When BMW builds it's replacement, they've got their work cut out for them, and it had better be a superior car in every respect. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 04:43 PM | #241 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
First, the M3 V8 is a hell of an engine. It makes very good power, very good power for its displacement, and has an exceptionally wide power band. It also makes scintillating noises, and revs to hell and gone - eagerly, I might add. There's more, though. It just doesn't suffice to say that this engine has an exceptionally wide power band and revs eagerly. It may in fact be more accurate to say, for instance, that the powerband width could be unprecedented. I might be corrected on this, but I personally have never heard of an automobile engine that loses only about 11% of its peak torque over a band of 4400 rpm. That's right. At the power peak, you're seeing 262 pound feet of torque against a 295 max, 4400 rpm earlier. That's almost unbelieveable for an emissions-compliant modern engine in a more or less affordable car. As far as revability (yes, that's a word - now), this engine reminds me of those fuelie small-block Chevies from the sixties*, or perhaps the Yamaha/SHO engines in those nondescript Taurus bodies. In other words, its zingy as all hell, and I don't wonder that BMW cautions against aggressive revving in neutral. One of the difficulties you find as an engineer is that if you've designed an engine that delivers at very high rpm, you've got to gear it in such a way that the power is available in everyday driving. In other words, aggressively. You pay a penalty for this however, in that rotational inertia raises its ugly head, and you lose a fair bit of that power just to speed up the rotating components so quickly. What BMW has done, however, is to lighten or work those components aggressively so as to reduce their rotational inertia - and I'm not just talking crank, rods, pistons and valvegear. I'm also talking engine-driven accessories, flywheel, clutch and pressure plate, and probably transmission components, as well. The damned thing feels almost like a race engine in its ability to gain rpm, so the M guys didn't miss anything in their quest to "add lightness", as Colin Chapman used to say. Trust me on this. Eight throttle bodies may help the cause, but our E46 never zinged up the way the E9X does. OK, that's it for throwing roses. Now for some brickbats. First, the damned thing is down on torque, and by that I mean not only doesn't it produce as much as some of its rivals, but that it is also down on torque per liter - compared to our E46, for instance. The upshot is that the car feels a little soft when you're just pedalling around - compared to its rivals, but also compared to the X35 cars. I don't know anybody who thinks the M3 feels as quick or willing as a 135 or 335 when you're just goofing around. You can feel this at cruise on the highway. It ain't a slug, but you feel the need to drop a gear or three if you want to go right now. It's easy to drive through this softness to get to the good part of the powerband, but you're aware you're doing it - again, compared to some other cars. Whether it's a downshift or just holding gears longer, that's what you do. That gets us to the second brickbat, which is fuel consumption. Reving it to get into the fun part is easy, as mentioned, but it costs you. For its size and weight, this car is really a fuel drunkard. Not that everybody cares, but there isn't anyone outside of Arabia who thinks that fewer mpg or more liters per 100km is actually a good thing, no matter the cost of fuel. The third thing is that BMW went ahead and bragged about how the new V8 weighed 30 pounds less than the six it replaced, coming in at 445 pounds. Oops. Mistake. That let guys like me (who don't actually give a damn about any particular manufacturer) do the math, and come up with the idea that the M3 V8 just wasn't special at all in regard to its weight. Mercedes at 439 pounds, Chevy at 436 for the LS3 and 453 for the Z06. Hmm. Pop one of those puppies in the car, solve the torque issue, gain power, hmm. Sure, you lose the last 1200 to 1900 rpm, but the rev freak is safely behind you listening to and feeling those cubic inches blow exhaust in his or her face. Of course, the M faithful are full of fury at the concept, but that doesn't mean it's a bad one. Just that it's lacking in M religion. Bruce PS - In regard to the car, it's better in almost every way compared to its forebear, but it's gotten even heavier and less wieldy, which bothers some of us. Here's hoping the next one will not only be a better car, but might lose a little weight in deference to fuel regs. *Those small block fuelie Chevies ran rich all the time, so throttle response was exceptional. Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 12-06-2008 at 02:40 PM.. Reason: Changed "fuelly" to fuelie - must have slang correct |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-05-2008, 05:01 PM | #242 | |
Captain
13
Rep 689
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
Manual gearboxes, the rotary dial of cars.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Tags |
m cars drop v8 and v10, m-i6, m-v6 |
|
|