View Single Post
      05-02-2012, 04:56 PM   #94
Special Agent
mapezzul's Avatar

Drives: Depends on the day!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bavaria

iTrader: (1)

Originally Posted by southlight View Post
No reason to be rude about this. I'm sure that by now you know quite well it's not that easy to learn a foreign language.

Best regards,
Learning a foreign language sucks... I am proof positive of that! I wasn't trying to be rude and I apologize if that is how it came off but I honestly have no idea what he was targeting from my post except Nitschke being wrong about the "v" or "i" not mattering- it doesn't if the engine does what is supposed to. And if that is Dr. N's take and his opinion, how can it be wrong?

People are hung up on marketing, the S65/S85 were marketing driven motors- the V10 was created to be like "F1" then F1 dropped the V10- even in the S65 they used the marketing speak "eight individual throttle bodies (like F1)". Some of the F1 budget was dumped into them.

All Nitschke is saying is that the cylinder count/arrangement doesn't matter if the tech is right and the product is right- and he is 100% correct. He was saying that at the end of the day it is the final package that matters and how they get to that final product- can anyone argue that? Is the F80 engine going to be the same as an N55 with a software tune- not a chance so it will be altogether separate and like the F80 gets its own chassis code the engine will be a full on "S" code which is more than putting lipstick on a pig.

I am as die hard as they come- I have 60k miles on my E90 M3 and they are hard. I have driven every BMW I've had hard and the engines have always been the best in their class. Will I miss the sound/revving nature in the F80? Sure, but do I care what the engine is if it is effective and introduces new tech? No. M has a history of tuning AG engines, they have a history of building bespoke so why can't they do a little of each?

I am once again sorry if my original reply came off as picking on the posters english-that was not what I meant and didn't even consider that (my day job is in linguistics etc. so I can process the message without grammar usually well...) it was more that I didn't get what his commentary was targeting in relation to the head of M having an opinion.